Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”

[Pontius2000]

[LIST=1]

I didn't!

I have said that if the man seen by Schwarz was the killer - which I am sure he was not - then the murderer could not have been Jewish.

I have also said that the writing on the wall is strong evidence that the murderer was not Jewish.

I've also said the only description we have of the murderer was of a gentile.

I too doubt that Schwartz was the witness who made the identification at the seaside home. But I’m not sure how you presume that if Schwartz wasn’t the witness, the killer couldn’t have been a Jew.

the graffiti isn’t strong evidence f anything unles we know what exactly the writer meant by it. It could be taken either as anti-Jew or pro-Jew depending on how it’s interpreted. Limited by what we know, it’s not strong evidence either way.

[LIST=1]
My view evidently is not absurd, because it was shared by Inspector Reid and the City of London Police Commissioner.

So 2 police officials who spoke against Anderson’s is evidence against him, as opposed to the horde of police officials who didn’t speak out to disagree with his opinion?

[LIST=1]
I cannot accept his or Swanson's stories about the Jewish suspect/Kosminski and the alleged Jewish witness because they are not believable.

The story of the reluctant Jewish witness is obviously a fable, which with its telling became embellished.

The witness did not exist.

I’ve yet to see you give any reasonable explanation as to how to not believable. So you deny that such things happen even today?

and I the witness didn’t exist and the identification didn’t happen, why would Swanson write about it in the margins or of a book that was not meant for anyone else’s eyes.

[LIST=1]
There were only two Jewish witnesses: Schwarz and Lawende.

and Levy, who it was suggested right from the beginning knew more than he was saying. A reluctant witness, hmmm.. not to mention any other witness who now may be lost to history.

[LIST=1]
Schwarz did not see the murderer, and try as Abberline could to find the man seen by Schwarz, he could not.

We keep hearing about how Swanson knew more than Abberline, but Swanson didn't interview Schwarz, and Abberline said the murderer was never identified, and so did Anderson.

I would find it hard to believe JtR would openly attack a woman in the open street in front of witnesses, so I doubt that Schwartz so him either. That said, we don’t know that for fact.

[LIST=1]
We hear that Abberline said Kłosowski was the murderer.

Kłosowski was not Kosminski.

As I have pointed out, Kłosowski was not Jewish.

You said it doesn't matter whether he was Jewish.

It certainly does - because if he was the suspect, then why would a Jewish witness not be prepared to testify against him?

I don’t even know what this is supposed to mean. No one has ever suggested that Chapman was put into any kind of identification parade as a JtR suspect. He was already apparently condemned before he became a “suspect”.

[LIST=1]
Schwarz could not have been the witness because the man he saw could not have been Kosminski because he was an anti-Semite.

We’ve already somewhat agreed that the person Schwartz saw was probably not JtR. But we have no earthly idea what the “Lipski” comment even meant. Unlike the wrong assertion that Kosminski couldn’t speak English, we do know that Schwartz barely could. So he himself probably didn’t know what the comment meant either.

[LIST=1]
So what are we left with?

A witness who was made up.

right, a witness that Swanson wrote about in a book meant for his eyes only. Logical.

[LIST=1]
If I'm the only person to point out to you that what you're saying are not 'facts', then I would like to know why!

Please do tell me when the police got hot on the trail of Kosminski!

by September 1889, 3 suspects were being followed by police. None are named, but one pretty well perfectly matches the description of Jacob Levy. As Kosminski was later specifically mentioned by name by both McNaghten and Swanson, it would stand to decent reasoning that another of the 3 was Kosminski.

[LIST=1]
The only mention of Kosminski in the police files at Scotland Yard is from more than five years after the murders ended.

you’re saying his name isn’t mentioned in present police files, or the roughly 90%-95% f the original file that is now missing and gone forever, including the entire suspect files?


soon after the murder of Mary Kelly, police got “hot on the trail” of certain suspects... It would go almost without saying that one of these suspects was Kosminski ... after police got hot on trail of suspect/suspects, the blitz style murder and disembowellments of east end prostitutes abruptly ended.

[LIST=1]
Where is the evidence?

I don’t even understand what you’re asking here. Are you suggesting that I have the original Scotland Yard file, or are you suggesting that the file has been pilfered through so therefore Kosminski’s name was never in it? I mean, you do understand that the vast majority of original file, including the entire suspect files have now been gone for 60 years or more, right?

[LIST=1]
And no more murders took place after July 1890?

As you Americans like to say: BIG DEAL!

No more JtR-style murders took place in the east end after Nov 1888. And that certainly is a big deal, unless you can offer some kind of reasonable argument as to why he stopped killing.

[Pontius2000]

Who said he was lying?

Remember what the late Paddy Ashdown said about Tony Blair: he believed what he said at the time that he was saying it.

YOU said he was lying. You said he and Anderson concocted the witness and therefore the identification process with Kosminski never took place, and seem to be questioning whether Kosminski was ever a suspect at all.

so yes, that does beg the question that Scott Nelson and I both asked in our last posts….why would he write a lie in the margin of a copy a book that was never meant for anyone else’s eyes but his own?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

We will disagree as to why he was critised for a start.

Churchill is giving a warning shot, Anderson knew far too much about events in Ireland.
By critising in the house, Churchill exercise parliamentary privilege, he could say anything liked with no legal comeback.

Why would you assume the witness would be identified by Anderson or Swanson?
Or do you mean identified today?

As for your statement the witness COULD NOT BE Schwartz or Lawende that's just your opinion PI1, no more no less.

The witness mat not have initially realised the suspect was Jewish.



Are you aware that Messirah was very actively practiced amongst new arrivals from the east.
And of course the editor of the largely anglised Jewish chronicle was going to deny such existed. The issues between The old established Jewish community and the new comers was large.

The witness saw him eating out of the gutter?

Seriously that's pure ..... well I dont to be rude.

The witness got a view of the killer, and the identification would have lead to conviction, that what is said.

Such would mean that he saw something that would leave no doubt probably an attack on a victim.

I assume you have not listen to the podcast from last year's Casebook online conference?

One further point, you are attempting to extrapolate the comments by Jacob Cohen from 1891 back to 1888, that's really not realistic..

While I said based mainly on the ID, there was I suggest other less conclusive evidence.

It seems that you still do not understand the theories, or are aware of new research. This is why earlier I said one needs to read the arguments in New books.

I'm sorry, but I don't think I have heard of Messirah.



Are you familiar with Stewart Evans' article at

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-koz.html

?


He believes the Anderson /Swanson story and identifies the witness as Lawende, even though Lawende had said that he would not be able to recognise the man if he saw him again.

But it's worse than that because Lawende said that the man had a fair moustache, wore a loose-fitting pepper and salt coloured jacket (which was a typical choice of clothing by sailors) and the appearance of a sailor.

You yourself referred to the newspaper report about Kosminski's appearance in court.

That report doesn't actually prove that Kosminski could speak English, but you made that deduction and I don't want to argue the point.
I'm sure you can see that it's a reasonable deduction from that report that Kosminski was religious.

In saying that, I'm not making any judgement about his conduct.

I mention it because it obviously had a bearing on the way he dressed and the way he lived.

The idea that Kosminski ever dressed like a sailor is rather far-fetched.

There is no evidence that he had blond hair.

I'm not saying that it is impossible; it is certainly possible, but it is unlikely.

To suggest that he had both blond hair and the appearance of a sailor is very far-fetched.

That area abounded with foreign sailors and those foreign sailors had the appearance of sailors.

That is why, as you know, my theory is that the murderer was a sailor - in fact, as I think I implied, a foreign sailor.

Evans identified the witness as Lawende because there isn't anyone else.

I should mention that the man seen by Lawende appeared to be about seven years older than Kosminski.

If, as I think I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the man seen by Lawende could not have been Kosminski, then Lawende could not have identified Kosminski.

Consequently, the witness identification story is indeed hogwash.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

No I am talking about lilley.

The train should have passed at around 3.30, but it may have been a couple of minutes out, and her statement is not really pricise.

As for the time, I really don't like absolute times, they are meaningless in my view. We can talk of ranges of 2-3 minutes either way.
Trying to set events to the minute GMT is I suggest impossible. However, relative timings, how long after event x did event y happen, are usefully, but still not pricise.

As I indicated the other day, if one gives a time of 3:30, it could be 3:30:00 or 3:30:59.

How many people looked at a seconds hand in 1888?

But timings are necessarily approximate and we can't do much in a case without them!

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In reply to Pontius2000:

I too doubt that Schwartz was the witness who made the identification at the seaside home. But I’m not sure how you presume that if Schwartz wasn’t the witness, the killer couldn’t have been a Jew.


If Schwarz wasn't the witness, that leaves Lawende, who described a man about seven years older than Kosminski, with blond hair and the appearance of a sailor.

To say that Lawende could have identified Kosminski as that man is ridiculously far-fetched.



the graffiti isn’t strong evidence f anything unles we know what exactly the writer meant by it. It could be taken either as anti-Jew or pro-Jew depending on how it’s interpreted. Limited by what we know, it’s not strong evidence either way.


It was certainly anti-Jewish, which is why Warren had it erased.

It is obviously an accusation because it mentions guilt - connected to an item of one of the victim's clothing - and its very first words are in the style of an accusation:

'The Jews are the men ...'.




So 2 police officials who spoke against Anderson’s is evidence against him, as opposed to the horde of police officials who didn’t speak out to disagree with his opinion?


Can you name someone who defended him?




why would Swanson write about it in the margins or of a book that was not meant for anyone else’s eyes.



Because what he wrote was so far-fetched.





But we have no earthly idea what the “Lipski” comment even meant. Unlike the wrong assertion that Kosminski couldn’t speak English, we do know that Schwartz barely could. So he himself probably didn’t know what the comment meant either.





We know what it meant, and it WASN'T English.

Schwarz knew what it meant.

Abberline knew what it meant.

It was an anti-Jewish term of abuse.

[DJA]

I'm sorry, but I don't think I have heard of Messirah.

He was a very naughty boy

[Pontius2000]

If Schwarz wasn't the witness, that leaves Lawende, who described a man about seven years older than Kosminski, with blond hair and the appearance of a sailor.

To say that Lawende could have identified Kosminski as that man is ridiculously far-fetched.

there is nothing far fetched about suggesting that Lawende could have been the witness. Nor Levy, since it was suggested he knew more than he was saying.

It was certainly anti-Jewish, which is why Warren had it erased.

It is obviously an accusation because it mentions guilt - connected to an item of one of the victim's clothing - and its very first words are in the style of an accusation:

'The Jews are the men ...'.

this is wild speculation. There is nothing “certainly” about it. For most people, “don’t blame the Jews for anything” would make a lot more sense than an anti-Semite stopping by to say “the Jews won’t take the blame for anything. Warren erased it because he was incompetent and should have been fired that very day.

Can you name someone who defended him?

defended him in what respect? Agreeing with his opinion? Swanson certainly seemed to agree with his opinion. McNaghten even agreed there were many circumstances which made Kosminski a good suspect.

why would Swanson write about it in the margins or of a book that was not meant for anyone else’s eyes.



Because what he wrote was so far-fetched.

so Swanson chose to writ out a lie in the margins of a book that wasn’t meant to be seen by anyone else “because what he wrote was so far-fetched”. That response doesn’t even make sense.

We know what it meant, and it WASN'T English.

Schwarz knew what it meant.

Abberline knew what it meant.

It was an anti-Jewish term of abuse.

no, we don’t know what it means because the person who heard it could barely speak English so he most likely wouldn’t have understand anything else that was said with it. So we don’t know if it was meant as a threat, a slur, or “I’m about to pull a Lipski on this woman”. And it doesn’t seem to matter much anyway because you have said- and I generally agree- that the person who said it was not JtR

[Pontius2000]

I have to ask though PI1, do you believe or not that Kosminski was actually a suspect, or do you believe he WAS a suspect but not in the identification?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

YOU said he was lying. You said he and Anderson concocted the witness and therefore the identification process with Kosminski never took place, and seem to be questioning whether Kosminski was ever a suspect at all.

so yes, that does beg the question that Scott Nelson and I both asked in our last posts….why would he write a lie in the margin of a copy a book that was never meant for anyone else’s eyes but his own?

I described Anderson's claims as a fantasy.

In support of that, I cited Winston Churchill's description of Anderson as a fantasist.

Where did I say he was lying?


As to why Swanson wrote that: he obviously had a vivid imagination.


No witness could not have identified Kosminski as the murderer.


We know who the eyewitnesses were, and none could have identified him.


(1) Buck's Row : none

(2) Hanbury Street: Long said she saw Chapman with a Jew, but Long wasn't Jewish

(3) Berner Street: Schwarz described a semi-drunk, broad-shouldered anti-Semite, aged about 30, assaulting a woman.

Kosminski was religious, thin, Jewish, 23, and obviously did not associate with prostitutes.

(4) Mitre Square: Lawende described a man who was about 30, with blond hair and the appearance of a sailor.

It was obviously not Kosminski.

Religious Jews didn't dress like sailors and Kosminski was 23 and probably had dark hair.

(5) Miller's Court: there were plenty of eyewitnesses.

Hutchinson was the only one who claimed to see Kelly with a Jew.

But Hutchinson wasn't Jewish.


Anderson and Swanson's witness was a fantasy.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I have to ask though PI1, do you believe or not that Kosminski was actually a suspect, or do you believe he WAS a suspect but not in the identification?

I think he may have been a suspect because of his schizophrenia.

I am sure he did not associate with prostitutes, but someone may have reported him.

Jews were being wrongly accused.

As I mentioned before, there was nearly an anti-Jewish riot in Hanbury Street and that is why Warren erased the writing in Goulston Street.

Someone wrote somewhere at that time that no Englishman could have committed such murders and the implication was that a Jew was responsible.

The murderer was well aware of that sentiment and also of the erroneous report that he had chalked a message at 29 Hanbury Street.

In almost every murder where there were eyewitnesses, a Jew was accused: in Hanbury Street, Long said she saw Chapman talking to a Jew about half an hour before she was found dead; in Berner Street, a senior Home Office official was convinced that the obviously anti-Semitic brute seen by Schwarz was a Jew; in Dorset Street, Hutchinson said he saw a Jew go with Kelly back to her room at about 2 a.m., just in time to be murdered.

Lushington, Anderson, Swanson, Odell.

It's an old tradition.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

He was a very naughty boy

I'm sorry but I still have no idea what this is about.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

there is nothing far fetched about suggesting that Lawende could have been the witness. Nor Levy, since it was suggested he knew more than he was saying.



this is wild speculation. There is nothing “certainly” about it. For most people, “don’t blame the Jews for anything” would make a lot more sense than an anti-Semite stopping by to say “the Jews won’t take the blame for anything. Warren erased it because he was incompetent and should have been fired that very day.



defended him in what respect? Agreeing with his opinion? Swanson certainly seemed to agree with his opinion. McNaghten even agreed there were many circumstances which made Kosminski a good suspect.



so Swanson chose to writ out a lie in the margins of a book that wasn’t meant to be seen by anyone else “because what he wrote was so far-fetched”. That response doesn’t even make sense.



no, we don’t know what it means because the person who heard it could barely speak English so he most likely wouldn’t have understand anything else that was said with it. So we don’t know if it was meant as a threat, a slur, or “I’m about to pull a Lipski on this woman”. And it doesn’t seem to matter much anyway because you have said- and I generally agree- that the person who said it was not JtR

I have a feeling you're trying to play the devil's advocate.

What you're writing is plain ridiculous.

You're saying Kosminski could have looked about seven years older than he was, had blond hair, and in spite of being a religious Jew, dressed like a sailor?

Saying that the writing on the wall was anti-Jewish is not wild speculation but common sense.
You're being facetious when you suggest it is pro-Jewish.
What you're saying is like saying that Mein Kampf is philo-Semitic.


Your remarks about the use of the slur 'Lipski' show that you don't know what you're talking about.
It wasn't English; it was Polish.
And everyone knew what it meant.
It was chalked on walls.

I think you're not a serious contributor because you're rubbishing everything I say as though what I'm writing is fanciful when that's what you're doing.

I have read all about the contemporary use of Lipski as an anti-Jewish term of abuse.

I suggest you do the same as I have instead of writing nonsense.

[DJA]

[DJA]

I'm sorry but I still have no idea what this is about.

Monty Python's Life Of Brian- He's Not The Messiah, He's A Very Naughty Boy - YouTube

[DJA]

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Jack the Ripper: A Suspect Guide - Nathan Kaminsky