A photograph of Joseph Lawende in 1899

[Elamarna]

I didn't say anything of the kind and never have!

I said - as I have said repeatedly - that it is not believable that Abberline, Reid, and Henry Smith, as well as MacNaghten - and your point about MacNaghten's change of office is irrelevant - would not have learned about the identification if it had really happened.

Abberline stated in 1903 that he had remained in contact with Scotland Yard and it was inconceivable that he would not have heard of the identification of the murderer if it had happened.

Smith stated categorically that Anderson had not identified the murderer and challenged him to substantiate his claim, but Anderson couldn't.

Reid too denied Anderson's claims.

You yourself admit that it took a few years for Anderson to decide that the man allegedly positively identified was the murderer.

A man is positively identified.

It is so definite that all that is needed now is for the witness to testify, but the evil Jew will not cooperate with gentile justice.

And after this conclusive identification, Anderson has to think about it for a few years, before declaring to the world that it was merely a definitely ascertained fact!

It was a modern-day version of the medieval Blood Libel.

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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

And you have been proved wrong for that too:


August 15, 1887 from Dr Apatowski (himself A JEW):

"The Polish Jews living in London have put into play all sorts of means to save their Lipski, .... But for these enraged fanatics, to see hanged one of their Jews by Christian hands is not only dishonourable... And they are able to perjure themselves by the thousands to prevent one of theirs being hanged by Christians, were he the biggest and most atrocious criminal in the world.... Yes, Russia and Germany have given England a lovely present, in chasing these furious and outraged fanatics, a leprous and consuming vermin, from a civilised and admired society."


And proved wrong for your claim that a jew (who was a murderer, mentally sick and drunk) wouldn't have shouted Lipski to another jew.




TB

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.

[The Baron]

I criticised him - as did Henry Smith and Edmund Reid - for alleging that they would have sheltered the murderer and refused to give him up to what Anderson called 'gentile justice'.

And you have been proved wrong for that too:


August 15, 1887 from Dr Apatowski (himself A JEW):

"The Polish Jews living in London have put into play all sorts of means to save their Lipski, .... But for these enraged fanatics, to see hanged one of their Jews by Christian hands is not only dishonourable... And they are able to perjure themselves by the thousands to prevent one of theirs being hanged by Christians, were he the biggest and most atrocious criminal in the world.... Yes, Russia and Germany have given England a lovely present, in chasing these furious and outraged fanatics, a leprous and consuming vermin, from a civilised and admired society."


And proved wrong for your claim that a jew (who was a murderer, mentally sick and drunk) wouldn't have shouted Lipski to another jew.




TB

[Herlock Sholmes]

An example of the term Lipski used as an insult by a Jew to another Jew posted by the late Robert Linford on JTRForums in 2007.

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/conundrums-and-anomalies/2388-lipski?p=56975#post56975

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Still continuing the idiosyncratic belief that junior officers and Smith knew more about the case than Swanson.

I didn't say anything of the kind and never have!

I said - as I have said repeatedly - that it is not believable that Abberline, Reid, and Henry Smith, as well as MacNaghten - and your point about MacNaghten's change of office is irrelevant - would not have learned about the identification if it had really happened.

Abberline stated in 1903 that he had remained in contact with Scotland Yard and it was inconceivable that he would not have heard of the identification of the murderer if it had happened.

Smith stated categorically that Anderson had not identified the murderer and challenged him to substantiate his claim, but Anderson couldn't.

Reid too denied Anderson's claims.

You yourself admit that it took a few years for Anderson to decide that the man allegedly positively identified was the murderer.

A man is positively identified.

It is so definite that all that is needed now is for the witness to testify, but the evil Jew will not cooperate with gentile justice.

And after this conclusive identification, Anderson has to think about it for a few years, before declaring to the world that it was merely a definitely ascertained fact!

It was a modern-day version of the medieval Blood Libel.

[Elamarna]

As I said, it is just part of the anti-Semitism which infected the case.

Abberline, Henry Smith and Reid were quite definite that the murderer was a gentile.

Either Anderson and Swanson kept the truth from them - which is not believable - or the identification story is fantasy.

There are too many allegations of Jews being responsible, either individually or collectively, for them to be based on anything more than prejudice and fantasy.

When challenged by Smith, Anderson couldn't come up with anything - because there never had been anything.

The 'Jew done it' story is an old fable, going through the centuries of allegations of crucifixion of gentiles (for which Jews were hanged in medieval London) to the ritual murder libels - including a notorious framing of a Jew in Tsarist Russia for the ritual murder of a child, resulting in his acquittal in 1913.

The same fingerprints are all over the Whitechapel Murders case, but in spite of your own Jewish extraction, you just can't see it.

Still continuing the idiosyncratic belief that junior officers and Smith knew more about the case than Swanson.
Such simply demonstrates a total lack of understanding .
One can lead a horse to water, but One cannot make it drink.
Such applies perfectly to yourself.
You have fixed ideas, not just about Kosminski or Anderson , but on many issues related to the case.
You have convinced yourself that the killer could not be Jewish, because off the prejudice, but you fail to see that the approach you take is also prejudice, and actually precludes meaningful research and debate.
Your opinion is the ONLY valid opinion. That comes over time after time.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It didn't take you long after apologising 10 times to Herlock to say this to him???????


The man who is criticising Anderson being anti-Semitist describing the suspect of being a low class polish jew, is now himself using the same language to talk to another poster in the 21 century!

The hypocrisy.


TB

That's very funny.

I didn't criticise Anderson specifically for calling certain Jews 'low-class'!

I criticised him - as did Henry Smith and Edmund Reid - for alleging that they would have sheltered the murderer and refused to give him up to what Anderson called 'gentile justice'.

Since everyone was under English law, his comment was completely out-of-order.

The law was not about whether one was gentile or Jewish and there was no gentile justice; there was only English justice.

His comments about the Jews were obviously born of prejudice and, when challenged by Henry Smith, he couldn't substantiate his obviously untrue claim that it was a 'definitely ascertained fact' that a Jew had committed the Whitechapel murders, just as no-one here can.

[Elamarna]

As I said, it is just part of the anti-Semitism which infected the case.

Abberline, Henry Smith and Reid were quite definite that the murderer was a gentile.

Either Anderson and Swanson kept the truth from them - which is not believable - or the identification story is fantasy.

There are too many allegations of Jews being responsible, either individually or collectively, for them to be based on anything more than prejudice and fantasy.

When challenged by Smith, Anderson couldn't come up with anything - because there never had been anything.

The 'Jew done it' story is an old fable, going through the centuries of allegations of crucifixion of gentiles (for which Jews were hanged in medieval London) to the ritual murder libels - including a notorious framing of a Jew in Tsarist Russia for the ritual murder of a child, resulting in his acquittal in 1913.

The same fingerprints are all over the Whitechapel Murders case, but in spite of your own Jewish extraction, you just can't see it.

Still continuing the idiosyncratic belief that junior officers and Smith knew more about the case than Swanson.
Such simply demonstrates a total lack of understanding .
One can lead a horse to water, but One cannot make it drink.
Such applies perfectly to yourself.
You have fixed ideas, not just about Kosminski or Anderson , but on many issues related to the case.
Your opinion is the ONLY valid opinion. That comes over time after time.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It's simply another retelling of a story which was fairly common.

In some versions it's Stephen White who is the officer.
I have already commented on how the well known version of that is very different from the original.

Story's get embellished and changed during the retelling.

That does not mean, that the man's (sagar) own recollections of his own actions are unreliable.

Have you never repeated a story that is significantly different from how it began life.
Does that make you unreliable.

The story of a police officer seeing someone close to a murder site is persistent, I have long suspected that there may be a small kernel of truth buried away in those stories.

That a police officer saw someone near to a murder, that this suspect was the same person seen in Berner Street by Schwartz.

As I said, it is just part of the anti-Semitism which infected the case.

Abberline, Henry Smith and Reid were quite definite that the murderer was a gentile.

Either Anderson and Swanson kept the truth from them - which is not believable - or the identification story is fantasy.

There are too many allegations of Jews being responsible, either individually or collectively, for them to be based on anything more than prejudice and fantasy.

When challenged by Smith, Anderson couldn't come up with anything - because there never had been anything.

The 'Jew done it' story is an old fable, going through the centuries of allegations of crucifixion of gentiles (for which Jews were hanged in medieval London) to the ritual murder libels - including a notorious framing of a Jew in Tsarist Russia for the ritual murder of a child, resulting in his acquittal in 1913.

The same fingerprints are all over the Whitechapel Murders case, but in spite of your own Jewish extraction, you just can't see it.

[The Baron]

Your allegation that I invented what I wrote is untrue and shows what a low class of individual you are.

It didn't take you long after apologising 10 times to Herlock to say this to him???????


The man who is criticising Anderson being anti-Semitist describing the suspect of being a low class polish jew, is now himself using the same language to talk to another poster in the 21 century!

The hypocrisy.


TB

[Elamarna]

Feb. 9th, The Seattle Daily Times:

"We believe," he said, "that he came nearest to being captured after the Mitre Square murder in which the woman Kelly was the victim. She had been detained in Bishopsgate police station until 1 a. m. At 1:45 a. m. she was dead. A police officer met a well dressed man of Jewish appearance coming out of the court. Continuing on his patrol he came across the woman's body. He blew his whistle, and sent the other officers who rushed up in pursuit, the only thing to guide them being the sound of retreating footsteps. The sounds were followed to King's Block in the model dwellings in Stoney Lane, but the search got no further."


TB

See my response to PI on this.
It's clearly a story that was in circulation, the actual officer varies depending on who quotes it. In some It's Watkins, in some It's White.

Possibly a kernel of truth buried away. a copper may have seen some one close to a murder site.

The retelling does not make Sagar unreliable.

[Elamarna]

As you know, the perpetrator of these outrages was never brought to justice, but I believe he came the nearest to being captured after the murder of the woman Kelly in Mitre-square. A police officer met a well-known man of Jewish appearance coming out of the court near the square, and a few moments after fell over the body. He blew his whistle, and other officers running up, they set off in pursuit of the man who had just left. The officers were wearing India rubber boots, and the retreating footsteps of a man could be clearly heard. The sounds were followed to King's-block in the model dwellings in Stoney-lane, but we did not see the man again that night.


Daily News, 9 Jan. 1905.


I am surprised you think that only I do not find the reported sighting incredible.

Pc Watkins did not testify anything to corroborate Sagar's nonsense.

You're not seriously saying that you believe it?

It's simply another retelling of a story which was fairly common.

In some versions it's Stephen White who is the officer.
I have already commented on how the well known version of that is very different from the original.
It's clear the story is incorrect.

Story's get embellished and changed during the retelling.

That does not mean, that the man's (sagar) own recollections of his own actions are unreliable.

Have you never repeated a story that is significantly different from how it began life.
Does that make you unreliable.

The story of a police officer seeing someone close to a murder site is persistent, I have long suspected that there may be a small kernel of truth buried away in those stories.

That a police officer saw someone near to a murder, that this suspect was the same person seen in Berner Street by Schwartz.

[Elamarna]

Thanks for clarifying that.

That still leaves the question: if a positive identification was made in July 1890, why does Anderson not become convinced of the suspect's guilt until 1892?

It is not, I suggest, believable.

Again I answered this in a previous post, I speculate that they wanted to be sure no further murders of "this type" occurred.

Some defenders of Swanson here have said that he may, in his advancing years, have become confused about when the suspect died.

As I have noted, getting the year of death wrong by three decades looks like more than mere confusion.

Anderson saying in 1895 that the man had died means either that the man really had died by then or both Anderson and Swanson were wrong.

I have given a reasonable explanation for this, that given the police had not been the ones to commit him, that they seemingly did not want to draw attention to him, they maintained a very low key watch on him.
Maybe only yearly or 6 monthly reports, maybe not just on him, but on others too , to ensure he was not singled out.
So when he is transferred in 1894, there is a miscommunication, the transfer gets reported as death.

In the light of these facts, I can understand why you consider the possibility that the suspect was someone other than Aaron Kosminski.

What I do not understand is why you should ever have considered the possibility that the suspect was Aaron Kosminski.

I have spent many years studying this case, I am a researcher by training.
The possibility that Kosminski is not Aaron cannot be excluded. Only a fool fits himself to a theory or an opinion 100%

As for your 2nd question, because he fits 90% of what Swanson says.
And the circumstantial evidence is also strong.
On the batty street incident, the laundress says the shirts was left by a local Master Tailor, who had connections to west end fashion houses,and it belonged to a friend.

Both of Aaron's brothers were tailors, Issac was a master tailor and indeed had connections to west end fashion houses.

There is more, but I have no intention of writing a book for you.

So let me make this short.

I am 99% convinced that Anderson and Swanson believed they knew who the killer was.

I do however accept they could have been mistaken , but I have no doubt they belived it.

I am 85% convinced that Aaron is Kosminski.

That leaves room for other candidates for Anderson suspect such as Cohen, or an unnamed Kosminski.
There were a few about in the area, two in Middlesx street/Houndsditch, 1 in Goulston Street, several in Whitechapel Road, 1 in Chicksand street, and that's not including the family of Martin Kosminski, or others who may have registered under different names.

[The Baron]

His argument is, since Anderson didn't use this piece of information, that a man of a jewish appearance was seen leaving the court, to defend himself and his position, that means it didn't happen.



TB

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

provide the quote of Sagar saying he saw a man leaving the square?
Or if you mean he claimed he had heard such provide that quote

But lets , for the sake of debate, assume Sagar did say such..Why would it not be credible?
Is it that YOU, simply don't want to believe such.

As you know, the perpetrator of these outrages was never brought to justice, but I believe he came the nearest to being captured after the murder of the woman Kelly in Mitre-square. A police officer met a well-known man of Jewish appearance coming out of the court near the square, and a few moments after fell over the body. He blew his whistle, and other officers running up, they set off in pursuit of the man who had just left. The officers were wearing India rubber boots, and the retreating footsteps of a man could be clearly heard. The sounds were followed to King's-block in the model dwellings in Stoney-lane, but we did not see the man again that night.


Daily News, 9 Jan. 1905.


I am surprised you think that only I do not find the reported sighting incredible.

Pc Watkins did not testify anything to corroborate Sagar's nonsense.

You're not seriously saying that you believe it?