Lawende was silenced

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;391668]

you use these very same sources to accuse others of crimes themselves.

Steve

Crimes? Murder was criminalized in 1888 and therefore murder was a crime.

Was it criminalized and therefore a crime to:

- Work for the police?

- Withhold information from press and public?

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

Was it criminalized and therefore a crime to:

- Have a high position?

- Work close to Anderson and Macnaghten?

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

Was it criminalized and therefore a crime to:

- Have social capital and protect it?
- Protect the institution?

(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.)

Was it criminalized and therefore a crime to:

- Try to give the public the impression that the suspect was a specific type of person?

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

Was it criminalized and therefore a crime to:

- Write a source with a tendency?
- Know Monro?

(This is the tendency of Anderson in the source he has created.

Anderson knew Monro well.)

Was it criminalized and therefore a crime to:

- Try to strenghten the impression given by Anderson?

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

Was it criminalized and therefore a crime to:

- Have the same tendency as a friend?
- To protect one´s own position?
- To protect one´s institution?
- To protect a friend?

(This is the tendency of Swanson in a copy of the same source.

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.)

Was it criminalized and therefore a crime to:

- See above for:

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

This is one tendency in his book.)

Was it criminalized and therefore a crime to:

- Have a social bond to a well known family?
- Be friends with Monro?

(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.

Comment: Macnaghten was a friend of Monro.)

(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 case, since the police would never have disclosed her name if her information was connected to the author of the Whitechapel murders.)

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

Was it criminalized and therefore a crime to:

- Want to the public to believe that this man was Kosminski?

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

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

As a renowned historian, Pierre, you can't really be expected to have a knowledge of the criminal law. But I must remind you that you told us on 18 June 206 in the thread "If Mary Kelly was a prostitute...." (#40).

"My hypothesis is that Abberline, Monro and Warren knew who the killer was on 12 November. But since they could not go public with his name and identity they wanted to conceal that knowledge and to give the public the impression that they still had no clue. Therefore they found a witness who could tell them a story about a plausible suspect."

That, Pierre, is without doubt a description of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and that, my friend, is a crime.

[Elamarna]

Pierre

thanks for the reply, however it seems you have no understanding that perverting the course of justice is indeed a crime in the UK.

Crimes? Murder was criminalized in 1888 and therefore murder was a crime.

Was it criminalized and therefore a crime to:

- Work for the police?

- Withhold information from press and public?

You are suggesting that these persons were involved in a conspiracy, actively allowing the killer to remain free and continue killing, thus perverting the course of justice, that is and was a criminal offence.

Was it criminalized and therefore a crime to:

- Have a high position?

- Work close to Anderson and Macnaghten?

You are suggesting that these persons were involved in a conspiracy, actively allowing the killer to remain free and continue killing, thus perverting the course of justice, that is and was a criminal offence.

Was it criminalized and therefore a crime to:

- Have social capital and protect it?
- Protect the institution?

(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.)

You are suggesting that these persons were involved in a conspiracy, actively allowing the killer to remain free and continue killing, thus perverting the course of justice, that is and was a criminal offence.

Was it criminalized and therefore a crime to:

- Try to give the public the impression that the suspect was a specific type of person?

You are suggesting that these persons were involved in a conspiracy, actively allowing the killer to remain free and continue killing, thus perverting the course of justice, that is and was a criminal offence.

Was it criminalized and therefore a crime to:

- Write a source with a tendency?
- Know Monro?

You are suggesting that these persons were involved in a conspiracy, actively allowing the killer to remain free and continue killing, thus perverting the course of justice, that is and was a criminal offence.

Was it criminalized and therefore a crime to:

- Try to strenghten the impression given by Anderson?

You are suggesting that these persons were involved in a conspiracy, actively allowing the killer to remain free and continue killing, thus perverting the course of justice, that is and was a criminal offence.

Was it criminalized and therefore a crime to:

- Have the same tendency as a friend?
- To protect one´s own position?
- To protect one´s institution?
- To protect a friend?

(This is the tendency of Swanson in a copy of the same source.

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.)

You are suggesting that these persons were involved in a conspiracy, actively allowing the killer to remain free and continue killing, thus perverting the course of justice, that is and was a criminal offence.

Was it criminalized and therefore a crime to:

- Have a social bond to a well known family?
- Be friends with Monro?

You are suggesting that these persons were involved in a conspiracy, actively allowing the killer to remain free and continue killing, thus perverting the course of justice, that is and was a criminal offence.

Was it criminalized and therefore a crime to:

- Want to the public to believe that this man was Kosminski?

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

You are suggesting that these persons were involved in a conspiracy, actively allowing the killer to remain free and continue killing, thus perverting the course of justice that, that is and was a criminal offence.



One can give the same answer for every single response, as they show a complete failure to either understand or acknowledge the legal situation.

The recent replies to questions are demonstrably weaker and weaker, showing a lack of both specific and general knowledge about the case and the law.


It is well noted there is still no attempt to explain the hypocrisy shown on this issue.


Steve

[IchabodCrane]

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

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

no, it was a private note. Private is not public. Swanson had no way of knowing that his private copy of the book would have been made public later. Had he wished to name Kosminski, he could easily have made it public then, instead of writing a private note to himself in a book.

So your statement is untrue. Please acknowledge this fact.

Regards
IchabodCrane

[MsWeatherwax]

I think that this is as good a thread as any to ask these questions.

Pierre, I note that somewhere in this thread or elsewhere you stated to Elamarna that you expect to release your research this Autumn. Is this release intended to coincide with the anniversary of any of the murders? Will this research be released on this website or will it be in the form of an academic essay or book?

Thank you.

[Pierre]

I think that this is as good a thread as any to ask these questions.

Pierre, I note that somewhere in this thread or elsewhere you stated to Elamarna that you expect to release your research this Autumn. Is this release intended to coincide with the anniversary of any of the murders? Will this research be released on this website or will it be in the form of an academic essay or book?

Thank you.

Hi MsWeatherwax,

As I have written here on the forum several times earlier, I will present a result whatever the outcome of the last bit of evidence, if and when it is found.

If a result would be presented on some special date, there are several other dates as well that could be relevant.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre,

no, it was a private note. Private is not public. Swanson had no way of knowing that his private copy of the book would have been made public later. Had he wished to name Kosminski, he could easily have made it public then, instead of writing a private note to himself in a book.

So your statement is untrue. Please acknowledge this fact.

Regards
IchabodCrane

Hi,

But it is made public.

Why did Swanson write a note "to himself"?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

As I have written here on the forum several times earlier, I will present a result whatever the outcome of the last bit of evidence, if and when it is found.

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

[Elamarna]

Hi,

But it is made public.

Why did Swanson write a note "to himself"?

Regards, Pierre

Pierre,

It is not uncommon to annotate, or add notes to books, I certainly do in some books, on subjects including naval history, JtR and Egyptology.

These are to reinforce ideas in the books or to correct and give alternative views. Such are certainly not meant for others to ever see.

Actually the academics i have worked with often did this even on scientific papers.

I am surprised you ask the question given the background you have?


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;391714]

Pierre

thanks for the reply, however it seems you have no understanding that perverting the course of justice is indeed a crime in the UK.

Of course I do, Steve.

You are suggesting that these persons were involved in a conspiracy, actively allowing the killer to remain free and continue killing, thus perverting the course of justice, that is and was a criminal offence.

And why is that a problem for you?

One can give the same answer for every single response, as they show a complete failure to either understand or acknowledge the legal situation.

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

The recent replies to questions are demonstrably weaker and weaker, showing a lack of both specific and general knowledge about the case and the law.

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

It is well noted there is still no attempt to explain the hypocrisy shown on this issue.

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

[Pierre]

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

Hi David,

I am stupid enough to think I will find it.

But to answer your question: in such a case I will discuss with you the different options, what you would prefer it to be and what would be the best thing to do.

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Elamarna;391797

Pierre,

It is not uncommon to annotate, or add notes to books, I certainly do in some books, on subjects including naval history, JtR and Egyptology.

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

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.

These are to reinforce ideas in the books or to correct and give alternative views. Such are certainly not meant for others to ever see.

Tell me:

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

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

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?

Actually the academics i have worked with often did this even on scientific papers.

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

I am surprised you ask the question given the background you have?

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.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

I am stupid enough to think I will find it.

But to answer your question: in such a case I will discuss with you the different options, what you would prefer it to be and what would be the best thing to do.

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.

[Pierre]

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.

David,

Of course you must think the worst of me. That is what you and your proselytes do. And I do not care. But it is meaningless to accuse me of things in advance, which I have not done. It has no meaning. It means nothing.

I have never said that I was right. 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 would spare me a great deal of trouble. I would be free, I would have to spend no more time on this, I would not have to write a book about it and so on and so forth.

But, and I am sorry to say this, I am not free. I can not leave the collection of data and say that "this is finished". I have an obligation to history.

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.

Finally, there is an emigration.

I will not leave the forum. I will finish this.

[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.