Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Would you like one of them to dress like a sailor for you?

That's not a serious nor pertinent nor appropriate remark.

I wonder how you became a commissioner.

[The Baron]

So now he is not saying a jew couldn't have been blond!

And now he is implying that a sailor was not likely to have been a jew.

We all know that Kosminski's family were tailors, they may have made hundreds of hats in all different shapes and forms

Kosminki was able to dress the way he liked, if he wanted to look like a sailor, he could wear one of those, maybe he did that on purpose as a way to disguise, while he went to kill, and to avoid being recognised if anyone notice him, we know that the first question that would be asked, what did he look like, what was he wearing...

But our friend here take the phrase 'he looked like a sailor' to be a strong evidence that the man seen by Lewende Must have been a sailor and must haven been a gentile..

You know, serial killers don't do anything not expected..

Even worse, he think that the moment you look at a jew you will know he is a jew!!! Where do you live man?! Do you have certain ideas of how jewish look different than the rest of mankind?


TB

[Elamarna]

If I may, I will present the argument slightly differently:

There are two possibilities:

(1) The witness recognised the suspect as being Jewish when he saw him in London.

Since the witness was unwilling to bring a fellow Jew to justice, it is not credible that he would have gone to the police in the first place.

(2) The witness did not recognise the suspect as being Jewish when he saw him in London.

He did go to the police.

When he saw the suspect at the Seaside Home, he recognised him instantly.

This means he instantly recognised someone whom he had not recognised to be Jewish.

That means he didn't recognise the suspect to be Jewish in either sighting.

Anderson does not say the witness instantly recognises the suspect as being jewish, at the Identification. That is your interpretation.
It is possible that he did, it's also possible he didn't and it took some minutes.

If you saw someone who didn't look Jewish to you, and you saw that person again somewhere else and recognised him instantly, how in the world are you then going to arrive at a different conclusion that the person does look Jewish?

Very easily, and surprised you have Not seen the possibilities.

Be the witness Lawende, Schwartz or another he saw a man wearing a cloth cap and wearing a jacket, in poor lighting.
The witness is all all probability basing his identification on facial recognition.

However, at the Identification things maybe very different.
It's fair to assume the lighting is better, and the Identification is at a much closer distance. Indeed many researchers, possibly the majority who have studied this in depth consider it was probably a 1 on 1 confrontation style of Id, rather than a line-up.

So, to return to your question.

At the Identification the suspect may have been wearing a Kippah, scull cap, which either he was not wearing at the time of the incident, or it was covered by the cloth cap.

2nd, related point the suspect may have been wearing a Tallith Karen, a prayer shawl worn under the outer clothing.
While this would be clearly visible at an identification , it may well not have been at the incident.

Thirdly we have the possibility of a verbal exchange, maybe in English, but very posdibly, if not probably in Yiddish.

We also have the possibility that the witness had seen the suspect since the incident occurred, and since he had spoken to the police, and he saw him a situation which showed the suspect to be Jewish.

All of these are I agree simply possibilities, but each is very reasonable, and clearly answers your question

[The Baron]

Would you like one of them to dress like a sailor for you?

[Elamarna]

I never said that Jewish people can't be blond - or blonde, as in the case of Zsa Zsa Gabor - but I haven't noticed any of the candidates in the Israeli General Election being blond AND dressed like a sailor.

In fact, I haven't noticed ANY candidates in the elections being dressed like a sailor.

If you're suggesting that there were blond Jewish sailors in the East End, I think you're stretching it a bit.

Your obsession with the comment the "having the appearance of a sailor" means he was, and that Fair means blond( what shade, blond covers many shades) is very clearly driven by your unnamed sailor suspect theory.

[The Baron]

Two cannibals are eating a Clown. One says to the other... “Does this taste funny to you?”

TB

[Elamarna]

Do we know if the witness said or spoke to Anderson or whoever that he could identify the suspect but would not testify against him.Or it was just a read by the police,by the witness's reaction.
Remember nobody in the inquests said she/he could identify JTR.Not the Duke street trio or Long,witnesses who saw JTR with the victim closest in time to the murders.Witnesses farther from TOD,only Mary Ann Cox said she could,PC Smith, James Brown could not.Marshall,Gardner, Best not either,I think,and not one is Jewish.

We have no name, it's yet another unanswered question.
However, I did cover all of this in a talk on the 2021 Casebook online conference, it's here in the podcasts, with slides.

I really would not be too concerned with the witnesses compared to the supposed TODs
They seriously believed they could fix a time of death to within 10 or 20 minutes, that's still impossible today.

I see you have missed Schwartz, in my view he is the prime candidate for the witness , followed by a completely unnamed witness and then Joseph Hyam Levy.
You will not that Lawende is not in my top candidates.

But it's all speculation end of the day


Steve

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Very easily, and surprised you have seen the possibilities.

Be the witness Lawende, Schwartz or another he saw a man wearing a cloth cap and wearing a jacket, in poor lighting.
The witness is all all probability basing his identification on facial recognition.

However, at the Identification things maybe very different.
It's fair to assume the lighting is better, and the Identification is at a much closer distance. Indeed many researchers, possibly the majority who have studied this in depth consider it was probably a 1 on 1 confrontation style of Id, rather than a line-up.

So, to return to your question.

At the Identification the suspect may have been wearing a Kippah, scull cap, which either he was not wearing at the time of the incident, or it was covered by the cloth cap.

2nd, related point the suspect may have been wearing a Tallith Karen, a prayer shawl worn under the outer clothing.
While this would be clearly visible at an identification , it may well not have been at the incident.

Thirdly we have the possibility of a verbal exchange, maybe in English, but very posdibly, if not probably in Yiddish.

We also have the possibility that the witness had seen the suspect since the incident occurred, and since he had spoken to the police, and he saw him a situation which showed the suspect to be Jewish.

All of these are I agree simply possibilities, but each is very reasonable, and clearly answers your question

I think you're making tongue-in-cheek suggestions.

Be the witness Lawende, Schwartz or another ... At the Identification the suspect may have been wearing a Kippah, scull cap, which either he was not wearing at the time of the incident, or it was covered by the cloth cap.

2nd, related point the suspect may have been wearing a Tallith Karen ...


Schwarz's semi-drunk anti-Semite now turns out to be an ultra-orthodox Jew who wears a Jewish skullcap and fringes specially for the identification!

Lawende's blond-haired sailor who wore a pepper and salt coloured blouson popular among sailors, dresses up specially for the occasion in a Kippah and Talith.


Thirdly, we have the possibility of a verbal exchange, maybe in English, but very posdibly, if not probably in Yiddish.

You must be joking!

Kosminski, who you claim has been proven to have been able to speak English, speaks in Yiddish at a police identification.

i would remind you that you made a remark to the effect that no serious researcher will take me seriously.

Do you actually expect what you've written to be taken seriously by any serious researcher or reviewer?

[Elamarna]

Here is what Anderson wrote:

[I]And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews; for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East

If a person in his position wrote something like that today, he would be in disgrace, and he was condemned at the time by the policeman who originally led the investigation.

The case was led by Swanson from beginning to end.
True Abererline lead the investigation on the ground for the initial part of the investigation. However, he was not the officer coordinating the case, appointed to do so by Warren, that was Swanson.

He condemend Anderson?
Really?
My reading is that he disagree with him, thats not condeming him.

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1;n799055]

If, according to Anderson, the witness did not recognise the suspect as being Jewish, then why would he have refused to testify against him?

Please, I was talking about INSTANTLY recognising him as Jewish.
Which Anderson DOES NOT SAY.

[The Baron]

Nathan Shine is another possible witness, I also think there is a possibility that Schawrz had change his name to Nathan Shine.

I don't think Lawende was the witness either.


TB

[DJA]

Blouson - Wikipedia

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Your obsession with the comment the "having the appearance of a sailor" means he was, and that Fair means blond( what shade, blond covers many shades) is very clearly driven by your unnamed sailor suspect theory.

When you say I have an obsession, is that a fact or a supposition on your part?

[Kattrup]

Here is what Anderson wrote:

And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews; for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.

And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point...

... I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him ; but he refused to give evidence against him.


If a person in his position wrote something like that today, he would be in disgrace, and he was condemned at the time by the policeman who originally led the investigation.

That doesn't prove that his report of the identification is untrue, but that can be proven anyway.

Anderson wouldn't be able to explain why a Jewish witness who would not give up one of his number to Gentile justice would have come forward in the first place.

Nor would he be able to explain why a Jewish witness who had instantly recognised someone he hadn't recognised as being Jewish should then decide that he was Jewish, unless the suspect's features became more Jewish after the identification.

P.I.

It is very easy to think of possible reasons why a witness would behave in a manner you find inexplicable. For instance, a witness may have wished to help the police in general, in order to help stop the crimes, but be unwilling to stand up in court and confront the criminal. That happens also in today's world.

Again, it was stated that the witness identified the criminal instantly. It does not follow that the witness at the time knew that he was a Jew. You harp on about this in a ridiculing manner, how ihs features could have been more Jewish on one occasion than another, but again, there are many possible explanations: he may have worn different clothes (e.g. a skullcap).
Or it may be that after the identification, the witness learned the man's name or his occupation or his ethnicity, through conversation with the police or when answering questions. Then you might object "But the police shouldn't let the witness learn any details about the suspect!" because that is standard procedure today and shown in many episodes of Law and Order and the like. But we're talking about an entirely different context here, it's certainly not impossible that the police either directly or indirectly informed the witness about various details of the suspect.


As Elamarna has pointed out, we don't know the exact sequence of events. We don't even know if the identification actually took place; many doubt this. But what gets people agitated here, in my opinion, is presenting personal analysis as fact, when it is in fact only a personal analysis of available sources. Just because you have made a brilliant analysis and come to a certain conclusion, it is not certain that others will agree. Therefore, it is very important to always write "I believe that..." or "In my opinion..." or "Isn't it the case that...", instead of simply writing "Anderson did this!" or "The Witness said that!".

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

We have no name, it's yet another unanswered question.
However, I did cover all of this in a talk on the 2021 Casebook online conference, it's here in the podcasts, with slides.

I really would not be too concerned with the witnesses compared to the supposed TODs
They seriously believed they could fix a time of death to within 10 or 20 minutes, that's still impossible today.

I see you have missed Schwartz, in my view he is the prime candidate for the witness , followed by a completely unnamed witness and then Joseph Hyam Levy.
You will not that Lawende is not in my top candidates.

But it's all speculation end of the day


Steve

I see you have missed Schwartz, in my view he is the prime candidate for the witness



I think you should explain why a semi-drunk anti-Semite is your candidate for the suspect.