A photograph of Joseph Lawende in 1899

[Tom_Wescott]

You guys know there are Jewish serial killers, right? David Berkowitz comes to mind.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Elamarna]

Not even sometimes?

Clearly that is not what anyone as said or claimed.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Such is of course totally pointless, as no one is suggesting that Jewish men in the East End, regularly attacked Gentile women.

Not even sometimes?

[Elamarna]

Just a reminder that I did issue a challenge for someone to produce evidence of Polish Jewish men attacking Gentile women in East London in the late nineteenth century, but so far no-one has.

Such is of course totally pointless, as no one is suggesting that Jewish men in the East End, regularly attacked Gentile women.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Just a reminder that I did issue a challenge for someone to produce evidence of Polish Jewish men attacking Gentile women in East London in the late nineteenth century, but so far no-one has.

[Elamarna]

i guess hes never heard of pizer, Koz threatening his sister with a knife, and the scores of other violent jewish men who were incarcerated at the time.

While I think the ripper probably wasnt jewish, I base it on the evidence and not some rigidly held preconcieved theory. and one so nebulous as a "nordic sailor". lol

And eventhough I lean this way, rationality and impartiality still insists that Koz was obviously a police suspect at the time, and yes is still a valid suspect to this day.

That's a perfectly fair view.

[Abby Normal]

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.

i guess hes never heard of pizer, Koz threatening his sister with a knife, and the scores of other violent jewish men who were incarcerated at the time.

While I think the ripper probably wasnt jewish, I base it on the evidence and not some rigidly held preconcieved theory. and one so nebulous as a "nordic sailor". lol

And eventhough I lean this way, rationality and impartiality still insists that Koz was obviously a police suspect at the time, and yes is still a valid suspect to this day.

[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).

[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?

[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]

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.

[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]

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?

[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]

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.