A photograph of Joseph Lawende in 1899

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Im Still waiting for PI to explain why he thinks the people in his photo look jewish?

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.

[barnflatwyngarde]

I was ridiculed for saying that it was generally obvious in Whitechapel in 1888 who was Jewish and who was not.

That wedding photograph illustrates my point.

It would have been obvious to both Schwarz and Lawende whether the man they were describing was a gentile or a Jew.

It is therefore inconceivable that either of them would suddenly have realised that their suspect was a Jew upon seeing him in the Seaside Home.

This thread is moving into dangerous waters PI.

It is complete and utter nonsense to say that anyone can tell that any person in that photograph was Jewish, although there were some nutters in Germany of the thirties and forties who would disagree with me.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.



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.



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.

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.

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.

[The Baron]

One thing you are not getting, and that there is a world of difference between saying the GSG incriminates the jews, and saying that the police thought it was designed to incriminate the Jews.


If IT IS incriminating the jews, then bringing this topic will not help your lost in the sea blond pirate.

You could use the argument that the police thought it was designed to incriminate the jew if they knew who the ripper was, or as a defence of the bloody blond pirate theory when WE bring this as an evidence that the ripper was a jew.

All your arguments are very weak, shaky, disintegrated and incoherent, and not helping your pirate at all.


TB

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

This thread is moving into dangerous waters PI.

It is complete and utter nonsense to say that anyone can tell that any person in that photograph was Jewish, although there were some nutters in Germany of the thirties and forties who would disagree with me.

I would point out that I am the one who has consistently been complaining about the anti-Semitism which infected coverage of the Whitechapel Murders, starting with the march down Hanbury Street, the anti-Jewish graffito, the remark recorded by Godfrey Lushington, the accusations made by Anderson against the Jewish community, Swanson's accusations against Kosminski, Anderson's and Swanson's allegations about an imaginary Jewish witness, Odell's nonsense about a Jewish slaughter man, and the nonsense written here about how the writing on the wall could have been pro-Jewish and the anti-Jewish insult 'Lipski' could have been shouted by a Jew.

That's what I would call dangerous territory.

I never said that every Jewish person in Whitechapel was recognisably Jewish nor that every gentile person was identifiably gentile.

I said that it was obvious to Schwarz and Lawende that the suspects they saw were gentiles, and that it is inconceivable that they had recognised them as Jews, failed to mention the fact to the police, and then suddenly realised at the seaside home that the suspect was Jewish.

And that is how this whole argument started.

I am the one here defending the Jews!

You can ask any historian to adjudicate who is right - I or my critics.

Ask them whether the two communities were together or apart.

Ask them whether people in general in Whitechapel were recognisably gentile or Jewish.

Ask them whether Jews were attacked during the period of the Whitechapel murders and how their attackers knew them to be Jewish.

Ask them whether each of the two photographs were of a Jewish wedding or a gentile wedding.

[barnflatwyngarde]

I would point out that I am the one who has consistently been complaining about the anti-Semitism which infected coverage of the Whitechapel Murders, starting with the march down Hanbury Street, the anti-Jewish graffito, the remark recorded by Godfrey Lushington, the accusations made by Anderson against the Jewish community, Swanson's accusations against Kosminski, Anderson's and Swanson's allegations about an imaginary Jewish witness, Odell's nonsense about a Jewish slaughter man, and the nonsense written here about how the writing on the wall could have been pro-Jewish and the anti-Jewish insult 'Lipski' could have been shouted by a Jew.

That's what I would call dangerous territory.

I never said that every Jewish person in Whitechapel was recognisably Jewish nor that every gentile person was identifiably gentile.

I said that it was obvious to Schwarz and Lawende that the suspects they saw were gentiles, and that it is inconceivable that they had recognised them as Jews, failed to mention the fact to the police, and then suddenly realised at the seaside home that the suspect was Jewish.

And that is how this whole argument started.

I am the one here defending the Jews!

You can ask any historian to adjudicate who is right - I or my critics.

Ask them whether the two communities were together or apart.

Ask them whether people in general in Whitechapel were recognisably gentile or Jewish.

Ask them whether Jews were attacked during the period of the Whitechapel murders and how their attackers knew them to be Jewish.

Ask them whether each of the two photographs were of a Jewish wedding or a gentile wedding.

Practically nothing in your post addresses the point I was making, namely that it is genuine frontier gibberish to say that you can identify a person as being Jewish by looking at a picture.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Practically nothing in your post addresses the point I was making, namely that it is genuine frontier gibberish to say that you can identify a person as being Jewish by looking at a picture.

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.

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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]

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!