|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through February 10, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Research Issues / Philosophy:
The ripper and anti-semitism:
Archive through February 10, 2001
Author: nadav gdaliahu
Sunday, 04 February 2001 - 12:12 pm |        | i am a student for law and history from the hebrew university in jerusalem. i am writing an article about the social reaction to jack the ripper phenomenon, espacially the reactions and accusations against the jews.
if someone have any suugestion about some sources about the subject, its more than welcome.
thanks in advance nadav gdaliahu. |
Author: E Carter
Monday, 05 February 2001 - 04:12 pm | | Israel Lipski, a Polish Jew, murdered his landlady, Miriam Angel in 1886, he was executed by hanging in 1887. The word Lipski thus became a taunt against Eastend Jews thereafter.
Phillip Sugden's excellent book 'the Complete History Of Jack the Ripper' includes an article in the German speaking newspaper 'Die Tsukunft' apparently quoting Detective Abberline who said'When an ordinary person kills a person everything is quiet. It will not occur to anyone to call anyone by the name of the murderer. But when Lipski is sentenced to death, the ordinary people taunted other Jews 'Lipski'! Two weeks ago Staurday it happened in Brick Lane. Last Saturday in Church Lane there was a great fight between Jews and locals, and all because of Lipski! Later described by Martin Friedland 'The Trials of Israel Lipski'(London 1984.) Thus the Eastender's were already primed when the 'Whitechapel Murders began. |
Author: Lisa Muir
Monday, 05 February 2001 - 06:41 pm | | | What subtlety from Detective Abberline: "When an ordinary person...". Amazing! |
Author: Ashling
Monday, 05 February 2001 - 07:55 pm | | Hi all. I don't think Abberline said the above. The exact wording in the footnotes section for chapter 10 of Sudgen's Complete History of JtR is =
Abberline's comment on the use of Lipski's name as an anti-semitic taunt is substantiated by a complaint in Die Tsukunft for 12 August 1887:
"When an ordinary person kills a person everything is quiet ..."
Sounds to me like someone wrote a letter to the editor of the German paper stating the same views that Abberline held as to the word "Lipski" being used to slur all Jewish people.
Ashling |
Author: Ashling
Monday, 05 February 2001 - 08:04 pm | | P.S.
I think Miriam Angel was another lodger in the house where Lipski lived ... not his landlady.
Sorry to be nit-picky, but tiny errors have a way of snowballing on these boards, and before you know it we're buried in an avalanche of absurd theories.
Take care,
Ashling |
Author: Lisa Muir
Monday, 05 February 2001 - 09:23 pm | | | Thank-you for the clarification. It's the slightest things that, often, cause the greatest stir. |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 05 February 2001 - 09:59 pm | | /b{LIPSKI!}
/image{Lipski.jpg}
Hi, Ashling:
Indeed, Ash, you are quite correct, Warsaw-born Jew, Israel Lipski (formerly Israel Lobulsk), aged 22, was a lodger in the 16 Batty Street lodging house where he killed his victim, another lodger, Miriam Angel, on June 28, 1887. Also living in the house was her husband, Isaac, a boot riveter. Both had come from Warsaw 10 months before. Many felt that the prosecution of Israel Lipski was influenced by anti-Semitism but Lipski confessed on the eve of his execution.
This is what Martin Fido says about the murder in /i{The Chronicle of Crime}, Carlton Books (London), 1999, p. 76:
"Would-be umbrella manufacturer Israel Lipski, of Stepney in east London, never got his slum-room sweatshop off the ground. For on the day he was to start the business, he caught sight of his fellow-lodger in Batty Street, 18-year-old Miriam Angel, lying in bed in the room below his.
"Overcome by sudden lust, Lipski burst into her room and, it is believed, attempted to rape her. When he failed, he forced her to drink nitric acid. Then he hid under the bed, and tried to poison himself with the same acid.
"Mrs. Angel was dead, and young Lipski was not long believed to be a fellow-victim. Yet at his trial, he claimed to be just that, and attempted to accuse two labourers.
"He did not persuade the jury. But his conviction worried the immigrant community, and certain newspapers. With a huge petition for mercy, the Home Secretary and the trial judge were at their wits' end whether or not to recommend a reprieve. Both believed Lipski had committed the murder. Both realized, however, that the evidence against him was not strong. They could be criticized whatever they decided. At dawn on the day set for execution the two officials were still in an agony of indecision. Then, the glad news that Lipski had confessed to killing Miriam Angel was brought to them. He told the police that his motive had been robbery, not rape. But the officials were relieved to know they could hang him with a clear conscience." |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 05 February 2001 - 10:02 pm | | If at first you don't succeed. . .
 |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 06 February 2001 - 07:28 am | | Hi, Nadav,
Back to your original question. In 1986-7 when I was writing my book on the Ripper, I wanted to call it 'The Police, The Jews, and Jack the Ripper' since my initial research had indicated that the most reliable police investigators were also the most plausible contemporary namers of suspects (and they inevitably took precedence over later 'self-incriminators', or the products of armchair detection based on poor methodology). And the best police testimony pointed to a Jewish suspect. At the same time the police recognized a serious public order need to cloud this fact as antiSemitic riots were threatening. The publishers pointblank refused the title, fearing it would be seen as antiSemitic. Yet it would have been by far the best name for the book, which made the first detailed investigation of the police officers involved in the case, and drew serious attention for the first time to the named Jewish lunatic Aaron Kosminski, and the real suspect whom I (and subsequently the disinterested American commentators Bill Eckert and John Douglas) believed had become confused with him, David Cohen.
A few years later, when I was making a limited tour of bookshops in the northeastern States to publicize Barnes & Noble's new edition of my book, I was strongly advised to use the words 'foreign immigrant' where the police of 1888 said 'Polish Jew'. This compares very interestingly with the police practice of 1888, where Hutchinson's signed witness statement about the man he saw with Mary Jane Kelly calls him 'Jewish-looking'; but the version released to the press changes this to 'foreign-looking'.
In my experience, Jews who are distressed today by the notion that the Ripper was Jewish counter with the religious prohibition on mutilating dead bodies as proof that he couldn't have been. Of course, as Dr Anderson said 90 years ago, in the Ripper's case the word 'Jewish' refers exclusively to race. One doesn't anticipate serious religion in such a person.
You will find Anderson's personal relations with the Chief Rabbi interesting. Anderson believed that Judaism was 'corrupted' by wordly institutionalisation and the refusal to accept Jesus as the Messiah, yet he also believed that God's unalterable promises to the Jews necessarily stood, so that, unlike Roman Catholics, they couldn't be seen as in thrall to Satan, the Lord of this World. (He was an amazing old Protestant bigot!) The Chief Rabbi initially saw this as vicious Christian antiSemitism, but on writing a protest to Anderson came to see it as something different, and Anderson as a man of inegtrity, and ultimately a personal friend.
I am profoundly convinced that the publication of truth, however distasteful and initially trouble-making, is essential for the longterm good of humanity. So although it is true that the Jewish Ripper theories have provoked vile antiSemitism, including attacks on cemeteries in London, I think that the rumour of a pro-Jewish 'cover-up' would make things much worse. I also think this is one of the most fascinating areas of spin-off study surrounding the Ripper. But I may be biassed, as my own introduction to postgraduate historical research was through the study of Disraeli, entailing immersion in a lot of Jewish Victoriana.
All the best
Martin Fido |
Author: E Carter
Tuesday, 06 February 2001 - 01:19 pm | | | Dear Ashling, thank's for your comments, far from 'nit picking' I am grateful that you pulled up my error's so quickly. Also sorry to Nadav and Lisa, not to mention Frederick Abberline. I took the information from old notes because the book was not to-hand, this demonstrates I can't even trust my own notes, it's frightning! However my point was, prior to the Whitechapel murder's the murder of Miriam Angel lifted the already aprehensive attitue of the locals towards the Jews, then at the onset of the murders the newspapers took over! |
Author: Neil K. MacMillan
Tuesday, 06 February 2001 - 03:09 pm | | Is it possible that Jack the Ripper wasn't Jewish and was attempting with the message on the wall "The Juwes are not thw ones who will be blamed", to assure they weren't given credit for his deeds?
I'm a new (And I mean new) ripper enthusiast so i'm not as up on the multitude of theories as some of you. Hence my question(s.
Also, if we accept that JTR send and likely ate (HIs alleged confession)part of a kidney from Catherine Eddows(?) would that not preclude him being Jewis? Most people will follow the dietary habits of their people because their families and friends do not out of any religious belief. Or am I reading too much into it?
my other reason for believing he was not Jewish or at leaqst a Polish Jew, is simple. I think he was able to move freely through out London and wasn't neccessarily confined to the Whitechapel/Spitalfields area as someone of the mean circumstances endured by most Polish Jews of the day would have been. Kindest reguards, Neil |
Author: alex chisholm
Tuesday, 06 February 2001 - 08:58 pm | | Further to Martin’s point on the distinction between race and religion, I thought the following extracts - highlighting the fact that not all East-end Jews felt obliged to abide by religious traditions - might be of interest.
Star 14 Sept. 1888
“Freethinking Jews and the Black Fast.
The Workers’ Friend, the Hebrew Socialist paper, of this week, announces that as a protest against the Jewish religion and the Day of Atonement, the Jewish Socialists and Freethinkers have organised a banquet for tomorrow, which will take place at the International Working Men’s Club, 40, Berner-street, Commercial-road. Speeches will be delivered in various languages. The announcement has caused much excitement amongst the orthodox Jews, and it is rumored that a disturbance may take place at the banquet. If so, the members of the International Working Men’s Club state that they are prepared, and the aid of the police will not be called in to assist in quelling it. This banquet is unprecedented in Jewish history.”
Star 17 Sept. 1888
“A Feast on a Fast Leads to a Riot.
While the orthodox Jews of the East-end were on Saturday celebrating the Day of Atonement by fasting and prayer, the Socialist and Freethinking Hebrews held a banquet at the International Working Men’s Club, Berner-street, where speeches were made pointing out that the miseries and degradation of the people were not due to any Divine power, but that they were caused by the capitalists, who monopolised all the means of production and paid starvation wages. The orthodox Jews took great umbrage at this banquet, and assembled in Berner-street in great numbers. The windows of the club were smashed, and when three of the men in the club went out to secure the man who did the damage, they were very roughly handled, till about a hundred of their colleagues went to their assistance. The police subsequently dispersed the mob, and guarded the club till a late hour.”
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: Ashling
Tuesday, 06 February 2001 - 11:13 pm | | Thanks everyone! CHRIS, the pic is especially appreciated. ALEX, what a provocative post ... makes me wonder if Stride went client hunting on Berner Street on Sept. 30 because of the publicity the Working Men's Club received in the news. Perhaps the members were right in the statements that prostitutes didn't usually hang out around their club ... But the thought of at least one hundred men in one building must have set more than one prostitute dreaming of earning more than usual in one evening.
Ashling |
Author: E Carter
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 04:06 am | | | My own interest in the Whitechapel murders focuses on correlating and understanding the circumstances left behing after the event. Fanny Mortimer apparently heard the heavy stamp of a policeman, Stride had bruising under and over her clavicles, the right arm rested on her chest. If two people carried her their feet would have been in unison to maintain balance creating the measured stamp of a policeman. the person holding her upper torse would first put his hands under the armpits gripping over her shoulders with the fingers this would have forced both arms onto her chest and created the bruising under and over the collar bones as they carried her along: fingers and heel of hand. On putting her down the left arm simply fell off before they placed the cachous in her hand for I beleive obvious reasons, linked to the fire in Kelly's room. After cutting Elizabeth's left carotid artery, jugular vein and trachea he wiped the excess blood from his knife on her chest, unintentionally smearing the right hand still resting there. Hence the smear on her right hand Doctor Blackwell found so perplexing. Her axis rested to the left the knees were drawn up and slumped to her left as if her legs were quickly placed down as they travelled in this direction. P.C. Lamb et/al, said it looked as if she had been laid there! The other murders also strongly indicate two people. I have little interest in 'Jack the Ripper' my interest for the last four years had been how he operated! |
Author: billy j.
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 06:19 am | | | how he operated was gruesome he was a stalker of whores and would only kill at night, he only eluded polce because he knew the streets as well as the whores who walked them |
Author: E Carter
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 07:33 am | | Explain the measured stamp of a policeman heard by Mortimer, the bruising under and over the clavicles and the position of her right arm.
Not to mention, her legs were flexed; and if I,m not mistaken the feet, were not only towards the street, but pointing down in planter extension,normally only occuring if someone lifts the legs by holding under the knees. There is a great deal of other evidence pointing to two people. |
Author: Diana
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 06:32 pm | | | I have always thought the bruising over the clavicle happened when Jack clapped his hands on Stride's shoulders, perhaps with the thumbs over the clavicle and the fingers over the shoulderblade. I imagine a squeezing downward thrust. In fact I believe one witness said she was "thrown down" onto the roadway. When she felt the knife against her neck the instinctive reaction would have been to reach up with her hand to pull it away. Thus she would have been found with her arm flexed. The stamp of the policeman was just that -- the stamp of a policeman. I did think of one thing though. We always assume that Jack was an interloper who dragged Stride into Dutfields Yard and killed her. What if he was a member of the IWMC and came out of the house to grab her. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 08 February 2001 - 01:07 am | | Hello E. Carter:
In writing about the Stride murder, you say, "On putting her down the left arm simply fell off before they placed the cachous in her hand for I beleive obvious reasons, linked to the fire in Kelly's room."
An obvious connection to the Kelly murder? I don't see it. Maybe you better explain.
Chris George |
Author: Lisa Muir
Thursday, 08 February 2001 - 01:44 am | | I thought, for certain, that I was alone in one of those "can't see the forest for the trees/if it were a snake it would have bit you" situations - because, I, neither, could see Mr. Carter's "obvious reason." At least I'm in good company.
And, while I'm here, I feel an overwhelming need to voice my objection to Billy's use of the word "whore" when describing the victims. Yes, I know, it means the exact same as "prostitute" or "street-walker", but the connotation seems different, somehow. "Whore" sounds vulgar. A person "whores" themself for gain. Jack's victims didn't sell themselves for gain. They barely got by. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 08 February 2001 - 10:38 am | | Hi, Lisa:
Glad to know you have joined me in not understanding E. Carter's "obvious reasons" for linking the cachous in Liz Stride's hand to the fire in Mary Jane Kelly's room.
I suppose the word "whores" sounds very brutal. "Unfortunates" is a word often used at the time of the murders but as Ashling and I discussed on another board, the term "unfortunates" covered anyone at this lower level of society who was without steady employment or a home, men and women, not prostitutes per se but anyone subject to the workhouse system. I suppose if we were to be totally P.C. about it we could term the victims "barely subsistence level sex workers" 
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: E Carter
Thursday, 08 February 2001 - 11:25 am | | | Let me begin with Diane,no Policeman actually passed at 01.10, Smith patrolled at 1230 and 0100, if you study the 1891 map of Berner Street it's not difficult to work out where they carried her from, and why Fanny thought she heard the stamp of a policeman. Swartz made two seperate statements, the first at Leman Street police station on the evening of Sunday the 30th of September, circulated in the police gazette on the 19th October. The second to the Star on the 1st October. In the first statement he said the man tried to pull the woman onto the street, but he turned her round and threw her to the foot way she screamed three times but not very loudly! To the Star he said he put his hand on her shoulder and pushed her back into the passage. Neither constitutes bruising under and over the clavicles and from Blackwells deposition we know that Elizabeth's neck was severed as she laid on the ground with her head in the dirt of Dutfields yard. If the killer held her down by the clavicles she would have screamed her head off! Lewis Deimsleits (correct spelling in English) wife was only yards away. If Elizabeth used the right hand to defend herself there would have been lacerations. Non of these women could defend themselves because they were unconsious he severed the throat. Your last point, before I move on, the killers were trying to blame the Jews (read Lepisus, metals in Egyptian inscriptions,1860) 'men'=iron and 'hat'=silver, now look at the second line of the Goulstone Street Graffito, read each sentence from the capital letter, not from the begining of the line and remember 'T' is an arrow! htth://.levity.com/alchemy/egyptian_symbols.html For one example let us reflect back to Polly Nichols, Cross and Paul, the men who discovered the body in Bucks Row said something that has since remained unnoticed. In the Star 3rd September Cross stated her dress was up on her thighs, 'we tried to pull it down but is was as though it would not come down'. In the full inventory of Polly's clothing you will discover she was wearing flannel drawers, and except for her dress the clothes were undisturbed at the murder scene. Spratling and Helson (in an assortment of newspapers i.e Times, Daily News and the Star around the 3rd and 4th of September noted that buttons lower down on her dress were undone giving access to the abdomen, several people noted that the stays were short, Spratling and Helson both viewed that the abdominal mutilatiuons could have been inflicted with out removing any of her clothes. Then if the killer could have inflicted the abdominal mutilations from above the waist, why was her dress up so high? And why would it not come down? The reason is because before moving her from Browns Stable the man preparing to carry the legs had to lift the hem of her long Victorian Dress in order to get between and grip under the knees. As they carried her out the dress drooped down to the floor and she sat on it as they put her down. These murders were well organized! Christopher and Lisa why would a person who 'barley got by' spend good money on a flower backed with maidenhead fern? |
Author: David M. Radka
Thursday, 08 February 2001 - 11:46 pm | | E,
Let me ask you one thing--are you for real? Or are you a chocolate poof?
David |
Author: Lisa Muir
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 02:57 am | | Mr. Carter -
It was an objection to the term "whore" (used twice in a post by Billy J.) that prompted my 'They barely got by.' comment.
The question posed to you by Chris George (echoed by me) was & is: What are the "obvious reasons" for anyone to place cachous in Elizabeth Stride's hand, and how are they "linked to the fire in Kelly's room"?
I am, in all earnest, interested in hearing your reply and/or theory. |
Author: Joseph
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 06:24 pm | | | What's a chocolate poof? |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 07:47 pm | | Don't knock Mr E. , he sounds like a man after my own heart. Although hopefully not with a sharp bladed knife and an autopsy kit ! ( Boom ! Boom ! )
Isn't that cheesy poof by the way ? |
Author: Joseph
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 10:34 pm | | Hi Mr. Owen,
Mr. Radka's allusion to poof, as Mr. Carter's lone alternative to reality, reflects his low esteem for Mr. Carter's forensic, and psychological interpretations. What does this tell you about Mr. Radka? It tells me he has a superior resolution to the Whitechapel murders, and he isn't afraid to subject us to a Harris like game of catch me out when you can. The chocolate aspect of the poof exercise, however, remains a mystery.
I wonder: Are David Radka, and Melvin Harris one and the same? That would explain why no one has ever seen them together. :-)
BTW, I think you may be thinking of Cheese Doodles. |
Author: E Carter
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 05:02 am | | | Lisa, first tell me what Hutchinsons sighting carried, this is a clue; by my virtue and efficacy I make imperfect perfect weather it be metal or human body. Read his description with care and thought. |
Author: E Carter
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 05:43 am | | | A red stone a horse shoe and a 'seal' represent what you are looking for. Secondly the Goulstone Street Graffito has two meanings, line four 'for nothing' also means 'four nothing' or forty, find out why forty is important to Jews. |
Author: Ashling
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 05:46 am | | CHRIS, cachous roasting on an open fire?  Nah, that was chestnuts, besides cachous were breath mints, not nuts. Well, unless the man Hutchinson allegedly sighted was carrying one of those wire basket popcorn poppers, I'm at a loss to link the parcel with a strap to Mary Kelly's fire. 
Ashling |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 08:04 am | | Hi Joseph:
Perhaps David said "proof" not "poof"?
Hi, Ash:
Very funny.
Hi, E. Carter:
Actually you are beginning to sound more like Davidoz. You say, "line four 'for nothing' also means 'four nothing' or forty." Please go ahead and construct your complicated theories. I wonder if they bear any relationship to the crimes? I doubt it.
Chris George |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 08:35 am | | Hi Chris,
And that was a terrible spell of weather where E. Carter was coming from... :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 12:57 pm | | Dear Joseph,
Are you thinking of Chenese Noodles? :-))
Love,
Rosemary |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 02:39 pm | | Dear Christopher,
I have urgent email from the mysterious "ZODDIAC":
"Tell Chris, I am Wou of the Wrong Arm!" Oh dear, I am in a hell of a state Chris, I think he said, "Lou of the Long Arm"? This sounds awefully like 'omnipotence' Chris, should I be worried? I have locked my door and swallowed the key, Chris.......I have another bright idea! Do you think Mary Kelly swallowed her key and Jack...
(bless his heart) thought very hard about this...
and...well...you know?
Love,
Rosemary. |
Author: Joseph
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 03:24 pm | | Hello Ms. O'Ryan,
Actually, I think Melvin Radka was referring to Red Haired Poodles. J
Best Regards |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 04:03 pm | | Naughty Joseph,
Peking?
Love,
Rosemary |
Author: Joseph
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 05:07 pm | | Where are my manners?
Welcome Ms. O'Ryan, I'm positive your psychology skills will come in handy as you make you way through this cyber-forum. It is a dimension not only of sight and sound, but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That's the signpost up ahead - your next stop, The Casebook. J
BTW, what is your take on the personality type that is capable of perpetrating the murders that we refer to as the canonical 5? Neurotic, psychotic, or both?
Best Regards |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 06:50 pm | | Dear Joseph,
The invitation sounds exciting, but I dread to think who could be the Wizard of Oz !
The mission statement vis., the canonical five, is I suspect, a device to sucker me down some appallingly dingy alleyways and show me metal-micky playing horseshoes...and all four nothing!
I shall give serious thought to your invite, Joseph.
Love,
Rosemary. |
Author: E Carter
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 07:14 pm | | | P.S, read the elements of Alchemy Cherry Gilchrist, particularly the Philosophers Stone and Solomons seal. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 07:51 pm | | Dear E. Carter,
Whoooow!Steady there.o.k. Are you really trying to tell us that Jack the Ripper was an alchemist? If so, I'm afraid many on these boards have either little or no knowledge of alchemy, its history, or, its application...sweetie.
Personally, I think its all cabbalistic, but I take note of where you are coming from...and miles to go before you sleep!
Love,
Rosemary |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 08:42 pm | | Hi all:
I have just received a copy of The Trials of Israel Lipski by Martin L. Friedland previously mentioned on this board. The author advances the interesting theory that the bloody shirt found in the 22 Batty Street supposedly left by a lodger who decamped on the morning of the double murder might have been planted there in an effort to blame the Polish Jews for the crimes. Of course, it was nearby in another lodging house at 16 Batty Street that Polish Jew Israel Lipski killed Miriam Angel, on June 28, 1887.
Specifically, Friedland writes, p. 202:
"The shouting of 'Lipski' [toward Israel Schwartz during the Stride murder] and the placing of a blood-stained shirt in Batty Street may well have been contrived to cause the public and the authorities to believe that it was a Polish Jew who was the Ripper, possibly, as the Pall Mall Gazette included in a list of speculations, for the purpose of 'avenging Lipski.' Indeed, Godfrey Lushington, the Permanent Under-Secretary in the Home Office, noted on the file that 'the use of "Lipski" increases my belief that the murderer was a Jew.'"
Chris George |
|
|
|
|
