Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I have not suggested he is a religious Jew at all. Only that he may have worn tradition Jewish clothing.

It is you who several times as described him as being religious.

Your statement clearly implied if he had been to a service, that being drunk and looking for a prostitute was not in keeping with his being a religious jew and thus he CANNOT be Jewish. Those are simply your beliefs.

You ignore that he may not have been looking for a prostitute, but instead going to his brothers home.

You ignore that he may not have actually been drunk at all.

The suspect is NOT obviously a gentile, and I have not said he was particularly religious at any point.

That you resort to personal attacks sadly is what I expected.

I can see you have a sense of humour.

After everything you've written about me, you accuse me of resorting to a personal attack!

[Elamarna]

Page 411of Sugdens book: from the Pall Mall Gazette-"There is one person whom the police beleive to have actually seen the WC murderer with a woman a few minutes before that womans dissected body was found in the street."

This was from the Grainger ID. The logical conclusion was that Lawende was used by the police several times-Sadler, Grainger and therefore Koz. It couldnt have been schwartz, since Stride wasnt "dissected".

All this points to Lawende as the seaside home ID witness.

Thanks for the quote, it's a different page on kindle.

As I suspected it's the Grainger case Abby

It's simply a press report, so i suspect we will disagree on its significance.

It's dated 7th may 1895.
One issue is that is after Its being hinted that the killer is in an asylum and died.
Such seems to therefore suggest that while Lawende may have been used for some IDs he was not THE Witness.

Its been debated a number of times here and elsewhere, there is no consensus that it puts the matter to bed. For some it does i accept, for many it does not.



Steve

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Sorry, just realised I had the wrong Patricia - Cornwell, not Highsmith, of course.

Yes.

I see what you mean.

And I do agree with you.

[Elamarna]

The reason I said nearest the TOD is it was most likely or surely was JTR seen by Long and Lawende,even Brown.
Farther away like Gardner and Best the man they saw with Stride may not have been JTR,she may have seen another man.
If there was an unknown witness his sighting/info was that good? This is not on record other than Andersson,I doubt this.
Schwartz,the most important witness in the Stride murder,could only have been excluded from the inquest because of unreliability.So I exclude him, but I stop there.

It's clear from.internal.police documents, Swanson, Abberline and Anderson that they did not consider Schwartz unreliable.
And that is after the inquest is concluded.

So his exclusion remains a mystery

Steve

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

So now he is not saying a jew couldn't have been blond!

And now he is implying that a sailor was not likely to have been a jew.

We all know that Kosminski's family were tailors, they may have made hundreds of hats in all different shapes and forms

Kosminki was able to dress the way he liked, if he wanted to look like a sailor, he could wear one of those, maybe he did that on purpose as a way to disguise, while he went to kill, and to avoid being recognised if anyone notice him, we know that the first question that would be asked, what did he look like, what was he wearing...

But our friend here take the phrase 'he looked like a sailor' to be a strong evidence that the man seen by Lewende Must have been a sailor and must haven been a gentile..

You know, serial killers don't do anything not expected..

Even worse, he think that the moment you look at a jew you will know he is a jew!!! Where do you live man?! Do you have certain ideas of how jewish look different than the rest of mankind?


TB

Even worse, he think that the moment you look at a jew you will know he is a jew!!! Where do you live man?! Do you have certain ideas of how jewish look different than the rest of mankind?



That's not a valid point.

Someone else made a similar point - although more politely than you - that he had met two European Jews after the Second World War and they were not recognisably Jewish.

I was referring to Whitechapel in 1888.

That is rather different from meeting, for example, an assimilated Jewish person from Berlin or Vienna in the 1940s.

it is also very different from meeting most Jewish people who live in London today.

By and large, the Jews in Whitechapel were from Poland and Imperial Russia and people knew who was Jewish and who wasn't.

There was a considerable difference between a Jewish tailor and a Jewish sailor.

The former was ubiquitous; the latter practically non-existent.

And that's a fact.

[Kattrup]

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.


It was so well-known in the East End that it was chalked on walls, and that is why Schwarz recognised it.

In the circumstances, it is reasonable, as Abberline did, to deduce that it was directed at Schwarz because of his Jewish appearance - which Abberline noted - and not at the other man, who was not of Jewish appearance.

I do not see the need to qualify my remarks in which I state that the man shouted an anti-Jewish insult at Schwarz - because that is what the evidence points to.

I see

You asked whether I disputed that it was a fact that the well known antisemitic insult was yelled at Schwartz.
Yes I dispute that, for even Schwartz himself was unsure who it was directed at.

You now see no need to qualify your remark, because you have deduced what the evidence points to.
so, one last time before I leave you to it: it is not a fact. It is your understanding. Others can and will disagree.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I see

You asked whether I disputed that it was a fact that the well known antisemitic insult was yelled at Schwartz.
Yes I dispute that, for even Schwartz himself was unsure who it was directed at.

You now see no need to qualify your remark, because you have deduced what the evidence points to.
so, one last time before I leave you to it: it is not a fact. It is your understanding. Others can and will disagree.

I never said that everyone has to agree with me.

My contention - that Inspector Abberline was right and the use of the word 'Lipski' was anti-Jewish and that it was directed at Schwarz - is credible.

But suggesting - as one member did - that a religious Jew might have shouted a well-known anti-Semitic insult at a fellow-Jew is not credible.

[The Baron]

Even worse, he think that the moment you look at a jew you will know he is a jew!!! Where do you live man?! Do you have certain ideas of how jewish look different than the rest of mankind?



That's not a valid point.

Someone else made a similar point - although more politely than you - that he had met two European Jews after the Second World War and they were not recognisably Jewish.

I was referring to Whitechapel in 1888.

That is rather different from meeting, for example, an assimilated Jewish person from Berlin or Vienna in the 1940s.

it is also very different from meeting most Jewish people who live in London today.

By and large, the Jews in Whitechapel were from Poland and Imperial Russia and people knew who was Jewish and who wasn't.

There was a considerable difference between a Jewish tailor and a Jewish sailor.

The former was ubiquitous; the latter practically non-existent.

And that's a fact.

So answer these two questions:

-How a young jew in his 20s in 1888 looks like

-And how a sailor looks like

I want specific details that makes it impossible for anyone to mistake


TB

[DJA]

Someone else made a similar point - although more politely than you - that he had met two European Jews after the Second World War and they were not recognisably Jewish.

My post was ......

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.


My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account


In fact my family resided diagonally opposite an enormous mansion owned and run by Jews for refugee Jews of WW2.

Both my late mother and I have been employed by Jews.

Most would have no idea any were Jews,unless they told you.
That included Mr Distelman.

[Abby Normal]

Thanks for the quote, it's a different page on kindle.

As I suspected it's the Grainger case Abby

It's simply a press report, so i suspect we will disagree on its significance.

It's dated 7th may 1895.
One issue is that is after Its being hinted that the killer is in an asylum and died.
Such seems to therefore suggest that while Lawende may have been used for some IDs he was not THE Witness.

Its been debated a number of times here and elsewhere, there is no consensus that it puts the matter to bed. For some it does i accept, for many it does not.



Steve

Hi El
Thanks! Of course its not established fact, but for myself Im satisfied that lawende was the seaside witness. The police seemed to think him reliable-He was at the inquest, could speak English and was used at another ID. None of which can be said of schwartz. The Pall mall snippet seals it for me.

However, I have not heard your podcast-can you point me in the right direction? Better yet-is there a transcript of the podcast so I can read?
I keep an open mind and have been swayed in the past.

Thanks El!

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

So answer these two questions:

-How a young jew in his 20s in 1888 looks like

-And how a sailor looks like

I want specific details that makes it impossible for anyone to mistake


TB

Newly-arrived men are provided with a frugal meal at the Poor Jew’s Temporary Shelter in around 1885. It began in Church Lane, Whitechapel. Sir Samuel Montagu and others took it over and provided a building in Leman Street to give a home for new arrivals for up to two weeks. It eventually sheltered up to 4,000 immigrants each year.







Jewish tailoring workshop in London’s East End, circa 1910




I'm still looking for photos from that place and period.


Lawende was considered by the police in 1888 to be a reliable witness and, as I already mentioned, he gave evidence for the prosecution in the trial of a fellow Jew for murder in 1876.

Somehow, he's considered to be a plausible candidate for the man who supposedly made the identification at the seaside home, even though it is claimed that he refused to testify against a fellow Jew - which is not a credible proposition.

But somehow, when I suggest that he actually knew what he was talking about when he said that the man had the appearance of a sailor, and that it is therefore reasonable to think that he was a sailor, my remarks are shot down.

I have provided a photograph of Jewish tailors and I'm sure there are plenty more to be found, but you won't find pictures of Jewish sailors, and I doubt very much that you will find a single picture of a single Jewish sailor.

What's happening on this forum is that perfectly reasonable inferences from the evidence made by me are being questioned and even derided, but extremely fanciful and even incredible suggestions attract no criticism whatsoever or even scepticism except from me!

Let us at least credit Lawende with knowing how sailors dressed.

He didn't say that the man had a Jewish appearance.

He didn't say that he was wearing any distinctive Jewish clothing.

It is being suggested by an author here that the man seen by Lawende may have been wearing a Jewish skull cap underneath his cap and Jewish fringes, hidden from view (naturally) when in London but prominently displayed when he knows that the police are trying to get him identified as an infamous murderer.

Then we are told that it's possible that at a police identification he spoke Yiddish; maybe he could have made it easier for everyone by speaking Yiddish to Lawende as he went past!

[Kattrup]

I never said that everyone has to agree with me.

My contention - that Inspector Abberline was right and the use of the word 'Lipski' was anti-Jewish and that it was directed at Schwarz - is credible.

But suggesting - as one member did - that a religious Jew might have shouted a well-known anti-Semitic insult at a fellow-Jew is not credible.

Excellent! Your contention is not a fact, but it is indeed credible.

Just continue like that and there’s no problem

[Elamarna]

Hi El
Thanks! Of course its not established fact, but for myself Im satisfied that lawende was the seaside witness. The police seemed to think him reliable-He was at the inquest, could speak English and was used at another ID. None of which can be said of schwartz. The Pall mall snippet seals it for me.

However, I have not heard your podcast-can you point me in the right direction? Better yet-is there a transcript of the podcast so I can read?
I keep an open mind and have been swayed in the past.

Thanks El!

Here you are

https://www.casebook.org/podcast/listen.html?id=311

Its based on accepting the Identification took place, and then who fits the criteria.

Jewish, what they saw would convict and a fes MORE.

I was surprised how low Lawende come out if I am honest.

But it's simple my opinion, not fact

Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks for the quote, it's a different page on kindle.

As I suspected it's the Grainger case Abby

It's simply a press report, so i suspect we will disagree on its significance.

It's dated 7th may 1895.
One issue is that is after Its being hinted that the killer is in an asylum and died.
Such seems to therefore suggest that while Lawende may have been used for some IDs he was not THE Witness.

Its been debated a number of times here and elsewhere, there is no consensus that it puts the matter to bed. For some it does i accept, for many it does not.



Steve

I don't see how Lawende could have been the witness, if we are to believe Swanson the Met organised the parade but Lawende was a City witness I see no reason why the Met would have undertaken the trouble to organise this parade when they would stand to gain nothing from it, and besides Kosminski was living within the Met district so if he had been regarded as a viable suspect the Met would have taken the lead, another reason to not believe in the content of the marginalia.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[The Baron]

You talked and talked and didn't give any answer to my two questions, exactly as I've expected.

-You were not able to give specific details how a young jew in his 20s looks like, instead you posted some pic of newly arrived men, being provided with a frugal meal, as if Kosminski in 1888 must have looked someting like that, a very poor quality pic that gives no details what so ever.

-And you failed to give the slightest of info how a Sailor must have looked like, Do you know why Lawende said "has the apearence of a sailor" ? Why didn't he say he IS a sailor? You know why? Because he was more clever than some biased and fixed new age 'researchers' and gave only his impression which could have been right or wrong



Do those people look jewish to you?
-from the Dailymail



TB