Let there be light!

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;375685][QUOTE=Elamarna;375680]

Pierre

I will answer both post here.



I am not counting "moments". So that is no problem.



Of course it does.



Why should I mention a "witness" who was not living in Millerīs Court / Dorset Street, was not giving a statement on 9 November and who was not at the inquest?



Of course you do, Steve. Of course you do.


I do not trust the arguments on this site.

Has I said earlier, we will not agree on this issue,
goodnight
Steve

Regards, Pierre

just one comment

"I am not counting "moments". So that is no problem."

just highlights the lack of knowledge involved.

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;375685][QUOTE=Elamarna;375680]

Pierre

I will answer both post here.



I am not counting "moments". So that is no problem.



Of course it does.



Why should I mention a "witness" who was not living in Millerīs Court / Dorset Street, was not giving a statement on 9 November and who was not at the inquest?



Of course you do, Steve. Of course you do.


I do not trust the arguments on this site.

Has I said earlier, we will not agree on this issue,
goodnight
Steve

Regards, Pierre

Pierre,

I'm not sure what you mean about not trusting the arguments. All of the arguments I've made about time of death have referred to authoritative modern sources. Am I therefore to take it that you don't trust any sources from later than 1888? Not exactly the approach of an historian, is it?

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=John G;375692][QUOTE=Pierre;375685]

Pierre,

I'm not sure what you mean about not trusting the arguments. All of the arguments I've made about time of death have referred to authoritative modern sources. Am I therefore to take it that you don't trust any sources from later than 1888? Not exactly the approach of an historian, is it?

John
Given I have used 19th Century sources, so it appear that no sources are accepted!

Steve

[GUT]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;375693][QUOTE=John G;375692]

John
Given I have used 19th Century sources, so it appear that no sources are accepted!

Steve

Seems like in thread he only wants later sources (which can't be his much vaunted primary sources, but then he still wants to insist Skinner and Evans is a Primary Source) another thread he wants Sources firm 1888.

Funny really isn't it.

[DJA]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;375687][QUOTE=Pierre;375685]

just one comment

"I am not counting "moments". So that is no problem."

just highlights the lack of knowledge involved.

Roughly speaking,food enters the small intestine an hour after eating and the stomach is emptied after two hours.

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=DJA;375711][QUOTE=Elamarna;375687]

Roughly speaking,food enters the small intestine an hour after eating and the stomach is emptied after two hours.

DJA

useful info.unfortunately it takes us no further forward with out a time for that last meal

regards

steve

[DJA]

Given what we know,I'd go with one last meal ~ 1am and time of death ~2.30am.

[Elamarna]

Given what we know,I'd go with one last meal ~ 1am and time of death ~2.30am.

i tend to push that to time of death 3.-4am, same ball park, just hour out

assuming she ate with blotchy, digestion on her part took just a little longer,

steve

[DJA]

Prater's testimony puts Blotchy's departure ~ 1am, or after 1.30am.

Reckon Hutchinson was Jack's lookout,however the time frame would be thereabouts.

Realise that the song made it's debut in 1938,however Mary Kelly may have literally been singing for her supper

[Mayerling]

[QUOTE=Pierre;375685][QUOTE=Elamarna;375680]

Pierre

I will answer both post here.

Why should I mention a "witness" who was not living in Millerīs Court / Dorset Street, was not giving a statement on 9 November and who was not at the inquest?

Regards, Pierre

Hello Pierre,

An issue arose when I read this. You are rejecting Hutchinson's testimony because he did not give his statement on 9 November 1888 and was not at the inquest - both points I would accept. But the first point makes no sense to me at all.

We are not dealing with a murder occurring on an isolated island in the sea, like the "murders at Smutty Nose", New Hampshire on the Isle of Shoals off the coast. Such a type of murder has limited human traffic in it. But Mary's murder site at Miller's Court, Dorset Street was in an active area of the east end of London. Many people traverse that area - although I agree in the wee hours of night less than in the daytime hours. It's not isolated.

Now, if instead of a nobody like Hutchinson, the witness (for whatever personal reason he or she was in the area at that time) was somebody like Queen Victoria, Prime Minister Salisbury, the author Thomas Hardy, Walter Sickert, Oscar Wilde, Vice Admiral Sir George Tryon...any number of prominent contemporaries who might happen to be at the right place at the right time - why would you disqualify a statement by them about witnessing these activities because they don't reside at that address or location?? It makes no sense.

Again, I understand dismissing Hutchinson for the other reasons, but you spoiled those points by the first reason you gave.

Jeff

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Mayerling;375732][QUOTE=Pierre;375685]

Hello Pierre,

An issue arose when I read this. You are rejecting Hutchinson's testimony because he did not give his statement on 9 November 1888 and was not at the inquest - both points I would accept. But the first point makes no sense to me at all.

We are not dealing with a murder occurring on an isolated island in the sea, like the "murders at Smutty Nose", New Hampshire on the Isle of Shoals off the coast. Such a type of murder has limited human traffic in it. But Mary's murder site at Miller's Court, Dorset Street was in an active area of the east end of London. Many people traverse that area - although I agree in the wee hours of night less than in the daytime hours. It's not isolated.

Now, if instead of a nobody like Hutchinson, the witness (for whatever personal reason he or she was in the area at that time) was somebody like Queen Victoria, Prime Minister Salisbury, the author Thomas Hardy, Walter Sickert, Oscar Wilde, Vice Admiral Sir George Tryon...any number of prominent contemporaries who might happen to be at the right place at the right time - why would you disqualify a statement by them about witnessing these activities because they don't reside at that address or location?? It makes no sense.

Again, I understand dismissing Hutchinson for the other reasons, but you spoiled those points by the first reason you gave.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

There is no indication in the Hutchinson-source that he knows anyone in Millerīs Court and therefore there was no one who could confirm that he knew the victim. We therefore do not know what his relation to the victim was, if any. This is a problem, given the tendency of the source, i.e. the man Hutchinson is giving details about a man with "Jewish appearance". Since Hutchinson has no other interest in Millerīs Court, i.e. he is not living in Millerīs Court or knowing anyone there and visiting them temporarily, the external function of the source is disputable as the production of the source can be correlated with the tendency: Hutchinson wanted to tell the police about a man with "Jewish appearance". Therefore, I think the reliability of this source is very low.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;375693][QUOTE=John G;375692]

John
Given I have used 19th Century sources, so it appear that no sources are accepted!

Steve

There is no way I could teach you the methods of academic history in a short time in a forum. You need to go to the University to learn.

Steve, you do not have the slightest historical education and yet you believe you could tell a historian how he should work.

What you are doing now, Steve, is generalizing to "all sources", and using that generalization rhetorically against an historian, in spite of your total lack of knowledge about historical sources and secondary literature, the different kinds of use for them and the distinctions between them.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;375692][QUOTE=Pierre;375685][QUOTE=Elamarna;375680]

Pierre,

I'm not sure what you mean about not trusting the arguments.

It should be really easy to understand, John. You are not an historian, David is not an historian, Steve is not an historian and yet you try to be historians and to tell me, an historian, how to be one.

All of the arguments I've made about time of death have referred to authoritative modern sources.

You are very interested in sounding legitimate, using the word "authoritative" and "modern". I am speaking as a sociologist now. But - and now I am the historian - you should be more concerned with the sources from 1888, their relations to each other, their provenience, their tendencies and their interpretations. You will not find the answer to the question of the TOD of the victim in Millerīs Court in a book from 2016. Actually, you will not find it in any book from 1888 or thereabout either.

Am I therefore to take it that you don't trust any sources from later than 1888? Not exactly the approach of an historian, is it?

So now you claim to have studied the field of history and the producers of that field, i.e. the historians, since you think that you are able to give a generalization about the "approach of an historian" and compare me to it. And you do not even know what you mean by "approach of an historian", since you are not an historian, and the field of history is something you have never studied.

Regards, Pierre

[GUT]

[QUOTE=Pierre;375742][QUOTE=John G;375692][QUOTE=Pierre;375685]

Pierre,



It should be really easy to understand, John. You are not an historian, David is not an historian, Steve is not an historian and yet you try to be historians and to tell me, an historian, how to be one.



You are very interested in sounding legitimate, using the word "authoritative" and "modern". I am speaking as a sociologist now. But - and now I am the historian - you should be more concerned with the sources from 1888, their relations to each other, their provenience, their tendencies and their interpretations. You will not find the answer to the question of the TOD of the victim in Millerīs Court in a book from 2016. Actually, you will not find it in any book from 1888 or thereabout either.


So now you claim to have studied the field of history and the producers of that field, i.e. the historians, since you think that you are able to give a generalization about the "approach of an historian" and compare me to it. And you do not even know what you mean by "approach of an historian", since you are not an historian, and the field of history is something you have never studied.

Regards, Pierre

And I strongly suspect your aren't a historian either. Based on what you post here. Now me I'm not a historian, but Mrs Gut is, sh has read some of your posts and says if you were ine if her students your mark would be "F".

But hey what would sh know she only has a PhD, lectures at University (in History) and works she has published are required reading at universities around the world.

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;375741][QUOTE=Elamarna;375693]

There is no way I could teach you the methods of academic history in a short time in a forum. You need to go to the University to learn.

Steve, you do not have the slightest historical education and yet you believe you could tell a historian how he should work.

What you are doing now, Steve, is generalizing to "all sources", and using that generalization rhetorically against an historian, in spite of your total lack of knowledge about historical sources and secondary literature, the different kinds of use for them and the distinctions between them.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre

a few points about the above post:

Please do not make statements about peoples education, about which you have no knowledge, and are wrong.

The quote you post (reproduced below) was a response to the post #302 by John G, you continue to say we must use sources from the period in question, otherwise it as no value, so that rules out Johns modern sources; however you also appear to rule out the sources quoted from the 19th century that do not fit your view.

In that case what is left?

The term "All sources" was never used by me!
Given that the quote is given correctly at the start of the post, one can only assume this is done for dramatic effect, that is not acceptable as you are well aware.
for the sake of clarity this is what was ACTUALLY said in post #303

"I have used 19th Century sources, so it appear that no sources are accepted!"

It is an honest appraisal of the situation based on the replies in your various posts, not a generalisation as you claim.


Worryingly there now appears to be an attitude that the views of some are not equal to the views of others on this forum, who are in their view better educated.

The suggestion is that the view of an "Historian" cannot be disputed by those deemed to be "non-Historians" by the "Historian"; What Elitist nonsense!

Anyone is entitle to disagree with anyone, provide they are not rude.

The forum decides which view, if either, they believe or place value on, not an individual.

steve