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 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.​




    I
    I just realised that I hadn’t commented on a point that I had intended to comment on.

    Why is it that you’ve inserted the word ‘blouson’ into the subject? No one at the time ever mentioned a blouson as far as I’m aware and Lawende certainly didn’t. He simply described the jacket as loose-fitting which describes the size not the style. It was loose-fitting as opposed to close fitting.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blouson

    According to Wiki they originate from the mid-20th century and have zero connection to sailors. So we haven’t a single clue as to what type of jacket the man was wearing. So because Lawende said that he had the appearance of a sailor (note that he didn’t say that he was a sailor, only that he had the appearance of one - in the brief look that he had of him) all that we have is the neckerchief and the cap. Neither of which are in any way specific to sailors.

    Therefore it cannot be stated that the evidence is in favour of the man being a sailor. He might have been one of course but he could have been a Market Porter wearing a scarf and a peaked cap for all that we know. Lawende’s description is close to useless.
    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

      I just realised that I hadn’t commented on a point that I had intended to comment on.

      Why is it that you’ve inserted the word ‘blouson’ into the subject? No one at the time ever mentioned a blouson as far as I’m aware and Lawende certainly didn’t. He simply described the jacket as loose-fitting which describes the size not the style. It was loose-fitting as opposed to close fitting.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blouson

      According to Wiki they originate from the mid-20th century and have zero connection to sailors. So we haven’t a single clue as to what type of jacket the man was wearing. So because Lawende said that he had the appearance of a sailor (note that he didn’t say that he was a sailor, only that he had the appearance of one - in the brief look that he had of him) all that we have is the neckerchief and the cap. Neither of which are in any way specific to sailors.

      Therefore it cannot be stated that the evidence is in favour of the man being a sailor. He might have been one of course but he could have been a Market Porter wearing a scarf and a peaked cap for all that we know. Lawende’s description is close to useless.



      In # 274, you wrote, Stop whining.

      In # 280, 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.

      In # 285, You replied:

      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.
      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.


      In # 286, you insinuated that I had never mentioned what I wrote in # 280 I thought I had mentioned.

      In # 288, I replied, quoting a post of mine from nearly four weeks before:

      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.


      I then added:

      Contrary to what you have claimed, my statements have been entirely consistent.

      In # 290, you didn't even acknowledge the fact that you had made a false insinuation, instead writing the following insulting description of my refutation of your insinuation:

      waffle and whining and obsessive repletion.

      As I wrote in # 291,

      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.

      You admitted previously that you were wrong when you accused me of having invented Lawende's description of a suspect as having the appearance of a sailor.

      Why can't you admit you are wrong again?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post




        In # 274, you wrote, Stop whining.

        In # 280, 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.

        In # 285, You replied:

        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.
        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.


        In # 286, you insinuated that I had never mentioned what I wrote in # 280 I thought I had mentioned.

        In # 288, I replied, quoting a post of mine from nearly four weeks before:

        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.


        I then added:

        Contrary to what you have claimed, my statements have been entirely consistent.

        In # 290, you didn't even acknowledge the fact that you had made a false insinuation, instead writing the following insulting description of my refutation of your insinuation:

        waffle and whining and obsessive repletion.

        As I wrote in # 291,

        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.

        You admitted previously that you were wrong when you accused me of having invented Lawende's description of a suspect as having the appearance of a sailor.

        Why can't you admit you are wrong again?
        You've just written 31 lines completely avoiding the point that I made in the original post! That’s some top level obfuscation. The quote you provided about the neckerchief was from 3 weeks ago on The Seaside Home thread, in a conversation that I wasn’t involved in! How am I supposed to know about that? And in the quote from me I said” I can’t recall….” So that means I couldn’t recall you mentioning the neckerchief in the thread that I was talking about at the time - and I was correct - because you’d mentioned it in a discussion that I took no part in on another thread!

        The crux of this whole debate regarding Lawende’s description of the man as having the appearance of a sailor is the fact the you claimed that a salt and pepper jacket was of a kind commonly worn by sailors. I assume that you’re not denying that now or trying to distance yourself from it? I repeatedly asked for evidence of this and you repeatedly didn’t provide it despite hinting that you did indeed have evidence, but for some strange reason you weren’t prepared to produce it. I scoffed at that. I still do.

        The emphasis of our debate (the one that you’re continually refusing to respond to) was the jacket (or blouson as you appear to want to rename it)

        You said that it was of a type commonly worn by sailors.

        I asked you to provide evidence of this claim (about 8 times)

        You failed to provide evidence.

        I stated that this was clearly because no evidence exists.

        You said that you had evidence but you weren’t willing to produce here.

        I told you that I don’t believe you. I still don’t.

        You used the word ‘blouson’ in a quote.

        I asked why you used a descriptive word that has never been used in the case evidence as far as I’m aware of?

        You didn’t respond.


        Round and round we go. Simple answers would suffice.

        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

          Simple answers would suffice.

          The simple answer that would suffice is that you admit you were wrong - yet again.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


            The simple answer that would suffice is that you admit you were wrong - yet again.
            I don’t know why I bother trying to get a straight answer from you so I’ll have to waive the white flag again. Nothing but dodges and obfuscation. I have absolutely nothing to admit to being wrong. It’s bizarre that you appear to believe that I should be aware of every post that you’ve ever made, even those made in conversations on threads that I wasn’t involved in. The fact that I did make an error a few days ago and acknowledged it immediately shows that at least I’m willing to do so, unlike you. I’ve been wrong numerous times on these boards and when it’s been pointed out to me I’ve acknowledged and accepted it. I’ve seen zero evidence of this from you. You couldn’t even bring yourself to properly apologise for your ludicrous rant where you accused me of saying stuff that was posted by someone else.

            Your “I have some evidence but I’m not telling you” is too transparent to be defended. All that you needed to do was to stick the the topic but you’re simply incapable of doing so. Too much time whining and too much time stating your opinions as if they are facts and way too little time acknowledging that alternative interpretations of events exist and that they should be considered.
            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



              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.

              Hi PI1
              This jacket business, I agree with you in that Lawende said the man looked like a sailor, and that we shouldn't just discard that. He was there after all. But, the description of the jacket is essentially 'a grey coat that was a bit too big'. It's next to nothing to go on as far as I can see.

              Would it be correct to assume that your line of reasoning regarding the description and it's connection to sailors was based on a 20th century description of a white shirt and black trousers, later being a description of a cooks uniform?. Add in the term 'blouson' which is a post war term for another military coat. I stress, I'm not trying to finger point your errors and scoff, it's a part of research to go down the wrong track at times.

              If there's another source that links 'salt and pepper coloured loose fitting jacket' to seafarers I'd be interested to see it, but as it stands, I can't see how anyone could confidently say that the jackets description matches a sailor.

              That doesn't detract from the fact that the suspect was described as a sailor, Lawende certainly had that impression, but the description isn't much to go on, and not enough to call off the search for non sailor suspects.
              Thems the Vagaries.....

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                Hi PI1
                This jacket business, I agree with you in that Lawende said the man looked like a sailor, and that we shouldn't just discard that. He was there after all. But, the description of the jacket is essentially 'a grey coat that was a bit too big'. It's next to nothing to go on as far as I can see.

                Would it be correct to assume that your line of reasoning regarding the description and it's connection to sailors was based on a 20th century description of a white shirt and black trousers, later being a description of a cooks uniform?. Add in the term 'blouson' which is a post war term for another military coat. I stress, I'm not trying to finger point your errors and scoff, it's a part of research to go down the wrong track at times.

                If there's another source that links 'salt and pepper coloured loose fitting jacket' to seafarers I'd be interested to see it, but as it stands, I can't see how anyone could confidently say that the jackets description matches a sailor.

                That doesn't detract from the fact that the suspect was described as a sailor, Lawende certainly had that impression, but the description isn't much to go on, and not enough to call off the search for non sailor suspects.

                I don't know where you get your description of the suspect's jacket as 'a grey coat that was a bit too big'!

                I did mention earlier the uniform you refer to, but only because it does indicate a connection between 'pepper-and-salt' and sailors' dress.

                My point about the blouson was that there is some similarity in that sailors' jackets were, like blousons, waist-length and 'loose'.

                My source says that pepper-and-salt loose jackets were commonly worn by sailors in Whitechapel.

                I have to say that Herlock Shomes' deduction that the suspect's cap played a part in Lawende's reasoning is incorrect.

                The two items of clothing mentioned by Lawende that could have suggested that the man was a sailor were the jacket and neckerchief.

                Sailors commonly wore waist-length jackets, open at the front, and a silk handkerchief round the neck.

                It stands to reason that it was not just the neckerchief that caused Lawende to think that the man had the appearance of a sailor and, since it could not have been the cap, the jacket was obviously a factor.

                And that is what my source suggests too.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                  I don't know where you get your description of the suspect's jacket as 'a grey coat that was a bit too big'!

                  I did mention earlier the uniform you refer to, but only because it does indicate a connection between 'pepper-and-salt' and sailors' dress.

                  My point about the blouson was that there is some similarity in that sailors' jackets were, like blousons, waist-length and 'loose'.

                  My source says that pepper-and-salt loose jackets were commonly worn by sailors in Whitechapel.

                  I have to say that Herlock Shomes' deduction that the suspect's cap played a part in Lawende's reasoning is incorrect.

                  The two items of clothing mentioned by Lawende that could have suggested that the man was a sailor were the jacket and neckerchief.

                  Sailors commonly wore waist-length jackets, open at the front, and a silk handkerchief round the neck.

                  It stands to reason that it was not just the neckerchief that caused Lawende to think that the man had the appearance of a sailor and, since it could not have been the cap, the jacket was obviously a factor.

                  And that is what my source suggests too.
                  Thanks for that. What is your source?
                  Thems the Vagaries.....

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    It’s bizarre that you appear to believe that I should be aware of every post that you’ve ever made, even those made in conversations on threads that I wasn’t involved in.


                    If you are not aware of all the relevant comments made by someone, then you should not insinuate - as you did - that he did not mention some detail before and that he is now shifting his position by introducing it.

                    I have to ask whether you have ever challenged any other member on this forum in a similar way, and, if not, why not?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                      Thanks for that. What is your source?

                      I have been asked that before but, as I said before, I am not ready to divulge it yet.

                      The same goes for other evidence I have come across that suggests the murderer was a sailor.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post

                        The same goes for other evidence I have come across that suggests the murderer was a sailor.
                        Out of interest, what is your take on Farmer's attacker? Short, stout man, slight fair mustache, ran off into Spitalfields I believe. Of the many people that saw this man runoff, one described him as looking like a sailor. Not sure why when you read the descriptions. He was wearing a necktie. He was also carrying and struck someone with a whip. Very similar description to the man seen by Schwartz and Lawende, not long after Kelly, gets a woman alone in a private room and tries to slit her throat.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

                          Out of interest, what is your take on Farmer's attacker? Short, stout man, slight fair mustache, ran off into Spitalfields I believe. Of the many people that saw this man runoff, one described him as looking like a sailor. Not sure why when you read the descriptions. He was wearing a necktie. He was also carrying and struck someone with a whip. Very similar description to the man seen by Schwartz and Lawende, not long after Kelly, gets a woman alone in a private room and tries to slit her throat.

                          I am familiar with the case, but not with all the details you provide.

                          I am sure he was not the Whitechapel Murderer.

                          I haven't heard before of anyone saying he looked like a sailor.

                          Although someone said he had a fair moustache, Farmer evidently did not, because the police description of him mentioned a dark moustache.

                          Furthermore, whereas Lawende's suspect had a fair complexion, Farmer's attacker had a dark complexion.

                          ​​​​​​​

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                            I am familiar with the case, but not with all the details you provide.

                            I am sure he was not the Whitechapel Murderer.

                            I haven't heard before of anyone saying he looked like a sailor.

                            Although someone said he had a fair moustache, Farmer evidently did not, because the police description of him mentioned a dark moustache.

                            Furthermore, whereas Lawende's suspect had a fair complexion, Farmer's attacker had a dark complexion.

                            Yes, one of the witnesses that saw him leave said he looked like a sailor. Can't remember which report, there are a lot of them for this attack. The mustache thing is interesting though. All the people that saw him runoff and chased him in broad daylight said he had a fair mustache. Farmer said dark. However, bear in mind fair can mean a shade of brown/sandy, and her attacker picked her up in the dark and took her to a pitch black room, and got her wasted by the sound of it, the daylight witnesses should be given priority. If he did have a fair (sandy/brown) mustache, farmer could have thought it was darker than it was given her state.

                            Personally, I think this attack is too easily overlooked. My feeling is that after a great success with Kelly, he isn't going to stop but try again, and I think that is was this was. The difference could have been that Kelly had a fire/light but the dark lodging house room meant he botched it.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                              If you are not aware of all the relevant comments made by someone, then you should not insinuate - as you did - that he did not mention some detail before and that he is now shifting his position by introducing it.

                              I have to ask whether you have ever challenged any other member on this forum in a similar way, and, if not, why not?
                              Another comment that can’t be taken seriously. If I’m having a discussion on here on some topic I can’t can’t be expected to know every comment that that person has ever made on the subject especially on a thread that I wasn’t involved in.

                              How would you react if you had suggested that I hadn’t said something and I replied “oh yes I did, post #67 of the Rose Mylett thread six months ago?!”

                              Be serious PI. When entering a conversation you don’t research every single thing that a poster has said on that particular subject. You expect them to reveal all on the current thread.

                              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


                                How would you react if you had suggested that I hadn’t said something and I replied “oh yes I did, post #67 of the Rose Mylett thread six months ago?!”



                                Why would I suggest that you had omitted to say something unless I had indeed read all your posts?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X