Ripperology - Researching Advice

[Geddy2112]

Just wish to ask some advice on sound researching in regards to the Ripper case. Obviously over the years some fantastic work has been done and obviously I'm grateful for that.
However something struck me yesterday regarding some researching. Would it be sound, using the famous 'Remarkable Statement' below as an example to believe some of it and not the rest or does one have to either believe all of it or none of it?

On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. He said :- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head.

For example is it okay to believe the first section in bold but not the next two? Is this sound and safe researching? Thanks.

[Kattrup]

is it okay to believe the first section in bold but not the next two? Is this sound and safe researching? Thanks.

Hello Geddy

according to the principles of historical research, which I was taught at university some 20-25 years ago (my education is as an historian and I currently work as an archivist), it is not okay.

If one chooses to believe one statement in a source, but not another, one is essentially only confirming what one already knows or believes.

Note, however, that this concerns only what Robert Paul believed, not whether it’s factually accurate. I.e. he may well have believed he knew the exact time, that does not necessarily mean that he was correct.

[Geddy2112]

according to the principles of historical research, which I was taught at university some 20-25 years ago (my education is as an historian and I currently work as an archivist), it is not okay.

If one chooses to believe one statement in a source, but not another, one is essentially only confirming what one already knows or believes.

Hi Kattrup, many thanks and as I suspected, it seems rather unsafe to believe half a statement.

Note, however, that this concerns only what Robert Paul believed, not whether it’s factually accurate. I.e. he may well have believed he knew the exact time, that does not necessarily mean that he was correct.

Absolutely I understand that, it was more the point one bold bit is believed but another bold bit is not believed. Thank you.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hello Geddy

according to the principles of historical research, which I was taught at university some 20-25 years ago (my education is as an historian and I currently work as an archivist), it is not okay.

If one chooses to believe one statement in a source, but not another, one is essentially only confirming what one already knows or believes.

Note, however, that this concerns only what Robert Paul believed, not whether it’s factually accurate. I.e. he may well have believed he knew the exact time, that does not necessarily mean that he was correct.

Excellent point that highlights that there's a difference between personal interpretative subjective reality and unbiased objective definitive truth.


RD

[Geddy2112]

Excellent point that highlights that there's a difference between personal interpretative subjective reality and unbiased objective definitive truth.

Crikey, I'm going to have look up nearly every word in that sentence to see what they mean. Congratulations, it's a new record...

[The Rookie Detective]

Crikey, I'm going to have look up nearly every word in that sentence to see what they mean. Congratulations, it's a new record...

Reality is based on an individual's personal perception and interpretation of any given situation and life experience.

Truth is absolute.


For example...

the REALITY of the modern day world, is that there are many variable genders that are all encompassing and inclusive, and help to define, catagorize and give a voice to all those who could otherwise feel lost. The reality of the need to feel equal in society and to be whoever you wish to be. Everyone has the right to live in their own reality, as long as it does not deliberately hurt others by forcing another to live by a different reality. Religion and politics being a prime example.

the TRUTH is that there are only 2 genders; male and female...and there are some things as human beings that we have no control of, and whether a person accepts it or not, you're born with what you have, because nature, science and math deals us all the hand we are given. Who we then choose to become as a person, is then up to us based on the choices we make and the experiences we have. Religion and politics have no place in truth and are simply human constructs designed by those in power to control the masses.


You're always going to have those who argue that 2 + 2 does not equal 4, and its those people who live in their own reality, but can't accept the truth that humans can't control everything...



RD

[Geddy2112]

...You're always going to have those who argue that 2 + 2 does not equal 4, and its those people who live in their own reality, but can't accept the truth that humans can't control everything...

Thank you very insightful. So would you or would you not agree with the example I gave. Do you think it's 'safe' to be able to believe half a statement and no believe the other half?

[Michael W Richards]

Thank you very insightful. So would you or would you not agree with the example I gave. Do you think it's 'safe' to be able to believe half a statement and no believe the other half?

I believe that all the statements given will have some bias or probable errors. As Katrup said...... "If one chooses to believe one statement in a source, but not another, one is essentially only confirming what one already knows or believes." For me the veracity of the statement must comply with known factors already established by the physical or circumstantial evidence. A perfectly reasonable statement given without meticulous review can still be just a complete fabrication, exaggeration or a modification due to some subjective needs or wants of the source. Like timings for example. An event could be stated as observed...and then corroborated by other independent accounts,... but the individual witness timings provided may relate more to the subjects own requirements rather than any strict moral obligation to the truth.

My point being that within a single witness statement there may be falsehoods along with the "TRUTH". When you have multiple witness statements that directly conflict with each other, then you may want to assess who may have had motives to tailor aspects of their statement, the background and known history of the character of the witness, and many other factors such as corroborated elements within some statements that do not exist in others. If 10 people said they saw the building fall down at midnight, and just 1 or 2 others said that they saw it happen at 11:50, you may want to examine the circumstances of those 2 who did not match. And in what order their statements were taken. Maybe the 2 men were on their way to work the night shift and their shift started at midnight, and they were still 5-10 minutes from work. Thats why the guessed 11:50...to cover themselves being late. Maybe they set their watches by the factory clock at work..which was 10 minutes slow. If they gave their statements first, they may not have known that the next 10 witnesses would give different times..and corroborate each other by doing so. The 2 who said 11:50 would then be considered suspect on their times, but not necessarily on whether they saw a building fall on their way to work that night. 10 other people said they saw it too. But at what exact time? You can never know for sure, all you can do is use reason, logic, and comparative analysis of the statements and the witnesses.

I know thats a abstract example...but I hope you get the point. TRUTH exists unto itself. Your discovery of it, or lack of discovery, doesnt affect the fact that there is a TRUTH there. And one error...or lie....or incongruity, doesnt negate an entire statement. Right and wrong are just interpretive concepts, and only by close examination of the statements, the witnesses themselves, and the existing physical data, can you hope to find some TRUTH.

One thing to be careful of is just assuming a given time is correct or incorrect, it can only be determined to be one or the other based on comparatives. Today UTC, Co-Ordinated Universal Time, is an established time marker. Presumably everyone using GMT could conceivably all have the same time on their devices if set by GMT....if they all ran at the same speed and were all in top working order. Back in 1888, you set your time by the most accessible time sources locally. Publicly displayed clocks.

[JeffHamm]

I'm not a historian, but I do do research. I think Kattrup's post is excellent, though, and I wouldn't change the points he's made. I would, however, add one more point that should be considered.

The original post examines one, and only one, source where Paul makes statements. We have, however, multiple sources that contain statements from Paul, made at different times, under different circumstances. It is poor research to draw conclusions from one source without comparing it to the body of information as a whole, particularly when it comes to evaluating people's statements. We phrase things differently each time we recount an event, and our choice of words can, in the specific, convey different nuances. By looking at multiple recountings of an event, those nuances will slightly change, and so to try and locate the "truth", one generally tries to map out the semantic space of those nuances and look towards something in the middle ground.

It is also important to take into account differences in the circumstances of when those statements were made. Converstations with the press, which have no pressure of legal obligations, are more likely to vary from the truth, to include aspects reflecting personal opinion and attitudes that will not arise when someone speaks to the police or gives testimony at an inquest and/or trial.

Where sources conflict, there is reason to question the reliability of those statements. Where one source conflicts with multiple other sources, that one conflicting version is likely the erroneous one. If there are roughly equal versions pointing to two opposite versions, neither should be preferred.

Choosing to accept one statement from an account, and then disregarding others, is poor methodology unless there is some other evidence that verifies one's decision. Clearly, Paul's Lloyd's statements in the latter half get removed because they conflict with multiple other sources. But his statement of an exact time is also in conflict with every other source where he indicates what time he left home and so forth. As such, the Lloyd's article, while not entirely false, is clearly the odd one out in terms of many specifics. That source is, therefore, a highly unreliable source to use as the basis for making detailed claims.

Because the word "exactly" is often used as the foundation for many of the inferences that are the basis of the Cross/Lechmere as JtR theory, it means the theory often is propped up by a very unreliable source, and hinges on one word (exactly). When we also examine that source, a press account, we also have to wonder if that word exactly even left the lips of Paul himself as we have to consider the very real possibility it was added by the journalist, or even an editor of the newspaper. Paul never repeats the word exactly, so these possibilities are very real concerns.

Personally, I find the Lloyd's article so divergent from the other sources we have from Paul himself, and divergent from information we have from other people, that I do not think it adds any useful information at all (other than it indicates a time by which Paul was located).

- Jeff

[Fiver]

Hello Geddy

according to the principles of historical research, which I was taught at university some 20-25 years ago (my education is as an historian and I currently work as an archivist), it is not okay.

If one chooses to believe one statement in a source, but not another, one is essentially only confirming what one already knows or believes.

Note, however, that this concerns only what Robert Paul believed, not whether it’s factually accurate. I.e. he may well have believed he knew the exact time, that does not necessarily mean that he was correct.

I agree with most of this, but an error in an eyewitness statement, does not mean the whole statement is false. For example, an eyewitness might get the suspect's hair color wrong, but correctly describe the height, build, and clothing of the suspect.

[rjpalmer]

Personally, I don't think there is explicit evidence that Paul ever walked back his claim that Nichols' body was so cold that she must have been on the pavement for a considerable time.

Paul (in Lloyd's) made it sound as if the body was so cold that the beat constable (who turned out to be PC Neil) had been neglecting his beat.

"If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold...it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time."

At the inquest, Paul doesn't repeat the accusation of police neglect, per se, but he sticks to the claim that Nichols was cold.

"He felt her hands and face and they were cold." (Daily Telegraph 18 September)

Neil, by implication, disputes neglecting his beat because he claims to have walked down Bucks Row at 3.15 a.m.

On the other hand, both Cross and Dr. Llewellyn confirm Paul's account of Nichols' hands being cold.

Cross described them as "cold and limp," whereas Llewellyn said the "hands were cold, but the body and lower extremities were quite warm."

Interestingly, PC Neil doesn't mention the temperature of the victim's hands at all but limits himself to the arms being warm from "the joint upward," which seems somewhat like a tacit admission that the hands themselves were cold, but of course this is my own interpretation.

None of this is exact enough to give us a time of death, of course, but I'm also not seeing any indication that Paul's later statements contradict the Lloyd's interview, at least in regard to the temperature of the body, because there is no indication that Paul ever felt any portion of Nichol's skin other than her hands and face.

Knowing by now that PC Neil deposed to having passed down Buck's Row half an hour earlier, and Llewellyn estimating that the victim couldn't have been dead much before 3.30, Paul might not have been keen on repeating the complaints that were attributed to him in Lloyd's in a public setting, but who knows if he really changed his mind?

Of course--and now I'm contradicting myself--- I've always had the hunch that Lloyd's was milking Paul's criticism of the police for what it was worth, and perhaps exaggerating it; they had been a left leaning newspaper since the days of their first editor, and not immune to putting the police in the hot seat.

[JeffHamm]

Personally, I don't think there is explicit evidence that Paul ever walked back his claim that Nichols' body was so cold that she must have been on the pavement for a considerable time.

Paul (in Lloyd's) made it sound as if the body was so cold that the beat constable (who turned out to be PC Neil) had been neglecting his beat.

"If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold...it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time."

At the inquest, Paul doesn't repeat the accusation of police neglect, per se, but he sticks to the claim that Nichols was cold.

"He felt her hands and face and they were cold." (Daily Telegraph 18 September)

Neil, by implication, disputes neglecting his beat because he claims to have walked down Bucks Row at 3.15 a.m.

On the other hand, both Cross and Dr. Llewellyn confirm Paul's account of Nichols' hands being cold.

Cross described them as "cold and limp," whereas Llewellyn said the "hands were cold, but the body and lower extremities were quite warm."

Interestingly, PC Neil doesn't mention the temperature of the victim's hands at all but limits himself to the arms being warm from "the joint upward," which seems somewhat like a tacit admission that the hands themselves were cold, but of course this is my own interpretation.

None of this is exact enough to give us a time of death, of course, but I'm also not seeing any indication that Paul's later statements contradict the Lloyd's interview, at least in regard to the temperature of the body, because there is no indication that Paul ever felt any portion of Nichol's skin other than her hands and face.

Knowing by now that PC Neil deposed to having passed down Buck's Row half an hour earlier, and Llewellyn estimating that the victim couldn't have been dead much before 3.30, Paul might not have been keen on repeating the complaints that were attributed to him in Lloyd's in a public setting, but who knows if he really changed his mind?

Of course--and now I'm contradicting myself--- I've always had the hunch that Lloyd's was milking Paul's criticism of the police for what it was worth, and perhaps exaggerating it; they had been a left leaning newspaper since the days of their first editor, and not immune to putting the police in the hot seat.

Hi rj,

I think PC Neil's information about the arms being warm is the more important. I mean, if I walked around at night in the autumn with bear hands and face, even alive those exposed bits of flesh could feel cold to the touch to another person. By checking an area not exposed would at least indicate that the body had not been there for so long that even those areas had cooled.

And I agree with your hutch with regards to the Lloyd's article. It strikes me as the "odd one out" with regards to Paul's statements and I wonder if the reporter employed leading questions, or some other such techniques, to draw out some provocative statements, or just spiced up the presentation. On the whole, it so stands apart from the other versions that I question its reliability and utility to getting at the actual events, or even Paul's beliefs.

- Jeff

[Geddy2112]

Personally, I don't think there is explicit evidence that Paul ever walked back his claim that Nichols' body was so cold that she must have been on the pavement for a considerable time.

According the the inquest transcript post on this site Paul states - 'The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down. Before he did so he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint.'

[Geddy2112]

Just for my own amusement and I'm not saying it's 100% correct but I've done a tally of the evidence based on the Lechmere Theory, apologies if it's not spot on...

1) Christer believes Paul with regards to the time he entered Bucks Row - exactly 3:45am.
2) Christer does not believe Paul when he said 'The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down.'
3) Christer does not believe Paul when he claims he went to Mizen alone
4) Christer does not believe PCs Neil, Thain and Mizen with regards their times.
5) Christer believes 'so many independent data' is Paul and Llewellyn only. There are people cite five witnesses more in line with 'so many.'
6) Christer does not believe Mizen with regards the 3:45 timing as Paul said he was in Bucks Row.
7) Christer however does believe Mizen with regards Lechmere telling him a Policeman wanted him in Bucks Row
8) Christer does not believe Lechmere with regards him not killing Polly Nichols
9) Christer does not believe Lechmere with regards his conversation with Mizen
10) Christer does not believe Paul with his account of the meeting with Mizen
11) Christer however does believe Lechmere regarding when he left home.
12) Christer does not believe Llewellyn with regards time of death because it could take ToD to about 3:30, 3:35 am
13) Christer does believe Llewellyn that the abdominal wounds came first.
14) Christer does believe Baxter when he states the body was found not far from 3:45 am
15) Christer does not believe Baxter when he doubts Llewellyn stating the abdominal wounds came first.

So from just 15 points we have Christer believing Paul twice, but does not believe him 3 times.

So from just 15 points we have Christer believing Mizen once, but does not believe him 3 times.

So from just 15 points we have Christer believing Lechmere once, but does not believe him 3 times.

So from just 15 points we have Christer believing Llewellyn twice, but does not believe him twice.

So from just 15 points we have Christer believing Baxter once, but does not believe him once.

So for arguments sake, Christer does not believe Mizen when he says he was in company of Paul and Lechmere at 3:45am at the junction of Bucks Row, however he does believe him in regards to Lechmere saying he was wanted by a Policeman and also he does not believe Mizen when Mizen states he was spoken to by Paul and Lechmere.
How can it be safe methodology in building a murder case against someone to do this? What is the criteria for belief or non-belief? I suggest it's cherry-picking the evidence to suit the theory and disregarding the rest but that is just me. Thoughts?

[Michael W Richards]

Interesting compilation. And Lets see where proof of a "belief" is supported by some validated evidence. Ill highlight all the points in Green that have some tangible proof to use to validate the "belief".

1) Christer believes Paul with regards to the time he entered Bucks Row - exactly 3:45am.
2) Christer does not believe Paul when he said 'The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down.'
3) Christer does not believe Paul when he claims he went to Mizen alone
4) Christer does not believe PCs Neil, Thain and Mizen with regards their times.
5) Christer believes 'so many independent data' is Paul and Llewellyn only. There are people cite five witnesses more in line with 'so many.'
6) Christer does not believe Mizen with regards the 3:45 timing as Paul said he was in Bucks Row.
7) Christer however does believe Mizen with regards Lechmere telling him a Policeman wanted him in Bucks Row
8) Christer does not believe Lechmere with regards him not killing Polly Nichols
9) Christer does not believe Lechmere with regards his conversation with Mizen
10) Christer does not believe Paul with his account of the meeting with Mizen
11) Christer however does believe Lechmere regarding when he left home.
12) Christer does not believe Llewellyn with regards time of death because it could take ToD to about 3:30, 3:35 am
13) Christer does believe Llewellyn that the abdominal wounds came first.
14) Christer does believe Baxter when he states the body was found not far from 3:45 am
15) Christer does not believe Baxter when he doubts Llewellyn stating the abdominal wounds came first.

Yep, as we suspected, there is no Green there. He believes 6 out of 15 bits of cited evidence, and disbelieves 9 points. So he should certainly understand why we dont believe the majority of what he "believes", ...its clear he apparently doesnt believe the majority of what he's read.

I look at it this way, many people believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of JFK, yet there is no hard evidence ever revealed that this must be the only reasonable conclusion. In these cases, many "believe" Jack the Ripper killed 5... or more women, they "believe" that a woman who had a single knife injury should be grouped with ones that were eviserated, and people believe that these acts have nothing to do with the Sociopolitical turmoil in London at that same point in time.

That last one is the most curious to me....when looking for men that killed strangers in dramatic and gory ways, why exclude terrorists in that search?