A photograph of Joseph Lawende in 1899

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my reply below.

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


Where is your evidence that Aaron Kosminski or any other Kosminski in London was a sexual maniac?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You didn’t answer ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ A simple request.

Im done.

You wrote:

You persist in talking about the ‘two writers,’ which is difficult to justify considering that you only quoted one writer.

I replied:

That is not true.

I quoted two writers: Bartimeus and John Stevens, both of whom mentioned a loose monkey jacket.


This is just the latest in a long list of factual errors on your part, but instead of admitting your mistake, you write:

You didn’t answer ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ A simple request.

Im done.


That says a lot.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the contrary, I didn't even log in today until 16.40.

And even then, I had more important things to do.

It is you who have been completely stumped by my posts to you, which is why you actually refused to answer them, one time writing 'Shut up' instead of replying, and another time posting nothing more than the image of a toilet roll.

I have treated your questions with a good deal more respect than you have mine.

You didn’t answer ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ A simple request.

Im done.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

are the above questions that difficult?

deleted post

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Are the above questions that difficult?

Not as difficult as the questions I have posed you recently, which is why you refused to answer them.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

7+ hours later. You must have been completely stumped by those 9 ‘yes’ or ‘no’ questions.

On the contrary, I didn't even log in today until 16.40.

And even then, I had more important things to do.

It is you who have been completely stumped by my posts to you, which is why you actually refused to answer them, one time writing 'Shut up' instead of replying, and another time posting nothing more than the image of a toilet roll.

I have treated your questions with a good deal more respect than you have mine.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

But it’s not a reasonable argument PI and if you took the opinions of other Ripperologists you would find that none of them would call it a reasonable argument.


I think that statement of yours is a supposition.

How many have studied the styles of sailors' jackets worn in the nineteenth century?



You persist in talking about the ‘two writers,’ which is difficult to justify considering that you only quoted one writer.


That is not true.

I quoted two writers: Bartimeus and John Stevens, both of whom mentioned a loose monkey jacket.



So….just to illustrate my point I want to put a few simple questions to you and I only want ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers.


You are not in a position to demand yes or no answers.

This is not an interrogation or cross-examination.


They definitely can be fairly answered with one word. If you won’t give one words answers it will prove that you are trying to obfuscate….and I won’t respond on this subject again.

That's pretty rich coming from someone who has consistently refused to respond to my posts when you had no satisfactory answer.

I would remind you that one of your responses consisted only of the insulting words, 'Shut up', and another consisted of nothing more than an image of a toilet roll.


There is no reason to refuse to answer these questions ‘yes’ or ‘no’.

I will answer them as I see fit.


Does Bartimaeus, in the quote, tell us that or hint that all ‘monkey’ jackets are loose?

No, but as monkey jackets are not necessarily loose, why should he have?


Does Bartimaeus specifically add the “fitting” to loose to leave us in no doubt what he meant by loose?

Stevens mentioned 'a sailor's loose monkey jacket'.

He did not use the word 'fitting'.


Did Joseph Lawende ever say what specifically led him to say that the man that he saw had the appearance of a sailor?

He said the man wore a loose jacket.

I have uploaded 13 illustrations of sailors' monkey jackets which are loose at the front - i.e. obviously designed not to be buttoned up.

Can you produce illustrations of jackets which are loose at the front and are not sailors' jackets?


Was the man that Lawende saw, wearing other items of clothing that could have caused him to have the appearance of a sailor?

I have never said that the jacket was the only item of clothing that caused Lawende to say that he had the appearance of a sailor.


If someone is described as ‘having the appearance’ of something’ does it mean that the person was that something?

I have never said that there is proof that the man described by Lawende was a sailor.


Did Lawende ever say that the man certainly was a sailor or that he clearly was wearing a sailors uniform?

I have never claimed that the man was wearing a uniform.


Did Lawende use the term ‘monkey jacket?’

I had never used the term myself until yesterday.

Why should Lawende have?


When describing something as ‘loose’ or ‘loose fitting’ and nothing else, does that indicate in any way to the listener as to the actual style or type of the jacket?

I am suggesting that the man seen by Lawende was wearing a jacket that was open at the front, like jackets in the illustrations I uploaded, and that that style of monkey jacket - loose at the front - is by definition a style of jacket.

I am suggesting that it is beyond mere coincidence that Lawende describes a man who has the appearance of a sailor as wearing a loose jacket and that many sailors at that time wore jackets which were loose at the front.

Lawende did not say that the jacket was oversized.


Did Joseph Lawende see the man and women across the street, as he was passing and conversing with 2 friends, at night near a Victorian gas lamp and so briefly that he said that he either wouldn’t be able to identify him or that he would be unlikely to have (I can’t recall which)?

He was obviously referring to the man's facial features, which are irrelevant to the subject we are discussing - which is jackets.



Will you answer (with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ only)?


Of course - when appropriate.

[Herlock Sholmes]

7+ hours later. You must have been completely stumped by those 9 ‘yes’ or ‘no’ questions.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Are the above questions that difficult?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Whether you are losing the will to live is a separate issue and irrelevant.

You say I'm making an assumption.

I suppose you're not making an assumption when you say that according to Lawende, the jacket was Baggy. Ill-fitting.

He did not say that.

Again, the two writers described two monkey jackets as loose, but they did not say they were Baggy. Ill-fitting.

Unlike you, I don't claim that my theories are one hundred percent proven or throw tantrums when someone doesn't agree with them and threaten to end all discussion.

I have presented an argument that what Lawende and the two writers meant by loose is the looseness at the front, i.e. that, as is evident from the illustrations, that style of jacket could hardly be buttoned up at the front.

For some reason, being presented with a reasonable argument has the debilitating effect on you to which you refer.

There is a saying from your side of the Atlantic: “If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

I can stand it.

I don't think you can.

But it’s not a reasonable argument PI and if you took the opinions of other Ripperologists you would find that none of them would call it a reasonable argument. You persist in talking about the ‘two writers,’ which is difficult to justify considering that you only quoted one writer. So….just to illustrate my point I want to put a few simple questions to you and I only want ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers. They definitely can be fairly answered with one word. If you won’t give one words answers it will prove that you are trying to obfuscate….and I won’t respond on this subject again. There is no reason to refuse to answer these questions ‘yes’ or ‘no’.

Does Bartimaeus, in the quote, tell us that or hint that all ‘monkey’ jackets are loose?

Does Bartimaeus specifically add the “fitting” to loose to leave us in no doubt what he meant by loose?

Did Joseph Lawende ever say what specifically led him to say that the man that he saw had the appearance of a sailor?

Was the man that Lawende saw, wearing other items of clothing that could have caused him to have the appearance of a sailor?

If someone is described as ‘having the appearance’ of something’ does it mean that the person was that something?

Did Lawende ever say that the man certainly was a sailor or that he clearly was wearing a sailors uniform?

Did Lawende use the term ‘monkey jacket?’

When describing something as ‘loose’ or ‘loose fitting’ and nothing else, does that indicate in any way to the listener as to the actual style or type of the jacket?

Did Joseph Lawende see the man and women across the street, as he was passing and conversing with 2 friends, at night near a Victorian gas lamp and so briefly that he said that he either wouldn’t be able to identify him or that he would be unlikely to have (I can’t recall which)?

Will you answer (with ‘yes’ or ‘no’ only)?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It’s not reasonable. It doesn’t inhabit the same country as reasonable.

A loose jacket is not, I repeat not, a type of jacket. You can’t go into a shop and ask for a loose jacket. Type in ‘loose jacket’ to Etsy as I’ve just done it’s shows Harrington zipper jackets, retro ethnic women’s jackets, a unisex winter hippie jacket, a plaid short jacket.

Loose jacket is not a type of jacket. Allow this to sink in. The sun is hot, the moon isn’t made of cheese, the sea is wet and there’s no such thing as a f*****g loose jacket.

When Lawende said it he was simply stating that the man that he saw was wearing a jacket that looked loose. Baggy. Ill-fitting. He at absolutely no time used the term monkey jacket. At absolutely no time did he say ‘loose jacket of a type that sailors wore.’

There is no such thing as a loose jacket.

There is no such thing as a loose jacket. That’s in case you didn’t get the message first time. Ok, just in case, I’ll say it again. There’s no such thing as a loose jacket.

You are trying to manipulate what Lawende said to fit your theory. And DON’T say “well he said that he had the appearance of a sailor” because we know that. But he in absolutely no way connected this with the jacket he was wearing. It’s an assumption on your part completely disregarding other types of clothing. And even if he had resembled a sailor in some way (at night across a street and in a brief look) this doesn’t in any way mean that he WAS a sailor anymore than me putting on a grey mackintosh would entitle you to call me Columbo!!

Oh, I almost forgot……..THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LOOSE JACKET.

Now do me just one favour. Go and talk about this to someone else because I’m losing the will to live.

Whether you are losing the will to live is a separate issue and irrelevant.

You say I'm making an assumption.

I suppose you're not making an assumption when you say that according to Lawende, the jacket was Baggy. Ill-fitting.

He did not say that.

Again, the two writers described two monkey jackets as loose, but they did not say they were Baggy. Ill-fitting.

Unlike you, I don't claim that my theories are one hundred percent proven or throw tantrums when someone doesn't agree with them and threaten to end all discussion.

I have presented an argument that what Lawende and the two writers meant by loose is the looseness at the front, i.e. that, as is evident from the illustrations, that style of jacket could hardly be buttoned up at the front.

For some reason, being presented with a reasonable argument has the debilitating effect on you to which you refer.

There is a saying from your side of the Atlantic: “If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

I can stand it.

I don't think you can.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's irrelevant.

I have provided illustrations of 13 sailor's monkey jackets, all of which are unbuttoned and loose at the front.

I have also provided excerpts from two writers describing loose sailor's monkey jackets.

Lawende said that the man had the appearance of a sailor and wore a loose jacket.

I have suggested that the suspect was wearing a monkey jacket, loose and unbuttoned at the front.

It is not a matter, as you put it, of finding someone who agrees with me.

It is obviously a reasonable hypothesis.

But a reasonable hypothesis is to you like a red rag to a bull.

You have to shoot it down.

It’s not reasonable. It doesn’t inhabit the same country as reasonable.

A loose jacket is not, I repeat not, a type of jacket. You can’t go into a shop and ask for a loose jacket. Type in ‘loose jacket’ to Etsy as I’ve just done it’s shows Harrington zipper jackets, retro ethnic women’s jackets, a unisex winter hippie jacket, a plaid short jacket.

Loose jacket is not a type of jacket. Allow this to sink in. The sun is hot, the moon isn’t made of cheese, the sea is wet and there’s no such thing as a f*****g loose jacket.

When Lawende said it he was simply stating that the man that he saw was wearing a jacket that looked loose. Baggy. Ill-fitting. He at absolutely no time used the term monkey jacket. At absolutely no time did he say ‘loose jacket of a type that sailors wore.’

There is no such thing as a loose jacket.

There is no such thing as a loose jacket. That’s in case you didn’t get the message first time. Ok, just in case, I’ll say it again. There’s no such thing as a loose jacket.

You are trying to manipulate what Lawende said to fit your theory. And DON’T say “well he said that he had the appearance of a sailor” because we know that. But he in absolutely no way connected this with the jacket he was wearing. It’s an assumption on your part completely disregarding other types of clothing. And even if he had resembled a sailor in some way (at night across a street and in a brief look) this doesn’t in any way mean that he WAS a sailor anymore than me putting on a grey mackintosh would entitle you to call me Columbo!!

Oh, I almost forgot……..THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LOOSE JACKET.

Now do me just one favour. Go and talk about this to someone else because I’m losing the will to live.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Nope. It’s an khaki canvas type which is much too big for me and so can certainly be described as a loose jacket.

That's irrelevant.

I have provided illustrations of 13 sailor's monkey jackets, all of which are unbuttoned and loose at the front.

I have also provided excerpts from two writers describing loose sailor's monkey jackets.

Lawende said that the man had the appearance of a sailor and wore a loose jacket.

I have suggested that the suspect was wearing a monkey jacket, loose and unbuttoned at the front.

It is not a matter, as you put it, of finding someone who agrees with me.

It is obviously a reasonable hypothesis.

But a reasonable hypothesis is to you like a red rag to a bull.

You have to shoot it down.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Is it a sailor's waist-length monkey jacket, with its fronts so far apart that they can hardly be buttoned up?

Nope. It’s an khaki canvas type which is much too big for me and so can certainly be described as a loose jacket.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

200% wrong.

I have a loose jacket.

Describe it to me.

Is it a sailor's waist-length monkey jacket, with its fronts so far apart that they can hardly be buttoned up?