Oh, murder!

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;412759]

Oh my dear boy, that was most kind of you to type all those words out for me in such an amusingly random order but you are quite right, and remarkably prophetic, I couldn't decipher the code at all.

As I thought, this type of answer would be the result.

But allow me to offer another example, in addition to the evidence of Prater and the reported remarks of the Hewitts, which can be found in the evidence of Sarah Lewis as reported in the Evening Post:

Sarah Lewis, living at 24, Great Pearl-street, Spitalfields, a laundress, said she went to Miller’s court on Friday morning at 2.30 a.m. She went to a Mrs. Keller’s. Standing outside a lodging-house she saw a man on the pavement. He was by himself; he was not very tall but rather stout, and wore a black wideawake hat. He was looking up the court, as if waiting for someone to come out. She heard no noise in the court; there was no one there. On getting into Mrs. Keller’s room she sat in a chair and dozed. She woke up at half-past three. She heard the clock strike, and sat awake till nearly four, when she heard a female voice scream loudly – it seemed to be a young woman – “Murder!” It was only one scream. They often hear such screams and cries in the neighbourhood, but no notice is taken of them.

Another smoke screen from you, David. The "oh, murder" is what we have in the statement of Prater in the original inquest source.

Prater was the person you explicitly referred to in your post, as you wrote:

What I posted was corroborating evidence that the cry of murder was a frequent one in the neighbourhood of Whitechapel, as Prater said,

"...,as Prater said."

And why do you refer to newspapers when you could refer to Lewis in the police investigation from the 9th or the inquest source from the 12th. They are higher up in the source hierarchy.

And if you look at the police inquest from the 9th you do not have Prater telling the police "Oh, murder" in that source. But you have it in the original inquest source, so it could certainly be worth discussing.

Especially since you referred to Prater.

Pierre

[David Orsam]

And why do you refer to newspapers when you could refer to Lewis in the police investigation from the 9th or the inquest source from the 12th. They are higher up in the source hierarchy.

Oh my dear boy, how delightfully misguided of you; as I've tried to tell you many times, a deposition is not necessarily "higher up in the source hierarchy" than a newspaper report of proceedings. The reason being that depositions frequently contain no more than a summary of what a witness has said, not necessarily in his or her own words, while newspaper reports often carry the verbatim words actually used by a witness in answering a question.

[David Orsam]

And if you look at the police inquest from the 9th you do not have Prater telling the police "Oh, murder" in that source. But you have it in the original inquest source, so it could certainly be worth discussing.

My dear boy, I find your reference to "the police inquest from the 9th" to be utterly splendid in its incomprehensibility. You really do excel yourself on this occasion. But when I look at the written statement that Ms Prater gave to the police dated 9 November I see her mentioning "screams of murder" that she said she heard during the night. Then at the coroner's inquest it became a single scream in a faint voice. Perhaps she was making the whole thing up, my dear boy, considering that neither Cox nor Venturney heard a scream, and perhaps there never was a scream, how frightfully post-modern that would be, no?

[Pierre]

Oh my dear boy, how delightfully misguided of you; as I've tried to tell you many times, a deposition is not necessarily "higher up in the source hierarchy" than a newspaper report of proceedings. The reason being that depositions frequently contain no more than a summary of what a witness has said, not necessarily in his or her own words, while newspaper reports often carry the verbatim words actually used by a witness in answering a question.

Newspapers are less reliable than original inquest sources.

Compare the newspaper articles reporting on one of the murder inquests for example and you will se many differences between them.

This type of problem is a known source critical problem in the field of history.

It is also a known problem on this site, where people often struggle with the question as to which newspaper article is the most reliable, since they differ a lot.

But you are prepared to lie about this knowledge to protect yourself in this forum.

It is a very stupid thing to lie about, since you give a lot of people here the impression that you do not have any source critical knowledge.

Therefore, people can not trust anything you write.

Pierre

[John G]

Newspapers are less reliable than original inquest sources.

Compare the newspaper articles reporting on one of the murder inquests for example and you will se many differences between them.

This type of problem is a known source critical problem in the field of history.

It is also a known problem on this site, where people often struggle with the question as to which newspaper article is the most reliable, since they differ a lot.

But you are prepared to lie about this knowledge to protect yourself in this forum.

It is a very stupid thing to lie about, since you give a lot of people here the impression that you do not have any source critical knowledge.

Therefore, people can not trust anything you write.

Pierre

But most of the original inquest records are missing, so we're largely dependant upon newspaper reports of the inquests.

[Elamarna]

Newspapers are less reliable than original inquest sources.

Pierre

There is just a single problem with that statement, we have virtually no official inquest sources. All we have are the newspaper reports in the main.

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;412780]

My dear boy, I find your reference to "the police inquest from the 9th" to be utterly splendid in its incomprehensibility. You really do excel yourself on this occasion. But when I look at the written statement that Ms Prater gave to the police dated 9 November I see her mentioning "screams of murder" that she said she heard during the night.

Yes, that is what you see, as I told you. No "oh".

Then at the coroner's inquest it became a single scream in a faint voice.

And what we disuss here is the "oh" and nothing else.

Perhaps she was making the whole thing up, my dear boy, considering that neither Cox nor Venturney heard a scream, and perhaps there never was a scream, how frightfully post-modern that would be, no?[

And now you transform the cry into a "scream".

Pierre

[Pierre]

Pierre

There is just a single problem with that statement, we have virtually no official inquest sources. All we have are the newspaper reports in the main.

Steve

Hi Steve,

You have the original inquest source in transcription from the Kelly inquest.

Pierre

[David Orsam]

Newspapers are less reliable than original inquest sources.

Oh my dear boy, I think you have rather misunderstood me. A witness deposition - and you can use the expression "deposition" my dear boy, rather than "original witness source", because that is how they referred to it in 1888 - does not necessarily contain everything a witness said in evidence. The coroner or coroner's clerk does not necessarily write it all down because he will be writing in longhand while a newspaper reporter, using shorthand, might well write down everything a witness has said verbatim. Further the coroner or clerk might summarise the evidence, putting in his own interpretation of what has been said.

That's just a fact of life, and indeed of history, my dear boy but I know I don't need to explain this to you, being a self-confessed amateur historian.

[David Orsam]

Oh my dear boy, I mistyped at the end there, I meant self-confessed academic historian. Do forgive me.

[Elamarna]

Beat me to it John.

Steve

[Pierre]

But most of the original inquest records are missing, so we're largely dependant upon newspaper reports of the inquests.

You have the original inquests in transcription for Eddowes and Kelly.

So these should be used before newspapers.

And now we discuss witnesses from the Kelly inquest.

Pierre

[David Orsam]

And now you transform the cry into a "scream".

My dear boy, how delightfully pedantic of you. I'm so glad you ignore those horrible thesaurus reference books which would tell you that "scream" is synonymous with "cry" - and of course it was Elizabeth Prater who did the reverse, by turning the screams into a cry.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;412795]

My dear boy, how delightfully pedantic of you. I'm so glad you ignore those horrible thesaurus reference books which would tell you that "scream" is synonymous with "cry" -

I do not ignore them. But you ignored the word used at the inquest in the original inquest source.

and of course it was Elizabeth Prater who did the reverse, by turning the screams into a cry.

What?

[David Orsam]

You have the original inquest source in transcription from the Kelly inquest.

As any historian would tell you my dear boy, just because a source is "original" it does not necessarily mean it is more accurate than another, "non-original" source.