Lawende was silenced

[David Orsam]

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

The correct question is: Why did Mr Crawford, on behalf of the City Police, want to withhold the information that the man seen with Eddowes before the murder was dressed like a sailor?

Once you ask the correct question you might work out the correct answer.

[Pierre]

The correct question is: Why did Mr Crawford, on behalf of the City Police, want to withhold the information that the man seen with Eddowes before the murder was dressed like a sailor?

Once you ask the correct question you might work out the correct answer.

Great, David. Now, provide a list of sources for this:

that the man seen with Eddowes before the murder was dressed like a sailor

and I will surprise you.

[David Orsam]

Great, David. Now, provide a list of sources for this:



and I will surprise you.

TNA, MEPO 3/2890.

Now, go ahead and surprise me.

[Pierre]

TNA, MEPO 3/2890.

Now, go ahead and surprise me.

Sure. What is the exact information given by MEPO 3/2890 that shows you that there is a clear connection between

"Why did Mr Crawford, on behalf of the City Police, want to withhold the information that the man seen with Eddowes before the murder was

AND

"dressed like a sailor?"?

[David Orsam]

All you asked me to do Pierre was "provide a list of sources" and then, you said, "I will surprise you".

The list of sources has been provided.

Where is the surprise?

[Pierre]

All you asked me to do Pierre was "provide a list of sources" and then, you said, "I will surprise you".

The list of sources has been provided.

Where is the surprise?

It is at the point where you will be after having answered a set of relevant questions. So what is your answer to the first relevant question?

[David Orsam]

It is at the point where you will be after having answered a set of relevant questions. So what is your answer to the first relevant question?

I'm not playing your games Pierre.

[Bridewell]

Great, David. Now, provide a list of sources for this:

and I will surprise you.

Sadly not. You never do. You just promise information and then fail to deliver. That's no longer a surprise. It's what we've come to expect.

Returning to the subject of the thread. A coroner's inquest is not the same as a criminal trial. Its purpose is to determine when where and how the deceased met his or her end not, where murder was involved, who was the person responsible. That is for another time and place. Description of a suspect would be of enormous press & public interest, but of little relevance to the purpose of the inquest proceedings. No cover up; no conspiracy.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Bridewell;391114]

Sadly not. You never do. You just promise information and then fail to deliver. That's no longer a surprise. It's what we've come to expect.

Hi Bridewell,

I do not make promises. But I have estimated that I might have some source(s) giving sufficient information this autumn so I can report some result of any kind. It is not my wish to disappoint anyone. And the problem is that whatever the outcome, people will be disappointed. So I am a bit reluctant right now to do what I must. But I am working on getting over that.

Returning to the subject of the thread. A coroner's inquest is not the same as a criminal trial. Its purpose is to determine when where and how the deceased met his or her end not, where murder was involved, who was the person responsible. That is for another time and place. Description of a suspect would be of enormous press & public interest, but of little relevance to the purpose of the inquest proceedings. No cover up; no conspiracy.

I don´t think it was a matter of conspiracy. I think it was a matter of not endangering the public trust in the police.

Best wishes, Pierre

[David Orsam]

I do not make promises.

But you made one earlier in this thread:

"Now, provide a list of sources for this:
and I will surprise you."

I provided the list of sources and you failed to deliver on your promise to surprise me.

[Elamarna]

And the problem is that whatever the outcome, people will be disappointed. So I am a bit reluctant right now to do what I must. But I am working on getting over that.

Pierre

With all due respect I must ask you why will people be disappointed with the outcome of your research?


Are you suggesting again, that revealing the identity will some how cause problems in the UK.
May I say, when it was suggested the killer was a member of the Royal family, no one was bothered.
Indeed many members of the British public still believe it is linked to the British Royal family, and nothing has happened.
If that is what you mean?
You have suggested just this sort of thing, more than once, that somehow naming the killer will cause problems in the UK, then I feel
you need to understand such a belief is pure fantasy.

However maybe you mean something else?


If you can prove the ID of killer you will be told well done and all will be happy the case is solved.

If on the other hand you cannot prove the ID, and honestly most do not expect you to, then people will not be disappointed as they have no expectations for you to fulfil.

Either way, why will people be disappointed?
Please be clear why you think this is the case?


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;391149]

Pierre

With all due respect I must ask you why will people be disappointed with the outcome of your research?

Are you suggesting again, that revealing the identity will some how cause problems in the UK.
May I say, when it was suggested the killer was a member of the Royal family, no one was bothered.
Indeed many members of the British public still believe it is linked to the British Royal family, and nothing has happened.
If that is what you mean?
You have suggested just this sort of thing, more than once, that somehow naming the killer will cause problems in the UK, then I feel
you need to understand such a belief is pure fantasy.

However maybe you mean something else?

Steve,

Was the Royal family responsible for investigating the Whitechapel murders?

Was Queen Victoria the head of Scotland Yard?

Was Prins Albert the Whitechapel killer?

If the Royal family was in charge of the investigation of the murders and they had found out that Prins Albert was the murderer and they would have let him go, what do you think this would have meant to people in 1888 and in 2016 if they found out?

If you can prove the ID of killer you will be told well done and all will be happy the case is solved.

If on the other hand you cannot prove the ID, and honestly most do not expect you to, then people will not be disappointed as they have no expectations for you to fulfil.

Either way, why will people be disappointed?
Please be clear why you think this is the case?

It has been very easy for a long time to blame people for being the Whitechapel killer. Therefore, a discourse has been constructed, which is not taken seriously. Outlandish theories have not made the case any better.

But if the case is solved for real and the reality is that the killer was a man protected by those who were supposed to protect the poor in Whitechapel, that will be a scandal. At least this is what I believe.

Thank you for asking the question, Steve.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;391153]

Steve,

Was the Royal family responsible for investigating the Whitechapel murders?

Was Queen Victoria the head of Scotland Yard?

Was Prins Albert the Whitechapel killer?

If the Royal family was in charge of the investigation of the murders and they had found out that Prins Albert was the murderer and they would have let him go, what do you think this would have meant to people in 1888 and in 2016 if they found out?



It has been very easy for a long time to blame people for being the Whitechapel killer. Therefore, a discourse has been constructed, which is not taken seriously. Outlandish theories have not made the case any better.

But if the case is solved for real and the reality is that the killer was a man protected by those who were supposed to protect the poor in Whitechapel, that will be a scandal. At least this is what I believe.

Thank you for asking the question, Steve.

Regards, Pierre

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.

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.


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.

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

[MysterySinger]

There would be outrage that he had the audacity to wear a peaked cap in public and to shout "Lipski" at a passer by.

[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.