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


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

    IN THE NAVY---VILLAGE PEOPLE, Official Music Video (1979) HD - YouTube
    My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

    Comment


    • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


      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.

      Neckerchiefs weren’t then and aren’t now solely made from silk. They can be made from cotton too. If sailors only wore silk ones how can we know that the one seen by Lawende was silk? It might have been cotton. It might have been a neck scarf for all that we know. Lawende saw him from feet away, in passing. He wasn’t inspecting troops.

      He described the jacket as loose.

      Waist-length open jackets were loose.

      That makes no sense at all. Underpants can be loose. Full length coats can be loose. Most people in that area were permanently skint and didn’t buy made to measure clothing. Cast-offs were commonplace.

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

      Strange then that I’ve looked at around 100 photographs to date of Victorian sailors and not one of them was wearing a loose jacket.



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

      Which, as everyone but you realise, in absolutely no way means that the man was a sailor.
      Could the man have been a sailor?

      Yes, for all that we know.

      We can say no more than that.
      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


        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.
        Again, no one has ever described a man in an actual sailor's uniform anywhere in this case. Anyone could have worn a necktie.

        Like a lot of people on here, you're being a tad inflexible in your analysis in wanting every aspect of every murder and possible suspect sighting to be exactly the same. Bear in mind that when Lawende saw the man with Eddowes, who was undoubtedly the ripper IMO, no crime had been committed, he had no reason to be suspicious and was observing by gaslight from a distance. He and Levy and no real reason to be paying special attention. Now compare that to what is an ideal case with Farmer's man. The assailant is observed up close by many people, in daylight, and although the descriptions clearly converge on a common theme, there are a fair few clear differences. Things like build are going to vary depending on angle of observation or clothing (e.g. a short man with broad shoulders wearing a loose jacket or cape would appear stocky), complexion and colouring by degree of light shade. You are getting a bit too hung up factors that can clearly vary by observer. You sailor theory isn't backed up at all by any meaningful evidence.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

          Again, no one has ever described a man in an actual sailor's uniform anywhere in this case. Anyone could have worn a necktie.

          Like a lot of people on here, you're being a tad inflexible in your analysis in wanting every aspect of every murder and possible suspect sighting to be exactly the same. Bear in mind that when Lawende saw the man with Eddowes, who was undoubtedly the ripper IMO, no crime had been committed, he had no reason to be suspicious and was observing by gaslight from a distance. He and Levy and no real reason to be paying special attention. Now compare that to what is an ideal case with Farmer's man. The assailant is observed up close by many people, in daylight, and although the descriptions clearly converge on a common theme, there are a fair few clear differences. Things like build are going to vary depending on angle of observation or clothing (e.g. a short man with broad shoulders wearing a loose jacket or cape would appear stocky), complexion and colouring by degree of light shade. You are getting a bit too hung up factors that can clearly vary by observer. You sailor theory isn't backed up at all by any meaningful evidence.
          We should check the papers Wulf in case there’s mention of a man with one leg and a parrot on his shoulder.

          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 Aethelwulf View Post

            Again, no one has ever described a man in an actual sailor's uniform anywhere in this case. Anyone could have worn a necktie.

            Merchant sailors did not wear a uniform!


            Like a lot of people on here, you're being a tad inflexible in your analysis in wanting every aspect of every murder and possible suspect sighting to be exactly the same.

            On the contrary!

            I pointed to three differences in terms of clothing and also the different build of the two suspects.

            The two are far from being the same.



            Bear in mind that when Lawende saw the man with Eddowes, who was undoubtedly the ripper IMO,

            Agreed.

            no crime had been committed, he had no reason to be suspicious and was observing by gaslight from a distance. He and Levy and no real reason to be paying special attention.

            Lawende gave a good description nonetheless.


            Now compare that to what is an ideal case with Farmer's man. The assailant is observed up close by many people, in daylight, and although the descriptions clearly converge on a common theme, there are a fair few clear differences. Things like build are going to vary depending on angle of observation or clothing (e.g. a short man with broad shoulders wearing a loose jacket or cape would appear stocky), complexion and colouring by degree of light shade.


            In that case, why do you accept Lawende's evidence that the man had a fair moustache?

            Why not say,
            well, he could have had a dark moustache?

            Someone said that the lightning could have made his moustache look lighter than it was.

            What do you think of that?

            If he had a dark moustache, then he cannot have been your fair-haired suspect in the Farmer case.




            You are getting a bit too hung up factors that can clearly vary by observer. You sailor theory isn't backed up at all by any meaningful evidence.


            I think it is.

            If Lawende had said nothing about the suspect having the appearance of a sailor, then that would be different.



            Please see my answers above.

            Comment


            • Crikey! Some people who survive lightning go permanently grey
              My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

              Comment


              • 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?
                So you're claiming to have read all 14 thousand plus posts by Herlock?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                  So you're claiming to have read all 14 thousand plus posts by Herlock?



                  I wrote:


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


                  That means the same as:

                  I would have to read all your posts before I could say that you had omitted to say something.

                  I did NOT suggest that he had omitted to say something.

                  I did NOT claim to have read all his posts
                  .

                  Comment


                  • Lawende gave a good description nonetheless.
                    But we have no way of verifying it’s accuracy. Whole papers have been written on how inaccurate their observations by witnesses can be. This one occurred at night, under one gas lamp, by a man who was hardly scrutinising the two people across the road. The fact that the man was a mere 10 feet away and yet Lawende still said that he wouldn’t have been able to identify him points at how closely he looked. The fact that he didn’t turn back after he’d passed showed his lack of interest in them.

                    The fact that he mentioned a neckerchief under these circumstances suggest that he noticed it because it was of a kind that covered his throat. Basically a neck scarf and not a type worn by sailors.
                    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 don't think the wearing of neckerchiefs had to do with vanity.

                      Sailors did wear them as part of their uniform.
                      Royal Navy sailors wore black "silks" as part of their uniform. And tight-fitting jackets.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                        So you're claiming to have read all 14 thousand plus posts by Herlock?
                        That was Sisyphus' original punishment, before Hades deemed it a bit too harsh.
                        Thems the Vagaries.....

                        Comment


                        • This is a very extensive list of uniforms worn by all ranks in the Navy in 1875. There is not one single mention of the word ‘neckerchief.’ There is also no mention of ‘salt and pepper’ when describing jackets/coats. None of the coats hint in any way at being loose fitting.
                          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 Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                            That was Sisyphus' original punishment, before Hades deemed it a bit too harsh.


                            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
                              This is a very extensive list of uniforms worn by all ranks in the Navy in 1875. There is not one single mention of the word ‘neckerchief.’ There is also no mention of ‘salt and pepper’ when describing jackets/coats. None of the coats hint in any way at being loose fitting.
                              I forgot to add the link.

                              https://sites.rootsweb.com/~pbtyc/Na...N.html#Ratings
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes

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

                              Comment


                              • Again, no one has ever described a man in an actual sailor's uniform anywhere in this case. Anyone could have worn a necktie.

                                Merchant sailors did not wear a uniform!

                                Then why are you making such a fuss that the necktie was part of a uniform

                                Like a lot of people on here, you're being a tad inflexible in your analysis in wanting every aspect of every murder and possible suspect sighting to be exactly the same.

                                On the contrary!

                                I pointed to three differences in terms of clothing and also the different build of the two suspects.

                                The two are far from being the same.

                                As before, you seem to be of the opinion the ripper had only one set of clothes. Nonsense.

                                Build is subjective enough to vary between witnesses. What Lawende said: 'of shabby appearance, about 30 years of age and 5ft. 9in. in height, of fair complexion, having a small fair moustache, and wearing a red neckerchief and a cap with a peak.

                                Sounds pretty much like the same sort of person. Height given by Lawende is highly questionable given that Levy saw the same man and said he was the same height as Eddowes. This is similar to Farmer where we have 5,7 or 5'4 and short fellow. Medium build could really be anything. Look at the other versions from different dates of Lawende's Man:
                                • Home Office document written in or after July 1889: "Age 30 to 35. Height 5ft. 7in., with brown hair and big moustache, dressed respectably. Wore a pea jacket, muffler and a cloth cap with a peak of the same material
                                • A man of thirty-five, standing 5ft 7in to 5ft 8in, rather square shoulders, clean shaven with the exception of a heavy moustache, inclining to be sandy."
                                • "Young, about the middle height, with a small fair moustache, dressed in something like navy serge, and with a deerstalker's cap - that is, a cap with a peak both fore and aft.​​
                                Lawende gave a good description nonetheless.

                                See Herlock's answer


                                Now compare that to what is an ideal case with Farmer's man. The assailant is observed up close by many people, in daylight, and although the descriptions clearly converge on a common theme, there are a fair few clear differences. Things like build are going to vary depending on angle of observation or clothing (e.g. a short man with broad shoulders wearing a loose jacket or cape would appear stocky), complexion and colouring by degree of light shade.


                                In that case, why do you accept Lawende's evidence that the man had a fair moustache?

                                Lawende's is the only account. Again, look at farmer, we have fair and dark. As I said, and as per one of the descriptions of Lawende's man, I think fair is probably sandy brown. None of the accounts state either man's hair colour as he wore a hat. Mustache doesn't have to be the same as hair colour and I pointed this with regard to Bury who had dark hair and facial hair described as a shade lighter and fair/inclined to be sandy.
                                Why not say, well, he could have had a dark moustache?


                                If he had a dark moustache, then he cannot have been your fair-haired suspect in the Farmer case.


                                See above

                                Let's call it a day. I can see from your exchanges with Herlock you are totally inflexible and have got yourself burrowed down a deep rabbit hole
                                Last edited by Aethelwulf; 12-02-2022, 10:44 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X