Lawende was silenced

[David Orsam]

Hi David the schedule is undated but the folder it was in had the details on...

Not really. The folder has no details on. As far as I can tell, you've taken the details you've cited from other documents in the folder. For example, the stamp with the date of 22 July 1890 comes from a separate memo noting a complaint against Swanson. It's not related to the schedule, which is (to borrow a phrase) a one-off document in the file. I have a copy of the folder and I can't actually see the reference 64073; perhaps it's in there somewhere, but definitely not related to Swanson's schedule.

[David Orsam]

Also does not include Kelly so must be after Eddowes?

Yes, the likelihood is that Swanson drew it up after the Double Event but before the Kelly murder because, as you say, it does not mention the Kelly murder. The one qualification I would make about this is that the schedule is headed "Comparison of the descriptions given of the men who were observed near the scene at the time of the several murders". If Swanson didn't think that there was any reliable description of anyone observed near the scene of the Kelly murder then that might explain Kelly's exclusion from the schedule.

[Pierre]

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?

A man murdering and mutilating women in London 1888 behaved incorrectly.

[David Orsam]

A man murdering and mutilating women in London 1888 behaved incorrectly.

That's not an answer to the question I was asking you Pierre. You have an odd habit of answering questions you are not being asked but ignoring those that you ARE being asked.

I will repeat the question that I DID ask you.

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?

[Paddy]

It is not from another form but may pertain to a sheet behind liner David.
It is on the inside of a small Brown liner to the left of the sheet. I have just looked again and it also says ....
Minutes, Transcript and signed by PA and LJ
The sheet behind has a capital A in the space headed "Division" and a capital CO in he same column below it. Then three ditto marks below them.
Unfortunately I can see nothing else. I would love to read those minutes wouldn't you?

Pat...

[MysterySinger]

Donald Swanson took the statement of Israel Schwartz who described a man he had seen with Stride (quote on Casebook):

"He thus describes the first man, who threw the woman down:- age, about 30; ht, 5 ft 5 in; comp., fair; hair, dark; small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered; dress, dark jacket and trousers, black cap with peak, and nothing in his hands".

[David Orsam]

It is not from another form but may pertain to a sheet behind liner David.
It is on the inside of a small Brown liner to the left of the sheet. I have just looked again and it also says ....
Minutes, Transcript and signed by PA and LJ
The sheet behind has a capital A in the space headed "Division" and a capital CO in he same column below it. Then three ditto marks below them.
Unfortunately I can see nothing else. I would love to read those minutes wouldn't you?

What you seem to be referring to is the memo, on brown paper, dated July 1890 which references a complaint against Swanson by William Billings. On the reverse of the document is the heading "MINUTES". Then, below that, it says "ToCandsDpt" - meaning To Candidates Department - not "Transcript" as you appear to have deciphered it. Beneath that are the initials PA and LJ (and I now see the C.I.D. reference 64073 that you referred to). There is another page with various comments including a note that the matter has been sent to the ACC. But these documents are completely separate from the Swanson schedule which is a standalone document at the back of the file. There is no connection between them.

[Paddy]

Hi David yes you are correct I was wrong about the word Transcript.
Out of interest why was he going to kick Billings and was Billings a reporter?
Thanks
Pat.....

[David Orsam]

Hi David yes you are correct I was wrong about the word Transcript.
Out of interest why was he going to kick Billings and was Billings a reporter?
Thanks
Pat.....

Billings is noted to have been a police informant from some years earlier but he doesn't say in his letter of complaint why Swanson threatened to kick him. I don't want to get too off topic about this as I'm waiting to hear Pierre's answer to my repeated question in #529.

[DJA]

A man murdering and mutilating women in London 1888 behaved incorrectly.

ROFL.

Maybea.

[Pierre]

ROFL.

Maybea.

DBISH.

[David Orsam]

Pierre, I'm wondering if there is there any chance of you answering a straightforward question in this thread.

Now for the third time:

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?

[Elamarna]

Pierre,

I have been thinking about all you have been not saying in this thread, if you get my meaning?

You seem to give the impression that the "man" seen by Lawende was wearing something which was very distinctive.

It seems clear that you believe this information was withheld.

I therefore have the following to ask you:



1. Do you believe that the description was distinctive, and not as was reported later?




2. If the answer to 1 is yes.

Do you have any Data source to back this up, if that is your view?



3. If the Answer to 2 is yes.

Is this a direct primary source from either a witness or an official report?

I am being specific here about any source you may be using, it needs to be official, based on a report of a witness, or a direct source from a witness.



4. If the answer to 3 is yes,.

What is that source?




Steve

[David Orsam]

It's perfectly obvious to me that Pierre's reasoning is no more than his belief (for which he admits he does not have sufficient evidence in support) that the killer was a police officer.

Seeing that Lawende was, in his opinion, 'silenced' by the City police solicitor at the inquest and not allowed to describe the man he saw, Pierre has jumped to the conclusion that the reason for the 'silencing' was because Lawende saw a police officer with Eddowes.

So he's looking at this completely the wrong way round. He has no evidence whatsoever that Lawende saw a police officer or someone who looked like a police officer, it's a mere assumption on his part based on his theory about the killer's identity.

If his premise is wrong about the killer being a police officer then he has nothing. Even if his premise is right he is still wrong about Lawende seeing a police officer. We know what Lawende saw: it was a man who looked like a sailor.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;391422]

Pierre,

I have been thinking about all you have been not saying in this thread, if you get my meaning?

Steve,

I donīt understand what you mean.

You seem to give the impression that the "man" seen by Lawende was wearing something which was very distinctive.

We donīt know how good Lawendeīs ability to interpret what he saw was. And we donīt know what he saw.

It seems clear that you believe this information was withheld.

There was no reason to withhold information if the man Lawende saw was dressed as a sailor. The press wrote about a sighting of a man looking like a sailor or wearing some sailorīs outfit sitting on a stair and wiping his hands, if I remember correctly. That idea could have been connected by the journalists to the lack of information about the manīs dress in court.

I therefore have the following to ask you:

1. Do you believe that the description was distinctive, and not as was reported later?

What do you mean by "distinctive" and "not as was reported later"?

2. If the answer to 1 is yes.

Do you have any Data source to back this up, if that is your view?

See above.

3. If the Answer to 2 is yes.

Is this a direct primary source from either a witness or an official report?

See above.

I am being specific here about any source you may be using, it needs to be official, based on a report of a witness, or a direct source from a witness.

4. If the answer to 3 is yes,.

What is that source?

As soon as I know what you mean I will get back to you and answer your questions.

Regards, Pierre