A photograph of Joseph Lawende in 1899

[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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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]

are the above questions that difficult?

deleted post

[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]

7+ hours later. You must have been completely stumped by those 9 ‘yes’ or ‘no’ questions.

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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

But it’s not a reasonable argument PI and if you took the opinions of other Ripperologists you would find that none of them would call it a reasonable argument.


I think that statement of yours is a supposition.

How many have studied the styles of sailors' jackets worn in the nineteenth century?



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


That is not true.

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



So….just to illustrate my point I want to put a few simple questions to you and I only want ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers.


You are not in a position to demand yes or no answers.

This is not an interrogation or cross-examination.


They definitely can be fairly answered with one word. If you won’t give one words answers it will prove that you are trying to obfuscate….and I won’t respond on this subject again.

That's pretty rich coming from someone who has consistently refused to respond to my posts when you had no satisfactory answer.

I would remind you that one of your responses consisted only of the insulting words, 'Shut up', and another consisted of nothing more than an image of a toilet roll.


There is no reason to refuse to answer these questions ‘yes’ or ‘no’.

I will answer them as I see fit.


Does Bartimaeus, in the quote, tell us that or hint that all ‘monkey’ jackets are loose?

No, but as monkey jackets are not necessarily loose, why should he have?


Does Bartimaeus specifically add the “fitting” to loose to leave us in no doubt what he meant by loose?

Stevens mentioned 'a sailor's loose monkey jacket'.

He did not use the word 'fitting'.


Did Joseph Lawende ever say what specifically led him to say that the man that he saw had the appearance of a sailor?

He said the man wore a loose jacket.

I have uploaded 13 illustrations of sailors' monkey jackets which are loose at the front - i.e. obviously designed not to be buttoned up.

Can you produce illustrations of jackets which are loose at the front and are not sailors' jackets?


Was the man that Lawende saw, wearing other items of clothing that could have caused him to have the appearance of a sailor?

I have never said that the jacket was the only item of clothing that caused Lawende to say that he had the appearance of a sailor.


If someone is described as ‘having the appearance’ of something’ does it mean that the person was that something?

I have never said that there is proof that the man described by Lawende was a sailor.


Did Lawende ever say that the man certainly was a sailor or that he clearly was wearing a sailors uniform?

I have never claimed that the man was wearing a uniform.


Did Lawende use the term ‘monkey jacket?’

I had never used the term myself until yesterday.

Why should Lawende have?


When describing something as ‘loose’ or ‘loose fitting’ and nothing else, does that indicate in any way to the listener as to the actual style or type of the jacket?

I am suggesting that the man seen by Lawende was wearing a jacket that was open at the front, like jackets in the illustrations I uploaded, and that that style of monkey jacket - loose at the front - is by definition a style of jacket.

I am suggesting that it is beyond mere coincidence that Lawende describes a man who has the appearance of a sailor as wearing a loose jacket and that many sailors at that time wore jackets which were loose at the front.

Lawende did not say that the jacket was oversized.


Did Joseph Lawende see the man and women across the street, as he was passing and conversing with 2 friends, at night near a Victorian gas lamp and so briefly that he said that he either wouldn’t be able to identify him or that he would be unlikely to have (I can’t recall which)?

He was obviously referring to the man's facial features, which are irrelevant to the subject we are discussing - which is jackets.



Will you answer (with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ only)?


Of course - when appropriate.

[Herlock Sholmes]

7+ hours later. You must have been completely stumped by those 9 ‘yes’ or ‘no’ questions.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Are the above questions that difficult?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Whether you are losing the will to live is a separate issue and irrelevant.

You say I'm making an assumption.

I suppose you're not making an assumption when you say that according to Lawende, the jacket was Baggy. Ill-fitting.

He did not say that.

Again, the two writers described two monkey jackets as loose, but they did not say they were Baggy. Ill-fitting.

Unlike you, I don't claim that my theories are one hundred percent proven or throw tantrums when someone doesn't agree with them and threaten to end all discussion.

I have presented an argument that what Lawende and the two writers meant by loose is the looseness at the front, i.e. that, as is evident from the illustrations, that style of jacket could hardly be buttoned up at the front.

For some reason, being presented with a reasonable argument has the debilitating effect on you to which you refer.

There is a saying from your side of the Atlantic: “If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

I can stand it.

I don't think you can.

But it’s not a reasonable argument PI and if you took the opinions of other Ripperologists you would find that none of them would call it a reasonable argument. You persist in talking about the ‘two writers,’ which is difficult to justify considering that you only quoted one writer. So….just to illustrate my point I want to put a few simple questions to you and I only want ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers. They definitely can be fairly answered with one word. If you won’t give one words answers it will prove that you are trying to obfuscate….and I won’t respond on this subject again. There is no reason to refuse to answer these questions ‘yes’ or ‘no’.

Does Bartimaeus, in the quote, tell us that or hint that all ‘monkey’ jackets are loose?

Does Bartimaeus specifically add the “fitting” to loose to leave us in no doubt what he meant by loose?

Did Joseph Lawende ever say what specifically led him to say that the man that he saw had the appearance of a sailor?

Was the man that Lawende saw, wearing other items of clothing that could have caused him to have the appearance of a sailor?

If someone is described as ‘having the appearance’ of something’ does it mean that the person was that something?

Did Lawende ever say that the man certainly was a sailor or that he clearly was wearing a sailors uniform?

Did Lawende use the term ‘monkey jacket?’

When describing something as ‘loose’ or ‘loose fitting’ and nothing else, does that indicate in any way to the listener as to the actual style or type of the jacket?

Did Joseph Lawende see the man and women across the street, as he was passing and conversing with 2 friends, at night near a Victorian gas lamp and so briefly that he said that he either wouldn’t be able to identify him or that he would be unlikely to have (I can’t recall which)?

Will you answer (with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ only)?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It’s not reasonable. It doesn’t inhabit the same country as reasonable.

A loose jacket is not, I repeat not, a type of jacket. You can’t go into a shop and ask for a loose jacket. Type in ‘loose jacket’ to Etsy as I’ve just done it’s shows Harrington zipper jackets, retro ethnic women’s jackets, a unisex winter hippie jacket, a plaid short jacket.

Loose jacket is not a type of jacket. Allow this to sink in. The sun is hot, the moon isn’t made of cheese, the sea is wet and there’s no such thing as a f*****g loose jacket.

When Lawende said it he was simply stating that the man that he saw was wearing a jacket that looked loose. Baggy. Ill-fitting. He at absolutely no time used the term monkey jacket. At absolutely no time did he say ‘loose jacket of a type that sailors wore.’

There is no such thing as a loose jacket.

There is no such thing as a loose jacket. That’s in case you didn’t get the message first time. Ok, just in case, I’ll say it again. There’s no such thing as a loose jacket.

You are trying to manipulate what Lawende said to fit your theory. And DON’T say “well he said that he had the appearance of a sailor” because we know that. But he in absolutely no way connected this with the jacket he was wearing. It’s an assumption on your part completely disregarding other types of clothing. And even if he had resembled a sailor in some way (at night across a street and in a brief look) this doesn’t in any way mean that he WAS a sailor anymore than me putting on a grey mackintosh would entitle you to call me Columbo!!

Oh, I almost forgot……..THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LOOSE JACKET.

Now do me just one favour. Go and talk about this to someone else because I’m losing the will to live.

Whether you are losing the will to live is a separate issue and irrelevant.

You say I'm making an assumption.

I suppose you're not making an assumption when you say that according to Lawende, the jacket was Baggy. Ill-fitting.

He did not say that.

Again, the two writers described two monkey jackets as loose, but they did not say they were Baggy. Ill-fitting.

Unlike you, I don't claim that my theories are one hundred percent proven or throw tantrums when someone doesn't agree with them and threaten to end all discussion.

I have presented an argument that what Lawende and the two writers meant by loose is the looseness at the front, i.e. that, as is evident from the illustrations, that style of jacket could hardly be buttoned up at the front.

For some reason, being presented with a reasonable argument has the debilitating effect on you to which you refer.

There is a saying from your side of the Atlantic: “If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

I can stand it.

I don't think you can.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's irrelevant.

I have provided illustrations of 13 sailor's monkey jackets, all of which are unbuttoned and loose at the front.

I have also provided excerpts from two writers describing loose sailor's monkey jackets.

Lawende said that the man had the appearance of a sailor and wore a loose jacket.

I have suggested that the suspect was wearing a monkey jacket, loose and unbuttoned at the front.

It is not a matter, as you put it, of finding someone who agrees with me.

It is obviously a reasonable hypothesis.

But a reasonable hypothesis is to you like a red rag to a bull.

You have to shoot it down.

It’s not reasonable. It doesn’t inhabit the same country as reasonable.

A loose jacket is not, I repeat not, a type of jacket. You can’t go into a shop and ask for a loose jacket. Type in ‘loose jacket’ to Etsy as I’ve just done it’s shows Harrington zipper jackets, retro ethnic women’s jackets, a unisex winter hippie jacket, a plaid short jacket.

Loose jacket is not a type of jacket. Allow this to sink in. The sun is hot, the moon isn’t made of cheese, the sea is wet and there’s no such thing as a f*****g loose jacket.

When Lawende said it he was simply stating that the man that he saw was wearing a jacket that looked loose. Baggy. Ill-fitting. He at absolutely no time used the term monkey jacket. At absolutely no time did he say ‘loose jacket of a type that sailors wore.’

There is no such thing as a loose jacket.

There is no such thing as a loose jacket. That’s in case you didn’t get the message first time. Ok, just in case, I’ll say it again. There’s no such thing as a loose jacket.

You are trying to manipulate what Lawende said to fit your theory. And DON’T say “well he said that he had the appearance of a sailor” because we know that. But he in absolutely no way connected this with the jacket he was wearing. It’s an assumption on your part completely disregarding other types of clothing. And even if he had resembled a sailor in some way (at night across a street and in a brief look) this doesn’t in any way mean that he WAS a sailor anymore than me putting on a grey mackintosh would entitle you to call me Columbo!!

Oh, I almost forgot……..THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LOOSE JACKET.

Now do me just one favour. Go and talk about this to someone else because I’m losing the will to live.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Nope. It’s an khaki canvas type which is much too big for me and so can certainly be described as a loose jacket.

That's irrelevant.

I have provided illustrations of 13 sailor's monkey jackets, all of which are unbuttoned and loose at the front.

I have also provided excerpts from two writers describing loose sailor's monkey jackets.

Lawende said that the man had the appearance of a sailor and wore a loose jacket.

I have suggested that the suspect was wearing a monkey jacket, loose and unbuttoned at the front.

It is not a matter, as you put it, of finding someone who agrees with me.

It is obviously a reasonable hypothesis.

But a reasonable hypothesis is to you like a red rag to a bull.

You have to shoot it down.