Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fleetwood Mac
    replied
    Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

    Who's custom is it a part of ?
    Sections of British working class custom.

    It remains the case today. Have a look 'round any town or city centre on a Friday or Saturday night and you will see all sorts of alcohol fueled, ridiculous behaviour.

    I thought the problems with alcohol during the Victorian period were widely understood. It is why there were temperance movements, parliamentary debates on the issue and church ministers taking their sermons into fields in an attempt to attract the attention of an unruly working class blighted by alcohol.

    It's all there in the article which draws upon contemporary sources. Those sources suggest that when it comes to public behaviour and drunkenness, the difference between Jewish behaviour and non Jewish behaviour was marked.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darryl Kenyon
    replied
    Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post


    The historical article gives you your answer: it was rare to find Jewish people drunk and brawling in the streets and they tell you the reason, which is that it wasn't a part of Jewish custom.
    Who's custom is it a part of ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Fleetwood Mac
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    What percentage of the gentile population would have actually indulged in drunken brawling as opposed to those who didn’t? Would it have been a large enough percentage to allow us to regard it as some kind of trait?
    The articles are on this thread for you to read, posted within the last 4 pages or so.

    These are historical studies which draw upon contemporary sources.

    I don't think they give an exact percentage, but maybe I've missed it and so feel free to have a read and you may find an exact percentage.

    The historical article gives you your answer: it was rare to find Jewish people drunk and brawling in the streets and they tell you the reason, which is that it wasn't a part of Jewish custom.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fleetwood Mac
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    It's also noticeable that there has been no acknowledgment of post.
    I can't speak for other people, but I haven't read the post.

    The reason being that these are the same points and posts that people have argued several times on various other threads.

    There comes a point when you lose commitment to replying to the same points in a slightly different guise.

    You'd rather go back 'round the houses with the same points on clocks and the like, as opposed to discuss something which is newer and has important implications for witness testimony.

    I understand that. Personal preference and so on.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    The only reason that the ‘clock’ issue dragged on is because the obvious wasn’t accepted. Jeff’s posted quote has put to bed any suggestion about clocks were unlikely to have been inaccurate and poorly synchronised. It’s also noticeable that there has been no acknowledgment of post.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    What percentage of the gentile population would have actually indulged in drunken brawling as opposed to those who didn’t? Would it have been a large enough percentage to allow us to regard it as some kind of trait?

    Im quite happy to accept that Jews in general were less likely to engage in drunken brawling but I can’t see how this helps us in any way especially as we are talking about a serial killer?

    Leave a comment:


  • Fleetwood Mac
    replied
    Originally posted by Paddy Goose View Post

    The Cadosche witness thread. Why is the topic now totally different?
    Because posters would prefer to go 'round arguments that have been discussed many a time, e.g. clocks.

    That was evident long before PI got into the discussion points you mention.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fleetwood Mac
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Is it your belief that all individuals conform to the group beliefs and behavioural tendency's of their own ethnic or religious group? I’d suggest that the police would be more than happy if this was indeed the case and that they could simply eliminate suspects on the grounds of “well we know that German Catholics never do x.”

    These are the perils of generalisation.
    No, nobody suggested that all individuals conform to group behaviour. You're responding to a point that wasn't made.

    The point made was/is: in the event you have a group of people whose cultural habits dictate they do not behave in a certain manner in public, while another group of people's cultural habits do lend towards behaving that way in public; then the likelihood is that a drunken, brawling fella belongs to that group whose cultural habits accept that kind of behaviour.

    Not definite, not certain, but rather: likely.

    And of course, this isn't pie in the sky. We have contemporary sources from the age which tell us that Jewish customs and non-Jewish British working class customs were very much different in regard to street behaviour.

    It is about likelihood; it's not definite. There are rogue elements in any group of human beings and so it's not beyond the realms of possibility that a Jewish man would have a drunken brawl in the street, but it is unlikely that the man under discussion was Jewish simply because it was not an accepted part of Jewish custom; while it was an accepted part of non-Jewish British working class custom.

    I suppose it is 'generalising' in a fashion, but it is underpinned by historical, social studies and contemporary sources, and so there is solid basis for the likelihood that the man under discussion wasn't Jewish. 'Generalisation' in itself is not the negative you appear to think it is. In fact, it is an essential component of science given that we cannot sample an entire population.

    You appear to be arguing that because we have not considered any and every possible Jewish man of the age, then the historical social studies and contemporary sources are irrelevant to the question of whether or not a drunken, brawling man is likely to have been Jewish or otherwise.

    I reckon your logic is flawed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post

    .

    It was only many years later that police prejudice was shown - and by a retired policeman.

    He accused Kosminski of being a criminal and a murderer, without citing any evidence in support of his accusations.​
    But we have so much that is missing in this case including police records of interviews and the details of their investigations so isn’t it a bit of a leap to assume a motive of prejudice in the suggestion that they found Kosminski of interest?


    That suggests they were pursuing sailors rather than Jews.
    It’s also the case that the police tried to identify the three insane medical students so does this suggest that they were in any way focused on medical students?


    I’d always err on the side of caution when talking about the police; especially senior ones. It’s certainly worth considering issues of failing memory or of personal agenda in trying to portray themselves or their force in a more favourable light but I think we should be wary of going further. Over the years some have sought to portray them all either as either moustache-twirling villains or Colonel Blimp-types or as outright liars. I think we should consider a more rounded option. They were human and I think that we do ourselves no favours by just dismissing anything they say as exaggeration or lies… but that’s not to say that they couldn’t have guilty of both of course.

    Leave a comment:


  • PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1
    replied
    Originally posted by Paddy Goose View Post
    Oh, okay, so it's not you who is changing the subject of threads.

    Then please explain to me please how the subject got changed on this thread here. The Cadosche witness thread. Why is the topic now totally different? The thread has nothing to do with Cadosche now, nor the Chapman murder case for that matter.

    Why is the topic now Kosminski, Anderson and the Polish Jew suspect theory? How did that happen?


    Elamarna made a reference to Anderson in #806.

    I responded in # 813 by mentioning both Anderson and Kosminski.

    Abby Normal replied in # 817:

    Why couldn’t the man long saw be koz and also the ripper?

    ​I replied in # 818, to which Fiver replied in # 819, referring to both Long and Kosminski.

    I did the same in my reply in # 820.

    There were further exchanges between us and then the discussion turned to Schwartz, and then in #829, I suggested moving discussion of Schwartz to The Stride Murder, where I responded to posts by Jeff and Roger in # 1299 and # 1300 respectively.

    There then followed a long exchange, in which I was not involved, concerning the shouting of the insult 'Lipski!'

    I eventually joined a discussion about drunkenness and violence and ethnicity and whether the murderer could have been Jewish, and in the course of a post about the long history of Jews being wrongfully accused of murder and mutilation, I mentioned Anderson, as well as Long and the Hanbury Street murder, in # 860, before replying to HS's # 861, which mentioned Kosminski, in my # 863.

    I believe that answers your question.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paddy Goose
    replied
    Oh, okay, so it's not you who is changing the subject of threads.

    Then please explain to me please how the subject got changed on this thread here. The Cadosche witness thread. Why is the topic now totally different? The thread has nothing to do with Cadosche now, nor the Chapman murder case for that matter.

    Why is the topic now Kosminski, Anderson and the Polish Jew suspect theory? How did that happen?




    Leave a comment:


  • PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1
    replied
    Originally posted by Paddy Goose View Post
    I've noticed something. I've noticed something on this thread.

    Private Investigator I, you turn every thread on Casebook into a discussion of Kosminski and Anderson and the Polish Jew subject. You do this every time.

    Are you aware of what your are doing? They call this being "self aware." Are you "self aware" you are doing this? Turning every thread you post into a debate about Kosminski and Anderson and the Polish Jew suspect angle? Is this what you set out to do? Do you plan to do this every time?

    Because this is after all, a thread about Mr. Cadosche, a witness in the Chapman murder case.

    What say you PI one?


    What I say to that is that if you check my posting history, you will see that whenever someone has raised something about or asked me about something unrelated to Cadoche or the Hanbury Street murder, I have tried to get that discussion moved to a thread dealing specifically with that topic, e.g. 'The Stride Murder' and 'A photograph of Joseph Lawende'.

    Leave a comment:


  • PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1
    replied
    Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

    Just my view but Pizer [ failed ID, Violenia ] and Issemenchid [ attempted to be put on an ID, Mrs Fiddymont ] were suspected because well, they were reasonable persons of interest at that time. Not because of any creed, colour or nationality. Just like Sadler [ known to have been with Francis a few hours before she was murdered and had been in various fights/scuffles ], and Grainger [ stabbed Alice Graham who was a prostitute with a knife ], were. And not because of their profession.


    I agree.

    I did not mean literally that they were looking only for sailor suspects.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darryl Kenyon
    replied
    Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


    I am very glad you asked that question.

    There is no evidence that the police ever questioned or arrested Kosminski nor even that he was ever a suspect.

    They did arrest Piser following the Hanbury Street murder, when local feelings against the local Jewish population were running high, even though the officer who arrested him said: there is no evidence whatsoever against him.

    It is clear that the police investigation in general displayed no prejudice against Jews and I have never alleged that it did.

    It was only many years later that police prejudice was shown - and by a retired policeman.

    He accused Kosminski of being a criminal and a murderer, without citing any evidence in support of his accusations.

    No-one fitting the descriptions given by Long or Hutchinson seems ever to have turned up, but the police did try to get two Gentile sailors identified.

    That suggests they were pursuing sailors rather than Jews.
    Just my view but Pizer [ failed ID, Violenia ] and Issemenchid [ attempted to be put on an ID, Mrs Fiddymont ] were suspected because well, they were reasonable persons of interest at that time. Not because of any creed, colour or nationality. Just like Sadler [ known to have been with Francis a few hours before she was murdered and had been in various fights/scuffles ], and Grainger [ stabbed Alice Graham who was a prostitute with a knife ], were. And not because of their profession.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paddy Goose
    replied
    I've noticed something. I've noticed something on this thread.

    Private Investigator I, you turn every thread on Casebook into a discussion of Kosminski and Anderson and the Polish Jew subject. You do this every time.

    Are you aware of what your are doing? They call this being "self aware." Are you "self aware" you are doing this? Turning every thread you post into a debate about Kosminski and Anderson and the Polish Jew suspect angle? Is this what you set out to do? Do you plan to do this every time?

    Because this is after all, a thread about Mr. Cadosche, a witness in the Chapman murder case.

    What say you PI one?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X