| Author |
Message |
    
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 266
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 3:15 pm: | 
|
His yelling "Lizzie" which was mistaken for "Lipski" might be possible. But we know that "Lipski" was an ethnic insult current at the time. The witness said he heard "Lipski." So why is there a necessity to hear something else in what seems to be a logical-sounding slur? Remember Occam's Razor: the most simple explanation is generally correct.
"Liz-Key", on the other hand, I just can't buy -- not unless Liz's attacker spoke some caveman dialect of English: "Liz-key-you-givum-me-now..."
Andy S.
|
Sarah Long
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 52
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 6:37 am: |
|
Richard,
"I believe every victim knew their killer."
Are you suggesting that the killer (Joe as I believe you think he was) knew all the women he killed?? Where is your evidence for this? The idea that all the victims knew the ripper is a bit too much to take. In many stories about the ripper, books or films, it has been suggested that the victims all knew each other, which is basically what you are suggesting, but I think if any of them did know each other it was Mary and Kate. If you think the ripper was Joe then surely you think Mary knew all the other victims too? I don't think so.
Andrew,
Why would he yell Lipski? I think he could have misheard. If it the Kidney attacking Liz then he may have been trying to obtain his key. Therefore, he may have said "Liz (breath) Key". Haven't you ever said something similar? I know I have. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 423
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 21, 2003 - 2:37 pm: |
|
Hi Sarah,
Why couldnt Mary Kelly not know the other victims?
These murders occured in a very small area, I should imagine there is a good chance that she rubbed shoulders with them during her pastimes.
I do believe all the victims knew their killer, most of them were proberly in such a state of shock, that they were killed without the feeling of severe panic.
Richard. |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 27, 2003 - 8:28 am: |
|
Shwartz might have had the insult Lipski directed at him some time previously.
After all he was a jew.
Then when it was shouted at him on the night of the murder he knew it was an insult, and that along with the man advancing towards him, he fled
Cludgy. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 269
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 3:50 pm: |
|
Sarah,
"Lipski" was an ethnic slur current at the time. It is entirely likely that a non-Jewish assailant (who may or may not have been JTR) would stop momentarily and yell "Lipski" to a Jewish onlooker whom he regarded as a busybody -- as if to say "Hey 'Lipski', mind your own business and get lost!"
OTOH, "Liz (breath) key" makes no sense to me. First, that's not what someone would say. I would be something like "Give me that key!" I suppose he could have said "LIZ, give me that KEY" and all that was heard was "Liz...key." But that's really grasping at a far less likely possibility. Remember that Schwartz apparently thought that "Lipski" was directed either at him or the other man nearby. He did not speculate that the attacker was addressing Stride.
Andy S.
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 193
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 9:28 am: |
|
Andrew,
Well, that is how you would say it. If it was me I might have said "Liz, key, now". That is just as plausible. Also if he was fighting with her it is very likely that he breathed in between the words Liz and key and may have just been trying to say the most important things whilst he was out of breath.
Regarding your comment saying:-
"Remember that Schwartz apparently thought that "Lipski" was directed either at him or the other man nearby. He did not speculate that the attacker was addressing Stride."
If he thought he'd heard Lipski then of course he would have thought it was aimed at him as he was a jew. If you you were from a certain ethnic group that has a certain nickname and you thought you heard someone call that out close to where you are then you would think they were referring to you too.
Sarah |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 438
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 1:25 pm: |
|
Hi,
There are three possible explanations, Lipski, Lizzie, or Liz-key.
I would personaly put them in the above order, It would appear that our jack had not only a hatred of the prostitute class, but a dislike for the jews also, for him to call out Lipski, and then leave Eddowes apron right by 'The Jews are' is surely intresting and points to that conclusion.
So we have to find a suspect that dislikes prostitutes , and has a disliking for Jews, and that is precisely why Leanne, and myself are naming Joseph Barnett, as the killer.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1453
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 2:32 am: |
|
Hi Richard
Do you have evidence that Barnett was anti-semitic?
Robert |
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 41
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 2:44 am: |
|
Richard and Robert,
Is there even any evidence that he disliked prostitutes?
-Peter- |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1455
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 3:15 am: |
|
Hi Peter
Barnett did make certain remarks that suggest he didn't like them - though not that he hated them.
I've never seen any evidence for anti-semitism.
Robert |
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 43
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 3:26 am: |
|
Robert,
Are there any specific remarks? As far as I know, the closest remark I got out of Barnett was that he disagreed having Mary's friends share a room.
-Peter- |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 442
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 3:27 am: |
|
Hi Peter,
I can mention two reasons,to suggest at least he objected to prostitution,
a] He objected to Mary Janes immoral ways.
b] He told the police that he objected to her bringing home women of that class to share her room.
Robert is correct, Barnett did make certain remarks, but Leanne, and myself have found other details which suggests a more stronger link.
Richard. |
Peter Sipka
Sergeant
Username: Peter
Post Number: 44
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 3:45 am: |
|
Richard,
Yes, this does show me that Barnett DISAGREED with Mary's actions.
However, wouldn't you be angry too if your girlfriend brought home another woman to stay the night in such a small room?
I can see how that can cause somebody to then MAYBE dislike prostitutes, but I just don't see any evidence to indicate that in Barnett.
This is a far cry from hating those classes of women, or even disliking them.
-Peter-
P.S. - Is it possible for you to mention that “stronger link” you and Leanne found? If not, I understand that you guys can’t give away your whole book.
I’ll then just find out when I buy it.
|
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 980
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 5:32 am: |
|
G'day Peter,
We've been criticised for being silent about all of our findings, and posting things like  , but I ask people what they would do after spending so much time and energy on a book?
I've discussed certain things here, to help me research the case and work out what issues need to be looked at!
When people read all of our views, and they are in the public domain, then we can debate till our faces fall off! 
Hey, where's Glenn?
LEANNE |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1457
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 11:39 am: |
|
Richard and Leanne
I'd still like to know if you've found evidence of anti-semitism, even if you don't want to publish it yet. Richard did make that specific allegation against Joe.
Robert |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 445
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 3:02 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
Although xmax is approaching , I cannot make the same big mistake , i frequently made in the past, when my children were young, giving them clues to their forthcoming presents , often under the influence of my favourite ale, much to the frustration of my dear wife.
However, I Will state, that in our book,we will reveal details that will involve Barnett, and give a firm reason why he may have had reason to disrespect Jews.
Richard. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 446
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 3:02 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
Although xmax is approaching , I cannot make the same big mistake , i frequently made in the past, when my children were young, giving them clues to their forthcoming presents , often under the influence of my favourite ale, much to the frustration of my dear wife.
However, I Will state, that in our book,we will reveal details that will involve Barnett, and give a firm reason why he may have had reason to disrespect Jews.
Richard. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 447
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 3:04 pm: |
|
Sorry '
Double posted.
Richard. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1459
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 3:26 pm: |
|
Hi Richard
I don't mind Santa coming down the chimney twice.
But you say "firm reason why he may have had reason". It starts off definite and ends unsure.
Now I'm not sure if I believe in Santa any more!
Robert |
Donald Souden
Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 49
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 6:12 pm: |
|
Robert,
Stick with Mr. Claus -- the suspension of disbelief required is much less than for Mr. Barnett as Saucy Jack.
Don. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1464
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 6:24 pm: |
|
Hi Don
At this time of year Mr Claus and Mr Barnett do have one thing in common - they're both everywhere I look!
Robert
|
Donald Souden
Sergeant
Username: Supe
Post Number: 50
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 8:37 pm: |
|
Robert,
Indeed, indeed. Cheers.
Don.
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 227
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 6:32 am: |
|
Robert,
I realise that it sounds as if Richard contradicted himself just then but I understood what he said as, they have found an actual fact that would suggest a possible disliking for Jews. I hope that makes more sense, I also hope that's what he meant.
Sarah |
K J August
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 10:01 pm: |
|
Hi all.
I have been reading all of your comments. I have found them very interesting. You guys have done alot of researching I see. It is so amazing how many years have passed by since the murders! What do you think was in the mind of JTR when he passed on? Do you think he was thinking "Ha Ha I got away with murder"? Or maybe he was actually sorry for a brief second before passing on. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 448
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 04, 2003 - 1:20 pm: |
|
Sarah,
Thanks, that is exactly what I meant, we have a fact, that would if we have interpreted it correctly, give a direct pointer to Barnett bearing a grevience, against the Jews.
Richard. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 519
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 7:02 am: |
|
Hi Richard,
If your new fact about Joe is strong enough to point directly to a grievance towards Jews, it might be better to let it stand alone and allow your readers to interpret it as such for themselves. You could explain why you believe such a grievance would be significant, but if you feel the need to add your personal interpretation of the fact itself, in order to get the point across, putting it in the form of a question would avoid the risk of over-egging the pudding and making it indigestible.
Love,
Caz
|
Kris Law
Sergeant
Username: Kris
Post Number: 12
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 9:34 am: |
|
This is all very interesting, what about this? What if Liz (while being manhandled roughly) called her attacker "Lipski", but not loudly, to which he screamed "LIPSKI?!"
If he was jewish, or appeared jewish and was manhandling her, it probably wouldn't be uncommon to refer to him as Lipski, which might enrage you if you were Jewish and used to having slurs like that refer to you.
Just a thought. |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 9:11 pm: |
|
The real position of anti-semitism in the case is as shocking as the case evidence itself. I dread what would happen if I published 'A?R,' I think I shall wait to do it posthumously. If you knew what I know, your toes would curl up.
Saddam
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1491
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 11:52 am: |
|
Saddam, why not write it in the margins of one of your books?
Robert |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 263
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 11:32 am: |
|
Kris,
That could have been the case. It might also enrage someone who wasn't a Jew and would see Lipski as an insult reserved for the Jews which would have been even more of an insult to him.
Hmmmm, hope that made more sense than it does to me now.
Sarah |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 8:46 am: |
|
I have always found it difficult to understand the alleged cry of "Lipski!" as apparently the authorities (or some of them) did at the time.
Without accepting it, the alternative of "Lizzie!" certainly has attractions, not least if (as I do) you consider Kidney a potential killer of Stride.
The mis-hearing is logical (the wiitness did not know the woman's name, so he made sense of it as something he did know, an insult); and the word would fit the moment if the two involoved were Stride and Kidney.
I retain an open mind.
Phil |
Azriel
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 09, 2004 - 9:18 pm: |
|
Phil,
It's Azriel. I find it difficult to see you keeping an open mind when you find it difficult to concieve how a person could stoop to lower than their class and commit a crime like this.
Azriel |
Carolyn Caswell
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 9:11 am: |
|
Just a thought...
If the words Liz-Key were said, would it refer to the key that Liz had on her person at the time of her death.
Also, if Kidney was her killer, wouldn't he have taken the key back from Liz, knowing possibly that she had it and he wanted it back.
sorry, if I am stating yhe obvious.
thank you
carolyn}} |
ex PFC Wintergreen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 7:46 pm: |
|
I want to know just how easy it was to interview Schwartz. The man reportedly had a limitted understanding of English which may have meant not only his understanding of the scene but also the retelling of the scene was impaired.
Imagine for a second that the assailant said something a bit longer like "Get the flock out of here, ya Lipski!" If Schwartz had trouble understaning English, then possibly the only word he may have understood was "Lipski".
When telling this back to the police we might invision a Basil Fawlty/Manuel type scene of miscommunication.
COP: Did this man say anything?
SCHWARTZ: Uh - what you mean?
COP: Speak, you know, (motions hand out of mouth) what did he say?
SCHWARTZ: Oh, uh Lipski.
COP: Lipski?
SCHWARTZ: (nods) Lipski
COP: Is that all he said?
SCHWARTZ: Wha?
COP: Oh god, did he only say Lipski?
SCHWARTZ: Yeah, Lipski.
COP: Yes but is that all he said?
SCHWARTZ: Wha?
COP: Just Lipski?
SCHWARTZ: Yeah, Lipski.
COP: Okay.
Of course the scene is pure imagination, but you can see what I'm getting at. I believe because he spoke Hebrew, the word "Lipski" is the only word we can be sure of. Who are we to tell him what we think he said? |
ex PFC Wintergreen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 7:47 pm: |
|
I want to know just how easy it was to interview Schwartz. The man reportedly had a limitted understanding of English which may have meant not only his understanding of the scene but also the retelling of the scene was impaired.
Imagine for a second that the assailant said something a bit longer like "Get the flock out of here, ya Lipski!" If Schwartz had trouble understaning English, then possibly the only word he may have understood was "Lipski".
When telling this back to the police we might invision a Basil Fawlty/Manuel type scene of miscommunication.
COP: Did this man say anything?
SCHWARTZ: Uh - what you mean?
COP: Speak, you know, (motions hand out of mouth) what did he say?
SCHWARTZ: Oh, uh Lipski.
COP: Lipski?
SCHWARTZ: (nods) Lipski
COP: Is that all he said?
SCHWARTZ: Wha?
COP: Oh god, did he only say Lipski?
SCHWARTZ: Yeah, Lipski.
COP: Yes but is that all he said?
SCHWARTZ: Wha?
COP: Just Lipski?
SCHWARTZ: Yeah, Lipski.
COP: Okay.
Of course the scene is pure imagination, but you can see what I'm getting at. I believe because he spoke Hebrew, the word "Lipski" is the only word was said to him?
Sorry I had to change the last line. Not this one, the one above it. |
ex PFC Wintergreen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 5:30 am: |
|
Okay third try,
I believe because he spoke Hebrew, the word "Lipski" is the only word we can be sure of. Who are we to tell him what we think was said to him? |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2399
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 15, 2005 - 5:00 pm: |
|
The trials and tribulations of Lipski did not end with his death on the end of a rope.
In August of 1887 the entire 'Angel' family - name of Lipski's victim - went around to Mrs. Lipski's lodging house and beat the crap out of her and wrecked the house.
They were treated like saints by the court when they came up for trial.
The confession of Lipski was like one of those forms you get when applying for a house loan; just fill in the empty spaces with what I tell you. |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 744
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 9:30 am: |
|
Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but if Stride's attacker shouted Lizzie, then I don't think he was Jack. Jack's method was to troll Whitechapel till he found a likely victim, pick her up, sneak off with her, then kill her.
I don't think he cared about their names. Its possible that those 5 names that are so important to us would have been meaningless to him.
Even if they had told him their name during the pickup phase he wouldn't have wasted space on his long term memory to store it.
Remember, the Lusk letter says, "I send you the kidne of one woman. |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 947
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 10:38 am: |
|
This is a bit late but just to follow on Wintergreen's comment:
Hebrew was all but extinct as a spoken language before the Zionist movement that resulted in the modern state of Israel. The attacker, if he was a Jew, would probably have spoken Yiddish (a mixture of Hebrew and German) or the language of his native country (i.e., Polish, Russian, etc.), or possibly broken English.
Andy S. |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 677
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 10:48 am: |
|
Andy,
I thought I replied to Wintergreen ages ago -- a case of thought rather than execution I'm afraid. Anyway, Schwartz brought an interpreter with him to the police station. And he most likely spoke Hungarian.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 950
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 1:08 pm: |
|
Hi Don,
I was referring to the language spoken by the attacker. Wintergreen may well be right that the attacker spoke a language that was not understood by Schwartz, leaving "Lipski" as the only word he remembered.
Andy S. |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 679
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 4:53 pm: |
|
Andy,
True enough. I was more or less speaking to Wintergreen's misconception about the Schwartz interview -- though he would seem, like Elvis, to have left the building awhile ago.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 10:29 am: |
|
I find it hard to believe that an ethnic insult like "Lipski" could be hurled at someone without an accompanying facial expression and physical gesture. When all three are present you can be pretty sure that you have been insulted and have not simply misunderstood what someone was saying. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2411
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 4:31 pm: |
|
Reading through the press reports from 1887 it is my strong impression that the term 'Lipski' was not used as a racial slur or ethnic insult, but rather was used to describe a coward.
The incident I think upon is where an Italian gentleman stood up at socialist meeting at Hyde Park, and the crowd expected him to harangue the authorities, but instead he hesitated with some nonsense, and the socialist crowd immediately started calling out 'Lipski! Lipski!'.
The Italian speaker - who was not a Jew - realising that if he didn't speak out against the police and authorities he would probably be lynched, set off with a mighty rant and rave against the police, and the crowd stopped their calling of 'Lipski!'.
This had nothing to do with race, or even murder, the word 'Lipski' had obviously been adopted by East Enders to refer to cowards.
I believe that this was the meaning of the word in the encounter we discuss here. |
Nicholas Smith
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diddles
Post Number: 55
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 6:35 am: |
|
G'day Wolfie, Yeah, you're probably right but there are still a couple of unknowns which will remain so because we've only got Schwartz's version of events to go by and they are by no means reliable.
For one, we don't know who the word was 'shouted' at - it could have been Schwartz or it could have been 'pipeman' as both of them seemed to bugger off in a hurry.
One thing we can dismiss is that he yelled out 'Lizzie'.
Take care
Jules
P.S. I'd still like know why he walked past his street and the safety of his home if he believed 'Pipeman' was following him. If he thought he was in danger he was placing himself in more danger by heading towards the railway arch. |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3973
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 6:43 am: |
|
AP,
A very interesting interpretation.
I must admit I have never come across that one before and it certainly deserves consideration.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2413
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 1:27 pm: |
|
Thanks Jules
there is still so much about this particular encounter that we need to know, but I must say that during my trawling sessions through the archives of the LVP I have seen similar street encounters, and I must go back and study them again as they might throw some light on this encounter.
Thanks Glenn...
In the particular case I found there is absolutely no question about the meaning of the word 'Lipski', it denoted a coward.
However I will see if I can dig out a few more references to confirm that single example. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 730
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 - 4:29 pm: |
|
The Lipski = coward interpretation is new to me too.
AP, you continue to throw light in dark places.
Long may you continue,
Phil |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2421
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 9:32 am: |
|
Thanks Phil.
If anyone wants to read the circumstances in which the name 'Lipski' was used in 'derision' then the full story is in The Times of October 19th 1887. |
Nicholas Smith
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diddles
Post Number: 58
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 7:31 pm: |
|
G'day Phil, Wolfie, Glenn, everyone.
Miriam Angel was murdered over a year before the Ripper murders began. Are there any other documented occurences of 'Lipski' being used as a derogatory term before the Stride incident?
I've done a bit of looking around and have only found out that Lipski was a hated person of the area because he murdered that girl, but I can't find any other source to sa that his name was used any where else as a derogatory term.
Jules. |
