Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”

[Elamarna]

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!

Sorry but it's more like if one gives a time of 3.30, it could be say 3.27- 3.33,

The average persons watch or house cl9ckd were unlikely to be tthat closely syncronizied.

[Elamarna]

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.

One of the problems which is clear now, is you are quoting and I assume relying on very old articles and research. Such as the artlce by Evans. And yet you appear to be refusing to read or consider new research.
Or even get the theories and arguments correct.
Your research apoears to be limited, much seems to be based on very old desertations on this site.

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

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.

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.

Over and over you make sweeping statements that are full of ASSUMPTIONS and your own idiosyncratic interpretations.

You will make a statement and then state outright that this personal interpretation is THE interpretation.
So here you have decided:

1. That the witness must be lawende, no that's just one view.

2. 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.

3. That "Kosminski" must be Aaron.
Again this is your assumption, although it is the most favoured view, it's not conclusive or the only alternative.

You then take your conclusions and state outright the identification is Hogwash and, no other view is acceptable or realistic.

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.

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.

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?

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

[GBinOz]

Hi El and PI

yes Rob House's book on Koz and Fishs book on Lech are both excellent and I highly recommend both, regardless of what you think of them as suspects. Because along with the great research, they are cracking good reads!

Before I read either, I didnt highly value Koz as a suspect and Lech not at all, but after- now I do.

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

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

On the matter if "Lipski", Schwartz never claimed it was shouted at him, in what survives of his statement he has BS man shouting it at Pipeman. The anti-Semitic angle is Abberlines own interpretation. As likely as that may be, it's not what Schwartz said.

[Harry D]

What would have been different about his appearance at the seaside home from his appearance in the East End?

Well, the lighting for one.

Anyway, if the ID did happen, I'm more inclined to think the witness (Lawende?) wasn't sure, and Anderson simply inferred that he was covering for his fellow Jew.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Well, the lighting for one.

Anyway, if the ID did happen, I'm more inclined to think the witness (Lawende?) wasn't sure, and Anderson simply inferred that he was covering for his fellow Jew.

Well, as I pointed out before, Lawende had given evidence on behalf of the prosecution at the trial of a Jewish man for murder.

Since Anderson was obviously so well-acquainted with murder cases, if he was referring to Lawende then Anderson was indeed a liar.


But in any case, no such witness as claimed by Anderson and Swanson existed.

In none of the Whitechapel murders did a Jewish witness report seeing a Jewish suspect.

In the first murder, there were no eyewitnesses.
In the second murder, a gentile eyewitness saw a Jewish suspect.
In the third murder, a Jewish witness saw a gentile suspect.
In the fourth murder, a Jewish witness saw a gentile suspect.
In the fifth murder, a gentile witness saw a Jewish suspect.


Lawende would never even have been asked to identify Kosminski as the man whom he had seen on the night of one of the murders.

Lawende had described a man who was about seven years older than Kosminski, who had blond hair, and dressed like a sailor.

The idea that Kosminski could have fitted that description is laughable.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

On the matter if "Lipski", Schwartz never claimed it was shouted at him, in what survives of his statement he has BS man shouting it at Pipeman. The anti-Semitic angle is Abberlines own interpretation. As likely as that may be, it's not what Schwartz said.

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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

One of the problems which is clear now, is you are quoting and I assume relying on very old articles and research. Such as the artlce by Evans. And yet you appear to be refusing to read or consider new research.
Or even get the theories and arguments correct.
Your research apoears to be limited, much seems to be based on very old desertations on this site.

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

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.

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.

Over and over you make sweeping statements that are full of ASSUMPTIONS and your own idiosyncratic interpretations.

You will make a statement and then state outright that this personal interpretation is THE interpretation.
So here you have decided:

1. That the witness must be lawende, no that's just one view.

2. 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.

3. That "Kosminski" must be Aaron.
Again this is your assumption, although it is the most favoured view, it's not conclusive or the only alternative.

You then take your conclusions and state outright the identification is Hogwash and, no other view is acceptable or realistic.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

[DJA]

What do you call a Greek skydiver?


Condescending

[Varqm]

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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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!!