Let there be light!

[David Orsam]

I have done a lot of transcriptions from recordings, so I know that. That is what I mean when I say that the reliability of sources high up in the source hierarchy can still be problematic.

So what was your point about tape recordings?

[Pierre]

And whether she was telling the truth right?

Perhaps you know how problematic the word "truth" is. But they wanted her to say what she experienced. 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.

[David Orsam]

If people told the truth in court, there would have been no swearing in court. It is a normative procedure. It says nothing about the reliability of the statement. The only reliability there is, is the reliability of the source, since it is high up in the source hierarchy. On the other hand, we know nothing about whether there are words missing or other errors. And the contents can still have low reliability

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.

[Pierre]

If you've ever listened to a tape recording of evidence given by a witness, as I have, you will know that preparing an accurate transcript is not a simple matter because of a number of factors including the sound quality of the recording, people coughing at crucial moments thus obscuring what a witness has said, the witness mumbling or not completing words properly or various other reasons which make it difficult to hear properly what has been said.

I have done a lot of transcriptions from recordings, so I know that. That is what I mean when I say that the reliability of sources high up in the source hierarchy can still be problematic.

[David Orsam]

And the statements were depending on her memory, way of expression and willingness to tell them what they wanted to hear.

And whether she was telling the truth right?

[David Orsam]

Lewis does not live in Millerīs Court. Lewis is not the daughter or sister of Prater. She is not her friend, and does not stay with Prater. Thatīs enough for me. If you donīt like that, itīs your problem, David.

It's not a question of where she lives. It's whether she spoke to Prater in the period between the discovery of the body and the time she gave her statement to the police. Do you have a source to show that the two women did not speak to each other in that period?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;387211]

The depositions were taken down verbatim Pierre as she spoke.

And the statements were depending on her memory, way of expression and willingness to tell them what they wanted to hear.

The fact that she was sworn meant that she gave her evidence on oath: swearing on the bible that the evidence she gave was the truth and nothing but the truth.

If people told the truth in court, there would have been no swearing in court. It is a normative procedure. It says nothing about the reliability of the statement. The only reliability there is, is the reliability of the source, since it is high up in the source hierarchy. On the other hand, we know nothing about whether there are words missing or other errors. And the contents can still have low reliability.

I do not say that this is what we must expect, but what we should consider and therefore use source criticism.

[David Orsam]

it is not a tape recording.

If you've ever listened to a tape recording of evidence given by a witness, as I have, you will know that preparing an accurate transcript is not a simple matter because of a number of factors including the sound quality of the recording, people coughing at crucial moments thus obscuring what a witness has said, the witness mumbling or not completing words properly or various other reasons which make it difficult to hear properly what has been said.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;387207]

We don't know Pierre. But no-one is saying positively that they were Jack the Ripper.

You, however, are positively stating that they were independent witnesses and I would like your source for that statement please.

Lewis does not live in Millerīs Court. Lewis is not the daughter or sister of Prater. She is not her friend, and does not stay with Prater. Thatīs enough for me. If you donīt like that, itīs your problem, David.

[David Orsam]

Interpretations are often in the form of questions.

But this does not, of course, mean that questions are always interpretations.

[David Orsam]

That is an oversimplification, as you understand.

It was written in simple form as a way explaining something to you.

[David Orsam]

The point is that we know she was "sworn" (you are trying to make us think she told the "truth"), we know it was a "deposition" (you are trying to make it sound as if it was an objective phenomenon) and we still do not know to what degree we can trust everything in the source, since it is not a tape recording.

The depositions were taken down verbatim Pierre as she spoke.

The fact that she was sworn meant that she gave her evidence on oath: swearing on the bible that the evidence she gave was the truth and nothing but the truth.

[Pierre]

No I'm not, I'm asking a question.

Interpretations are often in the form of questions.

[Pierre]

If a witness says the colour of something was black and you say, "he/she must have meant white" you are changing the evidence of that witness

That is an oversimplification, as you understand.

[David Orsam]

Now you are "interpreting" the sources, David. Not "changing" them.

No I'm not, I'm asking a question.