Lawende was silenced

[Elamarna]

Verchipski ?

However the man reporting it- Schwartz, was not English, and may not have spoke Polish, if he was aware of the recent case of lipski, may not he have misheard it.

There you are, I wonder if this was what Pat may have been asking? Could the word have been misheard and confused?

If so it opens several possibilities does it not? not just related to the name, but to a possiblie later id.

I think it would be a brave person who could say definitively not .


Steve

[packers stem]

Verchipski ?

[Elamarna]

Thanks Pat.

That is interesting.

Hi Jerry and Pat

very interesting indeed.


Steve

[jerryd]

I have mentioned this a while back but thought it might be of interest. Try this link and see what "nosey" equivalent is in Polish...

http://context.reverso.net/translati...h-polish/nosey

Its the top one and if you click on the speaker you can hear how its said...

Pat......

Thanks Pat.

That is interesting.

[Paddy]

Schwartz and Lipski

I have mentioned this a while back but thought it might be of interest. Try this link and see what "nosey" equivalent is in Polish...

http://context.reverso.net/translati...h-polish/nosey

Its the top one and if you click on the speaker you can hear how its said...

Pat......

[John Wheat]

Perhaps Pierre will reveal his suspect in 2017 then again perhaps not.

[David Orsam]

From the Times 6 June 1984:

Bomb Inquiry Moves to Spain

by John Witherow

A man wanted for questioning about the murder of a Kent housewife who died after a parcel bomb exploded at her home is believed to have fled to Spain.

Kent police, who described the man as dangerous said they had alerted Interpol to help the search for the killer of Mrs Barbara Harrold, who died from injuries a week after a tube packed with nails exploded in her hands at Ighatham, near Sevenoaks on May 21.

The man who is in his 50s was seen at Bearsted post office on the outskirts of Maidstone where the bomb was posted three days before the explosion.

The motive for the bombing is still uncertain.

The development in the murder hunt occurred during the weekend when police searched a house near Maidstone where the man had been staying. They found equipment thought to have been used by the bomber.

The police are withholding the man's name for operational reasons but said that "he is known to be an Englishman who was in possession of a Spanish-registered car".

Clearly the police withheld the man's name because he was a police officer. It's obvious. There can't possibly be any other explanation.

[Pierre]

And what were those "particular reasons"?

I am just a simple historian asking questions.

[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

And what were those "particular reasons"?

[Pierre]

What can you possibly think I am accusing you of lying about? You haven't included any facts in your posts, merely unsupported opinion. To be clear, I think you are terribly misguided in that you seem to have convinced yourself that you know something about legal matters whereas it's patently obvious that you don't.

Wrong post.

[David Orsam]

Taking your compulsive and involuntary reliance on the word “gibberish” into account I'll accept that as a public accusation that I’m lying and I think we can leave it there

What can you possibly think I am accusing you of lying about? You haven't included any facts in your posts, merely unsupported opinion. To be clear, I think you are terribly misguided in that you seem to have convinced yourself that you know something about legal matters whereas it's patently obvious that you don't.

[David Orsam]

With that in mind its clear to me that your endless demands for me to produce similar examples, like your demands for 'legal arguments' when you don't know the basics, is a further demonstration of someone playing to the crowd and who has no genuine or honest interest in the matter.

I can only laugh at the expression "endless demands for me to produce similar examples". That is called precedent, Mr Lucky. That's how the law works. It's based on statute and precedent.

If you don’t have a statute and/or you don't have a precedent then, if you can't even cite a leading text book, you don't have a legal argument. Authority HAS to be provided.

All we have had so far is your unsubstantiated opinion which has no legal support behind it whatsoever. Even if for some reason you don't agree with a single word I have written, the onus is entirely on your to support your argument. If you can't do it (and you plainly can't) then it can only be legal gibberish.

[David Orsam]

firstly you are clearly blissfully unaware of the difference between what’s said under oath and what’s not at the time,

No idea what you are talking about. Looks like gibberish.

and the weight that carried in the context of the times, with a deeply religious culture and an almost total reliance on verbal evidence to convict.

Gibberish.

Secondly, the events surrounding this murder are unique in themselves, the fact the city solicitor is at an inquest is itself an exceptional event , and on top of that my argument is a precautionary one.

I agree that the city solicitor did not normally appear in cases of murder although he did appear quite frequently at inquests, mainly in respect of deaths from fires – that is probably because there were not that many murders in the city of London but lots of fires - but, legally speaking, there was nothing unique about the murder of Eddowes. It was a murder. That's it. All the same legal rules apply.

Here's a challenge for you Mr Lucky. If you think that the city solicitor feared some kind of challenge by a defence counsel at trial in respect of Lawende's evidence, write a submission in the form a defence counsel would have made it before the judge at the trial (setting out within that submission what the defence counsel wanted to achieve, i.e. exclusion of Lawende's evidence or abandonment of the trial or whatever, and the legal grounds on which he expected the judge to rule in his favour). Then perhaps we can at least understand what you think might have been on the city solicitor's mind. At the moment your argument is vague, contradictory and virtually incomprehensible (apart, of course, from being legal gibberish).

[David Orsam]

To be frank, after you produced that hilarious 'legal argument' that a writ of habeas corpus was required to free someone on bail who had been charged with a misdemeanour I wouldn't bother creating a 'legal argument' about anything for you, it would be a waste of time.

I don't particularly want to be deflected by this ancient topic (and I fully appreciate why you want to change the subject) but I have no idea why you find that statement "hilarious" because a writ of habeas corpus was indeed required to free someone on bail who had been charged with a misdemeanour. I don't know how else you think it could have been done, short of breaking someone out of prison. The relevant thread was a long time ago so no doubt you have forgotten that I cited law reports which proved this statement as well as quoting from the Habeas Corpus act of 1679.

The thread was "Tumblety's Bail – A Fresh Perspective". See especially my post #70 dated 12 April 2015:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8811&page=7

The irony is that back then you also introduced legal gibberish mumbo jumbo into the discussion with your misunderstanding of the R v Mullins decision and your bizarre, irrelevant and wholly unsupported statements regarding the concept of corpus delecti.

[David Orsam]

No it isn't a 'legal argument', it's short 5 point verbal chain of reasoning for you to follow, which you have not been able to.

Verbal chains of reasoning - especially those which don't actually make sense - are of no use in a courtroom in a criminal trial. You actually do need legal arguments there I'm afraid.