Lipski

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

From Interpreting 'Lipski':

Israel Lipski's actual surname was Lobulsk. After arriving in London, he changed his name. A Mr. and Mrs. Lipski were the landlords of 16 Batty Street. Perhaps he took their name out of respect or convenience. He may have even thought that Lipski sounded less Jewish. In Victorian England, it was quite common for foreigners of all nationalities and religious backgrounds to anglicize birth names.

There are quite a few letters in the files dealing with the shout of 'Lipski' and what it might possibly meant. For example, three unsigned handwritten pages, apparently copying a Home Office memo on the subject, state in part: 'It does not appear whether the man used the word "Lipski" as a mere ejaculation, meaning in mockery I am going to "Lipski" the woman, or whether he was calling to a man across the road by his proper name. In the latter case, assuming that the man using the word was the murderer, the murderer must have an acquaintance in Whitechapel named Lipski.' ⁵

In a report, dated 1 November, 1888, Inspector Abberline wrote that no person named Lipski could be found. ⁶ This suggests that the Lipskis of Batty Street had either moved away or changed their name. Given the notoriety generated by the Angel murder and the fact that 16 Batty Street was demolished in 1888 this would seem a likely scenario. ⁷

In the same report, Abberline stated that the word 'Lipski' was used as an insult if addressing a Jew 'and Schwartz has a strong Jewish appearance.' Schwartz was questioned at length by Abberline, but could not say to whom the 'Lipski' remark was addressed. Abberline believed it was directed at him. It is a reasonable assumption. Out of the three visible men in Berner Street at the time, Schwartz was the only one, according to his own statement, of Semitic appearance.

So 'Lipski' could have meant one of three things:

1. A reference to murder, or an intention to murder
2. A man's name
3. An insult addressed to a Jew - presumably Schwartz

No one by the name of Lipski was found, so that probably leaves 1 & 3 as the possibilities. As we are dealing with a murder case, I would suggest that 1 is the most likely possibility. However, would a man have brazenly announced to anyone on the street within hearing range, that he was about to 'Lipski' the woman he was assaulting? Seems unlikely, and that leads me to suppose that when the word 'Lipski' was called out, the murder had already occurred. That would explain why no one else reported hearing it. It might also explain why Schwartz could not say who the remark was addressed to.

'Lipski' was chalked on the walls of Whitechapel.

It was a term of abuse, like accusing the Jews of ritual murder or killing Christ.

The evidence is that it was not directed at Stride, that she was still alive, and that Schwarz, being the only Jewish person nearby, was the target of the exclamation.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

From Interpreting 'Lipski':

Israel Lipski's actual surname was Lobulsk. After arriving in London, he changed his name. A Mr. and Mrs. Lipski were the landlords of 16 Batty Street. Perhaps he took their name out of respect or convenience. He may have even thought that Lipski sounded less Jewish. In Victorian England, it was quite common for foreigners of all nationalities and religious backgrounds to anglicize birth names.

There are quite a few letters in the files dealing with the shout of 'Lipski' and what it might possibly meant. For example, three unsigned handwritten pages, apparently copying a Home Office memo on the subject, state in part: 'It does not appear whether the man used the word "Lipski" as a mere ejaculation, meaning in mockery I am going to "Lipski" the woman, or whether he was calling to a man across the road by his proper name. In the latter case, assuming that the man using the word was the murderer, the murderer must have an acquaintance in Whitechapel named Lipski.' ⁵

In a report, dated 1 November, 1888, Inspector Abberline wrote that no person named Lipski could be found. ⁶ This suggests that the Lipskis of Batty Street had either moved away or changed their name. Given the notoriety generated by the Angel murder and the fact that 16 Batty Street was demolished in 1888 this would seem a likely scenario. ⁷

In the same report, Abberline stated that the word 'Lipski' was used as an insult if addressing a Jew 'and Schwartz has a strong Jewish appearance.' Schwartz was questioned at length by Abberline, but could not say to whom the 'Lipski' remark was addressed. Abberline believed it was directed at him. It is a reasonable assumption. Out of the three visible men in Berner Street at the time, Schwartz was the only one, according to his own statement, of Semitic appearance.

So 'Lipski' could have meant one of three things:

1. A reference to murder, or an intention to murder
2. A man's name
3. An insult addressed to a Jew - presumably Schwartz

No one by the name of Lipski was found, so that probably leaves 1 & 3 as the possibilities. As we are dealing with a murder case, I would suggest that 1 is the most likely possibility. However, would a man have brazenly announced to anyone on the street within hearing range, that he was about to 'Lipski' the woman he was assaulting? Seems unlikely, and that leads me to suppose that when the word 'Lipski' was called out, the murder had already occurred. That would explain why no one else reported hearing it. It might also explain why Schwartz could not say who the remark was addressed to.

[drstrange169]

>So no more than a 2 minute walk <<

I've done the journey, comfortably, in 57 seconds.

[c.d.]

Ok. Mystery solved. Thanks for that, Joshua.

c.d.

[Joshua Rogan]

I just read that he did say that he was sleeping at the time. So would he have been able to change his clothes and get there within six minutes?

c.d.

Quite possible, I think. Commercial Road ran across the top of Berner St (about 130yds), and no. 100 was at the top of Batty Street (another 40-50yds). So no more than a 2 minute walk, or 18 seconds for Usain Bolt.

I'm not sure how long exactly it would take a Victorian gentleman to get dressed but 4 minutes sounds plausible. Especially as his assistant Johnson estimated he arrived 3-4 minutes before the doctor.

[c.d.]

I just read that he did say that he was sleeping at the time. So would he have been able to change his clothes and get there within six minutes?

c.d.

[c.d.]

Has anyone actually read the case evidence? Blackwell estimated he arrived at 1:16 by his own watch, he stated at the Inquest that the woman had been cut 20 minute to 1/2 hour before his arrival....hence, 12:46-56. I said nearly 15 minutes.

And I said that the time Louis says he arrived, not when he arrived.

But that does illuminate some issues if you know what the other witnesses said.

Maybe I am misreading this but here is the inquest testimony from Blackwell:

"Mr. Frederick William Blackwell deposed: I reside at No. 100, Commercial-road, and am a physician and surgeon. On Sunday morning last, at ten minutes past one o'clock, I was called to Berner-street by a policeman. My assistant, Mr. Johnston, went back with the constable, and I followed immediately I was dressed. I consulted my watch on my arrival, and it was 1.16 a.m."

Now I don't know where Commercial Road is relative to the Stride murder site but he seems to be saying that he was able to get there within six minutes and that includes the time he took to get dressed. He seems to be indicating that he was in his bed clothes and needed to change. Does that time line seem at all possible?

c.d.

[Harry D]

Also, a second scenario. Two killers working in collusion. Taking the focus off the other long enough to keep the police off guard. A few months ago I found a news report. I will transcribe it below.

You might be onto something there, jerryd. I think the Ripper & Torso series were part of something bigger going on at that time.

[Fisherman]

That while of course true, is not the full picture.

The rag is found on one of many possible routes to Lechmere's home, and it has to be said this route via the church is not the most direct route he may have taken.


Agreed in the end its what individuals see and decide on, not our views.

However to me its just a bit of bloodied rag, with nothing to suggest it is connected to the Pinchin street case; its more like "grasping for straws" than "a straw in the wind".

Steve

It IS "just" a piece of bloodied rag, and it cannot be tied to the torso deed. But it does not hurt the Lechmere bid that a bloodied rag was found in a straight line between Pinchin Street and Doveton Street the day after the torso was found.

[Elamarna]

And in the Goulston Street business, we are not "reasonably sure" that the rag was part of Eddowes apron - we are certain of it. You need to dare to make that leap every now and then...

Yes Christer you are right, not sure why I was not stronger there, given that I have argued for the actual type of apron, and what the bit of it was found in Goulston Street in the past.



Steve

[Elamarna]

I find it interesting since it was found in a direct line between the Pinchin Street railway arch and Doveton Street.[/B]

That while of course true, is not the full picture.

The rag is found on one of many possible routes to Lechmere's home, and it has to be said this route via the church is not the most direct route he may have taken.

It is a straw in the wind - but an interesting straw. How palpable it is will be up to each and everyone to decide for themselves.

Agreed in the end its what individuals see and decide on, not our views.

However to me its just a bit of bloodied rag, with nothing to suggest it is connected to the Pinchin street case; its more like "grasping for straws" than "a straw in the wind".





Steve

[Fisherman]

From the sickert thread





This Christer is where we really do part company.

"A bloodied rag" found along a route he may have taken from his home to Pinchin street, there were, as you are aware more than one possible route, just look at the maps of the time.

A bloodied Rag found a day later, no idea if human blood? No idea if dropped in the 24 hours before discovery? Any proof of provenance of any sort?

At least in the case of the Goulston street, we are reasonably sure it was part of Eddowes apron



This is not evidence which can be shown is related to the case, it is an interesting story but it is only that, and I fail to see how it can be viewed as "palpable evidence" to quote myself.


Steve

It is a straw in the wind - but an interesting straw. How palpable it is will be up to each and everyone to decide for themselves.

And in the Goulston Street business, we are not "reasonably sure" that the rag was part of Eddowes apron - we are certain of it. You need to dare to make that leap every now and then...

[Fisherman]

Joshua Rogan: Hmmmm.....bloody rag found near hospital.....not exactly compelling evidence.

Well, of course, hospitals are in the habit of dumping their bloodied rags in nearby church constructions, so you have a point...

Any more info on this, Fish?

It was in Rob Clacks essay on the Pinchin Street torso in Ripperologist some time ago.

I find it interesting since it was found in a direct line between the Pinchin Street railway arch and Doveton Street.

[Joshua Rogan]

Hmmmm.....bloody rag found near hospital.....not exactly compelling evidence. Any more info on this, Fish?

There was another bloody rag found closer in time and distance to the torso, so articles like that weren't unknown on the streets. Dr Phillips' assistant Percy Clarke says this in his statement;

"When returning from the mortuary to Leman St police station with Insp. Pinhorn we were called by some men to a piece of waste ground in Hooper Street; we there found near an opening at the bottom of the pailings a bloodstained petticoat, body of common make, such as would be worn by a woman of stoutest build. The blood was not very recent & appeared to be menstrual; from the manner too in which it had been folded I should think it had probably been used as a diaper."

[Elamarna]

From the sickert thread

Elamarna: Christer,

Firstly thanks for explaining on the other thread, your reasoning for 147 Cable Street, which as I suspected is not based any palpable evidence, just your reasoning that if Lechmere were the killer it is an obvious place.
Which is a fair conclusion once one takes that approach.

It is a VERY obvious place. As for palpable evidence between Lechmere and the Pinchin Street torso, you may like how a bloodied rag was found in the building works of St Philips church near the London hospital - a building site that lay along the route from Pinchin Street to Doveton Street. The rag was found the day after the torso was discovered.

So this is the second bloodied rag found at a spot along a route from a Ripper murder place/Torso dumping place to Doveton Street.

Like I always say - Charles never had much luck with the coincidences.

This Christer is where we really do part company.

"A bloodied rag" found along a route he may have taken from his home to Pinchin street, there were, as you are aware more than one possible route, just look at the maps of the time.

A bloodied Rag found a day later, no idea if human blood? No idea if dropped in the 24 hours before discovery? Any proof of provenance of any sort?

At least in the case of the Goulston street, we are reasonably sure it was part of Eddowes apron



This is not evidence which can be shown is related to the case, it is an interesting story but it is only that, and I fail to see how it can be viewed as "palpable evidence" to quote myself.


Steve