Lawende was silenced

[MsWeatherwax]

And what can I do about it? At least the police tried to stop it.

?

Pierre, are you now saying that the Police knew the identity of the killer and tried to stop him using a method other than prosecution?

[Pierre]

QUOTE=MsWeatherwax;392053

Pierre, are you now saying that the Police knew the identity of the killer and tried to stop him using a method other than prosecution?

Yes.

[Elamarna]

And again, you can not pose a question to me. What is the exact historical question you try to ask, Steve?

Yet more diversion and pontification.

You have been given the question, by many, this is the first post in which I will not repeat it, to give you time to reconsider this pointless type of response, in children it could be referred to as "dumb insolence"

"Wish"? I do not "wish" to interpret. I interpret. We all interpret objects. At least you seem to understand a bit of this, compared to David, who believes that he can just look at an item and understand it without interpretation. But since you are not an historian and I am not a natural scientist, we will never have a common ground for interpretation. I understand this, since I am able to study the history of natural science, but you can not understand it since you do not study history as an object within the natural sciences. Do you understand this?

You appear not to understand the use of the word "wish", in this context it means that is how you decided to interpret.
There are no set rules for such and at the end of the process interpretation is a matter of personal decisions and choices.


Pierre, basically you are saying that only "qualified Historians" on your definition of qualified may discuss and correctly understand and interpret historical matters.

What utter elitist nonsense.

What do you want me to think?

Well why not read the source and see what Anderson was saying and when, that would be a good starting point.

Clear? From what? From that book? Who is Robert House? Is he an historian?

Once again the elitist nonsense. To dismiss anyone, with out even checking the details is poor academia.

However if you had bothered to read, the comment in the book was based on a publication in which Anderson commented on the killings, the source is available on this site if you want and I gave the source in that comment

In that source(from 1889) Anderson says that they had failed to find the killer.

That seems a very clear statement in 1889.

But it is correct. Your education gives you specific abilities. That is very simple.

Actually education helps refine raw intellectual ability, and imparts skills.
Not having specific training in a specific discipline does not not preclude one from understanding issues from that discipline.

I do not use the word "conspiracy". It is your word.

You have suggested that these persons, spoke to each other about the case, supported each other in putting forward misleading information, accusing others of the killings in order to cover up the identity of the killer

That is a definition of a conspiracy. one does not need to use the word to actually describe one, as you well know.

The game playing is so tedious.

No. That is not what I said. I use the expression "the police" and not the expression "Anderson did not stop the killer" (for example). You can go back and understand this, that is, if it is not enough for you that you see me writing it here right now.

Pardon what are you talking about?

You have claimed that these men knew who the killer was.

Tthey did not arrest him

The killer was not stopped and while you claim he was "sent away" late 1888 he was allowed to return and start again in 1889.


The reason for this apparently to protect the standing of the police, which you seem to think was very high , when it was anything but.

That is what I said, I am really lost at some of the replies you are making which appear not to address what is said at all.

Well, that is what I am still hoping for.

In which case if you cannot name him, you should not accuse others of covering up his crimes, which is a crime in its own right in English law.

Do you see what you write here above, Steve?

Looking at the sources.

It is a well established fact within the social sciences and history that you can not "look at" a source or a social phenomenon (a source is a social artefact) and decide it´s contents. There are to many problems with such an approach. I am very sorry, but I can not give you a crash course on this here on a forum.

So "looking at" is actually, sorry again, Steve, totally meaningless. It has no value. I do not want to say this, since I hear that I begin to sound like others here, but with all due respect, you are absolutely wrong.

And this is nothing that I have decided, and it is nothing that comes from a "personal view", but it is a well established scientific problem which has been very domineering for the last 40 years at universities around the world. Actually, it started in ancient times already and it was updated with Kant. But for me as an historian and sociologist, I point to recent thinkers as Foucault and Bourdieu for reading about it.

Do you not understand that to say looking at the sources means to consider and analysis them.

Again telling the boards and the world ONLY historians can make comments and understand historic sources.

It is not the only data I have, Steve. Sorry.

Again we have your non disclosed sources, I need say no more.

And what can I do about it? At least the police tried to stop it.

How?

By letting him continue when they knew who he was according to you.

The idea that he could not be stopped because of his position in society is ludicrous.

Members of the royal family were locked out of sight in both the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Well, my exams establish it very well. That is what I meant.

One could nit pick and again say we have only your word for it, but on this issue I am prepared to accept you have passed the exams.

That you try to pretend that I do not know what I am talking about.

On the contrary, you know exactly what you are talking about, that is the reason for the constant evasions and suchlike.

You do not wish to answer question which may undermine your theory.



Steve

[Elamarna]

Pierre, are you now saying that the Police knew the identity of the killer and tried to stop him using a method other than prosecution?

Ms Weatherwax


Having seen The reply, which is not really helpful, I have put together a brief summary from Pierre's previous postings on the issue, which I hope will be more useful than a simple "yes"



1. Because of his standing in his profession and society the killer could not be arrested or looked away.

2. That in late 1888 he was sent away from London, maybe from England even, Pierre has only said sent away, so it is hard to know.


3. In 1889 he returned to London, the police (at least Anderson and Munro) despite knowing who he was were powerless to stop him from killing again.


4. He stopped because he wanted to, not because he was forced.



If I am wrong with any of that summary I am sure Pierre will point it out



yours


Steve

[MsWeatherwax]

Ms Weatherwax


Having seen The reply, which is not really helpful, I have put together a brief summary from Pierre's previous postings on the issue, which I hope will be more useful than a simple "yes"



1. Because of his standing in his profession and society the killer could not be arrested or looked away.

2. That in late 1888 he was sent away from London, maybe from England even, Pierre has only said sent away, so it is hard to know.


3. In 1889 he returned to London, the police (at least Anderson and Munro) despite knowing who he was were powerless to stop him from killing again.


4. He stopped because he wanted to, not because he was forced.



If I am wrong with any of that summary I am sure Pierre will point it out



yours


Steve

Thank you Steve. I was aware of point (1) of Pierre's theory, but I have somehow missed the brief 'banishment and return' component.

I did start typing a response, but you appear to have been allocated my share patience. I think I'll just go with watching with interest.....

[Elamarna]

Thank you Steve. I was aware of point (1) of Pierre's theory, but I have somehow missed the brief 'banishment and return' component.

I did start typing a response, but you appear to have been allocated my share patience. I think I'll just go with watching with interest.....

Hi MsWeatherwax


Must admit it is very tedious doing this,

If people won't give accurate information, or back up views I will challenge anyone.
I also enjoy debating with people who do give clear reasons, but whom I do not agree with.

I find that helps to keep ones own views in check.

I have had a few jousts with Fisherman, his ideas are clear and he provides backup for his arguments which is always great.
Now am sure both he and I would admit that we do not agree on his theory; however you always know what he is talking about.
And there is always room for reflection on the ideas, most of which one cannot just dismiss completely out of hand.

I actually think Pierre, may have found some document somewhere, however until he shares it, we have no way of knowing if that is true, or if he as a strong argument or not.



All the best

steve

[MsWeatherwax]

Hi MsWeatherwax


Must admit it is very tedious doing this,

If people won't give accurate information, or back up views I will challenge anyone.
I also enjoy debating with people who do give clear reasons, but whom I do not agree with.

I find that helps to keep ones own views in check.

I have had a few jousts with Fisherman, his ideas are clear and he provides backup for his arguments which is always great.
Now am sure both he and I would admit that we do not agree on his theory; however you always know what he is talking about.
And there is always room for reflection on the ideas, most of which one cannot just dismiss completely out of hand.

I actually think Pierre, may have found some document somewhere, however until he shares it, we have no way of knowing if that is true, or if he as a strong argument or not.



All the best

steve

I actually can't stress enough how informative some of the debates with Pierre have been. Some of the information that has been discussed as a by-product of...whatever this is...has been genuinely fascinating.

I'm inclined to agree with you in terms of some form of document or other information having come to light. Unfortunately, I have very little faith in it's relevance, having already witnessed Gogmagog and the incredible case of the vanishing anagram. As far as I'm concerned, it could turn out to be half a sweet wrapper with the word 'Jack' on it.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;392058]

Yet more diversion and pontification.

You have been given the question, by many, this is the first post in which I will not repeat it, to give you time to reconsider this pointless type of response, in children it could be referred to as "dumb insolence"

Do you suffer from it?

You appear not to understand the use of the word "wish", in this context it means that is how you decided to interpret.

No, you do not understand it.

There are no set rules for such and at the end of the process interpretation is a matter of personal decisions and choices.

There are a whole set of scientific rules and you have no idea about these.

Pierre, basically you are saying that only "qualified Historians" on your definition of qualified may discuss and correctly understand and interpret historical matters.

What utter elitist nonsense.

Has nothing to do with elites, it has to do with your ability to understand what I say.

Well why not read the source and see what Anderson was saying and when, that would be a good starting point.

I did. And what do you want me to think about it or say about it?

Once again the elitist nonsense. To dismiss anyone, with out even checking the details is poor academia.

Steve the judge.

However if you had bothered to read, the comment in the book was based on a publication in which Anderson commented on the killings, the source is available on this site if you want and I gave the source in that comment

I saw that. It was a reference to a newspaper. And what do you think I should do with that?

In that source(from 1889) Anderson says that they had failed to find the killer.

That seems a very clear statement in 1889.

And if he knew that they had found the killer and they could not put forth that man as the killer to the public, what do you think a man like Anderson could have said in such a newspaper?

Actually education helps refine raw intellectual ability, and imparts skills.
Not having specific training in a specific discipline does not not preclude one from understanding issues from that discipline.

OK, great! I think I will start a new job as a surgeon! I don´t need an education. I simply understand the issues from the discipline.

You have suggested that these persons, spoke to each other about the case,

Yes.

supported each other in putting forward misleading information,

No. I do not use the words "misleading information". They are your words, Steve.

accusing others of the killings in order to cover up the identity of the killer

? They suggested a few suspects - is that not right?

That is a definition of a conspiracy.

With your own words mixed into what I have written: You are perverting my texts, Steve.

one does not need to use the word to actually describe one, as you well know.

I certainly use that word if I mean that word.

Pardon what are you talking about?

You have claimed that these men knew who the killer was.

No. Read the points again.

Tthey did not arrest him

You have to change the word "they" and use the expression "the police" instead. Then you will be OK.

The killer was not stopped

Yes. Directly after Kelly.

and while you claim he was "sent away" late 1888 he was allowed to return and start again in 1889.

The effort to prevent the continuation did not help.

The reason for this apparently to protect the standing of the police, which you seem to think was very high , when it was anything but.

It effectively prevented social upheaval.

In which case if you cannot name him, you should not accuse others of covering up his crimes, which is a crime in its own right in English law.

So I hope I am wrong. I must be wrong. The British Police might have been bad but not that bad.

Do you not understand that to say looking at the sources means to consider and analysis them.

And did you? How?

Again telling the boards and the world ONLY historians can make comments and understand historic sources.

No, that is not what I say. I say that it is a simple fact that natural scientists should stick to other objects than old texts or they should learn some social science and history!

By letting him continue when they knew who he was according to you.

They thought they had solved the problem. But it was like a disease where there was just one possible treatment.

The idea that he could not be stopped because of his position in society is ludicrous.

So you think. What did they think?

Members of the royal family were locked out of sight in both the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Yes, but they were not murder investigators with the responsibility for catching the Whitechapel killer.

[Elamarna]

Tedious Pierre, but I will carry on as long as you do.

Do you suffer from it?

No I answer questions when asked and do not resort to pointless replies which say nothing.

The question has been asked many times about the apparent double standards, you know the question Pierre

No, you do not understand it.

This is a new one, that poster does not understand what he posted, even when he is writing in his native language.

Do you actually think about some of these comments before you post them?

There are a whole set of scientific rules and you have no idea about these.

Of course there are, I am well aware of this, how else could one make assessments if one has no rules to work by.
However the final Interpretations and conclusions are a personal thing, rules can only guide so far.

If it was all about following a set of rules with no personal opinion used, every historian would agree on every historical issue, assuming they have the same sources.

That is of course demonstrably not so.

There is an attempt to try and hide behind this type of response often, especially when cornered.

Has nothing to do with elites, it has to do with your ability to understand what I say.

The claim is that only those you deem educated can debate meaningfully with you and understand the points you make, the same issue is raised by yourself when ever people do not agree with the view you put forward.

I did. And what do you want me to think about it or say about it?

Anything at all?

Steve the judge.

No it is not I who am judging others on if their work or education should be treated with respect.

I saw that. It was a reference to a newspaper. And what do you think I should do with that?

Read it, would be a start. and see what it is.

And if he knew that they had found the killer and they could not put forth that man as the killer to the public, what do you think a man like Anderson could have said in such a newspaper?

Pierre your argument here is that the police did know who the killer was, you quoted Anderson to attempt to demonstrate that.


It seems on one hand you are suggesting they (the police) had a name
after house to house searches.
This was Anderson's suspect, yet a year later Anderson is saying he does not know. that does not seem to follow on, and suggests your interpretation of Anderson's comments about finding the killer is wrong

However you are now saying the police could not release the name.

I think the problem here is we were not discussing the real killer, but the naming of the suspect you suggested was given to the public to divert from the true killer.
It appears you are mixing the two arguments together.

OK, great! I think I will start a new job as a surgeon! I don´t need an education. I simply understand the issues from the discipline.

Understanding is not the same as performing, the problem appears to be that you believe only trained historians can comment on history, such is not true.

No. I do not use the words "misleading information". They are your words, Steve.

I did not say you did.
Once again, you appear to suggest I am quoting you, I am not.
On this thread you have suggested that the police leaked/gave the name of suspects they knew not to be the killer to the public.

That is to give misleading information.

? They suggested a few suspects - is that not right?

Following your lead below, should that not read "the police" rather than "they."

Your hypothesis is that the police knew the true identify, so to name others is misleading.

With your own words mixed into what I have written: You are perverting my texts, Steve.

No Pierre,

That does not work,reading the points you made, it is clear that you are defining a conspiracy, no amount of wriggling is going to change that.


Or are you now saying that the police did not give false names to the public instead of the real name which they knew, in order to cover for that person and to protect the reputation of the police, and that the senior officers involved were not supporting each other in this?

That would of course be contrary to much you have posted on this thread.

I certainly do.

No if one describes something without using the actual word , it is still what it is.

The points you raised and posted are without doubt a definition of a conspiracy.

No. Read the point again.

I have done, it is still unclear what you mean.

You have to change the word "they" and use the expression the police instead. Then you will be OK.

see above a few points

.

Yes. Directly after Kelly.

Evidence for this, that he was stopped, rather than he stopped.

The effort to stop it did not help.

Why could they not stop him?
You refuse to explain this viewpoint in detail.

Of course the police could have stopped him, unless you can produce evidence to the contrary, this idea that he was somehow above the law is laughable.
You provide no data to back this up and ask that your statement is taken as fact.

It effectively prevented social upheaval.

And this statement is based on what source?

Is that not just your own view?

So I hope I am wrong. I must be wrong. The British Police might have been bad but not that bad.

Actually if one studied the police in 19th century Britain, one would see that there were many problems and scandals within the police.

And did you? How?

I assume the same way you do, would you care to tell us how you do it? What process you follow?

I really would love to know?

No, that is not what I say. I say that it is a simple fact that natural scientists should stick to other objects than old texts or they should learn some social science and history!

That is exactly what you are saying, you are doing it again.
Look at what you have written, you are repeating what I said, using different words, it really is very sad you do not see this.

They thought they had solved the problem. But it was like a disease where there was just one possible treatment.

How is letting a killer walk free solving anything?

So you think. What did they think?

We have no way of knowing what people thought in the past as you are so fond of posting.

Yes, but they were not murder investigators with the responsibility for catching the Whitechapel killer.

Who are the they who were not murder investigators?

how do they relate to the locking away of members of the Royal family ?

Actually it makes no difference, the authorities could have disposed of anyone they wished to by one means of another.




steve

[David Orsam]

At least you seem to understand a bit of this, compared to David, who believes that he can just look at an item and understand it without interpretation.

Needless to say, I have never stated anywhere, directly or indirectly, that I believe I can "just look at an item and understand it without interpretation". So we have here yet another catastrophic failure of comprehension on Pierre's part.

[John Wheat]

Come on Pierre stop pissing about and name your suspect.

[David Orsam]

Not at that time, but possibly later through some family testimony.

Pierre was talking about what Anderson described in his memoirs and I don't believe Anderson said anything about family testimony in those memoirs.

To be clear on the point, Anderson was clearly not saying in his memoirs that the killer was found from the house-to-house search which, he says, took place while he was abroad. Anderson left for Switzerland on 8 September and returned to London about a month later. In his book, a few paragraphs above the passage cited by Pierre, Anderson says (bold added):

"I spent the day of my return to town, and half the following night, in reinvestigating the whole case, and next day I had a long conference on the subject with the Secretary of State and the Chief Commissioner of Police. "We hold you responsible to find the murderer," was Mr. Matthews' greeting to me. My answer was to decline the responsibility. "I hold myself responsible," I said, "to take all legitimate means to find him.""

So Anderson had already made clear to his readers that the killer was not found while he was abroad before he came onto the subject of the Polish Jew.

As a matter of actual fact, Anderson did not have a clue (literally) as to the killer's identity in the weeks following his return to London. We know this because he wrote a note on the Whitechapel Murders to the Home Secretary on 23 October 1888 which said:

"That a crime of this kind should have been committed without any clue being supplied by the criminal, is unusual, but that five successive murders should have been committed without our having the slightest clue of any kind is extraordinary, if not unique, in the annals of crime".

He added that "The vigilance of the officers engaged on the inquiry continues unabated".

[GUT]

Come on Pierre stop pissing about and name your suspect.

He might,

If he ever decides on one.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Two things.

The house-to-house search took place after Anderson returned from where ever he had been during September and the first few days of October. He was to leave London again soon afterwards for the funeral of his father.

Interesting that on 23rd October 1888 Anderson counted five victims [I am assuming he was including Tabram], but two days later only sent Dr Bond medical evidence from four victims—Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes.

Regards,

Simon

[GUT]

Needless to say, I have never stated anywhere, directly or indirectly, that I believe I can "just look at an item and understand it without interpretation". So we have here yet another catastrophic failure of comprehension on Pierre's part.

No it's proof that either

He is the great scientist, sociologist, historian genius.

or

That he's full of it and has no idea what he's talking about.

I know which I think it is, especially when I show real historians his reasoning and the response in "This kid needs some lessons in basic historical methodology".