Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - by etenguy 1 hour and 12 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - by etenguy 1 hour and 23 minutes ago.
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - by Steadmund Brand 1 hour and 27 minutes ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by Spitfire 3 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 7 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Fisherman 8 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (16 posts)
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - (11 posts)
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - (11 posts)
Elizabeth Stride: Elizabeth's murder and the double event - (5 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (3 posts)
Thompson, Francis: Francis Thompson. The Perfect Suspect. - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Witnesses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 06-09-2016, 11:56 PM
lynn cates lynn cates is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 13,841
Default details

Hello All. Perhaps information was withheld in case a later witness should emerge? Then, if details should coincide . . .

Cheers.
LC
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-10-2016, 02:35 AM
CommercialRoadWanderer CommercialRoadWanderer is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 50
Default

But, if i'm not wrong, even the testimony of Hutchinson was kept secret because the police feared that the killer could have modified his appearence upon reading about it.

If Lawende's testimony about a sailor was "silenced" the reason may be exactly the same: the cops were going to check the boats and they did not want to possibly alarm the murder and prompt him to run.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-10-2016, 12:13 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CommercialRoadWanderer View Post
But, if i'm not wrong, even the testimony of Hutchinson was kept secret because the police feared that the killer could have modified his appearence upon reading about it.

If Lawende's testimony about a sailor was "silenced" the reason may be exactly the same: the cops were going to check the boats and they did not want to possibly alarm the murder and prompt him to run.
How can you know it was about a sailor when he did not say anything in the court room?

Regards, Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-10-2016, 12:24 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,932
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
How can you know it was about a sailor when he did not say anything in the court room?
We know that Lawende believed that the man he saw "Looked like a sailor" because we have Swanson's notes of Lawende's evidence.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-10-2016, 12:28 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
We know that Lawende believed that the man he saw "Looked like a sailor" because we have Swanson's notes of Lawende's evidence.
We do not know what Lawende believed. We do not have a primary source for that. And Swanson worked for the police.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-10-2016, 12:39 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,932
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
We do not know what Lawende believed. We do not have a primary source for that. And Swanson worked for the police.
If you prefer Pierre, we know what Lawende said. Swanson's notes are a primary source.

You were happy to believe Swanson when he said the writing on the wall was "blurred". If he was lying about what Lawende said, why couldn't he have been lying about the writing on the wall being blurred?
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-10-2016, 01:20 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
If you prefer Pierre, we know what Lawende said. Swanson's notes are a primary source.

You were happy to believe Swanson when he said the writing on the wall was "blurred". If he was lying about what Lawende said, why couldn't he have been lying about the writing on the wall being blurred?
Swanson´s notes are not a primary source for the statements of Lawende but a secondary source since he is referring to the City Police for the statements of Lawende. So there is no reason to think that he is lying. He is merely referring to others (Evans & Skinner, p. 138).

The source for the blurred text is a totally different source. And Swanson had no motive for lying about the text when he stated that it was blurred. There is no source indicating he did.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-10-2016, 01:27 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,932
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Swanson´s notes are not a primary source for the statements of Lawende but a secondary source since he is referring to the City Police for the statements of Lawende. So there is no reason to think that he is lying. He is merely referring to others (Evans & Skinner, p. 138).
Swanson's notes are a primary source Pierre. As you know, he was provided with all the relevant documentation at the time.

You now seem to be accepting that Swanson derived his information from the statement of Lawende. That being so, Lawende said that the man he saw "Looked like a sailor".

So that answers your earlier question: "How can you know it was about a sailor when he did not say anything in the court room?".

Job done.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-10-2016, 01:37 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Swanson's notes are a primary source Pierre. As you know, he was provided with all the relevant documentation at the time.

You now seem to be accepting that Swanson derived his information from the statement of Lawende. That being so, Lawende said that the man he saw "Looked like a sailor".

So that answers your earlier question: "How can you know it was about a sailor when he did not say anything in the court room?".

Job done.
You do not understand the difference between a primary and secondary source, David. And still you say "he was provided with...".

Lawende himself did not provide him with any "relevant documentation".

And you do not know if any written statement from Lawende was given to him, even if he was supposed to have all relevant documentation. That is normative history. But you do not know if the norm was fulfilled. That is the problem with normative sources.

Sorry, David, but if the hypothesis is that Lawende was not allowed to talk about another type of dress, his statement will have a tendency, and then it doesn´t matter what source you refer to here. It will be like believing that Arnold saw another type of man than the type of man he stated he saw at first. The earliest sources are the most important.

But Swanson referred to the City Police and not to Lawende. He also said: "In this case I understand from City police..." so he gives the reference.

Regards, Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-10-2016, 02:09 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,932
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
You do not understand the difference between a primary and secondary source,
I'm terribly sorry Pierre but it is you who does not understand what a primary source is for a historian. This is a little surprising considering you are a renowned historian.

For ease of reference, I'm going to take the definition from the first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry on 'Primary Source'. This states (with my underlining and bold):

'In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. Similar definitions are used in library science, and other areas of scholarship, although different fields have somewhat different definitions.[1] In journalism, a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document written by such a person.'

So you see Pierre you are (as you always do) getting into a muddle between three things (1) primary and secondary sources of information for a historian (2) sources of information for a journalist and (3) direct and second-hand or hearsay evidence in a court of law.

So we have Swanson's notes which are a primary source. And in the notes I am referring to, he does not say "In this case I understand from City police..." which suggests you are not aware of the document I mean (although Paddy referred to it in #12, albeit with a slightly inaccurate transcription).

The simple fact is that we have a newspaper report saying that the man seen looked like a sailor and we have an official primary source by the Chief Inspector in overall charge of the investigation into the murders at Scotland Yard who tells us that Lawende's evidence was that the man he saw looked like a sailor.

In the absence of direct evidence from Lawende himself (which we know was not given at the inquest at the request of the city solicitor), and his witness statement (which is missing) we can hardly do much better than this.

The short point is that it perfectly answers your question as to how we know that Lawende thought (or "said" if you prefer) that the man looked like a sailor.

Unless you have any evidence to the contrary showing that Lawende did not think the man looked like a sailor there is not much point in continuing the discussion is there?
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.