The wrong door.

[packers stem]

Hi,

So you believe that a newspaper from the 10th has more reliability than the witness statements that the police took from the witnesses on the 9th?

What assumption do you base that on?

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre
There is no assumption of 'more reliability' on my part.
Depends on the line of questioning as to what answers may or may not have been given. The newspapers may have preferred to chat with the witnesses as opposed to yes/no answers
Very often the official documents have to be questioned.... Especially when things are crossed out such as with Sarah Lewis' statement. Do start to wonder what else may have been 'altered'

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre
There is no assumption of 'more reliability' on my part.

Hi,

But that does not mean that some sources are not more reliable than others. And if we use sources that have a low reliability we get theories or hypotheses built on "garbage". We get "garbage in, garbage out".

Depends on the line of questioning as to what answers may or may not have been given. The newspapers may have preferred to chat with the witnesses as opposed to yes/no answers

The journalists wanted to sell newspapers, their primary interest was certainly not always accuracy and therefore the articles have tendencies.

Very often the official documents have to be questioned.... Especially when things are crossed out such as with Sarah Lewis' statement. Do start to wonder what else may have been 'altered'.

"Crossed out"? What do you mean - and which source is that?

Regards, Pierre

[packers stem]

Hi,

But that does not mean that some sources are not more reliable than others. And if we use sources that have a low reliability we get theories or hypotheses built on "garbage". We get "garbage in, garbage out".



The journalists wanted to sell newspapers, their primary interest was certainly not always accuracy and therefore the articles have tendencies.



"Crossed out"? What do you mean - and which source is that?

Regards, Pierre

Nonsense....not all the newspaper reports are 'garbage' by any means and dismissing all bar official reports leaves you very little to go on doesn't it?
As for 'crossed out' it refers to Sarah Lewis' statement
You keep mentioning the earliest report is the most reliable.... Gives Israel Schwartz sightings a rather different meaning also

[Craig H]

Some of you talk about the police witness statements

Where can I read them ?

Apologies if that's a rookie question

Craig

[Pcdunn]

Some of you talk about the police witness statements

Where can I read them ?

Apologies if that's a rookie question

Craig

Samples are here at Casebook, arranged by victim:

http://www.casebook.org/official_documents/inquests/index.html

You can also look under "Press Reports" and "Witnesses"

The actual police documents are largely missing, from what I hear.

[The Good Michael]

Don't be a fool. Inquest information is not the same as witness statements. The purpose of an inquest was to determine wrongful death or not. Any questions asked that produced anything extra was gravy and the line of questioning was based upon finding for wrongful death and was meant to be expeditious. You mention Hutchinson at the inquest as well. He wasn't there. You are no sleuth. You are posturing little pissant.

Mike

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;371844]

Hi Pierre,


OK Richard. So why would the Times from the 12th be more reliable than the witness statements from the 9th and the original inquest papers? Please tell me. I really want to know.



Oh. You begin to sound like Mrs Maxwell.



I understand.




Witness statements are in at least two types of sources: original police sources and/or original inquest sources - and newspaper sources. The first type of sources are the most reliable.

Kind regards, Pierre

Are you aware that most of the original inquest reports are missing? What survives are the newspaper reports of the inquests: source material that you seem to question.

I have to say, Pierre, I'm a little confused by your approach to research. I mean, you seem to highly value Keppel's article, even though the source material he relied upon largely consisted of books written by modern day authors/Ripperologists, who you have previously sought to disparage.

[Ozzy]

Damn Pierre you've made reading this forum so annoying at times.

I try to avoid your posts. From the little I have read I get the impression you've recently, and maybe are still doing, a course of education in the historical method and how it stresses primary sources and facts.

You said "Pure speculation is no good for research about the murders." (post 11)

Here's a quote from a Sherlock Holmes story Silver Blaze. Holmes to Watson:
"Inspector Gregory, to whom the case has been committed, is an extremely competent officer. Were he but gifted with imagination he might rise to great heights of his profession. On his arrival he promptly found and arrested the man upon whom suspicion naturally rested."

By using the imagination and speculating one might come up with a theory which might include some detail which might be possible to factually check.

richardnunweek put out a theory he imagined. You come along with "I am afraid it doesn´t tick any boxes. Sorry, but thanks for the ideas" and "Perhaps you could write a novel about it."

If I was richardnunweek I'd of replied to you in a similar vein to The Good Michael (post21), specifically the last sentence.
(I think The Good Michael was replying to you. A little hard to tell as he doesn't quote.)

You are posturing little pissant.

Please please please stop making a fool of yourself, go away, study the case for at least a few years, publish your theory (ebook/Ripperologist) and if it's not ridiculously long like Bruce Robinson's book and not too expensive I promise I will buy/read it.

I would say I am only trying to help you here. Whilst that is true it's not the only reason. If you left I could browse this forum without worrying about stumbling across your posts.

I should also mention it's not worth replying to me. This has become another Casebook thread I'll avoid and if you PM obviously I won't be reading it.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;371904]

Are you aware that most of the original inquest reports are missing? What survives are the newspaper reports of the inquests: source material that you seem to question.

I have to say, Pierre, I'm a little confused by your approach to research. I mean, you seem to highly value Keppel's article, even though the source material he relied upon largely consisted of books written by modern day authors/Ripperologists, who you have previously sought to disparage.

You have the original Kelly inquest in transcription in The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook by Evans & Skinner. As well as the police investigation preceding the inquest.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Some of you talk about the police witness statements

Where can I read them ?

Apologies if that's a rookie question

Craig

You have the original Kelly inquest in transcription in The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook by Evans & Skinner. As well as the police investigation preceding the inquest.

Regards, Pierre

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
i have been on this site since before The Millennium, so am used to opinions that may be a tad sarcastic.
I produced a theory, no proof attached, but hey, what's new?
Regards Richard.