Morris Lewis Revisited

[Abby Normal]

Hi David
I know you don't like to speculate, but in your opinion, all things considered-do you believe mary was more likely to be murdered in the middle of the night or during the daylight morning time post 9:00 am?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE]

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".

But even the newspaper journalists themselves refers to it as "rumours":

"The most extraordinary rumours are about as to the hour when the woman was last seen alive. One man has informed our representative that he was in the court at eight o’clock this morning when he saw Kelly go out for the purpose of fetching some milk. Two women aver that they saw her in a public-house, drinking with a man."

They even tried to check it themselves:

"This was between ten and half-past, but the persons residing in the public house state that they have no recollection of her, and the point is rendered the more difficult through Kelly not being generally known."

And their conclusion was that the issue was difficult, since Kelly was not generally known.

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.

What a silly thing to say. "Desperate and unnecessary". Source criticism is not desperate or unnecessary. It is important to produce knowledge about the value of the sightings of Kelly on the morning 9 November.

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.

Of course there was. It is an important part of examining the reliability of the newspaper writings. But you do not want to discuss this, since you can not defend your own imagination about the production of the name "Kennedy" in those newspaper writings.

[David Orsam]

But even the newspaper journalists themselves refers to it as "rumours"

I know Pierre. I have never said that the story of Kelly drinking in the public house must be true. Only that we now know the source of that story, as reported on 9 November, was "two women". In other words, it wasn't Lewis (although he claimed the same thing to LWN of 11 November) and it wasn't any other man, nor, it seems reasonable to say, was it Mrs Maxwell.

That is why I said that we now have confirmation that "two women" claimed to have seen Kelly drinking in a public house with a man at around 10am.

[David Orsam]

They even tried to check it themselves:

"This was between ten and half-past, but the persons residing in the public house state that they have no recollection of her, and the point is rendered the more difficult through Kelly not being generally known."

And their conclusion was that the issue was difficult, since Kelly was not generally known.

Yes, well done Pierre. The result of their investigation was inconclusive.

[David Orsam]

What a silly thing to say. "Desperate and unnecessary". Source criticism is not desperate or unnecessary. It is important to produce knowledge about the value of the sightings of Kelly on the morning 9 November.

Not a silly thing to say Pierre. Your attempt to undermine the story of 9 November was ultimately based on attempting to undermine a completely different story on a different date. Even that aside, in a fast moving situation, where facts are scarce, and one has to rely on hearsay reports from local residents, it's not surprising that reporters made mistakes in their early reports of the murder, so the entire premise of your initial attempt to undermine a single part of the report in the Evening Post based on the existence of minor errors in other parts of the report was utterly ridiculous and futile.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;376301]Not a silly thing to say Pierre. Your attempt to undermine the story of 9 November was ultimately based on attempting to undermine a completely different story on a different date.

Even that aside, in a fast moving situation, where facts are scarce, and one has to rely on hearsay reports from local residents, it's not surprising that reporters made mistakes in their early reports of the murder,

Why are you trying to defend a newspaper from the past? Why are you trying to defend reporters from 1888?


so the entire premise of your initial attempt to undermine a single part of the report in the Evening Post based on the existence of minor errors in other parts of the report was utterly ridiculous and futile.

[David Orsam]

Of course there was. It is an important part of examining the reliability of the newspaper writings. But you do not want to discuss this, since you can not defend your own imagination about the production of the name "Kennedy" in those newspaper writings.

But it's utter madness to examine "the reliability of newspaper writings" in the first place. Even more so to find an error or two in a single newspaper report and then conclude that all "newspaper writings" are inherently unreliable. Like I said to you, if we applied the same logic to the fact that Sarah Lewis's police statement contains an incorrect house number and her inquest deposition contains an incorrect street name then we would be forced to conclude that all police statements and all inquest depositions are inherently unreliable. Just to be clear for you: that would be madness too.

In any event, it's perfectly obvious that Sarah Lewis was calling herself "Mrs Kennedy" and the newspapers can't be blamed for that.

[David Orsam]

Why are you trying to defend a newspaper from the past? Why are you trying to defend reporters from 1888?

I'm doing no such thing. I'm pointing out flaws in your arguments.

[David Orsam]

Hi David
I know you don't like to speculate, but in your opinion, all things considered-do you believe mary was more likely to be murdered in the middle of the night or during the daylight morning time post 9:00 am?

Hi Abby,

The way I look at it is this: Is there any evidence that Kelly was alive at 9:00am? Answer: Yes. Is there any evidence which contradicts the evidence that Kelly was alive at 9:00am. Answer: No.

Therefore while I (obviously) do not know when Kelly was murdered, and I'd even be reluctant to put it in terms of balance of probabilities, I don't feel able to dismiss the possibility that the murder occurred after 9:00am as some people, for reasons which remain entirely unknown to me, feel able to do.

[John G]

The argument that Kelly was killed later than, say, 9:00am, clearly cannot be dismissed because time of death cannot be accurately determined, and Maxwell, at least, is hardly a hopeless witness. However, I believe the weight of evidence suggests she was murdered significantly earlier.

[David Orsam]

I believe the weight of evidence suggests she was murdered significantly earlier.

What evidence is that exactly?

(not speculation please!!!!)

[David Orsam]

What evidence is that exactly?

(not speculation please!!!!)

Or argument for that matter.

I just want the evidence.

[John G]

What evidence is that exactly?

(not speculation please!!!!)

Ah, David, but you hold me to an impossible standard, which I suspect you know: but know doubt you would argue this is mere speculation on my part! Thus, just about everything in this case is disputed, even the direct evidence. So, when Joseph Lawende, for instance, identifies the man he saw with Kate Eddowes, via a direct confrontation, do we believe him?

[David Orsam]

Ah, David, but you hold me to an impossible standard

Well I'm only holding you to your own standard, John, when you said "I believe the weight of evidence suggests she was murdered significantly earlier." In light of your answer, I'm going to speculate that you didn't really mean "the weight of evidence".

[John G]

Well I'm only holding you to your own standard, John, when you said "I believe the weight of evidence suggests she was murdered significantly earlier." In light of your answer, I'm going to speculate that you didn't really mean "the weight of evidence".

Hello David,

Excellent, I do so like a semantics argument. Firstly, in order to address the point you've made we would need to define what we mean by "weight of evidence". Unfortunately, this may be no easy matter, particularly as your definition may differ fundamentally from mine: and, see, for example, Balls, Amcoff, Zhang (2009),http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709979/

Secondly, in considering the "weight of evidence" then, by necessary implication, any determinations we make must be speculative in nature, i.e. because the conclusion is uncertain.

For example, in the William Bury case the jury found the defendant guilty of murder. However, they initially recommended mercy, and when asked by the judge why this was, to howls of laughter from the courtroom the foreman replied, "partly because of the conflicting medical evidence."

And the medical testimony certainly was conflicting, with Dr Templeman arguing it was a case of murder, and Dr Lennox, conversely, one of suicide.

Eventually the mercy recommendation was withdrawn by the jury, implying they accepted Dr Templeman's view over Dr Lennox's, but who is to say they were right to do so? In other words, there had to be a degree of speculation involved in their final decision.

Regarding the present case, George Hutchinson claimed to see a well-dressed man wearing a Astrachan coat and was believed, at least initially, by Inspector Abberline. This clearly represents direct evidence, however, we can only speculate about whether Hutchinson was, in fact, telling the truth.

And that's why I say you set an impossible stabdard.