Jack's housing arrangements

[Pierre]

Pierre

So you hypothesis that they have been living within a few hundred yards, at most of each other, for a reasonable amount of time, yet did not know each other by sight?
If he did not know Arnold, why did he approach him?
Or is it pure coincidence that they were also living close to each other?

regards

Steve

If Arnold had known the man he would

1) have told the press and the police who the man was. But the man would not have wanted that so he could not have known Arnold.

or

2) not have contacted them at all. And since this was what the man wanted him to do he could not have known him.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

If Arnold had known the man he would

1) have told the press and the police who he was. But the man would not have wanted that so he could not have known Arnold.

or

2) not have contacted them at all. And since this was what the man wanted him to do he could not have known him.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre

that is not necessarily so, it is your view, which i have no problem with at all.

So it was a pure coincidence that he chose him then?


steve

[Pierre]

Pierre

that is not necessarily so, it is your view, which i have no problem with at all.

So it was a pure coincidence that he chose him then?

steve

Arnold wasn´t certain he could ID him.

[jerryd]

So Pierre, Why King William Street?

[Elamarna]

Arnold wasn´t certain he could ID him.

Pierre,

That does not answer the coincidence question.

Was it a coincidence?

Also have you not been arguing on another thread that Arnold was put under pressure to change his account; if so how can you them suggested he was not sure?

Steve

[Pierre]

Pierre,

That does not answer the coincidence question.

Was it a coincidence?

Also have you not been arguing on another thread that Arnold was put under pressure to change his account; if so how can you them suggested he was not sure?

Steve

Steve,

I find your questions a bit strange. "Coincidence" - do you mean that Arnold was contacted without a purpose? Or I guess you mean that he was chosen randomly? The effect of the choice was visible in the newspapers and later on in the police papers.

And the question of whether Arnold was put under pressure - we can only, by the external source criticism, hypothesize about the function of the source. The function was to give the statement to the police without accusing the police. Obviously that is what the police source does. We can never "see behind" the source, i.e. the provenance of the source is not transparent to us.

We only have the source and not the full situation of the production of it. But from an existing source we can draw the conclusions that if a witness already, in other sources, had told the police or/and the press about X and did not do the same in another important source there can be a problem with the source.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Steve,

I find your questions a bit strange. "Coincidence" - do you mean that Arnold was contacted without a purpose? Or I guess you mean that he was chosen randomly? The effect of the choice was visible in the newspapers and later on in the police papers.

Pierre,

please stop being so obtuse, it does not work on me as you should know by now.

Even above, you have not attempted to answer the second choice which you gave, which of course is the wrong question anyway!

The question was two part and was:

"If he did not know Arnold, why did he approach him?
Or is it pure coincidence that they were also living close to each other?



That must be easy to answer, yes or no."

And the question of whether Arnold was put under pressure - we can only, by the external source criticism, hypothesize about the function of the source. The function was to give the statement to the police without accusing the police. Obviously that is what the police source does. We can never "see behind" the source, i.e. the provenance of the source is not transparent to us.

We only have the source and not the full situation of the production of it. But from an existing source we can draw the conclusions that if a witness already, in other sources, had told the police or/and the press about X and did not do the same in another important source there can be a problem with the source.

Does that answer the question I asked, i am not sure at all?

"Also have you not been arguing on another thread that Arnold was put under pressure to change his account; if so how can you them suggested he was not sure?"


To clarify, you say they did not know each other, Arnold said he could not id the police officer, but if he was under pressure to change his account, can the fact he claimed he could not id be taken as truthful?

If he was put under pressure, and you are far from being able to argue such to the level of remote probability, how do we know what’s real and what is not?

regards

|Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;383945]Pierre,

please stop being so obtuse, it does not work on me as you should know by now.

Even above, you have not attempted to answer the second choice which you gave, which of course is the wrong question anyway!

The question was two part and was:

"If he did not know Arnold, why did he approach him?
Or is it pure coincidence that they were also living close to each other?



That must be easy to answer, yes or no."

How could it be easy to answer the question "why did he approach him"? The people you are trying to pose questions to are dead.

"Pure coincidence" - yes. There are no sources suggesting anything else.

Does that answer the question I asked, i am not sure at all?

"Also have you not been arguing on another thread that Arnold was put under pressure to change his account; if so how can you them suggested he was not sure?"


To clarify, you say they did not know each other, Arnold said he could not id the police officer, but if he was under pressure to change his account, can the fact he claimed he could not id be taken as truthful?

We can not know this. If the tendency in the source is to erase the profession of the man he said he saw and this tendency is due to the motive of the police to protect the police organisation, the statement of the ID could be affected by that tendency. But since he never in any other source claimed to know the man, the question bout the tendency effecting his statement about the possibility to ID the man is probably redundant or not relevant.

If he was put under pressure, and you are far from being able to argue such to the level of remote probability, how do we know what’s real and what is not?

regards

|Steve

We should go by the internal and external source criticism and compare the tendency and the functions of the sources. The core of the change in the last source is the change of profession. This is correlated to the provenance of the source, the external source situation, where the police is the producer of this source. The change happens in relation to that production. The tendency is to describe a soldier instead of a police officer, so it is not just some simple erasing but a change and replacement of profession. Then the question about the possibility of giving an ID is not just secondary but of little interest.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

How could it be easy to answer the question "why did he approach him"? The people yo
u are trying to pose questions to are dead.

Please read the whole question, it needs to be viewed as a whole.

It was possible you had a reason from your data which you were not willing to disclose.

"Pure coincidence" - yes. There are no sources suggesting anything else.

Thank you, why not say that several posts ago? It would save much of this back and forth stuff.

We can not know this. If the tendency in the source is to erase the profession of the man he said he saw and this tendency is due to the motive of the police to protect the police organisation, the statement of the ID could be affected by that tendency. But since he never in any other source claimed to know the man, the question bout the tendency effecting his statement about the possibility to ID the man is probably redundant or not relevant.

Pierre,

How can it be irrelevant when you claim he is a police officer?
A claim which Arnold changed.
Of course it is relevant. You can say it is not, as much as you like my friend.

And there is no tendency to erase, the 3 arguments you have put forward on the other thread are all seriously flawed, but that’s another thread.

We should go by the internal and external source criticism and compare the tendency and the functions of the sources. The core of the change in the last source is the change of profession. This is correlated to the provenance of the source, the external source situation, where the police is the producer of this source. The change happens in relation to that production. The tendency is to describe a soldier instead of a police officer, so it is not just some simple erasing but a change and replacement of profession. Then the question about the possibility of giving an ID is not just secondary but of little interest.

You have shown nothing other than your own belief in Arnold being pressured to change his story, it is at best wishful thinking on your part and at worst.......
The idea of a mass conspiracy grows does it not.

The possibility of an id is of little interest? who to? certainly not the press! Probably not the police!

I say probable not the police because it seems possible that Arnold was a fantasist, someone who wanted to be heard.
And of course he claims to have been approached after drinking, any statements or accounts in those circumstances need to be considered very carefully.

It is clear we will not agree on this, so I see little point in continuing the debate on that point, if you wish to I will reply.

However to get back to an item which some of us do find of interest and which you have avoided answering.

you said that :

"If he hypothetically lived there during the murder period it could have been a very convenient place for him, a necessary place."


Why could it have been convenient?

There must be some reason for that conjecture?

However you were obviously attempting to avoid any debate about why that area as the whole quote said:

"And I don´t think the hypothesis about King William Street is very important. If he hypothetically lived there during the murder period it could have been a very convenient place for him, a necessary place.

But it is more important to analyse the sources for where he hypothetically could have stayed in Whitechapel."


If its not important why suggest it, why post a map?

The attempt to move the debate to Whitechapel is transparent for all to see?



All the best

Steve

[jerryd]

Q-Or is it pure coincidence that they were also living close to each other?-Elamarna

A-"Pure coincidence" - yes. There are no sources suggesting anything else.- Pierre

So here Pierre you ARE suggesting that your suspect was living close to John Arnold. You claim that location to be on King William Street. I will ask again, what basis for your hypothesis leads you to believe your suspect lived in King William Street? A straight answer would be nice or even an "I cannot disclose that" answer would do. Do you have a source to base your hypothesis on? I say, you made it up as you went along and have now found it doesn't work because the needed lodging house was not there after you looked at the census and the Goad map and thus continually avoid my question.

It appears you need a lot more than one final piece to finish your case, Pierre!

[Pierre]

Q-Or is it pure coincidence that they were also living close to each other?-Elamarna

A-"Pure coincidence" - yes. There are no sources suggesting anything else.- Pierre

So here Pierre you ARE suggesting that your suspect was living close to John Arnold. You claim that location to be on King William Street. I will ask again, what basis for your hypothesis leads you to believe your suspect lived in King William Street? A straight answer would be nice or even an "I cannot disclose that" answer would do. Do you have a source to base your hypothesis on? I say, you made it up as you went along and have now found it doesn't work because the needed lodging house was not there after you looked at the census and the Goad map and thus continually avoid my question.

It appears you need a lot more than one final piece to finish your case, Pierre!

Hi Jerry,

It doesn´t matter what my answers to you are. You already believe what you will: "I say, you made it up as you went along and have now found it doesn't work because the needed lodging house was not there after you looked at the census and the Goad map and thus continually avoid my question."

And that is fine with me.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Jerry,

It doesn´t matter what my answers to you are. You already believe what you will: "I say, you made it up as you went along and have now found it doesn't work because the needed lodging house was not there after you looked at the census and the Goad map and thus continually avoid my question."

And that is fine with me.

Regards, Pierre

pierre


Good find!
Thank you for that source.
9 is designated as part of an hardware establishment, so one assumes rooms were on upper levels.

This possible fits with the 91 census which shows a male visitor.

It certainly agrees with my view in post 76.


However you have not answered the question Jerry asked in post 100, nor the similar question in post 99, which starts :

"However to get back to an item which some of us do find of interest ."




cheers

Steve

[Pierre]

pierre


Good find!
Thank you for that source.
9 is designated as part of an hardware establishment, so one assumes rooms were on upper levels.

This possible fits with the 91 census which shows a male visitor.

It certainly agrees with my view in post 76.


However you have not answered the question Jerry asked in post 100, nor the similar question in post 99, which starts :

"However to get back to an item which some of us do find of interest ."



cheers

Steve

Hi Steve,

Yes, I will not discuss this issue with Jerry.

By the way, did you notice how close King William Street is to Whitehall Place?

Regards, Pierre

[jerryd]

"However to get back to an item which some of us do find of interest ."
Steve

What Steve says and also, according to proper source analysis as you often remind each of us about, that source is from 1888. You are talking about John Arnold living near the man in 1889. How do you know this lodging #1; was where your suspect lived and #2; that it was still in operation in 1889?

[Pierre]

What Steve says and also, according to proper source analysis as you often remind each of us about, that source is from 1888. You are talking about John Arnold living near the man in 1889. How do you know this lodging #1; was where your suspect lived and #2; that it was still in operation in 1889?

No, my hypothesis is that he lived there in 1888.

It is also possible to perform source analysis without referring to the sources in a forum.

Regards, Pierre