Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I did reply to your post, you know, the bits it bold. You're taking general casual clothes and 'appearance of a sailor' as 'blond Nordic sailor'. Nowhere is his actual hair colour mentioned and nowhere are the words blond or Nordic used. Lawende's man has a peaked cap and necktie on, which doesn't make him a sailor, or even a Nordic sailor, but could be taken as appearance of a sailor. Doesn't mean he was a sailor does it.

it's a reasonable deduction from the evidence that he was a sailor.

And it's a reasonable deduction from the evidence that he had fair hair.

As I explained previously, I had in earlier posts quoted exact words from the description on record.

The reaction was just as critical as yours, even though I didn't use the word 'Nordic'.

Now when I use the word Nordic just once, in order to contrast his appearance with that of Kosminski, who we are being assured must have had a Jewish appearance, people are objecting to the use of the word 'Nordic'.

It was shorthand for someone with fair hair and fair complexion.

I'm amazed at the nit-picking that's going on.

If I said that he looked African I could understand the outrage.

I described him accurately.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Again, you are not being sent messages, posts are being made in response to post you make. Those are NOT messages.
To say I am sending you messages suggests I am sending you private messages.

You are the one who is at this moment is stating that Kelly was the last murder, not as a possibility, or as a theory but as a fact.

Why would I being replying about that to Anyone else at this moment.

In that case, I think you ought to quote what I wrote.

[Elamarna]

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

You say I'm making an assumption that Kelly's murder was the last in the series.

Do you send a message like that to everyone else who shares my view?

Again, you are not being sent messages, posts are being made in response to post you make. Those are NOT messages.
To say I am sending you messages suggests I am sending you private messages.

You are the one who is at this moment is stating that Kelly was the last murder, not as a possibility, or as a theory but as a fact.

Why would I being replying about that to Anyone else at this moment.

[Aethelwulf]

If you can't make intelligent conversation, why send me messages?

The witness mentioned that the suspect had the appearance of a sailor.

It seems that my very mention of the word sailor has become cause for hilarity or scepticism or ridicule.

I thought that this forum was about looking at the evidence relating to this case.

It's the most important piece of eyewitness evidence in the whole case, yet the identification at a seaside home that most researchers consider took place twenty months later - if it ever took place at all - seems to be arousing more interest here.

What about the only actual eyewitness evidence relating to this murder?

It wasn't I who first suggested that the suspect was a sailor.

It was the witness.

I did reply to your post, you know, the bits it bold. You're taking general casual clothes and 'appearance of a sailor' as 'blond Nordic sailor'. Nowhere is his actual hair colour mentioned and nowhere are the words blond or Nordic used. Lawende's man has a peaked cap and necktie on, which doesn't make him a sailor, or even a Nordic sailor, but could be taken as appearance of a sailor. Doesn't mean he was a sailor does it.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

But you are,

1. you pointed out to Abby that Hove did not open until 1890, then asked if Lawende could be used at that point , so you clearly are saying the seaside home was in to be.

2. I think you will find many researchers and commentators do not accept Kelly is the last murder.

Sorry questioning you politely, is cooling it.
Or do you thing that Admin meant people should not disagree with you full stop.

So many of the comments you make are assumptions, which you keep presenting as the only credible option. Clearly you think your deductions are not speculation.

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

You say I'm making an assumption that Kelly's murder was the last in the series.

Do you send a message like that to everyone else who shares my view?

[Elamarna]

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?

Messages are normally considered on the forum's to mean private messages, not posts on a thread.

I have sent you NO messages

[Elamarna]

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?

But you are,

1. you pointed out to Abby that Hove did not open until 1890, then asked if Lawende could be used at that point , so you clearly are saying the seaside home was in Hove.

2. I think you will find many researchers and commentators do not accept Kelly is the last murder.

Sorry questioning you politely, is cooling it.
Or do you thing that Admin meant people should not disagree with you full stop.

So many of the comments you make are assumptions, which you keep presenting as the only credible option. Clearly you think your deductions are not speculation.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Evening

If you can't make intelligent conversation, why send me messages?

The witness mentioned that the suspect had the appearance of a sailor.

It seems that my very mention of the word sailor has become cause for hilarity or scepticism or ridicule.

I thought that this forum was about looking at the evidence relating to this case.

It's the most important piece of eyewitness evidence in the whole case, yet the identification at a seaside home that most researchers consider took place twenty months later - if it ever took place at all - seems to be arousing more interest here.

What about the only actual eyewitness evidence relating to this murder?

It wasn't I who first suggested that the suspect was a sailor.

It was the witness.

[Elamarna]

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'?

No he was not described as a blond haired sailor. That is your interpretation.

The words used by Lawende were

"- age 30 ht. 5 ft. 7 or 8 in. comp. fair, fair moustache, medium build, 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."

That is not saying he is blond haired sailor, is it?

So obviously Jewish?
That appears to be worse than speculation.

The witness refused to testify once he realised the suspect was also Jewish.
That suggests that he became aware after the event ( what he witnessed), not that he knew at the time that he witnessed it .

Once again this is assumption.

[barnflatwyngarde]

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.

With the greatest respect PI, many of the people you are debating with have an unparalleled knowledge of this fascinating case. I know a bit about the case, but I am happy to admit that I feel like a novice sometimes.
Everyone I have debated/disagreed with has been nothing but generous with their knowledge and mostly very humble with it.

[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?

[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

[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.

[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.

[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'?