Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Witness Testimony: Albert Cadosche

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

  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    I think the last few pages have been interesting, drunken brawl tendency denials and the like, but Ive seen UK and European (Football) Soccer matches. Everyone, every ethnicity, can and do and did engage in drunken brawls. It has to do with alcohol problems and/or immaturity, not ethnicity.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bridewell
    replied
    A minor bugbear. I know the press spelt it phonetically as Cadoche back in the day but the name of the witness is Cadosch (Charles Albert Cadosch).

    Leave a comment:


  • PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1
    replied
    Originally posted by Fiver View Post

    That statement is useless for determining the ethnicity or religion of the killer.

    I agree.

    I have always thought it is quite wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fiver
    replied
    Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post
    May I ask you, Herlock, whether you agree with the following statement:

    A very large percentage of that local population was Jewish; therefore the odds on the killer being Jewish must roughly equal that percentage of the population.
    That statement is useless for determining the ethnicity or religion of the killer.

    Leave a comment:


  • PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1
    replied
    I do not agree with that statement, either, and I would not assume that the murderer was a long-term local resident either.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Any reason for the mysterious one word response?

    Leave a comment:


  • PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1
    replied
    Splendid.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post
    May I ask you, Herlock, whether you agree with the following statement:

    A very large percentage of that local population was Jewish; therefore the odds on the killer being Jewish must roughly equal that percentage of the population.
    No I wouldn’t. I don’t assume that the killer was a local man for a start although he certainly could have been.

    Leave a comment:


  • PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1
    replied
    May I ask you, Herlock, whether you agree with the following statement:

    A very large percentage of that local population was Jewish; therefore the odds on the killer being Jewish must roughly equal that percentage of the population.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    I really can’t see why this point is pursued as it’s the actions of an individual that we are interested in and not a group as a whole. So we can’t say that an individual Jew was unlikely to have been involved in a drunken brawl or attack but we can possibly say that as a general rule the Jewish community were less likely than the gentile community to have been involved in one. Fine. But where does that get us? It gets us exactly nowhere because there’s absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that an individual Jewish man could not have behaved in such a way.

    There are other points that we have to bear in mind too. For example, far more incidents of a drunken brawls would have gone unrecorded and unreported than those that did. So this could potentially distort someone’s viewpoint. Jews may also have had more of a tendency to band together (the Berner Street club for example) so any incidents of drunkeness might have been confined and dealt with internally and without the police getting involved. A final, and obvious point, is that things that would otherwise have been considered by everyone as ‘unlikely’ happen every minute of every day.

    We don’t know who the killer was or wasn't therefore we can’t exonerate or name as unlikely any member of a particular religion or ethnicity. To try and do so serves no purpose and benefits no investigation of the case.
    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 11-21-2023, 09:59 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1
    replied
    Since I have not participated in the last 14 posts on this thread, and am not commenting on a certain police officer nor on a certain alleged suspect, may I quote the following observations of contemporaries, which I believe are very pertinent to the foregoing discussion.


    During the whole time I had charge there I never saw a drunken Jew. I always found them industrious, and good fellows to live among.

    (Inspector Edmund Reid,
    Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, 4th February, 1912)

    Drunkenness, however, is an offence all but unknown. The Jews of London are among the best fathers, sons, and husbands in the metropolis. They are a most affectionate, home-staying, sober people...

    (Dickens's Dictionary of London, by Charles Dickens, Jr., 1879)

    'Jews rarely get drunk,' said Inspector Barker of the Bethnal Green Division.

    (The Booth Collection: B352/ 63)

    Jews drink very little in the public houses

    (The Booth Collection: B351/ 87-88)

    The case of a drunken Jew is scarcely known. The name of a drunken Jew is scarcely ever found in the police sheet.

    (London Jewish Chronicle, July 1868)

    Alcohol was a fundamental cultural difference between Jews and gentiles. In a country with a profound drinking culture, and in a part of the city that became notorious in the late 19th century for overtly displaying the ills of alcoholism, Jewish sobriety was noticeable.
    Pubs were gentile spaces.




    One fact that went un-noticed, or at least un-remarked on, by the alienists and the more xenophobic elements of the press, was the fact that by and large when the Jewish immigrants moved into a neighbourhood they tended to have a remarkably civilising effect on their surroundings. Social workers, reformers and even the police were quick to observe how an influx of Jews into a particular neighbourhood would soon raise the standards and behaviour in some of the worst parts of London. Streets and blocks, notorious for violence and crime, became comparatively well behaved after Jewish families moved in...

    A look at how the Jewish immigration of the 1880's had caused resentment amongst the indiginous East Enders.


    Sir Robert talks of the "Lighter Side" of his Official Life. There is nothing "light" here ; a heavier indictment could not be framed against a class whose conduct contrasts most favourably with that of the Gentile population of the Metropolis.

    (Sir Henry Smith, From Constable to Commissioner, Chapter XVI: Of the Ripper and his deeds-and of the criminal investigator, Sir Robert Anderson)

    In his report to the Select Committee on immigration, the superintendent of the police in Whitechapel division noted that most crimes [committed by foreigners] were of a relatively minor nature.

    (Kevin Lally; Select Committee: Emigration and Immigration, pp.43-45)

    Of course it must not be thought there were no decent honest folk in Whitechapel and Spitalfields. There were plenty of them. Foreign Jews never giving any trouble, prosperous furriers, Spitalfields silk weavers - all these were law-abiding citizens.

    (Detective Chief Inspector Walter Dew)

    The Jew predominates in the neighbourhood where I am and have been residing for years, but not withstanding the crimes committed by the members of our so-called Christian race average at least 99 percent in excess of those imputed to the Jews.

    (P. C. George Henry Hutt, published in the Evening News on 11 September 1888)
    Last edited by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1; 11-21-2023, 09:01 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fleetwood Mac
    replied
    Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

    No it is not sections of British working class custom. I am British working class and I like a drink at weekends as do my friends , yet we have not caused trouble and probably never will . It is not sections it is a small minority of any class.

    John Pizer was a man of Polish Jew heritage . He is more than likely to have been Leather apron who was alleged to have roughed certain women up. He is likely to be John Pozer who in 1887 stabbed James Willis in the hand, and he is likely to have been the John Pizer who was going to be charged with indecent assault Aug 88 before the charges were dropped.

    Does this mean sections of people with Jewish heritage were dangerous ? Of course not . But to my mind dismissing someone because of their colour , religion, or nationality is like shutting the door on people who may be suspects.
    When I was growing up, fighting and drinking (when old enough) was very much a part of working class existence.

    Either way, we're swapping anecdotes. Getting back to the article:

    Crimes of violence were exceptional; policemen were not at risk in the ghetto. Police involvement with the Jewish community was affected as much by administrative arrangements as by considerations of crime.

    It was the singularity of Jewish culture and customs that was most striking. The newcomers, though quarrelsome and noisy, were essentially private people not much given to brawling and boozing or the lower forms of street life.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

    No it is not sections of British working class custom. I am British working class and I like a drink at weekends as do my friends , yet we have not caused trouble and probably never will . It is not sections it is a small minority of any class.

    John Pizer was a man of Polish Jew heritage . He is more than likely to have been Leather apron who was alleged to have roughed certain women up. He is likely to be John Pozer who in 1887 stabbed James Willis in the hand, and he is likely to have been the John Pizer who was going to be charged with indecent assault Aug 88 before the charges were dropped.

    Does this mean sections of people with Jewish heritage were dangerous ? Of course not . But to my mind dismissing someone because of their colour , religion, or nationality is like shutting the door on people who may be suspects.
    Exactly Darryl. I find it strange that it can be claimed that drinking and fighting is apparently a British custom because clearly the overwhelmingly vast majority of the population have either abandoned or disregarded it. I would like to see a comparison between how many citizens fight after a drink compared to how many people in the country smoke weed? I’d suggest that the latter would be the far, far larger group. So does this entitled to call weed-smoking a British custom? I don’t know about you Darryl but I’d say ‘no.’

    It’s also the case that have to consider the individual as opposed to a group unless we are suggesting some kind of hive mentality. I don’t know why it’s felt necessary to try and show that an individual Jew is somehow unlikely to have been guilty. How many Yorkshire lorry drivers turn out to have been serial killers?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View 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.
    The quote confirms what we already knew. That there was a problem with clocks being inaccurate and poorly synchronised in London in 1908. Therefore the same problem would have existed 20 years previous to that. But what has occurred is that opinions have been given on here that this wasn’t the case. Those opinions have been shown to have been incorrect. It’s not a case of going back around the houses it’s a matter of individuals accepting and acknowledging when they have been proved wrong.

    I won’t comment on your last two sentences as their intent is obvious.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darryl Kenyon
    replied
    Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

    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.
    No it is not sections of British working class custom. I am British working class and I like a drink at weekends as do my friends , yet we have not caused trouble and probably never will . It is not sections it is a small minority of any class.

    John Pizer was a man of Polish Jew heritage . He is more than likely to have been Leather apron who was alleged to have roughed certain women up. He is likely to be John Pozer who in 1887 stabbed James Willis in the hand, and he is likely to have been the John Pizer who was going to be charged with indecent assault Aug 88 before the charges were dropped.

    Does this mean sections of people with Jewish heritage were dangerous ? Of course not . But to my mind dismissing someone because of their colour , religion, or nationality is like shutting the door on people who may be suspects.
    Last edited by Darryl Kenyon; 11-21-2023, 01:18 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X