Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1;n799005]


So this is the new leaf you've turned over?

Blond (male) or blonde (female), also referred to as fair hair

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blond

The evidence is that the man seen in Church Passage was a blond sailor.



Given we have NO idea of Aaron Kosminski's physical appearance, not even his height. All we have is his weight at death, Such comparisons as you attempt to make are futile.

What you call a futile comparison is a necessary comparison.

There is a remarkable willingness on this forum to attach credence to the story of the unnamed witness who supposedly identified Kosminski as the murderer.

As you know, the story goes that when the witness met Kosminski at a seaside home, he immediately realised that Kosminski was Jewish.

As you know, I don't believe this story at all and it is true I've described it as hogwash, but I can honestly say that it has received a more sympathetic treatment on this forum than my idea that the murderer was a sailor.

The problem is this: if you are going to entertain the idea that the man with fair hair and with the appearance of a sailor was Kosminski, then how can he possibly have been instantly recognised by the mystery witness as someone of obviously Jewish appearance?



Sorry the evidence does not say the man is a blond sailor. That is your interpretation of the statement.
Going round the same point Over and over doesn't change it.

Again the man seen by Lawende may not be the suspect.
Lawende may not be the witness.

And the witness probably didn't instantly recognise the suspect as being Jewish.
You call it all hogwash, that's YOUR opinion and Your choice, all people are asking is that you don't present your opinion as the only credible opinion.

As I said going round in circles.

And there I will stop.

[The Baron]

Thanks for the statistics.

Perhaps you could also provide the statistics for the percentage of sailors that have been Jewish, and also the percentage of blond sailors that have been Jewish.

Not now, I am just enjoying throwing one of your 'evidences' out of the window.


TB

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

And again the man seen by Lawende may not be the suspect.
Lawende may not be the witness.
And the witness probably didn't instantly recognise the suspect as being Jewish.
You call it all hogwash, that's YOUR opinion and Your choice, all people are asking is that you don't present your opinion as the only credible opinion.
As I said going round in circles.

And there I will stop.

And the witness probably didn't instantly recognise the suspect as being Jewish.

Here is what Robert Anderson claimed:

I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him ; but he refused to give evidence against him.

He was able to identify Kosminski 'instantly' - the very same word you used!

So according to Anderson, the witness was able to recognise Kosminski INSTANTLY, but you doubt that he was able to recognise him INSTANTLY as being Jewish!

How long do you think it took him?

[The Baron]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;n799009]

As you know, the story goes that when the witness met Kosminski at a seaside home, he immediately realised that Kosminski was Jewish.

Thats not how I understand Anderson, the witness immediately recognised the suspect as the man he saw, not that he was a jew.


TB

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

[QUOTE=The Baron;n799014]

Thats not how I understand Anderson, the witness immediately recognised the suspect as the man he saw, not that he was a jew.


TB

I made the point that the story about the alleged witness refusing to testify on the ground that the suspect was Jewish is not credible because if that had been true, he would not have come forward in the first place.

Members retorted that the witness may not have recognised the suspect as being Jewish until he met him at the seaside home.

According to Anderson, the witness recognised the suspect the instant he saw him at the seaside home.

What does that mean?

It means he looked pretty much the same as when he'd seen him before.

If he had looked in any way different, he would have had to take longer to identify him, perhaps many minutes.

So what could have looked different about him?

He couldn't suddenly have started looking Jewish - could he?

[Elamarna]

And the witness probably didn't instantly recognise the suspect as being Jewish.

Here is what Robert Anderson claimed:

I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him ; but he refused to give evidence against him.

He was able to identify Kosminski 'instantly' - the very same word you used!

So according to Anderson, the witness was able to recognise Kosminski INSTANTLY, but you doubt that he was able to recognise him INSTANTLY as being Jewish!

How long do you think it took him?

Here you again making jumps of logic between two different issues.
And assuming that the suspect was obviously recognisable as being Jewish.

Let's break it down into clear steps.

1. Anderson is talk about the actual identification, when he says the witness identified the suspect immediately.

2. He recognised the suspect when confronted by him at the Identification as the man he had seen in the past committing some act.
We are not told what that act was, but are told it would result in conviction

3. Anderson does not say the witness instantly recognises the suspect as being jewish, at the Identification. That is your interpretation.
It is possible that he did, it's also possible he didn't and it took some minutes.
However, we don't know and to suggest we do or that you can extrapolate one event from the other is again speculation.

4. None of which means that the witness recognised the suspect as jewish when he witnessed the event to start with.

I see little point in this ping pong, we fundamentally disagree not just on the interpretation of evidence, but on how to present an argument.

[GBinOz]

People have looked, Jeff Lahey for one.
So far nothing
Steve

Hi Steve,

I often wonder if Aaron may have been committed under the name "Abrahams", that being the name he gave at his dog muzzle court appearance.

Cheers, George

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

I often wonder if Aaron may have been committed under the name "Abrahams", that being the name he gave at his dog muzzle court appearance.

Cheers, George

Possible, and I know that's been checked too George, but no results so far.

[Varqm]

Here you again making jumps of logic between two different issues.
And assuming that the suspect was obviously recognisable as being Jewish.

Let's break it down into clear steps.

1. Anderson is talk about the actual identification, when he says the witness identified the suspect immediately.

2. He recognised the suspect when confronted by him at the Identification as the man he had seen in the past committing some act.
We are not told what that act was, but are told it would result in conviction

3. Anderson does not say the witness instantly recognises the suspect as being jewish, at the Identification. That is your interpretation.
It is possible that he did, it's also possible he didn't and it took some minutes.
However, we don't know and to suggest we do or that you can extrapolate one event from the other is again speculation.

4. None of which means that the witness recognised the suspect as jewish when he witnessed the event to start with.

I see little point in this ping pong, we fundamentally disagree not just on the interpretation of evidence, but on how to present an argument.

Do we know if the witness said or spoke to Anderson or whoever that he could identify the suspect but would not testify against him.Or it was just a read by the police,by the witness's reaction.
Remember nobody in the inquests said she/he could identify JTR.Not the Duke street trio or Long,witnesses who saw JTR with the victim closest in time to the murders.Witnesses farther from TOD,only Mary Ann Cox said she could,PC Smith, James Brown could not.Marshall,Gardner, Best not either,I think,and not one is Jewish.

[DJA]

Thanks for the statistics.

Perhaps you could also provide the statistics for the percentage of sailors that have been Jewish, and also the percentage of blond sailors that have been Jewish.

Both the men running for Israeli prime minister are blonde

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Here you again making jumps of logic between two different issues.
And assuming that the suspect was obviously recognisable as being Jewish.

Let's break it down into clear steps.

1. Anderson is talk about the actual identification, when he says the witness identified the suspect immediately.

2. He recognised the suspect when confronted by him at the Identification as the man he had seen in the past committing some act.
We are not told what that act was, but are told it would result in conviction

3. Anderson does not say the witness instantly recognises the suspect as being jewish, at the Identification. That is your interpretation.
It is possible that he did, it's also possible he didn't and it took some minutes.
However, we don't know and to suggest we do or that you can extrapolate one event from the other is again speculation.

4. None of which means that the witness recognised the suspect as jewish when he witnessed the event to start with.

I see little point in this ping pong, we fundamentally disagree not just on the interpretation of evidence, but on how to present an argument.

If I may, I will present the argument slightly differently:

There are two possibilities:

(1) The witness recognised the suspect as being Jewish when he saw him in London.

Since the witness was unwilling to bring a fellow Jew to justice, it is not credible that he would have gone to the police in the first place.

(2) The witness did not recognise the suspect as being Jewish when he saw him in London.

He did go to the police.

When he saw the suspect at the Seaside Home, he recognised him instantly.

This means he instantly recognised someone whom he had not recognised to be Jewish.

That means he didn't recognise the suspect to be Jewish in either sighting.

Anderson does not say the witness instantly recognises the suspect as being jewish, at the Identification. That is your interpretation.
It is possible that he did, it's also possible he didn't and it took some minutes.

If you saw someone who didn't look Jewish to you, and you saw that person again somewhere else and recognised him instantly, how in the world are you then going to arrive at a different conclusion that the person does look Jewish?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Both the men running for Israeli prime minister are blonde

I never said that Jewish people can't be blond - or blonde, as in the case of Zsa Zsa Gabor - but I haven't noticed any of the candidates in the Israeli General Election being blond AND dressed like a sailor.

In fact, I haven't noticed ANY candidates in the elections being dressed like a sailor.

If you're suggesting that there were blond Jewish sailors in the East End, I think you're stretching it a bit.

[DJA]

I never said that Jewish people can't be blond but I haven't noticed any of the candidates in the Israeli General Election being blond AND dressed like a sailor.

In fact, I haven't noticed ANY candidates in the elections being dressed like a sailor.

If you're suggesting that there were blond Jewish sailors in the East End, I think you're stretching it a bit.

Would you like one of them to dress like a sailor for you?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Do we know if the witness said or spoke to Anderson or whoever that he could identify the suspect but would not testify against him.Or it was just a read by the police,by the witness's reaction.
Remember nobody in the inquests said she/he could identify JTR.Not the Duke street trio or Long,witnesses who saw JTR with the victim closest in time to the murders.Witnesses farther from TOD,only Mary Ann Cox said she could,PC Smith, James Brown could not.Marshall,Gardner, Best not either,I think,and not one is Jewish.

Here is what Anderson wrote:

And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews; for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.

And the result proved that our diagnosis was right on every point...

... I will merely add that the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer unhesitatingly identified the suspect the instant he was confronted with him ; but he refused to give evidence against him.


If a person in his position wrote something like that today, he would be in disgrace, and he was condemned at the time by the policeman who originally led the investigation.

That doesn't prove that his report of the identification is untrue, but that can be proven anyway.

Anderson wouldn't be able to explain why a Jewish witness who would not give up one of his number to Gentile justice would have come forward in the first place.

Nor would he be able to explain why a Jewish witness who had instantly recognised someone he hadn't recognised as being Jewish should then decide that he was Jewish, unless the suspect's features became more Jewish after the identification.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

[QUOTE=The Baron;n799014]

Thats not how I understand Anderson, the witness immediately recognised the suspect as the man he saw, not that he was a jew.


TB

If, according to Anderson, the witness did not recognise the suspect as being Jewish, then why would he have refused to testify against him?