The Bucks Row Project part 2

[Elamarna]

Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott

Perhaps even later than that !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It nice to agree Trevor, I wonder if Neil knew Mizen's story before Mizen gave his testimony on the Monday.

Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Originally Posted by Elamarna

It nice to agree Trevor, I wonder if Neil knew Mizen's story before Mizen gave his testimony on the Monday.

Steve

I suspect not, otherwise the anomalies we are discussing now would have been put right at the time. They had no reason to know back then that their evidence would be scrutinised to the extent that it has been today. After all the evidence they were giving at the time was not of much evidential value at the time.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Just seen a mistake in part 5 Mizen.

I said that report 12 said 3.45.

In fact it says a quarter to one and this must be a typo obviously in the original report.

Steve

[Pierre]

Hi Steve,

Have you analyzed the statement about the beat being very short, quickly walked over and occupying not more than 12 minutes, as in article 8a?

Cheers, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Hi Steve,

Have you analyzed the statement about the beat being very short, quickly walked over and occupying not more than 12 minutes, as in article 8a?

Cheers, Pierre

I have done for part 3.

I think there is a case that it may be a report of an old beat. The echo article of the 21st gives the impression that following Tabram beats were enlarged.

I will give a full anaylise of all options in part 3. However it's fair to say I go with the Echo 21st route mainly because of timing issues all of which are covered as well.

However it should be noted a short route will not have a great effect on what time Neil finds the body. Oddly enough a shorter route probably extends the time rather than shortening it



Steve

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Elamarna;424885

Is there a tendency in his testimony?

Yes in that he says went at once and straight to Neil, does not mention he was signalled to by Neil.

He attempts to portray himself as fully conforming to his duty.

Hi Steve,

A tendency is always the result of a motive.

When we analyze historical sources, we construct motive explanations.

Motive explanations are directed forward in time, i.e. the motive is to acchieve something forward in time.

Very often you can describe motives with expressions like "the king wanted to...and therefore he...", "Mizen wanted to...and therefore he said...".

In this case you say that the statement of Mizen has a tendency. And then you write:

"He attempts to portray himself as fully conforming to his duty".

Is this a motive explanation - or is it part of the tendency?

If it is a motive explanation you have this assumption:

Model A)

Tendency: Mizen said he went at once and straight to Neil and did not mention he was signalled to by Neil.

Motive: Mizen wanted to portray himself as fully conforming to his duty.

If it is part of a tendency you have:

Model B)

Tendency: Mizen said he went at once and straight to Neil and did not mention he was signalled to by Neil and he also attempted to portray himself as fully conforming to his duty - what was the motive for that? (Rhetorical question to point out this methodology of source criticicm).

Also, the word "attempted" is used by you but it is not clear why or how it is connected, if it is to the tendency criticism:

It can mean an honest attempt without a motive and it can mean an attempt to acchieve something in the future, i.e. a motive. Which is it, and what do you base a motive explanation on, if so?

Now, the third question. Let´s say that you have Model A):

Tendency: Mizen said he went at once and straight to Neil and did not mention he was signalled to by Neil.

Motive: Mizen wanted to portray himself as fully conforming to his duty.

Now, say that I think that there is a tendency in your text here, when you write about a tendency and an "attempt"!

Sorry for this but I have to ask you. Bias, you know.

Let´s say that I think that your own tendency is to establish that Mizen was not telling the truth, since he continued a bit to knock up, and that you want to establish this by using the word "attempt". In that case:

How can you know - and on what data can you establish it - that your postulate about an attempt is not false, since every PC wanted to do his duty and let people know that they did their duty?

How can you know it was a motive especially in that situation (external source criticism now) where PC Mizen was sworn or going to be sworn and to be part of an inquest?

I could also say:

"Show me one PC testifying at a (murder) inquest who did not want people to think they did their duty!".

So the tendency - is it a tendency in the sources?

Just asking before you start to establish historical facts on it.

Cheers, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Originally Posted by Pierre

QUOTE=Elamarna;424885



Hi Steve,

A tendency is always the result of a motive.

When we analyze historical sources, we construct motive explanations.

Motive explanations are directed forward in time, i.e. the motive is to acchieve something forward in time.

Very often you can describe motives with expressions like "the king wanted to...and therefore he...", "Mizen wanted to...and therefore he said...".

In this case you say that the statement of Mizen has a tendency. And then you write:

"He attempts to portray himself as fully conforming to his duty".

Is this a motive explanation - or is it part of the tendency?

If it is a motive explanation you have this assumption:

Model A)

Tendency: Mizen said he went at once and straight to Neil and did not mention he was signalled to by Neil.

Motive: Mizen wanted to portray himself as fully conforming to his duty.

If it is part of a tendency you have:

Model B)

Tendency: Mizen said he went at once and straight to Neil and did not mention he was signalled to by Neil and he also attempted to portray himself as fully conforming to his duty - what was the motive for that? (Rhetorical question to point out this methodology of source criticicm).

Also, the word "attempted" is used by you but it is not clear why or how it is connected, if it is to the tendency criticism:

It can mean an honest attempt without a motive and it can mean an attempt to acchieve something in the future, i.e. a motive. Which is it, and what do you base a motive explanation on, if so?

Now, the third question. Let´s say that you have Model A):

Tendency: Mizen said he went at once and straight to Neil and did not mention he was signalled to by Neil.

Motive: Mizen wanted to portray himself as fully conforming to his duty.

Now, say that I think that there is a tendency in your text here, when you write about a tendency and an "attempt"!

Sorry for this but I have to ask you. Bias, you know.

Let´s say that I think that your own tendency is to establish that Mizen was not telling the truth, since he continued a bit to knock up, and that you want to establish this by using the word "attempt". In that case:

How can you know - and on what data can you establish it - that your postulate about an attempt is not false, since every PC wanted to do his duty and let people know that they did their duty?

How can you know it was a motive especially in that situation (external source criticism now) where PC Mizen was sworn or going to be sworn and to be part of an inquest?

I could also say:

"Show me one PC testifying at a (murder) inquest who did not want people to think they did their duty!".

So the tendency - is it a tendency in the sources?

Just asking before you start to establish historical facts on it.

Cheers, Pierre

Hi Pierre


Fair questions.
There is little I am prepared to disclose in public at present, something I am sure you understand.
However I will make the following comments

1. I do not nessicary believe he carried on knocking up. He may have done say 1 more than he admited; but I see no evidence for such other than a gap in the timings which may have other explanations.

2.he was possibly concerned with public perception and how it would reflect on him and indeed his career.

3. Bias ? Possibly we all have them. But given 2 months back I had a different take on the issue, I think it is less likely to be true on this occasion than it may have been. Indeed I had great difficulty in convincing myself that it was a serious possibility.
It would be far easier to have stuck to the line of "there was a misunderstanding " than to advance on the course I am.

By attempting I mean I believe he wanted his actions to be accepted as correct without several questions being asked. They never were asked and so I postulate that he was successful.

Your questions keep me on my toes and with others I shall get from all will mean I should be able to get a good part 3.


Many thanks


Steve

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Elamarna;424908

Hi Pierre

Fair questions.
There is little I am prepared to disclose in public at present, something I am sure you understand.
However I will make the following comments

Hi Steve,

many thanks.

1. I do not nessicary believe he carried on knocking up. He may have done say 1 more than he admited; but I see no evidence for such other than a gap in the timings which may have other explanations.

2.he was possibly concerned with public perception and how it would reflect on him and indeed his career.

He was part of a murder inquest reported in the papers so of course.

3. Bias ? Possibly we all have them. But given 2 months back I had a different take on the issue, I think it is less likely to be true on this occasion than it may have been. Indeed I had great difficulty in convincing myself that it was a serious possibility.
It would be far easier to have stuck to the line of "there was a misunderstanding " than to advance on the course I am.

That sounds very good.

By attempting I mean I believe he wanted his actions to be accepted as correct without several questions being asked. They never were asked and so I postulate that he was successful.

OK. It sounds as if you mean he wanted to avoid more questions.

Your questions keep me on my toes and with others I shall get from all will mean I should be able to get a good part 3.

Many thanks

Steve

Thanks again, Steve.

Pierre

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally Posted by Elamarna

Hi Geoff,

thanks for the encouragement

Wont be anything definite until this is completed, should finish posting before this time next week, then i wait for any comments before finishing part 3.

Comments are good, Dusty pointed out a mistake and an omission which i have corrected on my master copies.

Maybe end of September, but more likely end October.


steve

Hi Steve,

I just wanted to add my own appreciation for this great piece of work. Getting everything together in one place then highlighting and analysing any discrepancies or unanswered questions helps us all get a closer inderstanding of what went on and when and who said what etc. I wonder if you are heartily sick of Bucks Row yet

I look forward to your next post. Give your brain a rest for a while

[Elamarna]

Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes

Hi Steve,

I just wanted to add my own appreciation for this great piece of work. Getting everything together in one place then highlighting and analysing any discrepancies or unanswered questions helps us all get a closer inderstanding of what went on and when and who said what etc. I wonder if you are heartily sick of Bucks Row yet

Hi Herlock.
Not yet. It turns up something new most days.
Thank you for the kind words.

Already started my next project. Doing much the same for Mitre Square. But that will be sometime next year I feel before I start to post on that.


Steve