Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The case was led by Swanson from beginning to end.
True Abererline lead the investigation on the ground for the initial part of the investigation. However, he was not the officer coordinating the case, appointed to do so by Warren, that was Swanson.

He condemend Anderson?
Really?
My reading is that he disagree with him, thats not condeming him.

I am sure Abberline did not accept Anderson's prejudiced remarks.

Unlike another official who was inclined to anti-Semitism, Godfrey Lushington, Abberline correctly recognised that the Lipski remark was anti-Semitic and that the suspect whom you propose as the man who was identified at the Seaside Home was therefore not Jewish.

But the man I referred to who condemned Anderson's remarks was Inspector Reid.

[DJA]

When you say I have an obsession, is that a fact or a supposition on your part?

STRIPES [1981] – Official Trailer (HD) - YouTube

[Elamarna]

I think you're ma7king tongue-in-cheek suggestions.

NOT AT all they are genuine serious suggestions.

Be the witness Lawende, Schwartz or another ... At the Identification the suspect may have been wearing a Kippah, scull cap, which either he was not wearing at the time of the incident, or it was covered by the cloth cap.

2nd, related point the suspect may have been wearing a Tallith Karen ...


Schwarz's semi-drunk anti-Semite now turns out to be an ultra-orthodox Jew who wears a Jewish skullcap and fringes specially for the identification!

Lawende's blond-haired sailor who wore a pepper and salt coloured blouson popular among sailors, dresses up specially for the occasion in a Kippah and Talith.

Pardon, you appear to have very limited knowledge of Jewish customs.

Not only Ultra orthodox Jews where the religious clothing. And many Jews Drink, it's not prohibited like in some religions.

You say dressing up, ignoring the answers given to you, that the suspect may have been wearing such when the incident occurred.

I suspect you reject these the way you do, because they do NOT fit the unbending narrative you have convinced yourself of.

Thirdly, we have the possibility of a verbal exchange, maybe in English, but very posdibly, if not probably in Yiddish.

You must be joking!

Kosminski, who you claim has been proven to have been able to speak English, speaks in Yiddish at a police identification.

You ignore the point that I mentioned an exchange may have been in English.
You also seem to not consider the witness may have addressed the suspect in Yiddish.
For instance we know that in.1888, Schwartz required an interpreter.
Something despite your hints, is not known of Kosminski

i would remind you that you made a remark to the effect that no serious researcher will take me seriously.

Do you actually expect what you've written to be taken seriously by any serious researcher or reviewer?

I think you will find that most serious researchers will, and do take seriously what I write.
Those who do not have closed minds that is.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

P.I.

It is very easy to think of possible reasons why a witness would behave in a manner you find inexplicable. For instance, a witness may have wished to help the police in general, in order to help stop the crimes, but be unwilling to stand up in court and confront the criminal. That happens also in today's world.

Again, it was stated that the witness identified the criminal instantly. It does not follow that the witness at the time knew that he was a Jew. You harp on about this in a ridiculing manner, how ihs features could have been more Jewish on one occasion than another, but again, there are many possible explanations: he may have worn different clothes (e.g. a skullcap).
Or it may be that after the identification, the witness learned the man's name or his occupation or his ethnicity, through conversation with the police or when answering questions. Then you might object "But the police shouldn't let the witness learn any details about the suspect!" because that is standard procedure today and shown in many episodes of Law and Order and the like. But we're talking about an entirely different context here, it's certainly not impossible that the police either directly or indirectly informed the witness about various details of the suspect.


As Elamarna has pointed out, we don't know the exact sequence of events. We don't even know if the identification actually took place; many doubt this. But what gets people agitated here, in my opinion, is presenting personal analysis as fact, when it is in fact only a personal analysis of available sources. Just because you have made a brilliant analysis and come to a certain conclusion, it is not certain that others will agree. Therefore, it is very important to always write "I believe that..." or "In my opinion..." or "Isn't it the case that...", instead of simply writing "Anderson did this!" or "The Witness said that!".

Suggesting that the suspect may have worn a skullcap at the Seaside Home is not a serious point - and I know it was not you who originally made it.

Schwarz's suspect was a semi-drunk anti-Semite and Lawende's a blond sailor (but for those who object to such a definite statement, we'll say 'a man who dressed like a sailor', except that I've been accused of being obsessed by that description!).

It is not reasonable to suggest that either of those suspects would have worn a skullcap or religious fringes at a police identification.

It is fanciful and, in fact, laughable.

If anyone disputes that, I suggest he try and get it published by a reputable newspaper or publisher and see what happens.

[Elamarna]

I see you have missed Schwartz, in my view he is the prime candidate for the witness



I think you should explain why a semi-drunk anti-Semite is your candidate for the suspect.

Why does being semi drunk, as you put it exclude a suspect.
I believe it was Reid who said he believed the killer frequented local pubs and drank.

In addition of all the known Witnesses only Schwartz witnesses a woman actually being attacked.


My reasons for going with Schwartz are well documented in the podcasts section of this site. Why not listen to it?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

NOT AT all they are genuine serious suggestions.



Pardon, you appear to have very limited knowledge of Jewish customs.

Not only Ultra orthodox Jews where the religious clothing. And many Jews Drink, it's not prohibited like in some religions.

You say dressing up, ignoring the answers given to you, that the suspect may have been wearing such when the incident occurred.

I suspect you reject these the way you do, because they do NOT fit the unbending narrative you have convinced yourself of.



You ignore the point that I mentioned an exchange may have been in English.
You also seem to not consider the witness may have addressed the suspect in Yiddish.
For instance we know that in.1888, Schwartz required an interpreter.
Something despite your hints, is not known of Kosminski



I think you will find that most serious researchers will, and do take seriously what I write.
Those who do not have closed minds that is.

You're seriously suggesting that you would be prepared to submit to a publisher an essay or book in which you suggest that the man seen by Schwarz wore a skullcap or religious fringes at a police identification - even though the same man was a semi-drunk anti-Semite??

[Elamarna]

I am sure Abberline did not accept Anderson's prejudiced remarks.

Unlike another official who was inclined to anti-Semitism, Godfrey Lushington, Abberline correctly recognised that the Lipski remark was anti-Semitic and that the suspect whom you propose as the man who was identified at the Seaside Home was therefore not Jewish.

But the man I referred to who condemned Anderson's remarks was Inspector Reid.

Again that's your interpretation, we are simply going round in circles of you refusing to accept any view that differs from your own. And as others have said of presenting your views as fact.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Again that's your interpretation, we are simply going round in circles of you refusing to accept any view that differs from your own. And as others have said of presenting your views as fact.

It's not just 'my interpretation'.

Inspector Reid and Sir Henry Smith both condemned Anderson's remarks.

Are you saying that his remarks

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.

were not actually prejudiced and that it's just my interpretation?

Are you saying that when I wrote that Abberline noted that Lipski was an anti-Jewish term of abuse, that's just my interpretation?

Are you saying that my remark that 'Lipski' was an anti-Jewish term of abuse is just my interpretation?

Are you saying that when I say Inspector Reid condemned Anderson's remarks, that is just my interpretation?

I think you should answer.

[Elamarna]

You're seriously suggesting that you would be prepared to submit to a publisher an essay or book in which you suggest that the man seen by Schwarz wore a skullcap or religious fringes at a police identification - even though the same man was a semi-drunk anti-Semite??

Yes of course, there is no contradiction.

You seem to think having a few drinks precludes the suspect from being Jewish.
Where does that come from?

With regards to being anti-Semitic, that's YOUR interpretation and one many share buy it's still interpretation .

In some racial groups, say afro Caribbean, it's not uncommon to refer to another of the same grouping by a term that otherwise would be considered a racist slur.

And there is the issue of if it was actually Lipski that was said, or something similar sounding.
I have suggested this several times, again I suggest you look me up. And I am not the only one to make that suggestion.

[Kattrup]

Suggesting that the suspect may have worn a skullcap at the Seaside Home is not a serious point - and I know it was not you who originally made it.

Schwarz's suspect was a semi-drunk anti-Semite and Lawende's a blond sailor (but for those who object to such a definite statement, we'll say 'a man who dressed like a sailor', except that I've been accused of being obsessed by that description!).

It is not reasonable to suggest that either of those suspects would have worn a skullcap or religious fringes at a police identification.

It is fanciful and, in fact, laughable.

If anyone disputes that, I suggest he try and get it published by a reputable newspaper or publisher and see what happens.

Ok, thanks for the reply.

The point, whether serious or not, was to illustrate that we do not know when or how the witness became aware that the suspect was Jewish. It could have happened in many ways. We do not know. You repeatedly stating that of course the witness would have know instantly does not make it a fact. You may believe that the witness would have known, and you may have good reasons for that belief, but others may disagree. Since we do not know.

And your appeal to reputable newspapers and publishers as authority falters when one considers the many ridiculous theories being written about and published - look for articles about the Maybrick Diary, or Trevor Marriot's, Edward Stow's, Christer Holmgren's, Patricia Highsmith's, Hallie Rubenhold's work and many many other "researchers" who present some fanciful notion about JtR and gets some attention. Newspapers and publishers, even reputable ones, are for-profit.

You're also stating as a fact that Schwarz' suspect was a semidrunk and an antisemite. And as has been pointed out, Lawende's suspect did not dress as a sailor, he had the appearance of one. There is a difference.

The point, again, is that some of your claims are not unreasonable, but your presentation of them, in my opinion, is. You could very easily say "I think Lawende meant the man dressed as a sailor" and you could present your reasoning and no-one would find that unreasonable. But stating as a fact that the man dressed as a sailor is just wrong.

[Elamarna]

It's not just 'my interpretation'.

Inspector Reid and Sir Henry Smith both condemned Anderson's remarks.

Are you saying that his remarks

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.

were not actually prejudiced and that it's just my interpretation?

Are you saying that when I wrote that Abberline noted that Lipski was an anti-Jewish term of abuse, that's just my interpretation?

Are you saying that my remark that 'Lipski' was an anti-Jewish term of abuse, that is just my interpretation?

Are you saying that when I say Inspector Reid condemned Anderson's remarks, that is just my interpretation?

I think you should answer.

You appear to imply I will not answer, or you suspect I won't. Sorry but I will.

With regards to lipski, I suggest you read my previous post.

The word is debated by some, and the context must be looked at.


On the quote you gave, that is your interpretation.
A little research would show that Messirah , a religious Law, which forbade a jew giving a fellow jew up to gentile justice. While not greatly practiced by the older established Jewish community, it certainly was by those new comers from eastern and central Europe.

That is not opinion, that is well documented in many books and websites which deal with the Jewish religion and immigration in the late 19th century.

Reid, who was not involved in the the entire investigation you mean?
His opinions on any officer, are just that his opinions.
In work we all have opinions on colleagues, most of those are coloured by person bais.

[Elamarna]

Suggesting that the suspect may have worn a skullcap at the Seaside Home is not a serious point - and I know it was not you who originally made it.

It is not reasonable to suggest that either of those suspects would have worn a skullcap or religious fringes at a police identification.

It is fanciful and, in fact, laughable.

If anyone disputes that, I suggest he try and get it published by a reputable newspaper or publisher and see what happens.

Sorry but neither of those suggestions are fanciful or laughable.

There is no logical reason to reject either, certainly there is no reason based on evidence to do so.

Once again, you somehow think that you opinion on an issue is conclusive and definitive.

[DJA]

A little research would show that Messirah , a religious Law, which forbade a jew giving a fellow jew up to gentile justice. While not greatly practiced by the older established Jewish community, it certainly was by those new comers from eastern Europe.

Especially after the pogroms of 1881 onward.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Ok, thanks for the reply.

The point, whether serious or not, was to illustrate that we do not know when or how the witness became aware that the suspect was Jewish. It could have happened in many ways. We do not know. You repeatedly stating that of course the witness would have know instantly does not make it a fact. You may believe that the witness would have known, and you may have good reasons for that belief, but others may disagree. Since we do not know.

And your appeal to reputable newspapers and publishers as authority falters when one considers the many ridiculous theories being written about and published - look for articles about the Maybrick Diary, or Trevor Marriot's, Edward Stow's, Christer Holmgren's, Patricia Highsmith's, Hallie Rubenhold's work and many many other "researchers" who present some fanciful notion about JtR and gets some attention. Newspapers and publishers, even reputable ones, are for-profit.

You're also stating as a fact that Schwarz' suspect was a semidrunk and an antisemite. And as has been pointed out, Lawende's suspect did not dress as a sailor, he had the appearance of one. There is a difference.

The point, again, is that some of your claims are not unreasonable, but your presentation of them, in my opinion, is. You could very easily say "I think Lawende meant the man dressed as a sailor" and you could present your reasoning and no-one would find that unreasonable. But stating as a fact that the man dressed as a sailor is just wrong.

i think your second paragraph has merit.

You're also stating as a fact that Schwarz' suspect was a semidrunk and an antisemite


Let me put it this way: Schwarz said that the man was inebriated, which men who attacked women often were.

So far I haven't heard anyone say that we don't know for a fact that Schwartz actually saw anyone, that it's just a supposition, an assumption, or someone's view.

Why is that?

If it's not a fact that Schwarz saw anyone, then how could he have seen Kosminski?

The man shouted a well-known anti-Jewish insult at Schwarz, who was of Jewish appearance.

I am stating that as fact.

Are you still disputing that it is a fact?

[Kattrup]

The man shouted a well-known anti-Jewish insult at Schwarz, who was of Jewish appearance.

I am stating that as fact.

Are you still disputing that it is a fact?

I am disputing that it is a fact that it was meant as an insult. That is unknown.

I am disputing that it is a fact that it was shouted at Schwarz. That is unknown.


The reason for that is that the police at the time stated as a possibility that it was shouted at the other man present (Pipeman), and might have been a name, nickname or similar, and Schwartz himself was uncertain whether it had been shouted at him or not

the man who threw the woman down called out apparently to the man on the opposite side of the road 'Lipski' & then Schwartz walked away

(my bolding)

And of course one might dispute whether it was really "well-known", since the significance had to be explained in the police correspondance, a sure sign that the receiver could not be expected to know about it. But certainly well-known in the East End.