Lawende was silenced

[Pierre]

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?

I will not even bother to read this silly post.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

I will not even bother to read this silly post.

How do you come to the conclusion that it was a "silly post" without reading it?

It's perfectly clear that you are pretending not to have read it because you know you can't answer it.

[GUT]

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.

So The Great Historian doesn't know the difference between a primary and secondary source, funny that.

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

So, in spite of the fact that we got more than one perfectly rational reasons to explain why those details were not made public, we are supposed to believe that either the City Police or Swanson lied? I'm surely not buying it.

[Pierre]

So, in spite of the fact that we got more than one perfectly rational reasons to explain why those details were not made public, we are supposed to believe that either the City Police or Swanson lied? I'm surely not buying it.

Keeping quiet is not necessarily the same thing as lying.

But why would they not have been able to lie to protect their organisation?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

But why would they not have been able to lie to protect their organisation?

But Pierre we are talking about a note that Donald Swanson prepared for his own personal use, not for publication. He wasn't "protecting his organisation" he was trying to work out what the murderer looked like. There is absolutely zero reason to think that what he put into this internal, confidential note was untrue.

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

Well i may be the naive guy but without any possibly strong element that suggest otherwise I almost never immediatly suspect the police of foul play. Expecially when there are way simpler solutions.

[Bridewell]

Keeping quiet is not necessarily the same thing as lying.

But why would they not have been able to lie to protect their organisation?

Regards, Pierre

Pierre, anybody can lie about anything, so of course the police would be able to lie just the same as anybody else. However, where the Whitechapel Murders are concerned, I see no evidence that the police had any reason to lie and certainly none that they did so. As you have been told (and must know yourself if you have even rudimentary knowledge of the subject) Swanson's notes were his own and not for public consumption.

[Pierre]

Pierre, anybody can lie about anything, so of course the police would be able to lie just the same as anybody else. However, where the Whitechapel Murders are concerned, I see no evidence that the police had any reason to lie and certainly none that they did so. As you have been told (and must know yourself if you have even rudimentary knowledge of the subject) Swanson's notes were his own and not for public consumption.

"As you have been told". Are you the type of person who thinks that you can go around and tell others things and they believe you?

[David Orsam]

"As you have been told". Are you the type of person who thinks that you can go around and tell others things and they believe you?

You have been told something factual, Pierre, on the basis that you have never seen Swanson's note and, indeed, did not even appear to know of its existence prior to this thread.

So, yes, Bridewell is right, you did need to be told about it and now you have been told.

Do you have any reason to doubt what you have been told? If so, what?

[Michael W Richards]

What is unclear about this exchange at the Inquest while Lawende was on the stand:


"Mr. Crawford: Unless the jury wish it, I do not think further particulars should be given as to the appearance of this man.
The Foreman: The jury do not desire it."

CLEARLY, as I said before, The jury WAS offered a chance to have the full description provided to them. Nothing was "denied" in this respect.

[Pierre]

What is unclear about this exchange at the Inquest while Lawende was on the stand:


"Mr. Crawford: Unless the jury wish it, I do not think further particulars should be given as to the appearance of this man.
The Foreman: The jury do not desire it."

CLEARLY, as I said before, The jury WAS offered a chance to have the full description provided to them. Nothing was "denied" in this respect.

Hi Michael,

Hope you do not mind if I refer to you as a source and compare you to another source?

Here we go:

Michael W Richards, a person living in 2016, 128 years from the event of the inquest of Catherine Eddowes, is making the following interpretation of the inquest in 1888:

"The jury WAS offered a chance to have the full description provided to them. Nothing was "denied" in this respect."

A reporter from Dublin Daily Express, 12 October 1888, was making the following interpretation of the inquest in his time:

"Mr Lawende, a foreigner, said he saw a man and woman near the scene of the murder, and was about to describe them when the City Solicitor stopped him, and the description was withheld".

The problem here is one of interpretation. When you hear:

"Mr. Crawford: Unless the jury wish it, I do not think further particulars should be given as to the appearance of this man.

The Foreman: The jury do not desire it."

a reporter in 1888 could hear something completely different.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Bit strange don't you think, this city solicitor doing the cover-up and "silencing" the witness in open court, in full view and hearing of the press?

What was to stop the reporters tracking Lawende down and asking him what the man he saw looked like? Answer: Nothing.

Conclusion: No cover-up, no-one was silenced.

[Elamarna]

Pierre

anything Lawende said was unimportant, you said so yourself, why then is there a need to silence him?.

I posted this in much fuller detail in post 18 of this thread which you of course completely ignored.

steve

[Michael W Richards]

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.