A photograph of Joseph Lawende in 1899

[Herlock Sholmes]

You claimed I had not mentioned that the neckerchief and the jacket taken together suggest that the suspect had the appearance of a sailor.

I produced proof that I had done so.

Most people in your position would then concede that they had been mistaken.

Instead, you write that I am in outraged mode, that I made a completely baseless, unfounded, totally lacking-in-evidence comment, that I wrote waffle and whining and obsessive repletion, and that I am obsessively picking over this one in between complaints.

In such circumstances, I think that no-one else would reply to you further.

You did previously admit that you were wrong about Lawende not having given the description, but this time you have once again made personal remarks instead of admitting you are wrong.

I suggest you stop sending me such messages.

And you still haven’t admitted that you invented the suggestion that the salt and pepper jacket was connected to sailors. And you are the man that accused me of making around 8 posts ‘against’ you only to have it pointed out that I didn’t actually make those posts. Then you gave the most pathetic, fake apology ever.

Im bored with you. You’re probably the most annoying poster that I’ve come across in my time posting on here. Hardly surprising that no one really wants to engage with you.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

And after we’ve waded through the waffle and the whining and the obsessive repletion we can recap.

Lawende said that the man had the appearance of a sailor. This is in the record and no one has ever doubted it and yet you keep going on about it.

Logic, reason and common sense tells us that just because someone ‘had the appearance of a sailor’ and that this is based on clothing then we can’t say that the person was a sailor. Only that we can’t dismiss the possibility.

You have still provided not even a smidgeon of evidence that the type of coat that he was wearing was one worn by sailors. Not a scintilla or a shred of evidence. So we are left with a neckerchief which thousands of working class Londoners wore. And a peaked cap.

That’s it. There is nothing more than that. Can we deduce that he was a sailor? Of course we can’t. Could he have Ben a sailor? Yes he could.

There really is no need to keep obsessively picking over this one in between complaints.

You claimed I had not mentioned that the neckerchief and the jacket taken together suggest that the suspect had the appearance of a sailor.

I produced proof that I had done so.

Most people in your position would then concede that they had been mistaken.

Instead, you write that I am in outraged mode, that I made a completely baseless, unfounded, totally lacking-in-evidence comment, that I wrote waffle and whining and obsessive repletion, and that I am obsessively picking over this one in between complaints.

In such circumstances, I think that no-one else would reply to you further.

You did previously admit that you were wrong about Lawende not having given the description, but this time you have once again made personal remarks instead of admitting you are wrong.

I suggest you stop sending me such messages.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You're plain wrong.

I quote from my post # 142 in the thread Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”

at

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...e10#post798972

So now your linking me to posts in another thread where you are in ‘outraged’ mode.

I pointed out that the style of blouson worn by the suspect was commonly worn by sailors.

Someone said, 'well what about the neckerchief?'

By the way, how am I able to make such an assertion about the blouson if I don't know what I'm talking about?

Did anyone else here know that?

Apparently not!

This is surprising even for you. You make a completely baseless, unfounded, totally lacking-in-evidence comment about a ‘blouson’ and just because you’ve made this comment you somehow believe it adds credibility.


Now, I'm being asked 'what about the neckerchief?' which supposedly doesn't suggest that the man was a sailor.

It doesn’t even remotely hint or imply that he was a sailor.

Well, sailors did commonly wear neckerchiefs!

They also wore shoes and underpants but those aren’t specific to them. Look at photos of the Victorian era. You’ll see loads of mean wearing neckerchiefs. Utterly irrelevant.

So if a bloke goes to Pettocoat Lane market and buys a neckerchief and puts it on he immediately becomes a sailor. What a pity he didn’t have a parrot on his shoulder.

That, taken in conjunction with the blouson he was wearing, did indeed mean that he had the appearance of a sailor.

Firstly, what it actually means is that Joseph Lawende said that he had the appearance of a sailor. Secondly, this DOES NOT IN ANY WAY mean that he was a sailor.

And lo and behold, Lawende, who was there and saw the man, described him as having the appearance of a sailor.

No one has disputed what Lawende said.


Contrary to what you have claimed, my statements have been entirely consistent.

I wrote almost four weeks ago:

It seems longer.

Well, sailors did commonly wear neckerchiefs!

That, taken in conjunction with the blouson he was wearing, did indeed mean that he had the appearance of a sailor.


And today, I wrote:


I think I did say earlier that I think the neckerchief played some part in Lawende's deduction, but that it had more to do with the pepper-and-salt loose jacket.

I think the combination of the two items of clothing may have been decisive.

And after we’ve waded through the waffle and the whining and the obsessive repletion we can recap.

Lawende said that the man had the appearance of a sailor. This is in the record and no one has ever doubted it and yet you keep going on about it.

Logic, reason and common sense tells us that just because someone ‘had the appearance of a sailor’ and that this is based on clothing then we can’t say that the person was a sailor. Only that we can’t dismiss the possibility.

You have still provided not even a smidgeon of evidence that the type of coat that he was wearing was one worn by sailors. Not a scintilla or a shred of evidence. So we are left with a neckerchief which thousands of working class Londoners wore. And a peaked cap.

That’s it. There is nothing more than that. Can we deduce that he was a sailor? Of course we can’t. Could he have Ben a sailor? Yes he could.

There really is no need to keep obsessively picking over this one in between complaints.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, there’s nothing wrong with expressing a level of confidence on something. It only becomes an issue if a person is very confident on his/her every opinion

Your second statement is obviously incorrect.

We can eliminate the coat because he doesn’t describe what type of coat it was.

That is obviously not a logical deduction.

This leaves only the cap and the neckerchief.

Wrong again.

So this meant that you felt that you knew exactly what type of coat it was (which is impossible)

Again you use the word exactly, as you did about my comments about the timings at the Eddowes inquest being reliable.

I have never used the words exact or exactly.

I can’t help getting the impression that you are now trying to move to a position

My position is not moving.

To the best of my recollection, it is the same as what I stated long ago.

So a sailor could be identified by how his coat ‘fitted’ ? Thousands of people wore loose fitting coats.

Lawende described him as having the appearance of a sailor.

That suggests he was a sailor.

What a waste of time and effort that was.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I think I did say earlier that I think the neckerchief played some part in Lawende's deduction, but that it had more to do with the pepper-and-salt loose jacket.

I think the combination of the two items of clothing may have been decisive.


[my comment, # 280]



I can’t recall you mentioning the neckerchief as connected to identifying the man as a sailor.


[your comment, # 285]


I used the search function. This is the only time that you’ve mentioned the neckerchief.

“I wouldn't dream of asking you to be indiscreet about this, but do you mean that Stow's scarf is of a similar colour to the neckerchief worn by my favoured suspect, the man with the appearance of a sailor, seen by Lawende?”

It was in response to a post by Caz.

[your comment, # 286]

You're plain wrong.

I quote from my post # 142 in the thread Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”

at

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...e10#post798972



I pointed out that the style of blouson worn by the suspect was commonly worn by sailors.

Someone said, 'well what about the neckerchief?'

By the way, how am I able to make such an assertion about the blouson if I don't know what I'm talking about?

Did anyone else here know that?

Apparently not!


Now, I'm being asked 'what about the neckerchief?' which supposedly doesn't suggest that the man was a sailor.

Well, sailors did commonly wear neckerchiefs!

That, taken in conjunction with the blouson he was wearing, did indeed mean that he had the appearance of a sailor.

And lo and behold, Lawende, who was there and saw the man, described him as having the appearance of a sailor.




Contrary to what you have claimed, my statements have been entirely consistent.

I wrote almost four weeks ago:


Well, sailors did commonly wear neckerchiefs!

That, taken in conjunction with the blouson he was wearing, did indeed mean that he had the appearance of a sailor.


And today, I wrote:


I think I did say earlier that I think the neckerchief played some part in Lawende's deduction, but that it had more to do with the pepper-and-salt loose jacket.

I think the combination of the two items of clothing may have been decisive.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Yes, there’s nothing wrong with expressing a level of confidence on something. It only becomes an issue if a person is very confident on his/her every opinion

Your second statement is obviously incorrect.

We can eliminate the coat because he doesn’t describe what type of coat it was.

That is obviously not a logical deduction.

This leaves only the cap and the neckerchief.

Wrong again.

So this meant that you felt that you knew exactly what type of coat it was (which is impossible)

Again you use the word exactly, as you did about my comments about the timings at the Eddowes inquest being reliable.

I have never used the words exact or exactly.

I can’t help getting the impression that you are now trying to move to a position

My position is not moving.

To the best of my recollection, it is the same as what I stated long ago.

So a sailor could be identified by how his coat ‘fitted’ ? Thousands of people wore loose fitting coats.

Lawende described him as having the appearance of a sailor.

That suggests he was a sailor.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think I did say earlier that I think the neckerchief played some part in Lawende's deduction, but that it had more to do with the pepper-and-salt loose jacket.

I used the search function. This is the only time that you’ve mentioned the neckerchief.

“I wouldn't dream of asking you to be indiscreet about this, but do you mean that Stow's scarf is of a similar colour to the neckerchief worn by my favoured suspect, the man with the appearance of a sailor, seen by Lawende?”

It was in response to a post by Caz.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You can say that with more than a very high level of confidence.

You can say that with a level of over-confidence.

Yes, there’s nothing wrong with expressing a level of confidence on something. It only becomes an issue if a person is very confident on his/her every opinion. Ive just looked at the evidence PI. Or rather I’ve noted the complete absence of it.

I don't know what makes you think the cap has anything to do with it.

Process of elimination. We can eliminate the coat because he doesn’t describe what type of coat it was. Only the material/colour and the fact that it was loose fitting. From this it’s simply impossible to deduce what kind of jacket the man was actually wearing. This leaves only the cap and the neckerchief.

I think I did say earlier that I think the neckerchief played some part in Lawende's deduction, but that it had more to do with the pepper-and-salt loose jacket.

I can’t recall you mentioning the neckerchief as connected to identifying the man as a sailor.

You said very specifically that a salt and pepper coat was of a type worn by sailors. If you want me to waste time trawling back to find exact quotes from you I will. So this meant that you felt that you knew exactly what type of coat it was (which is impossible) and that you knew that it was a type specifically worn by sailors (for which you have provided no evidence)

I think the combination of the two items of clothing may have been decisive.

I can’t help getting the impression that you are now trying to move to a position that isn’t totally reliant on the jacket to identify the man as a sailor. Previously you focused on the jacket because you claimed to have evidence that it was of a type that was worn by sailors (even though the description doesn’t tell us what type it was)

Leaving aside the issue of the jacket's pattern or colour, the fact is that sailors did use to wear loose jackets.

So a sailor could be identified by how his coat ‘fitted’ ? Thousands of people wore loose fitting coats. I’m amazed that you even suggest this.

[FISHY1118]

I think your guess is wrong.

I haven't seen the document, but evidently some authors have and they quote the document reference, which is:

HO 144/221/A49301C/8a

And it does mention pepper and salt.

How do you know what it mentions if you havent seen it ?

[FISHY1118]

You mean some authors have evidently seen the document reference ''HO 144/221/A49301C/8a'' ?

Sorry but to quote a document ref number as ''Proof'' that ''take our word for it this is what it says'' doesnt cut it im afaide , like most on casebook when actually asked to produce proof of an original document that which they claim this was said, they more often than not cant .

So ill stick with my guess for now

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Now all you have to do is show me that ''Quote'' as it appears in reference[8] of the wiki article you posted . My guess is the 19th 0ct press report is the only description that mentions ''salt and pepper '' which make no mention of Lawende attached to it .

I think your guess is wrong.

I haven't seen the document, but evidently some authors have and they quote the document reference, which is:

HO 144/221/A49301C/8a

And it does mention pepper and salt.

[FISHY1118]

The description of the man seen by "two men coming out of a club" is given in a report by Donald Swanson, dated 19 October 1888, as "age 30 ht. 5 ft. 7 or 8 in. comp. fair fair moustache, medium built, 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." ^[8] Essentially the same description was eventually published in the Police Gazette on 19 October 1888. ^[9]


https://wiki.casebook.org/joseph_lawende.html

Now all you have to do is show me that ''Quote'' as it appears in reference[8] of the wiki article you posted . My guess is the 19th 0ct press report is the only description that mentions ''salt and pepper '' which make no mention of Lawende attached to it .

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

,,
So when we combine this with the absolute absence of a connection to the Navy or to sailors we can say with a very high level of confidence that Lawende based his observation on the peaked cap/ neckerchief.

You can say that with more than a very high level of confidence.

You can say that with a level of over-confidence.

I don't know what makes you think the cap has anything to do with it.

I think I did say earlier that I think the neckerchief played some part in Lawende's deduction, but that it had more to do with the pepper-and-salt loose jacket.

I think the combination of the two items of clothing may have been decisive.

Leaving aside the issue of the jacket's pattern or colour, the fact is that sailors did use to wear loose jackets.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Kindly stop sending me insulting messages - and, in case you didn't know it, telling someone to stop whining is insulting.

You are constantly complaining. It’s almost non-stop. Stick to the topic.

After all the nonsense you have written about logical deductions being speculation and fantasy, and my supposed over-confidence when I make observations, and my allegedly misrepresenting assumptions as facts, you then come out with an incorrect statement, which at best is a wrong deduction:

You do realise that deductions aren’t facts? Even when they they are based on evidence? You look at the evidence and make deductions/interpretations/speculations. That is absolutely fine. We all do it. But it doesn’t mean that you are correct. People can misinterpret evidence, deductions can be wrong, speculations can be mistaken. I can do it you can do it. We are all fallible. We can all be mistaken but you get irate when someone questions one of your deductions. Did you really expect to come onto a Forum, surrounded by people who have been looking into the case for 20, 30 or 40 years and expect them to all agree with you on every point PI. You just have to get used to being disagreed with.

Lawende mentioned that the man had the appearance of a sailor solely due to his peaked cap (and possibly his neckerchief)


You have no way of knowing that.

You evidently do not practise what you preach.

In the quote above we have “pepper & salt colour loose jacket.”

Pepper and salt is a clear reference to the pattern of the fabric only. The only description of the actual form of the jacket is that it was ‘loose.’ Looking online every ‘salt and pepper’ jacket or coat is a reference to the pattern of the fabric as opposed to a particular type of jacket because the styles differ massively. Lots of different styles of jacket are described as ‘salt and pepper.’ More specifically the colour appears to vary but ‘salt and pepper’ looks to be a combination of two colours. I can only suggest that the term might derive from the effect of combining salt and pepper. You would get light grains and darker grains combined which is the effect that you see in every photo of a salt and pepper jacket/coat.

Like this:

https://www.google.com/search?q=salt+and+pepper+colour+jacket&rlz=1C9BKJA_enGB704GB704&oq=&aqs=chrome.0.35i39i362l6j69i59i450l4.301591j0j7&hl=en-GB&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=oZMLbW8Z_y47yM

and this

https://www.google.com/search?q=salt+and+pepper+colour+jacket&rlz=1C9BKJA_enGB704GB704&oq=&aqs=chrome.0.35i39i362l6j69i59i450l4.301591j0j7&hl=en-GB&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=nvnJUZN0ByXC-M

Of course these are modern clothing but I can find no historical references. Others might be able to but it’s clear that Lawende was talking about the material of the coat and that it was a loose fitting coat. He wasn’t describing a particular type of coat.

So when we combine this with the absolute absence of a connection to the Navy or to sailors we can say with a very high level of confidence that Lawende based his observation on the peaked cap/ neckerchief. And as we all know, you simply can’t deduce with even a modicum of confidence that the man was a sailor. A peaked cap no more makes a man a sailor than the combat trousers that I wore today makes me a soldier.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Stop whining.

You said that you had evidence. You have produced nothing apart from something unrelated. Lawende mentioned that the man had the appearance of a sailor solely due to his peaked cap (and possibly his neckerchief)

Kindly stop sending me insulting messages - and, in case you didn't know it, telling someone to stop whining is insulting.

After all the nonsense you have written about logical deductions being speculation and fantasy, and my supposed over-confidence when I make observations, and my allegedly misrepresenting assumptions as facts, you then come out with an incorrect statement, which at best is a wrong deduction:

Lawende mentioned that the man had the appearance of a sailor solely due to his peaked cap (and possibly his neckerchief)


You have no way of knowing that.

You evidently do not practise what you preach.