A little help with nothing, please

[David Orsam]

Pierre avoiding answering a specific question? Pierre disappearing when a glaring inconsistency in his vaunted logic is pointed out?

Where has he gone? I do hope he is OK.

In fairness to him, he did answer this question in another thread. He said that he only realised the significance of Lawende's evidence after he found the newspaper report which said he had been asked not to testify about the dress of the man he saw.

Clearly, this discovery got him very excited, thinking that Lawende was silenced because the man he saw was dressed in police uniform (he ignores the fact that Lawende said the man was wearing a peaked hat) but unfortunately he was unaware of the solid evidence revealing that Lawende would only have said that he saw a man who looked like a sailor.

[Henry Flower]

I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!

[QUOTE=Elamarna;384569]

Pierre,

No one silenced, a very brief description was given, the Jury were then asked if they wanted details, they said no.

Why silence a witness who has seen nothing of any significance, you made it very clear that Lawende was unimportant:




I raised this issue with you in the thread "Lawende was silenced" post #18, which you completely ignored.

Rather than repost the whole post, just the final question.:






Steve

Pierre avoiding answering a specific question? Pierre disappearing when a glaring inconsistency in his vaunted logic is pointed out?

Where has he gone? I do hope he is OK.

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;384529]

and that there is evidence for the witness having been silenced in the courtroom.[/B]

Pierre,

No one silenced, a very brief description was given, the Jury were then asked if they wanted details, they said no.

Why silence a witness who has seen nothing of any significance, you made it very clear that Lawende was unimportant:

The statements of Smith and Lawende are not significant if you ask me.

Kind regards, Pierre

I raised this issue with you in the thread "Lawende was silenced" post #18, which you completely ignored.

Rather than repost the whole post, just the final question.:

Therefore I have to ask, if less than a month ago you were saying how unimportant Lawendes description was, how does it now become a matter so important it is official silenced in your view?

Steve

[David Orsam]

"Own personal use"? No. The source is produced within the police organization.

The note was not circulated. It was prepared by Swanson for him to compare the different descriptions of the murderer.

We have no idea of what "Swanson believed"!

Of course we do. You are being utterly ridiculous. If Swanson wrote in a note for his own purposes that Lawende said the man looked like a sailor we can be 100% confident that he belived this to be what Lawende said.

Even if he had "all the information", what evidence is there that "all the information" is correct and that everything that Swanson said was true?

Swanson is not going to be lying to himself. Use critical analysis Pierre! There is no reason to suppose that Swanson had misunderstood Lawende's evidence. He was tasked by Sir Charles Warren to see all the information in the case and he is a high quality source. Unless you have any reason to say that the man Lawende saw did not look like a sailor what is the point of your argument?

And you must treat this case in itīs own context. Each newspaper and each police source must be analysed individually and compared.

Please don't keep telling me what I "must" do Pierre, especially when you seem to be clueless. I know how to analyse information.

You bring is up again and I have already answered you. It is not a matter of suitable sources but a matter of tendency and hypothesis. If the hypothesis is A2, the tendency is a1 - and can therefore not be B1. I am trying to tell you that must treat each source individually when you are dealing with idiographic history. You can not take 1 or 2 sources and generalize from them. It is not an issue of nomothetic history, where you see structures going through the whole police force. The issue of withholding information about the manīs dress is only relevant to a few police officials. You do not even know if Swanson had that information, since the source for him having all information is normative.

As usual, when you find yourself with nothing sensible to say, you resort to long-winded meaningless gibberish and waffle.

I do not agree with you and there is no evidence for a sailor as a reason for withholding information from the public for operational reasons.

A strangely worded sentence. The evidence is that the man Lawende saw looked like a sailor. Given that the city solicitor wanted this evidence withheld, using critical analysis we can conclude that there were operational reasons for the police not wanting this information in the public domain.

[Henry Flower]

"It is not a matter of suitable sources but a matter of tendency and hypothesis. If the hypothesis is A2, the tendency is a1 - and can therefore not be B1. I am trying to tell you that must treat each source individually when you are dealing with idiographic history"

Pierre, are you being paid by the word? I've never encountered anyone else here who has posted so many words but actually said so little.

You never risk sharing anything that could be tested and disproved. All you ever do is ask people questions then fault the methodology of their answers, often unfairly. You offer entirely abstract conceptual prescriptions such as the gibberish above, then you retreat into evasions when asked questions yourself. You've done the same thing on thread after thread.

Show some balls, Pierre.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;384534]

So let's do some critical thinking then Pierre.

The note in which Chief Inspector Swanson recorded that Lawende said the man he saw "looked like a sailor" is a note that Swanson produced for his own personal use, not for public consumption or propaganda.

"Own personal use"? No. The source is produced within the police organization.

So using critical thinking I would conclude (a) that Swanson believed that this is what Lawende said

We have no idea of what "Swanson believed"!

and (b) that because Swanson had access to all the information in the case it was actually what Lawende said.

The historical fact that the norm was that Swanson should have all the information is not an historical fact of him having this. Even if he had "all the information", what evidence is there that "all the information" is correct and that everything that Swanson said was true? The hypothesis in this case is built on sources from the inquest, where the police do NOT give the same information as the newspapers. And you must treat this case in itīs own context. Each newspaper and each police source must be analysed individually and compared.

I also recall that you rely on Swanson's information as accurate when it suits you, such as when he noted in a different report that the writing on the wall was blurred.

You bring is up again and I have already answered you. It is not a matter of suitable sources but a matter of tendency and hypothesis. If the hypothesis is A2, the tendency is a1 - and can therefore not be B1. I am trying to tell you that must treat each source individually when you are dealing with idiographic history. You can not take 1 or 2 sources and generalize from them. It is not an issue of nomothetic history, where you see structures going through the whole police force. The issue of withholding information about the manīs dress is only relevant to a few police officials. You do not even know if Swanson had that information, since the source for him having all information is normative.

Continuing our critical thinking, we know from Lawende's deposition that the man he saw was wearing a peaked cap. This is consistent with him being a sailor but not consistent with him being a police officer (which is presumably what you are trying to get at).

We could construct a thread on that issue and discuss it separately. I will try to come back to this.

Our critical thinking leads us to the clear conclusion that Lawende saw a man who looked like a sailor and he was not silenced but, with the agreement of the jury, this information was withheld from the public for operational reasons.

I do not agree with you and there is no evidence for a sailor as a reason for withholding information from the public for operational reasons.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

How comforting to hear that you believe the good old police in 1888, in spite of the fact that the source is late, that this late source is produced by the police itself (!) and that there is evidence for the witness having been silenced in the courtroom.

For a long time there was the idea that the Germans had no idea of what was going on in the death camps.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/feb/17/johnezard

So lots of people are made to believe the most unbelievable things.

Therefore I recommend that you try some critical thinking, David.

So let's do some critical thinking then Pierre.

The note in which Chief Inspector Swanson recorded that Lawende said the man he saw "looked like a sailor" is a note that Swanson produced for his own personal use, not for public consumption or propaganda. So using critical thinking I would conclude (a) that Swanson believed that this is what Lawende said and (b) that because Swanson had access to all the information in the case it was actually what Lawende said.

I also recall that you rely on Swanson's information as accurate when it suits you, such as when he noted in a different report that the writing on the wall was blurred.

Continuing our critical thinking, we know from Lawende's deposition that the man he saw was wearing a peaked cap. This is consistent with him being a sailor but not consistent with him being a police officer (which is presumably what you are trying to get at).

Our critical thinking leads us to the clear conclusion that Lawende saw a man who looked like a sailor and he was not silenced but, with the agreement of the jury, this information was withheld from the public for operational reasons.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;384522]

With the agreement of the jury, certain information was not made public by Lawende. We know that it was no more than that he thought that the man he saw looked like a sailor, hence of no great signficance.

How comforting to hear that you believe the good old police in 1888, in spite of the fact that the source is late, that this late source is produced by the police itself (!) and that there is evidence for the witness having been silenced in the courtroom.

For a long time there was the idea that the Germans had no idea of what was going on in the death camps.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/feb/17/johnezard

So lots of people are made to believe the most unbelievable things.

Therefore I recommend that you try some critical thinking, David.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=DJA;384521]

Your source!

No, DJA, either you try to mislead people here by giving the wrong quotation, or you did not manage the quotation function.

What I quoted and commented on was this:

"and one eyewitness with a description of the suspect was told not to give evidence on that matter."

You find the sources for that historical fact in my thread "Lawende was silenced".

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

And also in my opinion the man seen asking Blenkingsopp about the couple was likely a plan clothes detective. Risky for the actual killer to interact with other people like this for fear of acting suspicious.

He could not have been worrying about being recognized if he did.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

[QUOTE=Pierre;384518]

Yes, that is an historical fact.

With the agreement of the jury, certain information was not made public by Lawende. We know that it was no more than that he thought that the man he saw looked like a sailor, hence of no great signficance.

[DJA]

[QUOTE=Pierre;384518]

I mean the official legal record - the inquests. Some obvious witnesses were not called,

Yes, that is an historical fact.

Regards, Pierre

Your source!

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=TTaylor;384207]I mean the official legal record - the inquests. Some obvious witnesses were not called,

and one eyewitness with a description of the suspect was told not to give evidence on that matter.

Yes, that is an historical fact.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

I mean the official legal record - the inquests. Some obvious witnesses were not called, and one eyewitness with a description of the suspect was told not to give evidence on that matter.

But the inquests were not "the official legal record". An inquest had a specific legal purpose and not every piece of information or evidence relating to the murders would be, or needed to be, mentioned at the hearing. You seem to think that every single fact needed to be produced at an inquest so that it was thereby placed on "the official legal record". You are quite wrong to think this so no wonder you believe there was something funny going on.

[DJA]

I mentioned in another thread the Rose and Crown coffee shop. It was located on Houndsditch and IIRC near a little cross street that headed directly into St James square. I believe the cross street was Little Duke-street if not mistaken.

Possibly near where Eddowes left Kelly.
Would account for her fire engine imitations,the fire station in St. James Square being upgraded at the time.
She would have taken the alley straight into Mitre Square.
That was ~ 2 pm.

Next thing we know she is drunk in front of upstairs The Bull Inn, reputedly a police frequented establishment.
Same publican that ran the hotel where Abberline had his retirement party,with Mary Kelly's last landlord and son in attendance.