Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by Wickerman 5 hours ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by DirectorDave 6 hours ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by harry 6 hours ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by Wickerman 6 hours ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by harry 6 hours ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by Wickerman 6 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - (46 posts)
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - (13 posts)
General Police Discussion: The single source question - (8 posts)
General Victim Discussion: What does this picture remind you of? - (3 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Greetings from the past - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Witnesses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #171  
Old 09-06-2017, 01:19 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,493
Default

[quote=Pierre;428153]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post



No, the issue is I disagree over the interpretation of the non existing sources.

Pierre your continued refusal to accept the sources I quote exist, is highly amusing. So it is your interpretation of those sources NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS with is the reason for the disagreement.

Such debate is healthy.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 09-06-2017, 03:23 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post

And the whole forum is full of guesswork. Nor just guesswork, but a lot. And that is OK, but when Steve claims to use "real science" - his own words (Hi Steve, sorry for speaking about you in the third person but what can I do now), that is when guesswork is not expected.

Pierre,
My issue at present is that you do not know what I am actually going to suggest and accept or reject at this stage; has I have not yet given any actual details.
I have made some speculations and suggestions, however I have also made it clear that I do not nesicarilly believe those, they to a large degree are to try out ideas and to get responses and debate.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 09-06-2017, 03:43 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Hi El

can you in a nut shell, please give me your summary analysis of the situation on all this?
Hi Abby let me try an be as brief as possible.
The current debate is had the Police decided by the 19th September and possibly by the 17th which account of the exchange between the Carmen and Mizen they believed?

I believe there are strong indications in the Police reports that they had. Pierre responded by saying this was not so, my interpretation was wrong.

Of course the interesting thing about all of this is that I have yet to make any firm statements on anything or proposed any hypothesis as yet.

On the various sections of part 2, I made comments on possible interpretations, for the purpose of debate and to setup part 3.
Pierre seems to see these comments as a betrayal of what I have previously said. His idea of science and mine are very different, we are from different disciplines. Mine the natural sciences and his in history and sociology I think.

I must admit I am a little saddened by the posts, given I said I did not wish this type of debate until part 3. It is however of minor importance to what I will be posting later.

So it's onwards and upwards.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 09-07-2017, 08:46 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,404
Default

[quote=Elamarna;428157]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post

Pierre your continued refusal to accept the sources I quote exist, is highly amusing. So it is your interpretation of those sources NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS with is the reason for the disagreement.

Such debate is healthy.

Steve
It is not a refusal to accept existing sources, it is a refusal to accept non existing sources, Steve.

This is your hypothesis and I quote you:

Quote:
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.
Your exact hypothesis is that

the Police during their investigations came to a conclusion on what was said on the Morning of 31st

and the sources you refer to are what you call

the Police Reports

These reports are to be found in The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook.

But there is not one single police report who even mentions any problem with contradictory statements or about a Cross telling Mizen about a policeman having been in Buckīs Row. Nowhere, Steve.

So what you have done here is that you assume that the police "came to a conclusion" without one single source for that.

Now, I can show you what the conclusion of the police actually was, Steve. And I can refer to a source for this conclusion. Here we go:

The police concluded that there was a policeman in Buckīs Row. And that policeman was PC Neil.

This is what you see in the MET source from 19th September:

Before Mizen arrived "Neil had discovered it".

You also see something else:

"They (the carmen) informed PC Mizen...". Not "he" but "they".

This is "the view of the police" you are discussing here. And note this, Steve:

It it not the "view of the police force" but the view of Swanson.

So what are you going to do with that view? As you can see, Swanson was thinking not in details but in general terms.

"Neil had discovered" it and "they informed".

Therefore, I must say that this source is actually hopeless to draw any conclusions from concearning specific idiographic details.

We have just the testimonies of Mizen and Cross, and then Paul. And they are in newspaper reports.

And we also have the referring to the physician and his descriptions.

But nowhere Steve, nowhere is there any small fragment where a conflict or contradiction between Mizen and Cross is referred to, not even if you use your imagination.

And do you know what I think about all this? I think we must be careful with these old sources. Donīt you agree?

Pierre

Last edited by Pierre : 09-07-2017 at 08:48 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 09-07-2017, 10:32 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,493
Default

[quote=Pierre;428234]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post

It is not a refusal to accept existing sources, it is a refusal to accept non existing sources, Steve.

This is your hypothesis and I quote you:



Your exact hypothesis is that

the Police during their investigations came to a conclusion on what was said on the Morning of 31st

and the sources you refer to are what you call

the Police Reports

These reports are to be found in The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook.

But there is not one single police report who even mentions any problem with contradictory statements or about a Cross telling Mizen about a policeman having been in Buckīs Row. Nowhere, Steve.

So what you have done here is that you assume that the police "came to a conclusion" without one single source for that.

Now, I can show you what the conclusion of the police actually was, Steve. And I can refer to a source for this conclusion. Here we go:

The police concluded that there was a policeman in Buckīs Row. And that policeman was PC Neil.

This is what you see in the MET source from 19th September:

Before Mizen arrived "Neil had discovered it".

You also see something else:

"They (the carmen) informed PC Mizen...". Not "he" but "they".

This is "the view of the police" you are discussing here. And note this, Steve:

It it not the "view of the police force" but the view of Swanson.

So what are you going to do with that view? As you can see, Swanson was thinking not in details but in general terms.

"Neil had discovered" it and "they informed".

Therefore, I must say that this source is actually hopeless to draw any conclusions from concearning specific idiographic details.

We have just the testimonies of Mizen and Cross, and then Paul. And they are in newspaper reports.

And we also have the referring to the physician and his descriptions.

But nowhere Steve, nowhere is there any small fragment where a conflict or contradiction between Mizen and Cross is referred to, not even if you use your imagination.

And do you know what I think about all this? I think we must be careful with these old sources. Donīt you agree?

Pierre
You read and anaylise the report incorrectly, in my view.
The report of the 19th is clear: it gives a brief account of the finding of the body by the Carmen then says Mizen left to go to Bucks Row; But before he arrived Neil had found it.

That means Neil found it after the Carmen left the scene. That is how the language works my friend.

The report therefore backs the account of the Carmen. And gives no mention of Mizen's account.

To say the report does not represent Police Opinion is to deny the obvious. It was an official report not intended for any but higher officials.

And by the way it is Abberline' s report not just Swanson's.

Indeed it says "they informed" and "Neil had discovered" but not in the order you present it.

You have transposed the statements, such give a misleading impression
.


That you choose, and it is a choice, to read any anaylise the report differently and to attempt to dismiss it, is most telling.

It is a minor event, and is not central or even essential in my actual hypothesis.

Your continual view that your opinion is more valid than others is actually tiresome, however unlike others I do not get rude with you but answer politely and patiently.

Why can you not wait patiently to see what I actually say, not what you think I am going to say?

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 09-07-2017, 10:57 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,404
Default

[quote=Elamarna;428251][quote=Pierre;428234]

Quote:
You read and anaylise the report incorrectly, in my view.
The report of the 19th is clear: it gives a brief account of the finding of the body by the Carmen then says Mizen left to go to Bucks Row; But before he arrived Neil had found it.
Exactly. Before Mizen arrived Neil had found it. Did I tell you anything else?
Quote:
That means Neil found it after the Carmen left the scene. That is how the language works my friend.
Of course. Whatīs the problem, Steve? I wrote:

The police concluded that there was a policeman in Buckīs Row. And that policeman was PC Neil.

Was he not in Buckīs Row before Mizen?

Did Swanson say that Cross or Paul saw him? No.

Did he even mention the contradiction? No.

Did he say that Neil must have been the PC seen by Cross? No.

All he concluded was, as I said, that:

there was a policeman in Buckīs Row. And that policeman was PC Neil.

That is all, Steve. All we have from "the police". That is "The View" you are discussing.

Quote:
The report therefore backs the account of the Carmen. And gives no mention of Mizen's account.
What "account from the carmen"?
The interview with Paul? Is that "the account"?
Or the newspaper articles from the inquest with Paul? Is that "the account?"
Or the statements of Cross saying he did not say anything about a policeman? Is that "the account"

What exactly is The Account (!) backed by Swanson in his report? Please tell me. You can take your pick from several! Which one do you choose?

Quote:
To say the report does not represent Police Opinion is to deny the obvious. It was an official report not intended for any but higher officials.
OK. So now we have "Police Opinion". I said the police force, did I not?

The force. The whole force. They did not think like Swanson all of them or did they? Any sources for that? Any sources for a common, generalized Police Opinion, valid for all? Or for a percentage? How large? Or for "some"? Which ones? Any sources?

You see the terrible problem with your idea, Steve.

Quote:
And by the way it is Abberline' s report not just Swanson's.
It is signed Donald S. Swanson, Ch: Inspector.

Quote:
Indeed it says "they informed" and "Neil had discovered" but not in the order you present it.

You have transposed the statements, such give a misleading impression
.
Donīt be silly. Anyone can read this source! Do not accuse me of misleading, Steve.

I am analyzing the source. That is why I take out specific phrases or words and discuss them. Such pieces are called "excerpts" in historical language because we take them out to analyze them. Nothing sinister with that and certainly not "misleading"!


Quote:
That you choose, and it is a choice, to read any anaylise the report differently and to attempt to dismiss it, is most telling.
Telling of what? I have no interest in these sources, Steve. There are other things in the Nichols case that are interesting to me.

I do not "need" those sources. I can live without them! Happily!

Quote:
It is a minor event, and is not central or even essential in my actual hypothesis.

Your continual view that your opinion is more valid than others is actually tiresome, however unlike others I do not get rude with you but answer politely and patiently.
Except from when you call me "misleading", Steve, when I use normal methods.

Quote:
Why can you not wait patiently to see what I actually say, not what you think I am going to say?
For you it is a matter of waiting. But for me it is a matter or method. Sorry, Steve, but your method of "if", "would have" and "possible" and establishing historical facts on lack of sources or sources with no relevant content leads to anything goes.

THAT is the problem. Not your future result.

It is the way, Steve. Not the goal.

Pierre

Last edited by Pierre : 09-07-2017 at 11:02 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 09-07-2017, 01:00 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,493
Default

[quote=Pierre;428264][quote=Elamarna;428251]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post



Exactly. Before Mizen arrived Neil had found it. Did I tell you anything else?


Of course. Whatīs the problem, Steve? I wrote:

The police concluded that there was a policeman in Buckīs Row. And that policeman was PC Neil.

Was he not in Buckīs Row before Mizen?

Did Swanson say that Cross or Paul saw him? No.

Did he even mention the contradiction? No.

Did he say that Neil must have been the PC seen by Cross? No.

All he concluded was, as I said, that:

there was a policeman in Buckīs Row. And that policeman was PC Neil.

That is all, Steve. All we have from "the police". That is "The View" you are discussing.



What "account from the carmen"?
The interview with Paul? Is that "the account"?
Or the newspaper articles from the inquest with Paul? Is that "the account?"
Or the statements of Cross saying he did not say anything about a policeman? Is that "the account"

What exactly is The Account (!) backed by Swanson in his report? Please tell me. You can take your pick from several! Which one do you choose?



OK. So now we have "Police Opinion". I said the police force, did I not?

The force. The whole force. They did not think like Swanson all of them or did they? Any sources for that? Any sources for a common, generalized Police Opinion, valid for all? Or for a percentage? How large? Or for "some"? Which ones? Any sources?

You see the terrible problem with your idea, Steve.



It is signed Donald S. Swanson, Ch: Inspector.



Donīt be silly. Anyone can read this source! Do not accuse me of misleading, Steve.

I am analyzing the source. That is why I take out specific phrases or words and discuss them. Such pieces are called "excerpts" in historical language because we take them out to analyze them. Nothing sinister with that and certainly not "misleading"!




Telling of what? I have no interest in these sources, Steve. There are other things in the Nichols case that are interesting to me.

I do not "need" those sources. I can live without them! Happily!



Except from when you call me "misleading", Steve, when I use normal methods.



For you it is a matter of waiting. But for me it is a matter or method. Sorry, Steve, but your method of "if", "would have" and "possible" and establishing historical facts on lack of sources or sources with no relevant content leads to anything goes.

THAT is the problem. Not your future result.

It is the way, Steve. Not the goal.

Pierre

PIERRE
You do not know what arguments I am going to present, or if I will use the terms you say are unacceptable. Instead you critise a few comments I have made here to encourage debate.
And it is not for you to say what arguments we may make or which words we use. Something's never change do they my friend such has your elitism.

Your view of 31st August from what one can tell is based on accepting Mizen told the truth.
I will explain why I feel this is a false premise, not based on "if" or "what" or the testimony of Paul and certainly nothing to do with Thain and the slaughter men.
I will however give the alternative theories, such as the classic scam and your take on it too.
It will then be left for the reader to make up their mind. I suspect that probably appalls you, as the readers are not historians.



And No the 19th September Report is signed by both Swanson and Abberline, not just Swanson has you have now twice said.

We disagree over the interpretation my friend accept such and live with it.


I guess you can tell my patient is wearing thin.
I have no issue with this sort of attack when I present my Hypothesis, indeed I expect far worse. However I did specifically ask that we did not descend to this before that point. And you have disrespected that request.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 09-08-2017, 01:56 AM
MysterySinger MysterySinger is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 397
Default

Why are we using the word "has" instead of "as" in these posts?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 09-08-2017, 03:02 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysterySinger View Post
Why are we using the word "has" instead of "as" in these posts?
Auto correct/predictive text on my phone.
I do try and manually correct if i notice it. Think you will find I did once on my last post but missed another occurrence.
A quick check of the last 7 or so posts show 3 missed I think.
Yes it is annoying I agree, please accept my apologies MS, will try and check more .


Steve

Last edited by Elamarna : 09-08-2017 at 03:11 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 09-08-2017, 05:02 AM
John G John G is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,987
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysterySinger View Post
Why are we using the word "has" instead of "as" in these posts?
Is this grammatically correct? Surely you mean "why are you", not "why are we."
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.