Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A photograph of Joseph Lawende in 1899

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

  • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post

    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.

    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes

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

    Comment


    • 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.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post



        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.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post
          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.

          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



            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.
            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

              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.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                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.

                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

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

                  The same way I know that the letter written by Walter Sickert's mother was dated 6th September 1888.

                  You were constantly challenging me to prove that it was written in 1888 and, as far as I can remember, eventually you stopped challenging me when it became obvious to you that it had been written in 1888.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

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

                    I meant that I haven't seen the original document.

                    I'm not a researcher.

                    Why would I view the original document?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                      I meant that I haven't seen the original document.

                      I'm not a researcher.

                      Why would I view the original document?
                      Well then don say it exist when you can't provide evidence . Salt and pepper does not equal a reference number.
                      '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


                        The same way I know that the letter written by Walter Sickert's mother was dated 6th September 1888.

                        You were constantly challenging me to prove that it was written in 1888 and, as far as I can remember, eventually you stopped challenging me when it became obvious to you that it had been written in 1888.
                        No I just bored when you didnt.
                        '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

                          Well then don say it exist when you can't provide evidence . Salt and pepper does not equal a reference number.

                          I refer you to the authors and researchers here, including Steve Blomer and Trevor Marriott.

                          If you want answers which researchers are qualified to give, please ask them and not me.

                          Then you won't be able to complain about the answers you receive.

                          Although I wouldn't bet money on it.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                            No I just bored when you didnt.
                            Are you saying that conclusive evidence was not produced that the letter was dated 6 September 1888?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                              I refer you to the authors and researchers here, including Steve Blomer and Trevor Marriott.

                              If you want answers which researchers are qualified to give, please ask them and not me.

                              Then you won't be able to complain about the answers you receive.

                              Although I wouldn't bet money on it.
                              No you mentioned it ,you produce it , Not just a ref number.
                              '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


                              • I’ve moved off-topic posts about the September 6th 1888 letter (again) to a more appropriate thread.

                                https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...-book-2/page20

                                I expect a response from Keith Skinner coming shortly and it will be posted there. Although I can’t see how it will satisfy anyone who is insisting on seeing the original document. That situation has been explained.

                                JM

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X