Lipski

[c.d.]

If his aim was the abdomen, Gareth - then why did he cut up all of the body of Mary Kelly?

Hello Fish,

Why do those two things have to be mutually exclusive. Isn't it a fair assumption that he simply enjoyed cutting?

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

do you mean Kate and Annie. theyre the two most similar. Polly didn't have any organs removed.

I thought that I was clear, but Polly then Annie represent the 2 most probable victims to have met the same killer,....the exact same circumstances for the meet, the exact same kind of throat cuts, the exact same additional focus on the abdomen. The Only reason in my opinion that Polly was not mutilated further is due to a poor, knee jerk choice of venue, in the middle of an open ended street...being his first kill, I can understand that adrenaline and excitement played into that. But in the next kill, he uses a backyard, enabling him to accomplish what he wanted...to extract abdominal organs. In no other murder are abdominal organs the focus...in Kates case one might argue that, but he also marks her face, cuts her colon, and does a trace around her navel, demonstrating that her killer played with the corpse.

As for Motive vs Evidence identifying killers, I can state that many murder convictions occur without any accusatory physical evidence being presented. A man takes out a large life insurance policy on his wife, she is found murdered a month later. That is enough to point a finger,....why he wanted to kill her is then the next logical question. How she dies is irrelevant...where the murder weapon is, or what it was, is irrelevant. The Motive suggests the murderer. The Motive suggested by the first 2 murders is somewhere within the realm of mental illnesses. The Motive for Liz, and for Mary, isn't that clear. That their killer was sick enough to do what he did suggests at the very least someone lacking conscience or guilt. But why did those facets, or why the lack of those facets, led to their deaths is unclear. Mary was in a love triangle, Liz broke up with someone earlier in the week, and she was at work among the Jews and found dead on Jewish property. Both of those facts can lead to answers, rather than just assuming something else.

[Fisherman]

Hello Fish,

Why do those two things have to be mutually exclusive. Isn't it a fair assumption that he simply enjoyed cutting?

c.d.

Yes, I would say so. Or what cutting could achieve. However, I reacted to how Abby wrote that "the common denominator IMHO is post mortem mutilation via knife. specifically the abdomen", and Gareth wrote "I agree, but would go a little further - more precisely, the common factor seems to be post mortem cutting open of the abdomen for the desired or achieved purpose of removing abdominal organs."
I thought that it got too specific for the exact reason you are speaking of now: that there is every reason to see the cutting as such as the common denominator.

[Sam Flynn]

Why do those two things have to be mutually exclusive. Isn't it a fair assumption that he simply enjoyed cutting?

I agree, CD - cutting certainly seems to have been his thing, with the view to removing organs. I sense a focus on the abdomen, but (as Fish rightly points out) he didn't stop there with Kelly.

That said, the killer certainly went to town on Kelly's abdominal organs, and these were the initial focus of his "excavations". The chest organs were only removed after he'd emptied Kelly's abdomen, and they got off lightly in comparison. He didn't even cut all the thoracic organs, remember; the lung was torn away, and only partially at that.

[c.d.]

Hello Fish and Sam,

We also have to take into account the fact that the killer had more time with Kelly than the other victims. So it is not unreasonable to assume that the act of cutting produced more desire to continue cutting.

c.d.

[Harry D]

Does it really matter? Whether it was abdominal mutilation, organ removal, or complete butchery, these types of murders weren't a common occurrence before and after 1888. Throw in the fact that all of the victims were dispatched with the same MO, the victimology was the same, there was no discernible motive or clear suspect in any of these cases, and everything points to the work of a serial killer or even dare I say a conspiracy. Nitpicking the inconsistencies of each murder instead of focusing on the glaring similarities, and extrapolating that into a multi-killer hypothesis is absolutely barmy. It's unbelievable that people even have to point this stuff out!

[Sam Flynn]

We also have to take into account the fact that the killer had more time with Kelly than the other victims. So it is not unreasonable to assume that the act of cutting produced more desire to continue cutting.

Quite so, CD.

[Sam Flynn]

Nitpicking the inconsistencies of each murder instead of focusing on the glaring similarities, and extrapolating that into a multi-killer hypothesis is absolutely barmy.

Agreed, but it's not nitpicking to distinguish between more "conventional" mutilations and the extreme eviscertations, or clear intent to eviscerate, exhibited in the cases of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly.

[Paddy]

Transferred from Kosminski thread

I have mentioned this before but there are other words that BS man could have shouted to Schwartz.
If you put in the word Nosey into Google Translate English to Polish, you get the word
wścibski...
meaning
nosy, meddlesome, inquisitive, interfering, pragmatical, pragmatic
If you turn the volume up and click on the speaker you can hear how like Lipski this sounds...
Also I think Lipski is a connected word to a person from Leipzig ?

Heres another Man living at 31 Dunk Street Mile End New Town with his wife Sarah and children in the 1891 census.
Lewis Lipski Head Male 29 Born 1862 Poland Tailor

Also Baruch Meyer Lipski naturalised in 1890 A Provision merchant born in Kutno
living with his family at 47 Leman street (at that time) 5 children.
Seems like there were Lipskis about.....I wonder if the police checked all these out?
The police thought that BS man shouted Lipski in a connected way to the murder in Batty street. It would seem that they may have thought he was the murderer of Liz Stride.... ?

The following is from Karsten also regarding Lipski. Hope you dont mind my transferring this with mine Karsten?
It is interesting that Aaron Kozminski´s brother was born under the name of Wolek Lajb Kozminski (Woolf Abrahams). I have a polish friend and I asked her about the meaning of "Lajb". If a person would know someone with the name of "Lajb", in certain situation he could name him as Lajbski or Libski (German Speaking Area). In such a case they would know each other. That would happen "for fun" or if someone thinks that he has "power" over an individual. Schwartz described "Pipeman" as 5 years older compared to BS Man. Woolf was 5 years older than Aaron and he lived around the corner, 25 Providence Street.

[Pcdunn]

So perhaps he was calling his brother(?) for help... Interesting idea. Could explain why "Pipeman" pursued Schwartz.

[S.Brett]

Good Morning!

I´m on the way to work... here briefly...

Wolek Ljab Kozminski- Marriage certificate of Woolf and Betsy, May 1881.

I´m German and I would pronounce the name of Lajb as "Lieb". If I would have a brother or friend called "Lieb" I would call him "Liebski".

See you later.

[Michael W Richards]

Im returning back to the thread premise...Since its been impossible to verify that Israel Schwartz had anything important to do with the investigation, based on his obvious absence from the Inquest, I believe that the "Lipski" feature of his story is intended to highlight the prejudice felt in the East End....which I believe is also the intention of the GSG. Whether this was to misdirect attention to Jews in the case of the GSG, or whether it was intended by Schwartz to highlight the ever present prejudice, I don't know.

But when it comes to Israel Schwartz in general, I believe it a mistake to put to much credence into anything he said. Fanny Mortimer was at her door off and on throughout that half hour, we know she was because she saw Goldstein at 12:55, and she said the street was deserted and quiet, It was only Israel who claims to have seen Liz on the street during that period between 12:35 and 1. Fanny also said she heard footsteps while not at the door, which raises a question as to why she didn't also hear a scream, or Lipski being called out.

Its also important to remember that the estimated time of the cut may have been as early as 12:46, by professional medical opinion.

[Harry D]

Agreed, but it's not nitpicking to distinguish between more "conventional" mutilations and the extreme eviscertations, or clear intent to eviscerate, exhibited in the cases of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly.

I was referring more to Michael's faulty argument that because the murders weren't identical they were therefore unconnected.

[Michael W Richards]

I was referring more to Michael's faulty argument that because the murders weren't identical they were therefore unconnected.

As per usual you either misunderstood or misrepresent what I said...what I said was that the first 2 murders, which were virtually identical in almost every aspect excluding the extent of the post mortem injuries, can be grouped under 1 killer without any real obstacles. The ones that do not match that pattern, like Liz Strides, cannot be assumed to have been done by the same individual. Mary Kelly was at home in bed and was destroyed, not soliciting on the street, and no trace of skill full cutting. Although you would like to see any knife crime in 188 or 1889 linked to the mythical Jack the Ripper, that's not a pragmatic nor reasonable assumption. Since of course we know that may violent criminals existed in that same time and place.

For example, why you would choose to believe that all of these other individuals would suddenly cease activities during that Fall when we have, blatantly obviously, other cases that do not fit the profile created by the first 2 murders..like Torsos.

Your smart aleck approach to defeating logical arguments is well noted.

[c.d.]

"Mary Kelly was at home in bed and was destroyed, not soliciting on the street, and no trace of skill full cutting."

Hello Michael,

So are you suggesting that in the Fall of 1888 there were two different killers walking the streets of Whitechapel one of whom preferred cutting the throats of prostitutes and taking out their internal organs on the street while the other one had a preference for cutting the throats of prostitutes and ripping out their internal organs while safely ensconced inside?

c.d.