Let there be light!

[Pierre]

My explanation is that she was either dead or had gone out from her room that morning.

I don't need to provide any sources for an explanation of this kind.

OK. Here are the sources. So, if:

Dead:

1. Bond: Post-mortem

2. Lewis: Police investigation, inquest

3. Prater: Police investigation, inquest

4. Mrs Pritchett: Interview in The Sunday Times 11 November

Gone out:

5. Mrs Maxwell, Police investigation, inquest

4. Mrs Pritchett: Interview in The Sunday Times 11 November

According to your hypothesis, source 1-3 must be proved to be of the lowest value and source 5 must be proved to be of the highest value.

But now we have the interesting position for source 4.

What are your arguments for the value of that source?

Where do you want to place that source - under "Dead" or "Gone out"?

Why?

Can you also please do a source critical analysis for the Maxwell source?

It would be really interesting to see what you think are the source critical reasons for placing that source under "Gone out"?

Kind regards, Pierre

[Henry Flower]

Pierre,

If you could restrain yourself from announcing your fictitious superiority as a historian, and referring to the 'ignorance' of others, you might not find yourself attacked. You make a fool of yourself almost every time you post.

I have analyzed the Pierre sources: You are a typical undergrad. Get over yourself. Stop telling others what they must and must not do.

As far as anyone here knows, you're a complete nobody, so stop laying down the law to others.

You don't have that right.

[Henry Flower]

Can you also please do a source critical analysis for the Maxwell source?

Got that David? That's your homework. What a friggin jerk that kid is.

[JadenCollins]

Got that David? That's your homework. What a friggin jerk that kid is.

Amen

[David Orsam]

According to your hypothesis, source 1-3 must be proved to be of the lowest value and source 5 must be proved to be of the highest value.

I'm wondering what your source is for that statement Pierre.

What is my "hypothesis" of which you speak?

I said that my explanation of Mrs Pritchett's statement is that Kelly was either dead or had gone out that morning.

No sources are of "lowest" or "highest" value in making this statement. I have given the two most likely possibilities.

It's also possible, of course, that Kelly was in her room, alive, but did not want to be disturbed or specifically did not want to speak to Pritchett.

It seems to me that all you want to do is argue further about the time of death. But I would suggest that Mrs Pritchett's statement does not assist us in any way in establishing the time of death.

[David Orsam]

Can you also please do a source critical analysis for the Maxwell source?

I don't need to do a "source critical analysis for the Maxwell source", whatever you mean by that, in order to form a view that the likely explanation for Kelly not answering the door at 7.30am on the Friday morning is that she was either dead or not in her room.

[Pierre]

QUOTE=David Orsam;386207

I'm wondering what your source is for that statement Pierre.

What is my "hypothesis" of which you speak?

Your hypothesis is that Kelly was alive at the point in time given by Mrs Maxwell, isnīt it?

I said that my explanation of Mrs Pritchett's statement is that Kelly was either dead or had gone out that morning.

No sources are of "lowest" or "highest" value in making this statement. I have given the two most likely possibilities.

So what concept of likelyhood do you use?

And how do you come to the conclusion that those two are the "most likely" possibilities?

Kelly could also have been sleeping, or she might not have wanted to respond.

It's also possible, of course, that Kelly was in her room, alive, but did not want to be disturbed or specifically did not want to speak to Pritchett.

OK. "Possible" now - but you were talking about "likely". I suppose you do understand the differences between those two concepts, so why do you now just say that this other alternative is "possible"? And how do you position that possibility in relation to the other two "most likely" possibilities?

What contents in which sources make you say all this? Do you know that?

It seems to me that all you want to do is argue further about the time of death. But I would suggest that Mrs Pritchett's statement does not assist us in any way in establishing the time of death.

So here is a suggestion. Could you give the reasons for your suggestion?

Kind regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

I don't need to do a "source critical analysis for the Maxwell source", whatever you mean by that, in order to form a view that the likely explanation for Kelly not answering the door at 7.30am on the Friday morning is that she was either dead or not in her room.

But you see, you need it for comparing the Maxwell source and itīs value (reliability and validity) to the other set of sources. We can make good statements about the most probable time of death within a small range, if we perform source criticism and compare the sources!

[David Orsam]

Your hypothesis is that Kelly was alive at the point in time given by Mrs Maxwell, isnīt it?

No, that is not my hypothesis Pierre. I shouldn't be surprised that you've failed to understand my posts on this subject and, as it happens, I'm not at all surprised.

[Pierre]

No, that is not my hypothesis Pierre. I shouldn't be surprised that you've failed to understand my posts on this subject and, as it happens, I'm not at all surprised.

OK. So then your hypothesis is that Kelly was dead at that point in time. Since you can not have two contradictory hypotheses for this issue.

[David Orsam]

And how do you come to the conclusion that those two are the "most likely" possibilities? Kelly could also have been sleeping, or she might not have wanted to respond.

Yes, she could have been sleeping but my thinking is that the knocking on the door would probably have woken her up.

As for the likelihood issue, we know for a fact that Kelly was found dead at 10.45 so I consider that her death is a likely reason for her not having answered the door at 7.30.

We also know for a fact that a witness at the inquest said she saw Kelly alive at 8:00am and testified that Kelly told her that she had "just had a drink of ale".

So my thinking is based on the notion that if Mrs Maxwell's evidence was correct then Kelly had probably left her room at 7.30am but if Mrs Maxwell's evidence was not correct Kelly was probably dead. But there are other possible explanations as you have noted.

The problem is that Mrs Pritchett's story does not assist us in any way as to working out when Kelly was murdered.

[David Orsam]

OK. So then your hypothesis is that Kelly was dead at that point in time. Since you can not have two contradictory hypotheses for this issue.

I think you once stated on this forum that logic was not your strong point and boy you are really showing it.

What about a situation where I have no hypothesis?

[Pierre]

QUOTE=David Orsam;386217

I think you once stated on this forum that logic was not your strong point and boy you are really showing it.

How necessary was that for you? Why do you do it, David? Is it not enough for you to discuss the case - or perhaps you have other motives for being here.

What about a situation where I have no hypothesis?

If you have no hypothesis, OK. I hope you do understand the Greek word.

In post 140 for example you wrote:

"Mrs Maxwell: Said she saw MJK alive with her own eyes and spoke to her at 9am. She could, of course, have been mistaken but Dr Bond's evidence in no way contradicts her evidence. THAT is the point."

I asked you: ""Your hypothesis is that Kelly was alive at the point in time given by Mrs Maxwell, isnīt it?

It was a question, David.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;386216]Yes, she could have been sleeping but my thinking is that the knocking on the door would probably have woken her up.

As for the likelihood issue, we know for a fact that Kelly was found dead at 10.45 so I consider that her death is a likely reason for her not having answered the door at 7.30.

OK. How likely do you think it is? And why? I am very interested to hear how you think.

We also know for a fact that a witness at the inquest said she saw Kelly alive at 8:00am and testified that Kelly told her that she had "just had a drink of ale".

What is the source for this?

So my thinking is based on the notion that if Mrs Maxwell's evidence was correct then Kelly had probably left her room at 7.30am but if Mrs Maxwell's evidence was not correct Kelly was probably dead. But there are other possible explanations as you have noted.

OK. But it canīt be both or all of those. So what would be the most probable event in the past? What do you think? And why?

The problem is that Mrs Pritchett's story does not assist us in any way as to working out when Kelly was murdered.

The source provides us with the knowledge that Kelly did not open her door.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

How necessary was that for you? Why do you do it, David? Is it not enough for you to discuss the case - or perhaps you have other motives for being here.

It was absolutely necessary Pierre because you made a statement that was both untrue and illogical. If you were to stop doing such things then I would be able to stop pointing such things out.