A photograph of Joseph Lawende in 1899

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Are the above questions that difficult?

Not as difficult as the questions I have posed you recently, which is why you refused to answer them.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

are the above questions that difficult?

deleted post

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the contrary, I didn't even log in today until 16.40.

And even then, I had more important things to do.

It is you who have been completely stumped by my posts to you, which is why you actually refused to answer them, one time writing 'Shut up' instead of replying, and another time posting nothing more than the image of a toilet roll.

I have treated your questions with a good deal more respect than you have mine.

You didn’t answer ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ A simple request.

Im done.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You didn’t answer ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ A simple request.

Im done.

You wrote:

You persist in talking about the ‘two writers,’ which is difficult to justify considering that you only quoted one writer.

I replied:

That is not true.

I quoted two writers: Bartimeus and John Stevens, both of whom mentioned a loose monkey jacket.


This is just the latest in a long list of factual errors on your part, but instead of admitting your mistake, you write:

You didn’t answer ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ A simple request.

Im done.


That says a lot.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my reply below.

I have been asking him to say how a sailor looks like and he didn't answer..

Instead, he posted a photo of miserable quality to show how tailors look like.

That of course because he gives a great amount of attention to what is being written and asked

After being exposed that he was the one who protested that Aaron couldn't speak English, he tried the oldest trick in the book, to change the goal post, and brought another subject to the table and try mixing the cards so we won't be able to focus on his errors, that if it was not Aaron then the point of him being schizophrenic becomes irrelevant, Wooh what do you know, as if the Kosminski described by the Police whether Aaron or not, was not an insane and sexual maniac..

He will run in circles and try his best to avoid being caught in mistakes.

TB


Where is your evidence that Aaron Kosminski or any other Kosminski in London was a sexual maniac?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Why do I think the killer is likely to be Jewish?



There was a very large percentage of that local population which was Jewish, therefore the odds on the killer being Jewish must roughly equal that percentage of the population.

You are making an elementary mistake!


You have not taken into account the much lower propensity to commit violent crime among the Jewish community.

That means the odds of the killer's being Jewish were much lower than your estimate.

Crime levels - especially levels of violent crime - were much lower among Jews.



The Board of Trade Report on Immigration noted that the proportion of Russian and Polish Jewish immigrants in prison was relatively lower than the English population.

(Kevin Lally; Board of Trade: Reports, pp.60-62)

In his report to the Select Committee on immigration, the superintendent of the police in Whitechapel division noted that most crimes [committed by foreigners] were of a relatively minor nature.

(Kevin Lally; Select Committee: Emigration and Immigration, pp.43-45)


Jew-baiting and Jew-beatings were common.

(Englander; evidence of Superintendent Thomas Arnold of H Division, Select Committee on Emigration and Immigration (Foreigners), qq. 875-909)


It was Arnold who, together with Warren, decided that the graffito needed to be removed promptly in order to prevent an anti-Jewish riot.

There is no evidence of Gentiles being beaten by Jews.

There is no evidence of Jews in Whitechapel attacking Gentile women, as for example the man seen by Schwartz was seen doing.


Booth mentioned the rarity of wife-beating among Jews in The Booth Collection (B351/ 69, 81).

It was rare for Jewish men to attack Jewish women at home, let alone Gentile women in the street.

They were described by Charles Dickens Jr as among the best fathers, sons, and husbands in the metropolis.

(Dickens's Dictionary of London, by Charles Dickens, Jr., 1879)

To say that it is unlikely that the man who assaulted Stride was Jewish would be a considerable understatement.


One fact that went un-noticed, or at least un-remarked on, by the alienists and the more xenophobic elements of the press, was the fact that by and large when the Jewish immigrants moved into a neighbourhood they tended to have a remarkably civilising effect on their surroundings. Social workers, reformers and even the police were quick to observe how an influx of Jews into a particular neighbourhood would soon raise the standards and behaviour in some of the worst parts of London. Streets and blocks, notorious for violence and crime, became comparatively well behaved after Jewish families moved in...

So, when the Whitechapel murders confronted the East End of London with a new type of crime, unprecedented in its barbarity, the gentile population were only too willing to blame the murders on the immigrant community.

(https://www.jack-the-ripper.org/jewish-history.htm)


Sir Henry Smith described the Jews as

a class whose conduct contrasts most favourably with that of the Gentile population of the Metropolis.

(From Constable to Commissioner, Chapter XVI: Of the Ripper and his deeds-and of the criminal investigator, Sir Robert Anderson)


A police officer tangentially connected to the Whitechapel murders case, noting the low proportion of crimes in Whitechapel committed by Jews, and complaining of the accusations being made against and physical treatment of the Jews on the day of the Hanbury Street murder, commented:

Therefore if [the Jews] were base enough to take advantage of this knowledge [that the vast majority of crimes in Whitechapel are committed by Christians] and impugn and molest every respectable Christian pedestrian they chanced to meet [as the writer had seen Christians doing to Jews], no doubt riot and disorder would be the result daily.

(Letter to Evening News, 11 September 1888)

But that did not happen.

Jews were the targets of violence in the docks:

The absence of Jewish employment from the port transport industry, noted by Ben Tillet in evidence before the Select Committee on Sweating, owed much to violence and intimidation.

(Englander; Select Committee on Sweating; Stallard (1867, pp. 8-9))

Gentiles were not targeted by Jews.

There has never been a recorded case of a Jewish serial killer in England - and your suspect is a Polish Jew and there is no recorded case of a Polish Jewish serial killer anywhere, nor even of a Polish Jew having assaulted a Gentile woman in Whitechapel!

I issued last year, on this forum, the challenge to provide evidence of Jews attacking Gentile women in the East End of London in the late nineteenth century, but no-one has come up with a single case.

Anderson wrote:

for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.

He did not write:

for it is a remarkable fact that Jews of that class in the East End are in the habit of attacking Gentile women.

He knew it was not true.

Your statements, that the killer is likely to be Jewish and that the odds on the killer being Jewish must roughly equal the very large percentage of that local population which was Jewish are both obviously wrong.

[Elamarna]

You are making an elementary mistake!


You have not taken into account the much lower propensity to commit violent crime among the Jewish community.

That means the odds of the killer's being Jewish were much lower than your estimate.

Crime levels - especially levels of violent crime - were much lower among Jews.



The Board of Trade Report on Immigration noted that the proportion of Russian and Polish Jewish immigrants in prison was relatively lower than the English population.

(Kevin Lally; Board of Trade: Reports, pp.60-62)

In his report to the Select Committee on immigration, the superintendent of the police in Whitechapel division noted that most crimes [committed by foreigners] were of a relatively minor nature.

(Kevin Lally; Select Committee: Emigration and Immigration, pp.43-45)


Jew-baiting and Jew-beatings were common.

(Englander; evidence of Superintendent Thomas Arnold of H Division, Select Committee on Emigration and Immigration (Foreigners), qq. 875-909)


It was Arnold who, together with Warren, decided that the graffito needed to be removed promptly in order to prevent an anti-Jewish riot.

There is no evidence of Gentiles being beaten by Jews.

There is no evidence of Jews in Whitechapel attacking Gentile women, as for example the man seen by Schwartz was seen doing.


Booth mentioned the rarity of wife-beating among Jews in The Booth Collection (B351/ 69, 81).

It was rare for Jewish men to attack Jewish women at home, let alone Gentile women in the street.

They were described by Charles Dickens Jr as among the best fathers, sons, and husbands in the metropolis.

(Dickens's Dictionary of London, by Charles Dickens, Jr., 1879)

To say that it is unlikely that the man who assaulted Stride was Jewish would be a considerable understatement.


One fact that went un-noticed, or at least un-remarked on, by the alienists and the more xenophobic elements of the press, was the fact that by and large when the Jewish immigrants moved into a neighbourhood they tended to have a remarkably civilising effect on their surroundings. Social workers, reformers and even the police were quick to observe how an influx of Jews into a particular neighbourhood would soon raise the standards and behaviour in some of the worst parts of London. Streets and blocks, notorious for violence and crime, became comparatively well behaved after Jewish families moved in...

So, when the Whitechapel murders confronted the East End of London with a new type of crime, unprecedented in its barbarity, the gentile population were only too willing to blame the murders on the immigrant community.

(https://www.jack-the-ripper.org/jewish-history.htm)


Sir Henry Smith described the Jews as

a class whose conduct contrasts most favourably with that of the Gentile population of the Metropolis.

(From Constable to Commissioner, Chapter XVI: Of the Ripper and his deeds-and of the criminal investigator, Sir Robert Anderson)


A police officer tangentially connected to the Whitechapel murders case, noting the low proportion of crimes in Whitechapel committed by Jews, and complaining of the accusations being made against and physical treatment of the Jews on the day of the Hanbury Street murder, commented:

Therefore if [the Jews] were base enough to take advantage of this knowledge [that the vast majority of crimes in Whitechapel are committed by Christians] and impugn and molest every respectable Christian pedestrian they chanced to meet [as the writer had seen Christians doing to Jews], no doubt riot and disorder would be the result daily.

(Letter to Evening News, 11 September 1888)

But that did not happen.

Jews were the targets of violence in the docks:

The absence of Jewish employment from the port transport industry, noted by Ben Tillet in evidence before the Select Committee on Sweating, owed much to violence and intimidation.

(Englander; Select Committee on Sweating; Stallard (1867, pp. 8-9))

Gentiles were not targeted by Jews.

There has never been a recorded case of a Jewish serial killer in England - and your suspect is a Polish Jew and there is no recorded case of a Polish Jewish serial killer anywhere, nor even of a Polish Jew having assaulted a Gentile woman in Whitechapel!

I issued last year, on this forum, the challenge to provide evidence of Jews attacking Gentile women in the East End of London in the late nineteenth century, but no-one has come up with a single case.

Anderson wrote:

for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.

He did not write:

for it is a remarkable fact that Jews of that class in the East End are in the habit of attacking Gentile women.

He knew it was not true.

Your statements, that the killer is likely to be Jewish and that the odds on the killer being Jewish must roughly equal the very large percentage of that local population which was Jewish are both obviously wrong.

A truly appalling post, stereotyping one part of society, and claiming no member of that community could be guilty of the crimes.

No better than the statements in 1888, that an English Man could not be the killer.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

A truly appalling post, stereotyping one part of society, and claiming no member of that community could be guilty of the crimes.

No better than the statements in 1888, that an English Man could not be the killer.

You have not taken into account the much lower propensity to commit violent crime among the Jewish community, which was well-documented.

That means the odds of the killer's being Jewish were much lower than your estimate.

Your statements, that the killer is likely to be Jewish and that the odds on the killer being Jewish must roughly equal the very large percentage of that local population which was Jewish are both obviously wrong.

Instead of addressing these serious points, you accuse me of stereotyping Jews and of claiming no member of that community could be guilty of the crimes.

THAT IS NOT TRUE.

I wrote the odds of the killer's being Jewish were much lower than your estimate, which is obviously something different.


INSTEAD OF ADDRESSING A SERIOUS POINT, YOU HAVE ATTRIBUTED TO ME A STATEMENT I DID NOT MAKE!


That means you have made two untrue statements:


(1) There was a very large percentage of that local population which was Jewish, therefore the odds on the killer being Jewish must roughly equal that percentage of the population.

You have not taken into account the much lower propensity to commit violent crime among the Jewish community.

That means the odds of the killer's being Jewish were much lower than your estimate.


(2) You accuse me of stereotyping one part of society, and claiming no member of that community could be guilty of the crimes.

I did nothing of the kind.

I wrote the odds of the killer's being Jewish were much lower than your estimate, which is obviously something different.


Rather than admit your error, you have doubled down and accused me of writing something I did not write or mean.

I do not think any reputable author should be proud of such conduct.



P.S. I note that you do not dispute anything in the sources I cited, yet you still accuse me of being prejudiced.

[Elamarna]

You have not taken into account the much lower propensity to commit violent crime among the Jewish community, which was well-documented.

That means the odds of the killer's being Jewish were much lower than your estimate.

Your statements, that the killer is likely to be Jewish and that the odds on the killer being Jewish must roughly equal the very large percentage of that local population which was Jewish are both obviously wrong.

Instead of addressing these serious points, you accuse me of stereotyping Jews and of claiming no member of that community could be guilty of the crimes.

THAT IS NOT TRUE.

I wrote the odds of the killer's being Jewish were much lower than your estimate, which is obviously something different.


INSTEAD OF ADDRESSING A SERIOUS POINT, YOU HAVE ATTRIBUTED TO ME A STATEMENT I DID NOT MAKE!


That means you have made two untrue statements:


(1) There was a very large percentage of that local population which was Jewish, therefore the odds on the killer being Jewish must roughly equal that percentage of the population.

You have not taken into account the much lower propensity to commit violent crime among the Jewish community.

That means the odds of the killer's being Jewish were much lower than your estimate.


(2) You accuse me of stereotyping one part of society, and claiming no member of that community could be guilty of the crimes.

I did nothing of the kind.

I wrote the odds of the killer's being Jewish were much lower than your estimate, which is obviously something different.


Rather than admit your error, you have doubled down and accused me of writing something I did not write or mean.

I do not think any reputable author should be proud of such conduct.



P.S. I note that you do not dispute anything in the sources I cited, yet you still accuse me of being prejudiced.

There is no error on my part
Your arguments are simply opinion as are most of the sources you quote.

You have made it very clear that for you a Jewish suspect is completely unviable

That bias is clear in most post you write.

The rules of this group preclude me from saying exactly what my opinion of you is.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There is no error on my part
Your arguments are simply opinion as are most of the sources you quote.

You have made it very clear that for you a Jewish suspect is completely unviable

That bias is clear in most post you write.

The rules of this group preclude me from saying exactly what my opinion of you is.

You talk about bias.

How could someone who suggested that a Jew might have been gloating when he 'wrote' the graffito in Goulston Street be anything but biased?

Are you saying that it is simply my opinion that there is no record of a Jewish serial killer in British criminal history?

Are you saying that it is simply my opinion that there is no record of a Polish Jewish serial killer anywhere?

You claim:

Your arguments are simply opinion as are most of the sources you quote.

THAT IS ANOTHER UNTRUE STATEMENT ON YOUR PART.

The first four sources I cited were from official sources.

The more you attack me, the more untrue statements you make.

I have said you play the man instead of the ball and here you go again, writing

The rules of this group preclude me from saying exactly what my opinion of you is.

Why don't you admit those statements of yours are incorrect instead of resorting to personal remarks?

[Tom_Wescott]

I have said you play the man instead of the ball and here you go again

Pardon my American ears, but is this an actual Britishism? What does it mean? Sounds like it might be a sports reference.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S For my part, I think it's just as dangerous to assume the Ripper couldn't have been Jewish as it is to assume he must have been.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Pardon my American ears, but is this an actual Britishism? What does it mean? Sounds like it might be a sports reference.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S For my part, I think it's just as dangerous to assume the Ripper couldn't have been Jewish as it is to assume he must have been.

Someone used it before here and it stuck in my mind.

It refers to a deliberate foul by one footballer on another by aiming for the person being tackled - usually the person's leg - rather than trying to make direct contact with the football.

I have made no secret that, like Abberline, Reid, Macnaghten and Smith, I believe the murderer was a gentile.

I did not say it is impossible that the murderer was Jewish and this is what Elamarna is falsely claiming I said, instead of addressing the point I did make - citing evidence - that because of their far lower propensity to commit crimes of violence, his claim about the likelihood of a Jew having committed the crime being proportional to the size of the Jewish population is false.

And that point he will not address.

[Elamarna]

You talk about bias.

How could someone who suggested that a Jew might have been gloating when he 'wrote' the graffito in Goulston Street be anything but biased?

Are you saying that it is simply my opinion that there is no record of a Jewish serial killer in British criminal history?

Are you saying that it is simply my opinion that there is no record of a Polish Jewish serial killer anywhere?

You claim:

Your arguments are simply opinion as are most of the sources you quote.

THAT IS ANOTHER UNTRUE STATEMENT ON YOUR PART.

The first four sources I cited were from official sources.

The more you attack me, the more untrue statements you make.

I have said you play the man instead of the ball and here you go again, writing

The rules of this group preclude me from saying exactly what my opinion of you is.

Why don't you admit those statements of yours are incorrect instead of resorting to personal remarks?

Because they are NOT incorrect .

We differ in how we interpret data, for you it's all absolutes, for me Its possibilities.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You 'accused' me of claiming no member of that community could be guilty of the crimes.

When did I claim that?

You wrote:

Your arguments are simply opinion as are most of the sources you quote.

Are you seriously claiming that Board of Trade Reports, Select Committee: Emigration and Immigration, the evidence of Superintendent Thomas Arnold of H Division to Select Committee on Emigration and Immigration (Foreigners), the Booth Collection, and the observations of a senior policeman, all based on actual statistics or personal experience of policing Jewish-populated districts, are simply opinions?

[Aethelwulf]

Pardon my American ears, but is this an actual Britishism? What does it mean? Sounds like it might be a sports reference.

He's basically saying people are picking on him (the man) instead of his incisive arguments (the ball).