Post #6, Comments on Roy Baker (for 11 Oct seminar)
I also commented on Ben's site and Dan's site
Someone is lying. Many are being less than truthful, either with intent to deceive, or by virtue of innocent mis-recollection. There is an uncanny preoccupation with precise timekeeping that is found throughout the testimony, and an equally ubiquitous predilection for malice. There are myriad small axes to grind, and, of course there is a murder.
The reading of the transcripts from the coroner’s inquest into the demise of Roy Baker offers an interesting reversal of the usual process. We are afforded the gist of the story, however veiled by the individual testimonies, without any context. Allusions to long-standing infighting, aborted desertion attempts, previous thefts, and identification of favorites by both the women of town and the men of the Fort prove a weak substitute for a working knowledge of the day to day activities and interrelationships between the two. Lacking that understanding, the cryptic nature of the allusions imbedded in the testimonies force a binary decision on the part of the reader. One can either dispassionately accept each assertion of fact at face value, or allow the suspect nature of the testimony – the incomplete tale, the imprecise recollection of time in contrast with more specific citations, the expectation that two individuals at the same brothel could not fail to notice each other, the decidedly personal reasons for not being completely forthcoming – to erase any chance of acceptance. What the reader is unable to reliably do, however, is perform as a “jury of your peers.”
Therein lies the rub of walking a mile in shoes that have sat dormant for over a century, and the challenge for the historian. Can any amount of research prepare me, or my contemporaries, to be a meaningful participant of an inquest into the murder of Roy Baker? Can we really know what the hidden back-story might be that explains actions, reactions and acceptance of late 19th century behavior? Or are we resigned to the role of voyeuristic spectator, surmising the portent or lack thereof as we examine each statement and action recounted (maybe it was common in the gaming houses and saloons of 1890 Laramie to stick another fellow in the chest with a knife without constituting the presumed attempted murder we ascribe such actions today)?
Someone is lying. Many are being less than truthful, either with intent to deceive, or by virtue of innocent mis-recollection. There is an uncanny preoccupation with precise timekeeping that is found throughout the testimony, and an equally ubiquitous predilection for malice. There are myriad small axes to grind, and, of course there is a murder.
The reading of the transcripts from the coroner’s inquest into the demise of Roy Baker offers an interesting reversal of the usual process. We are afforded the gist of the story, however veiled by the individual testimonies, without any context. Allusions to long-standing infighting, aborted desertion attempts, previous thefts, and identification of favorites by both the women of town and the men of the Fort prove a weak substitute for a working knowledge of the day to day activities and interrelationships between the two. Lacking that understanding, the cryptic nature of the allusions imbedded in the testimonies force a binary decision on the part of the reader. One can either dispassionately accept each assertion of fact at face value, or allow the suspect nature of the testimony – the incomplete tale, the imprecise recollection of time in contrast with more specific citations, the expectation that two individuals at the same brothel could not fail to notice each other, the decidedly personal reasons for not being completely forthcoming – to erase any chance of acceptance. What the reader is unable to reliably do, however, is perform as a “jury of your peers.”
Therein lies the rub of walking a mile in shoes that have sat dormant for over a century, and the challenge for the historian. Can any amount of research prepare me, or my contemporaries, to be a meaningful participant of an inquest into the murder of Roy Baker? Can we really know what the hidden back-story might be that explains actions, reactions and acceptance of late 19th century behavior? Or are we resigned to the role of voyeuristic spectator, surmising the portent or lack thereof as we examine each statement and action recounted (maybe it was common in the gaming houses and saloons of 1890 Laramie to stick another fellow in the chest with a knife without constituting the presumed attempted murder we ascribe such actions today)?
posted by john | 7:31 PM
3 Comments:
John, first off, reading your comments on my blog this morning nearly made me spit coffee out over the keyboard from laughing so hard. I needed that!
Like you, I decided I couldn't take much at face value, but I decided I could put more faith in something that was said by two or more people, especially under different circumstances. Just one random example: Rose and Kate both put Miller in Rose's bed all night, but I feel even better about that fact knowing that John Holoman also sees Miller stumbling out of Rose's room in the morning, preparing to get to post in time for reveille.
This sort of cross-referenced testimony is one of the reasons I don't think Parkison did it.
John, I thought your reminding us of our dearth of explanatory context, our "voyeuristic spectator" position (and, I would add, a basically innocent and uninformed one)are points well taken, well put, and important for us to keep in mind.
I really enjoyed your blog. This is a cool Website Check it out now by Clicking Here . I know that you will find this WebSite Very Interesting Every one wants a Free LapTop Computer!
Post a Comment
<< Home