Lawende was silenced

[David Orsam]

I must say Pierre I am rather confused because I had always understood from you that testimony in an official source had a rather exalted status as evidence.

Now you tell me I shouldn't believe such testimony unless there is also an accompanying photograph.

is that right?

[Pierre]

But would they have wanted a wrong statement about the killer being a sailor to be made in public?

Why would it have mattered?

[David Orsam]

It probably will.

Well Pierre my pretend search for military uniforms in the 1880s doesn't seem to tell me anything at all about police caps in the 1880s.

Perhaps you can enlighten me.

[Pierre]

I must say Pierre I am rather confused because I had always understood from you that testimony in an official source had a rather exalted status as evidence.

Now you tell me I shouldn't believe such testimony unless there is also an accompanying photograph.

is that right?

That is right. You should never "believe" a testimony even if it is from an original source high up in the source hierarchy and constructed under oath.

[Pierre]

Well Pierre my pretend search for military uniforms in the 1880s doesn't seem to tell me anything at all about police caps in the 1880s.

Perhaps you can enlighten me.

How many types of militaries did you find in your pretend search?

[David Orsam]

Why would it have mattered?

Well let's have a little think shall we Pierre.

The public is told by an important witness that the killer looked like a sailor.

Next day the police make an arrest. Lo and behold it's not a sailor, it's a police officer.

A jury is selected for his trial at the Old Bailey.

Who forms the jury? Why, members of the public!

So members of the public acquit the police officer because they believe the killer was a sailor and the killer walks away from court scot free.

Is that a catastrophic enough consequence for you?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;391566]

Pierre

With all due respect this thread is now in the realms of fantasy and detective fiction.

An idea spiralling completely out of control.

Proposals of conspiracy put forward, with no supporting evidence/data provided.

Steve

And with all due respect I hope that is the only reason why you seem upset.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

How many types of militaries did you find in your pretend search?

I pretended to find a lot military uniforms all over the world.

[Pierre]

Well let's have a little think shall we Pierre.

The public is told by an important witness that the killer looked like a sailor.

Next day the police make an arrest. Lo and behold it's not a sailor, it's a police officer.

A jury is selected for his trial at the Old Bailey.

Who forms the jury? Why, members of the public!

So members of the public acquit the police officer because they believe the killer was a sailor and the killer walks away from court scot free.

Is that a catastrophic enough consequence for you?

But that did not happen.

[Pierre]

I pretended to find a lot military uniforms all over the world.

Step one. Now, step two. What is it?

[David Orsam]

That is right. You should never "believe" a testimony even if it is from an original source high up in the source hierarchy and constructed under oath.

Just as well the police never made an arrest then for they would never have been able to convict the killer bearing in mind that the jury should never have believed any of the testimony at his trial.

[David Orsam]

But that did not happen.

Yes I know because Mr Crawford stopped Lawende (wrongly) saying the man he saw looked like a sailor.

Are you able to follow this simple line of argument Pierre?

[David Orsam]

Step one. Now, step two. What is it?

The next step is for you to answer a simple question.

Would a uniformed police officer wearing a cloth cap with a cloth peak in the street in 1888 have been incorrectly dressed according to police regulations?

[Pierre]

Yes I know because Mr Crawford stopped Lawende (wrongly) saying the man he saw looked like a sailor.

Are you able to follow this simple line of argument Pierre?

That is your attempt to write history. But it is written on silence.

Lawende was not "(wrongly) saying...". He was not saying at all.

Did you manage step 2, David?

[Elamarna]

Pierre

I have some simple questions for you:

Apart from the reports of what Lawende saw, which you do not accept:

1. Do you have or have you seen a source in which Lawende gives any other description.

2. What independent source( that is other than your secret ones) suggests that description given by Swanson is wrong?

The only persons who would know what the man seen by Lawende was wearing are the 2 friends with lawende and that man himself.

Therefore are you suggesting that an individual has written:

a. That he was the person seen by Lawende.

b. Reported what he was wearing.

c. Claimed to be the killer.

S