A photograph of Joseph Lawende in 1899

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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

I don't think I have done what you say I have.

I haven't dealt with the history of your posts to me yet and didn't include any of those.

Sorry if I can't reach the standard you yourself aspire to, but at least I can spell that word correctly.

[Elamarna]

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?

Depends what you mean, if you mean there was anti Semitic feelings in the press and in public I agree. There was also a pronounced dislike of the new arrivals by the older Jewish community.

If you are suggesting the investigation was bias and Anti Semitic then I disagree most strongly.

You appear to believe the police had no reason for their views other than Anti Semitism, and have stated that Anderson and Swanson invented an identification and a suspect.
That is YOUR view, which you use to dismiss many thousands of local men from being even considered as suspects.

Such is poor historic methodology.

I on the other hand, believe that the police(Anderson and Swanson) followed the evidence, and believed they knew who the killer was.
I also accept that they may have been wrong.

[Herlock Sholmes]

These mega-long posts help no one. They tend to be pointless. We should discuss specific points in shorter posts.


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.

I genuinely don’t know where you have got this information from because it demonstrable untrue. Reputation is measured by the bars which are beneath our usernames. We are both on 10 (not that it’s important) So, like the comment that you made about my being a commissioner, you’ve got it wrong again I’m afraid.


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.

That post was made by Pontius2000 and not by me. Any apology?


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.

Irrelevant to this discussion because you were responding to someone that wasn’t me.

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.

Christ, it gets worse. This wasn’t me either. It was Pontius2000.

In # 77, you made the ridiculous accusation:



YOU said he was lying.

Ok, post number 77……well waddya know. That wasn’t me either…..it was Pontius2000 again. You appear to be unable to distinguish between the names Herlock and Pontius2000. Not looking good is it PI?


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 post number 87 you were responding to post number 82 by guess who……Pontius2000.

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


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

Hooray, finally a post actually made by me. And there was absolutely nothing wrong with the post except that you dislike being disagreed with.


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:

Let’s get it right shall we. I’d forgotten that his description had been held back at the inquest. When it was pointed out I admitted my error on the thread straight away. Something that you have proven unwilling to do (especially over your ‘silence’ about the coat.


In # 121, you wrote:


You are way too sensitive to being disagreed with.

Another ‘victim.’

You are, and I’m not the only one to have noticed it.

Then, in # 273, you wrote:

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

Oh we’re back to Pontius2000 again are we. I didn’t write post number 273. This is a joke.

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.

Post #303 was by Pontius2000 again.

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.

Pontius2000 not me


# 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!

Post # 399 was by Pontius2000 not me.

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.

Ok boys and girls, can you all guess who made post #412. Yes, it was Pontius2000.

Ok PI so let’s sum up this masterpiece shall we?

You got the point about reputation points hopelessly and provably wrong. I don’t know how you manage to do it but you did?

Then we have an all time classic. Of the 13 posts that you quoted - 8 were actually by Pontius2000 - 2 were by you, made in response to posts by Pontius2000 - and just 3 were made by me (none of which were in any way problematic or angry or insulting)

I really can’t wait to see how you try and wriggle out of this embarrassing howler of a post PI. I’m guessing that it won’t involve an apology for accusing me of saying things that were actually said by someone else.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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

And how many are you intending to consult?

[Herlock Sholmes]

And how many are you intending to consult?

None. I don’t need a historian to tell me that not all Jewish people look Jewish. Just like I didn’t need to consult Stephen Hawking to tell me that the moon isn’t made from cheese either.

Anyway, forget this post. We’re all dying to read your response to #108

[The Baron]

I don't think I have done what you say I have.

You have been proved WRONG

It will be a tough night for you


TB

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Depends what you mean, if you mean there was anti Semitic feelings in the press and in public I agree. There was also a pronounced dislike of the new arrivals by the older Jewish community.

If you are suggesting the investigation was bias and Anti Semitic then I disagree most strongly.

You appear to believe the police had no reason for their views other than Anti Semitism, and have stated that Anderson and Swanson invented an identification and a suspect.
That is YOUR view, which you use to dismiss many thousands of local men from being even considered as suspects.

Such is poor historic methodology.

I on the other hand, believe that the police(Anderson and Swanson) followed the evidence, and believed they knew who the killer was.
I also accept that they may have been wrong.

You write:


... the police(Anderson and Swanson) ...




The police were much more than just Anderson and Swanson.


Sir Henry Smith practically accused Anderson of making up his Polish Jewish suspect, declared that Anderson had never identified the murderer, and believed, as did Inspector Reid, that the murderer was a gentile.

Abberline and MacNaghten evidently did not believe the Polish Jew story, either, neither believing that the murderer was even Jewish.


The fact that Swanson wrote that Kosminski died about 30 years earlier than he did should alert you to the possibility that the Kosminski / Polish Jew story is based on the death of Druitt soon after the murders ended and not on any real evidence that Kosminski was the murderer.

It was a fantasy.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Enjoy the last few posts before Johnathon shuts down this train wreck of a thread. It's embarrassing.

[Elamarna]

You write:


... the police(Anderson and Swanson) ...




The police were much more than just Anderson and Swanson.


Sir Henry Smith practically accused Anderson of making up his Polish Jewish suspect, declared that Anderson had never identified the murderer, and believed, as did Inspector Reid, that the murderer was a gentile.

Abberline and MacNaghten evidently did not believe the Polish Jew story, either, neither believing that the murderer was even Jewish.


The fact that Swanson wrote that Kosminski died about 30 years earlier than he did should alert you to the possibility that the Kosminski / Polish Jew story is based on the death of Druitt soon after the murders ended and not on any real evidence that Kosminski was the murderer.

It was a fantasy.

This is so tiresome.

Anderson and more importantly Swanson ran the investigation, NOT Smith, NOT Reid, NOT Macnaghten and NOT EVEN Abberline.

That you compare Smith, who was the acting head of the city police , who investigated ONE murder with Anderson and Swanson is beyond belief.
Smith is considered unreliable by many, just as you consider Anderson.
The reality is Smith in all probability had a very limited amount of knowledge on the case.

Swanson, ran the investigation, that is not a matter of debate, he was appointed by Warren and stayed with the case for its duration. As you are fond of saying That is a FACT.


Macnaghten, certainly did consider someone called Kosminski a possible suspect. To suggest otherwise is simply incorrect. He did however favour Druitt.

Of course he was not in the police in 1888, during the murders.

None of these can be compared to Swanson.

Swanson does not say the killer died 30 years before Aaron Kosminski died. He simply uses the name Kosminski, you fall into the common fault of assuming Kosminski equals Aaron.

You also ignore the possibility of a mistake.
In Feb 94 Macnaghten said his kosminski was still alive and in an asylum.
Later in 94, Aaron Kosminski is transferred from Colney Hatch to Leavesden.
It's only in early 95 that Anderson and Swanson suggest the killer had died.

Now that's pure speculation, but it's not unreasonable and is based on known facts

I note you do not address the points I raised regarding an anti Semitic investigation.
You dismiss because you believe YOUR opinion is the ONLY viable option .

[The Baron]

You also ignore the possibility of a mistake.
In Feb 94 Macnaghten said his kosminski was still alive and in an asylum.
Later in 94, Aaron Kosminski is transferred from Colney Hatch to Leavesden.
It's only in early 95 that Anderson and Swanson suggest the killer had died.

And if Swanson wrote these notes after Kosminski had died, then the only mistake he made was the word 'shortly'


TB

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't think I have done what you say I have.

I haven't dealt with the history of your posts to me yet and didn't include any of those.

Sorry if I can't reach the standard you yourself aspire to, but at least I can spell that word correctly.

You certainly have PI.

10 quotes out of 13 wrongly accredited. You’ve had an hour. Any response?

[Elamarna]

And if Swanson wrote these notes after Kosminski had died, then the only mistake he made was the word 'shortly'


TB

Well we have 3 options TB

1. Kosminski wasn't Aaron. And so the died soon after may well be correct.

2. Somehow the transfer got miscomunicated as died.( we must of course realise that the family had Aaron committed not the Police, and I suggest the police only kept a distance watch on him. )

3. Anderson and Swanson were mistaken in their belief. It would be wrong not to accept that possibility. However, I consider they seriously believed they had their man.


Steve

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You have been proved WRONG

It will be a tough night for you


TB

I haven't been proven wrong at all.

I sent perfectly correctly-quoted excerpts but sent them to the wrong person by mistake, due to handling too much material.

It could be a hard night for you, though.

Here's what you wrote (my comments in bold) :


# 253

That just shows your ignorance

# 258

when you try to disprove Kosminski on the base of his appearance as a recognisable jew or that he was not 'blond' enough, without studying the case or even trying to know how his family looked like, then it is ignorance on your side.

If you mean 'Ignorance' is an insult, then think again


# 260

I am not going to withdraw anything I said


# 326

"The man in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City PC near Mitre Square"


However Kosminski looked like, he was identified, and he strongly resembled the individual seen by the City PC.


# 352

Robert Sagar wrote this:

"At 1:45 a. m. she was dead. A police officer met a well dressed man of Jewish appearance coming out of the court. Continuing on his patrol he came across the woman's body. He blew his whistle,..."


# 354

Anderson, when compiling his memoirs, forgot to mention the name of the police constable who helped prove the murderer was a Jew?

And when all hell let loose, and Anderson was being condemned for his comments about the Jews and the alleged Jewish murderer, all he had to do was refer his critics to the identification made by the City Police constable.

But he did not!


# 355

The burden of proof is on you to show us why Kosminski couldn't have looked like a sailor, or couldn't have had a fair complexion.

# 363

You live in your own world, full of blond sailors and delirious fabricators head police officers..

# 379

Pc Smith saw Stride with a man about 30 minutes before she was murdered.

Lawende saw Eddowes with a man about 3 minutes before she was murdered.


Not much of a contest.


The 25 minutes turned to 30 minutes

The 10 minutes turned to 3 minutes

How about you start by reading the basic information of the case first?




# 383


I really do not know how you could make such a basic mistake about the evidence.

Having made such a bad mistake, you then say that I am the one of us two who doesn't know what he's talking about.


Lawende's sighting took place at 1.35.

Pc Watkins found the body at 1.44.

I assumed that the murderer started to leave the square at 1.42.

It is difficult to believe that he murdered the woman, mutilated her, nicked her face with his knife, cut off part of her apron, wiped his knife on the apron, put the knife away, and put the apron somewhere in his clothing, in less than four minutes.

That gives a time of death of about 1.38.

1.38 a.m. minus 1.35 a.m. equals three minutes, which is what I wrote.

Your figure of 10 minutes is plainly impossible, as it would mean that Eddowes was murdered after Watkins found her body - a logical impossibility.






# 386

Pc Watkins found the body at 1.44

Wrong, he found the body at 1.45




# 391

Here is what Pc Watkins testified:


I was continually patrolling my beat from ten o'clock up to half-past one. I noticed nothing unusual up till 1.44, when I saw the body.


He said 1.44 - not 1.45, as you claim he said





You accused me of being ignorant, without any justification - simply that I had failed to recognise a photograph.

You then repeated the accusation and refused to withdraw it.


You then claimed that I didn't read basic facts, alleging my 3-minute timing of the murder after the sighting by Lawende was wrong and should have been 10 minutes.

It was you were wrong because 10 minutes was a logical as well as physical impossibility.

You then claimed I was wrong about the 1.44 timing, but I quoted Watkins' testimony proving I was right.


You're the one who should be having a difficult night because in addition to being wrong both times, you proved what a nasty piece of work you are by saying I'm ignorant.

And for someone who is so scrupulous about basic facts, you shouldn't be repeating as if it were true Sagar's completely unsubstantiated story which if it had been true would have been cited by Anderson when he was attacked following publication of his memoirs.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n800057]


[/QUOT


I don't know what you're making such a fuss about: when going through the comments posted by you, Pontius2000, and The Baron, they are all equally deplorable.

I was going through a great deal of material and was intending to write to each of you separately, and obviously there was a mix-up.

That hardly makes Pontius2000's false accusations somehow all right.

None of the content nor any of the arguments I set down are invalidated by the mix-up you're celebrating.

They all stand.

[The Baron]

Now don't say I didin't tell you

Maybe less material next time?!




TB