Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A photograph of Joseph Lawende in 1899

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

  • Can you post the report. ?
    'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
      The US Navy "salt and peppers" appear to be a modern uniform, dating from the 1970's as far as I can find.

      There are examples of salt and pepper coloured clothing, but nothing Navy related. I'm happy to be pointed in the right direction though.
      Thanks Al.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes

      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
        Can you post the report. ?



        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

        Comment


        • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


          Amazing.

          It seems that in addition to being unaware of the difference between speculation and deduction, and between deduction and fantasy, you are unaware of the fact that accusing someone of inventing evidence constitutes a personal attack.
          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)

          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes

          “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post




            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
            Not a white jacket and black pants ‘salt and peppers.’ You really should let this one go PI.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes

            “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              Not a white jacket and black pants ‘salt and peppers.’ You really should let this one go PI.

              I was asked by someone else to provide a reference to Swanson's report.

              I did so.

              This has nothing to do with you.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                I was asked by someone else to provide a reference to Swanson's report.

                I did so.

                This has nothing to do with you.
                This is a forum. I was unaware that certain topics were off limits to certain posters and tat you were the arbiter.
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  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.​

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                    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...oZMLbW8Z_y47yM

                    and this

                    https://www.google.com/search?q=salt...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.
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes

                    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                      ,,
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post




                        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 .
                        'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                          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.

                          Comment


                          • 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
                            'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post

                              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 ?
                              'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                                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.
                                Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 11-28-2022, 09:33 AM.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                                “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X