Lawende was silenced

[Pierre]

Pierre

anything Lawende said was unimportant, you said so yourself, why then is there a need to silence him?.

I posted this in much fuller detail in post 18 of this thread which you of course completely ignored.

steve

Hi Steve,

thanks for reminding me!

He was not significant/important in relation to the hypothesis about Levy. That is what I mean.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

The only way that Lawende was silenced by the authorities was his being sequestered prior to the Inquiry. They obviously didn't want him talking to the press beforehand.

Hi Michael,

What is the source for that?

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;384545]

Bit strange don't you think, this city solicitor doing the cover-up and "silencing" the witness in open court, in full view and hearing of the press?

Yes, David, it is strange, actually remarkable, that they did so in the court room and therefore it must have been very important.

What was to stop the reporters tracking Lawende down and asking him what the man he saw looked like? Answer: Nothing.

And still there is no sources where he has been tracked down and where he answers the question. There can be only one or two reasons for this.

Conclusion: No cover-up, no-one was silenced.

Conclusion: Silence before the inquest, at the inquest the evidence of the witness was withheld, silence after the inquest.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Yes, David, it is strange, actually remarkable, that they did so in the court room and therefore it must have been very important.

I'm sure it was important otherwise the city solicitor would not have made the request. You haven't actually addressed the point I was making which is that the city solicitor is hardly likely to have attempted to silence a witness in front of the press if there was any kind of fear about what he would say.

And let me ask you this. Is it seriously your contention that, despite having mentioned a peaked cap, if Lawende had gone on to give his testimony about the man's dress he would have described a police officer?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;384592]

I'm sure it was important otherwise the city solicitor would not have made the request. You haven't actually addressed the point I was making which is that the city solicitor is hardly likely to have attempted to silence a witness in front of the press if there was any kind of fear about what he would say.

Postulating an hypothesis about fear I hear. A feeling. That is not a testable hypothesis. We can not know anything about that.

And let me ask you this. Is it seriously your contention that, despite having mentioned a peaked cap, if Lawende had gone on to give his testimony about the man's dress he would have described a police officer?

History does not work that way. It does not answer questions as to what would have happened if or if not. It is unhistorical to do so. What would have happened if Stride had been mutilated? What had happened if Prater had been killed?

Who knows. It did not happen.

We must perform the external source criticism and ask about the function of the source to understand them. There are two events in the whole case where witnesses gave the same type of statement but changed their testimony as soon as they came to the court room or to the police - Lechmere and Arnold. In the middle of those is Lawende and his silence.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

thanks for reminding me!

He was not significant/important in relation to the hypothesis about Levy. That is what I mean.

Regards, Pierre

No Pierre

that is not what you said

be honest with yourself

shame

steve

[jerryd]

There are two events in the whole case where witnesses gave the same type of statement but changed their testimony as soon as they came to the court room or to the police - Lechmere and Arnold. In the middle of those is Lawende and his silence.

Regards, Pierre

There are more than two. The McKenzie case had all kinds of it, for example. Some of it is accounted for by the varying inquest reports in different newspapers available to us. Some of it, not.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

thanks for reminding me!

He was not significant/important in relation to the hypothesis about Levy. That is what I mean.

Regards, Pierre

we were not discussing levy,

The posts involved were in the thread Ripper facts, and were in response to Craigs comments about reliable identification.


In addition you said that Lawende was a witness to the Stride murder.

i despair sometimes

Steven

[Pierre]

we were not discussing levy,

The posts involved were in the thread Ripper facts, and were in response to Craigs comments about reliable identification.


In addition you said that Lawende was a witness to the Stride murder.

i despair sometimes

Steven

Hi Steve,

There must be some misunderstanding here. Which post is it?

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

There are more than two. The McKenzie case had all kinds of it, for example. Some of it is accounted for by the varying inquest reports in different newspapers available to us. Some of it, not.

Hi Jerry,

I haven´t been looking much into the McKenzie case. Are you speaking of some tendency?

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

we were not discussing levy,

The posts involved were in the thread Ripper facts, and were in response to Craigs comments about reliable identification.


In addition you said that Lawende was a witness to the Stride murder.

i despair sometimes

Steven

Hi Steve,

Found it! Wrote Stride, should of course have been Eddowes.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Found it! Wrote Stride, should of course have been Eddowes.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre

You can see we were not talking about Levy, although it is possible that the name levy was mentioned in one of the various posts, A man of that name being one of lawendes companions that night,

As you can see the thread at that point was discussing who was a reliable witness, Craig suggested PC Smith and lawende, to which you replied.
we were not as I am sure you can see discussing Levy or any hypotheses about him.

you and I certainly did discuss him on another thread, but I do not believe we were doing so with regards to Smith or Lawende possibly identifying him.



steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;384603]

Pierre

You can see we were not talking about Levy, although it is possible that the name levy was mentioned in one of the various posts, A man of that name being one of lawendes companions that night,

As you can see the thread at that point was discussing who was a reliable witness, Craig suggested PC Smith and lawende, to which you replied.
we were not as I am sure you can see discussing Levy or any hypotheses about him.

you and I certainly did discuss him on another thread, but I do not believe we were doing so with regards to Smith or Lawende possibly identifying him.

Hi Steve,

I see. I thought it was about our discussion about Levy. But I see that I have been sloppy in my writing so I apologize for that. And I am sorry if I have disappointed you in any way (more than usual!).

Kind regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;384604]

Hi Steve,

I see. I thought it was about our discussion about Levy. But I see that I have been sloppy in my writing so I apologize for that. And I am sorry if I have disappointed you in any way (more than usual!).

Kind regards, Pierre

Pierre

thank you. we all make mistakes.

Steve

[David Orsam]

History does not work that way.

History certainly does work that way Pierre. Lawende obviously had evidence to give about the dress of the man he saw. I am asking you if your argument is that his evidence was (or would have been) that the man he saw was dressed as a police officer. What is your answer?