Let there be light!

[Pierre]

How do we know there wasn't collusion between Prater and Lewis?

How do we know Prater and Lewis were not Jack the Ripper?

If there are no sources, there is absence of sources. And then we can not pose such questions, since they are meaningless.

[David Orsam]

The press also had tape recorders. And everyone in those days was totally honest and trained in using tape recorders so they were able to obtain recordings which were 100 percent reliable.

Not sure of the purpose of this post. I repeat that the quotation I used was taken directly from Prater's sworn deposition.

[Pierre]

Or imagined it?

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

[David Orsam]

You do not "change" "evidence". "Evidence" is sources and what you do with sources is that you interpret the sources.

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

[Pierre]

Not sure of the purpose of this post. I repeat that the quotation I used was taken directly from Prater's sworn deposition.

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.

[David Orsam]

How do we know Prater and Lewis were not Jack the Ripper?

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.

[David Orsam]

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

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

[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.

[Pierre]

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

Interpretations are often in the form of questions.

[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.

[David Orsam]

That is an oversimplification, as you understand.

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

[David Orsam]

Interpretations are often in the form of questions.

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

[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]

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;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.