Let there be light!

[David Orsam]

The truth is not a good concept in historical thinking. It is better to discuss validity and reliability. She had a motive (diminishing the significance of the event since she did not take any action), and therefore the source has the tendency.

This is a good example of what I have been saying about why your "source criticism" is a wholly inappropriate tool for analysing the evidence in a murder case. It might work for something like biblical interpretation (I don't know) but it is ludicrous in respect of a criminal case where people tell lies.

And Prater is not a "source", she was a witness in a judicial proceeding, not a monk writing on a parchment about a battle.

[David Orsam]

Speaking of which, I saw today that Swanson had written in his marginalia that the killer was sent to "the Seaside Home". If this was a police convalescent home, why would they have sent someone like Kosminsky to such a home?

Please see what I said about the lunatic asylum.

[David Orsam]

That is a question and not an hypothesis.

If you are trying to say that you were only asking a question about GOGMAGOG and not claiming that he inserted the name and address of Mary Kelly in his letter then that is not true and I will be happy to reproduce all your quotes on this topic (which I have saved) to remind you exactly what you said.

[David Orsam]

But still, you did manage to behave in a civilized way right up to the last sentence, David. You are certainly improving.

Thank you very much Pierre. As you know, I lap up all praise from you.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;387231]

I like to think, Pierre, that you must know the difference between the truth and a lie.

Like the example with black or white. Black or white, true or false. And nothing in between. No scale, not even an ordinal one. Just 0/1, 0/1.

I readily admit that I don't have a source for this but even children know the difference between these two concepts.

Irrelevant statement. But I don´t think children do, and therefore must be taught. Even Plato did not know what "truth" was. But you think you do. And also, you think you know the difference between truth and lies.

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.

It might have been the right thing for her to say.

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.

So now you are doing some internal source criticism.

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.

So she lied in the police investigation and also at the inquest.

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.

Hey, David. I am lying now. What do you say about that?

[David Orsam]

Like the example with black or white. Black or white, true or false. And nothing in between. No scale, not even an ordinal one. Just 0/1, 0/1.

Read what I said. I said if the witness says "Black" and you say "White" you are changing the evidence.

[David Orsam]

Irrelevant statement. But I don´t think children do, and therefore must be taught. Even Plato did not know what "truth" was. But you think you do. And also, you think you know the difference between truth and lies.

I didn't say children innately know the difference between truth and lies. Yes they are taught and I assume you have been taught too.

Anyone who says to me "Even Plato did not know what truth was" in a discussion about the difference between truth and lies, I would regard as a tricky person who I would not trust as far as I could throw him.

[David Orsam]

It might have been the right thing for her to say.

So I say:

"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."

And you respond:

"It might have been the right thing for her to say."

Perhaps you could explain to me how telling a lie under oath in the witness box could have been "the right thing" for her to say.

[David Orsam]

So now you are doing some internal source criticism.

No, I'm not. I'm simply stating the bleedin' obvious.

[David Orsam]

Hey, David. I am lying now. What do you say about that?

I don't have anything to say Pierre because, as usual, I don't know what you are talking about.

[Mayerling]

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.

Excuse me, in November 1888 the London press corps. had WHAT!!!

Where did you get the idea the tape recorder was invented in the 1880s?

I saw that comment and was bewildered - what had I missed all these years. I am aware that (in the U.S.) Edison had presented his phonograph in 1877, with it's original tin foil "records" (which did not last more than a few times they were heard). In 1888 Edison spent nearly 72 hours without sleep "perfecting" his now advanced wax cylinder phonograph, and there is a classic photograph of the blood shot eyed Edison looking at the camera over the improved recording device - but a phonograph is not a tape recorder!

So what do you have in mind Pierre?


As a result of your thoroughly confusing statement I checked "Wikipedia" under "Dictaphone". Normally I assumed that the prudent and clever Mr. Edison had patented a version of his phonograph as a dictaphone. It turned out I was wrong.

In 1881 Alexander Graham Bell created a laboratory called the Volta Laboratory in Washington D.C. Here he worked with several people, most notably Charles Sumner Tainter, whos improved on Edison's Phonograph. They created the Volta Graphophone Company. This later merged with the American Graphaphone Company. Eventually the trail of mergers leads to the present Columbia Records.

In 1907 Columbia Graphophone Co., trademarked the word "Dictaphone" which still used wax cylinders. "Dictaphone" became a seperate corporation in 1923. Wax cylinder dicataphones were used until 1947 (note the year - just after World War II, when computers began being used by organizations like I.B.M.). That year they started using a belt made from Lexum Plastic which enabled the words spoken into the dictaphone to become a permanent recording of the message. The result result was that now law courts could allow the use of dictaphones with the Lexum Plastic belt in as evidence in cases. It was not until 1953 that I.B.M. introduced "magnetic tape" and thus created the "tape recorder"!

Now, please tell me which divinely inspired press corps member or members in November 1888 recorded anything on tape recorders regarding the inquest over Mary Kelly?

Jeff

[David Orsam]

So what do you have in mind Pierre?

I thought he was doing sarcasm Jeff but, knowing he's not very good at it, I ignored him. His post certainly didn't make any sense.

[Mayerling]

I thought he was doing sarcasm Jeff but, knowing he's not very good at it, I ignored him. His post certainly didn't make any sense.

David, it is most likely you are correct - but considering the idiocies of the past, he may really believe they had tape recorders. It may be he also believes people watched it on the television (BBC, of course) that November.
If so, we have a real problem.

[JadenCollins]

David, it is most likely you are correct - but considering the idiocies of the past, he may really believe they had tape recorders. It may be he also believes people watched it on the television (BBC, of course) that November.
If so, we have a real problem.

I think he got the idea of tape recorders from the tv show "Penny Dreadful". A late 19th, begin 20th century story; where one of the shrinks used some tape recorder device to record the conversation with her patient.

[Aldebaran]

Caligo, you are a fascinating writer. Do you have a book?