Originally posted by Wickerman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Let there be light!
Collapse
X
-
-
[QUOTE=David Orsam;385921]That is an inaccurate summary of the evidence Pierre.
Yes it was a common occurrence according to Prater but you cannot say it was not a common occurrence "according to a lot of people" because no-one else has expressed a view.
In short, the only evidence we have is the evidence of Prater who said it was a common occurrence based on her own experience.
Comment
-
[QUOTE=David Orsam;385922]The problem, Pierre, with your idiosyncratic approach of looking for "tendencies" - for which you have never provided an example of any actual historian doing such a thing - is that you never factor in the possibility of the witness telling the truth.
If Prater frequently heard a cry of murder from the back of the lodging house then there was no "tendency" in her evidence was there? She was simply telling the truth.
So how do you know Prater was not telling the truth?
Here it is again, David:
Is there a reason to think that the experience described by Prater is not true?
It would be better for the discussion if you could please try and read what other people say instead of putting words in their mouths. It would also help your own understanding a lot.
Kind regards, PierreLast edited by Pierre; 06-26-2016, 01:36 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pierre View PostYou donīt get the point, David. The point is that no one else said anything about the issue.
No-one else said anything about the issue so you cannot say "it was not a common occurrence according to a lot of people" which were your exact words.
Comment
-
[QUOTE=Columbo;385923]Didn't Prater say "such cries were not un-common"? That doesn't necessarily mean it had to be cries of "murder" does it?
It is a good observation. However, in the inquest source she says "cries of murder", so that is the specific concept she is talking about in at least that source.
Which is very interesting to me is that after several murders of prostitutes, and the police patrols, civilian patrols etc, and the fact everyone was emotionally charged about the murders, no one went to investigate this cry of "murder".
Regards, Pierre
Comment
-
You donīt get the point, David. The point is that no one else said anything about the issue.
So? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. What you're inadvertantly admitting is that the only evidence we have on the issue is that the cry was not uncommon. You're admitting that there is no evidence or testimony contradicting Prater.
Prater did not express that phrase. She said "frequently" and "nothing uncommon".
Wow. Reduced to that. Just, wow.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pierre View Post
Why do you ask that question - since I have never stated that I "know" that. Did you not see the question I wrote?
Here it is again, David:
Is there a reason to think that the experience described by Prater is not true?
It would be better for the discussion if you could please try and read what other people say instead of putting words in their mouths. It would also help your own understanding a lot.
"Was she telling the truth? Or do we see a tendency in the source, given that a murder occurred in Millerīs Court on the same night?"
So, by your own phrasing of the question, there are two possibilities: either she was telling the truth or.... she was not telling the truth. You are saying that there was a "tendency" in her evidence which must mean that she was not telling the truth.
So Pierre I did read what you said. You said that Prater was not telling the truth at the inquest about cries of murder at night being a common occurrence. I asked how you know she was not telling the truth. Instead of an answer you just posted drivel.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pierre View PostThis is not an academic approach but the approach of a child believing what he reads. What are the sources at hand, David? They are sources for murder investigation and an inquest. But I understand that you simply - it is a simple fact - have no historical education and therefore can not follow me.
So in order to assist me to develop my historical education, could you kindly direct me to some published historians who have written about murder investigations and who, in doing so, have discussed the "tendency" of sources in the way you have done so on this forum?
Given that you tell us your approach is the proper historical method I assume you must be able to provide me with loads of examples. Because I am sure you are not conducting a radical and groundbreaking approach to history on this forum which has never been done before by any published historian.
I look forward to your reply with a list of examples of murder investigating historians I can read to educate myself.
Comment
-
Pierre,
Yet again you are reduced to asserting that someone who has successfully countered one of your hypotheses simply cannot follow your historically educated reasoning or methodology.
That being the case, why don't you shove your assertions of superiority up where the sun don't shine, and go post somewhere else, where the real historians will be able to follow you?
There is no evidence Prater told anything other than the truth. There is no evidence you have any historical bona fides. You don't write like a historian. You don't write like an adult. You write, frankly, like an undergraduate student with a chip on his shoulder.
Comment
-
There is something that has been mentioned and that's the food Mary Kelly ate. Anyone have thoughts on that? After some quick googling it appears an average of 6-8 hours is required for basic digestion and it takes a minium of 30+ hours to become waste.
Columbo
Comment
-
Originally posted by Henry Flower View PostPierre,
Yet again you are reduced to asserting that someone who has successfully countered one of your hypotheses simply cannot follow your historically educated reasoning or methodology.
That being the case, why don't you shove your assertions of superiority up where the sun don't shine, and go post somewhere else, where the real historians will be able to follow you?
There is no evidence Prater told anything other than the truth. There is no evidence you have any historical bona fides. You don't write like a historian. You don't write like an adult. You write, frankly, like an undergraduate student with a chip on his shoulder.
Columbo
Comment
-
[QUOTE=Pierre;385974]Originally posted by Columbo View Post
Hi Columbo,
It is a good observation. However, in the inquest source she says "cries of murder", so that is the specific concept she is talking about in at least that source.
Well, they did. The police investigation source and the inquest source are both focusing on that statement made by Prater. So they were clearly interested in her statements about the cry of murder.
Regards, Pierre
Columbo
Comment
-
Originally posted by Columbo View PostThere is something that has been mentioned and that's the food Mary Kelly ate. Anyone have thoughts on that? After some quick googling it appears an average of 6-8 hours is required for basic digestion and it takes a minium of 30+ hours to become waste.
Columbo
Digestion periods differ in everybody, so times given can only be only estimates.Regards, Jon S.
Comment
Comment