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


    Why would I suggest that you had omitted to say something unless I had indeed read all your posts?
    Because I would assume that we would be talking about the current conversation. I can’t believe that I’m explaining this to you PI. To avoid this happening in future, before beginning each conversation, we would have to spend hours researching the other persons posting history.

    Be serious 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 PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


      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.
      The evidence doesn’t exist. There is zero to connect the jacket to a sailor. You are making it up.

      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

        The evidence doesn’t exist. There is zero to connect the jacket to a sailor. You are making it up.

        I was having a polite exchange with someone else.

        It has nothing to do with you.

        You have just repeated for at least the third time your allegation that I have invented evidence.

        Please do not send me any more messages.

        I am not going to reply to any more from you.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


          I was having a polite exchange with someone else.

          It has nothing to do with you.

          You have just repeated for at least the third time your allegation that I have invented evidence.

          Please do not send me any more messages.

          I am not going to reply to any more from you.
          No evidence produced because none exists and you know it. You’re seeking to manipulate evidence so that you can shoehorn a very general theory into place. Sulk all you like, it doesn’t change the fact that you’re using the very childish “I have the evidence but I’m not revealing it’ tactic which every single person on here can easily see through.
          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

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

            ​​​​​​​
            Ellen Marks: He was about 5ft 7in in height, with a fair moustache, and of very sallow complexion. There was a scar of an abscess on the left side of the neck. I should call him a fair man. He wore a blue-black diagonal overcoat, speckled grey trousers, and a hard black felt hat. There was a white handkerchief round the throat. There was nothing in his hands. He seemed excited, and was panting, and as he went off it struck me that he was a sturdily-built man.

            Frank Ruffle: I should say the man was thirty-five years of age. He was clean shaven, with the exception of a slight fair moustache.

            Several other persons who were present gave particulars of the man, corroborating in almost every detail the account of his appearance given by the woman herself, viz.: age, 30; height, 5ft 6in; fair moustache; wearing a black diagonal coat and a hard felt hat.

            Farmer and one witness give the man as having a dark mustache. Makes me think fair in this instance was probably something like brown/sandy and could have appeared darker depending on light/shade etc.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

              Ellen Marks: He was about 5ft 7in in height, with a fair moustache, and of very sallow complexion. There was a scar of an abscess on the left side of the neck. I should call him a fair man. He wore a blue-black diagonal overcoat, speckled grey trousers, and a hard black felt hat. There was a white handkerchief round the throat. There was nothing in his hands. He seemed excited, and was panting, and as he went off it struck me that he was a sturdily-built man.

              Frank Ruffle: I should say the man was thirty-five years of age. He was clean shaven, with the exception of a slight fair moustache.

              Several other persons who were present gave particulars of the man, corroborating in almost every detail the account of his appearance given by the woman herself, viz.: age, 30; height, 5ft 6in; fair moustache; wearing a black diagonal coat and a hard felt hat.

              Farmer and one witness give the man as having a dark mustache. Makes me think fair in this instance was probably something like brown/sandy and could have appeared darker depending on light/shade etc.
              hi wulf
              interesting. ive never really thought farmer was a ripper victim, but as usual you make an interesting case. i never heard the sturdily built part, but it does seems the ripper did have that physique.
              "Is all that we see or seem
              but a dream within a dream?"

              -Edgar Allan Poe


              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

              -Frederick G. Abberline

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                hi wulf
                interesting. ive never really thought farmer was a ripper victim, but as usual you make an interesting case. i never heard the sturdily built part, but it does seems the ripper did have that physique.
                Sarah Turner: 'was standing at her door in Thrawl-street at the time of the occurrence, stated that she saw a man running in the direction of Brick-lane, followed by three or four others. She described him as a short, thick fellow, 5ft 4in high'.

                Right location, not long after Kelly. I would suggest if the ripper wanted another indoor victim he might well have reverted to someone he formerly knew, albeit causally by the sound of it, as his chances of getting a stranger into a dark corner outside, or in their own private room would have been pretty slim by this time. All we need to think is that he made a mistake. It does sound like he deliberately got her drunk, paid for the room and gave her extra money, then waited for her to go off to sleep then tried to cut her throat. What is interesting is that he had walked clean out through a common room full of people and onto the street before the alarm was raised. If he had connected properly with his knife, he would have walked out of there, probably totally unnoticed, and been hours gone before the body was found. Makes you wonder, although I would put my money on a night murder for Kelly, it could have been done later and he walked away in broad daylight.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

                  Ellen Marks: He was about 5ft 7in in height, with a fair moustache, and of very sallow complexion. There was a scar of an abscess on the left side of the neck. I should call him a fair man. He wore a blue-black diagonal overcoat, speckled grey trousers, and a hard black felt hat. There was a white handkerchief round the throat. There was nothing in his hands. He seemed excited, and was panting, and as he went off it struck me that he was a sturdily-built man.

                  Frank Ruffle: I should say the man was thirty-five years of age. He was clean shaven, with the exception of a slight fair moustache.

                  Several other persons who were present gave particulars of the man, corroborating in almost every detail the account of his appearance given by the woman herself, viz.: age, 30; height, 5ft 6in; fair moustache; wearing a black diagonal coat and a hard felt hat.

                  Farmer and one witness give the man as having a dark mustache. Makes me think fair in this instance was probably something like brown/sandy and could have appeared darker depending on light/shade etc.

                  Ellen Marks said:

                  ... he said, 'Look at what she has done.' There was blood on his mouth and a scratch, and his hands had blood upon them. He was about 5ft 7in in height, with a fair moustache, and of very sallow complexion. There was a scar of an abscess on the left side of the neck. I should call him a fair man. He wore a blue-black diagonal overcoat, speckled grey trousers, and a hard black felt hat. There was a white handkerchief round the throat.


                  That does suggest that the woman did not tell the whole truth about what had happened between her and the man - assuming the man running away was the same man.

                  I would point out that the man wore a different-coloured neckerchief, a different jacket or coat, and a different hat from the ones described by Lawende.

                  Lawende, moreover, did not describe the scar, although one cannot know how old it was, and described a man of lighter build.

                  You are certainly right about the discrepancy between those two witnesses' descriptions and the one given by Farmer.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                    Ellen Marks said:

                    ... he said, 'Look at what she has done.' There was blood on his mouth and a scratch, and his hands had blood upon them. He was about 5ft 7in in height, with a fair moustache, and of very sallow complexion. There was a scar of an abscess on the left side of the neck. I should call him a fair man. He wore a blue-black diagonal overcoat, speckled grey trousers, and a hard black felt hat. There was a white handkerchief round the throat.

                    That does suggest that the woman did not tell the whole truth about what had happened between her and the man - assuming the man running away was the same man.

                    I suspect once Farmer realized what had nearly happened to her she flailed about and probably land a blow on him, hence the scratches. Understandable really.

                    I would point out that the man wore a different-coloured neckerchief, a different jacket or coat, and a different hat from the ones described by Lawende.

                    That's not an issue - we can't think the ripper only had one set of clothes.

                    Lawende, moreover, did not describe the scar, although one cannot know how old it was, and described a man of lighter build.

                    All it means is no one else got a good view of his neck. I suspect the neck tie wearing, as per Lawende's man, was a vanity issue. Related to this, also note the FBI profile which suggests the killer might have had a physical abnormality which although slight, could have been physiologically crushing. Fits the bill.

                    Broadly speaking, this man fits the physical Bill and and was trying to slit a woman's throat.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post


                      Broadly speaking, this man fits the physical Bill and and was trying to slit a woman's throat.
                      I don't know what you mean by:

                      All it means is no one else got a good view of his neck.​


                      Both men were wearing neckerchiefs and Farmer's attacker had a visible scar on his neck, but Lawende's suspect did not.

                      Lawende described a man of lighter build than Farmer's attacker.

                      I don't think the wearing of neckerchiefs had to do with vanity.

                      Sailors did wear them as part of their uniform.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post

                        I don't know what you mean by:

                        All it means is no one else got a good view of his neck.​


                        Both men were wearing neckerchiefs and Farmer's attacker had a visible scar on his neck, but Lawende's suspect did not.

                        Lawende's man was not seen by multiple people at very close quarters (e.g. hit someone with a whip, stopped to punch someone else). Farmer's man's clothes would have been disarranged after the scuffle.

                        Lawende described a man of lighter build than Farmer's attacker.

                        We're talking about highly variable eye witness statements. This is a non issue. Just look at how variable the accounts of this attacker are and it is a perfect test case for checking their consistency. We have the lodging house man saying Farmer and her attacker were 'dark' and witnesses saying he was fair. We have fair man and sallow complexion (i.e. swarthy/yellow or brown in tone), fair mustache versus dark. And most of this related to broad daylight. Importantly for you, only one of the many people that saw the attacker said he looked like a sailor. How do we know in the case of Eddowes that Lawende wasn't that one man. You have gone all in for sailor based on one description.

                        I don't think the wearing of neckerchiefs had to do with vanity.

                        You don't, I do

                        Sailors did wear them as part of their uniform.
                        No one has ever described a sailor's unifrom in any of the murders.
                        IMO: Man seen by Schwartz (BS), Lawende's Man, Farmer's Man = one and the same

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

                          IMO: Man seen by Schwartz (BS), Lawende's Man, Farmer's Man = one and the same

                          Sailors did wear them as part of their uniform.
                          No one has ever described a sailor's unifrom in any of the murders.


                          It isn't just that sailors wore neckerchiefs as part of their uniform in the national navy, but they commonly wore them in the merchant navy.

                          I pointed out that Farmer's attacker wore a different hat, different-coloured neckerchief, different kind of jacket or coat, and had a heavier build.

                          You say Lawende's suspect could have changed his hat, neckerchief and jacket, and seemed of lighter build to Lawende.

                          ​I would suggest Lawende was an entirely-reliable witness and described a different man.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post

                            Sailors commonly wore waist-length jackets, open at the front, and a silk handkerchief round the neck.
                            Joseph Lawende did not say that the jacket was waist length. Or that it was worn open at the front. Or that the handkerchief was silk.

                            Comment


                            • What do we mean by a neckerchief?

                              https://www.google.com/search?q=vict...iarhFBK9NuBN4M

                              https://www.google.com/search?q=vict...hrvVJaEUQF2z1M

                              https://www.google.com/search?q=vict...lpXQSUGBPXw7IM

                              All of these are Victorian men but none of them were sailors.


                              These men were Victorian sailors though.

                              https://www.google.com/search?q=vict...2kwj5GH5L_S2pM

                              https://www.google.com/search?q=vict...QTNb1CeHccJNoM

                              https://www.google.com/search?q=vict...hD24CT5W20bYJM

                              In the sailor photos the neckerchief they were wearing weren’t worn around the throat. They hung down over their clothes. The man that Lawende saw clearly wasn’t wearing a sailors uniform or he would have said so therefore it’s difficult to see why an off duty sailor, wearing civilian clothes, would wear a neckerchief in this unusual way and not wrapped around his neck against the cold. If he had worn it that way then he would have looked no different from the men in the top three linked photos.

                              As we know that there is no link between the coat that he wore, which was only described in terms of the pattern/fabric and how loose fitting it was, it’s difficult to conclude much more that it was mainly the peaked cap that led Lawende to say that the man had the appearance of a sailor. Either way, to claim that he was a sailor, or even that he was likely to have been a sailor is a leap that makes absolutely no sense when we consider the childishly obvious fact that many men wore neckerchiefs, anyone could (and did) wear a peaked cap, and no one has to date found a photograph (amongst the numerous available) of a sailor wearing a ‘salt and pepper’ jacket. Lawende’s description tells us nothing useful about this man (unless we use it in comparison to various named suspects - but even then we shouldn’t place too much weight in a description given by a man who was hardly paying close attention.) He was just as likely to have been a carpenter, a market porter, a butcher.








                              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 Fiver View Post

                                Joseph Lawende did not say that the jacket was waist length. Or that it was worn open at the front. Or that the handkerchief was silk.

                                As has so often happened on this forum, when I make a statement, someone starts splitting hairs.

                                Lawende did not need to specify the material from which the neckerchief was made.

                                They were commonly made from silk.

                                He described the jacket as loose.

                                Waist-length open jackets were loose.

                                Sailors wore waist-length, loose jackets which were open at the front, and silk neckerchiefs.

                                Lawende described the man as wearing a loose jacket, a neckerchief, and the appearance of a sailor.



                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X