Sweet violets

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;390112]

I'm more confused then ever Jeff.

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

What testimony and what trial?

Hi David,

Sorry to hear that you are so confused. You see, Jeff has not been digging a lot into the provenance of the publication of the press of Sweet Violets in 1888. People in 2016 probably have a low interest in the issue, so this is understandable. That is why he does not share your knowledge. Are you a bit less confused now? Good.

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?

I think there is no need for Jeff to answer the questions. It is enough to repeat my point above.

But I will make a short commentary: Cox said nothing about a song title in the police investigation on the 9th. And you had not suggested that she did either. I am just mentioning it so that your confusion, if it has not ceased, does not create more confusion in this thread.

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

When and why does she recall this?

Redundant question to Jeff. A short answer from me: Such a recalling must have taken place wherever and whenever she heard that Kelly had been singing about violets, if that is what happened during the days between the finding of the victim and the inquest.

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?

What you say here, David, is that Cox would have known the "right" song to tell at the inquest. But then a problem rises: Cox may have heard that "Sweet Violets" was sung by Kelly - but it was not the song heard by her. And it was not heard at the time stated for the song Sweet Violets.

Yes, I did point to this problem in my first post already. Go back and read it if you want to.

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"?

Whatever Cox knew about violets is very likely - since it is there for us all to see, left to us on a piece of paper from the past.

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?

The question is redundant. There was no statement of "A Violet from Motherīs Grave" in the papers before the inquest.

Surprise.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;390123]

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.



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.



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

Best wishes, Pierre

I think you make an excellent point about not drawing the most creative solutions and the risk of over-interpretting this type of source.

[David Orsam]

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.

Once again, Pierre, your powers of comprehension let you down, for that is exactly what I am saying.

It's Jeff who is trying to make something of the point about Cox possibly being illiterate, not me.

[David Orsam]

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.

I have not said now or at any time that sources are to be taken "at face value" nor have I left no room for new approaches or interpretations of old sources.

In this thread alone I have offered a new interpretation whereby Cox might have heard Kelly singing two songs about violets. What do you have to say about it? Or do you prefer to ignore it?

What I have not seen from you is any good reason to doubt that the woman being spoken of in the PMG was Cox so that the newspaper or its informant was confused about the song title (and, for that matter, the time it was heard being sung) which should have been "A Violet from Mother's Grave".

[David Orsam]

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.

Pierre, I appreciate you are utterly obsessed by the idea that the killer left some hidden messages for the police, or someone, to find but this kind of thinking is the last refuge of the ripperology scoundrel.

It's all too easy to find all kinds of hidden messages and anagrams and codes in the thousands of words written about Jack the Ripper in 1888, not to mention the hundreds of letters and messages purporting to be from Jack the Ripper in 1888. But in order to convince anyone that you have identified such a message you need to have some very good reasons to support it.

Yes I know that some killers like Zodiac and Rader sent messages in code but they were obviously messages in code. By this, I mean that the police and everyone knew that they were dealing with coded messages and the trick was to decipher them. What you seem to be doing is finding normal things such as pawn tickets, letters to newspapers, song lyrics in newspapers which do not appear to be coded messages and no-one in 1888 thought for one second that they were coded messages. The only person who thinks they might be coded messages is you!

Your answer to everything seems to be that the killer was happy to send all kinds of coded messages to the police, not flagging that they were coded messages, because he enjoyed the thought of sending them even though no-one knew that he was doing it. Frankly, Pierre, that kind of theory is ridiculous but, of course, it allows you to find hidden messages everywhere. But I'm afraid that in that direction madness lies and you are fast heading towards that destination.

[David Orsam]

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

I usually ignore this kind of daft comment but just for once Pierre perhaps you could explain why you purport to think that I might have forgotten that the killer lived in 1888.

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Sorry to hear that you are so confused. You see, Jeff has not been digging a lot into the provenance of the publication of the press of Sweet Violets in 1888. People in 2016 probably have a low interest in the issue, so this is understandable. That is why he does not share your knowledge. Are you a bit less confused now? Good.

I think there is no need for Jeff to answer the questions. It is enough to repeat my point above.

But I will make a short commentary: Cox said nothing about a song title in the police investigation on the 9th. And you had not suggested that she did either. I am just mentioning it so that your confusion, if it has not ceased, does not create more confusion in this thread.

Redundant question to Jeff. A short answer from me: Such a recalling must have taken place wherever and whenever she heard that Kelly had been singing about violets, if that is what happened during the days between the finding of the victim and the inquest.

What you say here, David, is that Cox would have known the "right" song to tell at the inquest. But then a problem rises: Cox may have heard that "Sweet Violets" was sung by Kelly - but it was not the song heard by her. And it was not heard at the time stated for the song Sweet Violets.

Yes, I did point to this problem in my first post already. Go back and read it if you want to.

Whatever Cox knew about violets is very likely - since it is there for us all to see, left to us on a piece of paper from the past.

The question is redundant. There was no statement of "A Violet from Motherīs Grave" in the papers before the inquest.

Surprise.

All you've done is add to the confusion Pierre. I was addressing Jeff, who was saying something rather different to you, and you've taken upon yourself to answer questions I addressed to Jeff about something he said of which your answers are completely irrelevant.

But I note with amusement that you have taken my "confusion" out of context and then completely failed to answer my first question to Jeff which was an enquiry as to what testimony and what trial he was talking about. That was the main thing that was confusing me so you have been of no assistance whatsoever.

As for your own bizarre theory it must now be time for you to answer some questions.

1. Did Cox hear Kelly singing?
2. Did Cox hear Kelly singing "A Violet From Mother's Grave"?
3. If Cox did not hear Kelly singing "A Violet from Mother's Grave", why did she say she did, on oath, at the inquest?
4. Did Cox hear Kelly singing "Sweet Violets"?
5. If Cox did not hear Kelly singing "Sweet Violets" how do you know that?
6. Did anyone hear Kelly singing "Sweet Violets"?
7. If no-one heard Kelly singing "Sweet Violets" how do you know this?
8. Was anyone singing "Sweet Violets" on the night of Kelly's murder?
9. Did the woman referred to in the Pall Mall Gazette actually exist?
10. Are you claiming that the killer might somehow have planted a false story in the newspapers that a woman had heard Kelly singing "Sweet Violets"?

Perhaps if you can bring yourself to answer these questions, some of my confusion about your own position might be cleared up.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;390127]

I have not said now or at any time that sources are to be taken "at face value"


Lechmere Continuation Thread:
# 428: David Orsam: : "...on the evidence of Mizen, taken at face value, Lechmere told a lie."

In this thread alone I have offered a new interpretation whereby Cox might have heard Kelly singing two songs about violets. What do you have to say about it? Or do you prefer to ignore it?

Of course I have something to say about it. I say this:

1. Where is the source for Cox having heard the song "Sweet Violets"?

2. What are the hypotheses for that interpretation?

3. Are there any sources for those hypotheses?

What I have not seen from you is any good reason to doubt that the woman being spoken of in the PMG was Cox so that the newspaper or its informant was confused about the song title (and, for that matter, the time it was heard being sung) which should have been "A Violet from Mother's Grave".

That is correct, David. You have not seen that. But if you take it easy and wait you will perhaps see it in the near future.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;390128]

Pierre, I appreciate you are utterly obsessed by the idea that the killer left some hidden messages for the police, or someone, to find but this kind of thinking is the last refuge of the ripperology scoundrel.

More of the old medicine here I see. As does everyone else. Accusations, belittling and ridiculing from David Orsam. You do not have the capacity to discuss the case without these methods, David.

It's all too easy to find all kinds of hidden messages and anagrams and codes in the thousands of words written about Jack the Ripper in 1888,

And the easiness of finding things in those types of sources is not my business so keep that garbage-in-garbage-out methods to yourself, David.

not to mention the hundreds of letters and messages purporting to be from Jack the Ripper in 1888.

Yes. Rubbish.

But in order to convince anyone that you have identified such a message you need to have some very good reasons to support it.

Read this: I am not interested in "convincing" anyone. On the contrary. I am only interested in disproving my hypotheses.

Yes I know that some killers like Zodiac and Rader sent messages in code but they were obviously messages in code.

You are wrong. Those communications were not at all only in code, if that is what you are trying to imply.

By this, I mean that the police and everyone knew that they were dealing with coded messages and the trick was to decipher them.

And now we are still speaking of the 20th and 21st Century, remember that.

What you seem to be doing

"Seem to", i.e. your own understanding.

is finding normal things such as pawn tickets,

How good. They are "normal". Fine, everything can go back to normal. For another 128 years perhaps.

letters to newspapers,

"Normal letters to newspapers". What is that?

song lyrics in newspapers

Yes, what do you know.

which do not appear to be coded messages

to David Orsam.

and no-one in 1888 thought

Relevance?

for one second

Sources?

The only person who thinks they might be coded messages is you!

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Your answer to everything seems to be that the killer was happy to send all kinds of coded messages to the police,

Wrong there! YOUR words, not mine!

not flagging that they were coded messages, because he enjoyed the thought of sending them even though no-one knew that he was doing it.

Yes, how would you know who knew it? That is correct. You would not.

Frankly, Pierre, that kind of theory is ridiculous but,

There is no such object. And still, you are ridiculing it.

of course, it allows you to find hidden messages everywhere.

What? This is not intelligible.

But I'm afraid that in that direction madness lies and you are fast heading towards that destination.

Great. I must be on the right track then. Since the killer was undoubtedly what you would call "mad".

[David Orsam]

I have not said now or at any time that sources are to be taken "at face value"


Lechmere Continuation Thread:
# 428: David Orsam: : "...on the evidence of Mizen, taken at face value, Lechmere told a lie."

This is merely your failure of understanding Pierre.

I wasn't saying in that thread that Lechmere told a lie. I was very clear about that. I was saying that if the evidence of Mizen is taken at face value then Lechmere told a lie.

So I was not saying in that thread that sources are to be taken at face value.

This confirms what I have said about you time and time again, namely that you draw wrong conclusions from things you have not read properly.

[David Orsam]

Of course I have something to say about it. I say this:

1. Where is the source for Cox having heard the song "Sweet Violets"?

2. What are the hypotheses for that interpretation?

3. Are there any sources for those hypotheses?

That is not saying anything at all about it Pierre. That is asking three questions.

My question to you is why could Cox not have heard Kelly singing both "A Violet From Mother's Grave" AND "Sweet Violets"?

[David Orsam]

That is correct, David. You have not seen that. But if you take it easy and wait you will perhaps see it in the near future.

Or perhaps I won't.

Just another example of you playing silly games and pretending to have more knowledge about something that you actually possess. So far you have never made good on a single promise to provide hard information to support anything you have ever said on this forum.

[David Orsam]

"Normal letters to newspapers". What is that?

Well, for example, the letter written by the person signing as "GOGMAGOG" in November 1888. A normal letter to a newspaper to encourage people to attend the Lord Mayor's Day procession which you turned into a letter from Jack the Ripper containing a coded message about his next murder.

Something which existed in your imagination only.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;390130]

I was addressing Jeff, who was saying something rather different to you, and you've taken upon yourself to answer questions I addressed to Jeff about something he said of which your answers are completely irrelevant.

Yes. I did take it upon myself to comment your cross-examination of Jeff since the questions you took upon yourself to cross-examine him on were completely irrelevant. I did also explain that to you but you do not seem to understand this.

But I note with amusement that you have taken my "confusion" out of context and then completely failed to answer my first question to Jeff which was an enquiry as to what testimony and what trial he was talking about. That was the main thing that was confusing me so you have been of no assistance whatsoever.

Glad to hear that your confusion has turned into amusement. Perhaps you should write a book about your emotions, how you frequently tell people about them when you speak to people, what they mean to you and how they change. It could help.

As for your own bizarre theory

I do not have one. But I see that you are now using another belittling word, "bizarre". And everyone else can see it.

it must now be time for you to answer some questions.

No problem, David.

1. Did Cox hear Kelly singing?

Cox said she heard Kelly singing. (I do not have a time machine).

2. Did Cox hear Kelly singing "A Violet From Mother's Grave"?

Cox said she heard Kelly singing "A Violet From Mother's Grave". (And there was no tape recorder in Kellyīs room).

3. If Cox did not hear Kelly singing "A Violet from Mother's Grave", why did she say she did, on oath, at the inquest?

There is no "if", there is only the inquest statements. Cox said she heard the song.

4. Did Cox hear Kelly singing "Sweet Violets"?

There is no source for that.

5. If Cox did not hear Kelly singing "Sweet Violets" how do you know that?

There is no source for Cox having heard Kelly sing the song "Sweet Violets".

6. Did anyone hear Kelly singing "Sweet Violets"?

We have "a woman" saying it to the press. That is all there is.

7. If no-one heard Kelly singing "Sweet Violets" how do you know this?

The sources can not answer that question about "if".

8. Was anyone singing "Sweet Violets" on the night of Kelly's murder?

The sources can not answer that question. There were no tape recorders put up in the houses and rooms of Whitechapel on the night of the Kelly murder.

9. Did the woman referred to in the Pall Mall Gazette actually exist?

The sources can not answer that question. We have "a woman" saying it to the press.

10. Are you claiming that the killer might somehow have planted a false story in the newspapers that a woman had heard Kelly singing "Sweet Violets"?

I am certainly not claiming anything. I am discussing the sources, their internal meaning and their external functions. There are historical reasons to do so.

Perhaps if you can bring yourself to answer these questions, some of my confusion about your own position might be cleared up.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;390125]

I think you make an excellent point about not drawing the most creative solutions and the risk of over-interpreting this type of source.

Thanks John.

This is always a problem for historians.

And you could say that what I am experiencing right now is some sort of intellectual torture. It has to do with the risk of overinterpreting a source and the risk of misunderstanding it.

And I do not even have to be the slightest creative. That is remarkable.

Best wishes, Pierre