Lawende was silenced

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;383691]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:

And



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

And finally

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?

Hi Steve,

Yes, less than a month ago I said that it was not significant, based on what I knew about Lawende.

But then I found the sources describing how he was silenced at the inquest. And that was news to me. (Historians like old news.)

So first of all, what he said was not significant.

But then what he did not say might have been.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

So first of all, what he said was not significant.

But then what he did not say might have been.

Why would saying that he saw a man who looked like a sailor have been significant?

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;384607]

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:

And



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

And finally



Hi Steve,

Yes, less than a month ago I said that it was not significant, based on what I knew about Lawende.

But then I found the sources describing how he was silenced at the inquest. And that was news to me. (Historians like old news.)

So first of all, what he said was not significant.

But then what he did not say might have been.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre,

Nice try, it does actual stand up to some extent. And was what I was expecting, actually hoping for!


The problem is that he was not silenced, the jury only had to say yes.

However even then, of course he did give a brief description anyway, mentioning height and the headgear.



So from the historical viewpoint:

Do you have no sources to say he would say anything other what Swanson wrote?

If not you are guessing are you not that he may have said something.


Sounds like good old fashion Ripperology to me.


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;384610]

Pierre,

Nice try, it does actual stand up to some extent. And was what I was expecting, actually hoping for!


The problem is that he was not silenced, the jury only had to say yes.

However even then, of course he did give a brief description anyway, mentioning height and the headgear.



So from the historical viewpoint:

Do you have no sources to say he would say anything other what Swanson wrote?

If not you are guessing are you not that he may have said something.

Sounds like good old fashion Ripperology to me.

Steve

Hi Steve,

I am not guessing but supposing. That is what the word hypothesis means. And I am doing it since there are other sources suggesting I should do it. Not because I want to do it, but because I have to. Also, hypotheses should be disproved, so I am working on that!

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

And I am doing it since there are other sources suggesting I should do it.

One does need to be very careful about twisting the facts to fit into a preconceived notion or theory or ignoring or denying them if they don't fit.

You may have located some "sources" which suggest that the murderer was a police officer (although, personally, I doubt it), and perhaps you got excited when you saw that Lawende was asked not to give his description of his man at the inquest, but knowing as we do that Lawende thought the man looked like a sailor, it is perverse of you to persist with this.

I appreciate that you were totally unaware of Swanson's note before you started this thread but it's time to come back to reality and face up to the fact that Lawende does not help you.

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;384613]

Hi Steve,

I am not guessing but supposing. That is what the word hypothesis means. And I am doing it since there are other sources suggesting I should do it. Not because I want to do it, but because I have to. Also, hypotheses should be disproved, so I am working on that!

Regards, Pierre

Pierre

a google search gives:

GUESS

verb

1.
estimate or conclude (something) without sufficient information to be sure of being correct.
"she guessed the child's age at 14 or 15"
synonyms: estimate, calculate, approximate, make a guess at, make an estimate of


noun

1.
an estimate or conclusion formed by guessing.
"my guess is that within a year we will have a referendum"
synonyms: hypothesis, theory, prediction, postulation, conjecture



SUPPOSE

verb

1.
think or assume that something is true or probable but lack proof or certain knowledge.
"I suppose I got there about noon"
synonyms: assume, dare say, take for granted, take as read, presume, expect, take it



Where is the significant difference?

They can be and are used in an interchangeable manner


And you have now said:


"And I am doing it since there are other sources suggesting I should do it."


What does that mean?

Are you suggesting a source leads you to believe the killer was seen?

Are you suggesting a new source, one you have not mentioned on this thread before, which shows important information was withheld on order at the inquest?


Or is that just another way of saying, you interpret the inquest testimony as showing he was silenced?


Steve

[Bridewell]

The only way that Lawende was silenced by the authorities was his being sequestered prior to the Inquiry. They obviously didn't want him talking to the press beforehand.

Spot on, Michael, but too simple an explanation, I suspect, for the distinguished historian.

[Bridewell]

That is not a testable hypothesis.

Oh the irony of this statement from a person who refuses to submit his or her own hypothesis to peer review.

[Bridewell]

There are two events in the whole case where witnesses gave the same type of statement but changed their testimony as soon as they came to the court room or to the police - Lechmere and Arnold

And your source for saying that Lechmere changed his testimony is what? And in what way are you saying that he changed it?*


*Christer, I'm sure you will want to jump in here but can you give the great historian the opportunity to do so first please?

[Bridewell]

I am not guessing but supposing. That is what the word hypothesis means.

An hypothesis which did not involve guesswork would be a statement of fact - and therefore not an hypothesis at all.

[Pierre]

And your source for saying that Lechmere changed his testimony is what? And in what way are you saying that he changed it?*

*Christer, I'm sure you will want to jump in here but can you give the great historian the opportunity to do so first please?

Hi Bridewell,

This is the source:

"Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying."

(http://casebook.org/official_documen...t_nichols.html)

I think that, from the point of view of source criticism, it is easy to state that Mizen did not lie but Lechmere did. This is also the reason why Christer has come to believe that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper, when he wasn´t. He was a witness who lied in court.

One could argue that both Mizen and Lechmere were sworn and that telling the truth should have been more important for a policeman than for a witness. But I will not do that.

Instead, the question is: Did any of these two persons lie about something at the inquest? I.e. - Was anyone of them a liar?

The answer is yes. Lechmere did lie about his usual name. Therefore, we know that Lechmere was a liar, but not for the reason Christer thinks.

The lie is here:

"A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?

Witness: No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row."

Do you understand this, Bridewell? I draw a conclusion from the inquest source and it is based on the source critical result that Lechmere lied about one thing, and therefore was a liar.

But the historical fact that Lechmere was a liar is not enough for establishing another historical fact: that he was a killer. On the contrary. He gave his right adress. So the police could find him whenever they wanted to.

So WHY did Lechmere lie about his sighting of a policeman in Buck´s Row?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

I draw a conclusion from the inquest source and it is based on the source critical result that Lechmere lied about one thing, and therefore was a liar.

You caused confusion, Pierre, by claiming that Lechmere changed his "testimony". But he didn't. He wasn't giving his testimony to Mizen. He simply spoke to him. So when you said that Lechmere changed his testimony this was both inaccurate and confusing.

[David Orsam]

So WHY did Lechmere lie about his sighting of a policeman in Buck´s Row?

You ask this question as if it's never been answered on this forum. I answered it myself for you a few days ago.

Lechmere might have lied in order that Mizen would allow him to continue to work without him having to accompany the officer back to where the woman was lying in Bucks Row.

Equally, it must be possible that Lechmere actually said "You are wanted in Bucks Row" and Mizen naturally enough assumed that Lechmere was telling him that he was wanted by another police officer, an assumption confirmed in his mind when he found PC Neil at the scene.

What definitely never happened is that Lechmere definitely never saw a police officer in Bucks Row.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Perhaps PC Mizen lied to give PC Neil an alibi.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Perhaps PC Mizen lied to give PC Neil an alibi.

Highly unlikely to the point of implausibility. Not only because it would mean that there was a three way conspiracy, for no obvious or good reason, to lie about the discovery of the body, involving Mizen, Thain and Neil (who weren't even all in the same division), but because it's perfectly obvious that Neil, having discovered the body, took charge of the situation which is why Thain was sent to wake up the doctor and Mizen was sent to fetch the ambulance.