Tweet
Hi,
A lot of speculations has been going on based on the statements of both Morris Lewis and Caroline Maxwell. And yet, both the Lewis-sources and the Maxwell sources must be disregarded as valid sources.
In the case of the Lewis-sources, I have shown you why. I will now show you why the same applies for the Maxwell-sources.
So back to the original papers from 1888.
Letīs analyse the first and second Maxwell-source that was produced and still exists. In these sources, I will analyse the elements I find significant.
The first is the source from the police investigation 9 November. The source has Caroline Maxwell saying that
1. She was on speaking terms with Mary Jane although
2. She had not seen Mary Jane for 3 weeks until Friday morning 9th inst.
3. She saw her vomit in the road
The second is the source from the inquest. The source has Caroline Maxwell saying that
1. She knew Mary Jane but never spoke with her except twice
2. Shen saw the drink Mary Jane had consumed, it was in the road,
3. She saw that Mary Jane ”motioned with her head”
One set of problems with the sources are connected to the internal source criticism.
Another set of problems with these sources are connected to the external source criticism.
We start with the first.
The first internal problem is the tendency of the sources. The tendency is a bias that is created in an historical source due to motive(s) of the speaking person.
Tendencies must be eliminated if a source should be considered serious and if it should be used for establishing facts.
So what are the tendencies in the Maxwell-sources?
1. The first tendency has to do with the sources giving an impression of closeness and distance at the wrong points in time.
The witness wants to give the police the impression she was rather close to the victim, since she was on speaking terms with her.
At the same time (!) she wants to distance herself from the victim, stating that she had not seen her for 3 weeks.
This is one dimension of the tendency of the first source. The same tendency is active in the second source, giving that she knew Mary Jane and therefore was close to her
At the same time she ”never” (!) spoke to her, except twice. Here again is the tendency of distance.
2. The second tendency is to visualize things and thereby convince the police the witness saw these things.
The witness wants the police to believe that she saw the victim, by giving details about the victimīs vomit in the road.
She wants the police to believe that she saw the victim well and gives a detail about ”her head”.
This tendency is connected to the tendency of closeness and distance.
But: The witness could not have seen the vomit in the road, since the contents of the stomach were visible exclusively at the murder site. Therefore, there is a distance between the real contents of the stomach and the vomit in the narrative of the witness.
The same applies for seeing ”her head”. Her head was exclusively to be seen in the bed at the murder site. It was not to be seen outside on the street.
But at the same time, the statements of ”vomit” and ”head” are connected to closeness. The witness wants the police to believe that she was close to the victim, since she wants them to believe that she saw the vomit and her head, although there was an actual distance.
Now, merely reading (instead of analysing) these statements of the witness, they sound strange and that is why people wonder about them.
But the real problem is that the witness is giving redundant information, that is, the information about the vomit and the head. She wouldnīt have had to mention those elements at all.
But still she goes into meaningless and redundant details – and that is a certain sign of a tendency.
Conclusion: Since the Maxwell-sources have such strong tendencies, the conclusion must be that they can NOT be used for establishing the TOD (time of death) of the victim Mary Jane Kelly.
The second type of source criticism we must perform is the external source criticism.
Here, the main question is: What are the functions of these sources?
From the point of view of the police and the coroner (the producers of the sources), the function of the sources are to give statements to the police and to the court about a victim who has been murdered and mutilated.
From the point of view of the witness, on the other hand, that function is not a relevant function, since the statements have strong tendencies.
So the external and internal source criticism show connections between the tendencies and the function of the sources.
So what is the function of the statements, from the point of view of the witness?
Since the statements have strong tendencies, the best answer is that the statements are made in the interest of the witness. This often happens in historical sources. So what would the interest of the witness be?
1) Would it be of any interest for the witness to give such tendencious statements if it was only a matter of misremembering?
No, since the witness was questioned already on the 9th and could not have misremembered such an important sighting from the very same day.
2) Would it be of any interest for the witness to give such tendencious statements if it was only a matter of attention seeking?
No, since it would have been a negative attention seeking, which led to the witness being strongly questioned by the court. It was an inquest where the witness was not only questioned – but called into question.
My conclusion is that the Maxwell-sources are of very low validity since they have strong tendencies. They are not good sources on which to build a theory of Mary Jane Kelly being another woman (as an example).
What the explanations for the tendencies are, is something completely different.
Regards, Pierre
A lot of speculations has been going on based on the statements of both Morris Lewis and Caroline Maxwell. And yet, both the Lewis-sources and the Maxwell sources must be disregarded as valid sources.
In the case of the Lewis-sources, I have shown you why. I will now show you why the same applies for the Maxwell-sources.
So back to the original papers from 1888.
Letīs analyse the first and second Maxwell-source that was produced and still exists. In these sources, I will analyse the elements I find significant.
The first is the source from the police investigation 9 November. The source has Caroline Maxwell saying that
1. She was on speaking terms with Mary Jane although
2. She had not seen Mary Jane for 3 weeks until Friday morning 9th inst.
3. She saw her vomit in the road
The second is the source from the inquest. The source has Caroline Maxwell saying that
1. She knew Mary Jane but never spoke with her except twice
2. Shen saw the drink Mary Jane had consumed, it was in the road,
3. She saw that Mary Jane ”motioned with her head”
One set of problems with the sources are connected to the internal source criticism.
Another set of problems with these sources are connected to the external source criticism.
We start with the first.
The first internal problem is the tendency of the sources. The tendency is a bias that is created in an historical source due to motive(s) of the speaking person.
Tendencies must be eliminated if a source should be considered serious and if it should be used for establishing facts.
So what are the tendencies in the Maxwell-sources?
1. The first tendency has to do with the sources giving an impression of closeness and distance at the wrong points in time.
The witness wants to give the police the impression she was rather close to the victim, since she was on speaking terms with her.
At the same time (!) she wants to distance herself from the victim, stating that she had not seen her for 3 weeks.
This is one dimension of the tendency of the first source. The same tendency is active in the second source, giving that she knew Mary Jane and therefore was close to her
At the same time she ”never” (!) spoke to her, except twice. Here again is the tendency of distance.
2. The second tendency is to visualize things and thereby convince the police the witness saw these things.
The witness wants the police to believe that she saw the victim, by giving details about the victimīs vomit in the road.
She wants the police to believe that she saw the victim well and gives a detail about ”her head”.
This tendency is connected to the tendency of closeness and distance.
But: The witness could not have seen the vomit in the road, since the contents of the stomach were visible exclusively at the murder site. Therefore, there is a distance between the real contents of the stomach and the vomit in the narrative of the witness.
The same applies for seeing ”her head”. Her head was exclusively to be seen in the bed at the murder site. It was not to be seen outside on the street.
But at the same time, the statements of ”vomit” and ”head” are connected to closeness. The witness wants the police to believe that she was close to the victim, since she wants them to believe that she saw the vomit and her head, although there was an actual distance.
Now, merely reading (instead of analysing) these statements of the witness, they sound strange and that is why people wonder about them.
But the real problem is that the witness is giving redundant information, that is, the information about the vomit and the head. She wouldnīt have had to mention those elements at all.
But still she goes into meaningless and redundant details – and that is a certain sign of a tendency.
Conclusion: Since the Maxwell-sources have such strong tendencies, the conclusion must be that they can NOT be used for establishing the TOD (time of death) of the victim Mary Jane Kelly.
The second type of source criticism we must perform is the external source criticism.
Here, the main question is: What are the functions of these sources?
From the point of view of the police and the coroner (the producers of the sources), the function of the sources are to give statements to the police and to the court about a victim who has been murdered and mutilated.
From the point of view of the witness, on the other hand, that function is not a relevant function, since the statements have strong tendencies.
So the external and internal source criticism show connections between the tendencies and the function of the sources.
So what is the function of the statements, from the point of view of the witness?
Since the statements have strong tendencies, the best answer is that the statements are made in the interest of the witness. This often happens in historical sources. So what would the interest of the witness be?
1) Would it be of any interest for the witness to give such tendencious statements if it was only a matter of misremembering?
No, since the witness was questioned already on the 9th and could not have misremembered such an important sighting from the very same day.
2) Would it be of any interest for the witness to give such tendencious statements if it was only a matter of attention seeking?
No, since it would have been a negative attention seeking, which led to the witness being strongly questioned by the court. It was an inquest where the witness was not only questioned – but called into question.
My conclusion is that the Maxwell-sources are of very low validity since they have strong tendencies. They are not good sources on which to build a theory of Mary Jane Kelly being another woman (as an example).
What the explanations for the tendencies are, is something completely different.
Regards, Pierre
Comment