The Bucks Row Project part 2

[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]

[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

[Abby Normal]

Hi El

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

[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.

[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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

[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]

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.

[Elamarna]

But there are no sources for:

- Where are the sources with statements about reaching any conclusion?

- Where are the sources with police discussions?

- Where did they reach the conclusion?

- Are there any sources for a physical place in the past where it was actually reached??

- Who reached the conclusion?

- Are there any sources for living persons in the past saying things about it?

- WHERE and BY WHOM are the "contrary statements" discussed, Steve?

- In what sources?

I can tell you the answer, Steve:

NOWHERE and BY NO ONE is that in ANY source.

Sorry i believe you are incorrect in your intreptation of the sources.

The Police reports in September and October not only exclude any mention of Mizen's claim, they both to varing degrees support and repeat the alternative view.
The refusal to accept that the sources do this somewhat strange.

However there appear to be no sources at all which say they, the Police accepted the account of Mizen!
If you believe there is please point these sources out?

You have just invented a little scenario for yourself to "fit" your own ideas.

You have done that on "the silence of the sources" and on "lack of sources".

It seems we are getting more and more problems here.

Why you, Steve?

You claimed you had "real science".

I thought you would do better than the rest of the ripperologists.

Pierre

There are no problems here at all Pierre; other than perhaps one for the policeman theory.
On that we will have to wait and see.

The polite put down is of no concern to me, I am using the sources and looking at the possible intpretations of such.
One has to take an overview, looking at and analysing many different sources before one can form ideas based on the interpretation of such sources.

The issue you have is that you appear to disagree over the intpretation of some of those sources.
Of course we both beleive we are correct on this.

Rather than this continual ping pong exchange of whose interpretation is superior to the others, which of course is pointless in itself has that is a matter of personal opinion, why not wait until I give the full details of my work, rather than guessing what it will actually say.

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;428063]

But there are my dear Pierre!

You have been provided with sources for this suggestion, you refuse to accept such, so be it.

The suggestion that Lechmere lied, did see a policeman and told Mizen such, is however a view which sources suggest was NOT the view the Police subscribed to by the 19th.

Steve

But there are no sources for:

the POLICE had reached a conclusion over the contrary statements about the exchange between the Carmen and Mizen, before Paul attended the inquested and certainly before the POLICE report 19th September.

- Where are the sources with statements about reaching any conclusion?

- Where are the sources with police discussions?

- Where did they reach the conclusion?

- Are there any sources for a physical place in the past where it was actually reached??

- Who reached the conclusion?

- Are there any sources for living persons in the past saying things about it?

- WHERE and BY WHOM are the "contrary statements" discussed, Steve?

- In what sources?

I can tell you the answer, Steve:

NOWHERE and BY NO ONE is that in ANY source.

You have just invented a little scenario for yourself to "fit" your own ideas.

You have done that on "the silence of the sources" and on "lack of sources".

It seems we are getting more and more problems here.

Why you, Steve?

You claimed you had "real science".

I thought you would do better than the rest of the ripperologists.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;428058]

But there is no evidence for a "conclusion over contrary statements".

So what is the point of this talk?

Basing "what fits your own ideas" on no sources. Why Steve?

Pierre

But there are my dear Pierre!

You have been provided with sources for this suggestion, you refuse to accept such, so be it.

The suggestion that Lechmere lied, did see a policeman and told Mizen such, is however a view which sources suggest was NOT the view the Police subscribed to by the 19th.

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;427971]

However the above statement does fit well with the suggestion that the POLICE had reached a conclusion over the contrary statements about the exchange between the Carmen and Mizen, before Paul attended the inquested and certainly before the POLICE report 19th September.

But there is no evidence for a "conclusion over contrary statements".

So what is the point of this talk?

Basing "what fits your own ideas" on no sources. Why Steve?

Pierre

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Steve,

I don't recall whether it was on here or the forum where someone thought that I was being ridiculous when I said the CL would have been desperate to get to work on time. My point was that he didn't allow himself enough time to hunt, kill, clean up etc before getting to work on time. Also that it would have been understandable if they had lied to Mizen(not saying they did of course) so that they could clock in on time.
I just noticed your last post that Paul said that he had to pay someone to do his work or he'd have lost his job! It illustrates how tough times were, how easy it was for a boss to sack a worker and how important it was for someone to get to work on time.

[Elamarna]

Bucks Row Project Part 2 post 3a--- Paul





I have suddenly realised a very important witness statement was not included in the original Table for Robert Paul. I can only apologise for this oversight, it was included in the first draft but somehow was missing from the final Table.

This missing report is now posted above as Report 12. It is of course the Lloyds Weekly News Statement 30th September 1888.
This explains how Paul came to appear at the inquest on the 17th September, it strongly suggest that the POLICE took some time to locate Paul and that he was interviewed several days before he appeared at the inquest. Some have suggested he was in fact arrested and detained; this is however disputed.
This will be discussed in Part 3.
However the above statement does fit well with the suggestion that the POLICE had reached a conclusion over the contrary statements about the exchange between the Carmen and Mizen, before Paul attended the inquested and certainly before the POLICE report 19th September.

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;427759]

No problem Steve. And of course the questions are relevant for the case, and it is not a matter of personal conflict or trying to be better than others.

It is a matter of scientific approaches and about generating knowledge with academic methods.

Cheers, Pierre

Pierre,
I relied to your post before reading the above.
I honestly think you have not understood this at all, you are talking about things I have not yet completed,
The only issues I am clear on are the blood evidence, and the Scam.

The blood evidence is based on Science.
the scam, on data i have not yet spoken about directly, it has been mentioned, but in no detail at all. it is based on source data, geographical data, and can be supported if i wish by timings, but as i have said previously these while suggestive are not conclusive of 100% reliable, but they do none the less support the source data. At present has i have already said, i will not use them in the main argument, but will probably supply them as an appendix for any who wish to read them.

All other issues I am still working on, some of the comments you have made over the months have been very useful in clarifying what is and is not viable and important.

I am just really surprised you have taken this stance, when i have not yet made my arguments or even presented my case.



Steve





and i do feel it is a shame that you use the Historians give better interpretation than non historian, which is what you said in your previous long post, perhaps it was frustration, maybe I am not writting in the langiage you expect,