Morris Lewis and the reporting of his story

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

You are really making things very difficult for yourself now.

These are the statements from the police investigation 9 November.

This is how people described the location where Mary Jane Kelly was living:

Joseph Barnett (Evans & Skinner, p. 404):
"I have been living with Marie Jeanette Kelly who occupied No 13 Room Milers Court".
"There was a woman in the room when I called".

Mary Ann Cox (ibid.):
"I have known the female occupying No 13 Room Millers Court about 8 months."
"...and as I entered the Court they went indoors, as they were going into her room..."
"...and she was still singing in her room."
"...there was no light in her room then...".

Julia Venturney (ibid., p. 406-407):
"I have known the person occupying No 13 room opposite mine for about 4 months."

Maria Harvey (ibid., p. 407):
"I saw her last about five minutes to seven last night Thursday in her own room, when Barnett called."
"I left an overcoat,...and black crape bonnett in the room...".

Inspector Walter Beck (ibid.):
"...also myself who will speak to contents of room &c if necessary."

I do no like bad teachers, David. Go back to school.

Pierre,

I know that Mary Jane Kelly lived in a room. Joe Barnett, Mary's friends, those who lived in Millers' Court and 26 Dorset Street and the police knew that her house comprised only a single room. The numbering system indicated that it was a room: Room 13 Millers Court. But it was a room in a house and anyone seeing Mary emerge from 13 Millers Court who did not know what was inside 13 Millers Court would naturally describe her as emerging from a house.

Just like all the examples I gave you.

Therefore, trying to make some sort of point about the language used by Lewis is invalid.

Now, I know that you are never going to accept this. For you, because Mary Jane Kelly lived in "room 13 Millers Court", everyone in the world who described her dwelling must have referred to it as "a room". But that is not the normal word someone who saw Mary come out of her dwelling would have used.

I even wonder if you actually understand what I'm saying.

[Elamarna]

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

Steve

[GUT]

Pierre,

I even wonder if you actually understand what I'm saying.

I'm starting to seriously doubt it.

[packers stem]

I'm starting to seriously doubt it.

[David Orsam]

The other thing to bear in mind is that we don't have Lewis' actual words. We have his story as told by the Press Association reporter. As I mentioned in the OP, the Press Association reporter has already explained in his [third] report that the murder victim occupied "a room in a house in Dorset Street". So that is "the house" being referred to later in the same report. Lewis might have said no more than that he saw Kelly coming out of her front door at 8am which the reporter has then written up as her coming out of "the house".

But none of this really matters bearing in mind the second point in my response to Pierre (which he has simply ignored) that Lewis did not repeat his story about the milk to the LWN reporter which raises the reasonably strong suspicion that the woman he saw emerging from "the house" was not MJK anyway. So why Pierre wants to persist with a misguided and redundant point I fail to understand.

[Abby Normal]

Hi David,

I searched your text and got 5 hits for the word "room" - not one of them in a statement by Morris Lewis.

Can we establish as a fact that Morris Lewis did not once mention anyone coming out of, or going into, a "room" in his statements in the newspaper articles?

Regards, Pierre

This is like watching a chimp and a theoretical physicist trying to have a conversation.

[GUT]

This is like watching a chimp and a theoretical physicist trying to have a conversation.

Mmmmmmm now which is which. (And I'd employ David as a researcher in a heartbeat if h was down here looking or a job and I had one going).

[wigngown]

😂😂😂😂😂

[GUT]

😂😂😂😂😂

G'day Wigngown.

Not sure what you posted on my system they just show as boxes with numbers in them.

[Fisherman]

This is like watching a chimp and a theoretical physicist trying to have a conversation.

Ever heard of Pierre Brassau, Abby...?

[JadenCollins]

😂😂😂😂😂

the perfect emoji's for this situation, wigngown 👌🏻

[JadenCollins]

Ever heard of Pierre Brassau, Abby...?

Just Pierre the chimp.

[wigngown]

Hello Gut,
They were laughing emojis,
Best regards.

[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, didn´t 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 didn´t 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

[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.