A photograph of Joseph Lawende in 1899

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

What a pathetic, weasley, insincere apology. You’re the one making howlers not me. You can stick your completely false apology.

In your short time on here you’ve accrued a greater backlog of utter nonsense that can hardly be equalled.

I'm sorry you don't like my apology.

As for your comment about my alleged 'backlog of utter nonsense', the reputation rating you yourself cited does not support your contention.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm sorry you don't like my apology.

As for your comment about my alleged 'backlog of utter nonsense', the reputation rating you yourself cited does not support your contention.

It wasn’t an apology it was attempt at self-justification.

Yet again, no comment about your invention about the coat?

[Elamarna]

Perhaps you would tell us who you think DID 'know' that the Polish Jew / Kosminski was the murderer in mid-1890.

I have mentioned this several times over the years.
I speculate a small circle who know everything. Maybe 4 or 5 men. Including at least 1 representive of the government, Anderson and Swanson and I assume the Met commissioner when the decision is made.

Several others will know part of the information, those watching, those involved in the ID. But they will not know all.
We can include the likes of Cox and Sagar in that group.

Macnaghten is the odd one. He certainly had some information, but maybe not all.
But his memorandum is the oddest document of all, it may not of course be what we all think it is.

Before you ask, No one at Colney Hatch or at Leavesden.

I have said this several times over the years.
I remain constant in my speculation.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I have mentioned this several times over the years.
A small circle who know everything. Maybe 4 or 5 men. Including at least 1 representive of the government, Anderson and Swanson and I assume the Met commissioner when the decision is made.

Several others will know part of the information, those watching, those involved in the ID. But they will not know all.
We can include the likes of Cox and Sagar in that group.

Macnaghten is the odd one. He certainly had some information, but maybe not all.

Before you ask, No one at Colney Hatch or at Leavesden.

I have said this several times over the years.
I remain constant.

I don't understand how you can say that Anderson 'knew' in mid-1890, when you said earlier that he did not come to that conclusion until years later.

Nor do I understand how you can include Sagar, whose report about a man of Jewish appearance being seen leaving Mitre Square is obviously not credible.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It wasn’t an apology it was attempt at self-justification.

Yet again, no comment about your invention about the coat?

It was an apology for attributing those comments to you, when they had been written by someone else.

I do not apologise for any remarks I made about those comments.

I stand by them.

If you want to defend them or justify them, that is your prerogative.

But in that case, I would be entitled to withdraw my apology.

Your last comment, alleging that I invented something, does not merit any reply and is contemptible.

And I shall certainly not be apologising for saying that.

[Elamarna]

I don't understand how you can say that Anderson 'knew' in mid-1890, when you said earlier that he did not come to that conclusion until years later.

Nor do I understand how you can include Sagar, whose report about a man of Jewish appearance being seen leaving Mitre Square is obviously not credible.

Sorry, I misread your post.
I took mid 1890 for mid 1890s

My mistake.

So in mid 1890, I do not think anyone was sure, but I believe that Swanson and Anderson had a suspicion, that they needed to confirm.

I speculate an ID was held, the suspect was identified and then in late 1890 Early 91, the circle I spoke of decided not to go to trial.

The suspect was committed a short time later, and when no further murders were committed they concluded they had the correct man. By June 1892, I believe they had reached that point.

You are mistaken on Sagar, he was a City detective watching a man for a period of time. I speculate this was after Cox ,who we know watched a suspect in late 88/89.

He is not linked to seeing a man leaving Mitre Square.

We have various reports of a policeman seeing someone close to Mitre Square, but apart from White, no officer claims it was him, and White does not mention Mitre Square, that's an assumption.

If one actually looks at Whites original account, he is watching a house, stops for some minutes, the suspect leaves and a murder occurs.
Unfortunately few know that version most only know the fanciful version where he enters a court and is passed by a man, and then a body is found.

We have a report of another officer saying the officer involved was Watkins, but nothing from.Watkins himself.

Macnaghten mentions a City office near to Mitre Square.

Some suggest this could involve some of the individuals who we know were stopped by the police after Mitre Square, at least 2 in Wentworth st.

None of those however have any connection to Sagar.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It was an apology for attributing those comments to you, when they had been written by someone else.

I do not apologise for any remarks I made about those comments.

I stand by them.

If you want to defend them or justify them, that is your prerogative.

But in that case, I would be entitled to withdraw my apology.

Your last comment, alleging that I invented something, does not merit any reply and is contemptible.

And I shall certainly not be apologising for saying that.

Where is your evidence that a salt and pepper coat was in any way connected to sailors? If there’s no evidence of this……which there isn’t….it means that you made it up. Simple as that. It’s why you keep ignoring it.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You are mistaken on Sagar, he was a City detective watching a man for a period of time... He is not linked to seeing a man leaving Mitre Square.


Well, he has been quoted on this website and others as claiming that such a sighting took place.

Are you saying all those quotes are wrong?



So in mid 1890, I do not think anyone was sure, but I believe that Swanson and Anderson had a suspicion, that they needed to confirm.

I speculate an ID was held, the suspect was identified and then in late 1890 Early 91, the circle I spoke of decided not to go to trial.


If Anderson knew in mid-1890 of a positive identification, then why would he not have become convinced of the suspect's guilt till 1895?

Anderson and Swanson were clear that the prosecution case depended on the testimony of the witness; why then would they wait until as late as 1891 before deciding not to prosecute the suspect?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Where is your evidence that a salt and pepper coat was in any way connected to sailors? If there’s no evidence of this……which there isn’t….it means that you made it up. Simple as that. It’s why you keep ignoring it.

I haven't invented it or made it up, as you allege, and as I said soon after I started posting here, I am not publishing all my sources yet.

Anyone can see that my claim that a pepper-and-salt coloured loose-fitting jacket, which was worn by the suspect, was commonly worn by sailors, accords with Lawende's statement that the suspect had the appearance of a sailor.

There is, therefore, nothing far-fetched about my assertion, and certainly no rational reason to call it an invention.

[The Baron]

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

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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

You have already been caught making two bad mistakes.


As I wrote:

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


Your response was to write:

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


You claimed the correct figure was 10 minutes - a physical and logical impossibility.


Then, when I wrote:


Pc Watkins found the body at 1.44


You wrote:


Wrong, he found the body at 1.45



As I then pointed out:


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.




As I have said before, 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 and alleging that I misrepresent opinion as fact.


But it is you who have been proven wrong repeatedly.


I made the above points in # 118, to which you did not reply because you couldn't counter the facts I have cited.

So instead, you made your snide comments in # 160, which shows the kind of person you are.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I haven't invented it or made it up, as you allege, and as I said soon after I started posting here, I am not publishing all my sources yet.

Anyone can see that my claim that a pepper-and-salt coloured loose-fitting jacket, which was worn by the suspect, was commonly worn by sailors, accords with Lawende's statement that the suspect had the appearance of a sailor.

There is, therefore, nothing far-fetched about my assertion, and certainly no rational reason to call it an invention.

You’re not publishing a ‘source’ for this because there isn’t one, as your second sentence proves. What you are in effect saying is that because Lawende said that he had the appearance of a sailor then his coat ‘must’ have been one that sailors wore even though there is no evidential basis for this. Its simply an assumption on your part. That the man was wearing a peaked cap is likely to have been the reason why Lawende mentioned the appearance of a sailor. Anyone could have bought a peaked cap, but to suggest that we can deduce that the man was a sailor purely because he wore one is nothing short of farcical.

You have invented the connection between the coat and a sailor. It doesn’t exist and you know it.

Another point which you ignore in you rush to make the man a sailor is - how can you be sure that the man wore his everyday clothes when he went out intending to kill? You can’t know this. None of us can. The man might have been a sailor, he might have been a carpenter, he might have been a cheese salesman. We don’t know who he was so we can’t say who he wasn’t.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You have already been caught making two bad mistakes.ik


As I wrote:

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


Your response was to write:

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


You claimed the correct figure was 10 minutes - a physical and logical impossibly.
;

Is there a parallel ripper case that you’re reading about? How do you arrive at Lawende seeing Eddowes 3 minutes before she was murdered? Why are you so confident about everything? Everything isn’t black and white in the real world.

Lawende reckoned that he’d seen her at 1.35 - we can’t be sure how accurate this was, a +or - should be allowed. It could have been 1.33 or 1.34 or it could have been 1.36 - we don’t know. So how can you?
Watkin found her body at 1.44. - How can we be sure that it want actually 1.45 or 1.46?
Harvey said that he went down Church Passage at 1.40 but later in the same paragraph said 1.41 or 1.42 - he took his time from the PO clock so we know that he had no watch. How accurate was the PO clock? Who knows be we know that clocks weren’t synchronised then so his time also has to have a reasonable + or - allowance. Or how do we know that he didn’t skimp on his duty and not bother going down Church Passage? Was he honest? All we do know is that he was dismissed from the Force six months later. So maybe he wasn’t very rigorous in his duties?

Why do you confidently say 3 minutes? It might have been 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10.

[The Baron]

I made the above points in # 118, to which you did not reply because you couldn't counter the facts I have cited.

Go to the other thread again, to the post 393 and you will see that I responded, but again that only shows the level of attention you pay when discussing with others, it is not like you are trying to learn something new, you want to pose your opinion as the most valid one and thats all.

And your post above shows again your usual trick of moving the goal post when caught in error

I posted this quote:

""Whilst Morris looked for his lamp, Watkins noted the time as 1.45am by his own watch"

He entered Mitre Square at around 1 44, but the exact timing he did was AFTER he found the body and it was 1.45"

And your only 3 minutes killing window is not a fact, it is your imagination and denial that Timing simply was not that syncronizied in 1888.

The 10 minutes could have been 15 minutes, and he could have killed her in 3 minutes or less for that matter

The 3 minutes window is a joke for any sincere researcher.

you didn't even know who 'House' is


TB

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You’re not publishing a ‘source’ for this because there isn’t one, as your second sentence proves. What you are in effect saying is that because Lawende said that he had the appearance of a sailor then his coat ‘must’ have been one that sailors wore even though there is no evidential basis for this. Its simply an assumption on your part. That the man was wearing a peaked cap is likely to have been the reason why Lawende mentioned the appearance of a sailor. Anyone could have bought a peaked cap, but to suggest that we can deduce that the man was a sailor purely because he wore one is nothing short of farcical.

You have invented the connection between the coat and a sailor. It doesn’t exist and you know it.

I see you're repeating the argument used by others on this forum that when I make a statement it is merely an assumption.

The irony is that your previous two sentences, which you presented as fact, are merely assumptions on your part.

Your allegation that I invented what I wrote is untrue and shows what a low class of individual you are.