Morris Lewis and the reporting of his story

[David Orsam]

He used newspaper articles, I used the police investigation.

Just to remind you what you asked me to do Pierre. You said:

"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 donīt communicate with him right now, but perhaps he will read this".

So I looked at the sources giving the statements of Lewis in the press, as you requested.

Had you actually read the post I wrote, you will discover that this entire discussion about "room" and "house" in the original press statements, about which you have become so confused, is academic because Lewis subsequently told the press that he saw Kelly in the Britannia Beer House at 10am.

[David Orsam]

David wanted to put the word "house" into the mouth of everyone. But the sources kicked back!

Not at all Pierre. In fact, I only needed one reasonable person to have described Kelly's dwelling as "a house" and my point was made. If a reasonable person could describe Kelly's dwelling as a house then Lewis could reasonably have described Kelly as emerging from a house. So it doesn't matter how many of her friends said she lived in a room and I did not need to put the word "house" into the mouth of "everyone". I gave you plenty of examples of people saying Kelly lived in a house, including a contemporary police report, but you have simply ignored them.

[David Orsam]

No. It is very real. It is the best representation of the past. It is the word the witnesses used for the dwellings of Mary Jane Kelly. Morris Lewis obviously did not have the slightest clue about any "room".

We don't actually know what Morris Lewis said because he wasn't quoted but why should he have had the slightest clue about any "room"? He wasn't saying he had been inside Kelly's house was he? He never said he looked inside her house did he? So why is there anything odd about him saying she came out of a house (if he did say that)?

[GUT]

Hello Gut,
They were laughing emojis,
Best regards.

Thanks, I think a lot of it is beyond laughing now.

[David Orsam]

Steve, Steve...The only sources for Morris Lewis are newspaper articles! And that is what David has to use for his hypothesis about people not calling the dwelling of Kelly a "room"!

Pierre, while I appreciate that trying explain anything to you is pointless, I can only repeat that I don't have any hypothesis about people not calling the dwelling of Kelly a "room". As I have said a number of times now, Kelly definitely lived in a room. She lived in a room in a house. This is what the police reported on 9 November. Her dead body was found "inside room of house in Dorset Street, Spitalfields". That is a primary source: HO 144/221/A49301F.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;374846]

You are saying that you and David are using different sources, are you not?

As you can see for yourself. I have made references to the sources and so has David. Read them.

Can I therefore ask: are you using the Actual Police Reports

I have already made the references. Did you not see that or why are you asking? The police reports are the originals and have been transcribed by Evans & Skinner.

and Actual Inquest Reports as your sources?

In this case I have not analysed the inquest sources in transcription but can easily do it. I have them here on the table.

Are you able to confirm that all of the sources you quote are taken from original documentation and not from reports in the press or other 2nd party sources?

Naturally. Use the references I gave.

"Many newspaper articles gave that it was a room that was partitioned off from the rest of the house. I think it was the most common description in the newspapers (I might be wrong since I have not done a systematic study of it). Above you give your view on the issue. That is OK. It is your view. I have no view myself. I just interpret sources all the time."

That is not so surely, you have argued very strongly, in fact passionately that there was a connecting, functioning door between 13 and 26.
That is a view is it not? or are you now saying you do not actually believe that?

Off topic now.

Having looked at the Primary sources for his witness reports it is clear to some, myself included, there are of course some who will not agree, that Lewis is of low reliability as a witness.

Steve, Steve...The only sources for Morris Lewis are newspaper articles! And that is what David has to use for his hypothesis about people not calling the dwelling of Kelly a "room"!

This conclusion does not depend on what term he uses: "House" or "Room"; but on how the reports evolved, and exactly what was reported as being said in those reports.

Again: They are not reports! They are newspaper articles!

There is a scientific source hierarchy that must be followed when you are doing source criticism!

Unfortunately this appears not enough for you.

It is not enough for ANY historian if there are sources higher up in the hierarchy!

The word "Room" has taken on a life of its own in your arguments, and not for the first time a thread is drifting off into the abstract.

No. It is very real. It is the best representation of the past. It is the word the witnesses used for the dwellings of Mary Jane Kelly. Morris Lewis obviously did not have the slightest clue about any "room".

This is such a shame, the initial point you make is all but completely lost

No, it is actually strenghtened by my analysis of the police investigation.

David wanted to put the word "house" into the mouth of everyone. But the sources kicked back!

He used newspaper articles, I used the police investigation.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Pierre

Even when people agree with your basic premise, in this case that Lewis is of low reliability, you will continue to argue, suggest others do not understand Source Criticism, or indeed Science, if they do not agree with ALL you say.

Lets quickly look at some of what you said in reply to my post


"Yes. But we can not use what "one normally would say" as a source, since that source is our own so called "common sense", i.e. a postmodern construction of thought from 2016."

"I.e. it is NOT the sources from 9 November or even from the inquest on 12 November 1888.

Therefore what "one normally would say" here and now is not a valid source.

And therefore, we can not use this source for any knowledge about what unknown people were thinking in 1888 without making severe errors and without being anachronistic. This is an established methodological, well-known fact."



My Dear Pierre its not modern thinking, why not read some literature from the 19th century, you will find that use of language.
However to save you that trouble just look at the sources quoted in this thread.
The very fact that the sources use BOTH terms in this particular case shows that this was indeed the case in 1888, to suggest that there is a difference depending on if it is a witness report or press report, simply ignores this use.


You are saying that you and David are using different sources, are you not?

Can I therefore ask: are you using the Actual Police Reports and Actual Inquest Reports as your sources?
Are you able to confirm that all of the sources you quote are taken from original documentation and not from reports in the press or other 2nd party sources?


"Many newspaper articles gave that it was a room that was partitioned off from the rest of the house. I think it was the most common description in the newspapers (I might be wrong since I have not done a systematic study of it). Above you give your view on the issue. That is OK. It is your view. I have no view myself. I just interpret sources all the time."



That is not so surely, you have argued very strongly, in fact passionately that there was a connecting, functioning door between 13 and 26.
That is a view is it not? or are you now saying you do not actually believe that?

Your finally points take us to where I started this post, any disagreement is met by attacks about lack of understanding.

Such arguments do not further you case at all, which one assumes was initially to asses the reliability of Lewis as a witness.

Having looked at the Primary sources for his witness reports it is clear to some, myself included, there are of course some who will not agree, that Lewis is of low reliability as a witness.

This conclusion does not depend on what term he uses: "House" or "Room"; but on how the reports evolved, and exactly what was reported as being said in those reports.

Unfortunately this appears not enough for you.
The word "Room" has taken on a life of its own in your arguments, and not for the first time a thread is drifting off into the abstract.

This is such a shame, the initial point you make is all but completely lost.

Steve

[David Orsam]

I will make no further comments on that from now on, since you are only trying to get rid of the problem you have put yourself into, instead of being honest.

Using source criticism to interpret your post, Pierre, I conclude that the reason you are saying you will make no further comments is because you have a tendency.

It's a shame because I wanted to ask you if you think Sir Charles Warren got it all wrong when he reported to the Home Office on 9 November that a mutilated dead body was found "inside room of house". Presumably you would say he has misidentified the location by saying the room was in a house?

[David Orsam]

David, on the other hand, is a sociologist (i think)

You think wrong Pierre.

[David Orsam]

No, David. Read my text if you do not understand it. [U]The issue is about you telling me that people in 1888 would use the word "house" instead of room, whereas the primary sources from the police investigation prove that you are wrong.

That is not the issue at all Pierre. You have misunderstood the issue.

I wrote it clearly in #13:

"anyone seeing Mary Jane Kelly enter or exit 13 Millers Court would have said she was entering/exiting a house. Not a room."

AND

"It would have been very odd for Lewis or any other witness who had not been inside 13 Millers Court to have seen a woman emerging into Millers Court from number 13 Millers Court and to have said they had seen a woman emerging from a room. A normal person would say they had seen a woman emerging from a house."

The issue is, therefore, not whether MJK lived in a room. Of course she did. That's why the witnesses at her inquest said she lived in a room. But, as that room was inside a house, the issue is whether someone seeing her enter or exit that room would have said she was entering or exiting a house.

Even that isn't really the issue because it's academic if you read my OP properly rather than just doing key word searches of it.

[David Orsam]

Now, THAT is an interesting part of our methodological work here, I think. Not because David and I have different opinions, but because we are using totally different sources.

We are not using totally different sources Pierre. I am using all the available sources, including inquest testimony.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;374823]My dear Pierre,

You have got yourself terribly and hopelessly confused.

No, David. Read my text if you do not understand it. The issue is about you telling me that people in 1888 would use the word "house" instead of room, whereas the primary sources from the police investigation prove that you are wrong.

I will make no further comments on that from now on, since you are only trying to get rid of the problem you have put yourself into, instead of being honest.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Actually, the explanation for the tendency of Morris Lewis is obvious. The Press Association spoke to him on the day of the murder, before he had read any newspaper articles giving the fact that she stayed in a room. So he didnīt know this!

I would love to hear an explanation from you, Pierre. as to how someone just standing in Millers Court on 9 November 1888, who have never been inside number 13 or told about its contents, who saw a woman emerge from number 13, which, as we know, was part of 26 Dorset Street, could possibly have known that the woman was coming out of a single room.

[David Orsam]

Yes. But we can not use what "one normally would say" as a source, since that source is our own so called "common sense", i.e. a postmodern construction of thought from 2016.

I.e. it is NOT the sources from 9 November or even from the inquest on 12 November 1888.

Therefore what "one normally would say" here and now is not a valid source.

And therefore, we can not use this source for any knowledge about what unknown people were thinking in 1888 without making severe errors and without being anachronistic. [U]This is an established methodological, well-known fact.

My dear Pierre,

You have got yourself terribly and hopelessly confused.

Steve's question was: "When leaving a building, one normal would say one had left the building, do you agree?". In your response, as quoted above, you agreed but attempted to say that contemporary "sources" (where a normal person would say "witnesses") did not do this.

But, Pierre, none of the witnesses in their statements, or at the inquest, said they saw Mary Jane leaving a building. So the fact that they described her as living in a room, which is factually accurate, is neither here nor there and completely misses the point.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;374787]Pierre

Before saying anything else I will say now, I happen to agree with you that the statements of both Lewis,s and Maxwell are not to be taken has having a high level of reliability.

I come to this conclusion by looking at the available primary sources, relating to Millers Court on that night/morning.

Hi Steve,

Yes, and then you are looking at the right material!

However there appears to be a problem in your eyes over the terms used
lets see if this can be cleared up:

1. MJK lived in room 13 millers court- do you agree?

Yes.

2. That room was part of a larger house - agree?

Yes.

3. When leaving a building, one normal would say one had left the building, do you agree?

Yes. But we can not use what "one normally would say" as a source, since that source is our own so called "common sense", i.e. a postmodern construction of thought from 2016.

I.e. it is NOT the sources from 9 November or even from the inquest on 12 November 1888.

Therefore what "one normally would say" here and now is not a valid source.

And therefore, we can not use this source for any knowledge about what unknown people were thinking in 1888 without making severe errors and without being anachronistic. This is an established methodological, well-known fact.

4. Room #13, was a self contained unit at the back of #26 and the only exit was out of a single door into the passage, (for the purpose of this, I am not accepting an opening door in the wall between 13 and 26). This location could be viewed as either a room, a separate flat or part of the larger house.

Many newspaper articles gave that it was a room that was partitioned off from the rest of the house. I think it was the most common description in the newspapers (I might be wrong since I have not done a systematic study of it). Above you give your view on the issue. That is OK. It is your view. I have no view myself. I just interpret sources all the time.

5. It is perfectly permitable to use "Room" as a location for the murder, and to also use "House" when referring to egress from the building itself, if the words were used the other way round it would still not be incorrect, such mixing of words in English, is very common.

Permitable, yes. But how is it described in the relevant sources? That is the ONLY question I am interested in. Otherwise, we get "possibility" and not practice. It was permitable = it was possible. But how did practice function? What are the primary sources saying about this? They say "room".

Pierre, that use may not be the same in other languages, but it does happen in everyday English.

Steve - they used English in Spitalfields in November 1888, didnīt they? Back to the right time and place now!

You are quoting reports from witnesses which use "Room".
David quotes reports which use "House ".

Now, THAT is an interesting part of our methodological work here, I think. Not because David and I have different opinions, but because we are using totally different sources.

So what is the main difference between the sources?

The newspapers give "house" whereas the police investigation gives "room". What is the explanations(s) for this?

It is a tendency, Steve. And the tendency is that Morris Lewis did not know that Mary Jane Kelly was coming out of or going into a room, whereas Joseph Barnett, Mary Ann Cox, Julia Venturney, Maria Harvey and Walter Beck all have the tendency of knowing that it was a room and wanted to call it a room as opposed to a house.

Actually, the explanation for the tendency of Morris Lewis is obvious. The Press Association spoke to him on the day of the murder, before he had read any newspaper articles giving the fact that she stayed in a room. So he didnīt know this!

Both of you, are using contemporary reports, this just underlines this mixing of words did occur.

It does not, since what you call "contemporary reports" fall into two distinct categories, as I (and you) said. David refers to newspaper articles, I refer to the primary sources from the police investigation 9 november. That is why there is a distinct difference, a distinction.

And the reason why they should not be "mixed" is of course the big differences in the provenience between these sources. Their value are also very different, so in the hierarchy of sources we are bound to put the police investigation as no 1 and the newspaper articles as no 2 (or 3, if we use the more formal inquest papers they will be no 2 in the source hierarchy).

This is not about source criticism, this is simply the use of English
Really do not see why this is a problem for you.

Well, Steve. I guess we could close down the universities in England then, since they seem not to have managed to give you - as an academic - the slightest education in basic source criticism, but instead they seem to have fooled you to believe that reading English is enough for solving historical problems. I am very sorry if that is the case. But I have higher thoughts of you, so I guess you were only irritated at me when you wrote the above statement about source criticism, trying to protect the academic honour of David. You are an Egyptologist, are you not, and I guess you must be specialized in source criticism. David, on the other hand, is a sociologist (i think) and being a sociologist myself, as well as an historian, I know the limits of sociology when it comes to historical source criticism.

Kind regards, Pierre