The Nature of Evidence

[Henry Flower]

Steve, I am getting a little worried. "Look at", what does it mean? Did you use some analyze method(s), if so which one(s)?



Awareness in 1888 not measurable in this case? So what is the material for this interpretation?



OK. One can consider things in the past as being "unlikely" but of course we can not give a measurement for likelyhood in such cases, or at least seldom.

And also Steve, "the timings involved": you have been analyzing the regulations of police beats if I am not wrong?

Then of course we have the very known historical problem of "normativity", i.e. you have used normative sources. This type of sources give the norm / the rules / the regulations / the law - but the problem is we do not know that they were followed in the individual case.

We do not even have statistics for the general following of the police beat regulations (in this case).

So how reliable will your history writing about the "timings involved" be?



OK. So the first attempt to establish an historical fact is based on one, two, how many, sources referring to statements from the carmen?

Are these sources reliable?

And then "Neil would have been...". I think you see the problem here. Fisherman often presents what I call the Wouldhaves.

Are you going to make your research in the same way as Fisherman?

Very sorry for questions, but I think it will be wise to discuss the methodology when one is spending so much time and work on the case as you do, Steve.

And perhaps all my questions are irrelevant for your research.

Cheers, Pierre

Pierre, looking back over the many theories, ideas, and hypotheses you have proposed on the boards over the past year or so, I find it nearly impossible to believe you have applied these same high standards anything like as rigorously to your own work as you have, so eagerly and persistently, to the work of others.

A healthy debate over methodology is never unwelcome. But when someone consistently takes outrageous liberties with sources in their own work, and then pops up like some school prefect demanding absolute integrity to the highest possible standards from everyone else - well, if you think that through honestly you might come to see why so many people have stated they now routinely ignore anything you write.

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;423386]

Steve, I am getting a little worried. "Look at", what does it mean? Did you use some analyze method(s), if so which one(s)?

No I just considered if I believed it was likely they would have seen each other as the beats passed each other; however given their relative positions in the sources I concluded it was improbable they could have seen each other on that occasion.

Awareness in 1888 not measurable in this case? So what is the material for this interpretation?

Fair question. The beats are not exactly 30 minutes, but approximately, it follows that with natural variations in beat walking over a night there is a high degree of possibility that the officers will see each other where beats intersect on occasions. This is of course more so if the officers do the beats regularly such as nightly.


OK. One can consider things in the past as being "unlikely" but of course we can not give a measurement for likelyhood in such cases, or at least seldom.

I agree.

And also Steve, "the timings involved": you have been analyzing the regulations of police beats if I am not wrong?

Yes

Then of course we have the very known historical problem of "normativity", i.e. you have used normative sources. This type of sources give the norm / the rules / the regulations / the law - but the problem is we do not know that they were followed in the individual case.

We do not even have statistics for the general following of the police beat regulations (in this case).

So how reliable will your history writing about the "timings involved" be?

It will not be exact. Certainly not to the second. It uterlizises ranges rather than exact, so to a degree allowing for the unusual or deviations.
In addition all timings are derived from the sources and where possible from sources from more than one individual.

OK. So the first attempt to establish an historical fact is based on one, two, how many, sources referring to statements from the carmen?
Are these sources reliable?


Only the inquest testimony of Neil, Mizen, Thain and Lechmere is directly involved to any degree in the New Scam.


And then "Neil would have been...". I think you see the problem here. Fisherman often presents what I call the Wouldhaves.

Are you going to make your research in the same way as Fisherman?


I am well aware of the problems, that is why I do not say that something is certain, only that the sources back a suggest and allow one to prove an hypothesis.
For example my take on Neil's position when the Carmen walk down Bucks Row is not that he must have been at point A; only that point A is the the closest he could have been.
One needs to use several sources to reach that point.

Very sorry for questions, but I think it will be wise to discuss the methodology when one is spending so much time and work on the case as you do, Steve.

Yes I fully agree and have reassed several times, discounting something's due to the variable nature of their reliability.

And perhaps all my questions are irrelevant for your research.

Cheers, Pierre

I think they are relevant, they mean I remain focused.
Indeed the issue which lead me to my new position was something I had to check both the validity and reliability of, I was unsure if my interpretation was actually possible.
It was only when I proved the hypothesis was possible and then failed to disprove it that I changed my mind.


Steve

[FrankO]

However I consider it unlikely he would have heard or seen Neil, given the timings involved. Mizen had just come from old Montague street according to the Carmen. Neil would have been in that area approx 9 to 10 minutes before that.

I think you’re right, Steve. Neil had passed Hanbury Street more than just a few minutes before Mizen spoke to Lechmere. I had forgotten that Neil’s beat also included Queen Ann Street and he was very likely in the most northern part of Queen Ann Street or perhaps Elizabeth Place when the carmen passed Queen Ann Street on Buck's Row. While there, he wouldn’t have seen the carmen pass the southern end of Q. Ann Street.

My guess, however, is that this would be less than the 9 or 10 minutes you suggest, but rather 6 or 7. But that’s of minor importance here.

All the best,
Frank

[Elamarna]

I think you’re right, Steve. Neil had passed Hanbury Street more than just a few minutes before Mizen spoke to Lechmere. I had forgotten that Neil’s beat also included Queen Ann Street and he was very likely in the most northern part of Queen Ann Street or perhaps Elizabeth Place when the carmen passed Queen Ann Street on Buck's Row. While there, he wouldn’t have seen the carmen pass the southern end of Q. Ann Street.

My guess, however, is that this would be less than the 9 or 10 minutes you suggest, but rather 6 or 7. But that’s of minor importance here.

All the best,
Frank

I place Neil just above the bend on the way back down Queen Ann, so that explains the difference. However I can live with him being in the upper part of Queen Ann.


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Henry Flower;423394]

Pierre, looking back over the many theories, ideas, and hypotheses you have proposed on the boards over the past year or so, I find it nearly impossible to believe you have applied these same high standards anything like as rigorously to your own work as you have, so eagerly and persistently, to the work of others.

Hi Henry,

most of what I have been discussing on the forum belongs to one category and what I have not been discussing to another category. I think you understand the reason for this.

A healthy debate over methodology is never unwelcome. But when someone consistently takes outrageous liberties with sources in their own work,

I don´t. But discussing very specific sources and questions from all kinds of perspectives on the forum is fun!

and then pops up like some school prefect demanding absolute integrity to the highest possible standards from everyone else - well, if you think that through honestly you might come to see why so many people have stated they now routinely ignore anything you write.

And that is fine with me. I have not written much of importance here.

Cheers, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;423397]

I think they are relevant, they mean I remain focused.
Indeed the issue which lead me to my new position was something I had to check both the validity and reliability of, I was unsure if my interpretation was actually possible.
It was only when I proved the hypothesis was possible and then failed to disprove it that I changed my mind.


Steve

Thanks Steve.

And your comments are important, since you have said you want to use real science and Fisherman has criticized that expression if I remember correctly.

Pierre

[Henry Flower]

Hi Henry,

most of what I have been discussing on the forum belongs to one category and what I have not been discussing to another category. I think you understand the reason for this.



I don´t. But discussing very specific sources and questions from all kinds of perspectives on the forum is fun!



And that is fine with me. I have not written much of importance here.

Cheers, Pierre

Thanks Pierre. Fair enough.

I understand now: you keep your 'serious' research off the boards, and don't write much of 'importance' here. In other words, on the forum you are free to play with secondary ideas - the Queen Mary portrait, the Gogmagog letter, the policeman's hat / sailors cap confusion, the misreading of Tennyson, the timing of the resignation letter, Juwes / Judges - the list goes on and on - and on all of these 'secondary' issues you feel free to form hypotheses unsupported by anything but the most tenuously subjective inferences tortured from the sources, and work from hunches about 'tendencies', and you choose when to deem a source 'unreliable'. And it's 'fun'.

But others should not do that. Others should always apply to their work here the standards you reserve solely for your private, serious research.

And for that reason the could-haves and might-haves that inform so many of your ideas here are absolutely acceptable, but when other people explore could-haves or might-haves in their own work, you are justified in telling them they're doing history wrong.

Thanks for clearing that up for me Pierre.

Have a good day.

[Pierre]

Thanks Pierre. Fair enough.

I understand now: you keep your 'serious' research off the boards, and don't write much of 'importance' here. In other words, on the forum you are free to play with secondary ideas - the Queen Mary portrait, the Gogmagog letter, the policeman's hat / sailors cap confusion, the misreading of Tennyson, the timing of the resignation letter, Juwes / Judges - the list goes on and on - and on all of these 'secondary' issues you feel free to form hypotheses unsupported by anything but the most tenuously subjective inferences tortured from the sources, and work from hunches about 'tendencies', and you choose when to deem a source 'unreliable'. And it's 'fun'.

But others should not do that. Others should always apply to their work here the standards you reserve solely for your private, serious research.

And for that reason the could-haves and might-haves that inform so many of your ideas here are absolutely acceptable, but when other people explore could-haves or might-haves in their own work, you are justified in telling them they're doing history wrong.

Thanks for clearing that up for me Pierre.

Have a good day.

On the contrary. Other posters are free to write what they want.

Pierre

[Pcdunn]

"New evidence" extending the inquest?

Of course Fish we really have nothing to say when he approached the authorities do we?

We know when he appeared at the inquest, however as far as I am aware there are no records of when he first made contact. Yes it may have been after the Lloyds article but then again it could have been before,
Of course you know that by the use of "seemingly".

Steve

I've suggested before that the reason Abberline asked for the inquest to be extended until Monday was because Cross had contacted the authorities. However, it does seem as if the coroner and jury wanted additional people brought forth:

From the Press Reports, here at Casebook: Daily News, 3 September, 1888-- " This being the whole of the evidence to be taken that day, Inspector Abberline asked for an adjournment of some length,, as certain things were coming to the knowledge of the police, and they wished for time to make inquiries.

The coroner replied that he should like to hear on Monday the two butchers who had been referred to, as well as evidence as to the departure of the deceased from the situation at Wandsworth.

Inspector Abberline - The butchers have been summoned.

Inspector Helsby remarked that the deceased's departure from her situation at Wandsworth had to do with a case of larceny. The evidence for which the Coroner asked should be produced. A juryman - Can we have the husband?

Inspector Abberline - Yes, sir.

The inquest was then adjourned till today (Monday)"

Was Cross the "new evidence" in the case? (I've been told, no-- but it makes sense to me...)

[Pcdunn]

Hi Fish, hope you have had a good few days.

It follows that just because Neil was still saying he was the finder on the Sunday evening it does not exclude Lechmere from having already made contact with the authorities.

Steve

Yes! Thank you, Steve! That's my viewpoint too!

[Pcdunn]

Hi Patrick
I don't know if it would even be a list though. The only ones I can think of are the soldier that was with Tabram and blotchy.

Batty Street Lodger -- the supposed "American Doctor" -- he was not identified.

[Pcdunn]

As Osgood says, "Well, nobody's perfect!"

Right... Or was that Zygon Osgood?

Back on topic, I had a thought about all the people surrounding the crime scenes who all claimed they heard nothing while sleeping: life and work was much harder in that time and place, and perhaps people really did sleep much more soundly than many of us do in the 21st century.

[drstrange169]

>>It follows that just because Neil was still saying he was the finder on the Sunday evening...<<

Pedantic point, but important, Neil did not ever claim to be the finder.

He never makes any claim that he was the first, only that he was not alerted to the body by two men.

Plus, what evidence is there that he was "still saying" on Sunday evening?

How do we know he was was not asked this question on Saturday, when the story of two men finding the body and alerting him, broke?

And finally, there is the conundrum of Mizen's apparent denial of "seeing anything of interest" in that same report.

All in all, a curious report by the Daily News. And one that needs to be approached with a certain amount of caution.

[drstrange169]

Hello Pat,

>>Back on topic, I had a thought about all the people surrounding the crime scenes who all claimed they heard nothing while sleeping: life and work was much harder in that time and place, and perhaps people really did sleep much more soundly than many of us do in the 21st century<<

In the case of Mrs. Nichols murder, both Mrs's Green and Purkis claimed to be poor sleepers, in Pukis's case actually awake most of the night.

[Elamarna]

>>It follows that just because Neil was still saying he was the finder on the Sunday evening...<<

Pedantic point, but important, Neil did not ever claim to be the finder.

He never makes any claim that he was the first, only that he was not alerted to the body by two men.

Plus, what evidence is there that he was "still saying" on Sunday evening?

How do we know he was was not asked this question on Saturday, when the story of two men finding the body and alerting him, broke?

And finally, there is the conundrum of Mizen's apparent denial of "seeing anything of interest" in that same report.

All in all, a curious report by the Daily News. And one that needs to be approached with a certain amount of caution.

Dusty we are obviously both assuming this is the source Fish is refering to; I have asked Fish to clarify once he returns from his break, as I can find no direct report which confirms his statement.

The assumption that the comments from Neil are from the night before can only be based on the paragraph starting with :
"Inspector Helson at an interview yesterday evening". There appears to be nothing to say Neil's comments are given at the same time.

It is indeed a interesting report in very many ways.

It repeats the short beat story, with no indication of the source; this story is contradicted by the Echo 21st September, that version does indeed fit with the timings.

The point you make on Mizen is however the most interesting, for 1 it also includes Thain who swore he saw two men walking down Brady street and obviously if the report is accurate Mizen is denying meeting with the Carmen, there is really no other way of interpreting it.

Steve