Morris Lewis Revisited

[David Orsam]

There is no need to do it, David. I have a rubbish bin for newspaper articles. Feel free to use it anytime.

Is it the same rubbish bin into which you have thrown the GOGMAGOG letter?

[GUT]

There is no need to do it, David. I have a rubbish bin for newspaper articles. Feel free to use it anytime.

Regards, Pierre

Wow the Great Historian totally disregards all Newspapers reports.

That us good historical research.

[David Orsam]

So you still fail to understand that the reporter has got the name of Sarah Lewis wrong, and that the newspaper is full of errors. The best way for you to understand how errors function in newspaper articles, is to do comparisons between newspaper articles and the inquest source. Then you will see for yourself how this works, and you will not have to listen to me, a person you do not trust.

1. The Evening Post reporter did NOT get the name of Sarah Lewis wrong. She was calling herself Mrs Kennedy, as more than one newspaper reported.

2. I disagree that the newspaper account of Mrs Kennedy's story is "full of errors" if that is what you are trying to say.

3. It is obvious that newspaper reports do contain errors and one needs to use judgment about what is likely to be accurate and what is not. For example, we know that the report of the Kennedy/Lewis story is a genuine report based on a genuine interview because that report contains many details confirmed by that woman's subsequent sworn testimony.

4. What you are saying is basically irrelevant because unless your point is that everything reported by every newspaper is always wrong - which would be ridiculous - then it doesn't matter whether the Kennedy story is accurate or not because the issue in this thread is about a totally different report on a different day.

[Pierre]

Is it the same rubbish bin into which you have thrown the GOGMAGOG letter?

Hi David,

I have not thrown it in the rubbish bin. There are reasons why. But if I could, I would, since there are other sources of more importance to worry about.

I would also recommend you not to attach any significance to that source. Because I do not.

And also, the world is not black OR white. It does not consist of "true OR false". In the 19th Century, it did. But not in our post modern society.

And as long as there are good reasons for certain conclusions, there is always a question mark together with those reasons and conclusions.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

I would also recommend you not to attach any significance to that source.

Oh my dear Pierre, you don't have to worry on that score. I can assure you that I have never attached any significance to that source and never will.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;376163]1.

The Evening Post reporter did NOT get the name of Sarah Lewis wrong. She was calling herself Mrs Kennedy, as more than one newspaper reported.

How can we know that?

2. I disagree that the newspaper account of Mrs Kennedy's story is "full of errors" if that is what you are trying to say.

What I say is that we must be utterly suspicious when we read newspaper articles since they very often contain errors. You have many different sources in a newspaper, like letters to the editor and advertisements. The articles are often the least reliable sources - depending on what you are researching, of course.

[QUOTE]3. It is obvious that newspaper reports do contain errors and one needs to use judgment about what is likely to be accurate and what is not.


Yes, it is "obvious". And yes, we need to use judgement. So our own ability for judging is what we must work with.

For example, we know that the report of the Kennedy/Lewis story is a genuine report based on a genuine interview because that report contains many details confirmed by that woman's subsequent sworn testimony.

This is a statement worth to remember. If I have the time some day, I will use it as an hypothesis and test it.

4. What you are saying is basically irrelevant because unless your point is that everything reported by every newspaper is always wrong - which would be ridiculous - then it doesn't matter whether the Kennedy story is accurate or not because the issue in this thread is about a totally different report on a different day.

Those words are entirely your own and not mine.

And I understand if you have been starting to worry about "every newspaper" being wrong. But you can go on with your newspaper article research as usual. Donīt worry. There will always be people interested in your work.

The relevant question is what the destiny of ripperology should be and what you, I and the rest would like it to be. And what our consciousness would want it to be.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

From a quick google search I've now found Simon's source for his Kennedy story. It's the Evening News of 10 November 1888. But that story does not say that its representative has actually spoken to Mrs Kennedy, like the Evening Post story does. It's unclear where the Evening News has got its information from. Some of it might even have been plagiarized from the Evening Post or the Star. There are some differences but, taken as a whole, it's not that wildly different from the Evening Post account. Not enough reason to conclude that Mrs Kennedy and Sarah Lewis are different people by any means and I'm glad to see that Simon is not saying that that is his conclusion.

[John G]

Of course it's not untenable. I don't need evidence to speculate about this in the way that none of your speculations are supported by evidence. We know she was a prostitute so why do I need to provide evidence that she was soliciting on that particular morning? It's totally unrealistic. She could simply have lit the fire when she walked in the door with her client. I can't say it happened, you can't say it didn't happen. But I can only repeat that the existence of the fire in that room provides absolutely no indication of the time of death and that is the only point that can be made.

If you want a reliable indicator of the time of death try and find the person who last saw Kelly alive and the time that sighting occurred. If you can identify someone who gave such information under oath in a public forum knowing that what he or she said would be reported in all the newspapers then you will have done quite well.

Erm...do you think clients of street prostitutes in 1888 Whitechapel, such as Polly Nicholls, would have expected to be brought back to a room with a roaring fire on the go?

And I restate my previous point: in my opinion it would be significantly more likely that Kelly, a woman with very limited means, or for that matter her killer, would have started a fire at night, when it would probably have been much colder, than in the morning.

As for Kelly "being wrapped up warm" in bed at night, in what exactly? The thin chemise?

[David Orsam]

How can we know that?

Well Pierre it's obvious isn't it? Multiple newspapers referred to Sarah Lewis as "Mrs Kennedy" including newspapers recording that "Mrs Kennedy" had given her information to the police. We just have to use our brain cells.

[David Orsam]

What I say is that we must be utterly suspicious when we read newspaper articles since they very often contain errors. You have many different sources in a newspaper, like letters to the editor and advertisements. The articles are often the least reliable sources - depending on what you are researching, of course.

Yes, sure Pierre, but in this example we have a case where (1) a newspaper representative is said to have directly spoken to a man who said he saw Kelly getting some milk and (2) the source of the different story about Kelly drinking in a public house is said to be "two women".

Now you can believe or disbelieve what you like - I don't care - but your arguments to try and undermine the reliability of the newspaper's representative have been both desperate and unnecessary. There was no need to bring in the Kennedy report, it has just confused matters and led us down a totally irrelevant path which is wasted both our times.

[David Orsam]

And I understand if you have been starting to worry about "every newspaper" being wrong. But you can go on with your newspaper article research as usual. Donīt worry. There will always be people interested in your work.

I truly don't know why you seem to think I do "newspaper article research".

If you really were a proper historian as you purport to be, and I have yet to see any evidence of it in your posts, you would know that it is essential to consider all available sources of information.

[Pierre]

Oh my dear Pierre, you don't have to worry on that score. I can assure you that I have never attached any significance to that source and never will.

What luck. Especially since you have brought it up so many times.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Double posted.

[David Orsam]

Erm...do you think clients of street prostitutes in 1888 Whitechapel, such as Polly Nicholls, would have expected to be brought back to a room with a roaring fire on the go?

I didn't say anything about a "roaring fire" and I think I need to remind you that my thinking is that the fire was probably started by the killer for the purposes of heat or possibly light. You decided for some reason that it was probably started by Kelly, and of course it's possible, but we can dance around for the rest of our lives about when and why she would have done it but it would be nothing more than pure speculation. We cannot use the fire to establish the time of Kelly's death.

[David Orsam]

What luck. Especially since you have brought it up so many times.

I'm confident you will find that every time I mentioned it was to point out how ridiculous it was.