Originally posted by Pierre
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Let there be light!
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostIf 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pierre View PostIf 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 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostAnd whether she was telling the truth right?
Comment
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostWell, 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pierre View PostThe problem is that witnesses are not the objective recorders of their own experiences. They forget, they interpret, they add things and they exclude things.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pierre View PostYes, I want you to become a better interpreter of the sources. You have the potential for it.
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.
Comment
-
[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.
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?
Or is it because she was not telling the truth?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pierre View PostThe 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.
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?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pierre View PostNot 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.
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.
Comment
-
[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.
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.
Comment
Comment