Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi El
Didnt Sugden put to bed the issue once and for all whether it was schwartz or lawende who was the seaside witness when he found a news article that reported the ID witness was the one that was involved with the murder of a woman who was found "eviscerated in the street"?

Of course the reasoning being, Stride (schwartz witness) wasnt eviscerated, only had her throat cut, whereas Eddowes was-so the seaside witness must be Lawende.

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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

You continually mention being partially drunk, as if that precludes the suspect being Jewish. But you fail to explain how.

I have not yet even questioned the claim of his being drunk itself.

There is no mention of it in police report, and the Star report only says

"As he turned the corner from Commercial Road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated."

Once again you present a possibility as a fact.

Now you suggest that he would not be looking for a prostitute. That is of course another assumption on you part.
However, Who says the suspect is looking for a prostitute, only you.
Maybe rather than looking for a lady, he's simply heading to his brother Woolfs home a few yards away in providence street.

Who as ever said that the suspect did not speak Yiddish?
I suggested that they could have communicated in English or Yiddish and the witness COULD have initiated any conversation . Why do you misrepresent .

The witness sees the killers face for a few seconds, hears one word, while he is clearly worried for his own safety , and you suggest he could tell the nationality and religion of a man in that situation. unrealistic.

As for its clear from his statement and Abberline that the suspect was English , with all respect, IT'S NOT.
That your opinion.

With regards to the last point, I merely presented a possibility for use of words in a different context .
A possibility, rather than a fact.

Can I prove, such occurred in the Jewish community in 1888?

I can not, but neither can you prove it was not.

Can I ask what you believe this somewhat pointless exchange is achieving?

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.

[rjpalmer]

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

Yes, let's not drag the Talented Mrs. Highsmith into this!

Or was Ripley a code for Ripper?

[Elamarna]

Steve, my friend!

I do not know whether you have ever considered the following:

Assumed that Cox and several other officers were watching "Kosminski".

Henry Cox (City Police):

"I shall never forget one occasion when I had to shadow our man during one of his late walks. As I watched him from the house opposite one night, it suddenly struck me that there was a wilder look than usual on his evil countenance...He made his way down to St George's in the East End, and there to my astonishment I saw him stop and speak to a drunken woman... Not far from where the model lodging house stands he met another woman, and for a considerable distance he walked along with her...Just as I was beginning to prepare myself for a terrible ordeal, however, he pushed her away from him and set off at a rapid pace..."

Anderson:

"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"

It seems to me that the witness did recognize the suspect while looking into the person's face. A evil countenance with a wilder look than usual? The same face he had seen at one of the crime scenes? The same face Cox had seen on one occasion?

It is possible that "Kosminski´s" face bore the signs of a "evil countenance" and it is possible that it looked wilder than usual (at the Seaside Home) "when he had been sent by us with difficulty". A scenario like this could explain the phrase "unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him".

These trains of thought do not fit what Schwartz and Lawende did describe I guess.

I would not rule out that the witness had the opportunity, on two occasions, to look at an angry "Kosminski" whose face was (probably) not easy to forget.

Karsten.

Anything is possible. Don't know if you heard my talk last year, but I give my reasoning for Schwartz, honestly I.prefer Levy over Lawende
Hope you are well.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Hi El
Didnt Sugden put to bed the issue once and for all whether it was schwartz or lawende who was the seaside witness when he found a news article that reported the ID witness was the one that was involved with the murder of a woman who was found "eviscerated in the street"

Of course the reasoning being, Stride (schwartz witness) wasnt eviscerated, only had her throat cut, whereas Eddowes was-so the seaside witness must be Lawende.

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

[Elamarna]

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).


If I remember correctly, you suggested that the witness could have discerned that the suspect at the Seaside Home was Jewish, even if the suspect did not speak Yiddish but English.

Has it occurred to you that Schwartz could have discerned whether the man he saw in Berner St was English or Polish by the way he spoke?

There is a big difference between the way that an Englishman or a Polish person would say 'Lipski' because both the letter i's would be pronounced differently.

Schwartz did not say that the man was a foreigner.

It is obvious from his statement as well as Abberline's remarks about the case that the man was British.


You write:

In some racial groups, say afro Caribbean, it's not uncommon to refer to another of the same grouping by a term that otherwise would be considered a racist slur.


Can you produce any evidence that Jews in Whitechapel in 1888 used anti-Semitic insults against one another?


&#8

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. Sunday morning.

You are assuming he had come from a service.

You continually mention being partially drunk, as if that precludes the suspect being Jewish. But you fail to explain how.

I have not yet even questioned the claim of his being drunk itself.

There is no mention of it in police report, and the Star report only says

"As he turned the corner from Commercial Road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated."

Once again you present a possibility as a fact.

Now you suggest that he would not be looking for a prostitute. That is of course another assumption on you part.
However, Who says the suspect is looking for a prostitute, only you.
Maybe rather than looking for a lady, he's simply heading to his brother Woolfs home a few yards away in providence street.

Who as ever said that the suspect did not speak Yiddish?
I suggested that they could have communicated in English or Yiddish and the witness COULD have initiated any conversation . Why do you misrepresent .

The witness sees the killers face for a few seconds, hears one word, while he is clearly worried for his own safety , and you suggest he could tell the nationality and religion of a man in that situation. unrealistic.

As for its clear from his statement and Abberline that the suspect was English , with all respect, IT'S NOT.
That your opinion.

With regards to the last point, I merely presented a possibility for use of words in a different context .
A possibility, rather than a fact.

Can I prove, such occurred in the Jewish community in 1888?

I can not, but neither can you prove it was not.

Can I ask what you believe this somewhat pointless exchange is achieving?

[Abby Normal]

Why does being semi drunk, as you put it exclude a suspect.
I believe it was Reid who said he believed the killer frequented local pubs and drank.

In addition of all the known Witnesses only Schwartz witnesses a woman actually being attacked.


My reasons for going with Schwartz are well documented in the podcasts section of this site. Why not listen to it?

Hi El
Didnt Sugden put to bed the issue once and for all whether it was schwartz or lawende who was the seaside witness when he found a news article that reported the ID witness was the one that was involved with the murder of a woman who was found "eviscerated in the street"?

Of course the reasoning being, Stride (schwartz witness) wasnt eviscerated, only had her throat cut, whereas Eddowes was-so the seaside witness must be Lawende.

[S.Brett]

Steve, my friend!

I do not know whether you have ever considered the following:

Assumed that Cox and several other officers were watching "Kosminski".

Henry Cox (City Police):

"I shall never forget one occasion when I had to shadow our man during one of his late walks. As I watched him from the house opposite one night, it suddenly struck me that there was a wilder look than usual on his evil countenance...He made his way down to St George's in the East End, and there to my astonishment I saw him stop and speak to a drunken woman... Not far from where the model lodging house stands he met another woman, and for a considerable distance he walked along with her...Just as I was beginning to prepare myself for a terrible ordeal, however, he pushed her away from him and set off at a rapid pace..."

Anderson:

"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"

It seems to me that the witness did recognize the suspect while looking into the person's face. A evil countenance with a wilder look than usual? The same face he had seen at one of the crime scenes? The same face Cox had seen on one occasion?

It is possible that "Kosminski´s" face bore the signs of a "evil countenance" and it is possible that it looked wilder than usual (at the Seaside Home) "when he had been sent by us with difficulty". A scenario like this could explain the phrase "unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him".

These trains of thought do not fit what Schwartz and Lawende did describe I guess.

I would not rule out that the witness had the opportunity, on two occasions, to look at an angry "Kosminski" whose face was (probably) not easy to forget.

Karsten.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Yes of course, there is no contradiction.

You seem to think having a few drinks precludes the suspect from being Jewish.
Where does that come from?

With regards to being anti-Semitic, that's YOUR interpretation and one many share buy it's still interpretation .

In some racial groups, say afro Caribbean, it's not uncommon to refer to another of the same grouping by a term that otherwise would be considered a racist slur.

And there is the issue of if it was actually Lipski that was said, or something similar sounding.
I have suggested this several times, again I suggest you look me up. And I am not the only one to make that suggestion.

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).


If I remember correctly, you suggested that the witness could have discerned that the suspect at the Seaside Home was Jewish, even if the suspect did not speak Yiddish but English.

Has it occurred to you that Schwartz could have discerned whether the man he saw in Berner St was English or Polish by the way he spoke?

There is a big difference between the way that an Englishman or a Polish person would say 'Lipski' because both the letter i's would be pronounced differently.

Schwartz did not say that the man was a foreigner.

It is obvious from his statement as well as Abberline's remarks about the case that the man was British.


You write:

In some racial groups, say afro Caribbean, it's not uncommon to refer to another of the same grouping by a term that otherwise would be considered a racist slur.


Can you produce any evidence that Jews in Whitechapel in 1888 used anti-Semitic insults against one another?

[Kattrup]

And your appeal to reputable newspapers and publishers as authority falters when one considers the many ridiculous theories being written about and published - look for articles about the Maybrick Diary, or Trevor Marriot's, Edward Stow's, Christer Holmgren's, Patricia Highsmith's, Hallie Rubenhold's work and many many other "researchers" who present some fanciful notion about JtR and gets some attention. Newspapers and publishers, even reputable ones, are for-profit.

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

[Kattrup]

The man shouted a well-known anti-Jewish insult at Schwarz, who was of Jewish appearance.

I am stating that as fact.

Are you still disputing that it is a fact?

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

the man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski' & then Schwartz walked away

(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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Ok, thanks for the reply.

The point, whether serious or not, was to illustrate that we do not know when or how the witness became aware that the suspect was Jewish. It could have happened in many ways. We do not know. You repeatedly stating that of course the witness would have know instantly does not make it a fact. You may believe that the witness would have known, and you may have good reasons for that belief, but others may disagree. Since we do not know.

And your appeal to reputable newspapers and publishers as authority falters when one considers the many ridiculous theories being written about and published - look for articles about the Maybrick Diary, or Trevor Marriot's, Edward Stow's, Christer Holmgren's, Patricia Highsmith's, Hallie Rubenhold's work and many many other "researchers" who present some fanciful notion about JtR and gets some attention. Newspapers and publishers, even reputable ones, are for-profit.

You're also stating as a fact that Schwarz' suspect was a semidrunk and an antisemite. And as has been pointed out, Lawende's suspect did not dress as a sailor, he had the appearance of one. There is a difference.

The point, again, is that some of your claims are not unreasonable, but your presentation of them, in my opinion, is. You could very easily say "I think Lawende meant the man dressed as a sailor" and you could present your reasoning and no-one would find that unreasonable. But stating as a fact that the man dressed as a sailor is just wrong.

i think your second paragraph has merit.

You're also stating as a fact that Schwarz' suspect was a semidrunk and an antisemite


Let me put it this way: Schwarz said that the man was inebriated, which men who attacked women often were.

So far I haven't heard anyone say that we don't know for a fact that Schwartz actually saw anyone, that it's just a supposition, an assumption, or someone's view.

Why is that?

If it's not a fact that Schwarz saw anyone, then how could he have seen Kosminski?

The man shouted a well-known anti-Jewish insult at Schwarz, who was of Jewish appearance.

I am stating that as fact.

Are you still disputing that it is a fact?

[DJA]

A little research would show that Messirah , a religious Law, which forbade a jew giving a fellow jew up to gentile justice. While not greatly practiced by the older established Jewish community, it certainly was by those new comers from eastern Europe.

Especially after the pogroms of 1881 onward.

[Elamarna]

Suggesting that the suspect may have worn a skullcap at the Seaside Home is not a serious point - and I know it was not you who originally made it.

It is not reasonable to suggest that either of those suspects would have worn a skullcap or religious fringes at a police identification.

It is fanciful and, in fact, laughable.

If anyone disputes that, I suggest he try and get it published by a reputable newspaper or publisher and see what happens.

Sorry but neither of those suggestions are fanciful or laughable.

There is no logical reason to reject either, certainly there is no reason based on evidence to do so.

Once again, you somehow think that you opinion on an issue is conclusive and definitive.

[Elamarna]

It's not just 'my interpretation'.

Inspector Reid and Sir Henry Smith both condemned Anderson's remarks.

Are you saying that his remarks

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.

were not actually prejudiced and that it's just my interpretation?

Are you saying that when I wrote that Abberline noted that Lipski was an anti-Jewish term of abuse, that's just my interpretation?

Are you saying that my remark that 'Lipski' was an anti-Jewish term of abuse, that is just my interpretation?

Are you saying that when I say Inspector Reid condemned Anderson's remarks, that is just my interpretation?

I think you should answer.

You appear to imply I will not answer, or you suspect I won't. Sorry but I will.

With regards to lipski, I suggest you read my previous post.

The word is debated by some, and the context must be looked at.


On the quote you gave, that is your interpretation.
A little research would show that Messirah , a religious Law, which forbade a jew giving a fellow jew up to gentile justice. While not greatly practiced by the older established Jewish community, it certainly was by those new comers from eastern and central Europe.

That is not opinion, that is well documented in many books and websites which deal with the Jewish religion and immigration in the late 19th century.

Reid, who was not involved in the the entire investigation you mean?
His opinions on any officer, are just that his opinions.
In work we all have opinions on colleagues, most of those are coloured by person bais.