Let there be light!

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
I used to be a staunch supporter of Maxwell seeing Mary Kelly..but now I am in two camps.
A] Mrs Maxwell was lying to give someone an alibi, they had no night one..
B] She actually saw Lizzie Albrook,a young lady living in the court, that worked in a Dorset street lodging house.
She is unlikely to have seen Mary Jane Kelly.
Regards Richard.

[Pierre]

Can you point me in the direction of one of them? I haven't seen that yet.

Columbo

Good idea, Columbo!

The Lewis-sources, which David likes to refer to, are not reliable. I have analysed the newspaper articles and almost all of them give that Lewis said he saw "a woman" coming out of "a house".

I have not analysed the sources for the alleged statements about Kelly being at the pub. Perhaps I could do that when I have the time.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;385797]

Pierre as usual not reading posts properly and failing to appreciate that all his points have already been dealt with by me.

David as usual not reading posts properly and failing to appreciate that all his points have already been dealt with by me.

The medical evidence cannot be relied on. Dr Bond, incidentally, was not a witness at the inquest but I don't want to make a point about it because Dr Phillips' post-mortem report no doubt said roughly the same thing.

The hierarchy of the sources demands that we take into consideration that the statements of professionals from the inquest are more important. If the sources where the professionals speak have tendencies and other sources do not, it is the other way around. Does the Bond source have a tendency considering the statements about TOD? NO.

Prater gave sworn testimony that the cry of murder during the night was not uncommon, therefore there is no certainty that it was connected in any way with Kelly's murder.

Wrong. You treat Prater as a statistical institution. Prater Statistics. She, Prater, the poor destitute in Spitalfields, had no possibility to give ANY reliable statement about HOW common that particular type of scream was. Was it heard in 10 percent of all nights in Spitalfields? Was it heard in 50 percent of all nights in Dorset Street? How often and where - and what time? - was such a scream, "Oh, Murder!", heard? Prater had no possibility to know this.

Pierre

[Wickerman]

There are so many problems with that article. Analyse it and you will see that.

Regards, Pierre

Too cryptic Pierre, if you see a problem then you explain what you see.

[Henry Flower]

Wrong. You treat Prater as a statistical institution. Prater Statistics[/B]. She, Prater, the poor destitute in Spitalfields, had no possibility to give ANY reliable statement about HOW common that particular type of scream was. Was it heard in 10 percent of all nights in Spitalfields? Was it heard in 50 percent of all nights in Dorset Street? How often and where - and what time? - was such a scream, "Oh, Murder!", heard? Prater had no possibility to know this. Pierre

Pierre, she had no possibility to give a reliable statement on this? That's garbage. Because she hadn't kept a detailed statistical diary of the exact times and dates when such cries were heard, and by how many other residents, you think you can state she had NO POSSIBILITY of reliably stating that it was a fairly common thing to hear? Rubbish. By those idiotic standards we are entitled to dismiss half the testimony given at any inquest. She was speaking for herself, from her own experience, she has no need to back up her testimony with a statistical analysis of 50 other residents. Do you apply that same standard to ALL witnesses at the inquests? No, you don't. Only when it suits you.

She lived in Spitalfields. In the autumn of 1888. You did not. She stated it was not uncommon to hear such cries. You can call her a liar (if you have evidence to back it up with) but what you can't do is simply dismiss her claim because she is an individual human with ears, rather than a statistical analysis.

You have a habit of cherry-picking when to apply your self-lauded rigorous statistical/analytical standards.

[David Orsam]

The Lewis-sources, which David likes to refer to

This is quite extraordinary even by Pierre's bizarre standards.

Apart from the fact that I haven't mentioned Morris Lewis in this thread. I had never mentioned him until Pierre asked me to investigate his story!

On 22 March 2016, in the thread "MJK's Body Identification", Pierre wrote (underlining added):

"I think there might be a problem with the interpretations of the sources giving the statements of Maurice (Morris is also used in the press) Lewis.

Someone should look into this. I think it would be just the right job for David Orsam. I don´t communicate with him right now, but perhaps he will read this."

At Pierre's direct request, therefore, I examined the story told by Lewis over two threads and my ultimate conclusion, which Pierre has probably never even read, was that there were problems with his story.

Those problems were not, of course, the ridiculous points that Pierre made at the time and has repeated in this thread. He thinks that Lewis said he saw "a woman" whereas the majority of the newspaper reports referred to "the woman", namely the deceased woman. His second point that Lewis should have known that Kelly lived in "a room" rather than "a house" is an awful point, and was discredited a long time ago, but it's a measure of the intractable nature of Pierre's mind that he still clings on to it.

[David Orsam]

The hierarchy of the sources demands that we take into consideration that the statements of professionals from the inquest are more important. If the sources where the professionals speak have tendencies and other sources do not, it is the other way around. Does the Bond source have a tendency considering the statements about TOD? NO.

The Bond source was not one of "the statements of professionals from the inquest" so your argument fails on its own terms.

[David Orsam]

Does the Bond source have a tendency considering the statements about TOD? NO.

Yes it does have a "tendency" actually. It has a "tendency" by which Bond wants to pretend that he can estimate the actual time of Kelly's murder when the reality was that he had no chance and no hope of doing so. Consequently, he put forward an explanation as to how he arrived at a time of 1-2am that doesn't actually make sense when read carefully.

[David Orsam]

Wrong. You treat Prater as a statistical institution. Prater Statistics.

I haven't mentioned any "Prater Statistics" nor do I treat Prater as a statistical institution. I referred to her evidence at the Kelly inquest. Henry Flower has already explained it so I won't bother repeating what he says.

[Wickerman]

..... She stated it was not uncommon to hear such cries. You can call her a liar (if you have evidence to back it up with) but what you can't do is simply dismiss her claim because she is an individual human with ears, rather than a statistical analysis.

But this type of bias thinking is not uncommon here on Casebook. Several other posters habitually claim a witness or source are lying.
This is a form of desperation, theorists who chose this path, being unable to provide contradictory evidence, are hi-liting the fact they are backed into a corner. Resorting to name-calling and condescension is their only alternative.

Contesting the statement of a witness requires 'just cause' - that is, evidence to the contrary.

[Wickerman]

Yes it does have a "tendency" actually. It has a "tendency" by which Bond wants to pretend that he can estimate the actual time of Kelly's murder when the reality was that he had no chance and no hope of doing so. Consequently, he put forward an explanation as to how he arrived at a time of 1-2am that doesn't actually make sense when read carefully.

Hello David.
Just off on a tangent here for a minute....
I know you are familiar with Dr. Bond's summary/report to Anderson/Warren, but from your post above do I detect that you think his report was entirely the product of his own opinion?

I ask because, I'm inclined to think not.

[Henry Flower]

Contesting the statement of a witness requires 'just cause' - that is, evidence to the contrary.

Ah, but Wickerman, his highly calibrated tendencyometer starting bleeping when he scanned Prater's testimony.

[David Orsam]

Hello David.
Just off on a tangent here for a minute....
I know you are familiar with Dr. Bond's summary/report to Anderson/Warren, but from your post above do I detect that you think his report was entirely the product of his own opinion?

I ask because, I'm inclined to think not.

Hi Jon,

Without wishing to be obtuse I don't really know what you mean by "the product of his own opinion". I have no doubt whatsoever that he was expressing his own opinion in his report. In reaching that opinion, he might have had discussions with others, so that one could say his opinion was the product of those discussions, but I'm quite sure Bond did not express any opinions in his report which he did not agree with.

The point that I was making in my post was that, like every medical man, he was expected to be able to come up with an accurate time of death. People would rely on him to do so and he had to deliver. The problem was that it wasn't possible for him to do it. I'm sure he did his best and thought he was in the ballpark but he might as well have stuck his finger in the air. To what extent he was conscious of this I can't say, and he might have been deceiving himself, but his explanation of how he reached his conclusion of 1-2am doesn't make sense.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;385862]

Yes it does have a "tendency" actually. It has a "tendency" by which Bond wants to pretend that he can estimate the actual time of Kelly's murder when the reality was that he had no chance and no hope of doing so. Consequently, he put forward an explanation as to how he arrived at a time of 1-2am that doesn't actually make sense when read carefully.

There is no such tendency in this source.

Firstly, what is the external function of the source, David? It is to give Warren an opinion on the amount of surgical skill and anatomical knowledge probably possessed by the killer(s), and doing so using the medical evidence given at the inquests.

Therefore, giving evidence for the TOD is not the function. So there is no reason to think that there should be an internal problem with the source connected to it. And it is also obvious that Bond is critical about his own statement as to the TOD in the source. He is therefore not "pretending".

Also, you write that "he had no chance and no hope...". Firstly, chance is an external, measurable concept. It is therefore not meaningful to render the concept an idiographic angle.

On the other hand, if you wanted to postulate that Bond did not think he had a chance, that would be an idiographic statement, relevant for discussing historical sources. But then you need a source for what he was thinking.

And as there is such a source, namely the one we are discussing here, it is easy to see that Bond thought he had some chance, since he actually gives a statement for the TOD.

So, the same goes for the "hope" you are talking about, which here is clearly idiographic, and the source shows that he had some hope, since he gives the TOD.

So, to conclude, Bond thought he had a chance, and he thought there was hope (speaking in your own terms) that he could give a meaningful TOD, and at the same time he critically discussed the problems with the procedure, thereby not at all pretending anything.

Therefore there is no such tendency in this source.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

There is no such tendency in this source.

Firstly, what is the external function of the source, David? It is to give Warren an opinion on the amount of surgical skill and anatomical knowledge probably possessed by the killer(s), and doing so using the medical evidence given at the inquests.

Therefore, giving evidence for the TOD is not the function. So there is no reason to think that there should be an internal problem with the source connected to it.

Yes of course there is a reason to think there is a problem. Dr Bond was being paid by the Metropolitan Police/Home Office to provide an opinion. Therefore, he has to express an opinion. He can't just say "I don't know". So his "tendency" is to fulfill the expectations imposed on him. The "external function" of the source is to keep his paymasters happy.

We now know in 2016 that what the doctor was attempting to do was impossible. The only mystery is why you still seem to rely on his time of death estimate.