Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

As I pointed out before, you don't even practise what you preach.

You make statements of fact about me that are merely your opinion.

[Abby Normal]

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.

Hi PI

"nordic sailor" ?? where do you get that from?


"I do, because in not one of the five murders did a Jewish witness see a Jewish suspect" ? And you know this how? While I think the ripper probably wasnt jewish, it cant be ruled out. Lawende was jewish as was Koz, and many respected researchers give credence (rightfully so) that those were the two involved with the Seaside ID with regards to the Mitre square crime.

PI I think alot of the problems your running into here is that you are continually stating things as facts , when they are anything but.

Surely you see that?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

This forum was a beautiful garden of peace, happiness and joy before you came along.

But seriously, turn down the temperature of your posts and your replies to your fellow members.

I hope everyone else does the same.

JM

As you wish.

Just one question: if I turn down the temperature of my posts, but other members - and you know whom I mean - don't do the same in their posts to me, then what view will you take?

[Pontius2000]

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

You’ve made a great choice. It’s not like any other suspect book that I’ve ever read. House doesn’t proclaim “case solved! I solved it!” Or any of the nonsense like you see in most suspect books. Rather, he takes a logical approach to the murders from the standpoint of psychology and mental illness and explores how JtR’s sick fantasies and Kosminski’s mental illness could have formed during the traumatic experiences he would’ve faced during the pograms in Poland during his childhood. It goes a long towards proving that sometimes the best answer is the simplest one.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

I withdraw my suggestion that it was you who called something I wrote 'rubbish theories', but I did ask whether it was you.

I did not say it was you.

It was in fact John Wheat, who was gracious enough to withdraw the remark.

I can't think of anything else I've said to you that needs to be withdrawn.

[Elamarna]

As I pointed out before, you don't even practise what you preach.

You make statements of fact about me that are merely your opinion.

Admin have requested this stop.
I am following that request

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi PI

"nordic sailor" ?? where do you get that from?


"I do, because in not one of the five murders did a Jewish witness see a Jewish suspect" ? And you know this how? While I think the ripper probably wasnt jewish, it cant be ruled out. Lawende was jewish as was Koz, and many respected researchers give credence (rightfully so) that those were the two involved with the Seaside ID with regards to the Mitre square crime.

PI I think alot of the problems your running into here is that you are continually stating things as facts , when they are anything but.

Surely you see that?

I reiterate that in all the inquest testimony, extant police records, and newspaper reports, there is not one of the murders in which a Jewish witness is reported to have seen a Jewish suspect.

We have two 'candidates': Schwarz and Lawende.

Both described men who were about seven years older than Kosminski.

So far. none of my critics here has acknowledged this important fact.

The man seen by Schwarz was a broad-shouldered. half drunk anti-Semite.

Kosminski was thin, religious, and Jewish.


I have made this point before but curiously no one has actually tried to refute it.


It is quite obvious that Kosminski could not have been the man seen by Schwarz.

I've been told that I've been talking nonsense when I said that 'Lipski' was an anti-Jewish term of abuse.

But this just shows that my critics don't know what they're talking about, because anyone can check for himself by doing the necessary reading -

or as one of my critics put it: 'look it up'.

I'm sorry if I sound exasperated but I've spent many hours here answering such comments.

I hope you would agree with me that it would have been better if, instead of constantly challenging my assertions, people would actually look up and read the relevant literature.

'Lipski' was chalked on walls and was an anti-Semitic term of abuse in East London in 1888.

I have made this point before and so far no one has contradicted it.

So far, not a single member has come forward to say 'yes, you're right! I've read that about Lipski too!'

Apparently, I'm the only member here who knows this fact - a fact that when it was all 'nice and peaceful' before I arrived here, no one apparently knew!

Doesn't that actually suggest that I do know what I'm talking about?


I have mentioned previously that the man described by Lawende was also seven years older than Kosminski.

As far as I can remember, this too simply passes without any comment.


I have said repeatedly that Lawende described a man with the appearance of a sailor.

Again I was told that I was wrong and that he had not been described a sailor.

Eventually the person who made that allegation admitted he was wrong.

Again, that rather suggests that I do know what I'm talking about!


I pointed out that the style of blouson worn by the suspect was commonly worn by sailors.

Someone said, 'well what about the neckerchief?'

By the way, how am I able to make such an assertion about the blouson if I don't know what I'm talking about?

Did anyone else here know that?

Apparently not!


Now, I'm being asked 'what about the neckerchief?' which supposedly doesn't suggest that the man was a sailor.

Well, sailors did commonly wear neckerchiefs!

That, taken in conjunction with the blouson he was wearing, did indeed mean that he had the appearance of a sailor.

And lo and behold, Lawende, who was there and saw the man, described him as having the appearance of a sailor.


Someone here objected that he couldn't have got a good look at him because the lighting was bad.

The lighting was so 'bad' that he described him as having a 'fair complexion'.

And by the way, I'm not looking at the court record while I'm writing this, because I remember this description from decades ago.

He described the man as having a fair moustache.

it is quite obvious that, as with Schwarz, he was describing a gentile.


Now honourable members are objecting to my assertion and saying that I cannot know this to be a fact.

It's just an opinion, they say.

They also say that the alleged Jewish witness didn't realise until he met Kosminski at the seaside home that he looked Jewish.

They say that when he saw him on the night of the murder, they didn't realise he looked Jewish.

It was only when they got close up and could see his hair colour and his real appearance that they realised.

So my question is this: if, as my critics say, the man seen by Lawende could have been Kosminski, and he saw him at the seaside home, what exactly about him is going to make him look more Jewish?

Is it the blond hair?

Or perhaps the sailor's attire?

Do they really imagine that if he had seen the blond hair and the sailor's attire at closer quarters, that he would have said, 'Oh no! He's definitely Jewish. I can't testify now!'?

P.S. Lawende testified against a fellow Jew on trial for murder in 1876.

How's that?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.’

I agree.

Even Lawende is not quoted as having said that the man WAS a sailor.

But he evidently was.

That's the evidence.

Saying, for example, that the man seen by Lawende could have been Kosminski, who after leaving synagogue that night, changed into the clothes characteristic of a sailor, and perhaps dyed his hair blond too, would be fanciful, just as suggesting that after attending synagogue, he went to Berner Street, and in a semi-drunken state shouted an anti-Semitic insult at a Jew passing by, would be ridiculously far-fetched.

There is also the question of how he could have made himself look seven years older in either case.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Very noticeable since September

Please do elaborate!

I didn't start posting here until about three days ago.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

oh-OK thanks El!!

I suppose you are aware that the Home in Hove opened in March 1890, about 16 months after the last murder.

Can you imagine Lawende, who had said that he would not be able to recognise the suspect if he saw him again, being asked to make an identification of him nearly 18 or more months later?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

what are you on about?

I'm 'on about' the identification evidence in the murder of Catherine Eddowes.

The suspect was described as a blond-haired sailor.

Kosminski, so we are told, was so obviously of Jewish appearance that Anderson and Swanson's star witness - who was such a star that Abberline didn't know he existed - refused to testify against him on realising he was Jewish.

And he looked so Jewish that he had blond hair and dressed like a sailor after leaving synagogue on Saturday night.

Didn't you ever learn how to make a polite enquiry rather than ask someone what he's 'on about'?

[Elamarna]

I agree.

Even Lawende is not quoted as having said that the man WAS a sailor.

But he evidently was.

That's the evidence.

Saying, for example, that the man seen by Lawende could have been Kosminski, who after leaving synagogue that night, changed into the clothes characteristic of a sailor, and perhaps dyed his hair blond too, would be fanciful, just as suggesting that after attending synagogue, he went to Berner Street, and in a semi-drunken state shouted an anti-Semitic insult at a Jew passing by, would be ridiculously far-fetched.

There is also the question of how he could have made himself look seven years old in either case.

You say

"Even Lawende is not quoted as having said that the man WAS a sailor.

But he evidently was.

That's the evidence."



Well NO that's not the what the evidence says at all is it.

If Lawende does not say he was a sailor how can one then say

"But evidently he was"

Such is not evident at all.
This is the point many have tried repeatedly to make to you.
Your suppositions , or deductions are a classic example of confirmation basis

Are you really saying that people cannot make mistakes about someone's age?
Especially if they only see them for a short spell.

I am often told I look late 40s or early 50s, I am nearly 63.

Mistaking someone's age by 5 or even 10 years is far from.uncommon.

As for his going to the synagogue, that again is speculation on your part.
I assume based on his mentioning about not paying on the Sabbath.
Such of course does not mean he was particularly religious , only that he observed some religious practice, or maybe that he simply used it as an excuse to delay payment.

You also equate fair with blond , the two while often used together are not neccessarily the same.
It may just mean not very dark, light brown rather than black. And I have certainly know light haired and even blond Jewish people. I was brought up in Barnet north west London, which as around a 22-25 % Jewish community.

As for his dress, you are again assuming how he would normally dress, you simply Don't know.

All of your points in this post are assumption and speculation. As I said before there is nothing wrong with that, but it's not fact, it's simply speculation.

[Elamarna]

I suppose you are aware that the Home in Hove opened in March 1890, about 16 months after the last murder.

Can you imagine Lawende, who had said that he would not be able to recognise the suspect if he saw him again, being asked to make an identification of him nearly 18 or more months later?

You are again assuming that Kelly was the last murder, and while many agree, many do not.
Swanson include several in the file after Kelly, up until February 91.

You are assuming the Identification takes place at Hove, it need not.

Those who favour Cohen as Anderson's suspect, have an identification in 1888.

As for Lawende, again I must state I do not believe he is the witness, yet it seems you cannot get past that issue.

We are simply going round in circles, you keep posting the same points, people keep.pointing out objects and you simply dismiss all. Only your opinion is correct it seems.

[Aethelwulf]

I'm 'on about' the identification evidence in the murder of Catherine Eddowes.

The suspect was described as a blond-haired sailor.

No he wasn't.

Didn't you ever learn how to make a polite enquiry rather than ask someone what he's 'on about'?

I'm saying what are you on about because you are on about a Nordic sailor. Did he have skis and meatballs on him?

Look, I can see you're dug in on a sailor with no room for manoeuvre. Good luck to you. Have chin wag with Trevor.

Evening

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You are again assuming that Kelly was the last murder, and while many agree, many do not.
Swanson include several in the file after Kelly, up until February 91.

You are assuming the Identification takes place at Hove, it need not.

Those who favour Cohen as Anderson's suspect, have an identification in 1888.

As for Lawende, again I must state I do not believe he is the witness, yet it seems you cannot get past that issue.

We are simply going round in circles, you keep posting the same points, people keep.pointing out objects and you simply dismiss all. Only your opinion is correct it seems.

You keep saying things about my comments that are obviously untrue.

I would ask why you keep doing it, especially as you said you're going to turn over a new leaf.

You are assuming the Identification takes place at Hove, it need not

I didn't.



You are again assuming that Kelly was the last murder


There is a consensus that Kelly's was the last murder.

Most researchers and commentators make the same assumption - as you call it - that I make.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you send them messages that they're making an 'assumption' that Kelly's was the last murder.

Now I'm bearing in mind the instruction from the administrators that we should 'cool' this, but the thing is you're starting it again now.

You're saying I'm making assumptions, which I'm not.

The question is: why are you sending me messages saying that I'm making assumptions but apparently you're not sending such messages to everyone else?