|Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 8:56 pm: ||
Was the demolition of the Boarding House...
what was the date of the demolition in 1888 of the boarding house a "Trigger" for the murders?
Just a coincidence?
ROBERT J. MCLAUGHLIN
March 2003 Issue of Ripperologist mentions;
1. "Mr. and Mrs. Lipski were the landlords of 16 Batty Street."
2. "Given the notoriety generated by the Angel
murder and the fact that 16 Batty Street was demolished in 1888..."
In the statement above there was no mention of the date of the demolition, save the year 1888 or exactly why.
Also, points made in the article give a broad interpitation or even evidence of if word "Lipski" had been uttered in conjuntion to Israel Schwartz's statement. (Brilliant observations.)
However little had bee presented into guessing the motivation of the attacker who had uttered the word.
Why? Come to mind.
There was a point made in the above article about how it would be fool hardy to go into a predominantly Jewish area of the 'East End' and utter a derogatory word such as "Lipski" seems a weak arguement; given the blatently hostile culture of europe at the time, towards Jews and the strong racial and class bias of Victorian sociaty.
From experiance I have seen and heard things that defy logic and the instinct of survival in much more dangerous places.
Given that two men are mentioned and were willing to attack a woman and resort to intimidation and persuit with the possible intention of violence to remove a witness.
I do not think they considered themselves in a situation that they could not control, through violence and it follows they were confortable in using violence to achieve what ever they desired either from the woman or the potential witness.
If they were at ease in using violence and intimidation, they had used it with success often enough and continued to use it with little hesitation. How this ties into the word, well...
I do feel that if the utterance ..."Lipski" was heard correctly it implies that the name, either as a slang term denoting a "Murdering jew" Israel Schwartz was watching, which then follows that the speaker percieved that all jews were murderers.
That perhaps the unconsious of the speaker betrays his intent of murder or even murderous revenge that was for front of his intentions on that night. In saying the word it could also imply that in the attacker(s) mind; the prostitute as a less than worthy of pity and understanding and the witness being percieved as a Jew and identified through speech as a murderous jew.
(This does not touch upon the whole Jesus was betrayed and condemed by the Jews issue already embedded into the hearts and minds of Victorian culture, though I feel confident that it was a factor.)
The woman and the witness had already been rationalized and dehumanised as a process to justify the violence and the end result murder.
Please consider my post as a question and observation. thanks...
Use of these
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.