Sweet violets

[Pierre]

Well, as it seems that the press seem to have been better informed about the song than the witnesses, I suspect the murderer was a reporter for the PMG.

The press is often used for the communication of serial killers.

Just because I do not believe in specific events in the past does not mean that they did not occur.

[Mayerling]

Why would an illiterate person have been more likely than a literate person to have said they heard someone singing "a violet plucked from my mother's grave when a boy" if they did not hear those words being sung?

You will notice that I asked the question if anyone ever saw proof that Mrs. Cox could read. The point was if she (or whoever made the statement regarding the wrong "Violets" song) could not read, it would mean they were basing their statement on a confusion that someone who read the earlier information would not have made.

Jeff

[David Orsam]

Why do you think I would care about your rude comments?

They do not lead the case forward. And I do not care about anything else but the case.

I am trying to encourage you to explain what it is you are trying to say rather than create puzzles and play games.

None of your posts in this thread have "lead the case forward", Pierre, so I'm afraid it's very much a case of the kettle calling the pot black here.

[David Orsam]

You will notice that I asked the question if anyone ever saw proof that Mrs. Cox could read. The point was if she (or whoever made the statement regarding the wrong "Violets" song) could not read, it would mean they were basing their statement on a confusion that someone who read the earlier information would not have made.

I'm sorry Jeff, I've tried to understand this post but can't make head nor tail of it.

Yes I did see you ask the question about whether Mrs Cox could read but I am asking what possible difference it makes to anything bearing in mind she said she heard Kelly singing.

If your point is that Cox couldn't have read the newspapers well someone could have read them to her. But that doesn't seem to me to be your point.

What I'm having particular trouble with in your post is the expression "earlier information". What earlier information?

Perhaps you could rephrase the post for me?

[Kattrup]

Hi Jeff,

Yes, the "I" in the text is giving the flowers to "Zillah" who is alive. And the flowers are dead. They have been plucked but still look up to heaven.

If you would interpret the lyrics from that starting point, with a perspective connected to the Whitechapel murders, what would your interpretation be?

,

One interpretation would be that the murdered women are the flowers. Thus, the murderer fed the papers the idea of the song Sweet Violets being sung, because he wanted to communicate with someone (the public, the police, Zillah) and the song's lyrics accomplished that.

Thus, the murderer: "Crouched all unnoticed I did pluck that flower"
Meaning he murdered a woman. The flowers look up to heaven, like the murderer left his victims on the back, looking upwards.

The murdered women are meant for Zillah, which apparently means "Shade" or " Shadow" in Hebrew, some sites translate it as "Shadow of protection". So maybe the killer killed women to curry favour with a deity of darkness, wanting its protection to avoid capture!

Since you state you have a source for Zillah being alive, perhaps she is to be identified as MJK, meaning the murdered woman was not MJK - this interpretation is supported by your hypothesis that the killer arranged the corpse for maximum shock effect of an unknown woman, who emitted the cry of "murder" heard by Prater. This unknown woman would then be MJK, who, I imagine, then eloped with the killer, stopping only to act as his go-between to the media, therefore appearing in the paper as "a woman" who'd heard Sweet Violets.
Calling her Zillah would fit, since she would then be her own shadow, so to speak, living a hidden life.

[David Orsam]

The press is often used for the communication of serial killers.

The press published loads and loads of information during the time of the Whitechapel murders. Some of it correct, some of it wildly inaccurate.

If you think that the killer used the press to communicate a certain piece of information, you need to come up with a very good argument about why that particular piece of information came from the killer.

Otherwise you are risking madness because absolutely anything could have come from the killer and you can end up wrongly identifying information as coming from the killer simply because you want it to in order to support a particular theory. Some would call that confirmation bias.

So far you have not even come up with an argument that the appearance of the lyrics of "Sweet Violets" in the PMG had anything to do with the killer, let alone a good argument, let alone a very good argument.

[DJA]

Probably an all time low for this site.

Karen Trenouth,please return.....all is forgiven.

[Mayerling]

I'm sorry Jeff, I've tried to understand this post but can't make head nor tail of it.

Yes I did see you ask the question about whether Mrs Cox could read but I am asking what possible difference it makes to anything bearing in mind she said she heard Kelly singing.

If your point is that Cox couldn't have read the newspapers well someone could have read them to her. But that doesn't seem to me to be your point.

What I'm having particular trouble with in your post is the expression "earlier information". What earlier information?

Perhaps you could rephrase the post for me?

I suppose what I should have said was more like this:

1) Testimony at trial refers to song "Sweet Violets.
2) Following day Cox's memory stirred hearing about the singing - and possible link to Kelly.
3) Seeing reporters she decides to put in a comment (which will be treated anonymously by reporters) about hearing singing.
4) She recalls song she heard dealt with the flowers "Violets".
5) Now, if she were literate, and read the paper about the testimony, she'd see the song was "Sweet Violets". If she was illiterate, or nobody bothered to tell her the name of the song, she might confuse it with the other song regarding picking a flower from the mother's grave - also with "violets'.
6) So the reporters put that down too, not stopping to think about the oddness of two songs about violets being sung. But they are just getting their copy on a sensational homicide for their papers.

That is the best I can do regarding it. "Earlier information" was the comments at the hearing.

If this confused I apologize again for confusing it, but it is the best way to express it. It strikes me too that it could be two women singing at similar times in a proximate area, or one woman, and it might be a medley - by the way, some Johns might want a series of "sentimental ballads" sung by their prostitute before the climax of the evening (sort of like getting in the mood). Which means maybe both songs were sung by one woman. And that one woman need not have been Mary (who I would think would sing songs that were Irish, Welsh, or possibly French to herself or her customers).

Jeff

[Mayerling]

Hi Jeff,

Yes, the "I" in the text is giving the flowers to "Zillah" who is alive. And the flowers are dead. They have been plucked but still look up to heaven.

If you would interpret the lyrics from that starting point, with a perspective connected to the Whitechapel murders, what would your interpretation be?

Best wishes, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

I read Kattrup's interesting interpretation so I seem not to be able to go beyond it.

Somewhat facetiously, I wish the quote about the second song lyric had mentioned "Cynara", but Ernest Dowson hadn't written that poem yet.

Jeff

[David Orsam]

I suppose what I should have said was more like this:

1) Testimony at trial refers to song "Sweet Violets.
2) Following day Cox's memory stirred hearing about the singing - and possible link to Kelly.
3) Seeing reporters she decides to put in a comment (which will be treated anonymously by reporters) about hearing singing.
4) She recalls song she heard dealt with the flowers "Violets".
5) Now, if she were literate, and read the paper about the testimony, she'd see the song was "Sweet Violets". If she was illiterate, or nobody bothered to tell her the name of the song, she might confuse it with the other song regarding picking a flower from the mother's grave - also with "violets'.
6) So the reporters put that down too, not stopping to think about the oddness of two songs about violets being sung. But they are just getting their copy on a sensational homicide for their papers.

That is the best I can do regarding it. "Earlier information" was the comments at the hearing.

If this confused I apologize again for confusing it, but it is the best way to express it.

I'm more confused then ever Jeff.

Point 1: "Testimony at trial refers to song "Sweet Violets."

What testimony and what trial?

Point 2: "Following day Cox's memory stirred hearing about the singing - and possible link to Kelly."

The following day to what?

Point 3: Seeing reporters she decides to put in a comment (which will be treated anonymously by reporters) about hearing singing.

How does this fit in with her mentioning hearing Kelly singing in her written statement to police, presumably provided on 9 November?

Point 4: She recalls song she heard dealt with the flowers "Violets".

When and why does she recall this?

Point 5(a): Now, if she were literate, and read the paper about the testimony, she'd see the song was "Sweet Violets". If she was illiterate, or nobody bothered to tell her the name of the song, she might confuse it with the other song regarding picking a flower from the mother's grave - also with "violets'.

Wouldn't she also see that the song was "Sweet Violets" if someone read the newspaper to her?

Point 5(b): If she was illiterate, or nobody bothered to tell her the name of the song, she might confuse it with the other song regarding picking a flower from the mother's grave - also with "violets'.

Wouldn't that be exactly the same outcome if she was literate but happened not to read the Pall Mall Gazette or any newspaper which mentioned "Sweet Violets"? And if she simply muddled up her songs, is it likely that she would tell the inquest that she heard Kelly sing the words "a violet I plucked from my mother's grave when a boy"?

Point 6 - So the reporters put that down too, not stopping to think about the oddness of two songs about violets being sung. But they are just getting their copy on a sensational homicide for their papers.

Why would the reporters on 10 November be thinking about the "oddness of two songs about violets being sung"? Who has told them about two songs? Haven't they only been told about Sweet Violets?

[David Orsam]

It strikes me too that it could be two women singing at similar times in a proximate area, or one woman, and it might be a medley - by the way, some Johns might want a series of "sentimental ballads" sung by their prostitute before the climax of the evening (sort of like getting in the mood). Which means maybe both songs were sung by one woman. And that one woman need not have been Mary (who I would think would sing songs that were Irish, Welsh, or possibly French to herself or her customers).

Jeff do you not agree that the most obvious solution to this non-mystery is that Cox heard Kelly sing "A Violet from Mother's Grave", mentioned this to a few people, but somewhere along the line it got confused with "Sweet Violets"?

Failing that, do you agree that another simple answer is that Kelly sang both songs?

Is there any need to add further "possible" explanations, thus complicating this business to the point of absurdity?

[Abby Normal]

After stating many times I think Pierre is genuine in his belief that he has a real suspect in mind, perhaps a relative/ancestor, and that he has also generated many interesting debates (he has-but ironically in the refutation of his ideas), I have changed my mind.

I have not engaged in a Pierre thread in a long time, but have been watching.

I have come to the conclusion, Pierre is disengenuous, in many, if not all of the threads. The reason-he asks several questions, has an answer in mind, then when someone comes up with a possible answer and asks if Pierre if this is it, Pierre will either not respond, or respond with more questions, or say something along the lines of " how should I know". Many times later saying things that obviously means he did have the answer the whole time.


I also notice a trend where less and less his threads are stimulating any kind of interesting or new debate. Really just a bunch of nonsense. So the end is near.


I have come to the conclusion that Pierre is a Troll. A subtle and persistent troll, but a troll nonetheless. And depending on his response to this next question will be the last time I engage him or post in his threads.


Pierre,
You stated about a year ago it would take about a year before you could reveal your suspect. Who is your suspect?

Time to **** or get off the pot.

[Pierre]

I'm sorry Jeff, I've tried to understand this post but can't make head nor tail of it.

Yes I did see you ask the question about whether Mrs Cox could read but I am asking what possible difference it makes to anything bearing in mind she said she heard Kelly singing.

If your point is that Cox couldn't have read the newspapers well someone could have read them to her. But that doesn't seem to me to be your point.

What I'm having particular trouble with in your post is the expression "earlier information". What earlier information?

Perhaps you could rephrase the post for me?

David. Whatever you are trying to discuss in this post:

It doesnīt matter if Cox could read or not. She had the possibility to hear about a song about violets from the 9th to the 12th.

It doesnīt matter if you think the inquest source is describing what Cox thought she had heard.

One of the main problems we should discuss here is that serial killers use the press for their communication. This is a well established historical fact. Dennis Rader sent messages in code that could not be decoded by the cryptologists working on it. There are still messages from serial killers that have not been decoded and understood.

And now we are speaking of the 20th and 21st Century.

So the next main problem we should discuss here is the question about the possible communication from a serial killer in the 19th Century.

1. What sort of communications could he have produced, if any?
2. What sort of "conscience collective" or "symbolic capital" could he refer to or draw from if he wanted to give messages to someone?
3. And who would have been the recipient(s) of such communication?

I have to protest strongly against your approach to the case, where you try to say that sources are to be taken "at face value" and where you leave no room for new approaches or interpretations of old sources.

It does not lead the case forward. Instead, the killer continues to make fools of us all.

I certainly appreciate the posts of Jeff, where he describes culture and thinking in the 19th Century. It gives us, and perhaps even yourself, insight into differences between then and now.

Do not forget, David, that the killer lived in 1888 and not 2016.

Pierre

[DJA]

Pretty sure Pierre is a Canadian who moved over the border and changed ISPs and his identity.
Guess which multi site poster disappeared days before Pierre started his first thread?
Seems to like University cities.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Kattrup;390098]

One interpretation would be that the murdered women are the flowers. Thus, the murderer fed the papers the idea of the song Sweet Violets being sung, because he wanted to communicate with someone (the public, the police, Zillah) and the song's lyrics accomplished that.

Hi Kattrup,

Thanks for a serious and interesting answer. Yes, it is an historical fact that serial killers sometimes feed the papers with their ideas. I also appreciate your point that a communication could have had different types of recipients.

Thus, the murderer: "Crouched all unnoticed I did pluck that flower"
Meaning he murdered a woman. The flowers look up to heaven, like the murderer left his victims on the back, looking upwards.

I think that is a good interpretation but the question of course would be if the killer thought so. The song Sweet Violets and itīs lyrics might have nothing to do with the murders. It may also be some sort of communication. In that case, the problem is not so much the internal meaning as the external function of the source.

When we perform the internal source criticism we can only accept the lyrics, which are not written by the killer himself, and interpret them as having another meaning than the lyrics taken "at face value".

But for the external source criticism, we should - if the killer (as you said) fed the press not only the song but the idea that it was sung by the victim (why?) - be careful not to draw the most creative conclusions. I say that because we always run the risk of overinterpreting these type of sources.

I think the external function should be connected to the motive of the killer, the date of the murder and the change in the series of murders, i.e. the murders stopped temporarily after Kelly.

I also think the external function should be almost "obvious" for anyone who has a well established hypothesis about the killer. It must have a tight connection to the motive, the day and the ceasing of murders and can not be very elaborate.

The murdered women are meant for Zillah, which apparently means "Shade" or " Shadow" in Hebrew, some sites translate it as "Shadow of protection". So maybe the killer killed women to curry favour with a deity of darkness, wanting its protection to avoid capture!

Since you state you have a source for Zillah being alive, perhaps she is to be identified as MJK, meaning the murdered woman was not MJK - this interpretation is supported by your hypothesis that the killer arranged the corpse for maximum shock effect of an unknown woman, who emitted the cry of "murder" heard by Prater. This unknown woman would then be MJK, who, I imagine, then eloped with the killer, stopping only to act as his go-between to the media, therefore appearing in the paper as "a woman" who'd heard Sweet Violets.

Calling her Zillah would fit, since she would then be her own shadow, so to speak, living a hidden life.

I do not share these ideas, but thank you for the suggestions and for a set of interesting ideas.

Best wishes, Pierre