A photograph of Joseph Lawende in 1899

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why are all conversations with you like this? Why don’t you just forget about how ‘hard done by’ you are and discus the details. Why is it that when someone disagrees or challenges you you go on about people ‘ridiculing’ your theory? You appear to post with a permanent sense of outrage.

No one, as far as I’m aware, has ridiculed the theory that the killer might have been a sailor. It’s perfectly possible although a hat and a neck scarf is hardly a slam dunk. Why does it irritate you when people have doubts?

No one, as far as I’m aware, has said that the killer couldn’t have written the graffito. In fact I even said that I slightly favour that he did write it but I have about a 100th of your confidence on the subject. Many aspects of the case have more than one interpretation which varies from individual to individual

No one, as far as I’m aware, has claimed that Druitt was the killer. And yet you appear to know for a fact that he (and Kosminski for that matter) wasn’t. All that others are saying in effect is that we shouldn’t just dismiss a suspect when we have no concrete alibi for him.

There is so much about this case that we don’t know and most of it we probably never will. So it’s open season for speculation and theory and there’s nothing wrong with that as long as we realise that it’s just that.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Why are all conversations with you like this? Why don’t you just forget about how ‘hard done by’ you are and discus the details. Why is it that when someone disagrees or challenges you you go on about people ‘ridiculing’ your theory? You appear to post with a permanent sense of outrage.

No one, as far as I’m aware, has ridiculed the theory that the killer might have been a sailor. It’s perfectly possible although a hat and a neck scarf is hardly a slam dunk. Why does it irritate you when people have doubts?

No one, as far as I’m aware, has said that the killer couldn’t have written the graffito. In fact I even said that I slightly favour that he did write it but I have about a 100th of your confidence on the subject. Many aspects of the case have more than one interpretation which varies from individual to individual

No one, as far as I’m aware, has claimed that Druitt was the killer. And yet you appear to know for a fact that he (and Kosminski for that matter) wasn’t. All that others are saying in effect is that we shouldn’t just dismiss a suspect when we have no concrete alibi for him.

There is so much about this case that we don’t know and most of it we probably never will. So it’s open season for speculation and theory and there’s nothing wrong with that as long as we realise that it’s just that.

I cannot see how what you have just written above relates in any way to what I wrote in the previous post, namely # 255, which was:



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is what I wrote in # 247:

You keep suggesting that the timings are out but if they were, there would be conflicts between timings and there are not.

They fit perfectly.

In the Nichols inquest, there was a conflict and one witness' timing can be disregarded.

That did not happen in the Eddowes inquest.

No-one is saying they are exactly right.

All timings are approximations to the nearest or most complete minute.

There is, however, no reason to disregard them unless there is a conflict between them.



Here is what you wrote in # 252:


If you are happy to be the only Ripperologist in the world who thinks that the times in the case all have to be accepted as exact and correct then that’s up to you.



Here is my response in # 253:


I never said that.



As I had written in # 247:


No-one is saying they are exactly right.



Your claim that I am saying that all the timings have to be accepted as exact and correct is obviously unfounded.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




I quoted our correspondence to prove that your claim that I am saying that all the timings have to be accepted as exact and correct is obviously unfounded.


Nothing in your response addresses that point.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I wish there was a white flag emoji.

If we’re talking about a lack of response, how about responding to this one.

Provide the evidence that a salt and pepper jacket was in anyway connected to sailors NOW or admit that you made it up.

Simple as that…….no more waffling.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I wish there was a white flag emoji.

If we’re talking about a lack of response, how about responding to this one.

Provide the evidence that a salt and pepper jacket was in anyway connected to sailors NOW or admit that you made it up.

Simple as that…….no more waffling.

That's irrelevant.

Your claim that I am saying that all the timings have to be accepted as exact and correct is obviously unfounded.

If you won't address that simple point, then there is no point in our having any further correspondence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's irrelevant.

Your claim that I am saying that all the timings have to be accepted as exact and correct is obviously unfounded.

If you won't address that simple point, then there is no point in our having any further correspondence.

Why is it that I ask a question at least 8 or 9 times, going back days and you blatantly refuse to respond. Yet you know demand a response to this trivial point. You are focusing on this non-issue as a way of avoiding a real one.

You did say this btw:

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

So you are saying here that if two witnesses times match, we should assume that the time was correct.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Why is it that I ask a question at least 8 or 9 times, going back days and you blatantly refuse to respond. Yet you know demand a response to this trivial point. You are focusing on this non-issue as a way of avoiding a real one.

On the contrary.

I explained previously that I am not going to reveal all my sources on this forum.

The issue is not a non-issue.

Your claim that I am saying that all the timings have to be accepted as exact and correct is obviously unfounded.

I quoted from what I had actually written in order to prove that.

The issue is whether what I have actually written is going to be presented accurately.

You obviously have not done so.

I said that there is a problem with the timing given by a witness in the Nichols inquest, but there are no problems with any of the timings given by witnesses at the Eddowes inquest.

I didn't write that all the timings have to be accepted as exact and correct, as you claim I stated.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the contrary.

I explained previously that I am not going to reveal all my sources on this forum.

The issue is not a non-issue.

Your claim that I am saying that all the timings have to be accepted as exact and correct is obviously unfounded.

I quoted from what I had actually written in order to prove that.

The issue is whether what I have actually written is going to be presented accurately.

You obviously have not done so.

I said that there is a problem with the timing given by a witness in the Nichols inquest, but there are no problems with any of the timings given by witnesses at the Eddowes inquest.

I didn't write that all the timings have to be accepted as exact and correct, as you claim I stated.

You have no evidence that a salt and pepper jacket was associated with sailors. There’s absolutely no benefit in secrecy on this issue; if you had evidence you would have provided it with glee but you haven’t because you made it up to fit your theory. Simple as that.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You have no evidence that a salt and pepper jacket was associated with sailors. There’s absolutely no benefit in secrecy on this issue; if you had evidence you would have provided it with glee but you haven’t because you made it up to fit your theory. Simple as that.

I didn't write that all the timings have to be accepted as exact and correct, as you claim I stated, and I don't invent evidence, as you allege I do.

That is positively my final word to you.

I do not accept a repeated accusation that I invent evidence from anyone.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I didn't write that all the timings have to be accepted as exact and correct, as you claim I stated, and I don't invent evidence, as you allege I do.

That is positively my final word to you.

I do not accept a repeated accusation that I invent evidence from anyone.

Expected. This is exactly what you did in the thread before you were placed ‘on leave.’ When I pressed you for a response on the jacket issue you invented some pretext for not responding so that you could avoid admitting what we all know to be the truth.

No problem. People on here can read and they know when someone adopts the “I know something but I’m not telling you” position. And they know what such kindergarten tactics mean.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Expected. This is exactly what you did in the thread before you were placed ‘on leave.’ When I pressed you for a response on the jacket issue you invented some pretext for not responding so that you could avoid admitting what we all know to be the truth.

No problem. People on here can read and they know when someone adopts the “I know something but I’m not telling you” position. And they know what such kindergarten tactics mean.

I have a feeling that you're trying to provoke me.

I have just two more points.

First, since you mention kindergarten tactics, readers may think it is childish constantly to direct personal remarks at someone and then when he complains, to suggest that he is hypersensitive or thin-skinned or imagining that he is being attacked.

Secondly, and without revealing my source for the pepper-and-salt coloured jacket having been commonly worn by sailors, which I am under no obligation to do here, there is the following curious fact:

• Salt and Peppers: Refers to the old style working white uniform, where the sailor wore a white shirt, and black pants. Today, Salt and Peppers are worn by cooks that work in a ship's wardroom.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appen....S._Navy_slang


As you say, People on here can read and they know that the fact that Lawende described a man who was wearing a pepper-and-salt coloured loose-fitting jacket as having the appearance of a sailor, and the fact that I said that I knew that pepper-and-salt coloured loose-fitting jackets were commonly worn by sailors, and the fact that an American sailor's uniform used to be referred to as Salt and Peppers does rather suggest that there is some historical connection between Salt and Pepper clothing and merchant seamen.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have a feeling that you're trying to provoke me.

I have just two more points.

First, since you mention kindergarten tactics, readers may think it is childish constantly to direct personal remarks at someone and then when he complains, to suggest that he is hypersensitive or thin-skinned or imagining that he is being attacked.

I have made no personal attacks on you. Not a single one. I have been scrupulous about this. Disagreement is not an attack.

Secondly, and without revealing my source for the pepper-and-salt coloured jacket having been commonly worn by sailors, which I am under no obligation to do here, there is the following curious fact:

• Salt and Peppers: Refers to the old style working white uniform, where the sailor wore a white shirt, and black pants. Today, Salt and Peppers are worn by cooks that work in a ship's wardroom.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appen....S._Navy_slang


As you say, People on here can read and they know that the fact that Lawende described a man who was wearing a pepper-and-salt coloured loose-fitting jacket as having the appearance of a sailor, and the fact that I said that I knew that pepper-and-salt coloured loose-fitting jackets were commonly worn by sailors, and the fact that an American sailor's uniform used to be referred to as Salt and Peppers does rather suggest that there is some historical connection between Salt and Pepper clothing and merchant seamen.

Clearly absolutely unconnected. Lawende said ‘pepper and salt’ about the jacket alone. The above quote clearly uses ‘salt and peppers’ as a name for a sailors uniform as a whole where they wore a white shirt and black pants.

No wonder you were unwilling to reveal that embarrassing attempt at a connection. So now we know for certain what we always did know. That Lawende only mentioned the appearance of a sailor because of the peaked cap and possibly the neckerchief. Which doesn’t even approach the territory of evidence for the killer being a sailor.

You could simply have said that you thought that the killer ‘could’ have been a sailor without trying this but of shoehorning.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I have made no personal attacks on you. Not a single one. I have been scrupulous about this. Disagreement is not an attack.

Amazing.

It seems that in addition to being unaware of the difference between speculation and deduction, and between deduction and fantasy, you are unaware of the fact that accusing someone of inventing evidence constitutes a personal attack.

[FISHY1118]

Im not Aware that Lawende mentioned these words in any official capacity.


''Lawende said ‘pepper and salt’ about the jacket alone''.


Can someone make reference to its location ? .

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

The US Navy "salt and peppers" appear to be a modern uniform, dating from the 1970's as far as I can find.

There are examples of salt and pepper coloured clothing, but nothing Navy related. I'm happy to be pointed in the right direction though.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Im not Aware that Lawende mentioned these words in any official capacity.


''Lawende said ‘pepper and salt’ about the jacket alone''.


Can someone make reference to its location ? .

It is in a report by Swanson.

That is the most detailed version of Lawende's description of the suspect in existence and obviously the official police record of it.