Oh, murder!

[Pierre]

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.

The reason for the higher position of the inquest source is not per se that it is an original.

The reason is that reporters and editors had their own interests when writing about the case. They sold newspapers so they had very clear commercial interests.

The inquest papers where not sold on a market and therefore were not connencted to any commercial interests.

[David Orsam]

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

But my dear dear boy, if two words are synonymous with each other what does it matter which one is used?

What?

Well my dear fellow, in her written statement Prater referred to hearing "screams of murder" whereas at the inquest she said it was a "cry".

[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.

[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]

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]

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

[Elamarna]

Beat me to it John.

Steve

[David Orsam]

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

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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?