Lawende was silenced

[Pierre]

Even by your standards, Pierre, you have excelled yourself. Ten questions to deal with and not a single one actually answered. Lots of quibbling over language and fussing over words but no answers or information provided. Two of them (8 and 9) didn't even get a response at all.

Can't imagine why you thought I was being sarcastic when I mentioned your reputation for answering questions in a straight manner without evasion.

sarcasm=

"the use of remarks that clearly mean the opposite of what they say, made in order to hurt someone's feelings or to criticize something in a humorous way:

"You have been working hard," he said with heavy sarcasm, as he looked at the empty page."

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...nglish/sarcasm

[David Orsam]

Even by your standards, Pierre, you have excelled yourself. Ten questions to deal with and not a single one actually answered. Lots of quibbling over language and fussing over words but no answers or information provided. Two of them (8 and 9) didn't even get a response at all.

Can't imagine why you thought I was being sarcastic when I mentioned your reputation for answering questions in a straight manner without evasion.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;391683]

Pierre, as you have reputation for answering all questions asked of you in a straight manner without evasion, - and, as we know, you constantly challenge your own hypotheses - perhaps you could answer the following questions for me:

David,

As I am not interested in what you call reputation, and there is no point in being sarcastic about it.

I enjoy answering questions when I can. Let´s see if I can answer your questions here.

1. Do you think the fact that Lawende said at the inquest that he saw a woman "standing with her face towards a man" proves that the man he saw was not a police officer otherwise he would have said that he saw a woman "standing with her face towards a police officer"?

As you can see you use a specific word, David. The word is "proves". We do not think in such terms when we establish historical facts from a statement in a source, since the source must be subjected to source criticism. That being the case, a source can not be used for establishing "proof" if it is merely containing statements.

If I would use sources as "proof" I would not be here discussing all these issues with you. I would simply do like the ripperologists and say "Here is the Whitechapel murderer!". But the ontology does not work like that, since we have sources from the past, and therefore the methodology does not allow us to call statements "proof".

An example is a confession. It is not a good enough source to be used as "proof". It is just one source that can be contextualized in relation to the other sources that we have.


And a problem with the statement above is that the context is a murder inquest where information is deliberately withheld, i.e. the intention was to withhold it. Therefore, the rest of the statements from the witness, who´s statement was withheld in court, must be subjected to source criticism and can not be "taken at face value".

2. Then, rather than saying "The man was taller than she was" would you not have expected Lawende to say "The police officer was taller than she was"?

The first problem here again is that the context is a murder inquest where information is deliberately withheld, i.e. the intention was to withhold it. Therefore, the rest of the statements from the witness, who´s statement was withheld in court, must be subjected to source criticism and can not be "taken at face value".

The second problem is that you are again - like in other posts - using the "would-have-thinking". That type of thinking is impossible to relate to the sources left to us by the past. The reason for that is that there are NO SOURCES giving what you propose they "would-or-could-have-given". Therefore it is impossible to discuss such an idea.

3. Given that, under your hypothesis, Lawende saw a man dressed as police officer in full uniform don’t you think it’s unlikely that he would have mistaken his headwear for a cloth cap with a cloth peak?

You have made the same mistake with this question.

4. Are you aware that, according to the Daily Telegraph report of the inquest, Lawende said that the man he saw looked "rough and shabby" and the Evening Standard and Morning Advertiser recorded Lawende as saying that he was "a rough looking fellow"?

And the first problem is at hand again in this case, i.e. (to remind you) that the context is a murder inquest where information is deliberately withheld and the intention was therefore to withhold it. Therefore, the rest of the statements from a witness, who´s statement was withheld in court, must be subjected to source criticism and can not be "taken at face value".

5. Do you think the reports in the Daily Telegraph, Evening Standard and Morning Advertiser of what Lawende said can be relied on and, if so, does that mean that the police officer who you suspect that man to have been looked rough and shabby?

I never think anything can be "relied on". That is the problem of reliability, David.

6. If we can’t rely on the reports in those newspapers how do you think they made such a mistake?

What do you mean by "such a mistake"? Do you mean that a policeman was "correctly dressed" and/or could not look rough and shabby? Or do you mean that you take the statement at face value and believe it?

7. Do you accept that, if Lawende had been allowed to give his testimony at the inquest, he would have said that the man he saw was wearing a red handkerchief around his neck as recorded in Swanson’s schedule and report of 19 October 1888?

You are making the same mistake again, David. The "would-have-mistake".

As an historian you can not "accept" the sources and you can certainly not accept ideas about what "would have" happened where sources do not exist.

What you are allowed to do, is to construct hypotheses from existing sources.

Hypotheses are not "accepted facts", they are merely tools for thinking.

If you are honest, you use those tools and question the sources by using source criticism.

(8. What police force was your suspect a member of?

9. What rank was your suspect within the police?)

10. If your suspect, while in police uniform, had been wearing a cloth cap with a cloth peak on the night of the murder would he have been incorrectly dressed according the regulations of his force?

As you know, David, I asked you to imagine all the types of British uniforms. And to remember your history. And I also reminded you that a serial killer is not behaving correctly.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Levy, who was with Lawende and saw the same couple at Church Passage, estimated the woman to be about 5' and the man around 3" taller. This would seem to rule out a uniformed policeman as I believe there was a strict minimum height policy at the time.

True, although the woman's height is not stated in Levy's deposition so you are going to struggle to get Pierre to accept it, and he hasn't confirmed his suspect was in the Metropolitan Police to which the minimum height requirement applied.

Another issue with Levy's deposition is that it records that he said to Mr Harris, "I don't like going home by myself when I see those characters about" which is a bit of an odd way to refer to a uniformed police officer.

[Joshua Rogan]

Levy, who was with Lawende and saw the same couple at Church Passage, estimated the woman to be about 5' and the man around 3" taller. This would seem to rule out a uniformed policeman as I believe there was a strict minimum height policy at the time.

[DJA]

There were many police in costume,some even in drag.

Prolly more likely that Lawende saw a couple of cops comparing notes than Eddowes and our Jack.

Really not any sighting of Jack,as he was 53 and around 5'3".

[David Orsam]

Pierre, as you have reputation for answering all questions asked of you in a straight manner without evasion, - and, as we know, you constantly challenge your own hypotheses - perhaps you could answer the following questions for me:

1. Do you think the fact that Lawende said at the inquest that he saw a woman "standing with her face towards a man" proves that the man he saw was not a police officer otherwise he would have said that he saw a woman "standing with her face towards a police officer"?

2. Then, rather than saying "The man was taller than she was" would you not have expected Lawende to say "The police officer was taller than she was"?

3. Given that, under your hypothesis, Lawende saw a man dressed as police officer in full uniform don’t you think it’s unlikely that he would have mistaken his headwear for a cloth cap with a cloth peak?

4. Are you aware that, according to the Daily Telegraph report of the inquest, Lawende said that the man he saw looked "rough and shabby" and the Evening Standard and Morning Advertiser recorded Lawende as saying that he was "a rough looking fellow"?

5. Do you think the reports in the Daily Telegraph, Evening Standard and Morning Advertiser of what Lawende said can be relied on and, if so, does that mean that the police officer who you suspect that man to have been looked rough and shabby?

6. If we can’t rely on the reports in those newspapers how do you think they made such a mistake?

7. Do you accept that, if Lawende had been allowed to give his testimony at the inquest, he would have said that the man he saw was wearing a red handkerchief around his neck as recorded in Swanson’s schedule and report of 19 October 1888?

8. What police force was your suspect a member of?

9. What rank was your suspect within the police?

10. If your suspect, while in police uniform, had been wearing a cloth cap with a cloth peak on the night of the murder would he have been incorrectly dressed according the regulations of his force?

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

I will answer you as soon as I have the time. I will not forget it.

I don´t know why you use the word "mystery". Sources are no "mysteries".

There is a set of sources. There is a confession. But since there are always problems of validity and reliability, I wait. But not for long. I want to finish this.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre

Same old, same old,

In your last post once again you claim you have new sources and are so busy that you cannot answer questions.

Yet there is still time to respond and post as long as those posts do not answer uncomfortable questions .


People can judge the validity of such claims of being too busy themselves.


You still refuse to discuss any source, to give any information, so of course they are by definition "mystery sources" to all but you.

And again you say you cannot divulge these sources you CLAIM to have, because they have:

problems of validity and reliability


If the validity and reliability of such sources is open to question to such a degree that you feel you cannot yet prove the name of the suspect; Then it is equally clear the same problems exist for claiming a coverup/conspiracy.


However, despite this, you use these very same sources to accuse others of crimes themselves.


That is plan and simple hypocrisy!


Steve

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;391661]

Hi Steve,

I am very busy right now. I have found some new sources. But I will answer you as soon as I can.



No problem.

If Swanson did not want the public to believe that the man was Kosminski, why did the source reach the public?

It has nothing to do with publishing. It is a source left by Swanson and it is public. That is an historical fact.

Do you think that Swanson was stupid?

Pierre

My my, we really have lost it, have we not?

He did not leave the marginlia for the public, it was in a book he owned, when he died his family could easily have discarded the book, or released details to complete this conspiracy theory.

The historic fact is they did neither!

The Marginalia was not released to the public until the late 80's

In fact there are those who question the authentically of the comments about Kosminski

To summarize:

Swanson died in 1924, the marginalia was made public 60 years plus later

How could a man know a book he had scribed in, would some 60-80years later be made public ?


Or are you suggesting he left instructions for it to be made public?


At times some really crass things are said on these forums, but this really is in a class of it own.


steve

[Pierre]

Pierre,

Has you obviously have no intention of answering any of those reasonable questions one must draw the following conclusion

You have claimed a mystery source, which you in the past said was the link to your view on the GSG.
One must now assume this includes some form of confession, actually you did claim this last year.

Is this correct?

Steve

Hi Steve,

I will answer you as soon as I have the time. I will not forget it.

I don´t know why you use the word "mystery". Sources are no "mysteries".

There is a set of sources. There is a confession. But since there are always problems of validity and reliability, I wait. But not for long. I want to finish this.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;391607]

Pierre

Could you please address the issues I raised in post #558

In particular how does much of your post # 554 have any relevance at all to the issue in this thread.

Hi Steve,

I am very busy right now. I have found some new sources. But I will answer you as soon as I can.

I would really love to hear your rational for the following:

"It is an historical choice, since the historical facts are that"


followed by a list of what you claim are these facts, culminating in:

"10) Swanson wanted the public to believe that the man was Kosminski."



Given that he never made or published any public statements on the case this is palpably untrue.

To claim so is highly misleading.

steve

No problem.

If Swanson did not want the public to believe that the man was Kosminski, why did the source reach the public?

It has nothing to do with publishing. It is a source left by Swanson and it is public. That is an historical fact.

Do you think that Swanson was stupid?

[IchabodCrane]

Pierre is not one to easily admit his own mistakes, even obvious ones like this one here. I guess his next move will be to open another unrelated historical fantasy thread, claiming to be in possession of some superior knowledge on another aspect of the case, without of course giving details of his "theories" away. If Pierre really is an academic, he is at least not behaving like one on these boards.

[Elamarna]

please address the points in post 558

Pierre

Could you please address the issues I raised in post #558

In particular how does much of your post # 554 have any relevance at all to the issue in this thread.


I would really love to hear your rational for the following:

"It is an historical choice, since the historical facts are that"


followed by a list of what you claim are these facts, culminating in:


"10) Swanson wanted the public to believe that the man was Kosminski."



Given that he never made or published any public statements on the case this is palpably untrue.

To claim so is highly misleading.


steve

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Is it X-mas again?

Regards, Pierre

Pierre,

Has you obviously have no intention of answering any of those reasonable questions one must draw the following conclusion

You have claimed a mystery source, which you in the past said was the link to your view on the GSG.
One must now assume this includes some form of confession, actually you did claim this last year.

Is this correct?

Steve

[David Orsam]

No. We were discussing hats and uniforms.

Oh well that really is excellent news. So perhaps on that topic you can answer this:

Would a uniformed police officer in either London or South Africa wearing a cloth cap with a cloth peak in the street in 1888 have been incorrectly dressed according to police regulations?