Sweet violets

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Mayerling;390899]

Odd question, but who exactly is "Crawford" of "2 Cavendish Square" London "W"? Does anyone reading this know exactly who Crawford is. Obviously who knew Sir Robert Anderson - who is Crawford? I'm sorry I don't know who it is.

Jeff

He was the 26th Earl of Crawford, James Ludovic Lindsay, and the friend of Anderson.

[Mayerling]

[QUOTE=Pierre;390896]

Yes, indeed. Who was "Zillah"?

Someone like this:



Regards, Pierre

Odd question, but who exactly is "Crawford" of "2 Cavendish Square" London "W"? Does anyone reading this know exactly who Crawford is? Obviously he is someone who knew Sir Robert Anderson - but who is Crawford exactly? I'm sorry I don't know who it is.

To make it more interesting, there is a strange possibility lurking in my mind about "Crawford". About a mystery concerning someone with that name. That is why I am requesting help in this clarification.

Jeff

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Mayerling;390894]

Hi Pierre,

WHOSE birthday? Mary Jane Kelly's? It's not Queen Victoria's (although, curiously enough, the heir to the throne, Albert Edward, Prince of Wales - later King Edward VII - had his birthday on November 9th). In the course of discussing Lord Mayor's Day parades we forget that other connection to November 9th. Not totally - it has been used connected to the "Royal Family/Mason" conspiracy theory). Somehow though, I don't think that is what you had in mind, for you said it was "HER" birthday.

Of course you will possibly say - no, it was "Zillah's" birthday. So we are forced to ask you "who IN REALITY and specifically by her real name do you think was "Zillah"?"

Balls in your court, unfortunately. For a change, instead of using a tedious amount of philosophical rhetoric, enlighten us with an actual name.

Yours,

Jeff

Yes, indeed. Who was "Zillah"?

Someone like this:

2 CAVENDISH SQUARE
W.

My dear Anderson,

I send you this line to ask you to see & hear the bearer, whose name is unknown to me. She has or thinks she has a knowledge of the author of the Whitechapel murders. The author is supposed to be nearly related to her, & she is in great fear lest any suspicions should attach to her & place her & her family in peril.

I have advised her to place the whole story before you, without giving you any names, so that you may form an opinion as to its being worth while to investigate.

Very sincerely yours,
Crawford

Regards, Pierre

[Mayerling]

[QUOTE=Pierre;390891]

Hi Jeff,

That is just the general dimension of the effect of the sources publishing the song Sweet Violets. Hypothetically, that dimension has nothing to do with the provenience and intended external function of the source.



Quite the contrary. Hypothetically, the intention was not any general or individual "confusion" but terror. Of course, this terror was hypothetically connected to other pieces of terror.

Hypothetically, one can say that terror must be met with terror.



Well, the song that Prater heard is not the issue here. The other song is.



Hypothetically the message is very clear. It was her birthday.

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

WHOSE birthday? Mary Jane Kelly's? It's not Queen Victoria's (although, curiously enough, the heir to the throne, Albert Edward, Prince of Wales - later King Edward VII - had his birthday on November 9th). In the course of discussing Lord Mayor's Day parades we forget that other connection to November 9th. Not totally - it has been used connected to the "Royal Family/Mason" conspiracy theory). Somehow though, I don't think that is what you had in mind, for you said it was "HER" birthday.

Of course you will possibly say - no, it was "Zillah's" birthday. So we are forced to ask you "who IN REALITY and specifically by her real name do you think was "Zillah"?"

Balls in your court, unfortunately. For a change, instead of using a tedious amount of philosophical rhetoric, enlighten us with an actual name.

Yours,

Jeff

[David Orsam]

But you would not "know this" if I told you something about how terrifying the nature of the material and many other pieces of material was, since you never accept anything I tell you. There is a reason why you do not accept anything I tell you, and that is also the reason why you do not know how terrifying the nature of the material and many other pieces of material was for someone. So if someone was terrified by many things you would not know this by asking me. However, there may be a point in time when you will know.

Rather than making untrue sweeping statements such as "you never accept anything I tell you", why not tell me something about the terrifying nature of the material so that I can make a sensible response? In the absence of any such information, I can only say that there is nothing terrifying about the lyrics of the song to "Sweet Violets".

I have already given you the opportunity to identify a single person who was terrified by the lyrics and you have chosen not to take that opportunity. I have encouraged you to prove me wrong in saying that no-one was terrified but you have not done so.

Unless you have something else to say about "Sweet Violets" is there any purpose in continuing this thread?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Mayerling;390878]

The important thing about the "external function" of the source is that such stories helped move the public to buy newspapers about the event.

Hi Jeff,

That is just the general dimension of the effect of the sources publishing the song Sweet Violets. Hypothetically, that dimension has nothing to do with the provenience and intended external function of the source.

Aside from that there is little proof of any intended "external function", although I suspect you are thinking that it spread a confusing story in the press that mixed up the tunes and lyrics of "Sweet Violets" and "I plucked a flower from my mother's grave".

Quite the contrary. Hypothetically, the intention was not any general or individual "confusion" but terror. Of course, this terror was hypothetically connected to other pieces of terror.

Hypothetically, one can say that terror must be met with terror.

You might measure that (with some difficulty) in how many people say the song heard was "Violets' and how many people say it was "flower". But it really doesn't help anyone or any theory at all.*

Well, the song that Prater heard is not the issue here. The other song is.

*You may also consider some infernal genius causing the confusion to send a secret message to those with a mental decoder ring based on the lyrics of "Sweet Violets" about his/her intention on 8/9 Nov. 1888 in Miller's Court.

Hypothetically the message is very clear. It was her birthday.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Yes there is a way.

The nature of the material is not terrifying.

Consequently, no-one was terrified.

If you can prove me wrong, go ahead. If not, we can safely take it that no-one was terrified by the publication of the lyrics of the song "Sweet Violets" in the Pall Mall Gazette.

But you would not "know this" if I told you something about how terrifying the nature of the material and many other pieces of material was, since you never accept anything I tell you. There is a reason why you do not accept anything I tell you, and that is also the reason why you do not know how terrifying the nature of the material and many other pieces of material was for someone. So if someone was terrified by many things you would not know this by asking me. However, there may be a point in time when you will know.

[Mayerling]

My conclusion right now is that it did not matter who gave the information to the press. The important thing is the external function of the source.

Pierre

The important thing about the "external function" of the source is that such stories helped move the public to buy newspapers about the event. Aside from that there is little proof of any intended "external function", although I suspect you are thinking that it spread a confusing story in the press that mixed up the tunes and lyrics of "Sweet Violets" and "I plucked a flower from my mother's grave". You might measure that (with some difficulty) in how many people say the song heard was "Violets' and how many people say it was "flower". But it really doesn't help anyone or any theory at all.*

*You may also consider some infernal genius causing the confusion to send a secret message to those with a mental decoder ring based on the lyrics of "Sweet Violets" about his/her intention on 8/9 Nov. 1888 in Miller's Court. Again, it is hard to measure or prove it (unless you thoroughly want to believe it for your own personal reasons), and it really does not help[ anyone or any theory, or any so-called correcting of history at all!


Jeff

[David Orsam]

How would you know if it terrified someone? Is there a way for you to know this?

Yes there is a way.

The nature of the material is not terrifying.

Consequently, no-one was terrified.

If you can prove me wrong, go ahead. If not, we can safely take it that no-one was terrified by the publication of the lyrics of the song "Sweet Violets" in the Pall Mall Gazette.

[Pierre]

Well he achieved that by the act of murdering and mutilating Kelly.

He did not do it by a reference to Sweet Violets in the press which terrified absolutely no-one.

How would you know if it terrified someone? Is there a way for you to know this?

[Pierre]

Hi Joshua,

I think it is all very interesting. People understood that the journalists would speak to McCarthy.

Best wishes, Pierre

My conclusion right now is that it did not matter who gave the information to the press. The important thing is the external function of the source.

Pierre

[Pierre]

Yes, the Irish Times which carries the same interview has an "A" too.

Incidentally, it also attributes this McCarthy interview (carried by several papers) to a representative of Central News.

Hi Joshua,

I think it is all very interesting. People understood that the journalists would speak to McCarthy.

Best wishes, Pierre

[Joshua Rogan]

Thanks Joshua. I might add that in the Times itself it says "A woman..." rather than "I woman..".

Yes, the Irish Times which carries the same interview has an "A" too.

Incidentally, it also attributes this McCarthy interview (carried by several papers) to a representative of Central News.

[David Orsam]

No, that goes for Pall Mall Gazette as well. There is always the problem of reliability as far as the newspapers are concearned. That is nothing new and nothing to get excited about. The problem in this case is that there is no positive data to hold against the hypothesis that Kelly did not sing the song. And that is what I would like to see.

It's not a question of whether Kelly sung the song or not Pierre. Because if she did not sing the song then the only plausible explanation is that the person or persons who were reported as saying they heard her singing it had confused "Sweet Violets" with "A Violet Plucked From Mother's Grave" because the songs had very similar lyrics.

Let me put it this way. There is certainly no positive data that the killer planted the story about "Sweet Violets" in the press. Until we see such positive data why should anyone even give that ridiculous hypothesis even a moment's consideration?

[Pierre]

Says the person who has spent most of this thread telling us that the Pall Mall Gazette could not possibly have confused two songs with similar lyrics!!

No, that goes for Pall Mall Gazette as well. There is always the problem of reliability as far as the newspapers are concearned. That is nothing new and nothing to get excited about. The problem in this case is that there is no positive data to hold against the hypothesis that Kelly did not sing the song. And that is what I would like to see.