Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”

[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]

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.

[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.

[Aethelwulf]

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

what are you on about?

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.)

[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.

[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

[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.

[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 ?

[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.