Let there be light!

[David Orsam]

Use the list I gave you, find the literature and read it.

All historians use source criticism. There is no historical research without external and internal source criticism.

You know nothing about this and your question above is a result of your ignorance.

Just as I thought. You are basically admitting that there is not a single historian you can refer me to who writes about "tendencies" of witnesses.

The list of examples you previously gave me were books about the theory of historical method which themselves did not refer to witness source "tendencies", or, indeed, any "tendencies" of sources. They were not examples of source criticism as you have used it being applied by a historian in an actual book about history which is what I asked for.

I have no doubt that any historian worth his or her salt will critically evaluate sources and consider issues of bias, truthfulness and reliability but what they don't do is babble on about "tendencies".

Let me be very clear what I am saying Pierre. I am saying that your approach to history is a highly idiosyncratic one which is unique to yourself and not one adopted by any serious historian. Time and time again your posts reveal fundamental misunderstandings about history. On the basis of reading a few theoretical books about historical method you appear to think you have found the magical secret key to source interpretation but you are only fooling yourself.

If this post leads to me going back on the Ignore list then I go back on the Ignore list. I know you don't like it when I tell the truth but it must be about time for you to face up to it.

[Pierre]

With your inability to use the quote function properly, Pierre, it's sometimes hard to know what you are responding to but if you are asking me which newspaper said that Mrs Maxwell was a respectable woman I am referring to the fact that she was the wife of a lodging house deputy, Henry Maxwell, as per her statement to the police which is, I believe, an official source.

What could have been "respectable" about being a wife of a lodging house deputy in Spitalfields?

Is there any evidence for that statement, or what do you base that on?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Pierre, I think it is time you did some research into the meaning of 'respectable' in the Victorian period.

Indeed.

[Pierre]

It's more respectable than lying about being a historian when you're nothing more than a student, so that you can attempt to belittle or dismiss researchers who actually know more about this than you do, and whose reasoning makes infinitely more sense than your constant circular crap and appeals to your own authority.

Take your regards, and stuff em.

Well, Henry. It is obvious to everyone here that you are not capable of answering the question and that you are having problems with your impulse control, since you are rude and since you attack me. How embarrassing for you.

Kind stuffed regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

It is under the duties of the Coroner to give a time of death, you're absolutely right.

No it was not one of the duties of the Coroner to give a time of death, so that's absolutely wrong!

It was for the jury to certify when death occurred, if that was possible on the evidence, normally meaning the date of death rather than the time because that was the information that went on the death certificate. The Coroner's duty was limited to making the inquiry to assist or enable the jury to come to a conclusion as to when death occurred.

Just think about it. A decomposing body is pulled out of the Thames for which there is an inquest. It's going to be pretty difficult to work out what day that person died. How is it even remotely possible for anyone to give the time of death? Yet, according to you, the Coroner would not be fulfilling his duty by failing to give a time of death!

[David Orsam]

The police need a time of death, even estimated is better than nothing.

True but they don't necessarily need it from the coroner or fixed at the inquest. It could be given to them directly by the doctor (albeit, as we now know it probably would have been, inaccurately) or they could work it out themselves. It would still need to be established in evidence at any trial anyway.

A wrong time of death, of course, would be a disaster because it would potentially give the real murderer an alibi and allow him to escape justice.

[Albert]

What could ever have been "respectable" about being a wife of a lodging house deputy in Spitalfields?

Pierre, I think it is time you did some research into the meaning of 'respectable' in the Victorian period.
Regards
Albert

[Fisherman]

Gentlemen, Christer, Henry & David.
I think the article under debate was a paragraph in the Star of 10th Nov.

"One woman (as reported below) who lives in the court stated that at about two o'clock she heard a cry of "Murder." This story soon became popular, until at last half a dozen women were retailing it as their own personal experience. Each story contradicted the others with respect to the time at which the cry was heard. A Star reporter who inquired into the matter extracted from one of the women the confession that the story was, as far as she was concerned, a fabrication; and he came to the conclusion that it was to be disregarded."

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s881110.html

The "One woman" turns out to be Mrs Prater, but the time given (two o'clock) is wrong. There is no indication the police dismissed anyone, the article seems to be referring to press investigations not police investigations.

I know who Christer, Henry and David are - but who are the gentlemen you refer to...?

Anyway, yes, Jon, this is the article I was speaking of. Thanks for posting it. I would like to stress once more that if at least half a dozen women were willing to speak of the "Murder!" outcry without having heard it, there is very little to guarantee us that Prater or Lewis heard it either.
The witness evidence is a very risky source in many a case.

[Henry Flower]

What could ever have been "respectable" about being a wife of a lodging house deputy in Spitalfields?

It's more respectable than lying about being a historian when you're nothing more than a student, so that you can attempt to belittle or dismiss researchers who actually know more about this than you do, and whose reasoning makes infinitely more sense than your constant circular crap and appeals to your own authority.

Take your regards, and stuff em.

[Pierre]

With your inability to use the quote function properly, Pierre, it's sometimes hard to know what you are responding to but if you are asking me which newspaper said that Mrs Maxwell was a respectable woman I am referring to the fact that she was the wife of a lodging house deputy, Henry Maxwell, as per her statement to the police which is, I believe, an official source.

What could ever have been "respectable" about being a wife of a lodging house deputy in Spitalfields?

[Pierre]

Pierre, you haven't provided a list of examples as requested above.

Does this mean that I should conclude that what you are doing in this forum with your source criticism and your "tendencies" has never been done by any historian ever before?

Use the list I gave you, find the literature and read it.

All historians use source criticism. There is no historical research without external and internal source criticism.

You know nothing about this and your question above is a result of your ignorance.

[Columbo]

Hi David.
In the case at hand we have a murder which could have occurred anywhere between 1:00 through to about 9:00 am. The police need an estimated time of death to enable them to focus on one particular suspect.
Should they pursue "Blotchy" (associated with 1:00), or "Astrachan" (3:00), or "unknown" (about 9:00)?
The police need a time of death, even estimated is better than nothing.

There is little point in the police putting all their efforts into finding Blotchy, if Kelly was still alive after he left. An estimated ToD is essential.

I understood the estimated time was covered by the "when", (ie; where & when the deceased died) under the duties of the Coroner.

It is under the duties of the Coroner to give a time of death, you're absolutely right.

Columbo

[Columbo]

I think I know what Alice must have felt like in Wonderland. Having posted extracts from the Coroners Act (of 1887), which was the relevant legislation under which the Kelly inquest was conducted, someone comes back at me with a Wikipedia entry for modern inquests citing rules for inquests in Australia and the USA in the process!!!!

I wouldn't mind but I already made clear that one purpose of an inquest in 1888 was to inquire as to "where and when the deceased died" and that it was for the jury to give their verdict "setting forth, so far as such particulars have been proved to them...when, and where the deceased came by his death."

I already said this!!!

For those who can't read or comprehend, I was responding to Wickerman's statement that it was part of the Coroner's duty to offer an official time of death at the conclusion of the inquest.

I know, I just thought it was interesting.

Columbo

[Wickerman]

Just to pick up on this.

I don't really see how the doctor, giving his evidence after Mrs Maxwell (a respectable woman who insisted she saw MJK alive at 8am), could have stood in the witness box at the inquest and estimated a time of death of 1-2am without the possibility of the medical profession being held up to ridicule and mockery. Nor do I see how it was possible for the Coroner to come to a definitive conclusion based on the evidence before him.

Can I ask though, Jon, what is your basis for saying it was part of the Coroner's duty to offer a time of death at the conclusion of the inquest? The Coroner's Act simply says he has to inquire as to "where and when the deceased died" and who last saw the deceased alive. His duty is to sum up the evidence at the conclusion of the case but it is for the jury to give their verdict "setting forth, so far as such particulars have been proved to them...when, and where the deceased came by his death."

So I don't see what you say as part of the duty of the Coroner and, indeed, how could the Coroner always state the time of death in every case?

Hi David.
In the case at hand we have a murder which could have occurred anywhere between 1:00 through to about 9:00 am. The police need an estimated time of death to enable them to focus on one particular suspect.
Should they pursue "Blotchy" (associated with 1:00), or "Astrachan" (3:00), or "unknown" (about 9:00)?
The police need a time of death, even estimated is better than nothing.

There is little point in the police putting all their efforts into finding Blotchy, if Kelly was still alive after he left. An estimated ToD is essential.

I understood the estimated time was covered by the "when", (ie; where & when the deceased died) under the duties of the Coroner.

[Wickerman]

In this context, it may be added that Prater and Lewis were not the only ones who spoke of somebody crying out "Murder!". There is an article somewhere - although I am not certain where - stating that there were a handful (or even more) Millers Court witnesses who spoke of such an outcry, but as I remember it, the police decided that many of these witnesses came forward out of a wish for some little limelight...

Fisherman, would it be too cheeky to propose that the police dismissed those other claims of hearing a cry of "murder" because.......

No, that is the supposed conclusion of the author of a supposed article whose name you cannot, apparently, recall. But what is the evidence on which such a conclusion was based?

Gentlemen, Christer, Henry & David.
I think the article under debate was a paragraph in the Star of 10th Nov.

"One woman (as reported below) who lives in the court stated that at about two o'clock she heard a cry of "Murder." This story soon became popular, until at last half a dozen women were retailing it as their own personal experience. Each story contradicted the others with respect to the time at which the cry was heard. A Star reporter who inquired into the matter extracted from one of the women the confession that the story was, as far as she was concerned, a fabrication; and he came to the conclusion that it was to be disregarded."

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s881110.html

The "One woman" turns out to be Mrs Prater, but the time given (two o'clock) is wrong. There is no indication the police dismissed anyone, the article seems to be referring to press investigations not police investigations.