Hate

[Elamarna]

It is an historical fact that we do not have any other source dated 8th November. The only source we have with that date, the 8th, is the letter dated by Warren.

Do you understand this?

Yes of course

Warren could have resigned on one of the other 365 days. But he chose the 8th.

Other sources indicate he did this in response to a rebuke from Matthews.

Steve, no, an hypothesis is just that: a testable temporary assumption. So it must have some data. I think 8th November is a very significant date. So that letter is the data.

How is this idea testable?

There is no source or data to test it against, only what appears to be unsupported superstition.

There is only the single source.
That source says the 8th. there is no data to suggest anything else!


Steve

[Simon Wood]

Hi Pierre,

It's all a matter of official record.

Try Hansard.

Regards,

Simon

[Pierre]

Hi Jerry,

You have to ask yourself why in the Commons on 8th November Matthews announced that he had delivered a rap over the knuckles [don't do it again] to Warren regarding the magazine article, but on 10th November accepted his resignation, allegedly because of the same magazine article.

Could something have happened on 9th November to change Matthews' mind?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

I am not at all familiar with what you write here. But I will look into it. I always appreciate new and different approaches, I think it may lead the case forward. And I am not afraid of making mistakes on the way. On the contrary.

Best wishes, Pierre

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jerry,

You have to ask yourself why in the Commons on 8th November Matthews announced that he had delivered a rap over the knuckles [don't do it again] to Warren regarding the magazine article, but on 10th November accepted his resignation, allegedly because of the same magazine article.

Could something have happened on 9th November to change Matthews' mind?

Regards,

Simon

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;400420]

Pierre,

I am sure that Phil will reply himself.

However you are wrong when you say we have only one source.
We have the source from Matthews, recorded I assume in Hansard that Warren had offered his resignation on the 8th.

Dear Steve,

Iīm afraid you do not understand.

It is an historical fact that we do not have any other source dated 8th November. The only source we have with that date, the 8th, is the letter dated by Warren.

Do you understand this?

I really fail to understand the historical reasoning on this approach?

We have an historical fact:

Warren resigned from his position as commissioner of the Met.

That is right. The source dated the 8th says that.

The primary source for this is the letter of resignation itself, In addition the secondary sources 10th his statement to the House, in which he confirms these points.

They are secondary sources for the date of resignment and primary sources for what others thought was the date for resignment.

So they - the producers of the sources - can not be held responsible for the establishing of the resignment date. They have got it from Warren. Do you understand this?

While the number of sources supporting a date of the 8th is limited, there are none which I am aware of that say the dates are incorrect.

We do not need sources discussing other sources. We need independent sources. But there are no sources at all dated 8th November except from the letter with the construction of the date made by Warren. We do not know if he wrote it the day of the murder. There are 356 days in a year. Warren chose to put the day before the murder as the date for his resignment. It is the only day in a year which preceeds the 9th with one single day. Warren could have resigned on one of the other 365 days. But he chose the 8th.

Is that construction made to avoid resigning on the 9th? And what could have been negative with resigning on the 9th? What problems could there have been, had he written "9th November" on the letter?

It appears to this non historian, that you are building an hypothesis without and historical data.

Steve, no, an hypothesis is just that: a testable temporary assumption. So it must have some data. I think 8th November is a very significant date. So that letter is the data.

Best wishes, Pierre

[jerryd]

Pierre,

The date of the resignation is really irrelevant as the historical facts reveal that the reasoning behind the resignation had to do with the Murray's Magazine article that the HS was rebuking Warren over breaking a rule. Not anything to do with the murders. If it is otherwise suggested by you it pertained to the murders, it is only a theory, with no proof or backing of the source/s.

[Elamarna]

Hi Phil,

I donīt know what you mean by "accept". The problem is that there is no other source with the date of 8th November than the source produceed by Warren himself.

Warren was sitting at his desk (probably), writing a letter, and writing down 8th November on that paper.

So we have "8th November" constructed by Warren, and that is the only source we have for Warrenīs resignation dated with the 8th.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre,

in addition to the letter with the date of 8th, what other source could one reasonably expect to have existed to confirm this date?


A reply from Matthews dated before the 9th is highly unlikely, even if Matthews had received the offer on the 8th, debatable in itself, it is highly unlikely he would accept such an offer without taking soundings form parliamentary colleagues, in particular the PM,and other senior police officials.

In those circumstances I wonder why you see the presence of ONLY 1 source as being of possible significance?


steve

[Elamarna]

Hi Phil,

I donīt know what you mean by "accept". The problem is that there is no other source with the date of 8th November than the source produceed by Warren himself.

Warren was sitting at his desk (probably), writing a letter, and writing down 8th November on that paper.

So we have "8th November" constructed by Warren, and that is the only source we have for Warrenīs resignation dated with the 8th.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre,

I am sure that Phil will reply himself.

However you are wrong when you say we have only one source.
We have the source from Matthews, recorded I assume in Hansard that Warren had offered his resignation on the 8th.


I really fail to understand the historical reasoning on this approach?

We have an historical fact:

Warren resigned from his position as commissioner of the Met.

The primary source for this is the letter of resignation itself, In addition the secondary sources 10th his statement to the House, in which he confirms these points.

While the number of sources supporting a date of the 8th is limited, there are none which I am aware of that say the dates are incorrect.

It appears to this non historian, that you are building an hypothesis without and historical data.



Steve

[Pierre]

Hello Pierre,

Do you accept Matthews statement in the House of Commons that Warren had "offered his resignation on the 8th", which Matthews said that he accepted?

Surely that indicates a source that says without a doubt, the 8th was the date of his resignation?

Perhaps I am being obtuse?

Phil

Hi Phil,

I donīt know what you mean by "accept". The problem is that there is no other source with the date of 8th November than the source produceed by Warren himself.

Warren was sitting at his desk (probably), writing a letter, and writing down 8th November on that paper.

So we have "8th November" constructed by Warren, and that is the only source we have for Warrenīs resignation dated with the 8th.

Regards, Pierre

[Phil Carter]

House of Commons
November 12, 1888

Mr. CONYBEARE asked the Home Secretary whether he could state the exact reason why the late head of the Detective Department in the Metropolitan Police resigned his position; whether Sir C. Warren had practically the direct control of the Detective Department; and whether, in view of the constant recurrence of atrocious murders, and the failure of the new organization and methods to detect the murderer, he would consider the propriety of making some change in the arrangements of Scotland*yard. Supplementing the question of which he had given notice, the hon. member further asked whether it was true that Sir Charles Warren had tendered his resignation, and whether it had been accepted. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. MATTHEWS. I have already stated the reason why Mr. Monro resigned in answer to a question from the hon. member for Bethnal-green on the 6th inst., to which I beg to refer the hon. member. Mr. Anderson has now the direct control of the Criminal Investigation Department, but under the superintendence and control of the Chief Commissioner, as provided by statute. The failure, so far, to detect the persons guilty of the Whitechapel murders is due, not to any new organization, or to any defect in the existing system, but to the extraordinary cunning and secrecy which characterize these atrocious crimes. I have already, for some time, had under consideration the whole system of the Criminal Investigation Department, with a view to introducing any improvement, that experience may suggest. With regard to the final question of the hon. member for Camborne, I have to say that Sir Charles Warren did, on the 8th inst., tender his resignation to Her Majesty's Government, and that it has been accepted. (Loud Opposition cheers.)

Thanks jerry ☺


Phil

[jerryd]

House of Commons
November 12, 1888

Mr. CONYBEARE asked the Home Secretary whether he could state the exact reason why the late head of the Detective Department in the Metropolitan Police resigned his position; whether Sir C. Warren had practically the direct control of the Detective Department; and whether, in view of the constant recurrence of atrocious murders, and the failure of the new organization and methods to detect the murderer, he would consider the propriety of making some change in the arrangements of Scotland*yard. Supplementing the question of which he had given notice, the hon. member further asked whether it was true that Sir Charles Warren had tendered his resignation, and whether it had been accepted. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. MATTHEWS. I have already stated the reason why Mr. Monro resigned in answer to a question from the hon. member for Bethnal-green on the 6th inst., to which I beg to refer the hon. member. Mr. Anderson has now the direct control of the Criminal Investigation Department, but under the superintendence and control of the Chief Commissioner, as provided by statute. The failure, so far, to detect the persons guilty of the Whitechapel murders is due, not to any new organization, or to any defect in the existing system, but to the extraordinary cunning and secrecy which characterize these atrocious crimes. I have already, for some time, had under consideration the whole system of the Criminal Investigation Department, with a view to introducing any improvement, that experience may suggest. With regard to the final question of the hon. member for Camborne, I have to say that Sir Charles Warren did, on the 8th inst., tender his resignation to Her Majesty's Government, and that it has been accepted. (Loud Opposition cheers.)

[jerryd]

Hull Daily Mail
Hull, North Humberside
Nov 11,1888

[Henry Flower]

I do not expect sources. If there are sources, there are sources. But there is no other source. This means that you have to trust this single source. Of course, there is always a problem when you have just one source. And in this case, Matthews said he answered Warren on 10th November. He could have answered the 8th or 9th. But he didnīt, since there are no sources showing us that he did. So, Warren wrote his resignation and the date put on it was the 8th. And since no one mentioned his resignation before the 13th, and noone has stated an answer before the 10th, that is what we have.

Now, if you have other sources indicating that there would have been a reason for dating the letter with the 8th November, you must take those sources into consideration as well. If you do not, you ignore the past, you ignore the sources and choose to believe one single source and to put that single source before several other sources.

Regards, Pierre

It's remarkable how many words Pierre can churn out, how much ink he can squirt into the water, in order to distract from the simple truth: there is no source showing that the resignation was submitted on any date other than the 8th, and replied to on the 10th. The only thing that points to either of those dates being untrue is the 'tendency' to be found in the source named Pierre.

I mean seriously, let's dissect this one:

"Now, if you have other sources indicating that there would have been a reason for dating the letter with the 8th November, you must take those sources into consideration as well. If you do not, you ignore the past, you ignore the sources and choose to believe one single source and to put that single source before several other sources."

What other sources? WHAT other sources Pierre?

I very strongly suggest that when you say we should be prepared to take into account "other sources indicating that there would have been a reason for dating the letter with the 8th November", you are trying to hide the fact that you are really saying nothing more than, "I have constructed from various sources this big theory of the case, and it is necessary that the Warren resignation come after the Kelly murder, so I'm allowing all my other sources (ie, my theory) to simply override the only source we have on the actual dating of the resignation, because it is necessary for me to do so. And, er, to do otherwise would be to rely on only one source, which is always risky, and, er, ignores the past."

There is only one source giving the date of Warren's resignation. The 8th. No other source says differently. And you claim that to establish the date of Warren's resignation by relying merely on the only source that gives us a date for Warren's resignation is to 'ignore the past'? This makes an absolute hypocritical mockery of every demeaning, belittling, condescending, prattishly arrogant demand you've made over the past year, that other researchers must share their sources for every little assertion, or else admit they are doing history all wrong and accept correction from you.

Absolutely. Pathetic.

Is this yet another thread that you start, but simply abandon when it becomes clear that you are hopelessly in the wrong?

[Elamarna]

You do realize that frequently some items or mysteries have more than one source. Up to the middle of the 19th Century some believed what Herodotus had written about the source of the Nile River being a set of huge fountains inside deepest Africa. It turned out there were two major tributaries making up the Nile: The Blue Nile from Ethiopia, and the White Nile which began in Lake Victoria and then passed through Lake Albert.
Not one source, but two, possibly three (counting the two lakes as different sources). Of course, that's a matter of geography and exploration, not of historical fact digging.

"A source is a source, of course, of course...."

Jeff

Neigh



Steve

[Mayerling]

Hi Steve,

I do not expect sources. If there are sources, there are sources. But there is no other source. This means that you have to trust this single source. Of course, there is always a problem when you have just one source. And in this case, Matthews said he answered Warren on 10th November. He could have answered the 8th or 9th. But he didnīt, since there are no sources showing us that he did. So, Warren wrote his resignation and the date put on it was the 8th. And since no one mentioned his resignation before the 13th, and noone has stated an answer before the 10th, that is what we have.

Now, if you have other sources indicating that there would have been a reason for dating the letter with the 8th November, you must take those sources into consideration as well. If you do not, you ignore the past, you ignore the sources and choose to believe one single source and to put that single source before several other sources.

Regards, Pierre

You do realize that frequently some items or mysteries have more than one source. Up to the middle of the 19th Century some believed what Herodotus had written about the source of the Nile River being a set of huge fountains inside deepest Africa. It turned out there were two major tributaries making up the Nile: The Blue Nile from Ethiopia, and the White Nile which began in Lake Victoria and then passed through Lake Albert.
Not one source, but two, possibly three (counting the two lakes as different sources). Of course, that's a matter of geography and exploration, not of historical fact digging.

"A source is a source, of course, of course...."

Jeff