A photograph of Joseph Lawende in 1899

[Elamarna]

Even the photo he sourced shows two jewish women with fair hair.


TB

Unfortunatly, the poster is not alone in part of the argument he makes, that is to even suggest a Jewish suspect is somehow Anti-Semtic.
It is an argument and accusation which as been used against me several times.

For the Record my paternal grandmother was full Jewish.

Now the argument could be justified, if one was suggesting the killer was part of a small minority racial/religious grouping, but that's not the case!

In 1888, the Jewish population in the East End, was very large, and growing by the day. The possibility of a local based killer is strong, in which case one must look.at ALL the local population .

To exclude that grouping, on the grounds that the accusations are prejudiced is in Itself a prime example of prejudice itself.

To exclude such a large number of people as suspects is flawed historical methodology.
Such claims are however, common in some quarters.

Steve

[The Baron]

Abby, I assume the claim is based on the men in Jewish wedding wearing Top Hats.
Of course if that's the actual source being used by this poster, it cannot be applied to people in their everyday life and everyday dress.

Steve

Even the photo he sourced shows two jewish women with fair hair.


TB

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you like, I'll compile a list of your gratuitous insults and post them here.

If muck has been thrown, it was you who started it.

Evidently, you don't like it when someone responds by defending himself.



I intend to post excerpts from our exchanges going right back to the beginning of them.


Then we will see who was polite and who was hysterical.

Ok, let’s do a bit of ‘looking back’ shall we? Let’s go back to the Was Jack (or were Jack’s) Schitzophrenic? Thread.

Your first post was number 39 where you made this claim:


“Montague Druitt was a cricket-playing barrister and schoolteacher.

He was neither a schizophrenic nor a psychopath”


Something you can’t possibly know for certain. Therefore it’s clearly an assumption.


I responded politely in #44.


In #45 you responded quoting Abberline.


I responded politely in #48.


You posted #50 with a bit of mild mockery:

“Druitt is a suspect because when he was on a cricketing tour in Dorset, he could have made secret return trips to London to titillate ripperologists more than a century later.”


I responded politely in #51.


Then in #54 the you said:


“Do you realise how ridiculous what you have written is?”


And


“You are so bent on making out that I'm talking nonsense that you can't see how ridiculous your own statements are!”


And


“That is just about the most ridiculous thing you have written.”


Then in # 56


“What you've written resembles a ridiculous conspiracy theory.”


The above comments are very mild and certainly nothing that I would ever whine about but there are nothing like it from me.


Then in #65 you say:


“If you really cannot comprehend why I have taken offence at the tone of your comments to me, then I'll send you a list of them.


If you don't like slanging matches, then I suggest you don't start them.”




I’ve read the whole thread. Not a single insult from me. The first use of language like ‘ridiculous’ and ‘nonsense’ came from you. As I knew it would if I checked.

You really should stick to the topic PI and desist from complaining about nothing. And perhaps you should consider why everyone on here appears to disagree with you?

[Elamarna]

aw so you admit your original statement that they look jewish was utter bullocks, you actually have no idea why, and now you have to try and find a historian to bail you out lol. good luck.
But make sure you tell him/her, that wedding attire cant be used because none of the witnesses or suspects were dressed up for a wedding lol!

Abby, I assume the claim is based on the men in Jewish wedding wearing Top Hats.
Of course if that's the actual source being used by this poster, it cannot be applied to people in their everyday life and everyday dress.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Do historians study Genes, DNA, physical and morphological differences between races?!

Can a historian say that Kosminski must have looked and dressed jewish at that night?!

Then good luck finding your 'Super-historian


TB

Haven’t you heard of a bioligistorian?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm happy to take up the challenge and I am confident that I will be proven right, not by just one historian but by every one that exists.

But you don't seem so confident; otherwise you would have taken it up yourself.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You are the person making the claim. I await the comments of your ‘historian.’ I’m confident that they won’t materialise just like your evidence about the coat. Any response on that one? Any show of integrity in admitting that you were wrong?

[The Baron]

Do historians study Genes, DNA, physical and morphological differences between races?!

Can a historian say that Kosminski must have looked and dressed jewish at that night?!

Then good luck finding your 'Super-historian


TB

[Abby Normal]

On the contrary, I'm planning to consult some myself.

aw so you admit your original statement that they look jewish was utter bullocks, you actually have no idea why, and now you have to try and find a historian to bail you out lol. good luck.
But make sure you tell him/her, that wedding attire cant be used because none of the witnesses or suspects were dressed up for a wedding lol!

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Where is your historian? You’re the one making the claim so the burden of proof is on yourself. Find an historian that agrees with you. You won’t, because you’re wrong.

I'm happy to take up the challenge and I am confident that I will be proven right, not by just one historian but by every one that exists.

But you don't seem so confident; otherwise you would have taken it up yourself.

[Abby Normal]

I'm still waiting for one of you to take up my challenge.

Show the two uncropped photos to a historian of that period and ask him or her which if any are of a Jewish wedding and which are of a gentile wedding.

Move the goalposts much? you said the people in the photo looked jewish, and I dont think any of the witnesses or suspects were dressed up for a wedding so the only thing you can be suggesting is that there is some way you can tell by the peoples physical appearance that they looked jewish.
So, asking for a historian to compare is moot and ridiculous.

And by the way-YOU said they looked jewish, and youve admitted you hadnt yet consulted a historian. So YOU already said they look Jewish. So I ask again-Why do YOU think they look jewish?

Can you answer that straight up without any more wriggling?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You haven't addressed my suggestion to have a reputable historian look at the two wedding photos and give an opinion.

And so far, neither have any others among my critics here.

Where is your historian? You’re the one making the claim so the burden of proof is on yourself. Find an historian that agrees with you. You won’t, because you’re wrong.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you like, I'll compile a list of your gratuitous insults and post them here.

If muck has been thrown, it was you who started it.

Evidently, you don't like it when someone responds by defending himself.

Stick to the topic. Stop whining.

As for the two wedding photos, I suggest you show them to a historian of that period and ask whether he or she can identify which is a Jewish wedding and which is a gentile wedding.

I predict that however many you ask, you will get the same answer, namely the one I gave, which has given rise to such mockery and ridicule.

Nonsense. This is a complete invention on your part. There are I believe 5 other posters on here apart from the 2 of us. All of them say that you are wrong on this.

You are saying that all Jewish people look discernibly Jewish. This is complete and utter crap. We have provided photographs of Jews who don’t look Jewish and yet you still continue. Do you want more photos of Jews who don’t look Jewish because I can produce as many as you want. You are simply labouring this point because of your attempt to ‘prove’ that Kosminski couldn’t have been the man seen by Lawende. You are desperately inventing ‘facts’ to bolster your point.

As for the writing on the wall: Superintendent Arnold and the Police Commissioner, Sir Charles Warren, were convinced that the writing was anti-Jewish, which it obviously was.

Stop wriggling. You said that the majority accept that the GSG was genuine. This is what you said:

“There is general agreement that the writing on the wall was anti-Jewish and was written by the murderer.”

This is untrue. It’s another incorrect assumption on your part. Why don’t you just admit when you’re wrong?

According to Warren, The writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible to anybody in the street and could not be covered up without danger of the covering been torn off at once.

It is inconceivable that the Jewish residents wouldn't have noticed such a message about them at the entrance to the building where they lived, if it had been there hours before.

Chief Inspector Henry Moore and Sir Robert Anderson, both from Scotland Yard, thought that the graffito was the work of the murderer.^[16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goulston_Street_graffito

That was, of course, years before Anderson started talking about the murderer being Jewish, which at that time he evidently realised he was not, just as Abberline realised that the brute who shouted Lipski obviously was not Jewish, either.

Scotland Yard [were convinced that] the chalk message was a deliberate subterfuge, designed to incriminate the Jews and throw the police off the track of the real murderer.^[14]

That is quite obvious from the fact that the piece of apron [not the whole apron] of a victim was left next to the writing in order to authenticate the source of the message.

Another case of you believing that your own opinion is fact.

Since we are told that even Kosminski knew some English, how are my critics here going to explain the fact that the Jewish residents of the building failed to erase the message themselves?

There is only one credible explanation: that the message had indeed been left there, with the apron, between 2.20 and 2.55 a.m., by the murderer.




I’ve responded to all of your posts politely but you’re responses are bordering on hysterical.


I intend to post excerpts from our exchanges going right back to the beginning of them.


Then we will see who was polite and who was hysterical.

You are unbelievable.

[The Baron]

On the contrary, I'm planning to consult some myself.

And in your way don't forget to consult some Psychiatrists and ask them whether it would have been possible for a drunk schizophrenic murderer to shout Lipski to a fellow interrupter jew.


TB

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Why should we, it is plain obvious

But did YOU have a reputable historian that gave you his opinion? Or you just throw your claims, and we have to verify them?!


TB

On the contrary, I'm planning to consult some myself.

[The Baron]

You haven't addressed my suggestion to have a reputable historian look at the two wedding photos and give an opinion.

And so far, neither have any others among my critics here.

Why should we, it is plain obvious

But did YOU have a reputable historian that gave you his opinion? Or you just throw your claims, and we have to verify them?!


TB