Sweet violets

[Pierre]

Your answer is a classic non sequitur. In response to me saying that the absence of evidence creates an element of doubt, you justify your answer of "no it doesn't" by saying "Lack of sources is not evidence".

But what I said was that the absence of evidence, or "lack of sources" if you prefer, is a reason in itself to think that the press was mistaken. Had Kelly been heard to sing "Sweet Violets" I would have expected that to be stated in evidence at the inquest (albeit that it was not of any importance for the jury).

The problem is that there IS positive evidence about what Kelly was singing. It came from Mrs Cox. But you don't seem to accept that evidence either!

Firstly, I would like to "accept" what you call evidence, since that would make things easier for me.

But the historical problem is that you can not use the absence of sources as presence of evidence. You also have the problem of different points in time for the provenance of the statements, the problem of not knowing who "a woman" was and the problem of different situations for the provenance of the sources. And the statements differ on more points than one.

All of that can, from a scientific point of view, not be just overlooked and swept away by an idea from you about "logic". Logic does not rule the social world, David. Logic is a part of philosophy and the social world does not consist of language elements used in philosophy.

Another historical problem at hand is that if it is an historical fact that Kelly was singing that night, we can postulate that Kelly was a person who sometimes sang songs.

Do you agree with this?

This means that the hypothetical knowledge about Kelly singing songs is something that is not just available to us in 2016, but it should have been knowledge (not hypothetical) for other people around Kelly in 1888.

Do you also agree with this?

[David Orsam]

But the historical problem is that you can not use the absence of sources as presence of evidence.

But I wasn't doing that Pierre.

And I was using the presence of evidence (i.e. the evidence of Mrs Cox) to suggest that Kelly sang the song "A Violet From Mother's Grave" because that's the only first hand evidence we have.

[David Orsam]

Another historical problem at hand is that if it is an historical fact that Kelly was singing that night, we can postulate that Kelly was a person who sometimes sang songs.

Do you agree with this?

This means that the hypothetical knowledge about Kelly singing songs is something that is not just available to us in 2016, but it should have been knowledge (not hypothetical) for other people around Kelly in 1888.

Do you also agree with this?

Both of your statements are not unreasonable.

[David Orsam]

As you see, you did not understand the function of the source. As I said, there is no evidence for Kelly having sung a song about Sweet Violets. It is a statement from "a woman" in the press. That is what we have left.

Just so you are aware Pierre, you don't seem to have all the information.

Before the Pall Mall Gazette report, which was in the afternoon of 10 November, the Times had already reported the following during the morning of 10 November (my underlining):

"About 1 o'clock yesterday morning a person living in the court opposite to the room occupied by the murdered woman heard her singing the song, "Sweet Violets," but this person is unable to say whether any one else was with her at that time".

As Joshua Rogan has already mentioned in this thread, the same issue of the Times carried a statement by John McCarthy in which he said:

"A woman heard Kelly singing "Sweet Violets" at 1 o'clock this morning. So up to that time, at all events, she was alive and well".

So we have more information about the informant, or informants, than you seem to be aware of.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;390218]1.

There was another song presented in the press on the 10th, two days before the inquest

. - That is not a reason to doubt that Cox heard Kelly singing "A Violet From Mother's Grave". The song "presented" in the press was said to have been sung at 1am but Cox said she heard Kelly singing "A Violet..." at about midnight. So the press report does not cast doubt on Cox's evidence.

Obviously, you have not read my first post.

These are the established historical facts we have and nothing you think can ever change that:

1. The lyrics of Sweet Violets were published in the Pall Mall Gazette 10 November 1888.

2. The information about the song Sweet Violets was given to the press by "a woman".

3. This song was not the song described by Cox.

4. It was not described as having been heard at the same point in time as the song heard by Cox.

2. The song was heard at another point in time according to the press. - In which case it does not cast doubt on what Cox heard Kelly singing at midnight unless Kelly was only allowed to have sung one song. But Cox's evidence is that she was singing for about an hour so must have sung a number of songs.

It does not matter what Cox said she heard. The song she said she heard is still not the same song published i the press two days earlier. That is an historical well established fact.

3. The sources closest in time and place are considered the more reliable. - I'd like to know who considers sources closest in time as "the more reliable." Not anyone I'm aware of (apart from you all of a sudden despite having told us about the low validity of newspaper reports on this forum for many months!). But even if that was true, it doesn't undermine Cox's evidence at all because Kelly could easily have sung more than one song and, on Cox's evidence, she must have done.

You are "not aware". Of course you are not aware.

But that is not my problem.

I will not provide you of any more lists of literature about the normal methods used in academic history, just because you are "not aware". I am not responsible for your lack of historical education. You must go to a university and to a library and solve that problem by yourself.

And more important: We do not need to "undermine Cox´s evidence". The sources are what they are. You can not change the established historical facts I have pointed out to you here (repeating this now to avoid more confusion - your own word about yourself - from you):

1. The lyrics of Sweet Violets were published in the Pall Mall Gazette 10 November 1888.

2. The information about the song Sweet Violets was given to the press by "a woman".

3. This song was not the song described by Cox.

4. It was not described as having been heard at the same point in time as the song heard by Cox.

4. Cox had the opportunity to hear about Kelly singing about violets from the 10th. - But Cox had already told the police she heard Kelly singing in her written statement which appears to have been dated 9 November. Why would she need anyone else to tell her what Kelly was singing about when she heard Kelly singing with her own ears?

Cox did not state, in the police investigation 9 November, any title of a song. She did not speak of a violet or violets.

Do you see that you use a very specific word in your last question? The word is "need". Do you realize that this is a word used in academic psychology? So what do you mean with that? Can you define that word?

And I will also try to answer your question, ignoring the word "need" of course, since it has no historical meaning:

The song Sweet Violets was not the song described by Cox.

It was not described as having been heard at the same point in time as the song heard by Cox

Those are well established historical facts.

[David Orsam]

2. The information about the song Sweet Violets was given to the press by "a woman".

This is incorrect. Please see my #139.

The information about the song Sweet Violets came to the press, directly or indirectly, from "a person living in the room opposite to the room occupied by [Kelly]". It appears to have been John McCarthy who, separately, told the press that "a woman" heard Kelly singing Sweet Violets.

[David Orsam]

3. This song was not the song described by Cox.

4. It was not described as having been heard at the same point in time as the song heard by Cox.

It does not matter what Cox said she heard. The song she said she heard is still not the same song published i the press two days earlier. That is an historical well established fact.

That's right. I agree with all of that. It's consistent with there being two different songs about violets sung by Kelly.

It's also consistent with the newspapers having made a mistake.

[David Orsam]

David Orsam: I'd like to know who considers sources closest in time as "the more reliable." Not anyone I'm aware of ..

Pierre: You are "not aware". Of course you are not aware.

But that is not my problem.

Oh yes Pierre, it is your problem. If I'm not aware of anyone who considers sources closest in time as the more reliable, it's because you have not made me aware.

In a debate between two people it is the responsibility of the person making a positive statement to support that statement. You have claimed that sources closest in time are considered "the more reliable".

Therefore you need to support that statement and make me aware of those people who do consider this. The fact that I am not aware of anyone (other than you) who considers statements closest in time as the more reliable is, thus, very much your problem.

Your feeble response that I should go to a library and find one myself only reveals that you are not aware of anyone either.

[David Orsam]

And more important: We do not need to "undermine Cox´s evidence". The sources are what they are. You can not change the established historical facts I have pointed out to you here (repeating this now to avoid more confusion - your own word about yourself - from you):

1. The lyrics of Sweet Violets were published in the Pall Mall Gazette 10 November 1888.

2. The information about the song Sweet Violets was given to the press by "a woman".

3. This song was not the song described by Cox.

4. It was not described as having been heard at the same point in time as the song heard by Cox.

But if you are trying to suggest that Cox was mistaken in her evidence then you do need to undermine it. The four points you have listed do not even begin to suggest that Mrs Cox was mistaken, not least because the press reports refer to a song being sung at 1am whereas Mrs Cox said she heard Kelly singing "A Violet From Mother's Grave" at about midnight.

Just to take these points individually:

1. The lyrics of Sweet Violets were published in the Pall Mall Gazette 10 November 1888. This is true but would only be relevant if Mrs Cox repeated those lyrics at the inquest which she did not.

2. The information about the song Sweet Violets was given to the press by "a woman". - This is incorrect, as I have already stated, but if it was true would that not undermine the press report given that it is not sourced to a named person?

3. This song was not the song described by Cox. - Exactly! So Cox was not simply repeating what she read in the newspaper when she gave evidence at the inquest.

4. It was not described as having been heard at the same point in time as the song heard by Cox. - Exactly! So Kelly could have song "A Violet From Mother's Grave" at midnight and "Sweet Violets" at 1am, couldn't she?

[Pierre]

Just so you are aware Pierre, you don't seem to have all the information.

Before the Pall Mall Gazette report, which was in the afternoon of 10 November, the Times had already reported the following during the morning of 10 November (my underlining):

"About 1 o'clock yesterday morning a person living in the court opposite to the room occupied by the murdered woman heard her singing the song, "Sweet Violets," but this person is unable to say whether any one else was with her at that time".

As Joshua Rogan has already mentioned in this thread, the same issue of the Times carried a statement by John McCarthy in which he said:

"A woman heard Kelly singing "Sweet Violets" at 1 o'clock this morning. So up to that time, at all events, she was alive and well".

So we have more information about the informant, or informants, than you seem to be aware of.

The Times is not included in the British Newspaper Archive.

Here is the excerpt from Times 10 November:

"The scene of this last crime is at No 26 Dorset-street, Spitalfields, which is about 200 yards distant from 35 Hanbury-street, where the unfortunate woman, Mary Ann Nicholls, was so foully murdered. Although the victim, whose name is Mary Ann (or Mary Jane) Kelly, resides at the above number, the entrance to the room she occupied is up a narrow court, in which are some half-a-dozen houses, and which is known as Miller's Court; it is entirely separated from the other portion of the house, and has an entrance leading into the court. The room is known by the title of No 13. The house is rented by John M'Carthy, who keeps a small general shop at No 27 Dorset-street, and the whole of the rooms are let out to tenants of a very poor class. As an instance of the poverty of the neighbourhood, it may be mentioned that nearly the whole of the houses in this street are common lodging-houses, and the one opposite where the murder was enacted has accommodation for some 300 men, and is fully occupied every night. About 12 months ago Kelly, who was about 24 years of age, and who was considered a good-looking woman, of fair and fresh complexion, came to Mr M'Carthy, with a man named Joseph Kelly, who she stated was her husband, and who was a porter employed at Spitalfields Market. They rented a room on the ground floor, the same in which the poor woman was murdered, at a rental of 4s [four shillings] a week. It had been noticed that the deceased woman was somewhat addicted to drink, but Mr M'Carthy denied having any knowledge that she had been leading a loose or immoral life. That this was so, however, there can be no doubt, for about a fortnight ago she had a quarrel with Kelly, and after blows had been exchanged, the man left the house, or rather room, and did not return. It has since been ascertained that he went to live at Buller's common lodging-house in Bishopsgate-street. Since then the woman has supported herself as best as she could, and the police have ascertained that she has been walking the streets. None of those living at the court or at 26 Dorset-street, saw anything of the unfortunate creature after about 8 o'clock on Thursday evening, but she was seen in Commercial-street, shortly before the closing of the public house, and then had the appearance of being the worse for drink. About 1 o'clock yesterday morning a person living in the court opposite to the room occupied by the woman heard her singing the song "Sweet Violets," but this person is unable to say whether any one else was with her at that time. Nothing more was seen or heard of her until her dead body was found."

It is not a quotation of McCarthy. So from where is the excerpt that you have published, David?

[David Orsam]

Cox did not state, in the police investigation 9 November, any title of a song. She did not speak of a violet or violets.

This is true and we all know this so I don't know why you have highlighted it in bold. It simply means she wasn't asked by the police about the song title.

But the important point about her statement is that, before anything had appeared in the newspapers, she said she heard Kelly singing at about midnight. In which case she did not need a newspaper to tell her what song it was. She heard the song with her own ears.

When she testified at the inquest she identified that song for the first time. She did it on oath. She did it on the record. It was the first time a first hand account had been given by anyone as to what song Kelly had been heard to sing. Everything up to that point had been hearsay.

[David Orsam]

"Why would she need anyone else to tell her what Kelly was singing about when she heard Kelly singing with her own ears?"

Do you see that you use a very specific word in your last question? The word is "need".

PierreL Do you realize that this is a word used in academic psychology? So what do you mean with that? Can you define that word?

I have no idea what you are talking about Pierre. "need" is a very simple English word. Do you really need me to explain it?

[David Orsam]

The song Sweet Violets was not the song described by Cox.

It was not described as having been heard at the same point in time as the song heard by Cox

Those are well established historical facts.

It is true that the song Sweet Violets was not the song described by Cox at the inquest. We don't know, however, if she told the press that she heard Kelly singing this song.

But we are in agreement that Cox did not describe the song Sweet Violets at the inquest and that the press said it was sung at 1am whereas the only song identified by Cox as having been sung by Kelly was a different song with similar lyrics said to have been sung at about midnight.

As I have said to you repeatedly during this thread, and you keep ignoring, that means there are two obvious possibilities:

1. Kelly was heard to sing two songs about violets during the night.

2. Kelly only sang one song about violets during the night and the press was confused about the correct title.

[David Orsam]

The Times is not included in the British Newspaper Archive.

It is not a quotation of McCarthy. So from where is the excerpt that you have published, David?

I don't care that the Times is not included in the British Newspaper Archive. That's not my problem.

Both quotes I provided came directly from the Times of 10 November 1888. The first (as was clear from my post) was not made by John McCarthy. The second (as was also clear from my post) was in a "statement" made by John McCarthy.

[Joshua Rogan]

It is not a quotation of McCarthy. So from where is the excerpt that you have published, David?

If I may answer, it's a few paragraphs down from the part you posted;

Mr John M'Carthy, the owner of the houses in Millers-court, who keeps a chandler's shop in Dorset-street, has made the following statement as to the murdered woman:--

The victim of this terrible murder was about 23 or 24 years of age, and lived with a coal porter named Kelly, passing as his wife. They, however, quarrelled sometime back and separated. A woman named Harvey slept with her several nights since Kelly separated from her, but she was not with her last night. The deceased's christian name was Mary Jane, and since her murder I have discovered that she walked the streets in the neighbourhood of Aldgate. Her habits were irregular, and she often came home at night the worse for drink. Her mother lives in Ireland, but in what county I do not know. Deceased used to receive letters from her occasionally. The unfortunate woman had not paid her rent for several weeks; in fact she owed 30s altogether, so this morning I sent my man to ask if she could pay the money. He knocked at the door, but received no answer. Thinking this very strange he looked in at the window, and to his horror he saw the body of Kelly lying on the bed covered with blood. He immediately came back to me, and told me what he had seen. I was, of course, as horrified as he was, and I went with him to the house and looked in at the window. The sight I saw was more ghastly even than I had prepared myself for. On the bed lay the body as my man had told me, while the table was covered with what seemed to me to be lumps of flesh. I said to my main "Go at once to the police-station and fetch some one here." He went off at once and brought back Inspector Back (sic) who looked through the window as we had done. He then despatched a telegram to superintendent Arnold, but before Superintendent Arnold arrived, Inspector Abberline came and gave orders that no one should be allowed to enter or leave the court. The Inspector waited a little while and then sent a telegram to Sir Charles Warren to bring the bloodhounds, so as to trace the murderer if possible. So soon as Superintendent Arnold arrived he gave instructions for the door to be burst open. I at once forced the door with a pickaxe, and we entered the room. The sight we saw I cannot drive away from my mind. It looked more like the work of a devil than of a man. The poor woman's body was lying on the bed, undressed. She had been completely disembowelled, and her entrails has been taken out and placed on the table. It was those that I had seen when I looked through the window and took to be lumps of flesh. The woman's nose had been cut off, and her face gashed beyond recognition. Both her breasts too had been cut clean away and placed by the side of her liver and other entrails on the table. I had heard a great deal about the Whitechapel murders, but I declare to god I had never expected to see such a sight as this. The body was, of course, covered with blood, and so was the bed. The whole scene is more than I can describe. I hope I may never see such a sight again. It is most extraordinary that nothing should have been heard by the neighbours, as there are people passing backwards and forwards at all hours of the night, but no one heard so much as a scream. I woman heard Kelly singing "Sweet Violets" at 1 o'clock this morning. So up to that time, at all events, she was alive and well. So far as I can ascertain no one saw her take a man into the house with her last night.