Lawende was silenced

[David Orsam]

No, I think they withheld a statement they did not want to be made in public, even if it was wrong.

But would they have wanted a wrong statement about the killer being a sailor to be made in public?

[Elamarna]

Pierre

With all due respect this thread is now in the realms of fantasy and detective fiction.

An idea spiralling completely out of control.

Proposals of conspiracy put forward, with no supporting evidence/data provided.




Steve

[Pierre]

Interesting.

Do you think that might be why Mr Crawford didn't want him to give his evidence in open court?

I mean, because he (and the city police) thought that his evidence might have been right, or partly right or wrong. And if it was wrong he (and the city police) didn't want the public to wrongly think the killer was a sailor.

Do you think that is feasible?

No, I think they withheld a statement they did not want to be made in public, even if it was wrong.

[David Orsam]

If you do a search first for military uniforms in Britain in the 1880s you will understand the principle for the question: What did Lawende see?

Will it tell me if a police officer would be incorrectly dressed if he was wearing a cloth cap with a cloth peak?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;391556]

Why would people say they saw a "military"?

Do you mean to ask what someone would have meant if they said they saw "a military man"?

It is a comparison. Compare the example with the statement of Mizen as to what Lechmere said and to the changing statements of Arnold. What did Lechmere see? What did Arnold see?

People see X, but there is X1, X2, X3, X4, X5 X6, X7, X8, X9 and X10 and so on and so forth.

I seem to recall you telling me, bizarrely, that the question as to whether a police officer wearing a cloth cap with a cloth peak was incorrectly dressed was an irrelevant question.

Yes, the idea about "incorrectly dressed" is irrelevant.

Why is a question about a military man suddenly relevant to this case?

Since it can be compared to the question about the other type of uniform. And how many were they?

If you do a search first for military uniforms in Britain in the 1880s you will understand the principle for the question: What did Lawende see?

[David Orsam]

And we do not know anything else. He may have thought he told the truth. And he may have been told not to tell the truth. And he may have been right or he may have been partly right, or wrong.

Interesting.

Do you think that might be why Mr Crawford didn't want him to give his evidence in open court?

I mean, because he (and the city police) thought that his evidence might have been right, or partly right or wrong. And if it was wrong he (and the city police) didn't want the public to wrongly think the killer was a sailor.

Do you think that is feasible?

[David Orsam]

David

yes it appears we cannot accept anything lawende said, because we do not know his ability to report what he saw.

It therefore appears this description can now be tailored to whatever is required.

Yes and because he didn't have a camera to photograph the man.

So if he had gone on to say the man looked like a police officer I imagine we would have had to discard that evidence due to his potentially faulty memory.

[David Orsam]

Fantastic, I didnīt know that!

So withholding the information from the public happened once in his case, and it was a question about the dress of the man Lawende saw.

Thanks, David.

No problem. Like I already said, he withheld information from the public at every murder inquest he appeared at on behalf of the city police.

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;391552]

But it is not a question of "buying" things. It is a matter of an interpretation of how a few police officials worked together in the interest of them all and in the interest of their institution.

Do you not see the hypocrisy of making these claims with no evidence you can present, compared to your comments about being morally wrong to name a killer without proof.

"buying" does not mean things, it means accepting your views. just in case you do not understand."

steve

[Pierre]

A simple historian asking simple questions, I know Pierre. The answers are very simple too.

Did Lawende approach the man and examine his cap? No.

OK. So he had to depend on his eyesight and his memory of the appearance.

Did Lawende have a camera with him? No.

OK. So again he had to depend on his eyesight and his memory of the appearance.

Did Lawende take photographs of the cap? No.

OK. So once more he had to depend on his eyesight and his memory of the appearance.

Did Lawende see the man and provide a description of his headwear under oath at the inquest? Yes.

And we do not know anything else. He may have thought he told the truth. And he may have been told not to tell the truth. And he may have been right or he may have been partly right, or wrong.

So what do you conclude from these questions and answers?

I conclude exactly what you and me have written here above and nothing else.

[David Orsam]

Another interesting question: When people say they saw a "military", what could that have meant in the 1880s?

If you know your history, how many different types of militaries could there have been?

Why would people say they saw a "military"?

Do you mean to ask what someone would have meant if they said they saw "a military man"?

I seem to recall you telling me, bizarrely, that the question as to whether a police officer wearing a cloth cap with a cloth peak was incorrectly dressed was an irrelevant question.

Why is a question about a military man suddenly relevant to this case?

[Elamarna]

Ah right, so now you actually challenge the evidence of Lawende do you?

He got it wrong did he?

It wasn't a cloth cap with a cloth peak at all, it was a police cap, is that what you are saying?

David

yes it appears we cannot accept anything lawende said, because we do not know his ability to report what he saw.

It therefore appears this description can now be tailored to whatever is required.

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;391549]

well that’s funny, because we were discussing the issue of a report Swanson wrote at least 20 years earlier.

what ever Swanson wrote at a later date has no bearing on that report.

Change the subject when one gets stuck, what you always do.
Why you think anyone buys this I have no idea.

S

But it is not a question of "buying" things. It is a matter of an interpretation of how a few police officials worked together in the interest of them all and in the interest of their institution.

[David Orsam]

David, I am not saying anything. I am just a simple historian asking questions and trying hypotheses.

A simple historian asking simple questions, I know Pierre. The answers are very simple too.

Did Lawende approach the man and examine his cap? No.

Did Lawende have a camera with him? No.

Did Lawende take photographs of the cap? No.

Did Lawende see the man and provide a description of his headwear under oath at the inquest? Yes.

So what do you conclude from these questions and answers?

[Pierre]

In case it wasn't clear, Pierre, I'm saying that Crawford only attended one murder inquest in his career.

Fantastic, I didnīt know that!

So withholding the information from the public happened once in his case, and it was a question about the dress of the man Lawende saw.

Thanks, David.