Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”

[Elamarna]

That's right.

You can't.

You didn't even try.

I have, you just don't accept the comments.

Ping pong back and forth achieves nothing.
You simply cannot see that your "deductions" as you call them are not facts, they are simply personal interpretations, personal speculation. Nothing wrong with that, but it's still just an opinion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's a spiteful remark.

Wasn't it you who previously withdrew a remark about my 'rubbish theories'?

And you say I'm 'way too sensitive'?

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Are you prepared to withdraw your insinuation that I'm playing the victim?

Ive never mentioned rubbish theories PI. And by the way, that’s now twice that you’ve suggested that I’ve said something that I haven’t.

You are clearly too sensitive as you appear to be affronted in every post that you make. This is a forum. All of us get disagreed with. Neither you or I choose what’s acceptable or not.

[Elamarna]

I think that's a spiteful remark, especially as you must realise - because it's as plain as daylight - that the criticism made of me, that allegedly the witness had not described a sailor and I somehow dreamed this up - is demonstrably untrue, because the police record has survived and the witness did describe a sailor.

Now if you want to dispute that, you can 'go ahead'.

But I don't think you're going to do that because you don't want to make a complete fool of yourself.

How wrong you are on both counts

What he actually said according to Swanson was

"age 30 ht. 5 ft. 7 or 8 in. comp. fair fair moustache, medium built, dress pepper & salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap with peak of same colour, reddish handkerchief tied in a knot, round neck, appearance of a sailor."

So we can see that you added to this that the clothing was commonly worn by sailors and excluded the part about the reddish handkerchief.

While it says he had the appearance of a sailor, it does not say he was, not that the man seen was the killer.

That's your interpretation. nothing wrong with that, but it's still just an opinion.

You did not include Swansons views on Lawende and Schwartz to place it in context

‘I respectfully submit it is not clearly proved that the man that Schwartz saw is the murderer, although it is clearly the more probable of the two.’

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Was that in 1888 in Whitechapel ?

Quite possibly knowing Dave. See that little black and white chap next to his name? That's actually him. Back in his wild Uni days.

[DJA]

This forum is turning into a farce.

Very noticeable since September

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I cannot?
I suggest to paraphrase Dr Who, Forrest of the dead, you are on casebook, look me up.

Really you are so my not prepared to listen to any view but your own .

That's right.

You can't.

You didn't even try.

[Elamarna]

You haven't presented any argument to disprove anything I wrote above - and you cannot.

I think you just want to have the last word and that is why you replied!

I cannot?
I suggest to paraphrase Dr Who, Forrest of the dead, you are on casebook, look me up.

Really you are so my not prepared to listen to any view but your own .

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Another ‘victim.’

That's a spiteful remark.

Wasn't it you who previously withdrew a remark about my 'rubbish theories'?

And you say I'm 'way too sensitive'?

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Are you prepared to withdraw your insinuation that I'm playing the victim?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Joseph Lawende: I reside at No. 45, Norfolk-road, Dalston, and am a commercial traveller. On the night of Sept. 29, I was at the Imperial Club, Duke-street, together with Mr. Joseph Levy and Mr. Harry Harris. It was raining, and we sat in the club till half-past one o'clock, when we left. I observed a man and woman together at the corner of Church-passage, Duke-street, leading to Mitre-square.
The Coroner: Were they talking? - The woman was standing with her face towards the man, and I only saw her back. She had one hand on his breast. He was the taller. She had on a black jacket and bonnet. I have seen the articles at the police-station, and believe them to be those the deceased was wearing.
[Coroner] What sort of man was this? - He had on a cloth cap with a peak of the same.
Mr. Crawford: Unless the jury wish it, I do not think further particulars should be given as to the appearance of this man.
The Foreman: The jury do not desire it.
Mr. Crawford (to witness): You have given a description of the man to the police? - Yes.
[Coroner] Would you know him again? - I doubt it. The man and woman were about nine or ten feet away from me. I have no doubt it was half-past one o'clock when we rose to leave the club, so that it would be twenty-five minutes to two o'clock when we passed the man and woman.
[Coroner] Did you overhear anything that either said? - No.
[Coroner] Did either appear in an angry mood? - No.
[Coroner] Did anything about their movements attract your attention? - No. The man looked rather rough and shabby.
[Coroner] When the woman placed her hand on the man's breast, did she do it as if to push him away? - No; it was done very quietly.
[Coroner] You were not curious enough to look back and see where they went. - No.
Mr. Joseph Hyam Levy, the butcher in Hutcheson-street, Aldgate, stated: I was with the last witness at the Imperial Club on Saturday night, Sept. 29. We got up to leave at half-past one on Sunday morning, and came out three or four minutes later. I saw a man and woman standing at the corner of Church-passage, but I did not take any notice of them. I passed on, thinking they were up to no good at so late an hour.
[Coroner] What height was the man? - I should think he was three inches taller than the woman, who was, perhaps, 5ft high. I cannot give any further description of them. I went down Duke-street into Aldgate, leaving them still talking together.
By the Jury: The point in the passage where the man and woman were standing was not well lighted. On the contrary, I think it was badly lighted then, but the light is much better now.
By Mr. Crawford: Nothing in what I saw excited my suspicion as to the intentions of the man. I did not hear a word that he uttered to the woman.
[Coroner] Your fear was rather about yourself? - Not exactly. (Laughter.)

The court record in no way contradicts anything I have said.

Lawende did describe a sailor - a man with a fair moustache and the appearance of a sailor.

You will notice that Herlock Shomes omitted the fact that the reason the description of the suspect as a sailor was not given in court was that the coroner wanted it to be withheld.

Evidence is being cited extremely selectively on this forum in order to make it look as though I am making things up, when I have accurately reported what is in the police record.

Anyone can check my earliest posts and see that I described the clothing correctly - a pepper and salt coloured loose jacket - the colour of the moustache (blond) correctly and the general appearance correctly -a sailor.

In one post, I described the suspect as a Nordic sailor, to contrast him with Kosminski, who was an east-European Jew.

This forum is turning into a farce.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have no idea what your last sentence means.

It means that your suspect is a sailor, so you want the man to be a sailor.


You couldn’t really be more wrong on this point.


Actually, I couldn't be more right on this point because everything I've written is correct.

I don't know whether you are just being facetious or whether you really have never read the witness' description of the suspect.

The description as I gave it was entirely accurate.

Anyone can read the inquest record and see for themselves that the reason the witness' description of the suspect was not given in court was that the coroner asked him not to give it.

The coroner asked the witness whether it was correct that he had provided the police with a description.

Lawende confirmed that this was so.

And that description has survived.

The witness described a man of about 30, about five feet seven to five feet eight, with a fair moustache and a fair complexion, wearing a salt and pepper coloured loose jacket (which was commonly worn by sailors) and had the appearance of a sailor.

No problem with this of course. I’d forgotten about the holding back of the description.

Far from being wrong as you claim, I am actually completely right.

You cannot with any remote degree of certainty discern a man’s profession by his coat or his nationality from his hair colour. Especially from a distance and in poor lighting from a man who was paying very little attention and who said that he couldn’t have recognised the man again. Lighting also makes it difficult to distinguish colours.

And that is not an opinion; that is a fact.

There is something strange going on on this forum.

You are way too sensitive to being disagreed with.

You are not the only member here treating me like this, when I'm actually stating documented facts.

I wonder what the moderators think.
[PHP][/PHP]

You are not the only member here treating me like this

Another ‘victim.’

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The problem is that often the comments are NOT stating documented facts , merely your interpretation of them.

Once again I see you quick to threaten those who disagree with the content of your comments with moderators.

Go ahead.

I think that's a spiteful remark, especially as you must realise - because it's as plain as daylight - that the criticism made of me, that allegedly the witness had not described a sailor and I somehow dreamed this up - is demonstrably untrue, because the police record has survived and the witness did describe a sailor.

Now if you want to dispute that, you can 'go ahead'.

But I don't think you're going to do that because you don't want to make a complete fool of yourself.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

Was that in 1888 in Whitechapel ?

[Elamarna]

I have no idea what your last sentence means.


You couldn’t really be more wrong on this point.


Actually, I couldn't be more right on this point because everything I've written is correct.

I don't know whether you are just being facetious or whether you really have never read the witness' description of the suspect.

The description as I gave it was entirely accurate.

Anyone can read the inquest record and see for themselves that the reason the witness' description of the suspect was not given in court was that the coroner asked him not to give it.

The coroner asked the witness whether it was correct that he had provided the police with a description.

Lawende confirmed that this was so.

And that description has survived.

The witness described a man of about 30, about five feet seven to five feet eight, with a fair moustache and a fair complexion, wearing a salt and pepper coloured loose jacket (which was commonly worn by sailors) and had the appearance of a sailor.

Far from being wrong as you claim, I am actually completely right.

And that is not an opinion; that is a fact.

There is something strange going on on this forum.

You are not the only member here treating me like this, when I'm actually stating documented facts.

I wonder what the moderators think.

The problem is that often the comments are NOT stating documented facts , merely your interpretation of them.

I could quote Mrs Long, outside 29 hanbury, but it would merely extend this further.

Are you really suggesting I do NOT know the witness discriptions.

Seriously?

What I am seeing is confirmation bias, where EVERY statement, on any issue is interpreted to support one theory and dismiss all others.


Once again I see you threaten those who disagree with the content of your comments with moderators. How many times is it now?

Go ahead.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Is there any remaining hope that the private asylums would be researched oneday?! Even the late Fido had encouraged this step.


DT

People have looked, Jeff Lahey for one.

So far nothing


Steve

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Lawende said:

“…..the man was taller than she……He had on a cloth cap with a peak.” That’s it.

Nothing to indicate his age. Nothing to indicate that he was Nordic. Nothing to indicate that he was a sailor.

Not all Jews dress in a ‘Jewish’ way. And you can’t call someone a sailor just because they wear a peaked cap.

“The CORONER. – Would you know him again? – I doubt it.”

You couldn’t really be more wrong on this point. The fact that your suspect happens to be a sailor tends to hint at why.

I have no idea what your last sentence means.


You couldn’t really be more wrong on this point.


Actually, I couldn't be more right on this point because everything I've written is correct.

I don't know whether you are just being facetious or whether you really have never read the witness' description of the suspect.

The description as I gave it was entirely accurate.

Anyone can read the inquest record and see for themselves that the reason the witness' description of the suspect was not given in court was that the coroner asked him not to give it.

The coroner asked the witness whether it was correct that he had provided the police with a description.

Lawende confirmed that this was so.

And that description has survived.

The witness described a man of about 30, about five feet seven to five feet eight, with a fair moustache and a fair complexion, wearing a salt and pepper coloured loose jacket (which was commonly worn by sailors) and having the appearance of a sailor.

Far from being wrong as you claim, I am actually completely right.

And that is not an opinion; that is a fact.

There is something strange going on on this forum.

You are not the only member here treating me like this, when I'm actually stating documented facts.

I wonder what the moderators think.