A photograph of Joseph Lawende in 1899

[Dickere]

I realise that I can’t get a response but I’ll still make a simple response with a few maybe’s.

Maybe because 1910 was 32 years after 1888 and situations change? Maybe he felt that there was no longer the same threat of riot in 1910? Or, maybe as he’d been retired for 9 years he thought that it was no longer his problem? Maybe they didn’t ‘announce’ Kosminski because they didn’t have enough evidence and they knew that he would never be free again? Maybe the witness couldn’t ID the killer with confidence and he was worried about sending an innocent man to the gallows and maybe the police who were present, because they were confident, suspected that he was reluctant to ID a fellow Jew. Maybe this is how the information was relayed to Anderson and he just took is as a fact rather than opinion?

Maybe?

22, not 32, Herlock.

[Herlock Sholmes]

22, not 32, Herlock.

Well spotted.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Oh dear, you can't accept that Abberline didn't know.
If such is indeed the case as i and others believe it is his statements are irrelevant.

I cannot answer your opinion?
Really?
I have been doing that for several.days, but you are just not listening my friend.

The view that it was against Jewish law to give a fellow jew up to gentile law is NOT unfounded.
You have been given the evidence,that such existed and was practiced amoungst the new comers to the UK in the 1880s.
Yet your Bias refuses to let you see that.

There are comprehensive lists of serial murderers in England, Germany, Poland and Russia.

Here are some statistics:


There have been 66 serial killers or serial killer couples, including immigrants, who committed murders in England.

NONE HAD ANY JEWISH ANCESTRY.


I have a list of 33 sexual or sadistic serial murderers, at least six of whom killed prostitutes, and who committed murder in England.

NONE HAD ANY JEWISH ANCESTRY.

TWO OF THE ENGLISH SERIAL MURDERERS WERE SAILORS, SIX MURDERED PROSTITUTES, BUT NONE WAS JEWISH.

WHY DO SO MANY POSTERS RIDICULE MY THEORY THAT THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERER WAS A SAILOR YET SO MANY THEMSELVES SUGGEST THAT HE WAS JEWISH - EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NOT A SINGLE CASE ON RECORD OF A JEWISH SERIAL MURDERER IN ENGLAND?


Two of the 15 listed Polish murderers were necrophiles.

THERE IS NO RECORDED CASE OF A JEWISH NECROPHILE.

NONE OF THE 15 POLISH SERIAL KILLERS HAD ANY JEWISH ANCESTRY.

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A RECORDED CASE OF A POLISH JEWISH SERIAL MURDERER.

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A RECORDED CASE OF A JEWISH SERIAL MURDERER IN ENGLAND.

THERE IS NO RECORDED CASE OF A JEWISH PERSON HAVING MURDERED PROSTITUTES IN ANY COUNTRY.

THERE IS NO RECORDED CASE OF A JEWISH MURDERER TAKING A BODY PART FROM A VICTIM AS A TROPHY.

What makes people here think that it is likely that the Whitechapel Murderer was Jewish?



The 36 Russian (Russian SSR and post-1990 Russia) serial killers included Vadim the Bloodsucker, The Bataysk Maniac, The Rostov Ripper, The Tagansky Maniac, The Urals Strangler, The Leningrad Strangler, The Gorky Maniac, The Iskitim Maniac, The Vnukovo Maniac, The Vologda Ripper, The Alexandrovsky Ripper, the Kuybyshev Monster, The Luberetsky Maniac, The Maniac from Lenenergo, The Gatchina Psychopath, The Smolensky Strangler, The Bloody Casanova, The Arkhangelsk Butcher, The Black Tights Killer, The Ulyanovsky Maniac and The Urals Monster.

At least five of the murderers mutilated their victims and three were necrophiles.

Three of them were known by the name 'Ripper'.

NONE OF THE 36 RUSSIAN SERIAL KILLERS WAS JEWISH OR HAD ANY JEWISH ANCESTRY.

THERE IS NO RECORDED CASE OF A JEWISH NECROPHILE.



I have a list of 37 sexual and sadistic German serial killers, including The Beast of Aubing, The Hammer-Killer of Frankfurt, The Berlin Butcher, the Rhein-Ruhr Ripper, The Butcher of Hanover, The Horror of the Brandenburg Forest, The Ruhr Cannibal, The Vampire of Düsseldorf, The Hammer-Killer, The Strangler, The Acid Killer, The Strangler of Aachen, The Terror of Falkenhagen Lake, The Monster from Lower Rhine, The Rhine-Ruhr-Ripper, The Hesse Ripper, and the The Havel Ripper.

At least eight of the 37 German serial killers murdered prostitutes.

Four of them committed murders in more than one country.

Three of them were known by the name 'Ripper'.

Eleven of them mutilated or dismembered their victims.

Four of them cannibalised or sold meat from the victims as animal meat.

One of them took body parts from his victims.


NONE OF THE GERMAN SERIAL KILLERS HAD JEWISH ANCESTRY.

THERE IS NO RECORDED CASE OF A GERMAN JEWISH SERIAL MURDERER.

THERE IS NO RECORDED CASE OF A JEWISH PERSON MUTILATING A WOMAN.

THERE IS NO RECORDED CASE OF A JEWISH CANNIBAL NOR OF A JEW SELLING HUMAN MEAT.


Since there is no recorded case of a Polish Jewish serial murderer in any country, nor of a Jew committing a series of murders in England, nor of a Jew killing prostitutes in any country, nor of a Jew mutilating a woman in any country, nor of a Jew taking a body part from a victim in any country, what makes you think that the Whitechapel Murderer is likely to have been a Polish Jew?

[DJA]

Perhaps Jack's father and uncle were sailors.

[Herlock Sholmes]

WHY DO SO MANY POSTERS RIDICULE MY THEORY THAT THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERER WAS A SAILOR YET SO MANY THEMSELVES SUGGEST THAT HE WAS JEWISH - EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NOT A SINGLE CASE ON RECORD OF A JEWISH SERIAL MURDERER IN ENGLAND.

Although I certainly can’t claim to have read every response to every one of your posts I’m unaware of anyone ‘ridiculing’ the theory that the Ripper could have been a sailor. After all it’s a suggestion that’s been around for many years and in the modern era Trevor Marriott went down that line to come up with his suspect. As we don’t know who the killer was then he might have been a sailor for all that we know.

The issue with your theory, for me at least, is that as far as I’m aware (and of course I might be wrong in that you have provided more evidence somewhere on here that I’ve missed) the only ‘evidence’ that you’ve provided is the description by Lawende of the man that he saw talking to a woman; that he had the ‘appearance’ of a Sailor. When describing his general appearance he describes a neckerchief, a peaked cap and a ‘salt and pepper’ jacket.

Now, when I pressed you for evidence (five or six times) on your statement that the ‘salt and pepper’ jacket was of a kind commonly worn by sailors you simply refused to respond. As far as I’m aware no one can find any such evidence. If it exists then fine, but it needs to be produced or what you really should be doing is admitting that you were in error and that this kind of jacket has no connection to sailors. It’s as simple as that. You can’t expect people to accept what you’ve claimed without evidence.

And so if this indeed is the case and the jacket had no known connection to sailors then all that we have to go on is the neckerchief and peaked cap. Surely it has to be conceded that this can’t be considered strong evidence of the man being a sailor? You will notice that I’m still not saying that the killer couldn’t have been a sailor; only that you are on thin ground when you rely solely on a neckerchief and a peaked cap. A quick glance at photographs from that era will show neckerchiefs galore. And peaked caps were hardly a rarity. So there’s simply no way that we can assume or state that the man was a sailor based on his hat and neck scarf; anymore than I could say ‘well the graffito was written in chalk…..who would carry chalk…..a schoolteacher.’ Or that the killer was a butcher (perhaps explaining anatomical knowledge?) or an ex-police officer because he avoided the officers on their beats.

There is no evidence that the killer was a sailor. He might have been one but unless evidence can be provided against an individual who was also a sailor then we have nothing to go on.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Although I certainly can’t claim to have read every response to every one of your posts I’m unaware of anyone ‘ridiculing’ the theory that the Ripper could have been a sailor.

You can’t expect people to accept what you’ve claimed without evidence.

There is no evidence that the killer was a sailor. He might have been one but unless evidence can be provided against an individual who was also a sailor then we have nothing to go on.

Well, it is possible that the ridicule directed at my theory that the murderer was a fair-haired sailor, probably from a Nordic country, would not be directed at someone else making the suggestion.

I don't know.

I can assure you that the jacket worn by the suspect seen by Lawende was commonly worn by sailors and that is probably one of the reasons Lawende said he had the appearance of a sailor.

I have never said that the fact that Lawende said the man had the appearance of a sailor proves that the man was a sailor, but it is plausible and - I would suggest - not deserving of ridicule.

Similarly, there has been much hair-splitting about whether blond is the same as fair, whether the man's head hair was of the same colour as his moustache, and whether being blond merits the description 'Nordic'.

I described him as a Nordic sailor in order to contrast him with an Eastern European Jew.

It was shorthand.

I do think he was Nordic and blond-haired and he was a sailor.

The area abounded with foreign sailors.

I hope you are not going to ask me to prove that!

I never said it was impossible for Kosminski to have had fair hair nor that Eastern European Jews never had fair hair.

Photographs were reproduced here by my critics.

One showed what is thought to be a brother of Kosminski, with very dark hair, and the other showed a woman (possibly Joseph Lawende's wife) and a young

girl at a Jewish wedding.

The woman's hair looked darkish at the sides - she may have had brown hair - and the girl had dark hair, not fair hair.

I don't expect to find proof that the murderer was a sailor, let alone one bearing a name, and I don't expect anyone else ever to be able to name the murderer without having his or her tongue in his or her cheek at the same time.

I presented my view based on the evidence.

I have been told that I cannot grasp basic facts when I say that Eddowes was murdered about three minutes after Lawende's sighting and that it was really ten minutes.

Then someone else said it could have been as much as 15 minutes.

Those critics of mine are not going by the evidence.

I am.

[Elamarna]

There are comprehensive lists of serial murderers in England, Germany, Poland and Russia.

Here are some statistics:


There have been 66 serial killers or serial killer couples, including immigrants, who committed murders in England.

NONE HAD ANY JEWISH ANCESTRY.


I have a list of 33 sexual or sadistic serial murderers, at least six of whom killed prostitutes, and who committed murder in England.

NONE HAD ANY JEWISH ANCESTRY.

TWO OF THE ENGLISH SERIAL MURDERERS WERE SAILORS, SIX MURDERED PROSTITUTES, BUT NONE WAS JEWISH.

WHY DO SO MANY POSTERS RIDICULE MY THEORY THAT THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERER WAS A SAILOR YET SO MANY THEMSELVES SUGGEST THAT HE WAS JEWISH - EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NOT A SINGLE CASE ON RECORD OF A JEWISH SERIAL MURDERER IN ENGLAND?


Two of the 15 listed Polish murderers were necrophiles.

THERE IS NO RECORDED CASE OF A JEWISH NECROPHILE.

NONE OF THE 15 POLISH SERIAL KILLERS HAD ANY JEWISH ANCESTRY.

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A RECORDED CASE OF A POLISH JEWISH SERIAL MURDERER.

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A RECORDED CASE OF A JEWISH SERIAL MURDERER IN ENGLAND.

THERE IS NO RECORDED CASE OF A JEWISH PERSON HAVING MURDERED PROSTITUTES IN ANY COUNTRY.

THERE IS NO RECORDED CASE OF A JEWISH MURDERER TAKING A BODY PART FROM A VICTIM AS A TROPHY.

What makes people here think that it is likely that the Whitechapel Murderer was Jewish?



The 36 Russian (Russian SSR and post-1990 Russia) serial killers included Vadim the Bloodsucker, The Bataysk Maniac, The Rostov Ripper, The Tagansky Maniac, The Urals Strangler, The Leningrad Strangler, The Gorky Maniac, The Iskitim Maniac, The Vnukovo Maniac, The Vologda Ripper, The Alexandrovsky Ripper, the Kuybyshev Monster, The Luberetsky Maniac, The Maniac from Lenenergo, The Gatchina Psychopath, The Smolensky Strangler, The Bloody Casanova, The Arkhangelsk Butcher, The Black Tights Killer, The Ulyanovsky Maniac and The Urals Monster.

At least five of the murderers mutilated their victims and three were necrophiles.

Three of them were known by the name 'Ripper'.

NONE OF THE 36 RUSSIAN SERIAL KILLERS WAS JEWISH OR HAD ANY JEWISH ANCESTRY.

THERE IS NO RECORDED CASE OF A JEWISH NECROPHILE.



I have a list of 37 sexual and sadistic German serial killers, including The Beast of Aubing, The Hammer-Killer of Frankfurt, The Berlin Butcher, the Rhein-Ruhr Ripper, The Butcher of Hanover, The Horror of the Brandenburg Forest, The Ruhr Cannibal, The Vampire of Düsseldorf, The Hammer-Killer, The Strangler, The Acid Killer, The Strangler of Aachen, The Terror of Falkenhagen Lake, The Monster from Lower Rhine, The Rhine-Ruhr-Ripper, The Hesse Ripper, and the The Havel Ripper.

At least eight of the 37 German serial killers murdered prostitutes.

Four of them committed murders in more than one country.

Three of them were known by the name 'Ripper'.

Eleven of them mutilated or dismembered their victims.

Four of them cannibalised or sold meat from the victims as animal meat.

One of them took body parts from his victims.


NONE OF THE GERMAN SERIAL KILLERS HAD JEWISH ANCESTRY.

THERE IS NO RECORDED CASE OF A GERMAN JEWISH SERIAL MURDERER.

THERE IS NO RECORDED CASE OF A JEWISH PERSON MUTILATING A WOMAN.

THERE IS NO RECORDED CASE OF A JEWISH CANNIBAL NOR OF A JEW SELLING HUMAN MEAT.


Since there is no recorded case of a Polish Jewish serial murderer in any country, nor of a Jew committing a series of murders in England, nor of a Jew killing prostitutes in any country, nor of a Jew mutilating a woman in any country, nor of a Jew taking a body part from a victim in any country, what makes you think that the Whitechapel Murderer is likely to have been a Polish Jew?

So now we have the claim, that A Jewish person is unlikely to murder, that itself is a form of prejudice, do you not see that?

I really hoped we were passed the stage of stereotyping, and claiming some are more or less likely to behave in a certain way, sadly it seems not.

There is no evidence the killer sold human meat, so that is irrelevant.

The so called evidence for cannibalism is based solely on the from hell letter, many dispute such was genuine. So again largely irrelevant.

In addition, how someone behaves during periodic mental illness attacks, is no indicator of normal behaviour.

The issue to me is that you are 100% convinced that to name a Jew as a suspect is simply anti Semitic or bias.

That you do not, or are not prepared to accept that your view is itself highly questionable and prejudicial is why you cannot look at all the possibilities.


Why do I think the killer is likely to be Jewish?

1. I believe that the killer was local, for a variety of reasons.

There was a very large percentage of that local population which was Jewish, therefore the odds on the killer being Jewish must roughly equal that percentage of the population.

To exclude all Jewish persons is a form of the bias and prejudice you claim is responsible for suspecting a Jewish person in the first place.

2. I believe the senior police( those who needed to know) reached the conclusion they did based on evidence.

Today all we are aware of is the identification, which you dismiss as fantasy.
You apparently do so because you believe the Killer COULD NOT be Jewish, and therefore the police are merely scapegoating an unnamed person, which is itself highly illogical.

To exclude and preclude because of out own bias is a serious flaw for a researcher, you apparently don't see this is an issue.

3. We are told the suspect first came to the attention of the investigation following the door to door search, so there was clearly other evidence, now lost.

What this included is unknown, but may have included the Batty Street incident, family concerns, the results of surveillance, a second ID, verifying the main ID. The list of possibilities goes on.

Macnaghten says there were MANY circumstances to consider the man he called Kosminski. That he ultimately rejected him in favour of Druitt is actually neither here nor there, the important issue is that he DID CONSIDER him.

That is what this is all about, being prepared to consider any suspect, from any background, look at the arguments, dont dismiss those arguments or evidence that do not fit our own theories of bias.
This you appear to be unwilling to do.

[Elamarna]

The area abounded with foreign sailors.

It abounded with more Jewish people than foreign sailors, so that is really no indication of anything.

I have been told that I cannot grasp basic facts when I say that Eddowes was murdered about three minutes after Lawende's sighting and that it was really ten minutes.

Then someone else said it could have been as much as 15 minutes.

Those critics of mine are not going by the evidence.

What you have not shown you fully grasp is that the timings are too unreliable, because of the issue of non syncronizied time, to attempt to use them pinpoint the following issues

The time Lawende and Levy saw the couple at church passage in relation to the time Harvey passed down Church passage, and the time Watkins found the body.

Which means the time for the murder and mutilation is not, and cannot be fixed.

There are other issues apart from this however:

Should we take note of the comments by Blenkinsop, which may suggest entry to the square from St James Place rather the from Church Passage.
If we dismiss, are the reasons for such sound. If we accept are the reasons sound.

Should we take serious note of police claims of footsteps heading East?
While many simply accept such, the timing involved make such really questionable.

The time that Watkins, claims he was last in the square?
Is it just coincidence, that EVERY other night he had stopped to talk to Morris, probably having a break at the same time?

These are the areas of evidence we need to look at in the Mitre Square case, to simply take the Lawende sighting as being pivotal to the events is in my opinion a great oversimplification, and one which possible may be erroneous to begin with.

All of these are interrelated.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, it is possible that the ridicule directed at my theory that the murderer was a fair-haired sailor, probably from a Nordic country, would not be directed at someone else making the suggestion.

I don't know.

Because the use of the word ‘probably’ is clearly a step too far.

I can assure you that the jacket worn by the suspect seen by Lawende was commonly worn by sailors and that is probably one of the reasons Lawende said he had the appearance of a sailor.

Your opinion is not good enough I’m afraid. Show me proof of this.

I have never said that the fact that Lawende said the man had the appearance of a sailor proves that the man was a sailor, but it is plausible and - I would suggest - not deserving of ridicule.

And I haven’t ridiculed the suggestion that the killer might have been a sailor. He might have been. Or a Carpenter. Or a Baker. There’s isn’t a single, even minor, piece of evidence that points us to the killers occupation.

Similarly, there has been much hair-splitting about whether blond is the same as fair, whether the man's head hair was of the same colour as his moustache, and whether being blond merits the description 'Nordic'.

Its not ‘hair-splitting.’ It’s the use of caution and reason. I for example told you about how light can affect our perception of colour. This is simply an established fact which you either questioned or ignored. Therefore we cannot rely on the hair colour given by Lawende.

I described him as a Nordic sailor in order to contrast him with an Eastern European Jew.

It was shorthand.

I do think he was Nordic and blond-haired and he was a sailor.

And that’s your opinion which is fine. But further than ‘everyone has a right to an opinion,’ you have produced no evidence of this. Lawende’s sighting is not evidence of this. It’s simply your own interpretation.

The area abounded with foreign sailors.

I hope you are not going to ask me to prove that!

No. But I’ll continue to ask you to provide evidence about the jacket. Something that you are strangely reluctant to do.

I never said it was impossible for Kosminski to have had fair hair nor that Eastern European Jews never had fair hair.

Photographs were reproduced here by my critics.

One showed what is thought to be a brother of Kosminski, with very dark hair, and the other showed a woman (possibly Joseph Lawende's wife) and a young

girl at a Jewish wedding.

The woman's hair looked darkish at the sides - she may have had brown hair - and the girl had dark hair, not fair hair.

The photographs were produced because of your claim that Lawende would definitely have been able to have identified a fellow Jew. Photographs were provide which categorically showed that not all Jews looked Jewish. Despite this evidence you refused to concede the point. It’s the jacket all over again.

I don't expect to find proof that the murderer was a sailor, let alone one bearing a name, and I don't expect anyone else ever to be able to name the murderer without having his or her tongue in his or her cheek at the same time.

I presented my view based on the evidence.

Your evidence is - a) foreign sailors existed in the area, and b) Lawende thought that the man that he saw had the appearance of a sailor (apparently based on the fact that he wore a peaked cap and a neckerchief)

I have been told that I cannot grasp basic facts when I say that Eddowes was murdered about three minutes after Lawende's sighting and that it was really ten minutes.

Because t clearly wasn’t 3 minutes. You appear to be the only person that believes this.

Then someone else said it could have been as much as 15 minutes.

Longer times could be possible unless you believe that, a) all clocks and watches were totally accurate, and b) all clocks and watches were exactly synchronised.

If you accept those very obvious points, points which should be beyond argument, then you would have to accept the possibility of a longer time period.

Those critics of mine are not going by the evidence.

I am.

You are exaggerating.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

So now we have the claim, that A Jewish person is unlikely to murder, that itself is a form of prejudice, do you not see that?

I really hoped we were passed the stage of stereotyping, and claiming some are more or less likely to behave in a certain way, sadly it seems not.

There is no evidence the killer sold human meat, so that is irrelevant.

The so called evidence for cannibalism is based solely on the from hell letter, many dispute such was genuine. So again largely irrelevant.

In addition, how someone behaves during periodic mental illness attacks, is no indicator of normal behaviour.

The issue to me is that you are 100% convinced that to name a Jew as a suspect is simply anti Semitic or bias.

That you do not, or are not prepared to accept that your view is itself highly questionable and prejudicial is why you cannot look at all the possibilities.


Why do I think the killer is likely to be Jewish?

1. I believe that the killer was local, for a variety of reasons.

There was a very large percentage of that local population which was Jewish, therefore the odds on the killer being Jewish must roughly equal that percentage of the population.

To exclude all Jewish persons is a form of the bias and prejudice you claim is responsible for suspecting a Jewish person in the first place.

2. I believe the senior police( those who needed to know) reached the conclusion they did based on evidence.

Today all we are aware of is the identification, which you dismiss as fantasy.
You apparently do so because you believe the Killer COULD NOT be Jewish, and therefore the police are merely scapegoating an unnamed person, which is itself highly illogical.

To exclude and preclude because of out own bias is a serious flaw for a researcher, you apparently don't see this is an issue.

3. We are told the suspect first came to the attention of the investigation following the door to door search, so there was clearly other evidence, now lost.

What this included is unknown, but may have included the Batty Street incident, family concerns, the results of surveillance, a second ID, verifying the main ID. The list of possibilities goes on.

Macnaghten says there were MANY circumstances to consider the man he called Kosminski. That he ultimately rejected him in favour of Druitt is actually neither here nor there, the important issue is that he DID CONSIDER him.

That is what this is all about, being prepared to consider any suspect, from any background, look at the arguments, dont dismiss those arguments or evidence that do not fit our own theories of bias.
This you appear to be unwilling to do.

What is clear from your response is that you are unwilling to address the facts that there is no recorded case of a Jewish serial murderer having operated in England and no recorded case of a Polish Jewish serial killer in any country.

That does not prove that the Whitechapel Murderer was not a Polish Jew, but it suggests strongly that he was not.

It does look as though you do not acknowledge this fact because it does not fit Anderson's allegation that the murderer was a Polish Jew.

You mention the door-to-door search, which you appear to be saying led to the unmasking of the Whitechapel Murderer as a Jew.

I suggest that anyone reading RJ Palmer's posts # 217, 218, 221 and 223 in the thread A photograph of Joseph Lawende in 1899

would agree with me that no Polish Jew was actually unmasked in that search and that what Anderson wrote years later about it stemmed from his imagination and not from fact.

I did mention the fact that Anderson believed at the time that the graffito was found in Goulston Street that it had been written by the murderer, and it was not disputed at the time that the intention of the writer of it was to cast blame on the Jews.

If you put those two facts together, then it is reasonable to deduce that Anderson thought the murderer was a gentile - as did Macnaghten, Abberline, Henry Smith and Inspector Reid.

I also pointed out that Anderson's own son related that Anderson believed the murderer died soon after the murder of Kelly - which rules out Kosminski.

I put forward two arguments which, to my knowledge, had not been published before.

First, it is surely beyond coincidence that Macnaghten, Anderson and Swanson all believed that the murderer died soon after Kelly's murder.

I suggested that the idea of the murderer having died so soon became intertwined with Anderson's unnamed Polish Jew and Swanson's Kosminski.

Your response was to question whether Anderson's son got it right!

Well, we know that Swanson did not get it right, because he had Kosminski dying about 30 years too early!

I think your response to that was that Swanson may have meant another Kosminski.

I know you have criticised me for declaring certain ideas not to be credible, but I think very few people would disagree with me when I say that multiple Kosminskis being sent to Colney Hatch - and one of them dying at the right time - is not credible.


My second argument was that it was not believable that a reluctant Jewish witness would have come forward in the first place if he had recognised the suspect as being of Jewish appearance in the first place, and would not have recognised the suspect as a Jew at the Seaside Home identification after having failed to identify him as a Jew in the first place!

This argument was evidently so powerful that it forced you into suggesting that the suspect both wore Jewish religious garb and spoke Yiddish at the alleged Seaside Home identification.

This is what happens when someone clings to an obviously-farfetched story.


Today all we are aware of is the identification, which you dismiss as fantasy.
You apparently do so because you believe the Killer COULD NOT be Jewish, and therefore the police are merely scapegoating an unnamed person, which is itself highly illogical.


We are all aware of the identification fantasy, which is itself highly illogical.

It is illogical because in order for it to work, Kosminski had both to dress up in Jewish attire and speak Yiddish specially for the occasion.

It is illogical because contrary to what Swanson claimed, it cannot explain why the murders stopped when they did.

It is illogical because if Anderson was right that the suspect had already been certified, then a reluctant witness could not have prevented him from being brought to justice.

I am not alleging that the police were scapegoating an innocent person or targeting an innocent Jew.

All the evidence suggests that the police thought the murderer was a gentile but did not know his identity.

What Anderson and Swanson wrote years later is not evidence of what they thought at the time of the murders and in their aftermath.

It was pointed out following the publication of Anderson's memoirs that he wrote them in a spirit of self-congratulation, informing the world that he had of course known the identity of the murderer all along.

Something similar happened in the case of the Hammersmith Nudes Murders, when the detective in charge claimed that the murderer committed suicide soon after the last murder and just as the police were closing in on him.

Like Kosminski, that man did not fit the description of the murderer supplied by a witness and no policeman corroborated the claim that that man had ever been a suspect.


There is nothing in the police files - nor in newspaper reports nor in inquest testimony - to support the allegation that a Jewish witness ever described a Jewish suspect.

There is nothing in the police files to support any of the allegations that a Polish Jew was the murderer, that Kosminski hated prostitutes, or that Kosminski's house was watched day and night by CID officers.

You say it could all be in missing files.

How very convenient that the crucial evidence is missing, just as it has ever been in cases in which an innocent man has been accused.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You are exaggerating.

I stand by what I wrote, namely that Eddowes was murdered about three minutes after she was seen by Lawende.

James Harvey was in Church Passage at 1.28.

Edward Watkins was in Mitre Square at 1.30.

According to both Lawende and Levy, they got up to leave the club at 1.30.

Lawende was definite that he left the club at 1.35 and believed the time at which he saw the man and woman was 1.35.

Harvey walked to the end of Church Passage at about 1.40.

According to Watkins, he found the body at 1.44.

According to Morris, he met Watkins at 1.45.

Morris told Harvey who told Holland and they all went to Mitre Square.

Holland was then sent to fetch Dr Sequeira.

Inspector Collard was informed at 1.55.

Dr Sequeira arrived at the scene of the murder at 1.55.

There are no contradictions between any of the timings and they all fit together.

Those are the timings according to the evidence.

We do not have any other timings and no reason to disbelieve them.

Since the medical opinion was that the murderer needed about four minutes to do what he did, and he obviously needed to escape from the Square without being seen, he must have committed the murder at about 1.38.

If it were much later, then he would not have had time to escape or would have been interrupted by Watkins.

If it were much sooner, then he would not have had time to get to the scene of the murder - or to put it another way, he would be committing the murder in Church Passage.

One poster gives a time of ten minutes, which as I pointed out means the murder being committed after the body was found.

As I have stated before, my estimate of three minutes separating Lawende's sighting of the suspect and the commission of the murder cannot be out by much.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I stand by what I wrote, namely that Eddowes was murdered about three minutes after she was seen by Lawende.

James Harvey was in Church Passage at 1.28.

Edward Watkins was in Mitre Square at 1.30.

According to both Lawende and Levy, they got up to leave the club at 1.30.

Lawende was definite that he left the club at 1.35 and believed the time at which he saw the man and woman was 1.35.

Harvey walked to the end of Church Passage at about 1.40.

According to Watkins, he found the body at 1.44.

According to Morris, he met Watkins at 1.45.

Morris told Harvey who told Holland and they all went to Mitre Square.

Holland was then sent to fetch Dr Sequeira.

Inspector Collard was informed at 1.55.

Dr Sequeira arrived at the scene of the murder at 1.55.

There are no contradictions between any of the timings and they all fit together.

Those are the timings according to the evidence.

We do not have any other timings and no reason to disbelieve them.

Since the medical opinion was that the murderer needed about four minutes to do what he did, and he obviously needed to escape from the Square without being seen, he must have committed the murder at about 1.38.

If it were much later, then he would not have had time to escape or would have been interrupted by Watkins.

If it were much sooner, then he would not have had time to get to the scene of the murder - or to put it another way, he would be committing the murder in Church Passage.

One poster gives a time of ten minutes, which as I pointed out means the murder being committed after the body was found.

As I have stated before, my estimate of three minutes separating Lawende's sighting of the suspect and the commission of the murder cannot be out by much.

Again, you are assuming that all times are correct and that they were all synchronised. This is simply poor reasoning.

Eddowes and her killer could have been in Mitre Square by 1.35.

Harvey said:

“At 20 to 2 on Sunday morning I went down Duke Street and down Church Passage as far as Mitre Square.”

Then in the same statement he said:

“I go as far as to the end of Church Passage. I was at the end of Church Passage about 18 or 19 minutes to 2.”

So he got to them end of Church Passage at ABOUT 1.41 or 1.42.

‘About’ means that he was estimating.

So if Eddowes and her killer were in Mitre Square at 1.35 (which is entirely possible) and Harvey got to the end of Church Passage at 1.42 (which is entirely possible) then the killer would have had 7 minutes.
If Lawende and co’s time was a minute or two out then Eddowes and her killer might have been in Mitre Square by 1.34. If Harvey’s estimate was a minute out then he could have got to the end of Mitre Square at 1.43 giving the killer 9 minutes.

In that area in the LVP it’s elementary lesson number one…….. you cannot rely on timings being exact. You have to allow for a reasonable margin for error. How many times does this blatantly obvious fact have to be explained on here? Those disagreeing tend to be ones with theories to prove.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Again, you are assuming that all times are correct and that they were all synchronised. This is simply poor reasoning.

I think you're wrong. I am not assuming anything. I'm accepting the evidence as all we have and, unless there is some contradiction between timings - as happened at the Nichols inquest - there is no reason to reject the timings given by any witness.

I have viewed these timings on many websites and in many books and none of the authors has questioned them and, moreover, none has been accused of having poor reasoning.

There really is something wrong here.

No-one should be alleged to have poor reasoning for accepting timings given by witnesses which do not disagree with one another.

Eddowes and her killer could have been in Mitre Square by 1.35.

Not according to the evidence.

Lawende based his timings on both the club clock and his watch.

Levy estimated that they left the club only slightly earlier.

The man and woman were in conversation and stationary.

Harvey said:

“At 20 to 2 on Sunday morning I went down Duke Street and down Church Passage as far as Mitre Square.”

Then in the same statement he said:

“I go as far as to the end of Church Passage. I was at the end of Church Passage about 18 or 19 minutes to 2.”

So he got to them end of Church Passage at ABOUT 1.41 or 1.42.

‘About’ means that he was estimating.

So if Eddowes and her killer were in Mitre Square at 1.35 (which is entirely possible) and Harvey got to the end of Church Passage at 1.42 (which is entirely possible) then the killer would have had 7 minutes.

You mean he had seven minutes instead of the four I estimated?

I didn't estimate they arrived in the Square at 1.38.

I estimated the murder took place at 1.38.

If, say, he arrived in the Square at 1.35, and murdered her at 1.36, then I'm out by two minutes.

If, say, he arrived in the Square at 1.36, and murdered her at 1.37, then I'm out by one minute.

You seem to be saying that the murderer left at about 1.42 via Mitre Street, which is exactly the opinion I expressed here soon after I started posting here.


If Lawende and co’s time was a minute or two out then Eddowes and her killer might have been in Mitre Square by 1.34. If Harvey’s estimate was a minute out then he could have got to the end of Mitre Square at 1.43 giving the killer 9 minutes.

In that area in the LVP it’s elementary lesson number one…….. you cannot rely on timings being exact. You have to allow for a reasonable margin for error. How many times does this blatantly obvious fact have to be explained on here? Those disagreeing tend to be ones with theories to prove.


I think that's far-fetched.

That would mean Lawende, Levy, Harvey, Watkins, the club clock, Lawende's watch, and the Post Office clock all being wrong in such a way as to make things easier for the murderer.

Why not make it easier still and have Harvey at the entrance to the Square at 1.44 in time to meet Watkins there?

Please see my replies above.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It abounded with more Jewish people than foreign sailors, so that is really no indication of anything.

But Lawende said the suspect had the appearance of a sailor, NOT that he was of Jewish appearance.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

Again, you are assuming that all times are correct and that they were all synchronised. This is simply poor reasoning.

I think you're wrong. I am not assuming anything. I'm accepting the evidence as all we have and, unless there is some contradiction between timings - as happened at the Nichols inquest - there is no reason to reject the timings given by any witness.

I have viewed these timings on many websites and in many books and none of the authors has questioned them and, moreover, none has been accused of having poor reasoning.

There really is something wrong here.

No-one should be alleged to have poor reasoning for accepting timings given by witnesses which do not disagree with one another.

You are assuming. You are assuming that all the timings given must have been exactly correct and that all clocks and watches were perfectly synchronised. This is little more than fantasy.

Eddowes and her killer could have been in Mitre Square by 1.35.

Not according to the evidence.

Lawende based his timings on both the club clock and his watch.

So how do you know that the club clock wasn’t fast and that Lawende set his time by it?

Levy estimated that they left the club only slightly earlier.

The man and woman were in conversation and stationary.

Why mention that they were stationary? Of course they were stationary.

Harvey said:

“At 20 to 2 on Sunday morning I went down Duke Street and down Church Passage as far as Mitre Square.”

Then in the same statement he said:

“I go as far as to the end of Church Passage. I was at the end of Church Passage about 18 or 19 minutes to 2.”

So he got to them end of Church Passage at ABOUT 1.41 or 1.42.

‘About’ means that he was estimating.

So if Eddowes and her killer were in Mitre Square at 1.35 (which is entirely possible) and Harvey got to the end of Church Passage at 1.42 (which is entirely possible) then the killer would have had 7 minutes.

You mean he had seven minutes instead of the four I estimated?

I didn't estimate they arrived in the Square at 1.38.

I estimated the murder took place at 1.38.

If, say, he arrived in the Square at 1.35, and murdered her at 1.36, then I'm out by two minutes.

If, say, he arrived in the Square at 1.36, and murdered her at 1.37, then I'm out by one minute.

You seem to be saying that the murderer left at about 1.42 via Mitre Street, which is exactly the opinion I expressed here soon after I started posting here.

I don’t know what you’re talking about to be honest.


If Lawende and co’s time was a minute or two out then Eddowes and her killer might have been in Mitre Square by 1.34. If Harvey’s estimate was a minute out then he could have got to the end of Mitre Square at 1.43 giving the killer 9 minutes.

In that area in the LVP it’s elementary lesson number one…….. you cannot rely on timings being exact. You have to allow for a reasonable margin for error. How many times does this blatantly obvious fact have to be explained on here? Those disagreeing tend to be ones with theories to prove.


I think that's far-fetched.

That would mean Lawende, Levy, Harvey, Watkins, the club clock, Lawende's watch, and the Post Office clock all being wrong in such a way as to make things easier for the murderer.

Why not make it easier still and have Harvey at the entrance to the Square at 1.44 in time to meet Watkins there?

Theres no talking to you PI. You are an ocean of poor reasoning. Anyone that says that we shouldn’t allow a reasonable margin for error on timings cannot discus the case sensibly. They really can’t. I’ll leave it I think. I just don’t have the inclination to pursue you down another rabbit-hole.

The problem is that you don’t have opinions PI. Every point you make you appear to feel that it should be accepted as gospel. The fact that the killer could have had 8 or 9 or 10 minutes is just that. A fact. And by that I don’t mean that it’s a fact that he had longer but that it’s a fact that he ‘could’ have had longer. If you can’t accept that then there’s nothing I can do about it as you have form for making these kinds of statements.