A photograph of Joseph Lawende in 1899

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It didn't take you long after apologising 10 times to Herlock to say this to him???????


The man who is criticising Anderson being anti-Semitist describing the suspect of being a low class polish jew, is now himself using the same language to talk to another poster in the 21 century!

The hypocrisy.


TB

That's very funny.

I didn't criticise Anderson specifically for calling certain Jews 'low-class'!

I criticised him - as did Henry Smith and Edmund Reid - for alleging that they would have sheltered the murderer and refused to give him up to what Anderson called 'gentile justice'.

Since everyone was under English law, his comment was completely out-of-order.

The law was not about whether one was gentile or Jewish and there was no gentile justice; there was only English justice.

His comments about the Jews were obviously born of prejudice and, when challenged by Henry Smith, he couldn't substantiate his obviously untrue claim that it was a 'definitely ascertained fact' that a Jew had committed the Whitechapel murders, just as no-one here can.

[Elamarna]

As I said, it is just part of the anti-Semitism which infected the case.

Abberline, Henry Smith and Reid were quite definite that the murderer was a gentile.

Either Anderson and Swanson kept the truth from them - which is not believable - or the identification story is fantasy.

There are too many allegations of Jews being responsible, either individually or collectively, for them to be based on anything more than prejudice and fantasy.

When challenged by Smith, Anderson couldn't come up with anything - because there never had been anything.

The 'Jew done it' story is an old fable, going through the centuries of allegations of crucifixion of gentiles (for which Jews were hanged in medieval London) to the ritual murder libels - including a notorious framing of a Jew in Tsarist Russia for the ritual murder of a child, resulting in his acquittal in 1913.

The same fingerprints are all over the Whitechapel Murders case, but in spite of your own Jewish extraction, you just can't see it.

Still continuing the idiosyncratic belief that junior officers and Smith knew more about the case than Swanson.
Such simply demonstrates a total lack of understanding .
One can lead a horse to water, but One cannot make it drink.
Such applies perfectly to yourself.
You have fixed ideas, not just about Kosminski or Anderson , but on many issues related to the case.
You have convinced yourself that the killer could not be Jewish, because off the prejudice, but you fail to see that the approach you take is also prejudice, and actually precludes meaningful research and debate.
Your opinion is the ONLY valid opinion. That comes over time after time.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Still continuing the idiosyncratic belief that junior officers and Smith knew more about the case than Swanson.

I didn't say anything of the kind and never have!

I said - as I have said repeatedly - that it is not believable that Abberline, Reid, and Henry Smith, as well as MacNaghten - and your point about MacNaghten's change of office is irrelevant - would not have learned about the identification if it had really happened.

Abberline stated in 1903 that he had remained in contact with Scotland Yard and it was inconceivable that he would not have heard of the identification of the murderer if it had happened.

Smith stated categorically that Anderson had not identified the murderer and challenged him to substantiate his claim, but Anderson couldn't.

Reid too denied Anderson's claims.

You yourself admit that it took a few years for Anderson to decide that the man allegedly positively identified was the murderer.

A man is positively identified.

It is so definite that all that is needed now is for the witness to testify, but the evil Jew will not cooperate with gentile justice.

And after this conclusive identification, Anderson has to think about it for a few years, before declaring to the world that it was merely a definitely ascertained fact!

It was a modern-day version of the medieval Blood Libel.

[Herlock Sholmes]

An example of the term Lipski used as an insult by a Jew to another Jew posted by the late Robert Linford on JTRForums in 2007.

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/conundrums-and-anomalies/2388-lipski?p=56975#post56975

[The Baron]

I criticised him - as did Henry Smith and Edmund Reid - for alleging that they would have sheltered the murderer and refused to give him up to what Anderson called 'gentile justice'.

And you have been proved wrong for that too:


August 15, 1887 from Dr Apatowski (himself A JEW):

"The Polish Jews living in London have put into play all sorts of means to save their Lipski, .... But for these enraged fanatics, to see hanged one of their Jews by Christian hands is not only dishonourable... And they are able to perjure themselves by the thousands to prevent one of theirs being hanged by Christians, were he the biggest and most atrocious criminal in the world.... Yes, Russia and Germany have given England a lovely present, in chasing these furious and outraged fanatics, a leprous and consuming vermin, from a civilised and admired society."


And proved wrong for your claim that a jew (who was a murderer, mentally sick and drunk) wouldn't have shouted Lipski to another jew.




TB

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

And you have been proved wrong for that too:


August 15, 1887 from Dr Apatowski (himself A JEW):

"The Polish Jews living in London have put into play all sorts of means to save their Lipski, .... But for these enraged fanatics, to see hanged one of their Jews by Christian hands is not only dishonourable... And they are able to perjure themselves by the thousands to prevent one of theirs being hanged by Christians, were he the biggest and most atrocious criminal in the world.... Yes, Russia and Germany have given England a lovely present, in chasing these furious and outraged fanatics, a leprous and consuming vermin, from a civilised and admired society."


And proved wrong for your claim that a jew (who was a murderer, mentally sick and drunk) wouldn't have shouted Lipski to another jew.




TB

I would prefer any day to be in Smith's and Reid's company than yours.

You're quoting crude anti-Semitic propaganda.

It's a libel that Jews would 'perjure themselves by the thousands'.

What kind of person would reproduce a text that describes Jews as 'a leprous and consuming vermin' in order to substantiate a libel that the Whitechapel Murderer was a Jew?

You really are a racist bigot.

[Elamarna]

I didn't say anything of the kind and never have!

I said - as I have said repeatedly - that it is not believable that Abberline, Reid, and Henry Smith, as well as MacNaghten - and your point about MacNaghten's change of office is irrelevant - would not have learned about the identification if it had really happened.

Abberline stated in 1903 that he had remained in contact with Scotland Yard and it was inconceivable that he would not have heard of the identification of the murderer if it had happened.

Smith stated categorically that Anderson had not identified the murderer and challenged him to substantiate his claim, but Anderson couldn't.

Reid too denied Anderson's claims.

You yourself admit that it took a few years for Anderson to decide that the man allegedly positively identified was the murderer.

A man is positively identified.

It is so definite that all that is needed now is for the witness to testify, but the evil Jew will not cooperate with gentile justice.

And after this conclusive identification, Anderson has to think about it for a few years, before declaring to the world that it was merely a definitely ascertained fact!

It was a modern-day version of the medieval Blood Libel.

Stuck in the grove, repeating the same statements over and over, you don't think this is believeable, or that is credible.
Pointless, achieving nothing, other than reinforcing existing bias and prejudice.

Sadly as I said one cannot force a horse to drink, or a man with a fixed mind to accept he might be wrong.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

stuck in the grove, repeating the same statements over and over, you don't think this is believeable, or that is credible.
Pointless, achieving nothing, other than reinforcing existing bias and prejudice.

Sadly as i said one cannot force a horse to drink, or a man with a fixed mind to accept he might be wrong.

Likewise!

[The Baron]

I would prefer any day to be in Smith's and Reid's company than yours.

You're quoting crude anti-Semitic propaganda.

It's a libel that Jews would 'perjure themselves by the thousands'.

What kind of person would reproduce a text that describes Jews as 'a leprous and consuming vermin' in order to substantiate a libel that the Whitechapel Murderer was a Jew?

You really are a racist bigot.

Then why did you quote it in your post 409 in the other thread "Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”" ?

The hypocrisy strikes again.

You are allowed to criticise Anderson the way you like, and other posters are not allowed to explain him or else they will be anti-Semitic

I think everyone know who you are by now..


TB

[Elamarna]

I would prefer any day to be in Smith's and Reid's company than yours.

You're quoting crude anti-Semitic propaganda.

It's a libel that Jews would 'perjure themselves by the thousands'.

What kind of person would reproduce a text that describes Jews as 'a leprous and consuming vermin' in order to substantiate a libel that the Whitechapel Murderer was a Jew?

You really are a racist bigot.

And this is the crux of the matter, Anti- Semitism, like all forms of discrimination is vile. And there is no denying that Such was rife in London in 1888.
Indeed, I speculate that it was to avoid the possible violent outcome of such, that the action I believe was taken occurred.

Yet, by saying to suspect a Jew of being the killer is Anti-Semitic in itself, you reach the conclusion that the killer not only could not be a Jew, but it's impossible he was.

Unfortunately, that approach is very deeply flawed, it is a form of prejudice itself.

You exclude a large percentage of potential suspects based purely on race. That is no difference to the ignorant and bias who at the time in 1888, stated the killer could not be an Englishman.

Do you not see that, you have compensated to the extent that you do not seem to even be capable of considering the killer could be Jewish.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Then why did you quote it in your post 409 in the other thread "Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”" ?

The hypocrisy strikes again.

You are allowed to criticise Anderson the way you like, and other posters are not allowed to explain him or else they will be anti-Semitic

I think everyone know who you are by now..


TB

I quoted it in # 409 of that other thread for the same reason that I quoted it in # 186 of this thread - in order to show what you had posted and to discredit it.

What you are saying is like claiming that when an anti-fascist article quotes Mein Kampf, it is praising Hitler.

The difference lies in the purpose behind the quoting of the passage, and your purpose is to bolster your promotion of the idea that the Whitechapel Murderer has to be Jewish.

[FISHY1118]

I would prefer any day to be in Smith's and Reid's company than yours.

You're quoting crude anti-Semitic propaganda.

It's a libel that Jews would 'perjure themselves by the thousands'.

What kind of person would reproduce a text that describes Jews as 'a leprous and consuming vermin' in order to substantiate a libel that the Whitechapel Murderer was a Jew?

You really are a racist bigot.

Hmm i feel a ban coming on .

[Elamarna]

Likewise!

Incorrect, I do allow for the fact I may be wrong, over and over.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I would prefer any day to be in Smith's and Reid's company than yours.

You're quoting crude anti-Semitic propaganda.

It's a libel that Jews would 'perjure themselves by the thousands'.

What kind of person would reproduce a text that describes Jews as 'a leprous and consuming vermin' in order to substantiate a libel that the Whitechapel Murderer was a Jew?

You really are a racist bigot.

Really? Is that necessary when someone is simply posting a quote and has at no time claimed that they echo the sentiments within that quote? I tend to agree with Fishy but I’ll ask a quick question first (for you to ignore, probably)

Why are you persisting with the claim that a Jew would not use the word ‘Lipski’ to insult another Jew when I’ve posted a quote where this exact thing happened? It’s called providing evidence to back up a point …… the exact opposite of your ‘coat’ invention. You have a tendency toward turning a blind eye to the inconvenient.

Why not just stick to discussing the facts without throwing a fit?

[The Baron]

I quoted it in # 409 of that other thread for the same reason that I quoted it in # 186 of this thread - in order to show what you had posted and to discredit it.

What you are saying is like claiming that when an anti-fascist article quotes Mein Kampf, it is praising Hitler.

The difference lies in the purpose behind the quoting of the passage, and your purpose is to bolster your promotion of the idea that the Whitechapel Murderer has to be Jewish.

Surprise surprise, Wrong again

You cannot keep track of the topic at hand can you?!

You claimed that Anderson was anti-Semitic for saying what he said, and the member Pointus2000 gave this quote to show you that what you are denying is not mere fantasies with no bases what so ever on behalf of Anderson..

The quote he posted he said was from a letter to the Home Office that was included in the book "The Trials of Israel Lipski" by Martin Friedland, a Jewish law professor.

But your trick is now clear to everyone, when you are proved wrong you try to change the focus of the matter.

This is all old and well known tricks.


TB