Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A photograph of Joseph Lawende in 1899

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

    And this is the crux of the matter, Anti- Semitism, like all forms of discrimination is vile. And there is no denying that Such was rife in London in 1888.
    Indeed, I speculate that it was to avoid the possible violent outcome of such, that the action I believe was taken occurred.

    Yet, by saying to suspect a Jew of being the killer is Anti-Semitic in itself, you reach the conclusion that the killer not only could not be a Jew, but it's impossible he was.

    Unfortunately, that approach is very deeply flawed, it is a form of prejudice itself.

    You exclude a large percentage of potential suspects based purely on race. That is no difference to the ignorant and bias who at the time in 1888, stated the killer could not be an Englishman.

    Do you not see that, you have compensated to the extent that you do not seem to even be capable of considering the killer could be Jewish.



    I think you are missing the crux of what I'm saying!

    I am not objecting to the allegation that a person who happens to be Jewish committed a murder.

    What I am objecting to is the allegation that the Jew was a murderer based on prejudice and not evidence.

    Following the Hanbury Street murder, young gentile men marched down Hanbury Street shouting that the Jews were responsible.

    I am sure you are not going to argue that they did so on the basis of evidence.

    A newspaper reported that a message had been chalked on the wall near the body.

    Lo and behold, the next night that the murderer struck, a chalked message appeared on a wall, next to a bloody item of clothing belonging to the latest victim.

    Superintendent Arnold and Commissioner Warren were so alarmed by the obviously-accusatory anti-Semitic message that they had it removed before it could be photographed.

    A newspaper editorial declared that no Englishman could have committed the murders - and everyone knew what that meant!

    Again, I don't think you are going to argue that that charge was based on evidence.

    When Robert Anderson published his allegations, it was recognised as another manifestation of the same phenomenon, and he was condemned for it - by his fellows.

    They were not based on evidence and, when challenged, Anderson could not produce any nor even refer to anything tangible in support of what he had alleged.

    What you are suggesting is that although, from the beginning, the accusation that a Jew was the murderer had no basis in fact, it somehow turns out that the murderer was a Jew, and as he wrote on the wall, the 'Jews' were to be blamed for, as Anderson put it, refusing to give up one of their number to 'gentile justice.'

    Comment


    • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post



      I think you are missing the crux of what I'm saying!

      I am not objecting to the allegation that a person who happens to be Jewish committed a murder.

      What I am objecting to is the allegation that the Jew was a murderer based on prejudice and not evidence.

      Following the Hanbury Street murder, young gentile men marched down Hanbury Street shouting that the Jews were responsible.

      I am sure you are not going to argue that they did so on the basis of evidence.

      A newspaper reported that a message had been chalked on the wall near the body.

      Lo and behold, the next night that the murderer struck, a chalked message appeared on a wall, next to a bloody item of clothing belonging to the latest victim.

      Superintendent Arnold and Commissioner Warren were so alarmed by the obviously-accusatory anti-Semitic message that they had it removed before it could be photographed.

      A newspaper editorial declared that no Englishman could have committed the murders - and everyone knew what that meant!

      Again, I don't think you are going to argue that that charge was based on evidence.

      When Robert Anderson published his allegations, it was recognised as another manifestation of the same phenomenon, and he was condemned for it - by his fellows.

      They were not based on evidence and, when challenged, Anderson could not produce any nor even refer to anything tangible in support of what he had alleged.

      What you are suggesting is that although, from the beginning, the accusation that a Jew was the murderer had no basis in fact, it somehow turns out that the murderer was a Jew, and as he wrote on the wall, the 'Jews' were to be blamed for, as Anderson put it, refusing to give up one of their number to 'gentile justice.'
      No, I am clearly saying that the evidence the police amassed, including the door to door search, the probably identification lead the police to suspect a particular person.

      That he was Jewish was not the reason he was suspected is my contention.

      You have convinced yourself that is not the case, so be it .



      Comment


      • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

        No, I am clearly saying that the evidence the police amassed, including the door to door search, the probably identification lead the police to suspect a particular person.

        That he was Jewish was not the reason he was suspected is my contention.

        You have convinced yourself that is not the case, so be it .



        I am quite convinced on the evidence we have that no such identification took place and that Scotland Yard did not believe that the murderer was Jewish.

        That is why Abberline, MacNaghten, Reid and Henry Smith did not believe the murderer was Jewish.

        The idea that only Anderson and Swanson were privy to the great secret is not credible.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


          I am quite convinced on the evidence we have that no such identification took place and that Scotland Yard did not believe that the murderer was Jewish.

          That is why Abberline, MacNaghten, Reid and Henry Smith did not believe the murderer was Jewish.

          The idea that only Anderson and Swanson were privy to the great secret is not credible.
          Again you believe a junior local officer, a officer who had moved on to other investigations , another officer who was not actually in the police in 1888, but who still considered someone he called Kosminski , and Smith, the temporary head of a force that investigated just one murder.

          Yet you reject and dismiss the man who actually ran the investigation, Swanson and Anderson.



          To consider those 4 officers more reliable than Swanson is simply illogical, You are clearly not following the evidence at all, just you bias.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

            Again you believe a junior local officer, a officer who had moved on to other investigations , another officer who was not actually in the police in 1888, but who still considered someone he called Kosminski , and Smith, the temporary head of a force that investigated just one murder.

            Yet you reject and dismiss the man who actually ran the investigation, Swanson and Anderson.



            To consider those 4 officers more reliable than Swanson is simply illogical, You are clearly not following the evidence at all, just you bias.


            I repeat: Scotland Yard did not know about the alleged unmasking of the murderer.

            You can't explain why the unmasking of the murderer should be a secret restricted to two men.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post



              I repeat: Scotland Yard did not know about the alleged unmasking of the murderer.

              You can't explain why the unmasking of the murderer should be a secret restricted to two men.
              Opinion stated a fact.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes.

              “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                I am quite convinced on the evidence we have that no such identification took place and that Scotland Yard did not believe that the murderer was Jewish.

                That is why Abberline, MacNaghten, Reid and Henry Smith did not believe the murderer was Jewish.

                The idea that only Anderson and Swanson were privy to the great secret is not credible.
                Not credible…….to you.
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                Comment


                • And no response to the evidence posted showing a Jew insulting another Jew by using the word ‘Lipski.’

                  There’s bobbing and weaving going on here that Muhammad Ali would have been proud of.
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                  “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post



                    I repeat: Scotland Yard did not know about the alleged unmasking of the murderer.

                    You can't explain why the unmasking of the murderer should be a secret restricted to two men.
                    That is your opinion.

                    I have clearly said more than two people, The commissioner and government representive at least fully in the know.

                    I listed others who may have known part of the story, yet you CONTINUE to MISREPRESENT whats been said..

                    Not only can I explain why I believe it was a secret, I have publically said so several times.


                    You state as fact Scotland Yard did not know.
                    Well just who do you think Anderson was? The Head of CID at Scotland yard.

                    Swanson?
                    Only the man appointed to coordinate and rum the investigation, based at ?
                    Scotland Yard.

                    Therefore senior Scotland Yard CID officers did know.

                    Would you really expect there to be records giving the details?



                    So your speculation that Scotland Yard did not know is just that, your speculation , your opinion. That's fine, but it's NOT FACT.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                      That is your opinion.

                      I have clearly said more than two people, The commissioner and government representive at least fully in the know.

                      I listed others who may have known part of the story, yet you CONTINUE to MISREPRESENT whats been said..

                      Not only can I explain why I believe it was a secret, I have publically said so several times.


                      You state as fact Scotland Yard did not know.
                      Well just who do you think Anderson was? The Head of CID at Scotland yard.

                      Swanson?
                      Only the man appointed to coordinate and rum the investigation, based at ?
                      Scotland Yard.

                      Therefore senior Scotland Yard CID officers did know.

                      Would you really expect there to be records giving the details?



                      So your speculation that Scotland Yard did not know is just that, your speculation , your opinion. That's fine, but it's NOT FACT.


                      It is not speculation on my part.



                      "You can state most emphatically," said Mr. Abberline, "that Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago. It is simple nonsense to talk of the police having proof that the man is dead. I am, and always have been, in the closest touch with Scotland Yard, and it would have been next to impossible for me not to have known all about it. Besides, the authorities would have been only too glad to make an end of such a mystery, if only for their own credit."



                      To convince those who have any doubts on the point, Mr. Abberline produced recent documentary evidence which put the ignorance of Scotland Yard as to the perpetrator beyond the shadow of a doubt.


                      "I know," continued the well-known detective, "that it has been stated in several quarters that 'Jack the Ripper' was a man who died in a lunatic asylum a few years ago, but there is nothing at all of a tangible nature to support such a theory.​


                      (Pall Mall Gazette, 31 March, 1903)




                      It is very convenient when asked for evidence to be able to reply that the matter was hushed up.

                      The reason suggested - that Anderson wished to prevent anti-Jewish riots - falls flat on its face.

                      If Anderson kept the identification secret in order to prevent anti-Jewish riots in the 1890s, why was he not worried about anti-Jewish riots in 1910?

                      And if he was worried about the revelation triggering anti-Jewish sentiment, why did he make the gratuitous and unfounded accusation against Jews that they would not give up a criminal to gentile justice?

                      Those are not the words of someone who wants to calm anti-Semitic feelings, but someone who doesn't mind stirring them up.


                      And I suggest you have no answer to that.

                      Comment


                      • I appreciate the several of you who reported the post.

                        JM

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post



                          It is not speculation on my part.



                          "You can state most emphatically," said Mr. Abberline, "that Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago. It is simple nonsense to talk of the police having proof that the man is dead. I am, and always have been, in the closest touch with Scotland Yard, and it would have been next to impossible for me not to have known all about it. Besides, the authorities would have been only too glad to make an end of such a mystery, if only for their own credit."



                          To convince those who have any doubts on the point, Mr. Abberline produced recent documentary evidence which put the ignorance of Scotland Yard as to the perpetrator beyond the shadow of a doubt.


                          "I know," continued the well-known detective, "that it has been stated in several quarters that 'Jack the Ripper' was a man who died in a lunatic asylum a few years ago, but there is nothing at all of a tangible nature to support such a theory.​


                          (Pall Mall Gazette, 31 March, 1903)




                          It is very convenient when asked for evidence to be able to reply that the matter was hushed up.

                          The reason suggested - that Anderson wished to prevent anti-Jewish riots - falls flat on its face.

                          If Anderson kept the identification secret in order to prevent anti-Jewish riots in the 1890s, why was he not worried about anti-Jewish riots in 1910?

                          And if he was worried about the revelation triggering anti-Jewish sentiment, why did he make the gratuitous and unfounded accusation against Jews that they would not give up a criminal to gentile justice?

                          Those are not the words of someone who wants to calm anti-Semitic feelings, but someone who doesn't mind stirring them up.


                          And I suggest you have no answer to that.
                          Oh dear, you can't accept that Abberline didn't know.
                          If such is indeed the case as i and others believe it is his statements are irrelevant.

                          I cannot answer your opinion?
                          Really?
                          I have been doing that for several.days, but you are just not listening my friend.

                          The view that it was against Jewish law to give a fellow jew up to gentile law is NOT unfounded.
                          You have been given the evidence,that such existed and was practiced amoungst the new comers to the UK in the 1880s.
                          Yet your Bias refuses to let you see that.





                          Comment


                          • Colorised.
                            Click image for larger version

Name:	colored.jpg
Views:	293
Size:	216.3 KB
ID:	800244
                            Author of 'Jack the Ripper: Threads' out now on Amazon > UK | USA | CA | AUS
                            JayHartley.com

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Chris View Post
                              Earlier this year I was delighted to receive from a descendant of Joseph Lawende a copy of a group photograph taken at the wedding of his daughter Rose to Isidore Goodman Samuel in 1899. Joseph can be seen on the right at the back, standing next to his wife Annie. The bridesmaid sitting in the centre at the front is Joseph's youngest daughter Ruby. I am most grateful to the owner of the photograph for permission to reproduce it here.

                              [ATTACH]9967[/ATTACH]
                              Incredible thanks for sharing!!

                              Comment


                              • It’s difficult see how anyone could look at that photograph and see that by no means all of them look Jewish. I’d say 3 or 4 of the young girls might do and perhaps the man in the middle. The rest don’t. But if someone passed the guy in the middle on the opposite side of the road, took a fairly brief look and moved on, I’d be surprised if he’d have stated (at least with any confidence) that he was Jewish.

                                We don’t know who the guy was who was with Eddowes. Could it have been Kosminski? Of course it could.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                                “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X