Lawende was silenced

[David Orsam]

Your question is not relevant. There is no hypothesis about any special dress. The relevant issue is what people in 1888 thought they saw.

So you can forget your own, self made model about how a specific type of outfit must have looked in 1888, according to your own prejudice.

But the headgear was an integral part of a police officer's uniform.

If a man was wearing a cloth cap with a cloth peak he was certainly not wearing a police officer's uniform.

Do you at least agree that, whatever else he was wearing, a police officer wearing a cloth cap with a cloth peak would have been incorrectly dressed?

[Pierre]

What do you mean by "It proves nothing"? It proves the man was not dressed as a police officer.

If you disagree, tell me what police officers wore cloth caps with cloth peaks?

Your question is not relevant. There is no hypothesis about any special dress. The relevant issue is what people in 1888 thought they saw.

So you can forget your own, self made model about how a specific type of outfit must have looked in 1888, according to your own prejudice.

[David Orsam]

It is stamped in a red circular print that says
Reserved Metropolitan Police Office (around it)
Candidates Dept, 22 July 1890 (in it)
and has a CJD Ref No 64073

I'm sorry Paddy but that's not correct. The schedule is undated and does not bear any reference nor any stamp.

[David Orsam]

It proves nothing, since it was only a cap and not a dress. Or do you believe that he was naked?

What do you mean by "It proves nothing"? It proves the man was not dressed as a police officer.

If you disagree, tell me what police officers wore cloth caps with cloth peaks?

[Pierre]

But there IS a statement given by Lawende about the cap the man was wearing in a primary original source.

It disproves the hypothesis that the man was a police officer.

It proves nothing, since it was only a cap and not a dress. Or do you believe that he was naked?

[Paddy]

Swansons suspect

It is stamped in a red circular print that says
Reserved Metropolitan Police Office (around it)
Candidates Dept, 22 July 1890 (in it)
and has a CJD Ref No 64073

Pat....

[David Orsam]

There is no statement about the dress of the man given by Lawende in any primary original source.

But there IS a statement given by Lawende about the cap the man was wearing in a primary original source.

It disproves the hypothesis that the man was a police officer.

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre
As mentioned early on on this thread, how about the times of Oct 2 where the description given to the police was printed? It could only have come from Lawende.

Hi IchabodCrane,

There is no statement about the dress of the man given by Lawende in any primary original source.

Regards, Pierre

[IchabodCrane]

Hi Paddy,
fantastic, thank you. Do you have a date when this note was written?

[Paddy]

Eddowes Suspect

This is from a list of suspects written by Swanson
This one is Eddowes Suspect

Pat

[IchabodCrane]

The description of the cloth peaked cap, fair moustache and appearance of a sailor are probably the only valid descriptions of Jack the Ripper that we have, and which the police lent credence to, so that they called upon Joseph Lawende in the case of James Sadler, and in all likelihood also in the case of the seaside home identification.

The coroner asked the Jury, and the Jury concurred not to share further details about the man's appearance, such as moustache, height and complexion. These details were had however already been given in the 'Times' on Oct 2nd, 9 days before Lawende appeared at the inquest. They where then published again a week later in the Police Gazette on 19 October 1888 under 'Apprehensions Sought', with the addition of the 'sailor-like appearance', which however was already known to the press at the time, because it was mentioned in the daily telegraph on Oct 12, the day after the inquest. The point which the police appear to have been at most pains to suppress is the significant one that the unknown murderer has the "appearance of a sailor."

So the sources tell us that at least some of the description given by Lawende to the police was leaked to the newspapers early, before or latest during the Eddowes inquest. Knowledge of this leak might have prompted the police to give a hint to the Coroner to ask the Jury to agree that no further particulars should be shared at the inquest.

A reason could be that the police might have thought that they were on a hot lead in the week between inquest day 1 and 2, and didn't want to let the Ripper know the full details of what they knew about him (Jacket, appearance of a sailor). When those leads didn't materialize, the full description was then reported by Swanson and published in the Apprehensions Sought.

[David Orsam]

What Pierre doesn't seem to have realised is that his hypothesis - that Lawende was silenced because he was about to say that the man he saw with Eddowes was dressed as a police officer - is demonstrably untrue on the evidence.

Lawende stated at the inquest that the man he saw "had a cloth cap on with a cloth peak".

No police officer would have been wearing a cloth cap with a cloth peak as part of his uniform.

So that alone means that Pierre's theory is dead in the water.

And Lawende certainly was not going on to say that the man was a police officer because he had already the told police that he was wearing a red handkerchief and looked like a sailor.

[IchabodCrane]

Yes, David, it is strange, actually remarkable, that they did so in the court room and therefore it must have been very important.

And still there is no sources where he has been tracked down and where he answers the question [to the dress of the man seen by him]. There can be only one or two reasons for this.

Conclusion: Silence before the inquest, at the inquest the evidence of the witness was withheld, silence after the inquest.

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre
As mentioned early on on this thread, how about the times of Oct 2 where the description given to the police was printed? It could only have come from Lawende.

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;391157][QUOTE=Elamarna;391154]

OK. I will remember what you say and I hope you are right about that.



That was funny! Of course I meant "accuse".



We will see.



The protection of the killer. Not stopping him in 1889.

Pierre

There may have been a cover up in 89, I do not know, but it was a very different society then.

As you are so often fond of saying, it is the past, and the past is gone.

What happened in 1888 or 89, will have very little impact on the UK today.


Apart from people who may be related to the killer, or those related to any in a cover up, if one did occur, NO ONE will be seriously affected; apart from those who have invested years in claiming this man or that man was the killer.

Of course if you are right, one person's life will change will it not?
Someone will become world famous as the man who solved the case and become very rich in the course of that.

But ONLY if they can prove the case!


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;391154][QUOTE=Pierre;391153]

Pierre

You are so wrong in your view of the reaction there would be today.

Lets look at your first point about Prince Albert, I assume you mean prince Albert Victor, given Albert had been dead some years at that point.

The Monarchy was unpopular at that time, there had been riots the year before in London.
Yes in 1888, it may have been a problem.
However I am convinced he would not have been allowed to carry on. He would have been stopped, and yes it would have been covered up.

However not so in 2016.
Now it would mean very little, society has changed.
No families of those involved would be forced to resign, although of course they may feel bad themselves and be ashamed of their ancestors who were involved, but that would only affect the immediate family.

OK. I will remember what you say and I hope you are right about that.

Why do you say "blame people for being the Whitechapel killer"

Do you mean accuse? If so I agree.

However one does not blame someone for being the killer.

That was funny! Of course I meant "accuse".

And finally on to the Police.

It would if proven to be true, be headlines for a day or two, but it would have no effect on how the British people view the Police; especially considering a proportion of the population have a very low opinion of them to start with.

I think you have a skewed view of how the British are, and behave, which has nothing to do with your theory on the killer of course.

We will see.

On the whole we do not hold these institutions like The Police or the Judiciary in the high position you feel we do.

I do not mean this to be derogatory in any way way, but your view of the British towards the Police, and authority in general seems very much like that displayed in the film "The Blue Lamp" where all police and authorities were portrayed as being respected even by the criminal classes, it is fiction.

I really fail to see this great disappointment you see, did you not once use terms like "angry" and "upset" as well to describe what you think will be the public response?

I may well be wrong on the actual words you used, and am posting from memory, so forgive me if those are not exact, but those are the feelings you feel will be expressed by many are they not?

Can I just ask what you base this on?

cheers

Steve

The protection of the killer. Not stopping him in 1889.