Morris Lewis Revisited

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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]

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?

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

I tend to agree with the above post, however, George Hutchinson's police and press accounts were very similar and, in my opinion, he's a far from convincing witness.

Just to clarify, I didn't say that because the various accounts of Kennedy/Lewis are consistent that means she was telling the truth. I said that there doesn't seem to be any sound basis to reach the conclusion that she was lying. With Hutchinson, we know that he didn't come forward for a few days and missed the inquest so there's a totally different starting point.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;376146]

That's not quite the case though Pierre because in her oral evidence she said she was at the Keyler house in Millers Court at "half past 2" and that she knew the time by having looked at Spitalfields Church clock as she passed it. In her statement to the police she said she came to stop with the Keylers "Between 2 and 3 o'clock this morning."

I thought you might notice this because so did I. 2.30 is a point in time between 2 and 3. So it is not inconsistent and not contradictory.

Now I'm not saying the two statements are inconsistent - because 2.30 is clearly between 2 and 3 - but if she remembered seeing the church clock why didn't she tell the police the precise time of 2.30?

Because in the inquest source, Sarah Lewis is adding details. And this is precisely what she is doing when she testifies that the time was 2.30. She is trying to be precise, since she is at the inquest and she is sworn.

Further, in her police statement there is no mention of seeing the suspicious man by Ringers on the Friday morning. Why not? Had she forgotten about it only to remember it when giving her oral evidence?

Because, in the police investigation source, she is probably trying to explain the episode with seeing the man two times but the police can not manage to understand the statement. I base this hypothesis on the fact that the source gives us "[talking to a female" - deleted]. But I think my interpretation in this case is of rather low validity, since the excerpt from the text I base it on is so short. But since we know that Sarah Lewis was more specific in the inquest source, the hypothesis is relevant.

But really Pierre none of this matters in the slightest for, while you have successfully drawn me down an irrelevant path, you have completely failed to demonstrate that the individual representative who gave the story to the Evening Post about Kelly drinking in a public house on the Friday morning is in any way unreliable.

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.

Until you can do this, the whole story about Mrs Kennedy is 100% irrelevant to anything and nothing more than a distraction, to deflect attention away from your confusion in your earlier posts in this thread.

Regards, Pierre

[Simon Wood]

Hi Pierre,

A Ripperological rule of thumb.

Press reports, medical opinions and public clocks are unfailingly accurate when promoting theories but hopelessly inaccurate when disputing them.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Regarding your argument that she may have started the fire so she could bring back clients, I think this pretty much untenable.

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.