Lawende was silenced

[David Orsam]

When I have the time, I will write a short text here about why the statement of Swanson is not part of an original primary source for the statement of Lawende.

It has already been demonstrated in this thread, Pierre, that you don't understand what a primary source is (see post #30 to which you failed to respond). Once again, in the language you use, you confuse a first-hand source with a primary source. Swanson's notes clearly are a primary source (as defined by historians). What you don't seem to like about them is that they are a police source but that's another matter.

And one thing is absolutely certain. There is no primary source or secondary source or indeed any source of any kind which states, suggests or even hints that Lawende saw someone who even minutely resembled a police officer. It's funny that, because normally that's the reason why you refuse to even contemplate a hypothesis on this forum.

[David Orsam]

At how many murder inquests did Crawford see to it that information was withheld in court?

Pierre, I've taken a look at this issue for you and I think I can safely say that Mr Henry Homewood Crawford, who was the city solicitor between March 1885 and January 1924, saw to it that information was withheld in court at 100% of the murder inquests at which he made an appearance.

So when it comes to the business of withholding information, Crawford's record is very similar to your own unparalleled record of withholding information from the members of this forum wouldn't you say?

[Elamarna]

Pierre

This post #554 say more about you than I think anything you have posted before.

Given that you have said over and over again that it is unfair and morally wrong to attack persons and accuse them of crimes when they are long dead, UNLESS you have definitive proof; this post is full of attacks on Anderson, Swanson, Macnaghten and the prosecutor Crawford yet no evidence as been provided, it is pure hypocrisy.

Well, it takes time. But it doesn´t take 128 years or even 32 years. If you want to know something about the research I am doing and have done, we will probably have a discussion about that this autumn. Because I do not intend to go on with this piece of research for a long time.



No, Steve. It is not a "personal choice". It is not a matter of taste. It is an historical choice, since the historical facts are that

Of course it is a personal choice, there are no absolutes in this case other than woman died on certain dates, so it is a personal choice.

1) We do not have any primary source with the statements of Lawende and

Yes we do, we have Swanson,.

The decision not too see this as a primary source is a purely personal choice!

2) Swanson was working for the police. And who would have had interest in withholding information from the press and the public? The police.

Unsubstantiated conspiracy theory is what you are presenting.

You are accusing Swanson of being involved in said crime.

Please provide some evidence to back this view up.

Comment: Historians would say that the source you are referring to has a tendency.

No Pierre some historians and would be historians would. Others would not.
It is a personal view.

3) Swanson had a high position and was working close to Anderson and Macnaghten.

When Swanson wrote his report in 1888 on Lawende, Macnaghten was not even in the police.
Therefore the fact that he may or may not have worked close with Macnaghten at a latter date is of no relevance.

Please get your historical facts correct.

Comment: They had what sociologists call social capital and this type of capital is protected by those who own it. This means that they protect eachother and the institution which gives them their capital, of which an important part is their own positions and another important part is the legitimacy of the police as an institution.

That is your theory obviously, however it is completely unprovable in this case at present.

4) Anderson tried to give the public the impression that the "suspect" was a specific type of person.

Not at the time of Swanson writing his 1888 report.
There are no comments from Anderson at that time, his first comments come some years later.

Does the report of Swanson give an credence to this type ?

Comment A): This is the tendency of Anderson in the source he has created.

Comment B): Anderson knew Monro well.

And your point is?

You have so far provided not one single historical source or point of data to suggest a conspiracy.

5) Swanson tried to strenghten the impression given by Anderson.

Comment B: This is the tendency of Swanson in a copy of the same source.

His comment, written many years later, in a copy of Anderson's book , which he did not intend to be read by anyone, does support Anderson.

However it was no attempted to support Anderson because as far as can be know he never intended his comments to be read by anybody else.

Does Swanson's report on Lawende in 1888, back up Anderson's later claim the killer was a Jew?

Comment C: The two close "friends" have the same tendency. The tendency is connected to their motives: 1) to protect their own positions, 2) to protect their institutions and 3) eachother.

Again, you are building a theory on nothing more than what on the face of it appears to be a dislike of certain individuals in the police force and your perception of their relationships and motives.

I see no data quoted to back this view point or even any reasonable attempt made to argue such as case.

Please provide evidence/data to support this View


Time and time again you tell us you cannot blame an innocent man without evidence, BUT you are fully prepared to blame others of a conspiracy without any evidence being presented or even discussed.

6) Macnaghten wanted to give the same impression to the public in his book as did the other two.

Comment: This is one tendency in his book.

Macnaghten does not agree with Anderson, he suggests a different suspect from a completely different social background.

In no way does he give the same impression in his book as Anderson.
What is the tendency in his book?

Swanson of course names no one until the marginalia is disclosed by his family 100 years approx after the murders.

Have you actually read Macnaghten's and Anderson's books may I ask?

What has this to do with a report Swanson wrote in 1888?

7) Macnaghten had a social bond to a well known family who could never have accepted to be connected to the author of the Whitechapel murders.

This is nothing to do with Macnaghten, it is about the report Swanson wrote regarding what Lawende claimed to see.


And by the way are you prepared to say which family this is MM as a social connection to, there are many.

Comment: Macnaghten was a friend of Monro.

And your point is?

8) There may have been information given by a woman in that particular family to Anderson (the Crawford letter). We do not know if that is the casae, since the police would never have disclosed her name if her information was connected to the author of the Whitechapel murders.

This woman may have been connected to the case, as you rightly say we do not know.
However Crawford says he does not know her, she could be anybody.

And pray tell me what exactly does that have to do with the description reported by Swanson?

9) A man was at a seaside home far away from London a couple of years after the murders stopped.

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

Check you facts before Post:

1.Swanson did not intend the public to believe this, he makes no public comments on the case at all.
His comment was in the form of a personal comment in his private copy of Anderson's book, which only came to light in the 1980's

2.We have no idea if the seaside id actually took place.
If it did we have no idea at all when this occurred, to say a couple of years is pure conjecture on your part.


The above has no bearing on the report Swanson wrote in 1888.

You are in the natural sciences and you are not an historian or sociologist. We have two different fields.

Science is the same no matter what field you are in, if some one does not abide by scientific criteria and requirements; then they are not a scientist.

End of!!

If you are "not talking about Arnold or Lechmere", that is your business. But the business of the past is to leave sources to us and the business of historians is to reasearch those sources.

Please stop trying to sound so above the rest, your examples provide by quoting these two individuals are pointless and have nothing to do with historic research relating to Lawende and what he may have seen.

That is fine with me, Steve. I do not want to "convince" anyone. I am not even convinced myself. I ask questions and try hypotheses.

So you do not want to convince, or prove anything?

Why are you here then?

Better still why are you an historian?

It is a fact that we do not know the dress of the man or what Lawende thought he saw. I don´t think you find it "hilarious", you are just using a bad expression sometimes used by others to eachother in the forum, an expression you yourself would say is used just for lack of better arguments.

Sorry Pierre, you may not believe you know the dress of the man seen by Lawende, others are.

Please be more precise when making statements such as that, it is not a fact, it is Your Personal View

that of course does not mean this man is the killer!


No I do find it side sportingly funny!

There is NO no reason to suppose Lawende could not give an accurate description of what he saw. yet you insist on this new view!

Please note, I do not think he saw the killer at all and never have.

I was asking you a question about how frequent witholding information was. You did not answer it. And I have never made any study of that.

But perhaps we could point to some research about corruption in the juridical system? Do your "experts" here know some research?

I did not answer it because I do not know the answer, neither do you it appears

Withholding information is not necessarily corruption, it depends on why?

Once again we have the hypocracy of not naming a killer without evidence but the accusing of Crawford without any such evidence.


People who post here are not "MY experts, on the whole they are people who have spent many years researching the murders and the late victorian period in general.
The snide remark is not justifield

Why do you assume that "access" would have been an issue? For example, how did he get "access" to the murder victims?

So you think getting the uniforms for instance would have been an easy matter?

please provide data to back this up.

Now come on, picking up a woman on the street is not the same as getting an uniform.

Put Swanson in his social network and you will see interesting things.

You have this information I take it?
A full biographical study?

Of course it is. It is very official indeed. So everyone can see it.

No the report is an internal police document, not for public consumption.

When I have the time, I will write a short text here about why the statement of Swanson is not part of an original primary source for the statement of Lawende.

You can prove this statement with historical data I take it?

Not just more personal views?

I don´t. I will get back to this. Please remind me if I forget it.

Again evading the answer.

Yes, of course he was. Otherwise they would not have withheld the information.

What made you think I did not think so?

Reasons for withhold have been given.
Your failure to understand and acknowledge this( I do not say accept in this case) betrays a closed intransigent mind.

As I said, I will get back to this

If you can explain this do so, otherwise it will be seen as yet another attempt at evasion.

I think I do.

What is that source?

If you will not even reveal its nature, one is forced to assume it is no existent

There is no mystery. Some of the sources have not been reachable before. Very simple. And no one obviously bothered to research them.

Again, evasion, evasion evasion.

Why were these sources not reachable?
Are they family records?

Common knowledge is not my knowledge. Do a study of the provenance of the "sailor idea". Use the newspapers and compare dates and espressions. It might be interesting.

No you have claimed it is "common knowledge in history" that the description given cannot be trusted.

you refuse to accept Swanson's report but will not give reasons why

Once again, you do not debate or argue your position, rather you tell others to go a read and find the information for themselves.




Steve

[Pierre]

Yes, one. One for each rank within the Metropolitan Police or City Police. It was a standard issue.

No police uniform involved a cloth cap with a cloth peak.

Or are you saying that you think a cloth cap with a cloth peak was part of a police uniform in 1888?

If you could answer that simple question it would be helpful for the discussion.

You have forgotten your own history, David.

So try to remember your history.

How many different types of police uniforms were possible to wear in the 1880s?

How many different types of police hats were possible to wear in the 1880s?

And imagine the possibility for someone in the 1880s to choose freely among all those hats and uniforms.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

You have forgotten your own history, David.

So try to remember your history.

How many different types of police uniforms were possible to wear in the 1880s?

How many different types of police hats were possible to wear in the 1880s?

And imagine the possibility for someone in the 1880s to choose freely among all those hats and uniforms.

I haven't forgotten any history Pierre. I am saying that a cloth cap with a cloth peak did not form part of any police uniform in the 1880s.

So I don't know what you mean when you suggest that someone could "choose freely among all these hats and uniforms". Can you stick with the facts please?

Lawende saw a man wearing a cloth cap and cloth peak. Are you saying that was part of a police uniform in the 1880s?

[Pierre]

I haven't forgotten any history Pierre. I am saying that a cloth cap with a cloth peak did not form part of any police uniform in the 1880s.

So I don't know what you mean when you suggest that someone could "choose freely among all these hats and uniforms". Can you stick with the facts please?

Lawende saw a man wearing a cloth cap and cloth peak. Are you saying that was part of a police uniform in the 1880s?

You have obviously forgotten you history.

Did the British police wear caps in the 1880s?

[David Orsam]

You have obviously forgotten you history.

Did the British police wear caps in the 1880s?

The question, Pierre, is did the British police wear cloth caps with cloth peaks?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;391525]

When Swanson wrote his report in 1888 on Lawende, Macnaghten was not even in the police.
Therefore the fact that he may or may not have worked close with Macnaghten at a latter date is of no relevance.

Please get your historical facts correct.

No, Steve. I was writing about the Swanson Marginalia.

[Pierre]

The question, Pierre, is did the British police wear cloth caps with cloth peaks?

Did Lawende approach the man and examine his cap?

Did Lawende have a camera with him?

Did Lawende take photographs of the cap?

[Pierre]

Pierre, I've taken a look at this issue for you and I think I can safely say that Mr Henry Homewood Crawford, who was the city solicitor between March 1885 and January 1924, saw to it that information was withheld in court at 100% of the murder inquests at which he made an appearance.

So when it comes to the business of withholding information, Crawford's record is very similar to your own unparalleled record of withholding information from the members of this forum wouldn't you say?

And how frequently was there a request in the courtroom to withhold information?

How many examples have you found?

[David Orsam]

Did Lawende approach the man and examine his cap?

Did Lawende have a camera with him?

Did Lawende take photographs of the cap?

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 Orsam]

And how frequently was there a request in the courtroom to withhold information?

How many examples have you found?

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

[Pierre]

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

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?

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;391540]

No, Steve. I was writing about the Swanson Marginalia.

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

[Pierre]

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

Fantastic, I didn´t 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.