The Bucks Row Project part 2

[Elamarna]

update on Bucks Row Project.

Hi all

It is with regret and some embarrassment that I have to inform members that my work will not be completed by the date I previously said.
There is simply too much to work through and write up. In reality we are looking at something very large, a book maybe. I hope to have finished by the end of January and post a summary report at that stage. And this is despite the fact I am doing this full time.

I am truly sorry for the delay in publishing my conclusion. However i may post an additional section I had not planned in the meantime, say part 3A. Not sure yet but it is a possability.


Thanks for your patience.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Thank you Jonathan.

That clears that up I think.

Steve

[jmenges]

Which page are you speaking about in the sourcebook, Steve?

No idea as I have the kindle version, however the relevant text is copied at the bottom of Report 10 in the police section, I think you have missed it somehow.
the intro to the report in the source book reads:

"In a lengthy (15-page) Metropolitan Police report13 from the Criminal Investigation Department, Scotland Yard, dated 19 September 1888, by Inspector Frederick G. Abberline, details of this investigation are given and of the Nichols murder:"


The report ends:

"Ch InsprSwanson.
F.G. Abberline Inspr.
Plan to A.C. CID.
JohnShoreSupt."

The 19 September report is MEPO 3/140 pages 242-256 and available for anyone to see on the National Archives website. I save you some time by posting the first and last pages of the report, signed just as the Sourcebook says it is.





JM

[Elamarna]

Offer of searchable witness source data.

I did say I would release the witness statement tables and I am now able to do that. The files are in the form of searchable Pc's and the posted tables minus my comments.
The total size of the files is approx 1.4megs. There is of course no charge at all.
If anyone is interested drop me a pm and I will email the the files.

Cheers


Steve

[Elamarna]

STEVE (!),

You are now reducing methodological problems to "who is to say what arguments we use" and to "elitism".

Whatever you think about my comments, they are relevant. It is a matter of methodology. So, if you think methodology is not relevant, just say so.

Not at all, methodology is important we out such when cannot show how one reaches conclusions.

I see. It is "entertainment" again. OK. So it is now clear that you have not chosen "real science" which you told us you would. OK.

So perhaps Fisherman is better than you? At least he does no claim to use "science" without doing just that. Actually, I think he is looking better and better as a ripperologist!

Who has mentioned entertainment? However your comment says much.

Given that I have not actually presented any of my views yet, you comment is somewhat premature..

Which page are you speaking about in the sourcebook, Steve?

No idea as I have the kindle version, however the relevant text is copied at the bottom of Report 10 in the police section, I think you have missed it somehow.
the intro to the report in the source book reads:

"In a lengthy (15-page) Metropolitan Police report13 from the Criminal Investigation Department, Scotland Yard, dated 19 September 1888, by Inspector Frederick G. Abberline, details of this investigation are given and of the Nichols murder:"


The report ends:

"Ch InsprSwanson.
F.G. Abberline Inspr.
Plan to A.C. CID.
JohnShoreSupt."

Ah! So now the questions posed and the criticism is an "attack"!

Very telling, Steve. One is no allowed to discuss your "methods", then one is accused of attacking.

Not true,I have made it clear several times that I have not presented my ideas or my methodology yet, something you seem to fail to grasp.

A comment saying one disagrees was what I was looking for, which would be noted and taken on board for part 3.
Instead you appear to want to have a full debate when you are not aware of what conclusion or suggestions will be presented or how those conclusions will be arrived at, you are guessing, and guessing incorrectly.

"Disrespected" Steve? In this very post you say:

Instead you critise a few comments I have made here to encourage debate.

And now you have this debate, you have encouraged me - and you tell me it is wrong?

It was made clear that this in depth type of debate was not expected or needed for this section.
I asked for comments, which you made, and for which I was grateful, I disagreed with some of those comments and said so, the aim was once we had registered disagreement, it would be left for later debate, given that I HAD NOT ACTUALLY PRESENTED ANY OF MY HYPOTHESIS.


I can only assume that for some reason you have completely misunderstood the purpose of some of those comments I made. I have said things I do not necessarily believe and certainly do not intend to use in any future debate.

steve

[Pierre]

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

I have no problem at all with that, Steve. I understand what you mean.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;428300][QUOTE=Pierre;428264][QUOTE=Elamarna;428251]

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.

STEVE (!),

You are now reducing methodological problems to "who is to say what arguments we use" and to "elitism".

Whatever you think about my comments, they are relevant. It is a matter of methodology. So, if you think methodology is not relevant, just say so.

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.

I see. It is "entertainment" again. OK. So it is now clear that you have not chosen "real science" which you told us you would. OK.

So perhaps Fisherman is better than you? At least he does no claim to use "science" without doing just that. Actually, I think he is looking better and better as a ripperologist!

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

Which page are you speaking about in the sourcebook, Steve?

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

Indeed.

I guess you can tell my patient is wearing thin.
I have no issue with this sort of attack

Ah! So now the questions posed and the criticism is an "attack"!

Very telling, Steve. One is no allowed to discuss your "methods", then one is accused of attacking.

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.

"Disrespected" Steve? In this very post you say:

Instead you critise a few comments I have made here to encourage debate.

And now you have this debate, you have encouraged me - and you tell me it is wrong?

Pierre

[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."

[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

[MysterySinger]

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

[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

[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;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;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]

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