Morris Lewis and the reporting of his story

[DJA]

Poms still using LSD

[David Orsam]

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.

[David Orsam]

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?

[David Orsam]

"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.

[David Orsam]

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.

[Michael W Richards]

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

[Elamarna]

Pierre

on the 22/03/2016

in post #89 on the thread: MJK's Body Identification?

You posted the following:


"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."

And

"This is a source problem and I believe, as I said, someone who are used to handle this type of problem in the newspapers should deal with it."


David went and did this, however you replies include the following


"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"!"


and

"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!"


You are now saying the press reports themselves, which you asked to be checked are not of a high enough hierarchy, and are therefore not good enough to debate with.
However that view is something you must have been aware of before asking for the checks to be done. One really wonders why you asked?

in post 32 on this thread you said

"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."


My understanding of what has been said here, and I have been part of that debate, is that the word "house" could have been used, as could the word "room" and that it is not significant which was.

The examples you quote do not prove that view is wrong, they show that in THOSE examples "room" is used.
In addition looking at those examples and the context they are used in "room" would be the word that would normally and logically be used.

Nothing you quoted PROVES one may not have said "house" when talking about leaving the interior of the building.



Then we come to this interesting and indeed illuminating exchange

From Pierre

"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.""


My reply

"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?"


and Pierre's response

"Off topic now."


As all can see from the above, you raised the issue that you held NO VIEW on this issue, implying that you have no bias.

I simply asked if you had changed you previous view. If you have then of course there would be no bias, but if not.....

You response is most illuminating, if you raise a point, you should expect it to be questioned. You raised the issue, it is then a legitimate part of the discussion.

It may not be something you wish to debate, but it is NOT OFF TOPIC.


And then you state the following:

"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."



Pierre you really cannot see that All that people will see is an abstract argument with regards to the use of a word, and not the point that Lewis is of low reliability.
A point on which you, me and I think David agree.

Steve


Regards, Pierre

[GUT]

Well put Steve

[GUT]

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

At least possible, maybe even probable.

[David Orsam]

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

In the LWN report, Lewis is quoted as saying:

"She was drinking with some woman and also with "Dan," a man selling oranges in Billingsgate and Spitalfields markets, with whom she lived up till as recently as a fortnight ago."

This must be a reference to Joe Barnett.

[GUT]

In the LWN report, Lewis is quoted as saying:

"She was drinking with some woman and also with "Dan," a man selling oranges in Billingsgate and Spitalfields markets, with whom she lived up till as recently as a fortnight ago."

This must be a reference to Joe Barnett.

Or they knew she had been living with a Barnett, but seeing her with Dan assumed he was the one.

[Elamarna]

Or they knew she had been living with a Barnett, but seeing her with Dan assumed he was the one.

Yes
that has ben suggested often, that he got the brothers mixed up, in that case just how well did he know MJK, if at all?

steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;374894]Pierre

on the 22/03/2016

in post #89 on the thread: MJK's Body Identification?

You posted the following:


"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."

And

"This is a source problem and I believe, as I said, someone who are used to handle this type of problem in the newspapers should deal with it."


David went and did this, however you replies include the following


"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"!"


and

"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!"

You are now saying the press reports themselves, which you asked to be checked are not of a high enough hierarchy, and are therefore not good enough to debate with.
However that view is something you must have been aware of before asking for the checks to be done. One really wonders why you asked?

The newspapers are not reliable sources for Morris Lewis. But as they are the only sources for Morris Lewis, we do not have any other choice but to analyse these unreliable sources. It is the same with historians who want to know anything about Jesus. The only sources they have is the new testament: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO_lS0QcZxs

And now, the next problem is that the newspaper sources are certainly NOT reliable for deducing knowledge about what "normal people" called the dwellings of Mary Jane Kelly. The police investigation is much more reliable. So if we would like to know what people in general called it, we must use this source. But that was not the question we started with. We were simply asking if the sources for Morris Lewis are reliable. And these sources happen to be newspaper articles!

in post 32 on this thread you said

"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."

My understanding of what has been said here, and I have been part of that debate, is that the word "house" could have been used, as could the word "room" and that it is not significant which was.

But that is not our research question. The question was if the sources for Morris Lewis are reliable. The next question I posed was if Morris Lewis even once used the word "room". It seems he did not. Then I looked at the police investigation and found the witnesses using the word "room" instead of "house". Given the source hierarchy, the police sources are more valuable. But the first question was NOT if other people used the word "room" or "house". It was the wrong question and David tried it on the newspaper articles, which are not sufficient for answering that particular question. I was asking him about Morris Lewis - not about "people" or even "normal people".

The examples you quote do not prove that view is wrong, they show that in THOSE examples "room" is used.

Nobody is saying that "a view is wrong". The problem is a source problem: We can not pose questions which can not be answered by the sources. OK, we can...but we get garbage in, garbage out.

In addition looking at those examples and the context they are used in "room" would be the word that would normally and logically be used.

Not again, Steve. Please. "Normally and logically" used. You can not deduce from "Normality" or "Logic". You must deduce from the actual content in the sources. If you want to make interpretations, that is fine. But you must use what is in the sources. "Normality" and "Logic" are not components of these sources.

Nothing you quoted PROVES one may not have said "house" when talking about leaving the interior of the building.

So now you want to limit the use of language to "leaving the interior of the building", thereby changing the question again.

Then we come to this interesting and indeed illuminating exchange

From Pierre

"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.""


My reply

"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?"


and Pierre's response

"Off topic now."

As all can see from the above, you raised the issue that you held NO VIEW on this issue, implying that you have no bias.

Bias and view are not the same thing. I have a lot of bias, but I do not have a view.

I simply asked if you had changed you previous view. If you have then of course there would be no bias, but if not.....

There will be bias anyway, Steve. We are always biased in some aspect(s). If one does not know about this, one can not do any research.

You response is most illuminating, if you raise a point, you should expect it to be questioned. You raised the issue, it is then a legitimate part of the discussion.

It may not be something you wish to debate, but it is NOT OFF TOPIC.


And then you state the following:

"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."

Pierre you really cannot see that All that people will see is an abstract argument with regards to the use of a word, and not the point that Lewis is unreliable.

"Lewis is unreliable": Oh, dear. Now you have got it all wrong, Steve. It is not primarily Lewis who is unreliable, it is the sources. Of course Lewis might have a tendency and he might be unreliable, but the question was a question about the reliability of the sources. As I said from the beginning:
"This is a source problem."

Please donīt mix the sources produced by journalists with the person speaking in the sources.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Or they knew she had been living with a Barnett, but seeing her with Dan assumed he was the one.

But was Dan Barnett with her (and another woman) on the Thursday night?

We know that Joe Barnett was: "I last saw her alive between 7.30 and 7.45 the night of Thursday before she was found. I was with her about one hour. We were on friendly terms..There was a female with us on the Thursday evening when we were together..." (Inquest testimony).

[GUT]

But was Dan Barnett with her (and another woman) on the Thursday night?

We know that Joe Barnett was: "I last saw her alive between 7.30 and 7.45 the night of Thursday before she was found. I was with her about one hour. We were on friendly terms..There was a female with us on the Thursday evening when we were together..." (Inquest testimony).

That is the other possibility, that they mistook Joe for Dan, or even that Joe was with Mary and some other women, went off to get a drink or attend to nature, Dan stopped and said hello and this was seen with them.