Lawende was silenced

[David Orsam]

Your inability to understand a point isn't the same thing as it being "plain wrong"

It's not a question of me not understanding the point. I understand what you are saying but I am disagreeing with you.

Is there any chance you can provide some kind of authority to support what you are saying? Or even an explanation as to why you believe it?

Because what I don't understand is where you have got this idea in your head from.

[Mr Lucky]

As I said earlier in this thread, this is plain wrong.

Had the witness given the evidence that was 'withheld' at the inquest there would have been nothing preventing it being used at trial as prosecution evidence.

Your inability to understand a point isn't the same thing as it being "plain wrong"

[David Orsam]

the description hasn't gone down on record whilst the witness was under oath so it can still be used at trial as prosecution evidence. (the description hasn't been 'withheld' - it's just not used at the inquest)

As I said earlier in this thread, this is plain wrong.

Had the witness given the evidence that was 'withheld' at the inquest there would have been nothing preventing it being used at trial as prosecution evidence.

[Mr Lucky]

I continue to ask this question: Why did they withhold the information about the dress of the man seen with Eddowes before the murder?

I wasn't codding when I gave you the tip, the description hasn't gone down on record whilst the witness was under oath so it can still be used at trial as prosecution evidence. (the description hasn't been 'withheld' - it's just not used at the inquest)

This may baffle you further;- the evidence about the apron and the message has been given at the inquest so it can be used as prosecution evidence.

[Pierre]

At the Eddowes inquest Lawende was about to testify about the dress of the man he saw together with Eddowes near the murder site.

But Lawende was silenced by the city solicitor.

The city solicitor said that for particular reasons evidence about the dress of the man should not be given.

The only thing Lawende was allowed to say was that the man had a peaked cap.

Why did they withhold the information about the dress of the man seen with Eddowes before the murder?

Source: Shields Daily Gazette - Thursday 11 October 1888
More sources with the same content:

Hartlepool Northern Daily Mail - Thursday 11 October 1888
South Wales Echo - Thursday 11 October 1888
Sunderland Daily Echo and Shipping Gazette - Friday 12 October 1888

And in the original inquest sources Lawende states that he has given his description to the police (Evans & Skinner, p. 297).

Regards, Pierre

I continue to ask this question: Why did they withhold the information about the dress of the man seen with Eddowes before the murder?

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe: The scenario I've been proposing concerns the possibility that Lechmere feared retribution from a local street gang, Fish, not that any such gang had anything to fear from Lechmere's evidence.

Yes, I noticed and commented on that, Garry, since I believe it took the strength out of your argument.

This was the lawless East End where violence was commonplace and where street gangs had a reputation for ruthlessness.

Indeed it was. And consequentially, most people would be reluctant to bother these gangs. And Lechmere did not. Which is why he should not be worried about stating his real name. And, as I said before, if he WAS worried about stating it, then why would he tell the thugs where to find him?

As I've already stated, the Nichols murder was thought by many to have been committed by the same thugs who had killed Emma Smith. As such, Lechmere may simply have wanted to distance himself from the Nichols crime in order to protect himself or, more likely still, his wife and children.

He had already protected them by not saying a single word that could in any way annoy the gangs, Garry. Donīt you think they had better (or perhaps I should say worse) things to do than to read the inquest reports and jump any witness who had said or done nothing at all to annoy them?

Telling the police porkies would have come with a risk, Garry. That would have been something most people would be able to conclude - being found alone with a freshly killed victim always carried potentially very negative implications with itself. My hunch is that somebody who was willing to risk that the police found out about such a thing, would be very much less inclined to panick pondering the possibilitites that a street gang would dislike them for no reason at all.

Until it can be proven that any street gang had any reason at all to beat Lechmere up, or that they were in the habit of picking random people out of the papers and serving them an assault, free of charge, I will remain at the stance that the suggestion you are making makes little sense to me.

It also has a major bearing on the matter that Lechmere approached the police himself, and thus actually volunteered for the inquest - if he was scared of reprisals, why would he do that?

It has also been suggested that Lechmere was unwilling to have the name Lechmere smeared, and therefore went for the name Cross instead. It is a twin sibling of your suggestion, I believe, since doing a stand-up citizen deed like testifying never had any connection to any smearing at all.

If he did not use "Cross" otherwise, it is really hard to come up with a reason why he should have done so with the legal system on this specific occasion.

[Garry Wroe]

With an equal amount of respect, Garry, I HAVE read up on them, But that doens not mean that they had any reason at all to mistreat Charles Lechmere. There was absoutely nothing in what he said or did that in any way implicated them as being part of the murder.

The scenario I've been proposing concerns the possibility that Lechmere feared retribution from a local street gang, Fish, not that any such gang had anything to fear from Lechmere's evidence. This was the lawless East End where violence was commonplace and where street gangs had a reputation for ruthlessness. As I've already stated, the Nichols murder was thought by many to have been committed by the same thugs who had killed Emma Smith. As such, Lechmere may simply have wanted to distance himself from the Nichols crime in order to protect himself or, more likely still, his wife and children.

[Columbo]

And I also love the fact that I don't believe you've made a single post about Lawende in this entire thread, but you have made quite a number about Lechmere.

Relax guys I was joking...

[David Orsam]

Let's get back to Lawende please.

And I also love the fact that I don't believe you've made a single post about Lawende in this entire thread, but you have made quite a number about Lechmere.

[David Orsam]

I believe this Lechmere business was moved to another thread. Let's get back to Lawende please.

I love the way you quote me and not Fisherman to whom I was replying.

[John Wheat]

I believe this Lechmere business was moved to another thread. Let's get back to Lawende please.

Columbo

Well this whole threads bullshit. Who would even silence Lawende, the idea is a non starter. However there's a lot more bullshit written about Lechmere. Lechmere was a witness nothing more.

Cheers John

[Columbo]

For "very feasible" you must mean "highly speculative and ridiculous".

I believe this Lechmere business was moved to another thread. Let's get back to Lawende please.

Columbo

[David Orsam]

And since one paper only, the Star, HAD the address, it becomes a very feasible suggestion that Lechmere did not read it out to the inquest, and that the Star reporter obtained it from the coronerīs witness list.

For "very feasible" you must mean "highly speculative and ridiculous".

[Fisherman]

Garry!

This passage...

So you belong to the large group of people who has failed to read/understand what I am saying? He did NOT attempt to dupe the investigators. If anything, he was probably annoyed with how he was not able to give them not only his correct address and hos correct place of work, but also his correct name. This, however, was not possible to do on his behalf.
Once again, it was NOT the investigators he tried to keep out of the loop - it was people who knew him, were aware of his paths and timings and who would perhaps be able to put two and two together and realize that the carman could be the killer. It could be his wife and family, perhaps, but equally some friend or aquaintance.
These people would not get access to who the witness was if they diod not get the real name or the address. And since one paper only, the Star, HAD the address, it becomes a very feasible suggestion that Lechmere did not read it out to the inquest, and that the Star reporter obtained it from the coronerīs witness list.
Now do you see what I am saying, Gary? There was never any attempt to fool the investigators, for the simple fat that such a thing would put him at risk if they checked him out thoroughly. At the same time, he wanted to keep those who knew him out of the loop. The best compromise would be to call himself Cross - a name he could explain - and to give the address to the police but keep it from the papers. The working place was huge, so it was not much of a risk to give it to both to the police and the public.

... should of course also have been in bold. Sorry about that mistake, and i hope you got my point anyway.

[GUT]

Lechmere was seen standing in the road.The body of a woman was close by.
Lawende was no where to be seen.

Or maybe he was there and that's why he had to be silenced.