Lawende was silenced

[Elamarna]

G'day Steve

You sure there is any

one has to be charitable, after all the data is not 100% clear to say there is none

Steve

[GUT]

Pierre

Why do you not address the issue of the apparent hypocrisy in many of the post on this thread?

The raison d'etre, regarding not naming a suspect, over the last year has been, it is morally wrong to accuse someone of a crime unless there is tangible data to support such a claim.

It seems that the data is still not clear enough at present to allow the killer to be named.

On the other hand, it is, it seems perfectly acceptable to accuse others, using the same sources which are not clear, of committing serious crimes, up to and including a conspiracy not only to let the killer go free, but to allow him to carry on committing murders.


I have repeatedly over the last two days requested a response on this issue, to allow me to attempt to understand why the applying of such apparent double standards is viewed as acceptable.

There has been no attempt to answer.

Such an issue could seriously undermine the integrity of much which has been posted in the last year.




Steve

G'day Steve

You sure there is any

[Elamarna]

Pierre

Why do you not address the issue of the apparent hypocrisy in many of the post on this thread?

The raison d'etre, regarding not naming a suspect, over the last year has been, it is morally wrong to accuse someone of a crime unless there is tangible data to support such a claim.

It seems that the data is still not clear enough at present to allow the killer to be named.

On the other hand, it is, it seems perfectly acceptable to accuse others, using the same sources which are not clear, of committing serious crimes, up to and including a conspiracy not only to let the killer go free, but to allow him to carry on committing murders.


I have repeatedly over the last two days requested a response on this issue, to allow me to attempt to understand why the applying of such apparent double standards is viewed as acceptable.

There has been no attempt to answer.

Such an issue could seriously undermine the integrity of much which has been posted in the last year.




Steve

[GUT]

I'm certain that you won't find "that last bit of evidence" so we should probably have the discussion now. But what I think will happen is that you will disappear from this forum never to be heard of again - because I don't see you as someone who is prepared to admit he is wrong.

That will be a red letter day for sure.

[GUT]

Does that mean that if you don't find "the last bit of evidence" you won't be telling us anything?

And remember when Pierre the scientist appeared here about a year ago he was weeks at most away from that last piece of data, now he has morphed into Pierre the Historian he may never find it, guess it just goes to show scientists are better than historians and Pierre should have stayed a scientist, it'd be done by now.

Can't recall how long Pierre the Sociologist was going to take.

[Elamarna]

You can not generalize from yourself. It is not valid.

It is not for you to say what is and what is not valid my friend.

Notes on texts in theoretical books or research articles in the 21st Century are not comparable to a note from the life of a police officer who was working with the Whitechapel murder case in 1888.

Swanson did not need (!) to remind himself. He was there. You were not in Egypt in the time of the Pharaohs.

Many make notes in political diaries and autobiographies, it is the exactly the same as making notes in Anderson's autobiography and thus are indeed comparable.

Swanson was commenting on an alleged identification he was not present at.

Did Swanson reinforce his own idea that Kosminsky as the killer?

We have no idea!

Swanson never said anywhere that he believed Kosminski was the killer! Only that the person allegedly identified by a witness as the killer was called Kosminski.

If he did reinforce his own idea, what exactly was the motive?

See above

Did Swanson correct himself?

If he did, what exactly was the motive?

Did Swanson give an alternative view for himsef?

If he did, what exactly was the motive?

I gave possible reasons to make notes/annotations,
It seems you are resorting to using every word posted and asking for examples.

That really is a very poor attempt at diversion and fails completely.


All Swanson appears to have done is to add the name of the suspect identified at the seaside home, information he must therefore have know.

I repeat he never says kosminski was the killer only that he was the man identified by a witness.

He is adding to the section in Anderson's book dealing with the ripper, and please note it is only one section of the book, which gives vague details of an identification but gives no name or location for the id.

Because academics position themselves in relation to hundreds of other researchers. In relation to whom did Swanson position himself? And what was the motive?

To himself, no more no less.

I know academics who having made notes on a paper never look at them again, it is done for their own use or enjoyment.
Swanson did the same.

What a stupid thing to say. You are the one who is making erroneous statements when you compare academical notes to the notes of a police officer from the Whitechapel murders in 1888.

You can not even discern between different types of historical sources, Steve.

It is not a stupid thing to say, and the reply just reinforces my view.

I am certainly not making erroneous statements.

None of the statements I make are intentional disingenuous, and when I make a mistake, or am provably wrong, I Always put my hands up and say so, some it appears cannot do that.



regards


Steve

[Elamarna]

Of course I do, Steve.

It appears you do not, as you do not understand what perverting the course of justice means, the rest of your post clearly demonstrates that.,

And why is that a problem for you?

Like normal there is an attempt to mislead with regards to my reply.

No where do I say I have a problem with these name police officials committing a crime.
However my comments were in response to the claim, which is again repeated that they were not being accused of any crime, just acting like mates.
That was what post #631 was all about, trying to say the alleged actions in conspiring to protect the culprit was not a crime.


There is no problem for me, if they did carry out an act of conspiracy they did, and they should be exposed; however you have not produced any data to back your accusations.

No actions described in the points can be defined as criminalized. So what exactly is "the legal situation" you are referring to?


So if your replies are demonstrably stronger, show me that one of the points can be defined as criminalized in 1888.

My dear Pierre,

I found those two comments truly unbelievable:



1. They as police officers knew the identity of the killer, but did not stop him or arrest him.


You do not believe that is perverting the course of Justice?



2. That they conspired together to cover his identity up.


Do you not see that is Conspiring to Pervert the Course of Justice?


3. That not only did they not stop the killer, but knowing his identity allowed him to start killing again in 1889.



You do not think that knowingly allowing a man to commit murder is not a crime?

I am really not sure why you think that Conspiring to Pervert the Course of Justice is not a crime?

But when I told you that people would be upset and why, you claimed that was wrong. And now you are upset.

Pierre I am not upset that you name police officials as being involved, if they were so be it and they should be exposed!

All one asks is that some tangible scientific/historic data is produced to back up the accusations.

I would say suggestions, but your wording makes it clear they are far more than that to you.

Of course the reply was expected, as you need to push your ideas and divert from the hypocrisy demonstrated in this thread



What i am disappointed in, but not upset, as by now I expect no better is the level of double standards used.

1. The killer cannot be named because the finally bit of data is not yet found.

to do so is morally wrong.

Ok a fair point, that is your view.


2. You can however accuse others of committing a crime, that of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice using the same data, which does not allow you to name the killer.

They, the police officials will only be guilty of the crime, if the person you think is the killer is indeed so.

However you are still saying that the data has problems of

"reliability and validity"

which do not allow you to reach a conclusion on the identification of the killer.


Of course therefore the same must apply to those you have accused of conspiracy.

Is it not morally wrong to accuse them if the data is incomplete ( the bit you still need) and has problems with "reliability and validity?"




It was you who set these rules my friend, now you must live by them, or expose yourself for what you are.




steve

[David Orsam]

Your favourite words, directed at everyone here on the forum that does not confess to your personal view, like "fail", "delusional", "fiasco", "hopeless" and so on and so forth, are used as weapons against people who do not think like you.

Pierre, I have set out in detail in this thread in a number of posts why your theory about Lawende is a complete and abject failure. You simply have not engaged in any sensible way with me or others. You have evaded, avoided and failed to confront the points I have raised. You have refused to answer simple questions and focused on irrelevant language issues, preferring to stress that you are a "historian" rather than deal with the serious problems with the theory.

You did exactly the same thing with your GOGMAGOG theory when I demolished it on Christmas Eve. A failure to accept that you got in wrong in the face of the plainest possible evidence.

The same thing happened with the pawn tickets thread and practically every thread you have started in this forum

No I do not use the words you have mentioned about people who do not think like me Pierre. I use those words about people whose theories are delusional and hopeless and especially those who refuse to face up to and address the problems with their theories.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;391808]

Oh I'm quite sure you are not used to it in real life Pierre (although on this forum you might have noticed such things being said to you on a daily basis). No doubt you think that you have amazing insights but you really need someone to tell you exactly like it is, namely that your ideas and theories are delusional.

You are wasting your time. All your rude comments and you personal realistic view (a special type of view which does not correspond to a "reality" in the past but to your own ideas 2016) on the past do not help the case.

Your favourite words, directed at everyone here on the forum that does not confess to your personal view, like "fail", "delusional", "fiasco", "hopeless" and so on and so forth, are used as weapons against people who do not think like you.

The reason I am certain you will not succeed in finding the "last piece of evidence" is not simply because the odds are so heavily stacked against you but because I DO have insight into your research as revealed on this forum. The GOGMAGOG fiasco and this very thread about Lawende - where your theory that he saw a police officer and was silenced as a result is absolutely hopeless - are just two examples which show me that you leap to conclusions without understanding the material and you do the same thing in thread after thread, ignoring the evidence which doesn't fit your theory and only accepting as valid any evidence which does (something which is called confirmation bias), putting forward highly dubious arguments which usually don't make sense and not being prepared to answer questions about your theories in a straightforward non-evasive manner.

You are the only one suffering from confirmation bias. Everything you say to people who do not think like you, David, is said to confirm that you think correctly and others must think like you.

[David Orsam]

Reality has already hit me, David.

But what do you mean when you say that reality has already hit you Pierre?

I thought you were still just hoping to find the last piece of evidence.

You haven't found it yet have you? So reality is ahead of you. I hope you are able to cope when you fail to find it but I rather doubt it so perhaps we should say goodbye now?

[David Orsam]

I am not used to be spoken to like that. I find you very rude, David.

The reason why you do not agree with me is that you have no insight in my research.

Using such words as the ones you use here on that ground is very foolish.

Oh I'm quite sure you are not used to it in real life Pierre (although on this forum you might have noticed such things being said to you on a daily basis). No doubt you think that you have amazing insights but you really need someone to tell you exactly like it is, namely that your ideas and theories are delusional.

The reason I am certain you will not succeed in finding the "last piece of evidence" is not simply because the odds are so heavily stacked against you but because I DO have insight into your research as revealed on this forum. The GOGMAGOG fiasco and this very thread about Lawende - where your theory that he saw a police officer and was silenced as a result is absolutely hopeless - are just two examples which show me that you leap to conclusions without understanding the material and you do the same thing in thread after thread, ignoring the evidence which doesn't fit your theory and only accepting as valid any evidence which does (something which is called confirmation bias), putting forward highly dubious arguments which usually don't make sense and not being prepared to answer questions about your theories in a straightforward non-evasive manner.

[Pierre]

And this is all just in your overactive imagination. More conclusions that you have leapt to without properly understanding the "sources" that you tell me you have found. More naive boasts such as "I will finish this" that you cannot possibly hope to achieve.

When reality hits you after you fail to find this mythical "last piece of evidence" you won't be able to cope with it - you don't seem to have the ability to deal with failure - and I predict that we'll never hear from you again.

Reality has already hit me, David.

The question is how you will cope with it.

[David Orsam]

I found some new sources three days ago. It only made it worse.

And now I have a chronology. It shows terrible problems, lies, accusations, hate, and illegal actions.

And there are dates matching the dates for the murders. These dates have a strong explanatory value.

And this is all just in your overactive imagination. More conclusions that you have leapt to without properly understanding the "sources" that you tell me you have found. More naive boasts such as "I will finish this" that you cannot possibly hope to achieve.

When reality hits you after you fail to find this mythical "last piece of evidence" you won't be able to cope with it - you don't seem to have the ability to deal with failure - and I predict that we'll never hear from you again.

[Pierre]

It's true you do repeatedly say you hope you are wrong in theory but then, when presented with the clearest possible evidence that you are wrong, on many occasions on this forum, you refuse to admit it and fall back on obfuscation, sophistry and bluster, if not just pure babbling nonsense. Anything except admit you are wrong. The fact is you just can't do it in reality Pierre and the only person you are deceiving about this is yourself.

I am not used to be spoken to like that. I find you very rude, David.

The reason why you do not agree with me is that you have no insight in my research.

Using such words as the ones you use here on that ground is very foolish.

[David Orsam]

I have said, and say, that I hope I am wrong. So it is also meaningless to say that you see me as someone who would not admit that I am wrong. I hope I am wrong.

It's true you do repeatedly say you hope you are wrong in theory but then, when presented with the clearest possible evidence that you are wrong, on many occasions on this forum, you refuse to admit it and fall back on obfuscation, sophistry and bluster, if not just pure babbling nonsense. Anything except admit you are wrong. The fact is you just can't do it in reality Pierre and the only person you are deceiving about this is yourself.