Lawende was silenced

[Paddy]

Below is current UK Law, but I would think it was the same back then.

Reporting restrictions
Typically, the police will inform the Coroner of any reporting restrictions in place as a result of criminal proceedings ongoing and any subsequent impacts thereafter. In most cases, reporting restrictions will be lifted following the finalisation of criminal proceedings, but it is for the police to ensure the Coroner is apprised of restrictions where required for a longer period.

It would seem the City Police had disclosed info and the Metropolitan Police were going to search the boats for a sailor, so requested non disclosure at that time (or vice versa).

Pat................

[Michael W Richards]

If you look at the Inquest transcripts from the Telegraph on Oct 5th, the jury decided whether it was relevant to them at that time to get further details on the description. Crawford said "Unless the jury wish it, I do not think further particulars should be given as to the appearance of this man."

The Foreman of the jury said they didnt desire it.

Unless Crawford intentionally misled the jury it seems that he would disclose details about the appearance of the man Lawende says he saw that were in the possession of the police.

Again, these Inquests were not about suspects at all, they were about determining the cause and method of death.

[Elamarna]

At the Eddowes inquest Lawende was about to testify about the dress of the man he saw together with Eddowes near the murder site.

But Lawende was silenced by the city solicitor.

The city solicitor said that for particular reasons evidence about the dress of the man should not be given.

The only thing Lawende was allowed to say was that the man had a peaked cap.

Why did they withhold the information about the dress of the man seen with Eddowes before the murder?

Source: Shields Daily Gazette - Thursday 11 October 1888
More sources with the same content:

Hartlepool Northern Daily Mail - Thursday 11 October 1888
South Wales Echo - Thursday 11 October 1888
Sunderland Daily Echo and Shipping Gazette - Friday 12 October 1888

And in the original inquest sources Lawende states that he has given his description to the police (Evans & Skinner, p. 297).

Regards, Pierre

Pierre

I find this an interesting thread.

probably for different reasons to some.

You are now suggesting that Lawende was silenced by the Authorities, in the person of the City solicitor.

However less than a month ago you said that he was unimportant and his report was not significant:

Hi Craig,

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

Kind regards, Pierre

And

3. Lawende could not ID the man or the woman.

(Original sources in transcription, Evans and Skinner, p. 135-138 and 207).

Conclusion: There are discrepancies in the statements from the three witnesses as to the descriptions of the man/ the men. The man /the men seen with the woman might have be any man/any men and not the murderer of Stride. There is no evidence that Lawende saw Stride or the murderer.

So:

A) The sources are not valid for interpreting the men/man/woman as "the murderer with Elizabeth Stride".

B) And obviously they are not reliable, since they differ.

C) And so they are not significant, i.e. the substantial significance is very low. Not just "for me" but for anyone.

Of course here you made a mistake did you not in thinking Lawende was a witness to the Stride murder.

And finally

Hi Pierre

Thanks for your reply.

You have previously emphasised the importance of primary sources, and what people said in 1888.

That makes it surprising when you so quickly dismiss the witness statements.

The reason for dismissing the witness statements are even stronger when you have good sources - you know that the variation in the sources is a variation, and you have a solid reason for dismissing them.

He identified Eddowes by the clothes she was wearing.

Lawende saw Eddowes with a client shortly before her death. While technically, she may have found another customer, the more likely scenario is she didn't.

Lawende was respected by Police at that time as a credible witness.

I think it's likely that this was an accurate description of the Ripper

But respectability does not matter in this case, since we do not know who he saw. And neither did he.

Regards, Pierre

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?


regards


Steve

[Abby Normal]

Good. Everyone can see how rude you are.

And everyone can see how much of a clown you are.

And don't call me "David" again. My name is Abby Normal.

[Pierre]

And everyone can see how much of a clown you are.

And don't call me "David" again. My name is Abby Normal.

And there you did it again, Abby Normal. Stop being rude and ridiculing. Thanks.

[lynn cates]

details

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

Cheers.
LC

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

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.

[Pierre]

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

[David Orsam]

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.

[Pierre]

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.

[David Orsam]

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?

[Pierre]

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.

[David Orsam]

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.

[Pierre]

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

[David Orsam]

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?