Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”

[Abby Normal]

Thanks for the quote, it's a different page on kindle.

As I suspected it's the Grainger case Abby

It's simply a press report, so i suspect we will disagree on its significance.

It's dated 7th may 1895.
One issue is that is after Its being hinted that the killer is in an asylum and died.
Such seems to therefore suggest that while Lawende may have been used for some IDs he was not THE Witness.

Its been debated a number of times here and elsewhere, there is no consensus that it puts the matter to bed. For some it does i accept, for many it does not.



Steve

Hi El
Thanks! Of course its not established fact, but for myself Im satisfied that lawende was the seaside witness. The police seemed to think him reliable-He was at the inquest, could speak English and was used at another ID. None of which can be said of schwartz. The Pall mall snippet seals it for me.

However, I have not heard your podcast-can you point me in the right direction? Better yet-is there a transcript of the podcast so I can read?
I keep an open mind and have been swayed in the past.

Thanks El!

[DJA]

Someone else made a similar point - although more politely than you - that he had met two European Jews after the Second World War and they were not recognisably Jewish.

My post was ......

Absolute nonsense.

I grew up with post WW2 Jewish refugees,two whom rented rooms in our home.

One son,Thomas, was my best friend.

Only one,Mr Distelman,would meet your criteria.Lovely man who rode a motor bike.


My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account


In fact my family resided diagonally opposite an enormous mansion owned and run by Jews for refugee Jews of WW2.

Both my late mother and I have been employed by Jews.

Most would have no idea any were Jews,unless they told you.
That included Mr Distelman.

[The Baron]

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?



That's not a valid point.

Someone else made a similar point - although more politely than you - that he had met two European Jews after the Second World War and they were not recognisably Jewish.

I was referring to Whitechapel in 1888.

That is rather different from meeting, for example, an assimilated Jewish person from Berlin or Vienna in the 1940s.

it is also very different from meeting most Jewish people who live in London today.

By and large, the Jews in Whitechapel were from Poland and Imperial Russia and people knew who was Jewish and who wasn't.

There was a considerable difference between a Jewish tailor and a Jewish sailor.

The former was ubiquitous; the latter practically non-existent.

And that's a fact.

So answer these two questions:

-How a young jew in his 20s in 1888 looks like

-And how a sailor looks like

I want specific details that makes it impossible for anyone to mistake


TB

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I see

You asked whether I disputed that it was a fact that the well known antisemitic insult was yelled at Schwartz.
Yes I dispute that, for even Schwartz himself was unsure who it was directed at.

You now see no need to qualify your remark, because you have deduced what the evidence points to.
so, one last time before I leave you to it: it is not a fact. It is your understanding. Others can and will disagree.

I never said that everyone has to agree with me.

My contention - that Inspector Abberline was right and the use of the word 'Lipski' was anti-Jewish and that it was directed at Schwarz - is credible.

But suggesting - as one member did - that a religious Jew might have shouted a well-known anti-Semitic insult at a fellow-Jew is not credible.

[Kattrup]

And of course one might dispute whether it was really "well-known", since the significance had to be explained in the police correspondance, a sure sign that the receiver could not be expected to know about it. But certainly well-known in the East End.


It was so well-known in the East End that it was chalked on walls, and that is why Schwarz recognised it.

In the circumstances, it is reasonable, as Abberline did, to deduce that it was directed at Schwarz because of his Jewish appearance - which Abberline noted - and not at the other man, who was not of Jewish appearance.

I do not see the need to qualify my remarks in which I state that the man shouted an anti-Jewish insult at Schwarz - because that is what the evidence points to.

I see

You asked whether I disputed that it was a fact that the well known antisemitic insult was yelled at Schwartz.
Yes I dispute that, for even Schwartz himself was unsure who it was directed at.

You now see no need to qualify your remark, because you have deduced what the evidence points to.
so, one last time before I leave you to it: it is not a fact. It is your understanding. Others can and will disagree.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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

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?



That's not a valid point.

Someone else made a similar point - although more politely than you - that he had met two European Jews after the Second World War and they were not recognisably Jewish.

I was referring to Whitechapel in 1888.

That is rather different from meeting, for example, an assimilated Jewish person from Berlin or Vienna in the 1940s.

it is also very different from meeting most Jewish people who live in London today.

By and large, the Jews in Whitechapel were from Poland and Imperial Russia and people knew who was Jewish and who wasn't.

There was a considerable difference between a Jewish tailor and a Jewish sailor.

The former was ubiquitous; the latter practically non-existent.

And that's a fact.

[Elamarna]

The reason I said nearest the TOD is it was most likely or surely was JTR seen by Long and Lawende,even Brown.
Farther away like Gardner and Best the man they saw with Stride may not have been JTR,she may have seen another man.
If there was an unknown witness his sighting/info was that good? This is not on record other than Andersson,I doubt this.
Schwartz,the most important witness in the Stride murder,could only have been excluded from the inquest because of unreliability.So I exclude him, but I stop there.

It's clear from.internal.police documents, Swanson, Abberline and Anderson that they did not consider Schwartz unreliable.
And that is after the inquest is concluded.

So his exclusion remains a mystery

Steve

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Sorry, just realised I had the wrong Patricia - Cornwell, not Highsmith, of course.

Yes.

I see what you mean.

And I do agree with you.

[Elamarna]

Page 411of Sugdens book: from the Pall Mall Gazette-"There is one person whom the police beleive to have actually seen the WC murderer with a woman a few minutes before that womans dissected body was found in the street."

This was from the Grainger ID. The logical conclusion was that Lawende was used by the police several times-Sadler, Grainger and therefore Koz. It couldnt have been schwartz, since Stride wasnt "dissected".

All this points to Lawende as the seaside home ID witness.

Thanks for the quote, it's a different page on kindle.

As I suspected it's the Grainger case Abby

It's simply a press report, so i suspect we will disagree on its significance.

It's dated 7th may 1895.
One issue is that is after Its being hinted that the killer is in an asylum and died.
Such seems to therefore suggest that while Lawende may have been used for some IDs he was not THE Witness.

Its been debated a number of times here and elsewhere, there is no consensus that it puts the matter to bed. For some it does i accept, for many it does not.



Steve

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I have not suggested he is a religious Jew at all. Only that he may have worn tradition Jewish clothing.

It is you who several times as described him as being religious.

Your statement clearly implied if he had been to a service, that being drunk and looking for a prostitute was not in keeping with his being a religious jew and thus he CANNOT be Jewish. Those are simply your beliefs.

You ignore that he may not have been looking for a prostitute, but instead going to his brothers home.

You ignore that he may not have actually been drunk at all.

The suspect is NOT obviously a gentile, and I have not said he was particularly religious at any point.

That you resort to personal attacks sadly is what I expected.

I can see you have a sense of humour.

After everything you've written about me, you accuse me of resorting to a personal attack!

[Elamarna]

Again assumption after assumption, it really is tediously boring .

Who says he had just come from a sabbath service?

The Jewish Sabbath runs from Sundown on Friday til Sundown on Saturday.
Schwartz sees an attack around 00.45.

You are assuming he had come from a service.


I didn't assume he had come from a service.

You're the one who has suggested he was a religious Jew.

I wrote:

You've suggested that a religious Jew, who wore a skullcap and fringes for a police identification, could have - after attending the Sabbath night service - got partially drunk, gone to find a prostitute, attacked her, and then shouted what was known as an anti-Jewish insult at a Jewish man passing by, who was of Jewish appearance (except, incredibly, the man shouting the insult wasn't of Jewish appearance).


I used the word COULD.

I didn't say he had attended a service.

That was your assumption.

I said that since you suggest he was a religious Jew, he could have attended a service.

And that is a reasonable deduction from your suggestion that he wore a skullcap and fringes.


As for the timing of the service, since you make yourself out to be so knowledgeable about Jewish customs, you ought to know that the evening service on Saturday night is usually held late and followed by a traditional meal in the synagogue itself.

But in any case, I didn't say that he would have gone to Berner Street STRAIGHT from synagogue.

That was your assumption.

You keep claiming that I'm making assumptions but you just never stop making them yourself!




You started this by your ridiculous suggestion that a man who was obviously a gentile and an anti-Semite was actually a religious Jew.

As I wrote:

You've suggested that a religious Jew, who wore a skullcap and fringes for a police identification, could have - after attending the Sabbath night service - got partially drunk, gone to find a prostitute, attacked her, and then shouted what was known as an anti-Jewish insult at a Jewish man passing by, who was of Jewish appearance (except, incredibly, the man shouting the insult wasn't of Jewish appearance).


You really don't know what you're talking about.

I have not suggested he is a religious Jew at all. Only that he may have worn tradition Jewish clothing.

It is you who several times as described him as being religious.

Your statement clearly implied if he had been to a service, that being drunk and looking for a prostitute was not in keeping with his being a religious jew and thus he CANNOT be Jewish. Those are simply your beliefs.

You ignore that he may not have been looking for a prostitute, but instead going to his brothers home.

You ignore that he may not have actually been drunk at all.

The suspect is NOT obviously a gentile, and I have not said he was particularly religious at any point.

That you resort to personal attacks sadly is what I expected.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I am disputing that it is a fact that it was meant as an insult. That is unknown.

I am disputing that it is a fact that it was shouted at Schwarz. That is unknown.


The reason for that is that the police at the time stated as a possibility that it was shouted at the other man present (Pipeman), and might have been a name, nickname or similar, and Schwartz himself was uncertain whether it had been shouted at him or not
(my bolding)

And of course one might dispute whether it was really "well-known", since the significance had to be explained in the police correspondance, a sure sign that the receiver could not be expected to know about it. But certainly well-known in the East End.

And of course one might dispute whether it was really "well-known", since the significance had to be explained in the police correspondance, a sure sign that the receiver could not be expected to know about it. But certainly well-known in the East End.


It was so well-known in the East End that it was chalked on walls, and that is why Schwarz recognised it.

In the circumstances, it is reasonable, as Abberline did, to deduce that it was directed at Schwarz because of his Jewish appearance - which Abberline noted - and not at the other man, who was not of Jewish appearance.

I do not see the need to qualify my remarks in which I state that the man shouted an anti-Jewish insult at Schwarz - because that is what the evidence points to.

[Varqm]

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

The reason I said nearest the TOD is it was most likely or surely was JTR seen by Long and Lawende,even Brown.
Farther away like Gardner and Best the man they saw with Stride may not have been JTR,she may have seen another man.
If there was an unknown witness his sighting/info was that good? This is not on record other than Andersson,I doubt this.
Schwartz,the most important witness in the Stride murder,could only have been excluded from the inquest because of unreliability.So I exclude him, but I stop there.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Page 411of Sugdens book: from the Pall Mall Gazette-"There is one person whom the police beleive to have actually seen the WC murderer with a woman a few minutes before that womans dissected body was found in the street."

This was from the Grainger ID. The logical conclusion was that Lawende was used by the police several times-Sadler, Grainger and therefore Koz. It couldnt have been schwartz, since Stride wasnt "dissected".

All this points to Lawende as the seaside home ID witness.

Lawende said he would not be able to identify the man if he saw him again.

Lawende had given evidence for the prosecution at the trial of a Jewish man for murder in 1876.

We're being asked to believe that not only did he identify the man at the Seaside Home but that he refused to testify against him.

That is not credible - and that's a fact.

[Abby Normal]

Not that I recall Abby, so I just reread the relevant section in Sugden. The kindle version.
I can see no mention of that.
The closest seems to be a suggestion that Macnaughten mixed up Lawende and a city constable.
If others can provide the source great.

And of course if it's simply a press report, that itself may well just be speculation.

Unless of course you are refering to the press reports that Lawende was used to attempt to identify a suspect sometime after Coles and failed. These reports have themselves been debated often, with no real conclusion or consensus reached.

If Sugden had done that conclusively I doubt we would still be debating it.


Steve

Page 411of Sugdens book: from the Pall Mall Gazette-"There is one person whom the police beleive to have actually seen the WC murderer with a woman a few minutes before that womans dissected body was found in the street."

This was from the Grainger ID. The logical conclusion was that Lawende was used by the police several times-Sadler, Grainger and therefore Koz. It couldnt have been schwartz, since Stride wasnt "dissected".

All this points to Lawende as the seaside home ID witness.