Let there be light!

[David Orsam]

What do you mean, David?

I was talking to Michael, Pierre. There's no point me trying to explain it to you because it will take me 100 posts and I still won't be able to do it.

[David Orsam]

Everyone can be mistaken about everything.

So are you prepared to agree with me in writing that Mary Ann Cox could have been mistaken about hearing Kelly singing at any time between 1am and 2am and that, consistent with Dr Bond's conclusions, Kelly could have been dead at 1am?

[David Orsam]

I do not change anything. I interpret a source. You don´t understand that. And yes, Kelly must have been alive then. If you are an historian.

You say you "do not change anything", but that's not true is it? Look at your timeline.

"00.00-01.00/01.30 Cox seing Kelly go into her room, Cox hearing Kelly singing.
01.30 Prater going upstairs, seeing no light in Kelly´s room
02.00 TOD (time of death) according to Dr Bond
03.00 Cox seeing that the light was out in Kelly´s room
03.30-04.00 Sarah Lewis and Prater hearing the scream ”Oh, Murder!” (Prater stating she heard it two or three times on 9 November, 1 time on 12 November)
05.00-05.45 Prater going to The Ten Bells, drinking there
08.00 Last possible TOD according to the time frame given by Dr Bond
08.00-08.45 Mrs Maxwell claiming to have seen Kelly on the street"

2.00 was NOT the time of death according to Dr Bond was it? The time of death according to Dr Bond was 1.00 OR 2.00 wasn't it?

Therefore you were not interpreting what Dr Bond said at all. You were changing what he said.

You were not entitled to change what he said.

It's as simple as that.

[David Orsam]

So that is no good source for drawing the conclusion that Prater heard no singing at one o´clock.

From her written statement you are right, it would be impossible to know if she heard any singing or not. That is stating the bleedin' obvious. But she said on oath at the inquest that she didn't hear any singing.

So the obvious conclusion is that she didn't hear any singing at one o'clock.

But if you disagree and think that she did hear singing at one o'clock feel free to set out your argument.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;375570]You say you "do not change anything", but that's not true is it? Look at your timeline.

"00.00-01.00/01.30 Cox seing Kelly go into her room, Cox hearing Kelly singing.
01.30 Prater going upstairs, seeing no light in Kelly´s room
02.00 TOD (time of death) according to Dr Bond
03.00 Cox seeing that the light was out in Kelly´s room
03.30-04.00 Sarah Lewis and Prater hearing the scream ”Oh, Murder!” (Prater stating she heard it two or three times on 9 November, 1 time on 12 November)
05.00-05.45 Prater going to The Ten Bells, drinking there
08.00 Last possible TOD according to the time frame given by Dr Bond
08.00-08.45 Mrs Maxwell claiming to have seen Kelly on the street"

2.00 was NOT the time of death according to Dr Bond was it? The time of death according to Dr Bond was 1.00 OR 2.00 wasn't it?

But according to the other sources it could not have been 1.00.

Therefore you were not interpreting what Dr Bond said at all. You were changing what he said.

You were not entitled to change what he said.

It's as simple as that.

No, David. You can not change sources. Sources are what they are. Historians interpret sources.

It is really ridiculous to say that anyone would "change" a source. That would be forgery.

[Pierre]

From her written statement you are right, it would be impossible to know if she heard any singing or not. That is stating the bleedin' obvious. But she said on oath at the inquest that she didn't hear any singing.

So the obvious conclusion is that she didn't hear any singing at one o'clock.

But if you disagree and think that she did hear singing at one o'clock feel free to set out your argument.

Why would I disagree?

[Pierre]

So are you prepared to agree with me in writing that Mary Ann Cox could have been mistaken about hearing Kelly singing at any time between 1am and 2am and that, consistent with Dr Bond's conclusions, Kelly could have been dead at 1am?

No, since "could have" is not an historical question. So it is not an accessible research question.

And "any time between 1am and 2am" are not the contents of the Cox-sources. She said "about one o´clock".

So that can not be interpreted as "any time between 1am and 2am".

[David Orsam]

But according to the other sources it could not have been 1.00.

But you've agreed that "other sources" could be mistaken.

And you can't just take individual sources in isolation.

When all the sources are taken as a whole, including Prater and Dr Bond, then the murder could have been committed at 1am.

Let me know if you disagree with this statement.

[David Orsam]

No, David. You can not change sources. Sources are what they are. Historians interpret sources.

It is really ridiculous to say that anyone would "change" a source. That would be forgery.

This is another example of you blatantly changing my own words. I've never said you changed "a source". I said you changed the conclusion of Dr Bond in your timeline.

His conclusion was that the murder was committed at 1am OR 2am. Your timeline stated: "02.00 TOD (time of death) according to Dr Bond".

That wasn't correct was it? Because he never made a definite statement that time of death was 2.00 did he?

[David Orsam]

No, since "could have" is not an historical question. So it is not an accessible research question.

How does the fact that "could have" is not, in your opinion "a historical question" or an "accessible research question", change the answer to the question?

You must agree it's a question.

Could Mary have been dead at 1am?

It's a question.

Your answer of "No" on the basis that it's not a "historical question" has no validity.

[David Orsam]

No, since "could have" is not an historical question. So it is not an accessible research question.

And "any time between 1am and 2am" are not the contents of the Cox-sources. She said "about one o´clock".

So that can not be interpreted as "any time between 1am and 2am".

Are you saying 1:01am is not a time between 1am and 2am?

What I'm getting at is that if Kelly stopped singing at any time before 1am she could have been dead at 1am.

Do you agree with that statement?

[Pierre]

How does the fact that "could have" is not, in your opinion "a historical question" or an "accessible research question", change the answer to the question?

You must agree it's a question.

But I assume we are trying to research the past here? And it can only be researched by historical questions since the material consist of historical sources. This means you can only ask questions that can be answered by analysing the sources.

Could Mary have been dead at 1am?

It's a question.

Your answer of "No" on the basis that it's not a "historical question" has no validity.

We can ask this question if it can be answered by analysing the sources. The answer might not be what we expected, or we might not like the answer. But we can not ask questions outside of the sources.

[Pierre]

Are you saying 1:01am is not a time between 1am and 2am?

What I'm getting at is that if Kelly stopped singing at any time before 1am she could have been dead at 1am.

Do you agree with that statement?

Now you are doing it again. "Could have". And "IF".

What are the sources saying? "At" one o´clock and "about" one o´clock.

YOU, on the other hand, are saying "if Kelly stopped singing at any time before 1 am...".

Are you a source from 1888 now?

[David Orsam]

We can ask this question if it can be answered by analysing the sources. The answer might not be what we expected, or we might not like the answer. But we can not ask questions outside of the sources.

We can ask whatever questions we like.

In this case it's not even a question "outside of the sources". We have sources. It's just a matter of considering and interpreting them. The kind of thing that you might call "source criticism" I suppose.

But if the question "Could Mary have been dead at 1am?" is too difficult for you to answer, don't worry about it.

[David Orsam]

Now you are doing it again. "Could have". And "IF".

What are the sources saying? "At" one o´clock and "about" one o´clock.

YOU, on the other hand, are saying "if Kelly stopped singing at any time before 1 am...".

Are you a source from 1888 now?

It was a very simple question Pierre.

I was asking if you agreed with the statement that: if Kelly stopped singing at any time before 1am she could have been dead at 1am.

Using the magic of "source criticism", it's perfectly obvious that your refusal to answer the question is that you realize that the only answer you can give is "YES", being an answer that you don't like, hence the meaningless waffle in your post.