A photograph of Joseph Lawende in 1899

[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

[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?

[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?

[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]

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?

[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

[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

[barnflatwyngarde]

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.

Oh Christ! I give up!

[The Baron]

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

And I am sure had the Police at the time found a gentile and strong suspect connected to the crimes, and a witness that could identify him, they wouldn't have hesitated ever to bring him to justice on the basis of them being anti-semitic and prefering a jew suspect instead.


TB

[Abby Normal]

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

bingo, which is why I repeatedly said-"that wedding attire cant be used because none of the witnesses or suspects were dressed up for a wedding"

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh Christ! I give up!

Welcome to my world Barn. Unbelievable isn’t it.

[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.

You’re going to talk to every historian that exists?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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?

perhaps you should consider why everyone on here appears to disagree with you


That isn't true; it's just that my supporters are less vocal than my critics.

Under MEMBER LIST, I note that my reputation is 10 and yours is 6.



What has actually been happening is that you and a few other members have been trying repeatedly to prove that I am wrong about facts, alleging that I misrepresent opinion as fact, and using questionable language in the process.

I refer to the thread entitled Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”, now closed.



In # 40, you tried to discredit my case that the murderer was not a Polish Jew, as follows:

That’s rich…Anderson’s opinion that the killer was a Polish Jew hairdresser was based on anti-semitism. So we should get back with you when Anderson’s opinion gels with Abberline’s opinion….that the killer was a Polish Jew hairdresser.


In # 43, I responded:


As I pointed out in another post, Seweryn Kłosowski, aka George Chapman, was not Jewish.

It is perhaps significant that when someone here talks down to me, it turns out that he is the one who can't get his facts right.



Having been proven wrong, you then wrote in # 50 the following, which is obviously incorrect:


whether or not he was actually Jewish is totally beside the point. He was came from a country and around the same time as thousands of polish Jews were fleeing the programs. So he would have been assumed to be Polish Jew even if he wasn’t.



In # 77, you made the ridiculous accusation:



YOU said he was lying.




In # 87, I wrote:


I have a feeling you're trying to play the devil's advocate.

What you're writing is plain ridiculous.

You're saying Kosminski could have looked about seven years older than he was, had blond hair, and in spite of being a religious Jew, dressed like a sailor?

Saying that the writing on the wall was anti-Jewish is not wild speculation but common sense.

You're being facetious when you suggest it is pro-Jewish.

What you're saying is like saying that Mein Kampf is philo-Semitic.




Those were fair comments, because you were criticising my points by making far-fetched counter-suggestions of your own.

What you were doing was contradicting me for the sake of it and playing the devil's advocate.

That's not a genuine discussion.



In # 113, you resumed trying to prove me wrong and announced:


You couldn’t really be more wrong on this point.


You were claiming that as Lawende didn't mention in court a man with a fair moustache and the appearance of a sailor, I was wrong.

In # 116, I pointed out that Lawende did give exactly that description to the police and that he was prevented from giving it in court:


Actually, I couldn't be more right on this point because everything I've written is correct.

I don't know whether you are just being facetious or whether you really have never read the witness' description of the suspect.

The description as I gave it was entirely accurate.

Anyone can read the inquest record and see for themselves that the reason the witness' description of the suspect was not given in court was that the coroner asked him not to give it.

The coroner asked the witness whether it was correct that he had provided the police with a description.

Lawende confirmed that this was so.


Having failed yet again to prove me wrong and received a gentle put-down, you then tried a different tactic:


In # 121, you wrote:


You are way too sensitive to being disagreed with.

Another ‘victim.’



Then, in # 273, you wrote:

This is a classic example of attempting to twist tidbits in order to fit a specific narrative.



Then in # 303:

You stated- falsely- that we have Schwartz’s inquest testimony changing his story when in fact, we have no such thing.


This was another false accusation that I had made a false statement, because Anderson and Warren both reported that Schwarz did make such a definite statement as I had claimed he had.


Having tried twice to prove me wrong, and accused me of playing the victim, you then accused me of twisting things and making false claims.



You then returned to trying to prove that I was wrong about Lawende having described a blond sailor:


# 358

and why are you keeping on about a blonde sailor? No description by any witness describes a blonde sailor.


# 399

you have said numerous times in this thread that the suspect was a blonde sailor. Not that there is any shred of evidence pointing to this



I quote from https://www.casebook.org/dissertatio...n-who-saw.html



His description of the man, in a memorandum from Chief Inspector Donald Swanson in Home Office records, was: ‘Age 30 ht. 5 ft. 7 or 8 in. comp. fair, fair moustache, medium build, dress pepper & salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap with peak of same colour, reddish handkerchief tied in a knot, round neck, appearance of a sailor.’


You then insisted that the murderer was not brought to justice because of the alleged practice of Mesirah - for which there is not one shred of evidence.

You stated this as a fact.

You then accused the Jews of trying to do the same for Lipski - again without any truth to it.

Again, none of my critics pointed out that what you said was not fact but an assumption.



It was actually you who were driving the exchanges between us, trying repeatedly to prove I was wrong and then making various inappropriate remarks after having been proven wrong.

According to you, it is you who are the aggrieved party, but it was you who accused me of playing the victim!

Towards the end of the thread, in # 412, you produced the following, which must be one of the most prejudiced paragraphs I've ever read:


so even after all the evidence of mesirah and Jewish groups attempting to get Lipski off, you still deny that SOME Jews would shield other Jews? It’s been proven, some would. And it wouldn’t necessarily have been strictly because there was some kind of kinship in being Jewish. “Because he was a Jew” could’ve been because they, being Jew, were living in close proximity to his family, being Jew, and they were afraid his family may retaliate. Or it may have been that they, being Jew, would cause riots against the Jewish community or further persecutions


Somehow, no-one told you you were entering 'dangerous territory' as I was warned a few hours ago.

No-one said you were overstepping the mark when you accused me of twisting things or writing falsehoods.


And then the finale, also in # 412:


I’m done responding to your nonsense here. The person who “should be ashamed” here is the one who took a perfectly well thought out thread and attempted to monopolize the conversation with drivel; presenting personal opinion as fact, refusing to accept actual fact when it’s shown to you, etc etc. I even considered earlier today asking the mods if I could specifically request that you be kept out of any further threads start. You are an internet troll. So I’ll just request this thread be closed.



It was you who monopolised the conversation.

It was you who presented personal opinion - about Mesirah being involved in the Whitechapel Murders and Lipski cases - as fact.

It was you who refused to accept the actual fact that Lawende did describe a fair-haired man who looked like a sailor, first claiming he hadn't described the colour of his hair and then claiming he had said the hair was of a different colour.

Finally, you accused me of being an internet troll.

And now you claim that you are the injured party.

[The Baron]

Do you ever give attention to Who is writing what..

You are mixing different posts from different posters, didn't you notice this?!

Is that your standerd when reading/studying/analysing/criticising something?

You know, every poster has a nickname dont you


TB

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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

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.



I don't know whether you are referring to one of my posts tonight, in response to one suggesting I was entering dangerous territory.

I don't see how your comments relate to that.

The Whitechapel Murders case is shot through with anti-Semitism.

Are you denying that?