Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Morris Lewis and the reporting of his story
Collapse
X
-
I have no idea what the hell this is all about, but the mention of "Dan" might indicate they meant Daniel Barnett, Joes Brother.
-
Originally posted by Pierre View PostIf I were you I would just accept the fact that you have asked the wrong question to your sources. The correct question was if the statement made by Morris Lewis in the newspaper articles was reliable. The answer is no.
"This does, of course, call into question his credibility and reliability..."
But the thing that calls into question his credibility and reliability is most certainly NOT that the Press Association report referred to him seeing someone emerging from a house rather than a room. That fact tells us absolutely nothing about his reliability.
I asked the right question. You have been obsessing about the wrong one.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Pierre View Post
"A normal person". So what you are actually saying is that Joseph Barnett, Mary Ann Cox, Julia Venturney, Maria Harvey and Walter Beck were not "normal persons".
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Pierre View Post
You write that "anyone" seeing...would have said..."a house. Not a room". So you DO have that hypothesis.
Let me be very clear as to what I am saying:
It is that anyone seeing MJK emerge from 13 Millers Court who did not know that it only contained a single room would say she was emerging from "a house."
Anyone who saw her emerge from 13 Millers Court who knew it only contained a single room might say she emerged from a "room" OR a "house".
The fact is that MJK lived in a room but that room was in a house (like most rooms).
Can I be any clearer? And is there anything in this post that you disagree with?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Pierre View PostOK, David. I am just doing this for the sake of others, who would like to understand the problem. You are writing here:
Leave a comment:
-
[QUOTE=David Orsam;374868]
OK, David. I am just doing this for the sake of others, who would like to understand the problem. You are writing here:
I can only repeat that I don't have any hypothesis about people not calling the dwelling of Kelly a "room".
Firstly, anyone seeing Mary Jane Kelly enter or exit 13 Millers Court would have said she was entering/exiting a house. Not a room.
What is a house?
It is a "building for human habitation or occupation" – Concise Oxford English Dictionary. That is what MJK was living in.
You write that "anyone" seeing...would have said..."a house. Not a room". So you DO have that hypothesis.
And you go on to strengthen your own hypothesis:
Even on its own, it was a house, a small house but a house.
A normal person would say they had seen a woman emerging from a house.
Because in the police investigation, they all used the word "room".
If I were you I would just accept the fact that you have asked the wrong question to your sources. The correct question was if the statement made by Morris Lewis in the newspaper articles was reliable. The answer is no.
Regards, Pierre
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Pierre View PostHe used newspaper articles, I used the police investigation.
"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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Pierre View PostDavid wanted to put the word "house" into the mouth of everyone. But the sources kicked back!
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Pierre View PostNo. 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".
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Pierre View PostSteve, 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"!
Leave a comment:
-
[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
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?
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.
There is a scientific source hierarchy that must be followed when you are doing source criticism!
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
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, PierreLast edited by Pierre; 03-28-2016, 11:45 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
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.
SteveLast edited by Elamarna; 03-28-2016, 10:06 AM.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: