A photograph of Joseph Lawende in 1899

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please do not try and mislead, I said Anderson did not KNOW in 1890, but did by 1895.
To attempt to represent my comment as Anderson did not know full is disingenuous!

However, the argument that he either knew from day 1 or he never knew is not just unrealistic, it's seriously flawed.

Your reach a conclusion when you have sufficient evidence, it seems Anderson did not have that evidence in 1890, or at least he had not formed conclusion until later.

I think most of what you have written is unwarranted.

In particular, I am not a preacher.

The fact I do not name the suspect - a comparative rarity in debate nowadays - is not a characteristic of a believer.

I still do not understand why you think there is something deficient in my understanding of what Anderson is supposed to have known and when he is supposed to have known it.

I have been saying all along that he didn't know nor claim to know about the identification in the first place and that he did not start to say he knew until 1895.

You say I don't understand that that is what happened.

If you like, I'll go through my posted comments and list all the times I made that point.

You are now making the point and saying that I don't understand it!

You are actually agreeing with me and representing that agreement as a disagreement!

[Elamarna]

I am really at a loss to understand what makes you think that there is something wrong with my 'grasp of the information'.

I didn't say that Fido didn't change his mind.

The fact is that there are still adherents to the theory that Swanson meant Kaminsky.

I have encountered them online recently.

I didn't imagine that or refer to opinions I read decades ago.

People are looking for ways to keep the Anderson-Swanson fantasy alive and that is one of them.


In 1890, Anderson is very clear he does not KNOW who the killer was, yet within a couple of years, he is hinting, the killer was caught, locked away in an asylum, and had died.


That you do not know such basic things about the Anderson suspect theory, is astounding when one looks at the time of your posts, where you imply you have a deep understanding the arguments.


I can hardly believe you wrote that!

I made that very point - that Anderson did not know who the killer was - in the post to which you replied - and have made it several times before, yet you say I don't know it and that I don't know basic things!

It is one of the reasons I have been criticised so much here - for saying that Anderson did not know the identity of the murderer.

What are you saying - that Anderson didn't know of the identification when it happened but suddenly had a revelation?

Or that Swanson kept the identification secret even from Anderson and told him a few years later?



you imply you have a deep understanding the arguments.



If you are a notable author, you shouldn't be writing in that style.

It would be frowned upon in academia.

It's just a gratuitous put-down.


I have been saying all along that Anderson did not know the identity of the murderer.

I made that very point yesterday, when I cited Henry Smith's comment to the same effect.

You shot that down on the ground that Smith didn't know as much as Anderson.

Yet now YOU say that Anderson didn't know!

That means Smith and I are right.

Either Anderson knew all along or he didn't know.

And pointing out these things does not warrant the kind of language you use when addressing me.

What kind of language, I have not sworn at you, I have not said you do not know what you are talking about?
Unlike you who has said that to several people several times.

Similarly I have not said your opinions are making a laughing stock of this forum, again something you have said to at least one other poster.

Neither have I said that no publisher would take your work seriously, because you disagree with me. Which you have done.

I shouldn't be writing in a style you disapprove of?

Academia would not approve.

I hate to break this too you, but this is an open forum, not an academic institution. And I worked in one for 35 years, and heard far worse than the very mild comments I have made about your apparent failings.

As for the style, this is not an echo chamber, people argue, but we have to follow the rules. there are rules, and I have not broken any of those I think.

If you don't like being told your are incorrect, I am sorry, it happens.


As for others still sticking to Kaminsky, that by and large is people who have not read House, Malcolm or even Fido himself later in his life.
People often read a book THEY love such as Fido's 1987 book or Sugden, and don't move on.

Please do not try and mislead, I said Anderson did not KNOW in 1890, but did by 1895.
To attempt to represent my comment as Anderson did not know full is disingenuous!

However, the argument that he either knew from day 1 or he never knew is not just unrealistic, it's seriously flawed.

Your reach a conclusion when you have sufficient evidence, it seems Anderson did not have that evidence in 1890, or at least he had not formed conclusion until later.

These attempts at misleading are why I earlier, a week back, said I saw little difference between how you expressed yourself and some of the Lechmere people.

If you don't like being told your are incorrect, I am sorry.

However, if one is going to discuss the Anderson theory in general and the AK theory in particular, it helps if if you are fully up-to-date on the research, and sadly it's clear you are not.
Discussing this subject without having read say House, Malcolm or Wood, is to me totally astounding .

Please understand I like your enthusiasm, but don't you are that you are in effect preaching at this forum, saying ONLY your view is the TRUE view.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Your entire post simply and very amply demonstrates how little you understand about the case for Anderson's suspect .

Such of course is not surprising given your own admission that you had not even read House, or I suspect any other books that deal with the issue published in the last say 15 years.

That you refer to Kaminsky, again shows how out of date your grasp of the information is.
The late Martin Fido, who suggested Koskminski and Kamansky may have been confused actually rejected the suggestion him self in later life.

In 1890, Anderson is very clear he does not KNOW who the killer was, yet within a couple of years, he is hinting, the killer was caught, locked away in an asylum, and had died.


That you do not know such basic things about the Anderson suspect theory, is astounding when one looks at the time of your posts, where you imply you have a deep understanding the arguments.

I really do suggest that you need to do some further research on this issue.

I am really at a loss to understand what makes you think that there is something wrong with my 'grasp of the information'.

I didn't say that Fido didn't change his mind.

The fact is that there are still adherents to the theory that Swanson meant Kaminsky.

I have encountered them online recently.

I didn't imagine that or refer to opinions I read decades ago.

People are looking for ways to keep the Anderson-Swanson fantasy alive and that is one of them.


In 1890, Anderson is very clear he does not KNOW who the killer was, yet within a couple of years, he is hinting, the killer was caught, locked away in an asylum, and had died.


That you do not know such basic things about the Anderson suspect theory, is astounding when one looks at the time of your posts, where you imply you have a deep understanding the arguments.


I can hardly believe you wrote that!

I made that very point - that Anderson did not know who the killer was - in the post to which you replied - and have made it several times before, yet you say I don't know it and that I don't know basic things!

It is one of the reasons I have been criticised so much here - for saying that Anderson did not know the identity of the murderer.

What are you saying - that Anderson didn't know of the identification when it happened but suddenly had a revelation?

Or that Swanson kept the identification secret even from Anderson and told him a few years later?



you imply you have a deep understanding the arguments.



If you are a notable author, you shouldn't be writing in that style.

It would be frowned upon in academia.

It's just a gratuitous put-down.


I have been saying all along that Anderson did not know the identity of the murderer.

I made that very point yesterday, when I cited Henry Smith's comment to the same effect.

You shot that down on the ground that Smith didn't know as much as Anderson.

Yet now YOU say that Anderson didn't know!

That means Smith and I are right.

Either Anderson knew all along or he didn't know.

And pointing out these things does not warrant the kind of language you use when addressing me.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

How many times could one be proven wrong at one night?!!!

You started this by posting the following:

"Kosminski was an imbecilic schizophrenic who was obviously completely unworldly and slow-witted, is not actually known ever to have associated with prostitutes, had never been a butcher or slaughterer, and couldn't speak English"


So when Pontius2000 and Steve thankfully took the time to enlighten you and show you that Aaron, the one you are talking about above, was able to speak English, it all becomes irrelevant??????

It is YOUR point that Aaron Kosminski was not capable of speaking English that becomes irrelevant.

If it was Aaron, then he was able to speak English.
If it was not Aaron, then you are NOT in a position to say he couldn't speak English.

What a waste of time.

Scott got it right from the beginning.


TB

I think you have misunderstood what I meant.

I didn't say another Kosminski could not speak English.

I said if Swanson meant another Kosminski then the debate about whether Aaron Kosminski could speak English becomes academic.
Moreover, the fact that he displayed signs of schizophrenia - which has been considered relevant by many - becomes irrelevant.

Even the question of whether he was emaciated in 1888 would be irrelevant.

The only thing that would be relevant would be the known facts about the real Kosminski suspect and, as I said, he is as elusive as Anderson and Swanson's witness.

And, as I suggested last night, the reason is that neither the 'real' Kosminski nor the 'witness' who identified him existed.

[Elamarna]

Kosminski wasn't Aaron


That's as far-fetched as the claim that Swanson actually meant Kaminski, which I have also read.

How many Kosminski suspects are there?

Can you name another one?

You can't find Anderson and Swanson's witness, but you think he must exist.

You seriously consider the possibility that there is another Kosminski, but strangely no-one can figure out who he was.

And how many Kosminskis were there being sent to Colney Hatch?

And if you've got the wrong Kosminski, your claim that the court transcript proves that Aaron Kosminski could speak English becomes irrelevant.

You say, if I remember correctly, that it's only after 1895 that Anderson and Swanson talk about the murderer being dead.

Where is the evidence that Anderson and Swanson were even talking before 1895 about a suspect having been identified?

Your entire post simply and very amply demonstrates how little you understand about the case for Anderson's suspect .

Such of course is not surprising given your own admission that you had not even read House, or I suspect any other books that deal with the issue published in the last say 15 years.

That you refer to Kaminsky, again shows how out of date your grasp of the information is.
The late Martin Fido, who suggested Koskminski and Kamansky may have been confused actually rejected the suggestion him self in later life.

In 1890, Anderson is very clear he does not KNOW who the killer was, yet within a couple of years, he is hinting, the killer was caught, locked away in an asylum, and had died.


That you do not know such basic things about the Anderson suspect theory, is astounding when one looks at the time of your posts, where you imply you have a deep understanding the arguments.

I really do suggest that you need to do some further research on this issue.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So, over 12 hours later and we have no response. A check of the quotes provided took me 5 minutes so how long can it take PI. So we have.

1. A claim that a ‘salt and pepper’ coat was a type worn by sailors for which there’s no evidence. I requested that evidence but you haven’t even responded. So this was clearly an inaccurate assumption on your part that you don’t wish to acknowledge so you hope that by refusing to answer the issue will be forgotten.

2. You got the issue of the titles wrong even after you had it explained to you.

3. You got the issue of the reputation points wrong despite it being in black and white.

4. You claim that a person of Jewish extraction would have been easily and immediately identifiable by a witness because you appear to think that all Jewish people look Jewish despite being shown numerous photographs of non-Jewish looking Jews. Even Lawende himself didn’t look particularly Jewish.

5. You claim that someone said that Kosminski couldn’t speak English despite it being shown that the only person who has made this claim is yourself.

6. You refuse to accept that lighting can affect our perception of colour. I’d suggest that you wouldn’t find a single person to agree with you on this point.

7. You deduce that the killer was a sailor simply because he wore a peaked cap and a neckerchief and wouldn’t accept the very simple suggestion that anyone could easily have acquired these items.

8. You claim that it’s logical to assume that if a person was in x on the 30th and x on the 1st then he must have been in x on the 31st. And you claim that this is strong enough evidence to claim an alibi.

9. You claim that a suspect in the case couldn’t have been the killer because he simply had too busy a life.

10. You complained about my posts then quoted 13 to prove your point. 10 of those 13 weren’t by me though and the other 3 were completely reasonable and not problematic in any way.


And we have no response from you. Will you respond? I’m beginning to wonder.

[The Baron]

And if you've got the wrong Kosminski, your claim that the court transcript proves that Aaron Kosminski could speak English becomes irrelevant.

How many times could one be proven wrong at one night?!!!

You started this by posting the following:

"Kosminski was an imbecilic schizophrenic who was obviously completely unworldly and slow-witted, is not actually known ever to have associated with prostitutes, had never been a butcher or slaughterer, and couldn't speak English"


So when Pontius2000 and Steve thankfully took the time to enlighten you and show you that Aaron, the one you are talking about above, was able to speak English, it all becomes irrelevant??????

It is YOUR point that Aaron Kosminski was not capable of speaking English that becomes irrelevant.

If it was Aaron, then he was able to speak English.
If it was not Aaron, then you are NOT in a position to say he couldn't speak English.

What a waste of time.

Scott got it right from the beginning.


TB

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Well we have 3 options TB

1. Kosminski wasn't Aaron. And so the died soon after may well be correct.

2. Somehow the transfer got miscomunicated as died.( we must of course realise that the family had Aaron committed not the Police, and I suggest the police only kept a distance watch on him. )

3. Anderson and Swanson were mistaken in their belief. It would be wrong not to accept that possibility. However, I consider they seriously believed they had their man.


Steve

Kosminski wasn't Aaron


That's as far-fetched as the claim that Swanson actually meant Kaminski, which I have also read.

How many Kosminski suspects are there?

Can you name another one?

You can't find Anderson and Swanson's witness, but you think he must exist.

You seriously consider the possibility that there is another Kosminski, but strangely no-one can figure out who he was.

And how many Kosminskis were there being sent to Colney Hatch?

And if you've got the wrong Kosminski, your claim that the court transcript proves that Aaron Kosminski could speak English becomes irrelevant.

You say, if I remember correctly, that it's only after 1895 that Anderson and Swanson talk about the murderer being dead.

Where is the evidence that Anderson and Swanson were even talking before 1895 about a suspect having been identified?

[Herlock Sholmes]

No wonder you're still a sergeant.

How many things can one person get so wrong?

Ive already explained to you that the titles that we get are simply down to the number of posts we’ve made and are not awarded on merit. Yet you still post as if the opposite was true.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have responded elsewhere, but I can't devote a whole evening dealing with this matter.

I will go through all the posts again.

Maybe you're celebrations will prove short-lived.

It doesn’t take a whole evening to click onto a thread at look at post number x and see that it wasn’t written by me.

[The Baron]

you shouldn't be repeating as if it were true Sagar's completely unsubstantiated story which if it had been true would have been cited by Anderson when he was attacked following publication of his memoirs.

Anderson was lying

Swanson was lying

Macnaghten was lying

Sagar was lying

Cox was lying


We should only listen to you and your blond pirate theory, this is the sort of facts we should all praise!



TB

[Elamarna]

That would explain the wrong word 'shortly' here, if of course the suspect was Aaron.

Thanks Steve. Still I think it is possible that those notes were written sometime after 1919, after Kosminski had died.


TB

I suspect they are possibly written after his death , but they refer to events between 1891 and the end of 1894.

But who knows.

[Elamarna]

No wonder you're still a sergeant.

Do you actually understand what the Titles mean?

[Elamarna]

YOU find this tiresome?

It's one thing to say that Anderson and Swanson may have been more senior than someone else.

It's quite another thing to explain how no-one else 'knew' the Polish Jew / Kosminski was the murderer.

Smith actually stated that Anderson did not unmask the murderer.

You do not deal with that point.

You say he didn't know much, but he made a serious accusation.

To suggest that Abberline wouldn't have known about the murderer having been unmasked is far-fetched, as he himself said years later.

He was quite definite that no-one at Scotland Yard knew of the identification of anyone as the murderer.

Instead of addressing the inherent unlikelihood of the Anderson / Swanson story being true, you say it's tiresome to read my arguments.

That's not a credible position.

Yes, I find your insistence only you are correct to be extremely tiresome.

Sorry I did address Smith, I consider him lacking in knowledge, not in the circle and unreliable.

Far fetched to suggest Abberline was not in the know?

Only in your view.
But here we are again, only your opinion matters.

The point is, that many do not consider you opinion that the Anderson/Swanson view is inherently unlikely, to be true.
We have addressed all the issues, sadly people like yourself are not listening.

Not a credible position?

Again your opinion, presented as if that position is the only credible position.

Sorry to tell you this, but it's NOT.

[The Baron]

Given it was being hinted in 1895, that the killer had died, I think we can the idea, that Swanson was refering to AKs actual death


Steve

That would explain the wrong word 'shortly' here, if of course the suspect was Aaron.

Thanks Steve. Still I think it is possible that those notes were written sometime after 1919, after Kosminski had died.


TB