A photograph of Joseph Lawende in 1899

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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 apologise for attributing to you all the unpleasant things actually written to me by Pontius2000.

At the outset, I wrote:

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.

Unfortunately, I then failed to separate the comments made by you and Pontius2000.

I didn't know you would be so offended by having his comments attributed to you.

As for mis-citing your reputation, again I apologise; I was citing Pontius2000's.

However, the fact that my reputation rating is the same as yours still detracts from your claim that everyone disagrees with me, which was the only reason I cited the reputation ratings in the first place.

I apologise for attributing to you Pontius2000's howler that Abberline believed the murderer was a Polish Jew.

I also apologise for attributing to you Pontius2000's absurd remarks that 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.


I apologise for attributing to you Pontius2000's facetious remarks that to say the writing on the wall was anti-Jewish is 'wild speculation' and that it was actually pro-Jewish.


I apologise for attributing to you Pontius2000's remarks that I 'twist tidbits in order to fit a specific narrative' and that I made a false statement about Schwarz having testified at the inquest.


I am also very sorry that I attributed to you the following paragraph written by Pontius2000 and can well understand why you would be offended by the suggestion that you yourself had written it:


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


I do apologise and assure you that, in future, I will attribute to you only genuine howlers on your part, such as the one you made about Lawende never having given the description of a fair-moustached man with the appearance of a sailor.

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.

Oh, and I noticed that you haven’t mentioned your invention about the salt and pepper coat?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

We will I think disagree over what you actually said



No, the identification may have occurred in mid 1890 , if the suspect was AK.
Anderson comments about not catching him, and has no real idea in the November 4th edition of the Pall Mall gazette.

Such would on the surface appear to question the identification, but one must also consider, that if it was AK( and again that's not certain) he was still free, I doubt you would say we think we know who it is, but he's still free. That might lead to the very situation of Public Disorder they are trying I believe to prevent

However, in June 1892, Anderson changes his line. Cassells Saturday Journal 11th June 1892.

“There is my answer to people who come with fads and theories about these murders,” he said. “It is impossible to believe they were acts of a sane man—they were those of a maniac revelling in blood"

This strongly suggests that in that 20 months, he had reached a conclusion on the identity of the killer.
I speculate a mixture of the ID, circumstantial evidence, such as Batty Street, and the cessation of the murders.



Never heard that one before, SO NO.




It's very clear that you are saying that Anderson never knew the identity of the killer

That is completely different to what I am saying.

I am saying that before the End of 1890, Anderson is saying he is not aware of the identity of the killer. I suspect he had the majority of the information, but had not reached a conclusion.

In June 92, he implies he knows who the killer was, but gives no details.

I speculate, that he had now reached a conclusion.

Early 95. He states the killer was identified, locked away and is now dead.

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

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

So, after making a post which was a list of false accusations against me you simply can’t bring yourself to accept and admit your mistakes. You think that the ‘right’ thing to do is just to ignore the large list of ‘errors’ that I pointed out and continue to complain about how posters on here post?

What about displaying a bit of integrity rather than just sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending that it never happened?

I didn't see your above post till now.

I refer you to the response I posted about a minute ago.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

I apologise for attributing to you all the unpleasant things actually written to me by Pontius2000.

At the outset, I wrote:

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.

Unfortunately, I then failed to separate the comments made by you and Pontius2000.

I didn't know you would be so offended by having his comments attributed to you.

As for mis-citing your reputation, again I apologise; I was citing Pontius2000's.

However, the fact that my reputation rating is the same as yours still detracts from your claim that everyone disagrees with me, which was the only reason I cited the reputation ratings in the first place.

I apologise for attributing to you Pontius2000's howler that Abberline believed the murderer was a Polish Jew.

I also apologise for attributing to you Pontius2000's absurd remarks that 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.


I apologise for attributing to you Pontius2000's facetious remarks that to say the writing on the wall was anti-Jewish is 'wild speculation' and that it was actually pro-Jewish.


I apologise for attributing to you Pontius2000's remarks that I 'twist tidbits in order to fit a specific narrative' and that I made a false statement about Schwarz having testified at the inquest.


I am also very sorry that I attributed to you the following paragraph written by Pontius2000 and can well understand why you would be offended by the suggestion that you yourself had written it:


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


I do apologise and assure you that, in future, I will attribute to you only genuine howlers on your part, such as the one you made about Lawende never having given the description of a fair-moustached man with the appearance of a sailor.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think you have misunderstood what I meant.

I didn't say another Kosminski could not speak English.

I said if Swanson meant another Kosminski then the debate about whether Aaron Kosminski could speak English becomes academic.
Moreover, the fact that he displayed signs of schizophrenia - which has been considered relevant by many - becomes irrelevant.

Even the question of whether he was emaciated in 1888 would be irrelevant.

The only thing that would be relevant would be the known facts about the real Kosminski suspect and, as I said, he is as elusive as Anderson and Swanson's witness.

And, as I suggested last night, the reason is that neither the 'real' Kosminski nor the 'witness' who identified him existed.

So, after making a post which was a list of false accusations against me you simply can’t bring yourself to accept and admit your mistakes. You think that the ‘right’ thing to do is just to ignore the large list of ‘errors’ that I pointed out and continue to complain about how posters on here post?

What about displaying a bit of integrity rather than just sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending that it never happened?

[Elamarna]

You are right that I say Anderson did not know who the killer actually was, but I have said repeatedly that until 1895 he did not even claim to know.

You were saying that I didn't know about that.

That's not true.

We will I think disagree over what you actually said

"What are you saying - that Anderson didn't know of the identification when it happened but suddenly had a revelation?

No, the identification may have occurred in mid 1890 , if the suspect was AK.
Anderson comments about not catching him, and has no real idea in the November 4th edition of the Pall Mall gazette.

Such would on the surface appear to question the identification, but one must also consider, that if it was AK( and again that's not certain) he was still free, I doubt you would say we think we know who it is, but he's still free. That might lead to the very situation of Public Disorder they are trying I believe to prevent

However, in June 1892, Anderson changes his line. Cassells Saturday Journal 11th June 1892.

“There is my answer to people who come with fads and theories about these murders,” he said. “It is impossible to believe they were acts of a sane man—they were those of a maniac revelling in blood"

This strongly suggests that in that 20 months, he had reached a conclusion on the identity of the killer.
I speculate a mixture of the ID, circumstantial evidence, such as Batty Street, and the cessation of the murders.

Or that Swanson kept the identification secret even from Anderson and told him a few years later?"

Never heard that one before, SO NO.

I have been saying all along that Anderson did not know the identity of the murderer.

I made that very point yesterday, when I cited Henry Smith's comment to the same effect.

You shot that down on the ground that Smith didn't know as much as Anderson.

Yet now YOU say that Anderson didn't know!

That means Smith and I are right.

Either Anderson knew all along or he didn't know.

It's very clear that you are saying that Anderson never knew the identity of the killer

That is completely different to what I am saying.

I am saying that before the End of 1890, Anderson is saying he is not aware of the identity of the killer. I suspect he had the majority of the information, but had not reached a conclusion.

In June 92, he implies he knows who the killer was, but gives no details.

I speculate, that he had now reached a conclusion.

Early 95. He states the killer was identified, locked away and is now dead.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Not at all.

You claim Anderson did not know who the killer was, no Ifs, no buts.
There was NO suspect, NO witness and NO identification.

I say he did not know in 1890.
I say he did know several years later, giving the details of capture, incarceration and death by 1895.

I conclude that something occurred during those points that alowed him to reach that conclusion.

You are right that I say Anderson did not know who the killer actually was, but I have said repeatedly that until 1895 he did not even claim to know.

You were saying that I didn't know about that.

That's not true.

[Elamarna]

I think most of what you have written is unwarranted.

In particular, I am not a preacher.

The fact I do not name the suspect - a comparative rarity in debate nowadays - is not a characteristic of a believer.

I still do not understand why you think there is something deficient in my understanding of what Anderson is supposed to have known and when he is supposed to have known it.

I have been saying all along that he didn't know nor claim to know about the identification in the first place and that he did not start to say he knew until 1895.

You say I don't understand that that is what happened.

If you like, I'll go through my posted comments and list all the times I made that point.

You are now making the point and saying that I don't understand it!

You are actually agreeing with me and representing that agreement as a disagreement!

Not at all.

You claim Anderson did not know who the killer was, no Ifs, no buts.
There was NO suspect, NO witness and NO identification.

I say he did not know in 1890.
I say he did know several years later, giving the details of capture, incarceration and death by 1895.

I conclude that something occurred during those points that alowed him to reach that conclusion.

I speculate, not unreasonably I think, that it was the identification of a suspect, by a witness which was mainly instrumental in this.
I also speculate that murders of this type did not continue.
That the police, in the form of Swanson included Coles in the file, but concluded she was not " of this type".

The two points are NOT the same.
The issues involved are very different.

To attempt to equate the two views, not knowing at all and inventing a suspect, witness and identification, with Not knowing until after the identificstion is at best mistaken and at worst disingenuous, sorry but thats my view.