Schwartz, a fraud?

[lynn cates]

cachous

Hello Ruby.

"What is wrong with it?"

I would be concerned about Liz's reaction to her "salvation" by "Jack."

A typical reaction by someone like Liz might have been, "Thanks, awfully decent of you." Or, "My hero!" It's a bit of a strain, however, to imagine, "Thanks. By the way, could I interest you in oral sex for 4d?"

But let's waive all that for the moment. Let's go straight to the cachous:

"fishing out her cachous to sweeten the taste of a blowjob"

Once again I ask, Before or after? If before, "Jack" will be laid up in hospital. If after, well, try reconstructing their positions anyway you like and see if it coincides with her actual position when found.

Cheers.
LC

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

No, I think the Ripper used robbery as a ploy to gain the compliance of the victims and keep them from screaming. It's not an uncommon ploy with murderers (think Manson family). This would explain the debris at Chapman's feet, the thimble next to Eddowes' hand, and the cachous in Stride's. It's the simplest, most logical explanation that also addresses mysteries of two other victims. It also shows the three women were felled by the same hand, which is inconvenient for non-Stridists, so you'll probably see some telling me to stuff it. LOL.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom
I doubt a tough, streetwise women like Stride would have gone (without a big fight)into a dark alley with a man that just assualted her, under the threat of robbery or not.

IMHO, if IS story is true and BS man killed Stride he must have dragged her, perhaps with his hand over her mouth.

[Rubyretro]

Well here's another variation on the scenario (also throwing out BSM man as murderer,IS as lier, and Club shenanigans)..

BSM and Pipeman have spent all their money drinking, and will have to sleep it off on the streets..passing near to the club they have the bright idea of
lurking nearby and mugging a lone 'Lipsky' coming out..threatening him with a knife to stay silent, and thus ensuring some Doss.

With that aim in mind, they make their way as silently as possible down Berner Street, so as not to alert the neighbours.

What a bummer ! -there is a tart soliciting right outside the doors, and in the courtyard where they had thought to lurk in darkness. She will complicate matters by getting underfoot, maybe shouting for help, or at any rate will be able to identify them.

BSM man tells her to 'clear off', while Pipeman keeps his face well out of it (BS does not need help tackling a woman). Trouble is Liz is fiesty, and refuses to go (" I was here first -YOU piss off !"). Despite BSM threatning her not to make a noise -she DOES...but doesn't dare do it very loudly, and does not feel in real danger. Furthermore, she doesn't want any Club managers coming out to make her move on for attracting 'Trouble'.

Potential victim IS walks into the road and Pipeman races off, hoping to mug him. BSM spots another man (JtR) turning into the road, and with a witness
now present, Pipeman gone, a 'victim' hopefully already found, buggers off to
meet up with P. and share any proceeds (grabbing Liz's money, whilst she's on the ground, for good measure).

Liz dusts herself down and turns her 'charms' on JtR..

But let's waive all that for the moment. Let's go straight to the cachous:

"fishing out her cachous to sweeten the taste of a blowjob"

Once again I ask, Before or after? If before, "Jack" will be laid up in hospital. If after, well, try reconstructing their positions anyway you like and see if it coincides with her actual position when found.

I would think before..but maybe she got them out ready to use as rapidly as possible afterwards ??

Cheers.
LC[/QUOTE]

[lynn cates]

points

Hello Ruby. I won't comment on the earlier parts of your scenario except to say, if anyone expected much to be included in Liz's proceeds he must have been disappointed.

I would like to chat a moment about those cachous. Your notion of holding them in hand before fulfilling the contract is, of course, a vast improvement on the other scenario. But I can see yet a couple of flies in the ointment.

1. First, are we to imagine Liz holding onto the cachous whilst fulfilling the contract? (Or perhaps, "'Ere luv, holds these for me, will you?")

2. Second, by all indications, Liz is facing East as she is cut. And presumably the cachous came out just before that. Now, it would be natural for Liz to:

A. Be standing, facing her assailant.
B. He would be facing her (ie, looking West).
C. The cachous come out for the anticipated disgusting taste.
D. The assailant strikes.
E. The natural way for this to happen would be to extend the arms and hands to grab Liz's throat.
F. The instinctive reaction would be to retreat by backing up.
G. Now think in terms of lever arms, etc. He needs to be BEHIND Liz whether he intends merely to take down or to strangle. I put it to you that he could do neither from this position.

Alternative: whilst Liz is engaged with the cachous, he could, on tip toe, circle round her and then grab her for strangulation or, what is to my mind more likely, a take down.

3. Now, look at where/how the body was found.

But perhaps the bugs can be worked out?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

slurred speech

Hello Roy. So then the nefarious racial slur beginning with "n" (and which I shall not repeat) is no longer a racial slur since it is used by 2 members of the same community with respect to one another?

Cheers.
LC

[Roy Corduroy]

Theories Questioned

Theories on two (2) levels have been questioned by modern research.

(1) BS Man was a Gentile because he shouted "Lipski" a slur, at Schwartz.

(2) Schwartz was a fraud, a shill for the club, because his account contained BS man shouting "Lipski" at him, implying BS man was a Gentile. Cunning misdirection on the part of the clubmen.

I direct your attention to the Casebook thread of about a year ago entitled "Lipski - anti-semitic insult" under Victims/Stride. Page 1. A researcher found a news report showing where one Jew called another Lipski. In this neighborhood. At this time in history. It's right there.

Best the Schwartz as fraud crew start over from scratch.

Roy

[Roy Corduroy]

Hello Roy. So then the nefarious racial slur beginning with "n" (and which I shall not repeat) is no longer a racial slur since it is used by 2 members of the same community with respect to one another?

Sorry Lynn, I deleted the post you answered because I found a way to say it better. Our posts crossed.

It doesn't require being qualified or disqualified as a racial slur, or anti-semitic, or to be overthought in any way. The article in that thread speaks for itself. It happened there. Right down the street. It happened then, at that time in history. One Jew calling another Lipski. It is what it is.

The whole "BS man shouting Lipski makes him a Gentile" has imploded. Along with the centerpiece of the Schwartz as shill angle.

Roy

[lynn cates]

slurs

Hello Roy. I agree that one Jew could call another Lipski. No problem. If a researcher has found evidence, very well.

But I cannot understand the purported implication (the implosion); however, I agree that by merely shouting "Lipski" the speaker is not necessitated to be a gentile.

Let's emend my other example slightly and use the racial slur, X. A member of race Y may indeed use the racial slur X--perhaps in fun, perhaps not--with another member of Y. Later, if he needs a story implicating a member of race Z, I cannot, for the life of me, see why he is precluded from attributing that same racial slur to the member of race Z.

Now, I think the argument would have merit if and only if it were demonstrated that "Lipski" could be articulated by Jews only, that if a Gentile tried to articulate it s/he would be struck mute. Perhaps I missed that argument?

But absent that, whence the implosion?

Cheers.
LC

[Roy Corduroy]

Lynn, that the "Lipski" uttering BS man was a Gentile for certain is imploded.

That Schwartz surrepticiously came forward with the "Lipski uttering BS man whom the police would think is a Gentile" is imploded.

However many levels or semantic structures you want to sift it through nothing changes the recorded history of the time. Right down the street in St George in the East there was a Jew calling another Lipski.

It's like a balloon has popped and all the air rushes out.

Roy

[Fleetwood Mac]

The whole "BS man shouting Lipski makes him a Gentile" has imploded. Along with the centerpiece of the Schwartz as shill angle.

Roy

Personally I have no view on whether or not a Jew would have called another Jew 'Lipski'......

Out of curiosity though.....how does this rule out the 'Schwartz as a schill angle'?

[lynn cates]

racial slurs, balloons, and so on

Hello Roy.

"that the "Lipski" uttering BS man was a Gentile for certain is imploded."

Well, if that is all that's wanted, I'll gladly grant that there is no certainty affixed. But that seems so little to ask--I would have grated THAT even without a Jew shouting Lipski.

"That Schwartz surrepti[t]iously came forward with the "Lipski uttering BS man whom the police would think is a Gentile" is imploded."

I don't see how. You recall, the Police thought it a proper name. It required FGA to set that straight. At most, it shows that the strategy may not have worked as well as intended.

"However many levels or semantic structures you want to sift it through nothing changes the recorded history of the time. Right down the street in St George in the East there was a Jew calling another Lipski."

Right. But why should I WANT to change it? As I have said in the last 2 posts, let it be granted.

Let's sum up like this, shall we.

1. Was Lipski a racial slur? If yes, proceed to 2. If no, surely it's irrelevant.

2. Was it used exclusively by Gentiles? No. (Proven above.)

3. Was it used exclusively by Jews? If yes, BS man (if he existed) was Jewish. If no, proceed to 4.

4. "Lipski" was a racial slur, used by Jews and Gentiles alike.

"It's like a balloon has popped and all the air rushes out."

Umm, Roy? If you had asked me before this "discovery" if I thought that a Jew could call another Jew "Lipski" I would have been delighted so to have granted. Indeed, I heard the suggestion long ago that some Jews called other Jews "Lipski."

So, here's perhaps another balloon popper: JTR was NOT necessarily left handed. So farewell sexual serial killer. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Roy Corduroy]

...the strategy may not have worked as well as intended.

Apparently not.

Roy

[Fleetwood Mac]

Lynn, that the "Lipski" uttering BS man was a Gentile for certain is imploded.

That Schwartz surrepticiously came forward with the "Lipski uttering BS man whom the police would think is a Gentile" is imploded.

However many levels or semantic structures you want to sift it through nothing changes the recorded history of the time. Right down the street in St George in the East there was a Jew calling another Lipski.

It's like a balloon has popped and all the air rushes out.

Roy

Oh...and nothing has imploded.....

All that has been shown is that Jews used the term 'lipski' with other Jews.....

This doesn't prove that a) in the main.....gentiles used that term...and it follows b) that Schwartz and associates wouldn't have thrown in this ingredient for effect......

In other words.....Schwartz could quite easily have thrown in this little nugget because.....usually.......it was a derogatory term used by gentiles......

[c.d.]

What we don't know is if there was anything uttered before and after Schwartz heard "Lipski." It was the only word he recognized so we have no context for it.

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

Replies

I apologize for the brevity, but I don't have much time.

Hunter, the police were correct, Stride's pockets were not ruffled through once she was on the ground, which is precisely what I was saying. And no, Stride would not have laid down in the mud to service a client. Not a chance. You're coming at this with your personal preconceptions. I used to do this and got no where. Then I started letting the evidence (and not my ego) talk and POOF! Pay dirt.

Fisherman, there's plenty in it.

Did Schwartz hear them talking? Or was it a tap on the shoulder followed by an attack?

He saw them speaking. He drew closer in his walking as the couple stood idle, and was on top of them when the fracas happened, at which point he had no choice but to cross the street.

Regardless...didn't Stride scream three times 'not very loudly'?

You can't scream softly. I believe she said 'no' three times, which is perfectly in keeping with witness evidence in both the Nichols case (see Harriett Lilley) and Chapman (Cadosch).

If BS Man is the killer.....then how does she end up in the yard with him? I just can't see how Stride would go into a dark spot with someone who has just attacked her in the street......

This (and every other mystery) is answered if one accepts that Jack the Ripper used robbery by knifepoint as a ruse to gain control over his victims. Also possible is that Pipeman and BS man were working together, although there's no direct evidence for that.

Hi Tom
I doubt a tough, streetwise women like Stride would have gone (without a big fight)into a dark alley with a man that just assualted her, under the threat of robbery or not.

Stride was not tough. She was slight and had a deformed leg, which probably led more to her falling down than BS Man's push. I know women like to romanticize these women into Angelina Jolie type characters, but it's not real. If a man has a knife to your throat, you do as he says. That's precisely what 'streetwise' women will tell you.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott