Robert Sagar

[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]

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.

[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

[Hunter]

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

[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

[Supe]

Rob,

You may be right about the elements of memory, though that has not been my personal experience--and that means nothing, i will readily admit.

However, if someone's memory is proved faulty in many of the elements of a recollection that can be verefied, there is no compelling reason why we should accept as fact other elements not readily verifiable. Keep one's mind open to the possibility, yes, but surely no more than that. What is very dangerous is when those with an agenda pick and chose among the unverifiable elements--and then produce what bolsters their argument as fact.

Don.

[Monty]

Hi Rob,

I understand your point and completely agree. We cannot dismiss this story out of hand because we have nothing at this precise moment to completely contradict it.

The same position stands fot proving it also.

During my investigator training, I was told that its not the memory of a event thats essential but the recall. And its the recall thats the issue. It often distorts, mixed with other event and this becomes more difficult as time passes. This is why its important to relay events as soon as possible.

Anyway, as said, I do see your point.

Monty

[robhouse]

Hi Monty,

I agree there may have been other lapses in memory... the name of the victim being one example, and the exact phrasing of the graffito being another. However, from what I have read about memory, these would be the types of things a person might forget.

From what I understand, the way memory is stored in the brain is essentially that events are summarized and stored in the form of words. An event or piece of knowledge that is considered important (for whatever reason) will be retained in the memory for a long time. However, the smaller details of that event will be forgotten, as the brain determines that they are of little importance to the event as a whole. Who blew the whistle is a detail of little or no importance. Also (sad to say) the name of the victim is of little importance in this instance.

What is important (if Sagar's statement is in fact true) is that a Policeman saw someone leaving the Square only a few minutes before the body was discovered. All the other details are of relatively little importance.

If you try recalling some important experience in your own life, I think you may find that this theory holds true. Say an important event happened at a particular place, and there were several people present. How did you get there? Who was present? What time of the day did it occur? What specific things happened at the event? Many of the details will be forgotten. But the main thrust of the event will be remembered, in summary form.

I have used the example of game 6 of the 1986 world series. I remember that I watched it on TV. I remember that the Red Sox lost. I remember the ball going through Bill Buckner's legs at a crucial point in the game. Other than that, I dont remember much of anything. Was it a day or night game? What inning was the Buckner error? (I assume the ninth.) Who was at bat for the Buckner error? What was the exact result of that error? (Winning run scored? Tying run scored?) I do not remember any of these things. However I do remember that the event happened, and I remember that I saw the game, and I remember the ball going through the legs.

This is essentially why I dont 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.

Rob H

[Chris]

One other interesting thing is the statement that the pursuit ended at "King's Block in the model dwellings in Stoney Lane," and that the writing on the wall was found there.

Sagar does seem to have been confused about where the writing was. The article on his retirement in the City Press of 7 January 1905 says it was in "a common lodging house in Dorset Street."

But why "King's Block" in Stoney Lane? Dorset Street at least had a Ripper connection. Did "King's Block"?

[Chris]

I should mention that Howard Brown has also pointed out that the same report appeared in the St Paul Globe of 6 February 1905. This is available in the Library of Congress's Chronicling America collection (http://www.loc.gov/chroniclingamerica/index.html ), and appears to be the same word for word as the Seattle Daily Times version, except that it is headlined:
FAMOUS SLEUTH QUITS, THUGS GLAD
Man Who Has Been Terror to London Criminals Retires for Good
and dated London, Feb. 5.

I think there are a lot of interesting (and puzzling) things about this article. For one thing this is the first report that's been found mentioning Butchers' Row that was published before Sagar's death. I think it's also interesting that this is presented not as Sagar's personal theory, but as "the theory of the city police," and one which they were convinced was correct ("The police are satisfied as to the identity of the man"). This can be compared with other references to a theory which was accepted by a number of City detectives in a Daily Telegraph report from 1892 ("in the minds of many who are or were most deeply concerned in the investigation, it disposes of the necessity for a further search for the miscreant known as "Jack the Ripper."" - http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...33&postcount=2 ) and in Henry Cox's memoirs published in 1906 ("There were several other officers with me, and I think there can be no harm in stating that the opinion of most of them was that the man they were watching had something to do with the crimes").

Unlike the other reports, this one does specify that the suspect was a butcher by occupation, and the statement that he was believed to have gone to Australia and died there is also new. That might appear to conflict with the previously known claim that he had been put in a private asylum. On the other hand there is the description of him (also new) as "partly insane." Perhaps that can be compared to Henry Cox's statement about his suspect, that "from time to time he became insane, and was forced to spend a portion of his time in an asylum in Surrey." Perhaps these claims could be reconciled if the suspects visits to the asylum were all temporary ones.

I'm not sure what to make of the paragraph about the murder of Eddowes. It seems to me that Sagar's memory was probably at fault about the details. I think there are a couple of interesting parallels, though:

(1) There is the Sunday Chronicle report from later in 1905, in which an unnamed Scotland Yard detective says of a suspect, "His description agreed with that of a man seen in Dorset-street, Whitechapel, on the night when Mary Jane Kelly was cut to pieces, and at that time he was very near to actual arrest by a policeman." (http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...32&postcount=7 ) Apparently that relates to a different murder, but could there be some confusion between Kelly and Eddowes, based on the fact that Eddowes was sometimes called Kelly (as in this Sagar article, in fact)?

(2) In a way this narrative is also quite similar to what Sir Basil Thompson wrote about the murder of Coles, which he evidently confused with that of Eddowes: "One [suspect] was a Polish Jew reported by police constable Thompson, the one police officer who caught sight of the man in Mitre Court ... A young officer named Thompson was patrolling Chambers Street when a man came running out of Swallow Gardens towards him. ... Thompson turned into Swallow Gardens and almost stumbled over the mutilated body of Frances Coles." (http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...5&postcount=11 ) In fact, Thompson didn't really see a man running out of Swallow Gardens, but according to his evidence at the inquest he did hear the sound of retreating footsteps, and he did blow his whistle to summon help from other officers, just like the PC in Sagar's story.

[Monty]

Hey Rob,

I agree, however if Sagars memory lapsed on the matter of who blew the whistle then it is reasonable to question if it lapses elsewhere. After all, we know for a fact Watkins, nor any other City PC blew a whistle that night, ex Met PC Morris did.

Its an intriguing story however it doesnt make sense to me. I can understand why such a sighting was held back from inquest and subsequently the press however I see no reason for it not being mentioned in and official police file of the time, blitz damage accepted.

However that just my plain old view.

Monty

[robhouse]

Hi Monty,

The thing about the whistle seems to me to be an acceptable mistake, based on a simple memory lapse on Sagar's part. It was Morris the nightwatchman who blew his whistle. Sagar misremembered this detail, and has the PC blowing his whistle. This is (in my opinion) exactly the type of detail that is often confused in memory of an event.... because it is a minor detail, not of any importance to the story.

Sagar also gets the wording of the Graffito wrong. But again, this is probably simply how he remembered it, in summary form. He also gets the name of the victim wrong... although Eddowes gave the name Kelly at Bishopsgate station. Also, she was known as Kate Kelly, since she was dating John Kelly at the time of her death.

Rob

[Chris]

Here is an interesting article on Robert Sagar from the Seattle Daily Times of 4 February 1905 (available through www.genealogybank.com), which gives some additional details of his theory of the Ripper's identity:

I see the same article was actually posted by Howard Brown two months ago on jtrforums.com :

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=9885

[Monty]

I know Rob,

Just batting ideas around.

Two points made to me by others.

1) City PC was possibily Harvey, sighting on Duke St as Jack left the scene.

2) Sighting was possibly Pearce, who was a City PC.

Yeah, sure all the things about holding back info are plausible. However there seems to be a run of errors in this story.

Hey Phil,

Ive responded to your queries above on Hows site, feel free to copy over if you wish. Suffice to say, just my take.

Monty

[Monty]

As I pointed out in another thread, some City of London PCs were provided with whistles as early as 1887 - thus your comment that they were not issued whistles in 1888 is erronous. One need only check the City of London Police web site to settle the issue.

John

Onus on the some there. City Beat Bobbies, as stated on that very same thread, were NOT issued with whistles. They were only used during special ops, then not by the Bobbies themselves.

Certainly Watkins did not have one, he said that at inquest, he stated that 'they did not carry whistles'.

Another way to settle the issue is to speak to the Curator at the CoLP museum. Something I intend to do once she has returned from leave. As well as seeking the knowledge of Don.


Monty