Lawende was silenced

[Monty]

Kepis were worn by Inspector rank and above only.

Monty
🙂

[ChrisGeorge]

*sighs*

I suppose I need to repeat something that I have already said repeatedly, over and over, in this thread.

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

That is in his deposition.

A cloth cap with a cloth peak was no part of any police uniform in the 1880s.

The man Lawende saw looked like a sailor. He was wearing a sailor's cap. At the least he was a working man if not a sailor. And certainly not a police officer.

[Elamarna]

Lawande was not a camera.

Are you saying his testimony may not be accurate?

If so you must disregard his evidence of a peaked cap.

The serial killer could wear what he wanted.

And the point is?

Are you suggesting he was really a Police Officer, but dressed as something else?

I am somewhat at a loss with this point?


There is NOTHING to suggest he was wearing a police uniform in the data available!

If you have such data, then post it!

Why was Lawende silenced if the statement about the dress should not have been controversial?

Honestly, NO one can be sure of this, not having been there or in the mind of the officials.

However you have been presented with reasons for such, which are not only possible, but probable!

You however refuse to consider any such views because they DO NOT FIT YOUR THEORY- a real and serious bias for any researcher.


Steve

[Henry Flower]

Lawande was not a camera.

The serial killer could wear what he wanted.

Why was Lawende silenced if the statement about the dress should not have been controversial?

This is outstanding! You are wasted as a Real Historian, Pierre, your real talents clearly lie in the field of comedy. 'The serial killer could wear what he wanted'. Yes Pierre, quite so.

So: Lawende saw someone who was a copper, but being a serial killer he could wear what he wanted, so instead of dressing in his police uniform he dressed in something reminiscent of a police hat that could actually have been more of a sailor's cap, but because Lawende was not a camera we can ignore the details of what he said he saw and concentrate only on those words that happen to coincide (vaguely) with something policey. And that is why Lawende was silenced.

Pierre, when is your book out? Can I pre-order? I'm already excited!

And you DARE lecture others here on how to treat sources, how to research like a genuine historian, how to evaluate and collate data.

Astonishing, and repulsive.

[Elamarna]

This is outstanding! You are wasted as a Real Historian, Pierre, your real talents clearly lie in the field of comedy. 'The serial killer could wear what he wanted'. Yes Pierre, quite so.

So: Lawende saw someone who was a copper, but being a serial killer he could wear what he wanted, so instead of dressing in his police uniform he dressed in something reminiscent of a police hat that could actually have been more of a sailor's cap, but because Lawende was not a camera we can ignore the details of what he said he saw and concentrate only on those words that happen to coincide (vaguely) with something policey. And that is why Lawende was silenced.

Pierre, when is your book out? Can I pre-order? I'm already excited!

And you DARE lecture others here on how to treat sources, how to research like a genuine historian, how to evaluate and collate data.

Astonishing, and repulsive.

Henry

it is par for the course, no answers on the ethics he hides behind, despite numerous questions, because to answer them would expose the truth.

I see today that he repeats the line that Lechmere saw a police officer, his interpretation on PC Mizen.
He was asked about this yesterday and he all he does is repeat it as fact.


Steve

[Henry Flower]

Henry

it is par for the course, no answers on the ethics he hides behind, despite numerous questions, because to answer them would expose the truth.

I see today that he repeats the line that Lechmere saw a police officer, his interpretation on PC Mizen.
He was asked about this yesterday and he all he does is repeat it as fact.


Steve

Steve - I do just love the fact that despite his endless professions of genuine academic rigor and fidelity to sources and data, he can announce to us all on a Wednesday that Mizen and Lechmere had merely and understandably misunderstood one another, and explain how all the sources support this interpretation but it takes a Real Historian to put it all together, and so Christer is entirely wrong; and then by the Friday he will be pushing an entirely different interpretation of the same facts for the sole reason that it bolsters his preferred suspect.

This is clearly someone who has a suspect, and is prepared to interpret or indeed reinterpret evidence - contradicting his own previous reasoning - purely in order to go after his own suspect. Additionally he cherry-picks which sources to believe and which to dismiss purely in terms of whether they aid his suspect-driven agenda. Sometimes he will reject one thing a source has said as being unreliable, but another statement from the very same source is gospel when it aids his theory. He disguises this classic cherry-picking with inconsistent and ignorant misuse of terms like 'primary and secondary sources', again claiming that only Pierre the Historian really understands these things.

Pierre - you are not a historian. I congratulate you on having achieved a grade C or above in your History A-Level, but that doesn't make you a historian.

Please take note Pierre: you are as cheap and as tacky a Ripperologist as there is. You are playing exactly the same game as the suspect-merchants you claim to deplore, and playing it by exactly the same rules, adopting precisely the same methods. Don't fool yourself into thinking you are any different. You are just one more in the long and shabby list of suspect-touting Ripperologists whose research suffers from completely unavoidable confirmation bias and wilful self-deception. You differ from the others only in the levels of arrogance, pomposity, and narcissism you display, and in the cowardly and dishonest way you present your theory on these boards.

[Henry Flower]

Is this the same Pierre who once made the grand claim "I have been silenced"?

Turned out he hadn't been, any more than Lawende was.

But if only.... If only......

[Pierre]

The man Lawende saw looked like a sailor. He was wearing a sailor's cap. At the least he was a working man if not a sailor. And certainly not a police officer.

The rumour about a man looking like a sailor was in the newspapers already on 1st October.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

The rumour about a man looking like a sailor was in the newspapers already on 1st October.

Regards, Pierre

So this idea preceeded the inquest where Lawende was silenced.

As for the two police sightings revealed by Lechmere and Arnold that we have sources for, John Arnold also changed his testimony when he was confronted with the police 12 September. This date they knew about the Pinchin Street torso. John Arnold did as Lechmere, he did not want to state his real name. And then he changed his statement about having seen a policeman. Just like Lechmere, after he learned about the murder of Nichols.

Pierre

[Mr Lucky]

Honestly, NO one can be sure of this, not having been there or in the mind of the officials.

Actually, I do “honestly” know as I have repeatedly explained; the description has not been used whilst the witness was under oath so that it can, if necessary, still be used at trial as prosecution evidence. Otherwise the defence council would be able to object that the description had gone down on record without the defendant being able to hear it and thereby challenge it, which is his right. The defendant must have a fair trial, he must hear all the evidence against him.

[Elamarna]

Actually, I do “honestly” know as I have repeatedly explained; the description has not been used whilst the witness was under oath so that it can, if necessary, still be used at trial as prosecution evidence. Otherwise the defence council would be able to object that the description had gone down on record without the defendant being able to hear it and thereby challenge it, which is his right. The defendant must have a fair trial, he must hear all the evidence against him.

Mr Lucky, that is a very good explanation and it may well be accurate, i tend to agree with it, however we cannot KNOW the reason, we can suspect and are probably right.


Steve

[Mr Lucky]

Mr Lucky, that is a very good explanation and it may well be accurate, i tend to agree with it, however we cannot KNOW the reason, we can suspect and are probably right.


Steve

Well, we can't know in a absolute philosphical sense but frankly that's just a trite position typically adopted by ripperologist of the 'don't think' school.

We do know whats happening assuming the following;-
1) The Inquest is lawful
2) The people involved investigating the murder of Eddowes, the Police, the city solicitor , the home office/government, the Coroner, the Inquest jury, and the public are genuinely attempting to do their duty

I have never seen reason to believe that the Eddowes inquest/ murder investigation is involved in any conspiracy, cover up or contemporary deception, so I can *know* what’s happening by reference to the known workings of the legal system at the time. Those investigating the murder only had to know 'beyond reasonable doubt' to hang the man responsible, a similar level of knowledge should be enough for those with a genuine interest in the murders today.

[Elamarna]

Well, we can't know in a absolute philosphical sense but frankly that's just a trite position typically adopted by ripperologist of the 'don't think' school.

Mr Lucky

That is just plan rude.

We do know whats happening assuming the following;-
1) The Inquest is lawful
2) The people involved investigating the murder of Eddowes, the Police, the city solicitor , the home office/government, the Coroner, the Inquest jury, and the public are genuinely attempting to do their duty

Yes agree with both points

I have never seen reason to believe that the Eddowes inquest/ murder investigation is involved in any conspiracy, cover up or contemporary deception,

Agreed

so I can *know* what’s happening by reference to the known workings of the legal system at the time.

No you believe it you know the reason, and are in all probability correct.

Those investigating the murder only had to know 'beyond reasonable doubt' to hang the man responsible, a similar level of knowledge should be enough for those with a genuine interest in the murders today.

Agreed.


Considering we agree on about 95% of the above,, why attack someone when the point you attack on you basically concede in the first 9 words of your post.



Steve

[Ozzy]

So this idea preceeded the inquest where Lawende was silenced.

As for the two police sightings revealed by Lechmere and Arnold that we have sources for, John Arnold also changed his testimony when he was confronted with the police 12 September. This date they knew about the Pinchin Street torso. John Arnold did as Lechmere, he did not want to state his real name. And then he changed his statement about having seen a policeman. Just like Lechmere, after he learned about the murder of Nichols.

Pierre

When your post is all in bold it defeats the whole point of using bold in the first place. Bold should be used for the odd word or sentence.
If you're using bold to make the whole post stand out from the other posts, and I can only speak for myself here, let me say it doesn't work that way. Quite the opposite as it gives me the impression that you think what you say is more important than what other forum members say. So I'm drawn away, rather than drawn to, your post

Another forum member, The 21st Century Investigator, also does the same sometimes. For me personally you have another thing in common with him, I avoid posts from both of you anyway. I'm just hoping I can educate when it comes to using bold in posts.

[Henry Flower]

When your post is all in bold it defeats the whole point of using bold in the first place. Bold should be used for the odd word or sentence.
If you're using bold to make the whole post stand out from the other posts, and I can only speak for myself here, let me say it doesn't work that way. Quite the opposite as it gives me the impression that you think what you say is more important than what other forum members say. So I'm drawn away, rather than drawn to, your post

Another forum member, The 21st Century Investigator, also does the same sometimes. For me personally you have another thing in common with him, I avoid posts from both of you anyway. I'm just hoping I can educate when it comes to using bold in posts.

Ozzy, I take my hat off to you. Every single word absolutely nails it.

Well said, well said.

PS - Does anyone else know of any academics or professional historians who try to grab attention by writing entirely in bold text?

No, me neither.