Let there be light!

[David Orsam]

Like the example with black or white. Black or white, true or false. And nothing in between. No scale, not even an ordinal one. Just 0/1, 0/1.

Read what I said. I said if the witness says "Black" and you say "White" you are changing the evidence.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;387231]

I like to think, Pierre, that you must know the difference between the truth and a lie.

Like the example with black or white. Black or white, true or false. And nothing in between. No scale, not even an ordinal one. Just 0/1, 0/1.

I readily admit that I don't have a source for this but even children know the difference between these two concepts.

Irrelevant statement. But I donīt think children do, and therefore must be taught. Even Plato did not know what "truth" was. But you think you do. And also, you think you know the difference between truth and lies.

If Prater swore in the witness box that a cry of murder was a common occurrence when it was not a common occurrence she was telling a lie.

It might have been the right thing for her to say.

If she was telling a lie about that then the rest of her evidence might well have been equally untruthful.

In fact, the lie might simply have been to supplement her initial lie about the scream.

So now you are doing some internal source criticism.

If she lied about the scream then, when asked why she did nothing about it, she lied again to say it was a common occurrence.

So she lied in the police investigation and also at the inquest.

You can't just say a witness lied in their sworn testimony and shrug it off as a "tendency" simply because it doesn't suit you to call it a lie.

Hey, David. I am lying now. What do you say about that?

[David Orsam]

But still, you did manage to behave in a civilized way right up to the last sentence, David. You are certainly improving.

Thank you very much Pierre. As you know, I lap up all praise from you.

[David Orsam]

That is a question and not an hypothesis.

If you are trying to say that you were only asking a question about GOGMAGOG and not claiming that he inserted the name and address of Mary Kelly in his letter then that is not true and I will be happy to reproduce all your quotes on this topic (which I have saved) to remind you exactly what you said.

[David Orsam]

Speaking of which, I saw today that Swanson had written in his marginalia that the killer was sent to "the Seaside Home". If this was a police convalescent home, why would they have sent someone like Kosminsky to such a home?

Please see what I said about the lunatic asylum.

[David Orsam]

The truth is not a good concept in historical thinking. It is better to discuss validity and reliability. She had a motive (diminishing the significance of the event since she did not take any action), and therefore the source has the tendency.

This is a good example of what I have been saying about why your "source criticism" is a wholly inappropriate tool for analysing the evidence in a murder case. It might work for something like biblical interpretation (I don't know) but it is ludicrous in respect of a criminal case where people tell lies.

And Prater is not a "source", she was a witness in a judicial proceeding, not a monk writing on a parchment about a battle.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;387228]

The problem is, Pierre, if I follow your methods I might end up believing that Commissioner Warren, Commissioner Monro and various other senior officers of the Metropolitan Police were engaged in a secret and illegal conspiracy to allow the murderer of at least five women in Whitechapel in 1888 to escape justice and kill again.

Speaking of which, I saw today that Swanson had written in his marginalia that the killer was sent to "the Seaside Home". If this was a police convalescent home, why would they have sent someone like Kosminsky to such a home?

I might also start thinking that people were writing letters to newspapers, in a form of "metaphorical language", giving, in advance, the name and addresses of the next victims.

That is a question and not an hypothesis.

Them I might get carted off to a lunatic asylum.

But still, you did manage to behave in a civilized way right up to the last sentence, David. You are certainly improving.

[David Orsam]

Not being a tape recorder is not the explanation for that. My hypothesis, in line with the rest of her tendency, is that she is trying to diminish the significance of it.

I like to think, Pierre, that you must know the difference between the truth and a lie. I readily admit that I don't have a source for this but even children know the difference between these two concepts.

If Prater swore in the witness box that a cry of murder was a common occurrence when it was not a common occurrence she was telling a lie.

If she was telling a lie about that then the rest of her evidence might well have been equally untruthful.

In fact, the lie might simply have been to supplement her initial lie about the scream. If she lied about the scream then, when asked why she did nothing about it, she lied again to say it was a common occurrence.

You can't just say a witness lied in their sworn testimony and shrug it off as a "tendency" simply because it doesn't suit you to call it a lie.

[David Orsam]

The statements of Lewis differ between the police investigation source and the inquest source. Same goes for the Prater sources. Lewis did not stick to her first statement and neither did Prater.

I said: "People are not tape recorders, that is true Pierre, but I suggest they know the difference between a loud scream and something said in a faint voice."

You quoted that sentence and responded:

"The statements of Lewis differ between the police investigation source and the inquest source. Same goes for the Prater sources. Lewis did not stick to her first statement and neither did Prater."

How is that in any way a response to the sentence of mine which you quoted?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;387090]

People are not tape recorders, that is true Pierre, but I suggest they know the difference between a loud scream and something said in a faint voice.

The statements of Lewis differ between the police investigation source and the inquest source. Same goes for the Prater sources. Lewis did not stick to her first statement and neither did Prater.

And are you able to tell me why Prater's immediate reaction was that she heard two or three screams but then three days later her memory dramatically improved and it was only one cry in a faint voice. Is that because she was not a tape recorder?

Not being a tape recorder is not the explanation for that. My hypothesis, in line with the rest of her tendency, is that she is trying to diminish the significance of it.

Or is it because she was not telling the truth?

The truth is not a good concept in historical thinking. It is better to discuss validity and reliability. She had a motive (diminishing the significance of the event since she did not take any action), and therefore the source has the tendency.

[David Orsam]

Yes, I want you to become a better interpreter of the sources. You have the potential for it.

The problem is, Pierre, if I follow your methods I might end up believing that Commissioner Warren, Commissioner Monro and various other senior officers of the Metropolitan Police were engaged in a secret and illegal conspiracy to allow the murderer of at least five women in Whitechapel in 1888 to escape justice and kill again.

I might also start thinking that people were writing letters to newspapers, in a form of "metaphorical language", giving, in advance, the name and addresses of the next victims.

Them I might get carted off to a lunatic asylum.

[David Orsam]

The problem is that witnesses are not the objective recorders of their own experiences. They forget, they interpret, they add things and they exclude things.

They should not be doing that in the witness box Pierre. They are sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

[David Orsam]

But they wanted her to say what she experienced.

They wanted her to tell the truth Pierre.

[Pierre]

Well, I mean, Pierre, what happened is that I quoted from Prater's deposition and Garry claimed that I had quoted from a newspaper. I corrected him.

I didn't say that what she said in her deposition was true only that I wasn't quoting from a newspaper. It was a very simple point and I was saying no more than that.

You seem to want to argue about absolutely everything (with me) for some reason. Perhaps I should feel flattered.

Yes, I want you to become a better interpreter of the sources. You have the potential for it.

[David Orsam]

Perhaps you know how problematic the word "truth" is.

Not really Pierre.

Do you mean like your answers on this forum as to whether your suspect was an officer from Scotland Yard?