Is oral history of any benefit

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • richardnunweek
    Superintendent
    • Feb 2008
    • 2420

    #1

    Is oral history of any benefit

    Hi ,
    As I suggested on the ''Quiet thread'' how about starting off a thread to kick start the weekend.
    So I ask the question is Oral History of any benefit?
    Two gems
    come to mind .
    Mrs Cox's niece , and her recollections of her aunt recalling that Mary Kelly used to bring home sailors to room 13 , with a bottle of gin slung under her arm, and Blotchy apparently rough handling Mary, when walking through the passage , prompting her to call out''All right my love, don't pull me along''.
    All very visual descriptions...but is it true?
    Another is the infamous grave spitting.
    Did Dan Farson receive a letter from an elderly lady in receipt of his Farson's guide to the British in 1959, and was the description of her mother and a friend witnessing a man actually spitting on the grave of Kelly an actual event?.
    There are a host of other accounts, did Mjk really roll sailors , and even swap shawls with other women to avoid capture, and was her pitch outside the Ten Bells, where she would fight with anyone tooth and nail who tried to invade her space.
    Did she bother people in lodging houses in her street for money, allegedly to pay her rent.?
    Should we believe any of these , and other reports, of not only Kelly , but the other oral tit-bits dotted around the Ripper case.?
    Regards Richard.
  • Robert
    Commissioner
    • Feb 2008
    • 5163

    #2
    I guess it depends - sometimes it might lead to something being checked out that it never would have occurred to anyone to check out - and then if that checks out, the oral history might turn out to be useful.

    Comment

    • Scott Nelson
      Superintendent
      • Feb 2008
      • 2404

      #3
      Originally posted by richardnunweek View Post
      Two gems
      come to mind..............oral tit-bits dotted around...
      Sorry, I couldn't resist.

      Comment

      • richardnunweek
        Superintendent
        • Feb 2008
        • 2420

        #4
        Hi Scott.
        I guess one could conjure up many giggles in my choice of words, I had to laugh myself.
        Regards Richard.

        Comment

        • Errata
          Assistant Commissioner
          • Sep 2010
          • 3060

          #5
          Oral history is incredibly powerful in a culture because it preserves the morals and values of a people. From an evidence based standpoint... it's really like a game of Telephone. It's possible that accuracy and truth has been preserved generationally... but the odds aren't good. What I get out of these stories is basically a morality tale on the fate of prostitutes and drunks, tales to shock people into right behavior. Even spitting on a grave is a morality tale.

          I don't see a problem with treating it as evidence until proven wrong. We do that with everything really. But making it a central point in a theory with no supporting evidence is academically a little shady. I mean, we all have to start somewhere right?
          The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

          Comment

          • Cogidubnus
            Assistant Commissioner
            • Feb 2012
            • 3266

            #6
            On balance, no

            Comment

            • Damaso Marte
              Sergeant
              • Jan 2012
              • 612

              #7
              I see no reason why oral history should be more reliable than, say, police memoirs...and we all know how reliable those are.

              Comment

              Working...
              X