A photograph of Joseph Lawende in 1899

[The Baron]

And if you've got the wrong Kosminski, your claim that the court transcript proves that Aaron Kosminski could speak English becomes irrelevant.

How many times could one be proven wrong at one night?!!!

You started this by posting the following:

"Kosminski was an imbecilic schizophrenic who was obviously completely unworldly and slow-witted, is not actually known ever to have associated with prostitutes, had never been a butcher or slaughterer, and couldn't speak English"


So when Pontius2000 and Steve thankfully took the time to enlighten you and show you that Aaron, the one you are talking about above, was able to speak English, it all becomes irrelevant??????

It is YOUR point that Aaron Kosminski was not capable of speaking English that becomes irrelevant.

If it was Aaron, then he was able to speak English.
If it was not Aaron, then you are NOT in a position to say he couldn't speak English.

What a waste of time.

Scott got it right from the beginning.


TB

[Herlock Sholmes]

So, over 12 hours later and we have no response. A check of the quotes provided took me 5 minutes so how long can it take PI. So we have.

1. A claim that a ‘salt and pepper’ coat was a type worn by sailors for which there’s no evidence. I requested that evidence but you haven’t even responded. So this was clearly an inaccurate assumption on your part that you don’t wish to acknowledge so you hope that by refusing to answer the issue will be forgotten.

2. You got the issue of the titles wrong even after you had it explained to you.

3. You got the issue of the reputation points wrong despite it being in black and white.

4. You claim that a person of Jewish extraction would have been easily and immediately identifiable by a witness because you appear to think that all Jewish people look Jewish despite being shown numerous photographs of non-Jewish looking Jews. Even Lawende himself didn’t look particularly Jewish.

5. You claim that someone said that Kosminski couldn’t speak English despite it being shown that the only person who has made this claim is yourself.

6. You refuse to accept that lighting can affect our perception of colour. I’d suggest that you wouldn’t find a single person to agree with you on this point.

7. You deduce that the killer was a sailor simply because he wore a peaked cap and a neckerchief and wouldn’t accept the very simple suggestion that anyone could easily have acquired these items.

8. You claim that it’s logical to assume that if a person was in x on the 30th and x on the 1st then he must have been in x on the 31st. And you claim that this is strong enough evidence to claim an alibi.

9. You claim that a suspect in the case couldn’t have been the killer because he simply had too busy a life.

10. You complained about my posts then quoted 13 to prove your point. 10 of those 13 weren’t by me though and the other 3 were completely reasonable and not problematic in any way.


And we have no response from you. Will you respond? I’m beginning to wonder.

[Elamarna]

Kosminski wasn't Aaron


That's as far-fetched as the claim that Swanson actually meant Kaminski, which I have also read.

How many Kosminski suspects are there?

Can you name another one?

You can't find Anderson and Swanson's witness, but you think he must exist.

You seriously consider the possibility that there is another Kosminski, but strangely no-one can figure out who he was.

And how many Kosminskis were there being sent to Colney Hatch?

And if you've got the wrong Kosminski, your claim that the court transcript proves that Aaron Kosminski could speak English becomes irrelevant.

You say, if I remember correctly, that it's only after 1895 that Anderson and Swanson talk about the murderer being dead.

Where is the evidence that Anderson and Swanson were even talking before 1895 about a suspect having been identified?

Your entire post simply and very amply demonstrates how little you understand about the case for Anderson's suspect .

Such of course is not surprising given your own admission that you had not even read House, or I suspect any other books that deal with the issue published in the last say 15 years.

That you refer to Kaminsky, again shows how out of date your grasp of the information is.
The late Martin Fido, who suggested Koskminski and Kamansky may have been confused actually rejected the suggestion him self in later life.

In 1890, Anderson is very clear he does not KNOW who the killer was, yet within a couple of years, he is hinting, the killer was caught, locked away in an asylum, and had died.


That you do not know such basic things about the Anderson suspect theory, is astounding when one looks at the time of your posts, where you imply you have a deep understanding the arguments.

I really do suggest that you need to do some further research on this issue.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

How many times could one be proven wrong at one night?!!!

You started this by posting the following:

"Kosminski was an imbecilic schizophrenic who was obviously completely unworldly and slow-witted, is not actually known ever to have associated with prostitutes, had never been a butcher or slaughterer, and couldn't speak English"


So when Pontius2000 and Steve thankfully took the time to enlighten you and show you that Aaron, the one you are talking about above, was able to speak English, it all becomes irrelevant??????

It is YOUR point that Aaron Kosminski was not capable of speaking English that becomes irrelevant.

If it was Aaron, then he was able to speak English.
If it was not Aaron, then you are NOT in a position to say he couldn't speak English.

What a waste of time.

Scott got it right from the beginning.


TB

I think you have misunderstood what I meant.

I didn't say another Kosminski could not speak English.

I said if Swanson meant another Kosminski then the debate about whether Aaron Kosminski could speak English becomes academic.
Moreover, the fact that he displayed signs of schizophrenia - which has been considered relevant by many - becomes irrelevant.

Even the question of whether he was emaciated in 1888 would be irrelevant.

The only thing that would be relevant would be the known facts about the real Kosminski suspect and, as I said, he is as elusive as Anderson and Swanson's witness.

And, as I suggested last night, the reason is that neither the 'real' Kosminski nor the 'witness' who identified him existed.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Your entire post simply and very amply demonstrates how little you understand about the case for Anderson's suspect .

Such of course is not surprising given your own admission that you had not even read House, or I suspect any other books that deal with the issue published in the last say 15 years.

That you refer to Kaminsky, again shows how out of date your grasp of the information is.
The late Martin Fido, who suggested Koskminski and Kamansky may have been confused actually rejected the suggestion him self in later life.

In 1890, Anderson is very clear he does not KNOW who the killer was, yet within a couple of years, he is hinting, the killer was caught, locked away in an asylum, and had died.


That you do not know such basic things about the Anderson suspect theory, is astounding when one looks at the time of your posts, where you imply you have a deep understanding the arguments.

I really do suggest that you need to do some further research on this issue.

I am really at a loss to understand what makes you think that there is something wrong with my 'grasp of the information'.

I didn't say that Fido didn't change his mind.

The fact is that there are still adherents to the theory that Swanson meant Kaminsky.

I have encountered them online recently.

I didn't imagine that or refer to opinions I read decades ago.

People are looking for ways to keep the Anderson-Swanson fantasy alive and that is one of them.


In 1890, Anderson is very clear he does not KNOW who the killer was, yet within a couple of years, he is hinting, the killer was caught, locked away in an asylum, and had died.


That you do not know such basic things about the Anderson suspect theory, is astounding when one looks at the time of your posts, where you imply you have a deep understanding the arguments.


I can hardly believe you wrote that!

I made that very point - that Anderson did not know who the killer was - in the post to which you replied - and have made it several times before, yet you say I don't know it and that I don't know basic things!

It is one of the reasons I have been criticised so much here - for saying that Anderson did not know the identity of the murderer.

What are you saying - that Anderson didn't know of the identification when it happened but suddenly had a revelation?

Or that Swanson kept the identification secret even from Anderson and told him a few years later?



you imply you have a deep understanding the arguments.



If you are a notable author, you shouldn't be writing in that style.

It would be frowned upon in academia.

It's just a gratuitous put-down.


I have been saying all along that Anderson did not know the identity of the murderer.

I made that very point yesterday, when I cited Henry Smith's comment to the same effect.

You shot that down on the ground that Smith didn't know as much as Anderson.

Yet now YOU say that Anderson didn't know!

That means Smith and I are right.

Either Anderson knew all along or he didn't know.

And pointing out these things does not warrant the kind of language you use when addressing me.

[Elamarna]

I am really at a loss to understand what makes you think that there is something wrong with my 'grasp of the information'.

I didn't say that Fido didn't change his mind.

The fact is that there are still adherents to the theory that Swanson meant Kaminsky.

I have encountered them online recently.

I didn't imagine that or refer to opinions I read decades ago.

People are looking for ways to keep the Anderson-Swanson fantasy alive and that is one of them.


In 1890, Anderson is very clear he does not KNOW who the killer was, yet within a couple of years, he is hinting, the killer was caught, locked away in an asylum, and had died.


That you do not know such basic things about the Anderson suspect theory, is astounding when one looks at the time of your posts, where you imply you have a deep understanding the arguments.


I can hardly believe you wrote that!

I made that very point - that Anderson did not know who the killer was - in the post to which you replied - and have made it several times before, yet you say I don't know it and that I don't know basic things!

It is one of the reasons I have been criticised so much here - for saying that Anderson did not know the identity of the murderer.

What are you saying - that Anderson didn't know of the identification when it happened but suddenly had a revelation?

Or that Swanson kept the identification secret even from Anderson and told him a few years later?



you imply you have a deep understanding the arguments.



If you are a notable author, you shouldn't be writing in that style.

It would be frowned upon in academia.

It's just a gratuitous put-down.


I have been saying all along that Anderson did not know the identity of the murderer.

I made that very point yesterday, when I cited Henry Smith's comment to the same effect.

You shot that down on the ground that Smith didn't know as much as Anderson.

Yet now YOU say that Anderson didn't know!

That means Smith and I are right.

Either Anderson knew all along or he didn't know.

And pointing out these things does not warrant the kind of language you use when addressing me.

What kind of language, I have not sworn at you, I have not said you do not know what you are talking about?
Unlike you who has said that to several people several times.

Similarly I have not said your opinions are making a laughing stock of this forum, again something you have said to at least one other poster.

Neither have I said that no publisher would take your work seriously, because you disagree with me. Which you have done.

I shouldn't be writing in a style you disapprove of?

Academia would not approve.

I hate to break this too you, but this is an open forum, not an academic institution. And I worked in one for 35 years, and heard far worse than the very mild comments I have made about your apparent failings.

As for the style, this is not an echo chamber, people argue, but we have to follow the rules. there are rules, and I have not broken any of those I think.

If you don't like being told your are incorrect, I am sorry, it happens.


As for others still sticking to Kaminsky, that by and large is people who have not read House, Malcolm or even Fido himself later in his life.
People often read a book THEY love such as Fido's 1987 book or Sugden, and don't move on.

Please do not try and mislead, I said Anderson did not KNOW in 1890, but did by 1895.
To attempt to represent my comment as Anderson did not know full is disingenuous!

However, the argument that he either knew from day 1 or he never knew is not just unrealistic, it's seriously flawed.

Your reach a conclusion when you have sufficient evidence, it seems Anderson did not have that evidence in 1890, or at least he had not formed conclusion until later.

These attempts at misleading are why I earlier, a week back, said I saw little difference between how you expressed yourself and some of the Lechmere people.

If you don't like being told your are incorrect, I am sorry.

However, if one is going to discuss the Anderson theory in general and the AK theory in particular, it helps if if you are fully up-to-date on the research, and sadly it's clear you are not.
Discussing this subject without having read say House, Malcolm or Wood, is to me totally astounding .

Please understand I like your enthusiasm, but don't you are that you are in effect preaching at this forum, saying ONLY your view is the TRUE view.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please do not try and mislead, I said Anderson did not KNOW in 1890, but did by 1895.
To attempt to represent my comment as Anderson did not know full is disingenuous!

However, the argument that he either knew from day 1 or he never knew is not just unrealistic, it's seriously flawed.

Your reach a conclusion when you have sufficient evidence, it seems Anderson did not have that evidence in 1890, or at least he had not formed conclusion until later.

I think most of what you have written is unwarranted.

In particular, I am not a preacher.

The fact I do not name the suspect - a comparative rarity in debate nowadays - is not a characteristic of a believer.

I still do not understand why you think there is something deficient in my understanding of what Anderson is supposed to have known and when he is supposed to have known it.

I have been saying all along that he didn't know nor claim to know about the identification in the first place and that he did not start to say he knew until 1895.

You say I don't understand that that is what happened.

If you like, I'll go through my posted comments and list all the times I made that point.

You are now making the point and saying that I don't understand it!

You are actually agreeing with me and representing that agreement as a disagreement!

[Elamarna]

I think most of what you have written is unwarranted.

In particular, I am not a preacher.

The fact I do not name the suspect - a comparative rarity in debate nowadays - is not a characteristic of a believer.

I still do not understand why you think there is something deficient in my understanding of what Anderson is supposed to have known and when he is supposed to have known it.

I have been saying all along that he didn't know nor claim to know about the identification in the first place and that he did not start to say he knew until 1895.

You say I don't understand that that is what happened.

If you like, I'll go through my posted comments and list all the times I made that point.

You are now making the point and saying that I don't understand it!

You are actually agreeing with me and representing that agreement as a disagreement!

Not at all.

You claim Anderson did not know who the killer was, no Ifs, no buts.
There was NO suspect, NO witness and NO identification.

I say he did not know in 1890.
I say he did know several years later, giving the details of capture, incarceration and death by 1895.

I conclude that something occurred during those points that alowed him to reach that conclusion.

I speculate, not unreasonably I think, that it was the identification of a suspect, by a witness which was mainly instrumental in this.
I also speculate that murders of this type did not continue.
That the police, in the form of Swanson included Coles in the file, but concluded she was not " of this type".

The two points are NOT the same.
The issues involved are very different.

To attempt to equate the two views, not knowing at all and inventing a suspect, witness and identification, with Not knowing until after the identificstion is at best mistaken and at worst disingenuous, sorry but thats my view.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Not at all.

You claim Anderson did not know who the killer was, no Ifs, no buts.
There was NO suspect, NO witness and NO identification.

I say he did not know in 1890.
I say he did know several years later, giving the details of capture, incarceration and death by 1895.

I conclude that something occurred during those points that alowed him to reach that conclusion.

You are right that I say Anderson did not know who the killer actually was, but I have said repeatedly that until 1895 he did not even claim to know.

You were saying that I didn't know about that.

That's not true.

[Elamarna]

You are right that I say Anderson did not know who the killer actually was, but I have said repeatedly that until 1895 he did not even claim to know.

You were saying that I didn't know about that.

That's not true.

We will I think disagree over what you actually said

"What are you saying - that Anderson didn't know of the identification when it happened but suddenly had a revelation?

No, the identification may have occurred in mid 1890 , if the suspect was AK.
Anderson comments about not catching him, and has no real idea in the November 4th edition of the Pall Mall gazette.

Such would on the surface appear to question the identification, but one must also consider, that if it was AK( and again that's not certain) he was still free, I doubt you would say we think we know who it is, but he's still free. That might lead to the very situation of Public Disorder they are trying I believe to prevent

However, in June 1892, Anderson changes his line. Cassells Saturday Journal 11th June 1892.

“There is my answer to people who come with fads and theories about these murders,” he said. “It is impossible to believe they were acts of a sane man—they were those of a maniac revelling in blood"

This strongly suggests that in that 20 months, he had reached a conclusion on the identity of the killer.
I speculate a mixture of the ID, circumstantial evidence, such as Batty Street, and the cessation of the murders.

Or that Swanson kept the identification secret even from Anderson and told him a few years later?"

Never heard that one before, SO NO.

I have been saying all along that Anderson did not know the identity of the murderer.

I made that very point yesterday, when I cited Henry Smith's comment to the same effect.

You shot that down on the ground that Smith didn't know as much as Anderson.

Yet now YOU say that Anderson didn't know!

That means Smith and I are right.

Either Anderson knew all along or he didn't know.

It's very clear that you are saying that Anderson never knew the identity of the killer

That is completely different to what I am saying.

I am saying that before the End of 1890, Anderson is saying he is not aware of the identity of the killer. I suspect he had the majority of the information, but had not reached a conclusion.

In June 92, he implies he knows who the killer was, but gives no details.

I speculate, that he had now reached a conclusion.

Early 95. He states the killer was identified, locked away and is now dead.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think you have misunderstood what I meant.

I didn't say another Kosminski could not speak English.

I said if Swanson meant another Kosminski then the debate about whether Aaron Kosminski could speak English becomes academic.
Moreover, the fact that he displayed signs of schizophrenia - which has been considered relevant by many - becomes irrelevant.

Even the question of whether he was emaciated in 1888 would be irrelevant.

The only thing that would be relevant would be the known facts about the real Kosminski suspect and, as I said, he is as elusive as Anderson and Swanson's witness.

And, as I suggested last night, the reason is that neither the 'real' Kosminski nor the 'witness' who identified him existed.

So, after making a post which was a list of false accusations against me you simply can’t bring yourself to accept and admit your mistakes. You think that the ‘right’ thing to do is just to ignore the large list of ‘errors’ that I pointed out and continue to complain about how posters on here post?

What about displaying a bit of integrity rather than just sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending that it never happened?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Ok PI so let’s sum up this masterpiece shall we?

You got the point about reputation points hopelessly and provably wrong. I don’t know how you manage to do it but you did?

Then we have an all time classic. Of the 13 posts that you quoted - 8 were actually by Pontius2000 - 2 were by you, made in response to posts by Pontius2000 - and just 3 were made by me (none of which were in any way problematic or angry or insulting)

I really can’t wait to see how you try and wriggle out of this embarrassing howler of a post PI. I’m guessing that it won’t involve an apology for accusing me of saying things that were actually said by someone else.

I apologise for attributing to you all the unpleasant things actually written to me by Pontius2000.

At the outset, I wrote:

What has actually been happening is that you and a few other members have been trying repeatedly to prove that I am wrong about facts, alleging that I misrepresent opinion as fact, and using questionable language in the process.

I refer to the thread entitled Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”, now closed.

Unfortunately, I then failed to separate the comments made by you and Pontius2000.

I didn't know you would be so offended by having his comments attributed to you.

As for mis-citing your reputation, again I apologise; I was citing Pontius2000's.

However, the fact that my reputation rating is the same as yours still detracts from your claim that everyone disagrees with me, which was the only reason I cited the reputation ratings in the first place.

I apologise for attributing to you Pontius2000's howler that Abberline believed the murderer was a Polish Jew.

I also apologise for attributing to you Pontius2000's absurd remarks that Kosminski could have looked about seven years older than he was, had blond hair, and in spite of being a religious Jew, dressed like a sailor.


I apologise for attributing to you Pontius2000's facetious remarks that to say the writing on the wall was anti-Jewish is 'wild speculation' and that it was actually pro-Jewish.


I apologise for attributing to you Pontius2000's remarks that I 'twist tidbits in order to fit a specific narrative' and that I made a false statement about Schwarz having testified at the inquest.


I am also very sorry that I attributed to you the following paragraph written by Pontius2000 and can well understand why you would be offended by the suggestion that you yourself had written it:


so even after all the evidence of mesirah and Jewish groups attempting to get Lipski off, you still deny that SOME Jews would shield other Jews? It’s been proven, some would. And it wouldn’t necessarily have been strictly because there was some kind of kinship in being Jewish. “Because he was a Jew” could’ve been because they, being Jew, were living in close proximity to his family, being Jew, and they were afraid his family may retaliate. Or it may have been that they, being Jew, would cause riots against the Jewish community or further persecutions


I do apologise and assure you that, in future, I will attribute to you only genuine howlers on your part, such as the one you made about Lawende never having given the description of a fair-moustached man with the appearance of a sailor.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

So, after making a post which was a list of false accusations against me you simply can’t bring yourself to accept and admit your mistakes. You think that the ‘right’ thing to do is just to ignore the large list of ‘errors’ that I pointed out and continue to complain about how posters on here post?

What about displaying a bit of integrity rather than just sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending that it never happened?

I didn't see your above post till now.

I refer you to the response I posted about a minute ago.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

We will I think disagree over what you actually said



No, the identification may have occurred in mid 1890 , if the suspect was AK.
Anderson comments about not catching him, and has no real idea in the November 4th edition of the Pall Mall gazette.

Such would on the surface appear to question the identification, but one must also consider, that if it was AK( and again that's not certain) he was still free, I doubt you would say we think we know who it is, but he's still free. That might lead to the very situation of Public Disorder they are trying I believe to prevent

However, in June 1892, Anderson changes his line. Cassells Saturday Journal 11th June 1892.

“There is my answer to people who come with fads and theories about these murders,” he said. “It is impossible to believe they were acts of a sane man—they were those of a maniac revelling in blood"

This strongly suggests that in that 20 months, he had reached a conclusion on the identity of the killer.
I speculate a mixture of the ID, circumstantial evidence, such as Batty Street, and the cessation of the murders.



Never heard that one before, SO NO.




It's very clear that you are saying that Anderson never knew the identity of the killer

That is completely different to what I am saying.

I am saying that before the End of 1890, Anderson is saying he is not aware of the identity of the killer. I suspect he had the majority of the information, but had not reached a conclusion.

In June 92, he implies he knows who the killer was, but gives no details.

I speculate, that he had now reached a conclusion.

Early 95. He states the killer was identified, locked away and is now dead.

Perhaps you would tell us who you think DID 'know' that the Polish Jew / Kosminski was the murderer in mid-1890.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I apologise for attributing to you all the unpleasant things actually written to me by Pontius2000.

At the outset, I wrote:

What has actually been happening is that you and a few other members have been trying repeatedly to prove that I am wrong about facts, alleging that I misrepresent opinion as fact, and using questionable language in the process.

I refer to the thread entitled Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”, now closed.

Unfortunately, I then failed to separate the comments made by you and Pontius2000.

I didn't know you would be so offended by having his comments attributed to you.

As for mis-citing your reputation, again I apologise; I was citing Pontius2000's.

However, the fact that my reputation rating is the same as yours still detracts from your claim that everyone disagrees with me, which was the only reason I cited the reputation ratings in the first place.

I apologise for attributing to you Pontius2000's howler that Abberline believed the murderer was a Polish Jew.

I also apologise for attributing to you Pontius2000's absurd remarks that Kosminski could have looked about seven years older than he was, had blond hair, and in spite of being a religious Jew, dressed like a sailor.


I apologise for attributing to you Pontius2000's facetious remarks that to say the writing on the wall was anti-Jewish is 'wild speculation' and that it was actually pro-Jewish.


I apologise for attributing to you Pontius2000's remarks that I 'twist tidbits in order to fit a specific narrative' and that I made a false statement about Schwarz having testified at the inquest.


I am also very sorry that I attributed to you the following paragraph written by Pontius2000 and can well understand why you would be offended by the suggestion that you yourself had written it:


so even after all the evidence of mesirah and Jewish groups attempting to get Lipski off, you still deny that SOME Jews would shield other Jews? It’s been proven, some would. And it wouldn’t necessarily have been strictly because there was some kind of kinship in being Jewish. “Because he was a Jew” could’ve been because they, being Jew, were living in close proximity to his family, being Jew, and they were afraid his family may retaliate. Or it may have been that they, being Jew, would cause riots against the Jewish community or further persecutions


I do apologise and assure you that, in future, I will attribute to you only genuine howlers on your part, such as the one you made about Lawende never having given the description of a fair-moustached man with the appearance of a sailor.

What a pathetic, weasley, insincere apology. You’re the one making howlers not me. You can stick your completely false apology.

In your short time on here you’ve accrued a greater backlog of utter nonsense that can hardly be equalled.

Oh, and I noticed that you haven’t mentioned your invention about the salt and pepper coat?