Robert Sagar

[The Good Michael]

Recall is an odd thing. Often it needs stimuli to awaken, as in multiple choice tests. People armed with some semblance of psychological training, whether in the classroom, on the streets, or as a by-product of having children, being a manager, an officer in charge, and others, are prone to lead recall, through questioning, in a not always honest direction.

Cheers,

Mike

[Hunter]

Then there is the tendency for people to overstate their involvement in an historic event.

[robhouse]

Hi Hunter,

That may be true... but I dont think it would be accurate to say Sagar was overstating his involvement in the case. First of all he was clearly involved in the case, and second, he is not even talking about his own involvement in this instance.

RH

[Jonathan H]

This is essentially why I don't agree with the idea that if it can be shown that a person makes errors of memory in some statement, we can throw out everything that he or she says in that statement, claiming that "his memory is faulty." That is typically used as a method of discrediting a source. But I do not agree that we can throw out everything that is said based on such logic. Indeed, I would argue that we should expect errors of memory in almost every statement that is made about a person's recollection of an event. Most of these people had no diary or notes to go by... all they had was their memory, or maybe a book or two to consult.

Historical methodology teaches us that if the bits that a source gets wrong are the very elements which make them look better then this is bias rearing its head. Self-serving lapses of memory which -- consciously or not -- act to justify or exaggerate or enhance the teller of the tale. It is is not about 'discrediting' [as if it is a courtroom?] a source but understanding it, and understanding why it is in conflict with other sources. An unreliable source is not a worthless one -- in fact its very unreliability is usually valuable and instructive.

[Stephen Thomas]

Historical methodology teaches us that if the bits that a source gets wrong are the very elements which make them look better then this is bias rearing its head. Self-serving lapses of memory which -- consciously or not -- act to justify or exaggerate or enhance the teller of the tale. It is is not about 'discrediting' [as if it is a courtroom?] a source but understanding it, and understanding why it is in conflict with other sources. An unreliable source is not a worthless one -- in fact its very unreliability is usually valuable and instructive.

Blimey, aren't you the clever one.

[Jonathan H]

Of course a source can be discredited if is shown to be bogus.

The Maybrick Diary for example, is a hoax, though to give it its due a better one than the Hitler Diaries -- which were exposed the moment forensic examiners were allowed now near them, too late of course for 'Stern'.

[Steven Russell]

This is essentially why I don't agree with the idea that if it can be shown that a person makes errors of memory in some statement, we can throw out everything that he or she says in that statement, claiming that "his memory is faulty." That is typically used as a method of discrediting a source. But I do not agree that we can throw out everything that is said based on such logic. Indeed, I would argue that we should expect errors of memory in almost every statement that is made about a person's recollection of an event. Most of these people had no diary or notes to go by... all they had was their memory, or maybe a book or two to consult.

Historical methodology teaches us that if the bits that a source gets wrong are the very elements which make them look better then this is bias rearing its head. Self-serving lapses of memory which -- consciously or not -- act to justify or exaggerate or enhance the teller of the tale. It is is not about 'discrediting' [as if it is a courtroom?] a source but understanding it, and understanding why it is in conflict with other sources. An unreliable source is not a worthless one -- in fact its very unreliability is usually valuable and instructive.

Sounds fair enough to me.

[Chris]

That may be true... but I dont think it would be accurate to say Sagar was overstating his involvement in the case. First of all he was clearly involved in the case, and second, he is not even talking about his own involvement in this instance.

I agree that in what he says about the suspect he's not talking about his own involvement. But I do wonder whether his role in liaising with the Metropolitan Police may have been overstated a bit. Of course, this is also mentioned in the City Press report of his retirement, which says "He was deputed to represent the City police force in conference with the detective heads of the Metropolitan force nightly at Leman Street Police Station ..." As Sagar was only a detective constable it's a bit difficult to believe these meetings were really with the "detective heads" of the Metropolitan Police.

[Jonathan H]

In today's 'The Australian' newspaper there is an article called 'The Art of Managing Disasters' by David Nason.

It is about how a collective memory can build which is quite wrong. In this case that the Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam, did not return from a holiday abroad when a small Australian city, Darwin, was devastated by a Cyclone on Christmas Eve 1974.

In fact it is easily proved by recollections, media sources and official records that the PM did in fact -- briefly -- return to survey the contemporary ruins, then resumed his holiday to inspect the ruins of Greece.

It was more to do with Whitlam's unpopularity over other issues that led to a cementing in many minds that the bastard never even bothered to come back, and so on.

Here is a section from that article which I think is relevant for consideration regarding the perplexing sub-mysteries of the Ripper case; specifically Macnaghten and Sims and the evolution of the Drowned Doctor, and Anderson and Swanson perhaps reinforcing each other over Kosminski -- maybe without access to any relevant file apart from the threadbare 1894 Macnaghten Report.


Sydney University's Helen Paterson says the simple sharing of memories of events, even by people familiar with them, can lead to "memory distortion".

"That is, witnesses who discuss an event with a co-witness are very likely to incorporate misinformation presented by the co-witness into their own memory for the event," she says. "Once their memory has been contaminated in this way, the witness is often unable to distinguish between the accurate and inaccurate memories.

"Critically, our research has shown that co-witness discussion is an especially potent delivery mechanism for misinformation; information provided during discussions with a co-witness is more likely to be incorporated into the witness's memory than information encountered through leading questions, inaccurate media reports or other processes."

[Chris]

The new A-Z (p. 452) has an excerpt from the Burnley News of 17 December 1924 (following Sagar's death), which was new to me:
"It is stated that it was his theory of the notorious Jack the Ripper crimes that led to the cessation of these outrages."

This is a much stronger claim than I have seen before about Sagar's theory, though it may only be a garbled reflection of earlier reports.

The A-Z also has a rather clearer version of the photo of Sagar that appeared in the City Press when he retired in 1905.

[Chris]

Here is another interesting article which appeared soon after Robert Sagar's retirement, in The Mercury (London) of 14 January 1905. Many thanks to Lynn Cates for his assistance in finding this.

[Rob Clack]

Thanks Lynn and Chris that is a very interesting read. Annoyingly I was at Colindale today and if I had known I would have had a look at 'The Daily News' and see what they had to say and see if there was any additional information contained in it.

Rob

[Chris]

Thanks Lynn and Chris that is a very interesting read. Annoyingly I was at Colindale today and if I had known I would have had a look at 'The Daily News' and see what they had to say and see if there was any additional information contained in it.

I should have a chance to look at that next week (though half of what I tried to order in advance can't be produced because they have discovered asbestos in the building ...)

[Chris]

I suppose that "well-known man of Jewish appearance" must be an error for "well dressed man of Jewish appearance," as in the Seattle Daily Times report posted above.

[Rob Clack]

I should have a chance to look at that next week (though half of what I tried to order in advance can't be produced because they have discovered asbestos in the building ...)

Almost all the microfilmed newspapers are okay, the Daily News is hard copy and microfilm so you should be okay with the microfilm. The problem I had today was that it was very busy and one of the microfilm readers spat out the microfim and I spent 15 minutes winding it back onto the spool.

Rob