A photograph of Joseph Lawende in 1899

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It’s not only credible I’d suggest that it was likely. I’m not going to keep discussing this. Clocks weren’t synchronised. This is a fact. It would not have been in the least surprising if you had stopped 10 people in Whitechapel at that time and asked them the time you would probably have got half a dozen different times.

You keep suggesting that the timings are out but if they were, there would be conflicts between timings and there are not.

They fit perfectly.

In the Nichols inquest, there was a conflict and one witness' timing can be disregarded.

That did not happen in the Eddowes inquest.

No-one is saying they are exactly right.

All timings are approximations to the nearest or most complete minute.

There is, however, no reason to disregard them unless there is a conflict between them.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If I remember correctly, you quoted Harvey as saying that he entered Church Passage at 1.40 and that he was at the end of Church Passage at 1.41 - possibly 1.42.

If you have him at the end of Church Passage at 1.43, as you suggested, then he would still have been in Church Passage at 1.44, when Watkins entered the Square, which obviously did not happen.

If he was at the bottom of Church Passage at 1.43 why would he still have been there at 1.44?? He didn’t enter the square. He just had a look and then left. Why would they have seen each other?

And AGAIN how can we know that it wasn’t actually 1.45 when Watkins arrived?

Its impossible to discuss the case reasonably if you are going to keep insisting that every time be taken literally. It’s impossible.

Morris said that he spoke with Watkins at 1.45.
Holland went some minutes later to fetch Dr Sequeira, who must have taken a few minutes to arrive, which he did at 1.55.

So Watkins could have entered the square at 1.45 and by the time that he got to Morris it was still 1.45.

The timings make sense.

If you are reasonable and don’t apply ridiculously rigid standards then yes they do. The world isn’t black and white PI and yet you appear to want everything to be neat and tidy and with no grey areas.

There are no conflicts, which means that in order for them to be wrong, all the clocks and watches used by everyone would have had to be wrong.

That is not even speculation.

That is not credible.

It’s not only credible I’d suggest that it was likely. I’m not going to keep discussing this. Clocks weren’t synchronised. This is a fact. It would not have been in the least surprising if you had stopped 10 people in Whitechapel at that time and asked them the time you would probably have got half a dozen different times.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Your suggestion that Harvey reached the edge of the Square at 1.43 would mean he was in Church Passage when Watkins found the body, which again obviously did not happen.

What would you call that?

Fantasy?”

Your point is a strange one because if we adopt your “all times are exact” method then we have Watkins entering at 1.44 and the last time that I checked 1.43 came before 1.44. I might also add that we have no way of verifying the accuracy of Watkins watch. How can we know that it wasn’t actually 1.45 or 1.46 when he found the body. You really get nowhere quibbling over times on this case.

If I remember correctly, you quoted Harvey as saying that he entered Church Passage at 1.40 and that he was at the end of Church Passage at 1.41 - possibly 1.42.

If you have him at the end of Church Passage at 1.43, as you suggested, then he would still have been in Church Passage at 1.44, when Watkins entered the Square, which obviously did not happen.

Morris said that he spoke with Watkins at 1.45.
Holland went some minutes later to fetch Dr Sequeira, who must have taken a few minutes to arrive, which he did at 1.55.

The timings make sense.

There are no conflicts, which means that in order for them to be wrong, all the clocks and watches used by everyone would have had to be wrong.

That is not even speculation.

That is not credible.

[The Baron]

>> light can affect our perception of colour. This is simply an established fact which you either questioned or ignored. Therefore we cannot rely on the hair colour given by Lawende.


How can anyone not accept this FACT is beyond me, furthermore we have another possible sighting of the ripper in action describing him having dark hair, insisting that he must have fair or blond hair despite this is not only completely ignoring the simple FACT Herlock wrote about, it is also cherry picking of the evidence.


TB

[The Baron]

"Upon being taken to the mortuary Schwartz identified the body as that of the woman he had seen & he thus described the first man who threw the woman down: age about 30, 5ft 5in, complexion fair, dark hair, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket, trousers black, cap with a peak, nothing in his hand"


TB

[Herlock Sholmes]

Please see my replies above.

Im not blaming you because I’m as much to blame but these long posts are difficult to follow (who said what) if anyone else happens to try and read them. I’d suggest that we should both try posting on one or two issues per post?


“there is no reason to reject the timings given by any witness.”

There is a difference between rejecting timings and making reasonable allowances. PI, I genuinely can’t understand why you are disputing this. You will struggle badly to find any support for your position on this point. Most people at the time didn’t own watches or clocks. Many relied on Constable’s ‘knocking them up’ so that they could get to work on time in the morning. They took their times from Church clocks, church bells, factory clocks, clocks in shop windows. Someone on here (I believe that it was Jeff Hamm, my apologies if it was someone else) posted research showing how ‘wrong’ Victorian clocks could be. How they weren’t synchronised. It wouldn’t have been unusual for a public clock to have been 10 minutes fast or slow. We simply cannot with the remotes degree of confidence hold these people to exact timings. It’s just impossible to do so. Not to accept this and to refuse to allow for a reasonable margin for error is simply a distortion of reality. Even today if you I both gave times to the police they would still make an allowance, they would check clock/watch times, they would see if my watch was synchronised with yours and anyone else involved (if close timing was so important) and this is in a world of more accurate clocks and everyone carrying a phone. The police in 1888 made no such checks as far as we know. We simply have to allow for a margin for error. We cannot assess fairly without doing so.


“I mentioned it because it means they were not yet making their way to the Square nor showing any signs of ending their conversation prior to moving.”

How could they have possibly showed signs of ending their conversation? Lawende and his friends couldn’t hear what was being said anyway and we can’t know how soon they moved off because he didn’t look back - which incidentally is another indication of how little attention he paid to them.


“You are rejecting my estimate that the murder took place at 1.38.

If, say, he arrived in the Square at 1.35, and murdered her at 1.36, then I'm out by two minutes.

1.38 minus 1.36 = 0.02.”

I think we have some confusion here and this could be a case of me misinterpreting what you said. Yes of course the killer could have killed Eddowes at 1.36. I was talking about the time taken for the murder and mutilation in total.


“You neatly side-stepped my point that if you have Harvey out by a couple of minutes, then he arrives at the edge of Mitre Square at the same time as Watkins enters it, which obviously did not happen.

Your suggestion that Harvey reached the edge of the Square at 1.43 would mean he was in Church Passage when Watkins found the body, which again obviously did not happen.

What would you call that?

Fantasy?”

Your point is a strange one because if we adopt your “all times are exact” method then we have Watkins entering at 1.44 and the last time that I checked 1.43 came before 1.44. I might also add that we have no way of verifying the accuracy of Watkins watch. How can we know that it wasn’t actually 1.45 or 1.46 when he found the body. You really get nowhere quibbling over times on this case.

I haven’t side-stepped anything by the way. I’ve no need to sidestep. An example of sidestepping is your refusal to admit that you have zero evidence that a ‘salt and pepper’ jacket was common to sailors. That’s sidestepping and you’ve done it repeatedly.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Again, you are assuming that all times are correct and that they were all synchronised. This is simply poor reasoning.


I think you're wrong. I am not assuming anything. I'm accepting the evidence as all we have and, unless there is some contradiction between timings - as happened at the Nichols inquest - there is no reason to reject the timings given by any witness.




You are assuming. You are assuming that all the timings given must have been exactly correct and that all clocks and watches were perfectly synchronised. This is little more than fantasy.


I repeat: I think you're wrong. I am not assuming anything. I'm accepting the evidence as all we have and, unless there is some contradiction between timings - as happened at the Nichols inquest - there is no reason to reject the timings given by any witness.

Acceptance of timings as the best estimate we have unless there is a conflict between timings given by witnesses is not fantasy, but a reasonable deduction to make.

It seems that in addition to being unaware of the distinction between speculation and deduction, you are unaware of the distinction between deduction and fantasy.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The man and woman were in conversation and stationary.

Why mention that they were stationary? Of course they were stationary.

I mentioned it because it means they were not yet making their way to the Square nor showing any signs of ending their conversation prior to moving.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So if Eddowes and her killer were in Mitre Square at 1.35 (which is entirely possible) and Harvey got to the end of Church Passage at 1.42 (which is entirely possible) then the killer would have had 7 minutes.

You mean he had seven minutes instead of the four I estimated?

I didn't estimate they arrived in the Square at 1.38.

I estimated the murder took place at 1.38.

If, say, he arrived in the Square at 1.35, and murdered her at 1.36, then I'm out by two minutes.

If, say, he arrived in the Square at 1.36, and murdered her at 1.37, then I'm out by one minute.

You seem to be saying that the murderer left at about 1.42 via Mitre Street, which is exactly the opinion I expressed here soon after I started posting here.

I don’t know what you’re talking about to be honest.

I am amazed that you can't follow.

You are rejecting my estimate that the murder took place at 1.38.

If, say, he arrived in the Square at 1.35, and murdered her at 1.36, then I'm out by two minutes.

1.38 minus 1.36 = 0.02


If Lawende and co’s time was a minute or two out then Eddowes and her killer might have been in Mitre Square by 1.34. If Harvey’s estimate was a minute out then he could have got to the end of Mitre Square at 1.43 giving the killer 9 minutes.

In that area in the LVP it’s elementary lesson number one…….. you cannot rely on timings being exact. You have to allow for a reasonable margin for error. How many times does this blatantly obvious fact have to be explained on here? Those disagreeing tend to be ones with theories to prove.


I think that's far-fetched.

That would mean Lawende, Levy, Harvey, Watkins, the club clock, Lawende's watch, and the Post Office clock all being wrong in such a way as to make things easier for the murderer.

Why not make it easier still and have Harvey at the entrance to the Square at 1.44 in time to meet Watkins there?

Theres no talking to you PI. You are an ocean of poor reasoning. Anyone that says that we shouldn’t allow a reasonable margin for error on timings cannot discus the case sensibly. They really can’t. I’ll leave it I think. I just don’t have the inclination to pursue you down another rabbit-hole.

The problem is that you don’t have opinions PI. Every point you make you appear to feel that it should be accepted as gospel. The fact that the killer could have had 8 or 9 or 10 minutes is just that. A fact. And by that I don’t mean that it’s a fact that he had longer but that it’s a fact that he ‘could’ have had longer. If you can’t accept that then there’s nothing I can do about it as you have form for making these kinds of statements.

You neatly side-stepped my point that if you have Harvey out by a couple of minutes, then he arrives at the edge of Mitre Square at the same time as Watkins enters it, which obviously did not happen.

Your suggestion that Harvey reached the edge of the Square at 1.43 would mean he was in Church Passage when Watkins found the body, which again obviously did not happen.

What would you call that?

Fantasy?

Please see my replies above.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

Again, you are assuming that all times are correct and that they were all synchronised. This is simply poor reasoning.

I think you're wrong. I am not assuming anything. I'm accepting the evidence as all we have and, unless there is some contradiction between timings - as happened at the Nichols inquest - there is no reason to reject the timings given by any witness.

I have viewed these timings on many websites and in many books and none of the authors has questioned them and, moreover, none has been accused of having poor reasoning.

There really is something wrong here.

No-one should be alleged to have poor reasoning for accepting timings given by witnesses which do not disagree with one another.

You are assuming. You are assuming that all the timings given must have been exactly correct and that all clocks and watches were perfectly synchronised. This is little more than fantasy.

Eddowes and her killer could have been in Mitre Square by 1.35.

Not according to the evidence.

Lawende based his timings on both the club clock and his watch.

So how do you know that the club clock wasn’t fast and that Lawende set his time by it?

Levy estimated that they left the club only slightly earlier.

The man and woman were in conversation and stationary.

Why mention that they were stationary? Of course they were stationary.

Harvey said:

“At 20 to 2 on Sunday morning I went down Duke Street and down Church Passage as far as Mitre Square.”

Then in the same statement he said:

“I go as far as to the end of Church Passage. I was at the end of Church Passage about 18 or 19 minutes to 2.”

So he got to them end of Church Passage at ABOUT 1.41 or 1.42.

‘About’ means that he was estimating.

So if Eddowes and her killer were in Mitre Square at 1.35 (which is entirely possible) and Harvey got to the end of Church Passage at 1.42 (which is entirely possible) then the killer would have had 7 minutes.

You mean he had seven minutes instead of the four I estimated?

I didn't estimate they arrived in the Square at 1.38.

I estimated the murder took place at 1.38.

If, say, he arrived in the Square at 1.35, and murdered her at 1.36, then I'm out by two minutes.

If, say, he arrived in the Square at 1.36, and murdered her at 1.37, then I'm out by one minute.

You seem to be saying that the murderer left at about 1.42 via Mitre Street, which is exactly the opinion I expressed here soon after I started posting here.

I don’t know what you’re talking about to be honest.


If Lawende and co’s time was a minute or two out then Eddowes and her killer might have been in Mitre Square by 1.34. If Harvey’s estimate was a minute out then he could have got to the end of Mitre Square at 1.43 giving the killer 9 minutes.

In that area in the LVP it’s elementary lesson number one…….. you cannot rely on timings being exact. You have to allow for a reasonable margin for error. How many times does this blatantly obvious fact have to be explained on here? Those disagreeing tend to be ones with theories to prove.


I think that's far-fetched.

That would mean Lawende, Levy, Harvey, Watkins, the club clock, Lawende's watch, and the Post Office clock all being wrong in such a way as to make things easier for the murderer.

Why not make it easier still and have Harvey at the entrance to the Square at 1.44 in time to meet Watkins there?

Theres no talking to you PI. You are an ocean of poor reasoning. Anyone that says that we shouldn’t allow a reasonable margin for error on timings cannot discus the case sensibly. They really can’t. I’ll leave it I think. I just don’t have the inclination to pursue you down another rabbit-hole.

The problem is that you don’t have opinions PI. Every point you make you appear to feel that it should be accepted as gospel. The fact that the killer could have had 8 or 9 or 10 minutes is just that. A fact. And by that I don’t mean that it’s a fact that he had longer but that it’s a fact that he ‘could’ have had longer. If you can’t accept that then there’s nothing I can do about it as you have form for making these kinds of statements.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It abounded with more Jewish people than foreign sailors, so that is really no indication of anything.

But Lawende said the suspect had the appearance of a sailor, NOT that he was of Jewish appearance.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Again, you are assuming that all times are correct and that they were all synchronised. This is simply poor reasoning.

I think you're wrong. I am not assuming anything. I'm accepting the evidence as all we have and, unless there is some contradiction between timings - as happened at the Nichols inquest - there is no reason to reject the timings given by any witness.

I have viewed these timings on many websites and in many books and none of the authors has questioned them and, moreover, none has been accused of having poor reasoning.

There really is something wrong here.

No-one should be alleged to have poor reasoning for accepting timings given by witnesses which do not disagree with one another.

Eddowes and her killer could have been in Mitre Square by 1.35.

Not according to the evidence.

Lawende based his timings on both the club clock and his watch.

Levy estimated that they left the club only slightly earlier.

The man and woman were in conversation and stationary.

Harvey said:

“At 20 to 2 on Sunday morning I went down Duke Street and down Church Passage as far as Mitre Square.”

Then in the same statement he said:

“I go as far as to the end of Church Passage. I was at the end of Church Passage about 18 or 19 minutes to 2.”

So he got to them end of Church Passage at ABOUT 1.41 or 1.42.

‘About’ means that he was estimating.

So if Eddowes and her killer were in Mitre Square at 1.35 (which is entirely possible) and Harvey got to the end of Church Passage at 1.42 (which is entirely possible) then the killer would have had 7 minutes.

You mean he had seven minutes instead of the four I estimated?

I didn't estimate they arrived in the Square at 1.38.

I estimated the murder took place at 1.38.

If, say, he arrived in the Square at 1.35, and murdered her at 1.36, then I'm out by two minutes.

If, say, he arrived in the Square at 1.36, and murdered her at 1.37, then I'm out by one minute.

You seem to be saying that the murderer left at about 1.42 via Mitre Street, which is exactly the opinion I expressed here soon after I started posting here.


If Lawende and co’s time was a minute or two out then Eddowes and her killer might have been in Mitre Square by 1.34. If Harvey’s estimate was a minute out then he could have got to the end of Mitre Square at 1.43 giving the killer 9 minutes.

In that area in the LVP it’s elementary lesson number one…….. you cannot rely on timings being exact. You have to allow for a reasonable margin for error. How many times does this blatantly obvious fact have to be explained on here? Those disagreeing tend to be ones with theories to prove.


I think that's far-fetched.

That would mean Lawende, Levy, Harvey, Watkins, the club clock, Lawende's watch, and the Post Office clock all being wrong in such a way as to make things easier for the murderer.

Why not make it easier still and have Harvey at the entrance to the Square at 1.44 in time to meet Watkins there?

Please see my replies above.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I stand by what I wrote, namely that Eddowes was murdered about three minutes after she was seen by Lawende.

James Harvey was in Church Passage at 1.28.

Edward Watkins was in Mitre Square at 1.30.

According to both Lawende and Levy, they got up to leave the club at 1.30.

Lawende was definite that he left the club at 1.35 and believed the time at which he saw the man and woman was 1.35.

Harvey walked to the end of Church Passage at about 1.40.

According to Watkins, he found the body at 1.44.

According to Morris, he met Watkins at 1.45.

Morris told Harvey who told Holland and they all went to Mitre Square.

Holland was then sent to fetch Dr Sequeira.

Inspector Collard was informed at 1.55.

Dr Sequeira arrived at the scene of the murder at 1.55.

There are no contradictions between any of the timings and they all fit together.

Those are the timings according to the evidence.

We do not have any other timings and no reason to disbelieve them.

Since the medical opinion was that the murderer needed about four minutes to do what he did, and he obviously needed to escape from the Square without being seen, he must have committed the murder at about 1.38.

If it were much later, then he would not have had time to escape or would have been interrupted by Watkins.

If it were much sooner, then he would not have had time to get to the scene of the murder - or to put it another way, he would be committing the murder in Church Passage.

One poster gives a time of ten minutes, which as I pointed out means the murder being committed after the body was found.

As I have stated before, my estimate of three minutes separating Lawende's sighting of the suspect and the commission of the murder cannot be out by much.

Again, you are assuming that all times are correct and that they were all synchronised. This is simply poor reasoning.

Eddowes and her killer could have been in Mitre Square by 1.35.

Harvey said:

“At 20 to 2 on Sunday morning I went down Duke Street and down Church Passage as far as Mitre Square.”

Then in the same statement he said:

“I go as far as to the end of Church Passage. I was at the end of Church Passage about 18 or 19 minutes to 2.”

So he got to them end of Church Passage at ABOUT 1.41 or 1.42.

‘About’ means that he was estimating.

So if Eddowes and her killer were in Mitre Square at 1.35 (which is entirely possible) and Harvey got to the end of Church Passage at 1.42 (which is entirely possible) then the killer would have had 7 minutes.
If Lawende and co’s time was a minute or two out then Eddowes and her killer might have been in Mitre Square by 1.34. If Harvey’s estimate was a minute out then he could have got to the end of Mitre Square at 1.43 giving the killer 9 minutes.

In that area in the LVP it’s elementary lesson number one…….. you cannot rely on timings being exact. You have to allow for a reasonable margin for error. How many times does this blatantly obvious fact have to be explained on here? Those disagreeing tend to be ones with theories to prove.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You are exaggerating.

I stand by what I wrote, namely that Eddowes was murdered about three minutes after she was seen by Lawende.

James Harvey was in Church Passage at 1.28.

Edward Watkins was in Mitre Square at 1.30.

According to both Lawende and Levy, they got up to leave the club at 1.30.

Lawende was definite that he left the club at 1.35 and believed the time at which he saw the man and woman was 1.35.

Harvey walked to the end of Church Passage at about 1.40.

According to Watkins, he found the body at 1.44.

According to Morris, he met Watkins at 1.45.

Morris told Harvey who told Holland and they all went to Mitre Square.

Holland was then sent to fetch Dr Sequeira.

Inspector Collard was informed at 1.55.

Dr Sequeira arrived at the scene of the murder at 1.55.

There are no contradictions between any of the timings and they all fit together.

Those are the timings according to the evidence.

We do not have any other timings and no reason to disbelieve them.

Since the medical opinion was that the murderer needed about four minutes to do what he did, and he obviously needed to escape from the Square without being seen, he must have committed the murder at about 1.38.

If it were much later, then he would not have had time to escape or would have been interrupted by Watkins.

If it were much sooner, then he would not have had time to get to the scene of the murder - or to put it another way, he would be committing the murder in Church Passage.

One poster gives a time of ten minutes, which as I pointed out means the murder being committed after the body was found.

As I have stated before, my estimate of three minutes separating Lawende's sighting of the suspect and the commission of the murder cannot be out by much.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

So now we have the claim, that A Jewish person is unlikely to murder, that itself is a form of prejudice, do you not see that?

I really hoped we were passed the stage of stereotyping, and claiming some are more or less likely to behave in a certain way, sadly it seems not.

There is no evidence the killer sold human meat, so that is irrelevant.

The so called evidence for cannibalism is based solely on the from hell letter, many dispute such was genuine. So again largely irrelevant.

In addition, how someone behaves during periodic mental illness attacks, is no indicator of normal behaviour.

The issue to me is that you are 100% convinced that to name a Jew as a suspect is simply anti Semitic or bias.

That you do not, or are not prepared to accept that your view is itself highly questionable and prejudicial is why you cannot look at all the possibilities.


Why do I think the killer is likely to be Jewish?

1. I believe that the killer was local, for a variety of reasons.

There was a very large percentage of that local population which was Jewish, therefore the odds on the killer being Jewish must roughly equal that percentage of the population.

To exclude all Jewish persons is a form of the bias and prejudice you claim is responsible for suspecting a Jewish person in the first place.

2. I believe the senior police( those who needed to know) reached the conclusion they did based on evidence.

Today all we are aware of is the identification, which you dismiss as fantasy.
You apparently do so because you believe the Killer COULD NOT be Jewish, and therefore the police are merely scapegoating an unnamed person, which is itself highly illogical.

To exclude and preclude because of out own bias is a serious flaw for a researcher, you apparently don't see this is an issue.

3. We are told the suspect first came to the attention of the investigation following the door to door search, so there was clearly other evidence, now lost.

What this included is unknown, but may have included the Batty Street incident, family concerns, the results of surveillance, a second ID, verifying the main ID. The list of possibilities goes on.

Macnaghten says there were MANY circumstances to consider the man he called Kosminski. That he ultimately rejected him in favour of Druitt is actually neither here nor there, the important issue is that he DID CONSIDER him.

That is what this is all about, being prepared to consider any suspect, from any background, look at the arguments, dont dismiss those arguments or evidence that do not fit our own theories of bias.
This you appear to be unwilling to do.

What is clear from your response is that you are unwilling to address the facts that there is no recorded case of a Jewish serial murderer having operated in England and no recorded case of a Polish Jewish serial killer in any country.

That does not prove that the Whitechapel Murderer was not a Polish Jew, but it suggests strongly that he was not.

It does look as though you do not acknowledge this fact because it does not fit Anderson's allegation that the murderer was a Polish Jew.

You mention the door-to-door search, which you appear to be saying led to the unmasking of the Whitechapel Murderer as a Jew.

I suggest that anyone reading RJ Palmer's posts # 217, 218, 221 and 223 in the thread A photograph of Joseph Lawende in 1899

would agree with me that no Polish Jew was actually unmasked in that search and that what Anderson wrote years later about it stemmed from his imagination and not from fact.

I did mention the fact that Anderson believed at the time that the graffito was found in Goulston Street that it had been written by the murderer, and it was not disputed at the time that the intention of the writer of it was to cast blame on the Jews.

If you put those two facts together, then it is reasonable to deduce that Anderson thought the murderer was a gentile - as did Macnaghten, Abberline, Henry Smith and Inspector Reid.

I also pointed out that Anderson's own son related that Anderson believed the murderer died soon after the murder of Kelly - which rules out Kosminski.

I put forward two arguments which, to my knowledge, had not been published before.

First, it is surely beyond coincidence that Macnaghten, Anderson and Swanson all believed that the murderer died soon after Kelly's murder.

I suggested that the idea of the murderer having died so soon became intertwined with Anderson's unnamed Polish Jew and Swanson's Kosminski.

Your response was to question whether Anderson's son got it right!

Well, we know that Swanson did not get it right, because he had Kosminski dying about 30 years too early!

I think your response to that was that Swanson may have meant another Kosminski.

I know you have criticised me for declaring certain ideas not to be credible, but I think very few people would disagree with me when I say that multiple Kosminskis being sent to Colney Hatch - and one of them dying at the right time - is not credible.


My second argument was that it was not believable that a reluctant Jewish witness would have come forward in the first place if he had recognised the suspect as being of Jewish appearance in the first place, and would not have recognised the suspect as a Jew at the Seaside Home identification after having failed to identify him as a Jew in the first place!

This argument was evidently so powerful that it forced you into suggesting that the suspect both wore Jewish religious garb and spoke Yiddish at the alleged Seaside Home identification.

This is what happens when someone clings to an obviously-farfetched story.


Today all we are aware of is the identification, which you dismiss as fantasy.
You apparently do so because you believe the Killer COULD NOT be Jewish, and therefore the police are merely scapegoating an unnamed person, which is itself highly illogical.


We are all aware of the identification fantasy, which is itself highly illogical.

It is illogical because in order for it to work, Kosminski had both to dress up in Jewish attire and speak Yiddish specially for the occasion.

It is illogical because contrary to what Swanson claimed, it cannot explain why the murders stopped when they did.

It is illogical because if Anderson was right that the suspect had already been certified, then a reluctant witness could not have prevented him from being brought to justice.

I am not alleging that the police were scapegoating an innocent person or targeting an innocent Jew.

All the evidence suggests that the police thought the murderer was a gentile but did not know his identity.

What Anderson and Swanson wrote years later is not evidence of what they thought at the time of the murders and in their aftermath.

It was pointed out following the publication of Anderson's memoirs that he wrote them in a spirit of self-congratulation, informing the world that he had of course known the identity of the murderer all along.

Something similar happened in the case of the Hammersmith Nudes Murders, when the detective in charge claimed that the murderer committed suicide soon after the last murder and just as the police were closing in on him.

Like Kosminski, that man did not fit the description of the murderer supplied by a witness and no policeman corroborated the claim that that man had ever been a suspect.


There is nothing in the police files - nor in newspaper reports nor in inquest testimony - to support the allegation that a Jewish witness ever described a Jewish suspect.

There is nothing in the police files to support any of the allegations that a Polish Jew was the murderer, that Kosminski hated prostitutes, or that Kosminski's house was watched day and night by CID officers.

You say it could all be in missing files.

How very convenient that the crucial evidence is missing, just as it has ever been in cases in which an innocent man has been accused.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, it is possible that the ridicule directed at my theory that the murderer was a fair-haired sailor, probably from a Nordic country, would not be directed at someone else making the suggestion.

I don't know.

Because the use of the word ‘probably’ is clearly a step too far.

I can assure you that the jacket worn by the suspect seen by Lawende was commonly worn by sailors and that is probably one of the reasons Lawende said he had the appearance of a sailor.

Your opinion is not good enough I’m afraid. Show me proof of this.

I have never said that the fact that Lawende said the man had the appearance of a sailor proves that the man was a sailor, but it is plausible and - I would suggest - not deserving of ridicule.

And I haven’t ridiculed the suggestion that the killer might have been a sailor. He might have been. Or a Carpenter. Or a Baker. There’s isn’t a single, even minor, piece of evidence that points us to the killers occupation.

Similarly, there has been much hair-splitting about whether blond is the same as fair, whether the man's head hair was of the same colour as his moustache, and whether being blond merits the description 'Nordic'.

Its not ‘hair-splitting.’ It’s the use of caution and reason. I for example told you about how light can affect our perception of colour. This is simply an established fact which you either questioned or ignored. Therefore we cannot rely on the hair colour given by Lawende.

I described him as a Nordic sailor in order to contrast him with an Eastern European Jew.

It was shorthand.

I do think he was Nordic and blond-haired and he was a sailor.

And that’s your opinion which is fine. But further than ‘everyone has a right to an opinion,’ you have produced no evidence of this. Lawende’s sighting is not evidence of this. It’s simply your own interpretation.

The area abounded with foreign sailors.

I hope you are not going to ask me to prove that!

No. But I’ll continue to ask you to provide evidence about the jacket. Something that you are strangely reluctant to do.

I never said it was impossible for Kosminski to have had fair hair nor that Eastern European Jews never had fair hair.

Photographs were reproduced here by my critics.

One showed what is thought to be a brother of Kosminski, with very dark hair, and the other showed a woman (possibly Joseph Lawende's wife) and a young

girl at a Jewish wedding.

The woman's hair looked darkish at the sides - she may have had brown hair - and the girl had dark hair, not fair hair.

The photographs were produced because of your claim that Lawende would definitely have been able to have identified a fellow Jew. Photographs were provide which categorically showed that not all Jews looked Jewish. Despite this evidence you refused to concede the point. It’s the jacket all over again.

I don't expect to find proof that the murderer was a sailor, let alone one bearing a name, and I don't expect anyone else ever to be able to name the murderer without having his or her tongue in his or her cheek at the same time.

I presented my view based on the evidence.

Your evidence is - a) foreign sailors existed in the area, and b) Lawende thought that the man that he saw had the appearance of a sailor (apparently based on the fact that he wore a peaked cap and a neckerchief)

I have been told that I cannot grasp basic facts when I say that Eddowes was murdered about three minutes after Lawende's sighting and that it was really ten minutes.

Because t clearly wasn’t 3 minutes. You appear to be the only person that believes this.

Then someone else said it could have been as much as 15 minutes.

Longer times could be possible unless you believe that, a) all clocks and watches were totally accurate, and b) all clocks and watches were exactly synchronised.

If you accept those very obvious points, points which should be beyond argument, then you would have to accept the possibility of a longer time period.

Those critics of mine are not going by the evidence.

I am.

You are exaggerating.

[Elamarna]

The area abounded with foreign sailors.

It abounded with more Jewish people than foreign sailors, so that is really no indication of anything.

I have been told that I cannot grasp basic facts when I say that Eddowes was murdered about three minutes after Lawende's sighting and that it was really ten minutes.

Then someone else said it could have been as much as 15 minutes.

Those critics of mine are not going by the evidence.

What you have not shown you fully grasp is that the timings are too unreliable, because of the issue of non syncronizied time, to attempt to use them pinpoint the following issues

The time Lawende and Levy saw the couple at church passage in relation to the time Harvey passed down Church passage, and the time Watkins found the body.

Which means the time for the murder and mutilation is not, and cannot be fixed.

There are other issues apart from this however:

Should we take note of the comments by Blenkinsop, which may suggest entry to the square from St James Place rather the from Church Passage.
If we dismiss, are the reasons for such sound. If we accept are the reasons sound.

Should we take serious note of police claims of footsteps heading East?
While many simply accept such, the timing involved make such really questionable.

The time that Watkins, claims he was last in the square?
Is it just coincidence, that EVERY other night he had stopped to talk to Morris, probably having a break at the same time?

These are the areas of evidence we need to look at in the Mitre Square case, to simply take the Lawende sighting as being pivotal to the events is in my opinion a great oversimplification, and one which possible may be erroneous to begin with.

All of these are interrelated.