Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”

[DJA]

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 Baron]

In Swanson, Adam Wood suggested a home close to Dover.
Many still favour Hove, some have suggested a private residence.

We really are no further advanced than 10 years ago Abby.

Hi Steve,

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


DT

[Herlock Sholmes]

He described a 30-year old nordic sailor, not an east-European religious Jew.

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.

[DJA]

Nowadays, it is not so clear, but in the East End of London, it was quite clear from people's appearances who was Jewish and who was not.

That is an historical fact.

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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Wrong on just about every point.. But sadly blinded to that.

Assumption after assumption presented as fact.

And they ARE your opinions not facts, that you don't see that is very worring.
No point debating with those with closed minds.

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!

[Elamarna]

he was at home with his wife and children



Sometimes I say, 'he can reasonably be assumed to have been at home with his wife and nine children,' but I don't see the need to do that every time.



You say the witness was fantasy


I do, because in not one of the five murders did a Jewish witness see a Jewish suspect.




You claim Lawende describes a gentile.


That is quite obvious.

He described a 30-year old nordic sailor, not an east-European religious Jew.



That you don't even consider Schwartz, or an unnamed witness even is astounding.


I dealt with Schwarz.

Schwarz described a 30-year-old, broad-shouldered, half-drunk thug who shouted an anti-Jewish insult.
Kosminski was 23, thin, was religious, and Jewish.

If you think Schwarz was describing Kosminski, you are wrong.

And that is a fact.


I do not consider an unnamed witness because there is no such witness.

Nowhere in the inquest testimony or police files or newspaper reports is there any mention of a Jewish witness having seen a Jewish suspect in any of the five murder cases.



These are simply your opinion.


They are not just my opinions.

It is quite obvious that Schwarz and Lawende described gentiles and could not possibly have been describing Kosminski.

Nowadays, it is not so clear, but in the East End of London, it was quite clear from people's appearances who was Jewish and who was not.

That is an historical fact.

Wrong on just about every point.. But sadly blinded to that.

Assumption after assumption presented as fact.

And they ARE your opinions not facts, that you don't see that is very worring.
No point debating with those with closed minds.

[Aethelwulf]

He described a 30-year old nordic sailor, not an east-European religious Jew.

what are you on about?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That is no loss to me.

With regards to mentioning old research, you appear to miss the point that new research often shows old views are flawed.

You continue make definitive statements such as

he was at home with his wife and children

Or
You say the witness was fantasy

Or
You claim Lawende describes a gentile.

Or

If Lawende was not the witness there was no witness.

That you don't even consider Schwartz, or an unnamed witness even is astounding.

These are simply your opinion.

Goodbye

he was at home with his wife and children



Sometimes I say, 'he can reasonably be assumed to have been at home with his wife and nine children,' but I don't see the need to do that every time.



You say the witness was fantasy


I do, because in not one of the five murders did a Jewish witness see a Jewish suspect.




You claim Lawende describes a gentile.


That is quite obvious.

He described a 30-year old nordic sailor, not an east-European religious Jew.



That you don't even consider Schwartz, or an unnamed witness even is astounding.


I dealt with Schwarz.

Schwarz described a 30-year-old, broad-shouldered, half-drunk thug who shouted an anti-Jewish insult.
Kosminski was 23, thin, was religious, and Jewish.

If you think Schwarz was describing Kosminski, you are wrong.

And that is a fact.


I do not consider an unnamed witness because there is no such witness.

Nowhere in the inquest testimony or police files or newspaper reports is there any mention of a Jewish witness having seen a Jewish suspect in any of the five murder cases.



These are simply your opinion.


They are not just my opinions.

It is quite obvious that Schwarz and Lawende described gentiles and could not possibly have been describing Kosminski.

Nowadays, it is not so clear, but in the East End of London, it was quite clear from people's appearances who was Jewish and who was not.

That is an historical fact.

[Abby Normal]

I haven't regarded Koz as high on my list of possibles either, but on the basis of your, and Steve's, comments I have just ordered Rob House's book. I look forward to reading it.

Cheers, George

good choice George-you wont be disappointed. One of the best "suspect" books out there.

[DJA]

My recollection is that Schwarz said he couldn't tell whether the insult was directed at him or at the pipe smoking man.

Abberline was obviously right, because the pipe smoking man did not look Jewish.

As Abberline was well aware, Lipski was an anti-Semitic term of abuse, referring to the strange case of a Jewish man who confessed to having committed a bizarre murder, his confession coming at the very moment that the Home Secretary was agonising over whether to grant a last minute pardon.

Pipe smoker was probably Louis Hagens having a knock off smoke after closing the Nelson.

He was a 57 year old German born Jew.

[Abby Normal]

In Swanson, Adam Wood suggested a home close to Dover.
Many still favour Hove, some have suggested a private residence.

We really are no further advanced than 10 years ago Abby.

oh-OK thanks El!!

[Elamarna]

nobody even tried to answer this? You know-the title and supposed purpose of the thread? I guess everybody just wants to argue about Koz lol

In Swanson, Adam Wood suggested a home close to Dover.
Many still favour Hove, some have suggested a private residence.

We really are no further advanced than 10 years ago Abby.

[DJA]

I agree Pointius2000 that the graffiti could have been pro-jewish.We just do not know the context.
It is speculation it was anti-jewish.

GSG was not anti-Jewish.

[Abby Normal]

are we any closer to identifying where and what the seaside home was? If not whats the prevailing consensus?

nobody even tried to answer this? You know-the title and supposed purpose of the thread? I guess everybody just wants to argue about Koz lol

[Elamarna]

I can hardly believe that you wrote that.

What you've written is full of inaccuracies, exaggerations, and quite unfounded criticisms.


(1) One of the problems which is clear now, is you are quoting and I assume relying on very old articles and research.


That is, I suggest, a gratuitous condescension.

There isn't a 'problem'.

We aren't at school and you aren't my headmaster.

I cited the article by Evans, in which he identifies the witness as Lawende.

The fact that the article is old is irrelevant.

It's not as though since he wrote the article a file has been found at Scotland Yard, telling us who the witness was!



(2) You have not heard of Messirah, and it's possible significance, thats fine, look it up.


Again, the usual condescension.

I've received other comments like, 'if you had read that' or 'if you had bothered to read...'

Anyone can say things like that if they insist on being condescending.

I did look it up using Google Search without any results.

Another member made a joke about Monty Python and the Messiah.

If he has confused that with Messirah, then maybe you should be telling him to look it up.

But you don't.

I know what the Messiah is.

I don't know what you mean and since you don't tell me what you mean, you are not in a position to tell me to do anything.



(3) We have a press report which clearly quotes the words spoken in court, I have not assumed that or deducted it.
It clearly says AK was speaking English.
That you reject that, because it does not fit your narrative. That's poor history.



That is not a fair comment.
The press report does not say 'AK was speaking English'.
If AK was speaking Yiddish - as he is reported to have done exclusively in the asylum - then you would not expect to see the Yiddish original in the court transcript; you would expect only to see the translation.

The fact that his evidence appears in English does not in itself prove that his evidence was given in English and you know that.


(4) You are fixed on the view that Lawende must be the witness, many disagree.
Again it's clear you are not aware of up to date or alternative views.

Your statement is very misleading.
I was quite clear that the witness did not exist.
What I said is that if Lawende was not the witness - which he evidently was not - then there was no witness.


(5) That it's proven beyond reasonable doubt that the man seen by Lawende could not be Aaron Kosminski.
Sorry but that's just your view.

It's not just my view.

Lawende described a gentile.
He did not say that the person looked Jewish.
He did not say that the person dressed like a religious Jew.
He described a man with blond hair.
He said he had the appearance of a sailor.
He said he was aged about 30, a full seven years older than Kosminski, who had recently turned 23.

You cannot seriously be suggesting that Kosminski looked seven years older than he did, had blond hair and dressed like a sailor.

You yourself rely on the press report to prove that Kosminski had a working knowledge of English.
You know from the content of that press report that Kosminski was religious.
You also say that you've read books about the Jewish community in the East End.
In that case, you know that religious Jews did not dress like sailors.

You are talking nonsense and the fact that you're an author doesn't change that.



(6) The same is true of your suggestions about the direction the killer is heading from Goulston Street, you have made your mind up, and no view other than yours is realistic.


That's not true.

If you insist, I'll go through all my posted comments and I will quote you the post in which I mentioned the fact that there are other views about the exit taken by the murderer.

A better idea might be for you to 'look it up' and, after reading it, apologise.

You are just trying to make me look narrowminded and it's unfounded.



(7) Your view, which I agree you accepted was flawed, that it was 1 1/3 miles from Miller's Court to Pickfords, demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the locations and of the methods of measuring.

That is a gratuitous put-down.

There was no need for you to write it and you know it.

I made a mistake based on measurements given by
Google.

Believe it or not, making mistakes is human and forgivable.



(8) You claim that Lechmere was not working on the day of the Kelly murder, because you believe it was a public holiday, but have you actually checked the records?

The usual condescension from you.

I posted a comment here recently on this very subject.

Since you have advised me to look up things, I suggest you look it up.

You will see that in mentioning this issue, I did not say that it definitely was a public holiday.



(9) Few serious researchers are going to take any notice of this type of approach to the study of the murders.


Is that a fact?

Or is that your opinion?

For someone who objects to my making statements of opinion without qualifying them by saying that that doesn't mean they're actually facts, it can hardly be said that you apply the same principle to your own writing.

Why do you state as a fact something that is obviously your opinion?


In short, your post is nothing but an exercise in condescension and should be treated as such.

If you continue to write to me in this vein, you may as well know that I will not be replying in future.

That is no loss to me.

With regards to mentioning old research, you appear to miss the point that new research often shows old views are flawed.

You continue make definitive statements such as

he was at home with his wife and children

Or
You say the witness was fantasy

Or
You claim Lawende describes a gentile.

Or

If Lawende was not the witness there was no witness.

That you don't even consider Schwartz, or an unnamed witness even is astounding.

These are simply your opinion.

Goodbye