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:
Thompson, Francis: Francis Thompson. The Perfect Suspect. - by SuspectZero 5 hours ago.
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - by GUT 10 hours ago.
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - by Wolf Vanderlinden 12 hours ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - by Mayerling 13 hours ago.
Scene of the Crimes: East End Walk - by barnflatwyngarde 13 hours ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by NickB 13 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (6 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - (2 posts)
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - (2 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: East End Walk - (1 posts)
Thompson, Francis: Francis Thompson. The Perfect Suspect. - (1 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
  #21  
Old 08-10-2017, 02:51 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,709
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
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
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-10-2017, 03:06 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,776
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
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
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-10-2017, 04:36 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,709
Default

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
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-10-2017, 04:54 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

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
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-10-2017, 05:18 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,709
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
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

Last edited by Elamarna : 08-10-2017 at 05:46 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-10-2017, 05:55 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

QUOTE=Elamarna;424885

Quote:
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. Letīs 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.

Letīs 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

Last edited by Pierre : 08-10-2017 at 05:59 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-10-2017, 06:20 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,709
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
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. Letīs 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.

Letīs 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
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-10-2017, 06:56 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

QUOTE=Elamarna;424908

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-10-2017, 01:28 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 1,032
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
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
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-10-2017, 02:05 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,709
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
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
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 10:48 PM.


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