Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Morris Lewis and the reporting of his story

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    I have no idea what the hell this is all about, but the mention of "Dan" might indicate they meant Daniel Barnett, Joes Brother.

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by Pierre View Post
    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.
    Had you actually read my post instead of just doing a search for the word "room" you will have seen that I said of Lewis:

    "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:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    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".
    No. I am saying that none of them described MJK entering or exiting 13 Millers Court. I am also saying that they all knew, from their personal knowledge, that MJK lived in room. I am further saying that MJK DID live in a room so it is not surprising that they said she did.

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    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.
    The fact that you have been unable to quote me without deleting part of my sentence must show that you understand you are in trouble.

    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:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by Pierre View Post
    OK, David. I am just doing this for the sake of others, who would like to understand the problem. You are writing here:
    You seriously seriously think that you have helped others explain "the problem"? The problem, Pierre, my dear chap, is your complete lack of understanding.

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    Poms still using LSD

    Leave a comment:


  • GUT
    replied
    Another thread getting surreal.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pierre
    replied
    [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".
    Yes you do, since you actually wrote:

    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.
    And then you say:
    A normal person would say they had seen a woman emerging from a house.
    "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".

    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:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by Pierre View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by Pierre View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by Pierre View Post
    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)?

    Leave a comment:


  • GUT
    replied
    Originally posted by wigngown View Post
    Hello Gut,
    They were laughing emojis,
    Best regards.
    Thanks, I think a lot of it is beyond laughing now.

    Leave a comment:


  • David Orsam
    replied
    Originally posted by Pierre View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pierre
    replied
    [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
    Last edited by Pierre; 03-28-2016, 11:45 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Elamarna
    replied
    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
    Last edited by Elamarna; 03-28-2016, 10:06 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X