The Bucks Row Project part 2

[Herlock Sholmes]

whilst I understand the need for legitimate sources and applying a methodology I sometimes feel Pierre that you believe that this case can be solved by simply applying some kind of methodological equation. X(confirmed by s) + y(confirmed by d and f) + z(confirmed by q +w) = Jack q.e.d. There comes a point in viewing historical events when we run out of 'provable facts and have to start making use of words like 'if' and 'maybe' or 'is it possible or likely that...' It's unavoidable but you seem completely averse to this. I see nothing wrong with using these words/phrases as long as it's clear that you are doing so and not presenting the conclusions drawn from them as definately proven facts.
When it comes to interpretations (for eg. conflicting statements) its difficult and often impossible to know whose version is the correct one. We can check for any corroboration, individual histories, context and likelihoods of bias but when these are scare it's is down to interpretation. Let's face it, we could have 2 statements, one has corroboration and one doesn't. It is still not absolutely certain that the one with corroboration is the correct one because 2 people can be as wrong as one.
The case is full of 'scenarios' that we try and sift through. We even modify them to see if they fit different outcomes. We have to accept that the unknown and unknowable exist and we have to work around them as best we can. This often requires 'creative thinking,' or (and this word might make you wince Pierre sorry) 'guesswork.'
I suppose that what I've tried to say is that 'sources' and 'methodology' are undoubtedly important they are not the be-all-and-end-all of
investigation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I haven't a clue how I managed to duplicate my last post, sorry.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;428123]

whilst I understand the need for legitimate sources and applying a methodology

That is good.

I sometimes feel Pierre that you believe that this case can be solved by simply applying some kind of methodological equation. X(confirmed by s) + y(confirmed by d and f) + z(confirmed by q +w) = Jack q.e.d.

On the contrary. That is pure logic. The social world is not ruled by logic. On the contrary.

There comes a point in viewing historical events when we run out of 'provable facts

And there we stand. So why start inventing facts? What is the use of a fawlty result? What is the joy of such?

and have to start making use of words like 'if' and 'maybe' or 'is it possible or likely that...'

But they have no value at all. That is the problem.

It's unavoidable

No. They are not determined to rule our thinking. They can be avoided.

but you seem completely averse to this.

Absolutely.

I see nothing wrong with using these words/phrases as long as it's clear that you are doing so and not presenting the conclusions drawn from them as definately proven facts.

You mean you see nothing wrong with this type of statement then:

Jack the Ripper was a gang of ruffians. They would have used the cattle boats. They came to London to use prostitutes. There are many articles about the cattle boats. If they were lucky they could use the boats systematically to get to London and then leave. They would have had to meet somewhere and probably they met in the pubs. So that is why they saw Kelly at the pub drinking, she had met them in the pub. And it is not impossible that they could have been the ones loitering close to Millerīs Court. It would have been characteristic for them to have knives. And also if they killed Tabram that would be since they had different types of knives, they would even have pen knives and bayonets sometimes.

And Charles Cross would have lied about his name since he was the killer and he also told Mizen there was a PC in Buckīs Row to clear himself. It is possible that he also told Paul, since psychopaths are very good at lying, in fact that is what they do. And Lechmere would have many reasons to lie, since he would have wanted to go on killing. But if his wife would get to know about it, if she saw his real name in the papers, she would have become suspicious. And if he was a psychopath he was the killer and if he was the killer he was a psychopath and that is why he is the best bid and that is why he fits the bill.

And blah. And blah. And blah.

Do you really think that is interesting?

When it comes to interpretations (for eg. conflicting statements) its difficult and often impossible to know whose version is the correct one.

But you see that problem is solved by using historical explanations and acchieving coherence. You can not, with one motive explanation, take the research all the way and get high coherence if the motive explanation is not valid!

We can check for any corroboration, individual histories, context and likelihoods of bias but when these are scare it's is down to interpretation.

Wrong. It is not "down to interpretation" in the sense of pure hermeneutics! It is not "down to interpretation" in the post modern sense of "any interpretations will do"! and "your truth is as good as mine"!

There are more or less valid and reliable results. And there are big differences between them. And again: What is the point of not representing the past?

Let's face it, we could have 2 statements, one has corroboration and one doesn't. It is still not absolutely certain that the one with corroboration is the correct one because 2 people can be as wrong as one.

Nonono. Now you are using your own "logic". That is not a scientific model even and it is not a paradigm for history. It has no contents, since it does not explain what "has corroboration" means. And "the two people can be wrong" is not a methodological tool but just a "common sense statement" and that is not a scientific tool.

The case is full of 'scenarios' that we try and sift through. We even modify them to see if they fit different outcomes.

And the key word in this situation must be the word HOW. I.e. with what methods.

We have to accept that the unknown and unknowable exist

I love the unknown and unknowable, it is a challenge.

and we have to work around them as best we can.

But do you think that IF, Wouldhave and "possibly" is "the best"?

I think it is the worst.

This often requires 'creative thinking,' or (and this word might make you wince Pierre sorry) 'guesswork.'

And the whole forum is full of guesswork. Nor just guesswork, but a lot. And that is OK, but when Steve claims to use "real science" - his own words (Hi Steve, sorry for speaking about you in the third person but what can I do now), that is when guesswork is not expected.

I suppose that what I've tried to say is that 'sources' and 'methodology' are undoubtedly important they are not the be-all-and-end-all of
investigation.

I like your thinking and often enjoy your posts. Thanks.

Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;428119]

The issue you have is that you appear to disagree over the intpretation of some of those sources.

No, the issue is I disagree over the interpretation of the non existing sources.

[Abby Normal]

Hi El

can you in a nut shell, please give me your summary analysis of the situation on all this?

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;428153]

No, the issue is I disagree over the interpretation of the non existing sources.

Pierre your continued refusal to accept the sources I quote exist, is highly amusing. So it is your interpretation of those sources NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS with is the reason for the disagreement.

Such debate is healthy.

Steve

[Elamarna]

And the whole forum is full of guesswork. Nor just guesswork, but a lot. And that is OK, but when Steve claims to use "real science" - his own words (Hi Steve, sorry for speaking about you in the third person but what can I do now), that is when guesswork is not expected.

Pierre,
My issue at present is that you do not know what I am actually going to suggest and accept or reject at this stage; has I have not yet given any actual details.
I have made some speculations and suggestions, however I have also made it clear that I do not nesicarilly believe those, they to a large degree are to try out ideas and to get responses and debate.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Hi El

can you in a nut shell, please give me your summary analysis of the situation on all this?

Hi Abby let me try an be as brief as possible.
The current debate is had the Police decided by the 19th September and possibly by the 17th which account of the exchange between the Carmen and Mizen they believed?

I believe there are strong indications in the Police reports that they had. Pierre responded by saying this was not so, my interpretation was wrong.

Of course the interesting thing about all of this is that I have yet to make any firm statements on anything or proposed any hypothesis as yet.

On the various sections of part 2, I made comments on possible interpretations, for the purpose of debate and to setup part 3.
Pierre seems to see these comments as a betrayal of what I have previously said. His idea of science and mine are very different, we are from different disciplines. Mine the natural sciences and his in history and sociology I think.

I must admit I am a little saddened by the posts, given I said I did not wish this type of debate until part 3. It is however of minor importance to what I will be posting later.

So it's onwards and upwards.


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;428157]

Pierre your continued refusal to accept the sources I quote exist, is highly amusing. So it is your interpretation of those sources NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS with is the reason for the disagreement.

Such debate is healthy.

Steve

It is not a refusal to accept existing sources, it is a refusal to accept non existing sources, Steve.

This is your hypothesis and I quote you:

I postulated that when Both Mizen and Cross gave their evidence, there was no clear picture as to the truth to what was said on the Morning of 31st. However the Police during their investigations came to a conclusion on this.
This is my interpretation of the Police Reports, you don't agree, so be it.

Your exact hypothesis is that

the Police during their investigations came to a conclusion on what was said on the Morning of 31st

and the sources you refer to are what you call

the Police Reports

These reports are to be found in The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook.

But there is not one single police report who even mentions any problem with contradictory statements or about a Cross telling Mizen about a policeman having been in Buckīs Row. Nowhere, Steve.

So what you have done here is that you assume that the police "came to a conclusion" without one single source for that.

Now, I can show you what the conclusion of the police actually was, Steve. And I can refer to a source for this conclusion. Here we go:

The police concluded that there was a policeman in Buckīs Row. And that policeman was PC Neil.

This is what you see in the MET source from 19th September:

Before Mizen arrived "Neil had discovered it".

You also see something else:

"They (the carmen) informed PC Mizen...". Not "he" but "they".

This is "the view of the police" you are discussing here. And note this, Steve:

It it not the "view of the police force" but the view of Swanson.

So what are you going to do with that view? As you can see, Swanson was thinking not in details but in general terms.

"Neil had discovered" it and "they informed".

Therefore, I must say that this source is actually hopeless to draw any conclusions from concearning specific idiographic details.

We have just the testimonies of Mizen and Cross, and then Paul. And they are in newspaper reports.

And we also have the referring to the physician and his descriptions.

But nowhere Steve, nowhere is there any small fragment where a conflict or contradiction between Mizen and Cross is referred to, not even if you use your imagination.

And do you know what I think about all this? I think we must be careful with these old sources. Donīt you agree?

Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;428234]

It is not a refusal to accept existing sources, it is a refusal to accept non existing sources, Steve.

This is your hypothesis and I quote you:



Your exact hypothesis is that

the Police during their investigations came to a conclusion on what was said on the Morning of 31st

and the sources you refer to are what you call

the Police Reports

These reports are to be found in The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook.

But there is not one single police report who even mentions any problem with contradictory statements or about a Cross telling Mizen about a policeman having been in Buckīs Row. Nowhere, Steve.

So what you have done here is that you assume that the police "came to a conclusion" without one single source for that.

Now, I can show you what the conclusion of the police actually was, Steve. And I can refer to a source for this conclusion. Here we go:

The police concluded that there was a policeman in Buckīs Row. And that policeman was PC Neil.

This is what you see in the MET source from 19th September:

Before Mizen arrived "Neil had discovered it".

You also see something else:

"They (the carmen) informed PC Mizen...". Not "he" but "they".

This is "the view of the police" you are discussing here. And note this, Steve:

It it not the "view of the police force" but the view of Swanson.

So what are you going to do with that view? As you can see, Swanson was thinking not in details but in general terms.

"Neil had discovered" it and "they informed".

Therefore, I must say that this source is actually hopeless to draw any conclusions from concearning specific idiographic details.

We have just the testimonies of Mizen and Cross, and then Paul. And they are in newspaper reports.

And we also have the referring to the physician and his descriptions.

But nowhere Steve, nowhere is there any small fragment where a conflict or contradiction between Mizen and Cross is referred to, not even if you use your imagination.

And do you know what I think about all this? I think we must be careful with these old sources. Donīt you agree?

Pierre

You read and anaylise the report incorrectly, in my view.
The report of the 19th is clear: it gives a brief account of the finding of the body by the Carmen then says Mizen left to go to Bucks Row; But before he arrived Neil had found it.

That means Neil found it after the Carmen left the scene. That is how the language works my friend.

The report therefore backs the account of the Carmen. And gives no mention of Mizen's account.

To say the report does not represent Police Opinion is to deny the obvious. It was an official report not intended for any but higher officials.

And by the way it is Abberline' s report not just Swanson's.

Indeed it says "they informed" and "Neil had discovered" but not in the order you present it.

You have transposed the statements, such give a misleading impression.


That you choose, and it is a choice, to read any anaylise the report differently and to attempt to dismiss it, is most telling.

It is a minor event, and is not central or even essential in my actual hypothesis.

Your continual view that your opinion is more valid than others is actually tiresome, however unlike others I do not get rude with you but answer politely and patiently.

Why can you not wait patiently to see what I actually say, not what you think I am going to say?

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;428251][QUOTE=Pierre;428234]

You read and anaylise the report incorrectly, in my view.
The report of the 19th is clear: it gives a brief account of the finding of the body by the Carmen then says Mizen left to go to Bucks Row; But before he arrived Neil had found it.

Exactly. Before Mizen arrived Neil had found it. Did I tell you anything else?

That means Neil found it after the Carmen left the scene. That is how the language works my friend.

Of course. Whatīs the problem, Steve? I wrote:

The police concluded that there was a policeman in Buckīs Row. And that policeman was PC Neil.

Was he not in Buckīs Row before Mizen?

Did Swanson say that Cross or Paul saw him? No.

Did he even mention the contradiction? No.

Did he say that Neil must have been the PC seen by Cross? No.

All he concluded was, as I said, that:

there was a policeman in Buckīs Row. And that policeman was PC Neil.

That is all, Steve. All we have from "the police". That is "The View" you are discussing.

The report therefore backs the account of the Carmen. And gives no mention of Mizen's account.

What "account from the carmen"?
The interview with Paul? Is that "the account"?
Or the newspaper articles from the inquest with Paul? Is that "the account?"
Or the statements of Cross saying he did not say anything about a policeman? Is that "the account"

What exactly is The Account (!) backed by Swanson in his report? Please tell me. You can take your pick from several! Which one do you choose?

To say the report does not represent Police Opinion is to deny the obvious. It was an official report not intended for any but higher officials.

OK. So now we have "Police Opinion". I said the police force, did I not?

The force. The whole force. They did not think like Swanson all of them or did they? Any sources for that? Any sources for a common, generalized Police Opinion, valid for all? Or for a percentage? How large? Or for "some"? Which ones? Any sources?

You see the terrible problem with your idea, Steve.

And by the way it is Abberline' s report not just Swanson's.

It is signed Donald S. Swanson, Ch: Inspector.

Indeed it says "they informed" and "Neil had discovered" but not in the order you present it.

You have transposed the statements, such give a misleading impression.

Donīt be silly. Anyone can read this source! Do not accuse me of misleading, Steve.

I am analyzing the source. That is why I take out specific phrases or words and discuss them. Such pieces are called "excerpts" in historical language because we take them out to analyze them. Nothing sinister with that and certainly not "misleading"!

That you choose, and it is a choice, to read any anaylise the report differently and to attempt to dismiss it, is most telling.

Telling of what? I have no interest in these sources, Steve. There are other things in the Nichols case that are interesting to me.

I do not "need" those sources. I can live without them! Happily!

It is a minor event, and is not central or even essential in my actual hypothesis.

Your continual view that your opinion is more valid than others is actually tiresome, however unlike others I do not get rude with you but answer politely and patiently.

Except from when you call me "misleading", Steve, when I use normal methods.

Why can you not wait patiently to see what I actually say, not what you think I am going to say?

For you it is a matter of waiting. But for me it is a matter or method. Sorry, Steve, but your method of "if", "would have" and "possible" and establishing historical facts on lack of sources or sources with no relevant content leads to anything goes.

THAT is the problem. Not your future result.

It is the way, Steve. Not the goal.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;428264][QUOTE=Elamarna;428251]

Exactly. Before Mizen arrived Neil had found it. Did I tell you anything else?


Of course. Whatīs the problem, Steve? I wrote:

The police concluded that there was a policeman in Buckīs Row. And that policeman was PC Neil.

Was he not in Buckīs Row before Mizen?

Did Swanson say that Cross or Paul saw him? No.

Did he even mention the contradiction? No.

Did he say that Neil must have been the PC seen by Cross? No.

All he concluded was, as I said, that:

there was a policeman in Buckīs Row. And that policeman was PC Neil.

That is all, Steve. All we have from "the police". That is "The View" you are discussing.



What "account from the carmen"?
The interview with Paul? Is that "the account"?
Or the newspaper articles from the inquest with Paul? Is that "the account?"
Or the statements of Cross saying he did not say anything about a policeman? Is that "the account"

What exactly is The Account (!) backed by Swanson in his report? Please tell me. You can take your pick from several! Which one do you choose?



OK. So now we have "Police Opinion". I said the police force, did I not?

The force. The whole force. They did not think like Swanson all of them or did they? Any sources for that? Any sources for a common, generalized Police Opinion, valid for all? Or for a percentage? How large? Or for "some"? Which ones? Any sources?

You see the terrible problem with your idea, Steve.



It is signed Donald S. Swanson, Ch: Inspector.



Donīt be silly. Anyone can read this source! Do not accuse me of misleading, Steve.

I am analyzing the source. That is why I take out specific phrases or words and discuss them. Such pieces are called "excerpts" in historical language because we take them out to analyze them. Nothing sinister with that and certainly not "misleading"!




Telling of what? I have no interest in these sources, Steve. There are other things in the Nichols case that are interesting to me.

I do not "need" those sources. I can live without them! Happily!



Except from when you call me "misleading", Steve, when I use normal methods.



For you it is a matter of waiting. But for me it is a matter or method. Sorry, Steve, but your method of "if", "would have" and "possible" and establishing historical facts on lack of sources or sources with no relevant content leads to anything goes.

THAT is the problem. Not your future result.

It is the way, Steve. Not the goal.

Pierre

PIERRE
You do not know what arguments I am going to present, or if I will use the terms you say are unacceptable. Instead you critise a few comments I have made here to encourage debate.
And it is not for you to say what arguments we may make or which words we use. Something's never change do they my friend such has your elitism.

Your view of 31st August from what one can tell is based on accepting Mizen told the truth.
I will explain why I feel this is a false premise, not based on "if" or "what" or the testimony of Paul and certainly nothing to do with Thain and the slaughter men.
I will however give the alternative theories, such as the classic scam and your take on it too.
It will then be left for the reader to make up their mind. I suspect that probably appalls you, as the readers are not historians.



And No the 19th September Report is signed by both Swanson and Abberline, not just Swanson has you have now twice said.

We disagree over the interpretation my friend accept such and live with it.


I guess you can tell my patient is wearing thin.
I have no issue with this sort of attack when I present my Hypothesis, indeed I expect far worse. However I did specifically ask that we did not descend to this before that point. And you have disrespected that request.

Steve

[MysterySinger]

Why are we using the word "has" instead of "as" in these posts?

[Elamarna]

Why are we using the word "has" instead of "as" in these posts?

Auto correct/predictive text on my phone.
I do try and manually correct if i notice it. Think you will find I did once on my last post but missed another occurrence.
A quick check of the last 7 or so posts show 3 missed I think.
Yes it is annoying I agree, please accept my apologies MS, will try and check more .


Steve

[John G]

Why are we using the word "has" instead of "as" in these posts?

Is this grammatically correct? Surely you mean "why are you", not "why are we."