Author: Stuart Dall
Monday, 01 January 2001 - 11:02 pm |        |
| Why would the assailant seen by Israel Schartz refer to him as 'lipke' - if JTR is assumed to be a Polish Jew and that this word is an anti-semitic slur? |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 02 January 2001 - 06:59 am | |
G'day Stuart,
In June 1887, Israel LIPSKI,(not Lipke), poisoned his fellow-lodger Miriam Angel with nitric Acid. His conviction was highly controversial, as some felt the prosecution was influenced by anti-Semitism. The name "Lipski" was used in 1888 as an anti-Semitic insult!
Thanks, 'A-Z'!
LEANNE |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 02 January 2001 - 10:20 am | |
| There were three people involved in the incident: Schwartz, the attacker, and the Pipeman. Schwartz wasn't positive the words were shouted by the attacker, so they could have been shouted by the Pipeman at either the attacker or Schwartz. Equally, the attacker could have shouted the word to give the impression that Schwartz had in fact assaulted the woman, causing the Pipeman to give chase, as Schwartz indeed believed he did, and the attacker time to kill the woman and make his hurried escape. |
Author: Lisa Muir
Tuesday, 02 January 2001 - 01:35 pm | |
| Mr. Begg's last scenario seems to make the most sense - as well as, answers Stuart's original question...which wasn't asking what does/did "Lipski" refer to, but rather, why would a Jew be using an anti-semitic slur. So, if Jack was a Polish Jew, the answer is - he shouted it to save his own neck. |
Author: Rotter
Tuesday, 02 January 2001 - 04:24 pm | |
| Since, according the the Star newspaper, "He could not speak a word of English" and needed an interpreter, is it possible that Schwartz heard something in English that he didn't understand, and mistook it for "Lipski?" |
Author: The Viper
Tuesday, 02 January 2001 - 05:21 pm | |
| Yes, Rotter. Though Mr. Begg's last scenario makes a lot of sense (as Lisa has commented), you may be on to something here. Suppose the assailant really shouted "Lizzie!" for instance... |
Author: Stuart Dall
Tuesday, 02 January 2001 - 06:34 pm | |
The scenario proposed and supported by Mr Begg and Ms Muir DOES make a lot of sense ...
(The suggestion by Rotter and The Viper that Schwartz heard another word - possibly Lizzie - is certainly intriguing too)
... especially IF the Pipeman wasn't a cohort of Stride's attacker but merely a pub patron enjoying a quiet smoke.
I have read (Stephen Knight,for example) where this pipeman was supposed to have been seen standing on the other side of the street - and otherwise: just emerging from a nearby pub ... which is most accepted? |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Wednesday, 03 January 2001 - 09:34 am | |
Stuart -
HO 144/221/A49301C, ff. 148-159 contains a report dated October 19 from Chief Inspector Donald Swanson, in which the "pipeman" is described thus:
"On crossing to the opposite side of the street, he [Schwartz] saw a second man standing lighting his pipe."
A 1 November report from Inspector Abberline (MEPO 3/140/221/A49301C, ff. 204-206) gives this:
"There was only one other person to be seen in the street, and that was a man on the opposite side of the road in the act of lighting a pipe."
However, the "Star" of October 1 - in its own sensational way - managed to secure an interview with Schwartz (who, incidentally, was Hungarian and spoke no English), and this piquant detail is to be found:
". . .just as he [Schwartz] stepped from the kerb a second man came out of the doorway of a public house a few doors off, and shouting out some sort of warning to the man who was with the woman, rushed forward as if to attack the intruder."
So which is to be believed? Unfortunately, time and space prevent me from transcribing the whole of the "Star" article (it may be found on pp. 203-204 of paperback Sugden), but a reading of the story reveals a healthy amount of purple prose, and one is tempted to err on the side of the police on this particular occasion.
"Pipeman" may have just come from a pub, but it appears the salient detail to impress itself on Schwartz was that he was lighting a pipe and was on Berner Street itself; the "Crimewatch" excitement of October 1 seems to owe as much to the reporter as to Schwartz and his interpreter.
(many thanks to SPE for the above references!)
CMD |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Wednesday, 03 January 2001 - 11:08 am | |
The pub in question, a beershop actually, was The Nelson which was situated at the corner of Berner and Fairclough Streets at number 46 Berner Street. Schwartz reached Berner street at about 12:45 a.m. so we would assume that the beershop was still open at that time but consider this exchange at the inquest into the death of Elizabeth Stride:
"Morris Eagle: On the same side as the club is a beershop and I have seen men and women coming from there.
A Juryman. - That is always closed about 9 o'clock." The Times, Tuesday, October 2, 1888.
If this is correct then it is further evidence that the Star article is flawed.
Wolf. |
Author: Stuart Dall
Wednesday, 03 January 2001 - 06:03 pm | |
Hmmm - very interesting ... thank you all.
(Of course, these were hard times and a stressful/stress-filled part of London we're talking about; I'm sure there was more than a pretty penny available to any publican/beershop proprietor prepared to run an 'afterhours shop'.)
Oh, and to Leanne Perry: G'day from Melbourne. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Thursday, 04 January 2001 - 06:50 am | |
| G'day from Sydney, Stuart! |
Author: John Dixon
Friday, 05 January 2001 - 03:55 pm | |
Good Posts,
Firstly I'm interested in the possibility that the word yelled wasn't "Lipski" But it makes little sense for the Pipeman to yell "Lizzie" & then chase the Jew does it? If his concern was for her surely he would go to her.
Not to make too much of it K.Chesney "The Victorian Underworld" "...there were other trades that provided even more convenient cover for the "fence". ... pubs were well known as criminal "lumbers" patronised by thieves & sometimes dangerous for a stranger to wonder into." After hours business may have been more than a late beer. Perhaps a reason for any or all 4 people to have been there. |
Author: larry haskins
Saturday, 21 April 2001 - 10:31 pm | |
| rotter makes a very good point |
Author: Julian Rosenthal
Monday, 23 April 2001 - 08:47 pm | |
G'day Stuart, greetings from Canberra.
Leanne, there's a few things we need to change for Ripperoo. Change the cover, get back to our original style. I'll get back to you with the other changes.
As for the Lipski, Lippi or whatever how do we know it was ever spoken at all?
The only persons word we have for it is Schwartz. In fact the only persons word we have that there was a pipeman is Schwartz.
Brown also recalled seeing another courting couple in the area at the same time as Schwartz, yet they never came forward to say that they heard anything.
Just some thoughts.
Jules |
Author: Stuart Dall
Tuesday, 24 April 2001 - 05:24 am | |
Jules
Greetings from (soggy) old Melbourne.
I guess we only have Schwartz' word for these details ... but why would he fabricate this evidence? He doesn't seem like someone trying to gather public attention on himself (like Packer for example.)
I get your point though - the most frustrating problem with the murders is what we can't take for granted.
Er - I don't know what 'Ripperoo' is but if I can help let me know (work in a bookstore=we import JTR books from overseas ... I've been a graphic artist for 12 years ... yadda yadda yadda)
Stu |
Author: Julian Rosenthal
Thursday, 26 April 2001 - 07:57 pm | |
G'day Stu,
I'm an ex Melbournite myself, not many suburbs I didn't live in.
The idea of Schwartz posibly being Strides murderer came to me some time ago when I was writing another article for Ripperoo. I thought what better way of covering your arse than to visit the police the next day with a concocted story related by an interpreter whose translations skills were bordering on a new language.
It was just an idea which I thought I'd publish to get peoples minds ticking over again instead of stagnating on all the usual theories.
Ripperoo is the official magazine of the Australian Cloak and Dagger Club. We've just sent out our sixth issue and the seventh is about to be ready as soon as I've finished the editorial and a couple of other mistakes.
Would be more than willing to send you some copies if your interested.
I've grabbed your email and will be in contact soon to get an address.
Jules
P.S. Do you have a copy of Beadles - Anatomy of a Myth? |
Author: Stuart Dall
Friday, 27 April 2001 - 12:48 am | |
Jules,
Thanks 4 that - yes please e-mail me about Ripperoo ... I'd like to know more.
I'm not back in the gulag 'til Monday, I'll check on Anatomy of a Myth then and let you know.
Ta.
Stu. |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 27 April 2001 - 05:09 am | |
Jules - Since Bill Beadle is actually self-publishing, and Wat Tyler Books is his own imprint, you should be able to get a copy by writing directly to him at 51 Aldborough Road, Dagenham, Essex RM10 8AT, England.
And, belatedly, congratuations to you and Sam.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Stuart Dall
Sunday, 29 April 2001 - 07:31 pm | |
RE: "Anatomy of a Myth"
Jules,
Yeah, this is correct; it seems you can only get this book direct from the publisher.
The manager says that we can do the ordering for you if you like - but between you and I - it would be less expensive to DYI ... particularly considering the exchange rate between the aussie dollar and the pound.
Leanne:
Thanks for the e-mail, $'s 2U soon.
Stu |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Sunday, 29 April 2001 - 09:53 pm | |
Jules -
You can also order "Anatomy of a Myth" through Rupert Books, who offer quality Ripperana and Sherlockiana for the discriminating collector. Check out their website at:
http://www.rupert-books.co.uk
CMD |
Author: Julian Rosenthal
Tuesday, 01 May 2001 - 09:24 pm | |
G'day everyone,
Thanks for the info. When I get around to puting pen to paper I'll send Mr Beadle a letter.
Take care.
Jules |
