|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 702
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 8:07 pm: | 
|
Jules,
The usual source for "Lipski" as a derogatory term is in a November 1, 1888, memorandum from Inspector Abberline in which he wrote: I beg to report that since a jew named Lipski was hanged for the murder of a jewess in 1887 the name has very frequently been used by persons as mere ejaculation by way of endeavouring to insult the jew to whom it has been addressed, and as Schwartz has a strong jewish appearance I am of opinion it was addressed to him as he stopped to look at the man he saw ill-using the deceased woman.
Hope this helps.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 860
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 6:10 am: |
|
A possible alternative to the one that A.P. provided above [ Lipski-as-term-for-coward ] and the other [ Lipski-as-insult ], is Yo...Lipski...You want some of this too?" Lipski-as-challenge.
There's little difference between the insult and this latter usage. Imagine if you were engaged in a skirmish and someone [ Schwartz] hestitated for a moment as they were going about their business just to look at the skirmish....
You then, for a brief moment,focused your anger upon this bystander and in a act of "daring" him to get involved and not just staring,you made this one word challenge...the term would not only insult but ask that person..."Bring it on if you are so damned interested..."
So...sorry to ramble there...it could be similar to the slang terms I've heard used [ "pu**y" or "jerkoff" come to mind...]in situations like that. I've seen two people involved in confrontation and one stopping for a moment to challenge someone who was simply checking out the scuffle.
Admittedly, its the weaker of the three given usages...
Just a thought.... |
Nicholas Smith
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diddles
Post Number: 60
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 5:07 am: |
|
G'day Don, Howie,
Thanks Don, I'd forgotten about that although I did remember reading it somewhere.
Howie, interesting idea mate, butt do ya really reckon if you're caught in the act of cutting a sheilas throat you're gunna yell out to a bloke across the street, ''Ya wanna bit too?''. Maybe in a good old punch up, but not in a murder me thinks.
Jules |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2064
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 26, 2005 - 6:19 am: |
|
Hi Jules,
But no one was in the act of cutting anyone's throat when Schwartz happened by.
All we know, assuming Schwartz's account has come down to us accurately, is that the name of a lady killer: "Lipski", leapt to the mind and lips of the man seen treating a woman rather roughly.
It sounds to me like a spur-of-the-moment reaction to finding oneself with an unwelcome audience - shouting out the first insult that springs to mind to send the audience packing.
It worked, and the rest is history.
I still believe that one of the reasons Liz wasn't mutilated is that her killer dared not linger in case Schwartz was summoning help even as the knife did its work; she had to go, because she could have described him if and when help arrived.
Love,
Caz
X |
Nicholas Smith
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diddles
Post Number: 63
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 27, 2005 - 7:42 am: |
|
G'day Caz,
That's sort of what I was trying to say not that he was actually in the process of checking out the inner working of Lizzies gullet.
And Caz, Caz, Caz - please, please, please don't tell me you reckon Lizzie was a Jackie victim.
Love
Jules.
P.S. Sorry about the stutter:-) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2070
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 5:52 am: |
|
Hi Jules,
I can't think of a single good reason to blame someone else for her murder. The timing is uncanny - Jack was out to mutilate that night. The timing and nature of the attack on Eddowes could not fit more perfectly with that of a flight from Berner Street by an unsatisfied serial mutilator, spitting blood because that "Lipski" fellow had meddled with his mind.
Love,
Caz
X |
Nicholas Smith
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diddles
Post Number: 71
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 9:09 am: |
|
G'day Caz,
Don't you reckon one close call would have been enough for 'Lipski' to have called it a night? He'd been seen by two people (according to Schwartz) and would have known the place would have been swarming with police.
Yes, the timing is uncanny and here's where I'll back up your idea.
Rumbly reckons he's got Jacks knife which came in a box of two. The knife which was used to kill Lizzie was different to those used on Jacks other victims and was supposedly found on the doorstep of 253 Whitechapel Rd - explaining why Rumbly has only one, and Jacks bloodlust not being satiated, goes in search of another woman.
I can see how that would fit, but it doesn't make sense that Jack would risk himself twice in the one night.
Love
Jules |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2074
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 4:22 am: |
|
Hi Jules,
Think of the police as a swarm of wasps then, and Berner St as the picnic site. If Jack knew the wasps would be occupied there for a while, he could happily unpack his picnic basket fifteen minutes' walk away in Mitre Square. His blood would have been up, had he failed to get his fill the first time.
And I'm not sure it has been proved that different knives were used. Does the evidence go far enough to establish the exact dimensions of the knife used on Stride, based on the dimensions of the throat wound?
Rumbelow's knife, and that doorstep, have 'supposedly' written all over them unfortunately.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on August 31, 2005) |
Nicholas Smith
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diddles
Post Number: 73
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 5:42 am: |
|
G'day Caz, you always have had such a picturesque way of putting things:-)
I was going to throw that bit in but it would have turned into a long and confusing post. It was bloody confusing enough as it was.
And yes dear I was referring to the differences in knives as noticed in the autopsy reports. The other stuff about Rumbly's knife and the box etc is just pure speculation and hopefullness that at least one part of this mystery can be put to bed, which is where I should be now. I got caught up in the chattery with Carole and a heap of other old friends till 3.30 this morning. So if I'm not making any sense it's because I'm on auto plot.
Love
Jules |
Nicholas Smith
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diddles
Post Number: 77
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 01, 2005 - 9:01 am: |
|
The other thing which doesn't fit is the location. Right beside a club full of people - either Jack was feeling 'very' lucky that night or it wasn't him.
The other cannonised victime were killed in quieter places, the only place where Jack left himself open for being caught was Mitre Sq but even then he was well secreted in shadows.
The IWC just doesn't fit Jack's MO. Sory mate.
Love
Jules |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2089
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 5:11 am: |
|
Hi Jules,
Love you but don't agree. 
Each and every murder site had its own risks, 29 Hanbury being one of the trickiest.
Someone managed to do Stride in right beside that club full of people, even after Schwartz and pipe-man had witnessed her in potential danger - and he got away with it. Jack got safely away each time, so why not from Berner St?
All that's missing is the mutilation, which could be explained in several ways:
a) Jack was expecting Liz to agree to take him somewhere more private, just like all the others did, but she refused to budge? (I mean, all the victims were probably encountered in a busier place than where the attack actually took place, if he was posing as a punter.)
b) Jack was spooked by the witnesses and feared they might return any minute with assistance?
c) Jack heard the pony and cart approaching?
d) Jack simply came to his senses and realised the whole situation was too risky (but killed Liz before fleeing so she couldn't identify him later as a suspicious character)?
Love,
Caz
X |
Nicholas Smith
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diddles
Post Number: 82
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 5:46 am: |
|
Ditto Caz, always have:-)
Good point about Jack wanting to take Lizzie somewhere else and from what we know about her she was a stubborn bugger. She had already told some other bloke that she wasn't interested that night. But that could bring us back to the idea that Jack 'arranged' rendevous with his victims.
Got ya on point (D) though. If Jack did come to his senses and realise that the whole thing was too risque he wouldn't have gone after Catherine.
Point (C) is an interesting one. If Jack did hear Deimshultz approaching, where did he disappear to? Deimshultz didn't mention seeing anyone and the whole place was surrounded after Lizzie was found and everyone was asked who and why they were there. The door of speculation is opened once again.
Take care
Love
Jules |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 749
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 7:33 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
I have some comments as to the explanations you put forward (but fear not, I'm not going to rehash the discussion of whether Stride was a Ripper victim or not - I know where you stand  )
Regarding a): Jack may not have been that smart, but why would he expect Stride to take him somewhere more private when she was standing on the very 'doorstep' of a very dark and deep yard?
Regarding b): if Jack was spooked by the witnesses I would have expected him to get the hell out of there very soon after Schwartz and Mr. Pipeman had left. Options b) and d) taken together makes more sense.
Regarding c): from the other cases we might deduct that Jack didn’t act suspiciously right until the moment he actually struck. Or, like you’ve said on earlier occasions, he could abort his ‘missions’ right until the moment he would actually strike.
From the dissimilarities between Stride and Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes we might deduct that Jack only cut Stride’s throat when he had already heard the approaching cart & pony, or else there would have been evidence that he had already started doing business as usual. If he hadn’t behaved (much) differently than in the other cases, why would he still need to kill her? Why couldn’t he just abort his ‘mission’?
Regarding d): I can understand that he might have come to his senses again, realizing that the two witnesses might have gone for help, but why would he actually need to kill her? If he didn’t, he was only guilty of tossing about a woman a little, which I believe wasn’t that uncommon.
The only reason I see why he wouldn’t abort his ‘mission’ would be that he (feared he) was unable to ‘perform’, or something like that, and that he was unable to just say: "Well, I changed my mind, woman, I'm out of here."
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2097
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 11:56 am: |
|
Hi Jules,
I meant the whole situation in Berner St may have seemed too risky at that point in time. The urge to mutilate that night caused him to take risks in Mitre Square, whether he killed Liz first or not.
Hi Frank,
Fair questions!
...why would he expect Stride to take him somewhere more private when she was standing on the very 'doorstep' of a very dark and deep yard?
Well, this would only apply of course if he felt the yard was too close to the busy club for comfort. If he had been happy to mutilate there, something else must have put him off after cutting her throat - if it was Jack.
...if Jack was spooked by the witnesses I would have expected him to get the hell out of there very soon after Schwartz and Mr. Pipeman had left.
Maybe - but someone went on to kill her before getting the hell out of there, despite the risk of witnesses summoning help. It only took moments to cut her throat, so why not Jack, who had very recently done the same for at least two other unfortunate women? It's the thought of lingering to mutilate this one that would quickly lose its appeal once spooked.
...why would he actually need to kill her? If he didn’t, he was only guilty of tossing about a woman a little, which I believe wasn’t that uncommon.
Well it might be partly psychological - even if she doesn't know (yet) that he's Jack, he knows it. He could have been paranoid that something about himself was bound to have alerted her suspicions, and she could have seen him clearly enough to be a thorn in his side if allowed to live. Even a simple refusal to entertain or accompany him could have set off his alarm bells, if he usually had no trouble - "Oh God, this one's sussed me!"
Love,
Caz
X |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 12:42 pm: |
|
Keep in mind that Jack always had to balance the desire to kill with the risk of being caught. But if the desire to kill at a particular time or the desire to kill a particular woman became overwhelming, it might cause him to act in ways that really don't make sense to us.
c.d.
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page