Sweet violets

[John G]

Personally, I think a single press report, from a single newspaper, unconfirmed by any other sources, should be regarded as having a low validity. I am fortified in my conclusion by the fact that newspaper reporting throughout this saga was often unreliable and contradictory.

[David Orsam]

One can also hope for negative results.

Well here Pierre I can give you some very good news. If you hope for negative results I have a strong feeling that you are going to be delighted when you have completed your research.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;390155]

Well, firstly, there was no evidence presented at the inquest by anyone that they heard Kelly singing "Sweet Violets" so that creates an element of doubt and suggest the press might have been mistaken does it not?

No, it doesn´t. Lack of sources is not evidence.

Secondly, there was evidence presented at the inquest that Kelly was heard singing a different song with very similar lyrics which must surely create the possibility that the press was had identified the wrong song.

A possibility must be considered both from the perspective of closeness in time and the hierarchy of sources.

So there is a decent argument to be made, based on the evidence presented at the inquest, that the press made a mistake. So far I'm yet to see any form of counter argument from you.

The press sources are closer both in time and place. That is the most important argument.

[Joshua Rogan]

The press sources are closer both in time and place. That is the most important argument.

So presumably you believe Kelly lived upstairs with a small child, as the earliest press reports said?

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;390163]

No, it doesn´t. Lack of sources is not evidence.



A possibility must be considered both from the perspective of closeness in time and the hierarchy of sources.



The press sources are closer both in time and place. That is the most important argument.

Are you suggesting that source material should be graded on the basis of when it was published, rather than, say, reliability? That's a very strange argument if you don't mind me saying so.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;390156]

It's possible but what reason do we have to think that Cox made a mistake?

The reason is that she is in the later source.

As I understand your own position, you are saying that the press report about Kelly singing "Sweet Violets" was wrong and she never sang that song.

I am not saying that but asking if that was the case.

That being so, what grounds do we have to doubt that Cox heard Kelly singing "A Violet From Mother's Grave". None so far as I can see. You certainly haven't mentioned any.

1. There was another song presented in the press on the 10th, two days before the inquest.
2. The song was heard at another point in time according to the press.
3. The sources closest in time and place are considered the more reliable.
4. Cox had the opportunity to hear about Kelly singing about violets from the 10th.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;390166]

Are you suggesting that source material should be graded on the basis of when it was published, rather than, say, reliability? That's a very strange argument if you don't mind me saying so.

Point in time is a variable for reliability.

[Abby Normal]

Admin have already ruled that Pierre is not a troll so you are talking absolute rubbish, breaching the abuse rules of this forum, and feel free to get into an argument with Admin about this and see where it gets you.

A post in a thread entitled "Sweet Violets" asking someone to do your research for you to find that one missing piece of evidence which will solve this mystery was blatantly off-topic and the fact that you can't even admit it explains why you need to take a good look at yourself before firing off abusive posts about other people.

Double post

[Mayerling]

Wikipedia to the rescue again.

Hello everyone. It's your resident culture freak bringing something else out regarding the song "Sweet Violets".

Check out the page on it in "Wikipedia"

To begin with, it was a song composed by one Joseph Emmet in 1882 for his play, "Fritz Among the Gypsies". Unfortunately (or fortunately, Victorian drama being so third rate for the most part) the article does not go into any detail about this play's story line. Perhaps one of you may find a clue to it somewhere. But if the song had become notable in 1888, I take it Emmet's play must have been successful in 1882.

It turns out that the song has been recorded, by Mitch Miller among others. I have found Miller's recording on You Tube. The song is saucier than we think. It has a structure called "censored rhyme", meaning the lines seem to be going into what in 1882 might be considered risque or dirty, but at the last moment the next line changes the direction of the words to something seemingly innocent.

The article illustrates "censored rhyme" like this:

"There once was a farmer who took a young miss,
in back of the barn where he gave her a...
Lecture on horses, and chickens, and eggs
And told her that she had such beautiful...
Manners that suited a girl...."

The line # 2 would seem to lead to the word "kiss", and line # 4 to the word "legs" (especially a "no-no" or taboo term in Victorian England - the proper term was "limbs". Both times the next line nicely sidesteps the wicked rhymes we would impose.

There will probably never be a way of guessing which of the two songs were sung (or if both were). However, given that "Sweet Violets" (again according to the article) sometimes was given risque words by some singers, it is now more possible that it was sung by Mary Kelly or some other prostitute that night to maybe break the ice or get into the mood for sex.

Anyway maybe this will help us consider the matter a bit more.

Jeff

[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.

Hello? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Guess not.

[David Orsam]

David Orsam: Well, firstly, there was no evidence presented at the inquest by anyone that they heard Kelly singing "Sweet Violets" so that creates an element of doubt and suggest the press might have been mistaken does it not?

Pierre: No, it doesn´t. Lack of sources is not evidence.

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!

[David Orsam]

The press sources are closer both in time and place. That is the most important argument.

This is a terrible argument and quite wrong.

For a witness giving direct evidence then evidence given closer to the time of an event can usually be taken as more reliable.

For a newspaper, however, stories published closer to the time of the murder in 1888 were LESS likely to be reliable. You can do an actual study of this if you want.

Following a murder there was a lot of confusion, rumours spread, mistakes were made and it was difficult for reporters to know what was true and what was false. A lot of inaccurate information was published in the newspapers following the murder.

In this case, the reports in the newspapers are hearsay. There is no direct quote given from anyone who was said to have heard the singing. No person who heard the singing is identified by name.

However, the one thing that all the newspapers who published the story agree on is that it was Kelly who sang "Sweet Violets". But you don't seem to accept that either!!!

[David Orsam]

David Orsam: It's possible but what reason do we have to think that Cox made a mistake?

Pierre: The reason is that she is in the later source.

That's no reason. She could just as easily have made a mistake if she was "in the earlier source". It sounds to me like you are saying we can ignore all the inquest evidence given on Monday 12 November and take our information from the newspapers over the weekend of 10-11 November because the newspapers were all published earlier and are therefore less likely to be mistaken.

[David Orsam]

David Orsam: As I understand your own position, you are saying that the press report about Kelly singing "Sweet Violets" was wrong and she never sang that song.

Pierre: I am not saying that but asking if that was the case.

That is completely untrue. In #41 you stated categorically:

"I am suggesting that Kelly never sung the song."

Also, in #14 you said: "There is no evidence for Kelly having sung the song."

In #53 you said: "There is no evidence that Kelly sang the song Sweet Violets. But someone did tell the press she did" and "As I said, there is no evidence for Kelly having sung a song about Sweet Violets".

When I posted in #68:

"Even you accept that Kelly did not sing "Sweet Violets" so where is the connection with the murders?"

You did not challenge this in your response (in #70) but stated:

"The connection is the press if there is a connection".

Then when I posted in #110 that "maybe a woman did hear Kelly singing "Sweet Violets"" you told me in #114 it was "sloppy thinking".

The flaw at the heart of your entire thinking on this issue is that if there is "no evidence" that Kelly sang the song Sweet Violets then there is no evidence that ANYONE sang the song Sweet Violets.

[David Orsam]

David Orsam: That being so, what grounds do we have to doubt that Cox heard Kelly singing "A Violet From Mother's Grave". None so far as I can see. You certainly haven't mentioned any.

Pierre: 1. There was another song presented in the press on the 10th, two days before the inquest.
2. The song was heard at another point in time according to the press.
3. The sources closest in time and place are considered the more reliable.
4. Cox had the opportunity to hear about Kelly singing about violets from the 10th.

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.

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.

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.

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?