A photograph of Joseph Lawende in 1899

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

[Elamarna]

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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

[Elamarna]

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 .

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.'

[The Baron]

I quoted it in # 409 of that other thread for the same reason that I quoted it in # 186 of this thread - in order to show what you had posted and to discredit it.

What you are saying is like claiming that when an anti-fascist article quotes Mein Kampf, it is praising Hitler.

The difference lies in the purpose behind the quoting of the passage, and your purpose is to bolster your promotion of the idea that the Whitechapel Murderer has to be Jewish.

Surprise surprise, Wrong again

You cannot keep track of the topic at hand can you?!

You claimed that Anderson was anti-Semitic for saying what he said, and the member Pointus2000 gave this quote to show you that what you are denying is not mere fantasies with no bases what so ever on behalf of Anderson..

The quote he posted he said was from a letter to the Home Office that was included in the book "The Trials of Israel Lipski" by Martin Friedland, a Jewish law professor.

But your trick is now clear to everyone, when you are proved wrong you try to change the focus of the matter.

This is all old and well known tricks.


TB

[Herlock Sholmes]

I would prefer any day to be in Smith's and Reid's company than yours.

You're quoting crude anti-Semitic propaganda.

It's a libel that Jews would 'perjure themselves by the thousands'.

What kind of person would reproduce a text that describes Jews as 'a leprous and consuming vermin' in order to substantiate a libel that the Whitechapel Murderer was a Jew?

You really are a racist bigot.

Really? Is that necessary when someone is simply posting a quote and has at no time claimed that they echo the sentiments within that quote? I tend to agree with Fishy but I’ll ask a quick question first (for you to ignore, probably)

Why are you persisting with the claim that a Jew would not use the word ‘Lipski’ to insult another Jew when I’ve posted a quote where this exact thing happened? It’s called providing evidence to back up a point …… the exact opposite of your ‘coat’ invention. You have a tendency toward turning a blind eye to the inconvenient.

Why not just stick to discussing the facts without throwing a fit?

[Elamarna]

Likewise!

Incorrect, I do allow for the fact I may be wrong, over and over.

[FISHY1118]

I would prefer any day to be in Smith's and Reid's company than yours.

You're quoting crude anti-Semitic propaganda.

It's a libel that Jews would 'perjure themselves by the thousands'.

What kind of person would reproduce a text that describes Jews as 'a leprous and consuming vermin' in order to substantiate a libel that the Whitechapel Murderer was a Jew?

You really are a racist bigot.

Hmm i feel a ban coming on .

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Then why did you quote it in your post 409 in the other thread "Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”" ?

The hypocrisy strikes again.

You are allowed to criticise Anderson the way you like, and other posters are not allowed to explain him or else they will be anti-Semitic

I think everyone know who you are by now..


TB

I quoted it in # 409 of that other thread for the same reason that I quoted it in # 186 of this thread - in order to show what you had posted and to discredit it.

What you are saying is like claiming that when an anti-fascist article quotes Mein Kampf, it is praising Hitler.

The difference lies in the purpose behind the quoting of the passage, and your purpose is to bolster your promotion of the idea that the Whitechapel Murderer has to be Jewish.

[Elamarna]

I would prefer any day to be in Smith's and Reid's company than yours.

You're quoting crude anti-Semitic propaganda.

It's a libel that Jews would 'perjure themselves by the thousands'.

What kind of person would reproduce a text that describes Jews as 'a leprous and consuming vermin' in order to substantiate a libel that the Whitechapel Murderer was a Jew?

You really are a racist bigot.

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.

[The Baron]

I would prefer any day to be in Smith's and Reid's company than yours.

You're quoting crude anti-Semitic propaganda.

It's a libel that Jews would 'perjure themselves by the thousands'.

What kind of person would reproduce a text that describes Jews as 'a leprous and consuming vermin' in order to substantiate a libel that the Whitechapel Murderer was a Jew?

You really are a racist bigot.

Then why did you quote it in your post 409 in the other thread "Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”" ?

The hypocrisy strikes again.

You are allowed to criticise Anderson the way you like, and other posters are not allowed to explain him or else they will be anti-Semitic

I think everyone know who you are by now..


TB

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

stuck in the grove, repeating the same statements over and over, you don't think this is believeable, or that is credible.
Pointless, achieving nothing, other than reinforcing existing bias and prejudice.

Sadly as i said one cannot force a horse to drink, or a man with a fixed mind to accept he might be wrong.

Likewise!