Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Bucks Row Project part 2

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • [QUOTE=Elamarna;427548]

    My dear Pierre I have spent sometime considering how to reply to this.

    Firstly let's be clear in the Police report of the 19th September there is a description of the meeting between Mizen and the Carmen. There is no mention of Mizen's account at all. It is not even dismissed it is just airbrushed out.
    The external function of the source from the 19th is not the same as the external function(s) of the newspaper articles from the inquest.

    The main content in the source from the 19th is about the life of the victim.

    The beginning of the source is just a short presentation of the finding of her.

    Therefore we can not expect this source to contain a detailed description for what was said at the inquest and what the police did, if anything, about the issues at that inquest.

    We can not expect judicial discussions about testimonies/ problems with witnesses / problems with issues concearning their stories and so on and so forth.

    It is a short historical descriptive report from the perspective of Swanson where he presented some dates and persons relevant to the case.

    In this report the finders and the finding of the victim are just mentioned as a brief introduction.

    It is not "airbrushed out", i.e. there was not strategy for removing evidence from the report. If there was, there must be traces of it. Are there any traces of it?

    No. It is a plain simple description where the finding of the victim is a minor issue.

    Second Paul is not answering the Police on 17th he is giving evidence at the inquest, why you keep introducing them I fail to see. If the Police wished to speak to him they probably already had. They would not be relying on the inquest to finalise their reports.
    Dear Steve, I see the word "if" and I see the word "probably". And I also see the "would not". What is all that supposed to mean?

    In fact 3 of those 5 points you list are inline with my initial comment, so I fail to see the problem you have. Perhaps you are misinterpreting what I said.
    They can be what you call "in line" with it and still have no connection to it. I do not think I am misinterpreting what you said. You have postulated that the police did something which led to the testimony of Mizen not becoming an issue for discussion, have you not?

    And you spoke about loyalties and disloyalties and lies.

    I have not postulated that the police lied or that they "airbrushed out" anything. There is no sources for it!

    Let me compare to a case where I do think it is relevant to postulate that the authorities did airbrush out something. It is the Eddowes inquest, where Lawende was told by the coroner to not give his evidence to the court - unless the jury desired it.

    That is an active airbrushing out, and there are sources for it.

    We see nothing like this in the case of the Nichols inquest. On the contrary. Cross was allowed to give his evidence and the coroner did not stop it:

    "A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?
    Witness: No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row."

    (http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...t_nichols.html)

    I agree his actual testimony is very sparse, and a very different tone to the press article.
    And yes that is the whole point, why is he not asked if he heard what was said?
    "IF"! Again.

    And in the wrong context. He would not provoke a question "just because he heard" what was said. The questions were asked by the coroner and the jury.

    And on the 17th they did not ask Paul about this, since no one had any interest in such a question. And Mizen himself was not there.

    I am actually very tempted now to say that the police were very sloppy. They could have gotten more information from the inquest than they did. But such ideas just leads me to think that the police were not sloppy but corrupt. And for this there is no evidence in that particular case.

    My view as originally posted was that he was not asked as a conclusion had already been made on the exchange, as suggested by the POLICE report, No additional information was needed. Which is a variation on your point 3.
    A conclusion based on loyalties and disloyalties and lies? No sources.

    Your points four and five are equally valid and are useful as I write up.
    I donīt know. They are just hypotheses.

    I believe the Police wanted the story to go away, as do you I think,
    I donīt know if that is what I think. I donīt think I think anything about that right now. It is not important to me. But this silly story about the carman being the killer is important to me. Since it is wrong.

    just for different reasons to those I happen to think apply
    I can tell you what I think. I think Cross lied. I think this because he gave half the truth about his name and the whole truth about his work and his own address. I also think this because the cuts on the abdomen were not extensive. So I think Cross saw the killer.

    That was also one of the reasons for the choice of a less risky murder site on the 8th September.

    Which reminds me of todayīs date.

    So all of it was between Cross and the killer. Obviously, there are sources for such an hypothesis. Cross did contradict Mizen. Paul gave a contradictory interview with tendencies. Mizen did not say he spoke to Paul. The cuts on the abdomen were less extensive than on Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. And so on and so forth.

    But is was not between Cross and the police or Mizen and the police. Not without sources.

    Pierre
    Last edited by Pierre; 08-31-2017, 11:42 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Pierre View Post
      The external function of the source from the 19th is not the same as the external function(s) of the newspaper articles from the inquest.

      The main content in the source from the 19th is about the life of the victim.

      The beginning of the source is just a short presentation of the finding of her.

      Therefore we can not expect this source to contain a detailed description for what was said at the inquest and what the police did, if anything, about the issues at that inquest.

      We can not expect judicial discussions about testimonies/ problems with witnesses / problems with issues concearning their stories and so on and so forth.

      It is a short historical descriptive report from the perspective of Swanson where he presented some dates and persons relevant to the case.

      In this report the finders and the finding of the victim are just mentioned as a brief introduction.

      It is not "airbrushed out", i.e. there was not strategy for removing evidence from the report. If there was, there must be traces of it. Are there any traces of it?

      No. It is a plain simple description where the finding of the victim is a minor issue.
      We disagree. That is not my interpretation of the report.
      I have to remind you, not for the first time over the years that your view is just that your view.

      Having reread the report many times, I consider you intpretation to be incorrect. However
      that is also my personal interpretation and just like you I may be wrong

      The point is no one person has a monopoly on interpretation of a given source.

      Originally posted by Pierre View Post
      Dear Steve, I see the word "if" and I see the word "probably". And I also see the "would not". What is all that supposed to mean?
      My dear Pierre, those words are part of the language used on this forum. We want this not to be a dry academic debate, there must be the use of such language. I am well aware that you consider such terms to be meaningless, and they can be. HOWEVER I do not believe such is true here.

      What does it mean you ask? It is very clear what I am saying. However let me make it clear for you:
      The police conducted a seperate investigation to the inquest. They did not rely on the inquest to supply them with information for their investigation, although of course to ignore any information supplied would be unwise.

      Originally posted by Pierre View Post
      They can be what you call "in line" with it and still have no connection to it. I do not think I am misinterpreting what you said. You have postulated that the police did something which led to the testimony of Mizen not becoming an issue for discussion, have you not?

      I postulated that they reached a conclusion on the so called scam, that was independent of and did not rely on anything Paul could have said.

      Originally posted by Pierre View Post
      And you spoke about loyalties and disloyalties and lies.
      Not in regards to the Scam.
      You appear to be confusing my comments on the Slaughter men with this. There is no relationship between the two series of events.

      You really do seem to struggle with the various seperate issues I have been looking at, I am not sure why that is?

      Originally posted by Pierre View Post
      I have not postulated that the police lied or that they "airbrushed out" anything. There is no sources for it!

      Let me compare to a case where I do think it is relevant to postulate that the authorities did airbrush out something. It is the Eddowes inquest, where Lawende was told by the coroner to not give his evidence to the court - unless the jury desired it.

      That is an active airbrushing out, and there are sources for it.

      We see nothing like this in the case of the Nichols inquest. On the contrary. Cross was allowed to give his evidence and the coroner did not stop it:

      "A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?
      Witness: No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row."

      (http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...t_nichols.html)

      I postulated that when Both Mizen and Cross gave their evidence, there was no clear picture as to the truth to what was said on the Morning of 31st. However the Police during their investigations came to a conclusion on this.
      This is my interpretation of the Police Reports, you don't agree, so be it.
      The problem you have is you do not know what I have actually hypothesized, and therefore you cannot understand what I am suggesting and why.

      Originally posted by Pierre View Post
      "IF"! Again.
      I could have said "did" he hear, rather than "if". It makes no difference my friend, the question is the same.

      Originally posted by Pierre View Post

      And in the wrong context. He would not provoke a question "just because he heard" what was said. The questions were asked by the coroner and the jury.

      And on the 17th they did not ask Paul about this, since no one had any interest in such a question. And Mizen himself was not there.

      I am actually very tempted now to say that the police were very sloppy. They could have gotten more information from the inquest than they did. But such ideas just leads me to think that the police were not sloppy but corrupt. And for this there is no evidence in that particular case.
      Sorry how do you know no one had any interest in such a question? That is a personal view.
      Mizen being there or not is irrelevant, if Baxter or the Jury had wanted to ask, his absence would not stop them.

      Originally posted by Pierre View Post

      A conclusion based on loyalties and disloyalties and lies? No sources.
      Wrong!
      Nothing to do with loyalties and disloyalty, that was a phrased I used when talking about the slaughter men. It has no relevance to the issue of the Scam.
      You suggest a theory you suspected I was working on, I told you then you were completely off target, it appears you do not accept what I say.

      So let me be very clear. My use of loyalty and disloyalty has absolutely nothing to do with my view on Mizen and the so called Scam.

      Originally posted by Pierre View Post


      I donīt know. They are just hypotheses.

      I donīt know if that is what I think. I donīt think I think anything about that right now. It is not important to me. But this silly story about the carman being the killer is important to me. Since it is wrong.
      Yes they are but they are clear and can be of use in focusing ones thinking.

      And I agree with you that the Theory that Lechmere was the killer, is very probably wrong.
      However that is not what I set out to research, rather I aimed to gather a reasonably fullaccount of all the events and people surrounding the murder in Bucks Row.
      That is what I have done. The result of some of this research has led me to postulate that some of the arguments used to support the case for Lechmere are seriously flawed.
      The research has also allowed me to hypothesize about other issues on the Bucks Row murder, which are not directly related to the Murder, such as the Police Beats, the Slaughter men and the mortuary attendants.


      Originally posted by Pierre View Post
      I can tell you what I think. I think Cross lied. I think this because he gave half the truth about his name and the whole truth about his work and his own address. I also think this because the cuts on the abdomen were not extensive. So I think Cross saw the killer.

      That was also one of the reasons for the choice of a less risky murder site on the 8th September.

      You are entitled to that belief on Lechmere, we will disagree.
      Did Lechmere see the killer?
      There is no source to support this, but such cannot be ruled out.
      Was this proposed Killer dressed as a policeman, there are no sources to back this view up.



      Originally posted by Pierre View Post

      Which reminds me of todayīs date.
      Yes and my mum's birthday too.

      Originally posted by Pierre View Post

      So all of it was between Cross and the killer. Obviously, there are sources for such an hypothesis. Cross did contradict Mizen. Paul gave a contradictory interview with tendencies. Mizen did not say he spoke to Paul. The cuts on the abdomen were less extensive than on Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. And so on and so forth.

      But is was not between Cross and the police or Mizen and the police. Not without sources.

      Pierre
      If Mizen says Paul was not involved in the conversation, that itself is contradicted by Lechmere,.
      Did either have reason to lie ?
      Yes arguments can be made for both to do so; however there is no data to help in what has been presented, only interpretations which cannot all be correct.

      Less extensive wounds?
      That depends on degree. They are certainly far more extensive than was accepted for along time.
      Was the killer disturbed? Very possabily, but it is not conclusive.


      Steve

      Comment


      • Correction to post #124 -Comments on Spratling

        Just noticed a mistake in the reports quoted below:


        "Spratling states in Reports 6 & 14 he is not present when the body is stripped; however he is also reported as saying he saw 2 men stripping the body. (Reports: 10, 12, 14 & 15). The last reports are of course contrary to the reports of inspector Helson (Helson Table Reports :1-9, 12-15) "

        2 additional reports erroneously crept into the comment that he saw 2 men stripping the body. Reports 14 & 15 DO NOT SAY THIS.

        In addition one report needs to be add to the first comment.

        The correct posting is :


        "Spratling states in Reports: 4, 6 & 14 he is not present when the body is stripped; however he is also reported as saying he saw 2 men stripping the body. (Reports: 10 & 12). The last reports are of course contrary to the reports of inspector Helson (Helson Table Reports :1-9, 12-15) "


        My humble apologies for those mistakes.

        Steve
        Last edited by Elamarna; 09-01-2017, 04:05 AM.

        Comment


        • [QUOTE=Elamarna;427634]

          We disagree. That is not my interpretation of the report.
          I have to remind you, not for the first time over the years that your view is just that your view.
          And I have to remind you that you are trained within the field of medicine while I am trained within the field of history.

          I would never presume to know more than you, or to make better interpretations, within that field. How come you believe that you are more capable of making historical interpretations than do historians, given that you in fact have no historical training at all?

          Please understand that I am not being rude. I want to understand how it is that you can believe that you know more about historical methods than do historians. How is that possible, Steve?

          Let me remind you that have been discussing medical questions with Fisherman. He has no medical training at all. And still he thinks he knows more than you on some medical issues. So how come you want to put yourself in that sort of position?

          Having reread the report many times, I consider you intpretation to be incorrect. However
          that is also my personal interpretation and just like you I may be wrong

          The point is no one person has a monopoly on interpretation of a given source.
          It is not a matter of "monopoly". It is a matter of historical methods. And you have not studied historical methods. And Steve: historians do not "read" sources. We analyze them. So you do not even use historical methods.

          My dear Pierre, those words are part of the language used on this forum. We want this not to be a dry academic debate, there must be the use of such language. I am well aware that you consider such terms to be meaningless, and they can be. HOWEVER I do not believe such is true here.
          It is utterly disturbing to hear this from you. I am truly sorry to hear it. Especially since you are the one who told us that now, indeed, you would show us the work based on "real science".

          What does it mean you ask? It is very clear what I am saying.
          It is just words, Steve. There is no validity in it. "If", "could", and "would". Anyone can generate those words for anything. But you said you were going to use "real science"!

          However let me make it clear for you:
          The police conducted a seperate investigation to the inquest. They did not rely on the inquest to supply them with information for their investigation, although of course to ignore any information supplied would be unwise.
          And there are sources for this "separate investigation" showing us exactly what?

          And where are the sources?


          I postulated that they reached a conclusion on the so called scam, that was independent of and did not rely on anything Paul could have said.
          Sources for it?

          Not in regards to the Scam.
          You appear to be confusing my comments on the Slaughter men with this. There is no relationship between the two series of events.
          You wrote in # 86:

          Swanson in his official report October 19th (Police Table, Report 11.) says there is no evidence against the men at all.

          The whole behaviour is very odd to say the least, there are without doubt lies told and truths withheld. There are hints of what may have happened, involving various loyalties, and disloyalties and of course Thain’s cape.
          And since you mention Swanson and Thain I thought you meant the police.

          You really do seem to struggle with the various seperate issues I have been looking at, I am not sure why that is?
          One reason is that you have no research question, no analyze method and no systematic source criticism. Another reason is your language. It is not academic but you use words like "if" and "would". That is why I struggle, Steve.

          I postulated that when Both Mizen and Cross gave their evidence, there was no clear picture as to the truth to what was said on the Morning of 31st.

          However the Police during their investigations came to a conclusion on this.
          Sources? What excerpts from those sources?

          This is my interpretation of the Police Reports, you don't agree, so be it.
          The problem you have is you do not know what I have actually hypothesized, and therefore you cannot understand what I am suggesting and why.
          We will see.

          I could have said "did" he hear, rather than "if". It makes no difference my friend, the question is the same.
          Have you answered a question about that?

          Sorry how do you know no one had any interest in such a question? That is a personal view.
          Mizen had interest in it since Cross contradicted him.

          Mizen being there or not is irrelevant, if Baxter or the Jury had wanted to ask, his absence would not stop them.
          Mizen was not there and therefore he was not able to ask the question. That is just an historical fact.

          Wrong!
          Nothing to do with loyalties and disloyalty, that was a phrased I used when talking about the slaughter men. It has no relevance to the issue of the Scam.
          You suggest a theory you suspected I was working on, I told you then you were completely off target, it appears you do not accept what I say.
          No, you are wrong dear Steve. I do accept what you say. But I donīt know what your idea is, as you said, and as I said we will see.

          So let me be very clear. My use of loyalty and disloyalty has absolutely nothing to do with my view on Mizen and the so called Scam.
          So a more academic language would certainly help you.

          Yes they are but they are clear and can be of use in focusing ones thinking.

          And I agree with you that the Theory that Lechmere was the killer, is very probably wrong.
          However that is not what I set out to research, rather I aimed to gather a reasonably fullaccount of all the events and people surrounding the murder in Bucks Row.
          Oh, dear. That is not a research question, Steve. You can not "gather a full acount of "all the events and people surrounding the murder in Bucks Row"". You can ONLY "gather articles and other sources and publish them on the forum".

          That is what I have done.
          You have published sources, which can be useful for people who want to "read" them or even analyze them.
          The result of some of this research has led me to postulate that some of the arguments used to support the case for Lechmere are seriously flawed.
          But didnīt we all know that already? Honestly?

          The research has also allowed me to hypothesize about other issues on the Bucks Row murder, which are not directly related to the Murder, such as the Police Beats, the Slaughter men and the mortuary attendants.
          Yes, that is what one gets. A lot of ideas.

          You are entitled to that belief on Lechmere, we will disagree.
          Did Lechmere see the killer?
          There is no source to support this, but such cannot be ruled out.
          Was this proposed Killer dressed as a policeman, there are no sources to back this view up.
          "There is no source to support this". Yes, there is. There are sources even. The inquest sources where Mizen is referred. Or have they vanished? Or are they hallucinations? Or have the post modern condition confused everyone so much that they think they can treat the sources as television series and data as data games?

          If Mizen says Paul was not involved in the conversation, that itself is contradicted by Lechmere,.
          What exactly do you mean by that?

          Did either have reason to lie ?
          Yes arguments can be made for both to do so; however there is no data to help in what has been presented, only interpretations which cannot all be correct.
          OK. "No data". Cross otherwise Lechmere. Always Lechmere.

          Less extensive wounds?
          That depends on degree. They are certainly far more extensive than was accepted for along time.
          Was the killer disturbed? Very possabily, but it is not conclusive.
          This question should have itīs own thread actually.

          Pierre
          Last edited by Pierre; 09-01-2017, 12:45 PM.

          Comment


          • [QUOTE=Pierre;427706]
            Originally posted by Elamarna View Post



            And I have to remind you that you are trained within the field of medicine while I am trained within the field of history.

            I would never presume to know more than you, or to make better interpretations, within that field. How come you believe that you are more capable of making historical interpretations than do historians, given that you in fact have no historical training at all?

            Please understand that I am not being rude. I want to understand how it is that you can believe that you know more about historical methods than do historians. How is that possible, Steve?

            Let me remind you that have been discussing medical questions with Fisherman. He has no medical training at all. And still he thinks he knows more than you on some medical issues. So how come you want to put yourself in that sort of position?



            It is not a matter of "monopoly". It is a matter of historical methods. And you have not studied historical methods. And Steve: historians do not "read" sources. We analyze them. So you do not even use historical methods.



            It is utterly disturbing to hear this from you. I am truly sorry to hear it. Especially since you are the one who told us that now, indeed, you would show us the work based on "real science".



            It is just words, Steve. There is no validity in it. "If", "could", and "would". Anyone can generate those words for anything. But you said you were going to use "real science"!



            And there are sources for this "separate investigation" showing us exactly what?

            And where are the sources?




            Sources for it?



            You wrote in # 86:



            And since you mention Swanson and Thain I thought you meant the police.



            One reason is that you have no research question, no analyze method and no systematic source criticism. Another reason is your language. It is not academic but you use words like "if" and "would". That is why I struggle, Steve.



            Sources? What excerpts from those sources?



            We will see.



            Have you answered a question about that?



            Mizen had interest in it since Cross contradicted him.



            Mizen was not there and therefore he was not able to ask the question. That is just an historical fact.



            No, you are wrong dear Steve. I do accept what you say. But I donīt know what your idea is, as you said, and as I said we will see.



            So a more academic language would certainly help you.



            Oh, dear. That is not a research question, Steve. You can not "gather a full acount of "all the events and people surrounding the murder in Bucks Row"". You can ONLY "gather articles and other sources and publish them on the forum".



            You have published sources, which can be useful for people who want to "read" them or even analyze them.


            But didnīt we all know that already? Honestly?



            Yes, that is what one gets. A lot of ideas.



            "There is no source to support this". Yes, there is. There are sources even. The inquest sources where Mizen is referred. Or have they vanished? Or are they hallucinations? Or have the post modern condition confused everyone so much that they think they can treat the sources as television series and data as data games?



            What exactly do you mean by that?



            OK. "No data". Cross otherwise Lechmere. Always Lechmere.



            This question should have itīs own thread actually.

            Pierre
            It's late now. I will reply to this tomorrow Pierre.


            Steve

            Comment


            • [QUOTE=Elamarna;427710]
              Originally posted by Pierre View Post

              It's late now. I will reply to this tomorrow Pierre.


              Steve
              No problem Steve. And of course the questions are relevant for the case, and it is not a matter of personal conflict or trying to be better than others.

              It is a matter of scientific approaches and about generating knowledge with academic methods.

              Cheers, Pierre

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                And I have to remind you that you are trained within the field of medicine while I am trained within the field of history.
                I would never presume to know more than you, or to make better interpretations, within that field. How come you believe that you are more capable of making historical interpretations than do historians, given that you in fact have no historical training at all?
                Please understand that I am not being rude. I want to understand how it is that you can believe that you know more about historical methods than do historians. How is that possible, Steve?
                My dear Pierre, you are in fact just saying that your interpretation is more valid, as a trained historian, than that of a no trained person.

                Such an argument leads one to the inevitable conclusion that your interpretations are superior to all others posted on this forum, in which case we should all stop should we not?
                .
                We have been here before more than once have we not?

                While training in a particular discipline may give advantages in interpretation of data, unless we have have data that can only be interpreted in one way (experiment A gives result x 99% of the time, extreme I know, but I am sure you get the meaning), that interpretation will always be open to question.

                And that was my original comments, that I interpreted the Police reports(and while I only quoted the one of the 19th September there are additional Police Sources), different to you, or rather you interpreted it differently to me.

                Your fall back into what is a form of academic elitism is nothing more than “your view is better than mine”. Of course you are entitled to believe that, but why not just accept we disagree rather than take that stance.

                Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                Let me remind you that have been discussing medical questions with Fisherman. He has no medical training at all. And still he thinks he knows more than you on some medical issues. So how come you want to put yourself in that sort of position?
                There is a difference, much of the debate you mention with Christer on medical matters has not been in interpretation, but on establish medical facts, Bleeding rates, depth of organs. On such I do have an advantage; however at least one poster Kjab3112 has a big advantage over me.

                When it comes to interpretation, so long has Christer uses the correct data to come to his conclusions, his view is no less valid than mine,
                One of the biggest areas has been over the phrase “all the vital areas”, unfortunately, this is not a medical term, the description is therefore open to various interpretations, and the advantage I may have over Christer in specific knowledge is of no help, it does not mean I am right just because I have the greater knowledge.

                Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                It is not a matter of "monopoly". It is a matter of historical methods. And you have not studied historical methods. And Steve: historians do not "read" sources. We analyze them. So you do not even use historical methods.
                Semantics Pierre, to analyze a written source it must be read, you know exactly what I meant, I really do fail to see why you are responding this way.

                What I find most bewildering is that you suggested 5 hypotheses for why Paul was not asked about the exchange with Mizen in an earlier post, 3 of those I agreed with, Yet you still wish to argue, which is pointless as you do not know my hypothesis.

                Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                It is utterly disturbing to hear this from you. I am truly sorry to hear it. Especially since you are the one who told us that now, indeed, you would show us the work based on "real science".
                It is just words, Steve. There is no validity in it. "If", "could", and "would". Anyone can generate those words for anything. But you said you were going to use "real science"!
                Why do you find it disturbing? I am merely floating ideas to get a response from the forum, most of whom do not write in academic language themselves, it is illogical to ask questions in a language the audience do not use.
                I have suggested some ideas which I happily admit are unrealistic or at least unprovable.
                As you right say later in this post all I have done so far is present sources, I have not gone into the analysis section of the work yet, do you not see that, I have to ask?

                Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                And there are sources for this "separate investigation" showing us exactly what?
                And where are the sources?


                Sources for it?
                Are you seriously saying that as those records no longer exist, we must assume no investigation took place by the police that was separate from the inquest, indeed we do not even have those sources do we?
                I suggested that when one looked at and analyzed both the testimony of the 17th September and the Police report of the 19th it was not unreasonable to hypothesize that the Police had by this date reached a conclusion on what they believed.
                I am not going to discuss my entire hypothesis before I am ready, anymore than you will.

                Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                You wrote in # 86:
                And since you mention Swanson and Thain I thought you meant the police.
                Yes on a specific section about the slaughter men, It was also made very clear that I did not consider there was any connection to the murder, other than that they went to the scene after Thain informed them, when he collected his cape.
                How that got there has no bearing on the murder, nor do any suggestions I may have made about the conduct of the 3 men.
                Unfortunately for them, the 3 came under suspicion from the press, and that is why Swanson was mentioned, he stated they had been investigated and cleared.

                Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                One reason is that you have no research question, no analyze method and no systematic source criticism. Another reason is your language. It is not academic but you use words like "if" and "would". That is why I struggle, Steve.
                Sorry you have no idea what questions I am asking, I have not posted that section yet. And of course there is no overall systematic source criticism yet, although you must admit a little has been shown. Such as Paul's Lloyds weekly article, Mrs Greens Testimony and comment on general press statements at the beginning of part 2.

                Pierre I am not writing this for an academic audience, but for this forum, if I were to decide to publish my work, I would certainly not aim it at an academic audience. However that does not mean I would not write an article for an academic journal, and if so I would use the appropriate language for that audience.,

                Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                Sources? What excerpts from those sources?
                I have already mentioned some, but given I have not published the full hypothesis on the scam, I will not at this point go further.

                Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                We will see.
                Yes we will

                Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                Have you answered a question about that?
                Yes I have, several, however Paul’s testimony is peripheral to my hypothesis, it is not central to it, nor essential to it.

                Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                Mizen had interest in it since Cross contradicted him.
                Yes I agree and the same could be said for Cross as Mizen's statement was contrary to his.
                However it was you who said no one any interest in such a question, so your reply is somewhat baffling to me.

                Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                Mizen was not there and therefore he was not able to ask the question. That is just an historical fact.
                That is irrelevant, he would not be asking a question, any questions come from Baxter or the jury.

                Originally posted by Pierre View Post

                No, you are wrong dear Steve. I do accept what you say. But I donīt know what your idea is, as you said, and as I said we will see.
                If that is so why do you repeat the comments about Loyalty when I have said it has no bearing on the issues under discussion?

                Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                So a more academic language would certainly help you.
                I have already addressed the use of language above, as I am sure you have seen

                Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                Oh, dear. That is not a research question, Steve. You can not "gather a full account of "all the events and people surrounding the murder in Bucks Row"". You can ONLY "gather articles and other sources and publish them on the forum".
                The research questions are contained in the final section. My aim was to draw together has much data as possible, in order to give a reasonably full account from the sources of what occurred in and around Bucks Row on the morning of 31st September 1888.
                is there really a need for what appears to be semantics?

                Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                You have published sources, which can be useful for people who want to "read" them or even analyze them.
                Which was part of the aim. And is the only part I am sure I will publish separately, minus my comments.


                Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                But didnīt we all know that already? Honestly?
                I think not, we may well have suspected such, but no research had been done on several of the issues and that which had been was looking at issues from either a pro or anti Lechmere/Cross viewpoint.

                Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                "There is no source to support this". Yes, there is. There are sources even. The inquest sources where Mizen is referred. Or have they vanished? Or are they hallucinations? Or have the post modern condition confused everyone so much that they think they can treat the sources as television series and data as data games?
                We have only the single source from Mizen, there are no others that I am aware of, if you have recently found some for your research so be it.
                Your interpretation is based on his testimony and your interpretation that Cross/Lechmere half lied. there is no independent 2nd source which supports your hypothesis.
                That of course does not mean you are wrong, only that you may be, just has i may be.

                Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                What exactly do you mean by that?
                Mizen says Paul is not involved in the conversation. Actually he doesn’t implicitly say such, he just does not mention him.
                Lechmere says Paul was involved in the conversation in his testimony.
                Paul is not asked.

                Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                OK. "No data". Cross otherwise Lechmere. Always Lechmere.
                Your interpretation of why he gave gave Cross, there are others. You may be correct. Has you have said above we will see.

                Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                This question should have itīs own thread actually.
                If you have enough to specifically support the wearing of a uniform by the killer, start the thread my friend. you know i do not rule out the possibility that the killer, if not Lechmere, may at the very least have heard Lechmere enter Bucks Row, it is of course also possible Lechmere may have seen some movement, but that is pure speculation. the sources do not support either view.

                Cheers

                Steve

                Comment


                • [QUOTE=Pierre;427759]
                  Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                  No problem Steve. And of course the questions are relevant for the case, and it is not a matter of personal conflict or trying to be better than others.

                  It is a matter of scientific approaches and about generating knowledge with academic methods.

                  Cheers, Pierre
                  Pierre,
                  I relied to your post before reading the above.
                  I honestly think you have not understood this at all, you are talking about things I have not yet completed,
                  The only issues I am clear on are the blood evidence, and the Scam.

                  The blood evidence is based on Science.
                  the scam, on data i have not yet spoken about directly, it has been mentioned, but in no detail at all. it is based on source data, geographical data, and can be supported if i wish by timings, but as i have said previously these while suggestive are not conclusive of 100% reliable, but they do none the less support the source data. At present has i have already said, i will not use them in the main argument, but will probably supply them as an appendix for any who wish to read them.

                  All other issues I am still working on, some of the comments you have made over the months have been very useful in clarifying what is and is not viable and important.

                  I am just really surprised you have taken this stance, when i have not yet made my arguments or even presented my case.



                  Steve





                  and i do feel it is a shame that you use the Historians give better interpretation than non historian, which is what you said in your previous long post, perhaps it was frustration, maybe I am not writting in the langiage you expect,

                  Comment


                  • Bucks Row Project Part 2 post 3a--- Paul

                    Click image for larger version

Name:	1b_copy.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	54.8 KB
ID:	667155



                    I have suddenly realised a very important witness statement was not included in the original Table for Robert Paul. I can only apologise for this oversight, it was included in the first draft but somehow was missing from the final Table.

                    This missing report is now posted above as Report 12. It is of course the Lloyds Weekly News Statement 30th September 1888.
                    This explains how Paul came to appear at the inquest on the 17th September, it strongly suggest that the POLICE took some time to locate Paul and that he was interviewed several days before he appeared at the inquest. Some have suggested he was in fact arrested and detained; this is however disputed.
                    This will be discussed in Part 3.
                    However the above statement does fit well with the suggestion that the POLICE had reached a conclusion over the contrary statements about the exchange between the Carmen and Mizen, before Paul attended the inquested and certainly before the POLICE report 19th September.

                    Comment


                    • Hi Steve,

                      I don't recall whether it was on here or the forum where someone thought that I was being ridiculous when I said the CL would have been desperate to get to work on time. My point was that he didn't allow himself enough time to hunt, kill, clean up etc before getting to work on time. Also that it would have been understandable if they had lied to Mizen(not saying they did of course) so that they could clock in on time.
                      I just noticed your last post that Paul said that he had to pay someone to do his work or he'd have lost his job! It illustrates how tough times were, how easy it was for a boss to sack a worker and how important it was for someone to get to work on time.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                      “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                      Comment


                      • [QUOTE=Elamarna;427971]

                        However the above statement does fit well with the suggestion that the POLICE had reached a conclusion over the contrary statements about the exchange between the Carmen and Mizen, before Paul attended the inquested and certainly before the POLICE report 19th September.
                        But there is no evidence for a "conclusion over contrary statements".

                        So what is the point of this talk?

                        Basing "what fits your own ideas" on no sources. Why Steve?

                        Pierre

                        Comment


                        • [QUOTE=Pierre;428058]
                          Originally posted by Elamarna View Post



                          But there is no evidence for a "conclusion over contrary statements".

                          So what is the point of this talk?

                          Basing "what fits your own ideas" on no sources. Why Steve?

                          Pierre
                          But there are my dear Pierre!

                          You have been provided with sources for this suggestion, you refuse to accept such, so be it.

                          The suggestion that Lechmere lied, did see a policeman and told Mizen such, is however a view which sources suggest was NOT the view the Police subscribed to by the 19th.

                          Steve

                          Comment


                          • [QUOTE=Elamarna;428063]
                            Originally posted by Pierre View Post

                            But there are my dear Pierre!

                            You have been provided with sources for this suggestion, you refuse to accept such, so be it.

                            The suggestion that Lechmere lied, did see a policeman and told Mizen such, is however a view which sources suggest was NOT the view the Police subscribed to by the 19th.

                            Steve
                            But there are no sources for:

                            the POLICE had reached a conclusion over the contrary statements about the exchange between the Carmen and Mizen, before Paul attended the inquested and certainly before the POLICE report 19th September.
                            - Where are the sources with statements about reaching any conclusion?

                            - Where are the sources with police discussions?

                            - Where did they reach the conclusion?

                            - Are there any sources for a physical place in the past where it was actually reached??

                            - Who reached the conclusion?

                            - Are there any sources for living persons in the past saying things about it?

                            - WHERE and BY WHOM are the "contrary statements" discussed, Steve?

                            - In what sources?

                            I can tell you the answer, Steve:

                            NOWHERE and BY NO ONE is that in ANY source.

                            You have just invented a little scenario for yourself to "fit" your own ideas.

                            You have done that on "the silence of the sources" and on "lack of sources".

                            It seems we are getting more and more problems here.

                            Why you, Steve?

                            You claimed you had "real science".

                            I thought you would do better than the rest of the ripperologists.

                            Pierre
                            Last edited by Pierre; 09-06-2017, 04:33 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Pierre View Post

                              But there are no sources for:

                              - Where are the sources with statements about reaching any conclusion?

                              - Where are the sources with police discussions?

                              - Where did they reach the conclusion?

                              - Are there any sources for a physical place in the past where it was actually reached??

                              - Who reached the conclusion?

                              - Are there any sources for living persons in the past saying things about it?

                              - WHERE and BY WHOM are the "contrary statements" discussed, Steve?

                              - In what sources?

                              I can tell you the answer, Steve:

                              NOWHERE and BY NO ONE is that in ANY source.
                              Sorry i believe you are incorrect in your intreptation of the sources.

                              The Police reports in September and October not only exclude any mention of Mizen's claim, they both to varing degrees support and repeat the alternative view.
                              The refusal to accept that the sources do this somewhat strange.

                              However there appear to be no sources at all which say they, the Police accepted the account of Mizen!
                              If you believe there is please point these sources out?

                              Originally posted by Pierre View Post

                              You have just invented a little scenario for yourself to "fit" your own ideas.

                              You have done that on "the silence of the sources" and on "lack of sources".

                              It seems we are getting more and more problems here.

                              Why you, Steve?

                              You claimed you had "real science".

                              I thought you would do better than the rest of the ripperologists.

                              Pierre
                              There are no problems here at all Pierre; other than perhaps one for the policeman theory.
                              On that we will have to wait and see.

                              The polite put down is of no concern to me, I am using the sources and looking at the possible intpretations of such.
                              One has to take an overview, looking at and analysing many different sources before one can form ideas based on the interpretation of such sources.

                              The issue you have is that you appear to disagree over the intpretation of some of those sources.
                              Of course we both beleive we are correct on this.

                              Rather than this continual ping pong exchange of whose interpretation is superior to the others, which of course is pointless in itself has that is a matter of personal opinion, why not wait until I give the full details of my work, rather than guessing what it will actually say.

                              Steve

                              Comment


                              • whilst I understand the need for legitimate sources and applying a methodology I sometimes feel Pierre that you believe that this case can be solved by simply applying some kind of methodological equation. X(confirmed by s) + y(confirmed by d and f) + z(confirmed by q +w) = Jack q.e.d. There comes a point in viewing historical events when we run out of 'provable facts) and have to start making use of words like 'if' and 'maybe' or 'is it possible or likely that...' It's unavoidable but you seem completely averse to this. I see nothing wrong with using these words/phrases as long as it's clear that you are doing so and not presenting the conclusions drawn from them as definately proven facts.
                                When it comes to interpretations (for eg. conflicting statements) its difficult and often impossible to know whose version is the correct one. We can check for any corroboration, individual histories, context and likelihoods of bias but when these are scare it's is down to interpretation. Let's face it, we could have 2 statements, one has corroboration and one doesn't. It is still not absolutely certain that the one with corroboration is the correct one because 2 people can be as wrong as one.
                                The case is full of 'scenarios' that we try and sift through. We even modify them to see if they fit different outcomes. We have to accept that the unknown and unknowable exist and we have to work around them as best we can. This often requires 'creative thinking,' or (and this word might make you wince Pierre sorry) 'guesswork.'
                                I suppose that what I've tried to say is that 'sources' and 'methodology' are undoubtedly important they are not the be-all-and-end-all of
                                investigation.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                                “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X