Let there be light!

[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.

[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!

[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]

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

Indeed.

[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]

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.

[David Orsam]

For anyone not aware of the list Pierre gave me, this was a list of four books back on 14 May. It was in response to this request by me:

"Can you refer me to any published work by a suitably qualified historian in the English language which uses the word "tendency" in the way you have used it on this forum? I mean, if what you are doing is bog-standard academic historical analysis then you should be able to cite absolutely loads of books by "academic historians" which refer to the "tendency of a source" or "the tendency of the witness", right?"

His list was as follows:

1. Going to the Sources: A Guide to Historical Research and Writing.
Anthony Brundage. (Harlan Davidson, 2002)

2. The archaeology of knowledge.
Michel Foucault. (Routledge, 2002)

3. On "What Is History?": From Carr and Elton to Rorty and White.
Keith Jenkins. (Routledge, 1995)

4. Methods of critical discourse studies.
Michael Meyer, Ruth Wodak. (SAGE, 2016).

My first response to him was:

"I'm not interested in books about historical method. I want to be referred to academic books about history itself. Not the method of history, or critical discourse or historical sources or the archeology of knowledge. History itself. A proper history book. I want to see practical demonstrations of the use of the word "tendency" in a serious work relating to any period of history."

He then became very angry and accused me of "ridiculing and belittling" him and of trying to "destroy" everything he said but there was no new list of books produced.

As for the list of books he did give me, here was my response on 15 May:

"I didn't want Pierre to think I was ignoring his list, what with him having taken the time to provide me with four examples of books on historical method and theory, so I've carried out some investigating. All the books he lists are searchable online so I word-searched them all for "tendency"/"tendencies"

Not a single one of them refer to the tendency of a source or witness or of any other form of evidence.

Taking them individually:

Going to the Sources: A Guide to Historical Research and Writing by Anthony Brundage

The index to this book reveals a number of entries for the word "bias" but none for "tendency/tendencies". From word searching, the closest we get to anything like Pierre's usage is when the author refers to: "a method of guarding against the unconscious tendency of looking for – and seeing only that evidence that bolsters your preconceptions". This is advice for researchers to guard against their own tendency to be biased in favour of their own theories which is rather different to what Pierre has been preaching and something which he might want to bear in mind himself when dismissing evidence which is inconsistent with his own theory.

The archaeology of knowledge by Michel Foucault

This book is translated from French.

I really don't know why Pierre has included Foucault on the list because I asked for historians yet Foucault's qualifications are in philosophy, psychology and psychopathology. Nevertheless, I performed the relevant word searches. There is a single hit for the word "tendencies" in the introduction where Foucault refers to "the underlying tendencies that gather force" but this is not in the context of document analysis and I think he means a different type of "tendencies" here to the one Pierre keeps mentioning.

On "What Is History?": From Carr and Elton to Rorty and White by Keith Jenkins.

At one point, in the introduction, Jenkins says, "in order to gain a further understanding of the impact of postmodern tendencies on traditional histories/historians across the spectrum and to locate it within Carr, Elton Rorty and White, I think it might be useful to give a brief account of some of the controversies." He also quotes E. Fox-Genovese as saying that "at any given moment systems of relations operate in relation to a dominant tendency, what Marx calls a mode of production that endows them with a structure”. But this is just in the introductory pages and there is nothing about tendencies of sources. We may note that a similar work by Keith Jenkins from 1991 entitled 'Re-thinking History' is available online as a PDF and a search reveals an entire section, covering four pages, entitled "On Bias". Just as one would expect. A search for "tendency" and "tendencies" produces no hits in this book.

Methods of critical discourse studies by Michael Meyer, Ruth Wodak.

Finally, Pierre referred me to 'Methods of Critical discourse studies' of which Ruth Wodak (professor of Discourse Studies) and Michael Meyer (professor of Business Administration) are editors. This is another strange choice because the book contains 9 articles written or co-written by the following: 1. a professor of Language in social Life, 2. a professor for German Language, 3. a research assistant in Human Resource Management, 4. a lecturer of Linguistics and English Language, 5. a teacher of Applied Linguistics, 6. a professor of Discourse Studies, 7. a professor of Media and Communication, 8. an assistant professor of Sociolinguistics, 9. a professor of Organization Studies, and 10. a professor of Language and Communication. Not a single historian among them! There are a few references to tendencies in extremely dull passages such as "Blair's text is representative of the dominant tendency of the times towards depoliticization but this tendency coexists with politicizing responses….." and "tendencies associated with political capitalism" but nothing relating to source criticism. I have no idea why Pierre included this book in his list of suggested reading at all.

Conclusion

These books were offered up in response to me asking Pierre to show me books by "academic historians" which refer to "the tendency of the source" or the "tendency of the witness". I was expecting proper history books but the fact that he hasn't even been able to provide any such book that I requested, even in respect of books on historical method suggests to me that far from bringing the approach of an academic historian to the board, as he has told us repeatedly that he is doing, he is bringing a unique, quirky, approach to source analysis, and one, which, for reasons I have already posted, is not, in my opinion, appropriate for analyzing evidence in criminal cases."

[Columbo]

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!

It's not a matter of thinking about it, it's the policy of the Coroner's Office. He must be able to establish a time of death as accurately as possible. That falls under the "When and Where". I'm sorry but thems the rules.

Columbo

[David Orsam]

It's not a matter of thinking about it, it's the policy of the Coroner's Office. He must be able to establish a time of death as accurately as possible. That falls under the "When and Where". I'm sorry but thems the rules.

Where do I find a copy of these rules (or policy) Columbo?

[Abby Normal]

It's not a matter of thinking about it, it's the policy of the Coroner's Office. He must be able to establish a time of death as accurately as possible. That falls under the "When and Where". I'm sorry but thems the rules.

Columbo

and just to show I'm an equal opportunity disagreer-David is definitely correct on this one! : )

[Pierre]

True but at the same time we could theoretically say that since she didn't answer the door when Pritchett came calling that would be some proof she was dead.
So yes what I have been trying to say is Maxwell says she saw her on Friday Morning and no one else did. I think I said that in another post. We only need one other person to say they saw her in the morning, not necessarily with Maxwell. That would corroborate her story.

Columbo

Hi Columbo,

I have been analysing the statements of Mrs Pritchett in The Sunday Times 11 November 1888.

Mrs Pritchett lived across the court and saw the windows in Kelly´s room. She heard Kelly sing at half past twelve on the night of the murder and wanted to go over to her room.

Her husband Dave stopped her from doing so, saying she should leave Kelly alone.

She went out in the morning to go to work. On the way to work she stopped by Kelly´s room to borrow a shawl.

She knocked at her door and got now answer so knocked again.

Conclusion:

Mrs Pritchett knew Kelly, since she would have been able to go over to her in the middle of the night and also in the morning. Mrs Pritchett knew Kelly and therefore she could knock on her door and ask for a shawl. Mrs Pritchett was expecting Kelly to be in her room at about 7.30 in the morning, since she went over to her at that time. Mrs Pritchett expected Kelly to open the door and also to lend her the shawl. When Kelly did not open the door, Pritchett thought that Kelly was asleep.

The newspaper article is very detailed. The statements of Mrs Pritchett show only one tendency and that is that she says everything she is thinking. There is an aspect of closeness both in time and place.

My conclusion is that Pritchett is a reliable witness.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

My conclusion is that Pritchett is a reliable witness.

I'm very surprised, Pierre, because you normally tell us that we can't rely on newspaper reports and we should always refer to the "official" sources.

That aside, what is the significance in your view of Mrs Pritchett knocking at Kelly's door at 7.30am and not getting a response?

[Pierre]

I'm very surprised, Pierre, because you normally tell us that we can't rely on newspaper reports and we should always refer to the "official" sources.

That aside, what is the significance in your view of Mrs Pritchett knocking at Kelly's door at 7.30am and not getting a response?

Spare me the comments about your "surprise". Also, spare me all the off topic contents you create her. You do damage to the case. We are here to discuss the case, not to attack people. No more of this.

The significance of Kelly not responding is that there was a reason for it. Our task is to find the reason.

What is your own explanation - and the sources for it?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Spare me the comments about your "surprise". Also, spare me all the off topic contents you create her. You do damage to the case. We are here to discuss the case, not to attack people. No more of this.

I am also here to discuss the case Pierre, not to receive lectures from you on how to evaluate documents or any other form of evidence. If you follow your own guidelines and confine yourself to discussing the case we might be able to avoid the "off topic contents".

[David Orsam]

What is your own explanation - and the sources for it?

My explanation is that she was either dead or had gone out from her room that morning.

I don't need to provide any sources for an explanation of this kind.