Sweet violets

[MysterySinger]

For the purposes of Pierre's hypothesis (or at least my interpretation of it) it is irrelevant whether Kelly sang "Sweet Violets", "A Violet I Plucked From Mother's Grave" or any song at all, The key is that the press were informed by someone unknown that she was singing "Sweet Violets" and the lyrics to that song contain one or more clues.

However, I can't help imagining a conversation taking place, perhaps in the Court or in Ringers, about the events of that day. It takes place between Catherine Pickett and Mary Ann Cox.

Pickett - all I know is that she was singing er' songs for over an hour, she sang that one about flowers "Sweet Violets" I think it's called. That's what drink does for you.

Cox - I erd' er' singin' as well, the song I erd' was "A Violet I Plucked From Mother's Grave".

Pickett - I dunno I ain't erd' it that much before.

Cox - you know the one (singing) la de da de da in memoriam I'll retain..

Pickett - Yes that's the same one. Didn't do er' much good did it? Poor wretched soul.

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi, Steve.

I asked much the same back in post #245, on this thread.
I'm wholly disappointed to have discovered that, as yet, there is no response.

Yours, Caligo

[jerryd]

Sweet violets, sweeter than all the roses,
Ladened with fragrance, sparkling with the dew,
Sweet violets, from mossy dell and rivulet
Zillah, darling one, I plucked them, my darling, for you.

Oh, stay! go not away,
Violets are blooming love for you alone.
Oh! sweet violets, sweeter than all the roses,
Zillah, darling one, I plucked them and brought them for you.

Sweet violets, resting in beauty's bower,
Crouched all unnoticed I did pluck that flower,
Sweet violets, looking up to Heaven,
Zillah, darling one, I plucked them and brought them for you.

[David Orsam]

Now this is seriously freaky:

Sweet violets, sweeter than all the roses,
Ladened with fragrance, sparkling with the dew,
Sweet violets, from mossy dell and rivulet
Zillah, darling one, I plucked them, my darling, for you.

Oh, stay! go not away,
Violets are blooming love for you alone.
Oh! sweet violets, sweeter than all the roses,
Zillah, darling one, I plucked them and brought them for you.

Sweet violets, resting in beauty's bower,
Crouched all unnoticed I did pluck that flower,
Sweet violets, looking up to Heaven,
Zillah, darling one, I plucked them and brought them for you.

Samuel miller

He's in the song!

Along with his wife.

What do you make of this Pierre? I'm guessing you've changed horses now.

[Elamarna]

That is why I have an hypothesis

So many times my friend you have said much the same, that is :

"I have an hypothesis",

You have done this on threads about the GSG, on threads about honour killings and punishments and many other subjects..

You always claim you are comparing these hypothesis to your mythical sources, and always say you hope you can disprove the hypothesis.

There are several problems here:

You never give details on what the hypothesis are,

The sources you are comparing issues to are never divulged.

Are they secret?
However you have stated many times they are in the public domain.
Something here does not ring true!

You always report that your hypothesis stands has you cannot disprove it.

The problems are very clear are they not:

There is no information or any details ever provided other than posts which confirm your view is correct.

When asking you for details on your ideas, such as I asked you yesterday about the role of a person in a play, the response from you time after time is to tell the questioner to go and read the source and then you can then tell everyone else what the answer is!

Why would an scientist say they hope they are wrong, that is not the response of a professional.

You claim you have an hypothesis but will not expand on what it is other than it exists, rather you always require us to tell you what your hypothesis is, it is unreal!

That is not what academic historians do, academic historians should be expanding knowledge, help others to understand you do not do this.

One simple question Pierre, Why?

Steve

[David Orsam]

You have not managed anything but showing everyone here that you are not an historian or even an academic, since there are several problems with the source we are discussing and you fail to understand the source.

The article you believe is telling the truth have multiple errors.

For example, "John Bowyer", "35s [thirty five shillings] in arrears" (29s at the inquest), the heart was said to be laid on the table and "The lower portion of the body and the uterus had been cut out, and these appeared to be missing", "From enquiries made among person living in the houses adjoining the court, and also those residing in rooms in No 26 it appears clear that no noise of any kind was heard (So no singing), and "No suspicious or strange-looking man was seen to enter..." (according to Cox, Kelly entered the room with a man - and the words "strange-looking" and "suspicious" are totally unacceptable for any interpretation here), " The pair reached Millers-court about midnight, but they were not seen to enter the house."( "NOT seen" = It contradicts Cox), "she owed 30s altogether" (by McCarthy here, contradicting his statement at the inquest if this is about the rent, who knows?), "brought back Inspector Back", "So far as I can ascertain no one saw her take a man into the house with her last night" (Here McCarthy has not heard this from Cox), " Another account gives the following details: Kelly had a little boy, aged about 6 or 7 years living with her" -

The article is full of errors. The descriptions of the statement of Sweet Violets also differ.

This is what I have told you several times. That is why I have an hypothesis and nothing else.

Your statement about what you have managed is just ridiculous. It shows that you understand nothing about newspaper sources, nothing about history and that you are the one who is terribly confused.

So you are now deconstructing the entire article from the Times of 10 November 1888?

For what purpose I simply cannot imagine.

Didn't I already say in this thread that the earlier in time a press article is to the events being described the LESS likely it is to be accurate? In the immediate aftermath of the murder, as I already said, there were lots of garbled stories from excited witnesses, lots of rumours, the police weren't saying much, the journalists had a deadline, it was hard for them to work out what was true and what was false. Of course there are going to be errors.

That is why I have repeatedly said that newspapers might have been mistaken in saying "Sweet Violets" was heard being sung by Kelly and that the song being heard was, in fact, "A Violet Plucked from Mother's Grave". I thought it was YOU who was upholding the accuracy of the newspaper reporting.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;390468]

You have become terribly confused Pierre.

There is no "a woman" who told the press anything. The "a woman" spoke to McCarthy only

What we also find in the Times is that "a person" who was said to be "living in the court opposite to the room" was reported to have heard "Sweet Violets". We do not know if this "a person" was also "a woman" referred to by McCarthy.

There is no source for "a woman" telling the press anything. This came second hand from McCarthy. The PMG was (obviously) repeating what was in McCarthy's statement in the Times.

So instantly I have managed to do what you asked me to do and disprove that "a woman" told the press about "Sweet Violets".

You have not managed anything but showing everyone here that you are not an historian or even an academic, since there are several problems with the source we are discussing and you fail to understand the source.

The article you believe is telling the truth have multiple errors.

For example, "John Bowyer", "35s [thirty five shillings] in arrears" (29s at the inquest), the heart was said to be laid on the table and "The lower portion of the body and the uterus had been cut out, and these appeared to be missing", "From enquiries made among person living in the houses adjoining the court, and also those residing in rooms in No 26 it appears clear that no noise of any kind was heard (So no singing), and "No suspicious or strange-looking man was seen to enter..." (according to Cox, Kelly entered the room with a man - and the words "strange-looking" and "suspicious" are totally unacceptable for any interpretation here), " The pair reached Millers-court about midnight, but they were not seen to enter the house."( "NOT seen" = It contradicts Cox), "she owed 30s altogether" (by McCarthy here, contradicting his statement at the inquest if this is about the rent, who knows?), "brought back Inspector Back", "So far as I can ascertain no one saw her take a man into the house with her last night" (Here McCarthy has not heard this from Cox), " Another account gives the following details: Kelly had a little boy, aged about 6 or 7 years living with her" -

The article is full of errors. The descriptions of the statement of Sweet Violets also differ.

This is what I have told you several times. That is why I have an hypothesis and nothing else.

Your statement about what you have managed is just ridiculous. It shows that you understand nothing about newspaper sources, nothing about history and that you are the one who is terribly confused.

[David Orsam]

Think about it.

Kelly's murder.

Miller's court.

The court of the Miller.

Who was the judge?

[David Orsam]

There are no sources for Samuel Miller being the Whitechapel murderer.

My dear Pierre, there are the exact same number of known sources for Samuel Miller being the killer as there are for your suspect being the killer.

And please don't think I have revealed everything.

Just look at the line in the song, "Sweet violets, still looking up to Heaven".

Why would anyone, including flowers, be looking up to Heaven?

To see if it is going to rain of course!

And if it rains, who benefits? Why, an umbrella maker, just like Samuel Miller.

It must be clear to you now that Samuel Miller was the killer and his wife Zillah Miller knew that Mr Miller was the killer.

[David Orsam]

Who said she did not know McCarthy?

Not me Pierre. I'm quite sure that they were both known to each other. You?

[David Orsam]

Let me tell you David: I would like to disprove the hypothesis that "a woman" told the press about "Sweet Violets". If we have another person talking about it as well, we have two different types of sources for the statement. It makes it worse. Not only must I now disprove that "a woman" told the press that Kelly sang Sweet Violets, I must also disprove that "a woman" told McCarthy the same.

You have become terribly confused Pierre.

There is no "a woman" who told the press anything. The "a woman" spoke to McCarthy only.

What we also find in the Times is that "a person" who was said to be "living in the court opposite to the room" was reported to have heard "Sweet Violets". We do not know if this "a person" was also "a woman" referred to by McCarthy.

There is no source for "a woman" telling the press anything. This came second hand from McCarthy. The PMG was (obviously) repeating what was in McCarthy's statement in the Times.

So instantly I have managed to do what you asked me to do and disprove that "a woman" told the press about "Sweet Violets".

[Pierre]

So you think that a woman approached McCarthy, who he had never seen or spoken to before, to tell him that she had heard Kelly singing "Sweet Violets". Moreover, you think that this woman was lying on behalf of the murderer.

Why would this woman who does not know McCarthy tell him such a lie rather than go straight to the press if she wanted the story in the paper? It makes no sense.

You are accusing me and putting words into my mouth. Who said she did not know McCarthy?

[David Orsam]

And still, this does not mean anything at all, since you have two different songs. Whether McCarthy or Barnett or Bowyer or Harvey or anyone else is believed to have said it, it does not matter for my hypothesis. Why is that, David? Do you think you can answer that question?

Yes I've answered it on countless occasions. Either because Kelly actually sang two different songs about violets, which is perfectly possible in the entire hour that she was said to be singing, or because people got confused as to the song titles due to the similarity of song lyrics.

There really is no other plausible answer Pierre.

[David Orsam]

You see, David, it is earlier in the text. Text has a chronology as well as articles. But you do not know this, and therefore you donīt understand it. If you read some research about the New Testament it will be very obvious even to you. But since this is not the NT but a simple article in a newspaper, we can do nothing more on a micro level for the provenance of the idea of Sweet Violets in this paper than to state that the "person" is the earliest reference.

Comparing the Times newspaper to the New Testament is utterly absurd. You don't seem to have any understanding of how a newspaper is put together.

The statement by McCarthy could have been the first thing the Times reporter obtained on 9 November but it could have been placed later in the report by the editor. While you can probably tease out a chronology of events from the evening papers due to stories being built up continuously during the day in afternoon editions, the Times had all of the afternoon and evening of 9 November to put together its story. The order in which the facts are described in the report tells you precisely nothing about the chronology of when those stories were obtained.

[Pierre]

So you think that a woman approached McCarthy, who he had never seen or spoken to before, to tell him that she had heard Kelly singing "Sweet Violets". Moreover, you think that this woman was lying on behalf of the murderer.

Why would this woman who does not know McCarthy tell him such a lie rather than go straight to the press if she wanted the story in the paper? It makes no sense.

Who said she did not know McCarthy?