Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by cobalt 9 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: A theory about some injuries! - by Fisherman 10 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 10 hours ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by cobalt 10 hours ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by cobalt 10 hours ago.
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - by ChrisGeorge 13 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (11 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: A theory about some injuries! - (10 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (8 posts)
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - (6 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - (2 posts)
Audio -- Visual: Mention of JtR in recent episode of "The Flash" - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Letters and Communications > Goulston Street Graffito

View Poll Results: Did Jack write the GSG?
YES 75 38.66%
NO 119 61.34%
Voters: 194. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1691  
Old 09-14-2017, 03:02 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,709
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
This argument keeps rolling on and on let me explain where i am with this

As an example a Times reporter attends court and make a written note of the proceedings and that report is published in its entirety in The Times. That is a primary source because it was written down at the time by the person who published it, who was present. I am sure we all agree on that point. It will never become a secondary source.

If the same report is later copied by another reporter who wasn't present and then published and there are conflicts, then that report becomes secondary which is what we have all through this mystery conflicts in the evidence, conflicts in the newspaper reports.

We see time and time again newspaper reports from as far a field as Scotland, Ireland, with conflicting evidence, and it is quite clear that those newspapers did not have reporters at the proceedings. So how in gods name can they be primary sources in the true sense.

I fully understand that from a historical perspective all historical documents can be loosely described as primary sources because they were all made at the time. But in the case of the Ripper we have the original documents and original reports, which in themselves are primary sources, and all others that are not originals in my opinion then become secondary. because primary sources will always take preference over secondary.

In criminal trials secondary evidence will only be admitted if the primary sources are not available for whatever reason.

I have right from the start always looked on this mystery from a criminal investigative perspective, which entails assessing and evaluating the primary sources. Because the problem has been as I see it, is that far to many people have become embroiled in all the various econdary conflicting newspaper reports to the point that the real facts, and real evidence, have become lost in individuals attempts to prop up theories,explanations by using what I deem to be secondary

You only have to look back on this thread and see all those who have been posting various newspaper reports, and all of these conflict with each other.

I have to ask where does the truth really lie?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Yes one needs to read carefully. However you have been constinently say all the paper reports are secondary, glad to see that you do realise that is not the case. The work on Bucks Row shows that while we may have up to 15 reports, several are by the same author and should only be regarded as a single source. We also have the issue where weekly papers repeat a story word for word even when other information has emerged since the first report.

We should not assume that the official report is foolproof either.
For instance if we had say four distinctly seperate reports which all gave roughly the same wording for an exchange while the official report were just to give a generic "x was asked"
There is then a strong case for accepting the press reports.

Sorry that I won't be doing this until middle of next year I guess, but it should prove interesting.


Steve






N saying
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1692  
Old 09-14-2017, 03:12 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,709
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
I understand the reluctance by the hardliners to accept my theories, because if I am right then it blows the whole Ripper mystery as it has been known for 129 years out of water.

And what has surprised me is that for 129 years researchers have been naive enough to accept the old accepted theories without question, when clearly the whole mystery is litterer with major flaws in the evidence.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
The big word there is "IF".

You are almost obsessed with NEW being right and OLD wrong. I do not mean that in a derogatory way but I can think of no other term to use. Your conviction that the old ideas have failed to answer it so must be wrong is clear; but not necessarily so.
It may just be that the sources are so bad an answer is not possible, hence the number of utterly ridiculous suspects.

I do note that you don't address the issue of the witnesses saying Eddowes was wearing an apron in the official report. With all due respect unless you can successfully counter those you interpretation over a full apron or not fails has a theory.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1693  
Old 09-14-2017, 03:18 AM
Jon Guy Jon Guy is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,628
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
I understand the reluctance by the hardliners to accept my theories,
Because they are only theories, unsupported by facts.

If you really have uncovered facts that CHALLENGE the historical record, you won`t need acceptance from the hardliners.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1694  
Old 09-14-2017, 03:18 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,709
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Except Times Law Reports are low down in the hierarchy of reports that can be cited. In fact, even All England Reports, and Weekly Law Reports, have secondary status, even though they have to be viewed, and signed off by the judge (I believe this also applies to the Times Reports). See: http://blogs.lexisnexis.co.uk/dr/law...f-authorities/

John

Having looked at the article it's about the stadiums of reports for legal purposes and use, that is not the same as Primary and Secondary historical sources.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1695  
Old 09-14-2017, 03:55 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,079
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
John

Having looked at the article it's about the stadiums of reports for legal purposes and use, that is not the same as Primary and Secondary historical sources.

Steve
Hi Steve,

Well, it's a while since I studied law, but I would have to say you're correct!

The point I was making is that just because a source is lower down the hierarchy doesn't mean it's not authoritative.

Would you agree that there is no clear dividing line as to what constitutes a primary or secondary source?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1696  
Old 09-14-2017, 04:05 AM
Kattrup Kattrup is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Denmark
Posts: 139
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
This argument keeps rolling on and on let me explain where i am with this

As an example a Times reporter attends court and make a written note of the proceedings and that report is published in its entirety in The Times. That is a primary source because it was written down at the time by the person who published it, who was present. I am sure we all agree on that point. It will never become a secondary source.

If the same report is later copied by another reporter who wasn't present and then published and there are conflicts, then that report becomes secondary which is what we have all through this mystery conflicts in the evidence, conflicts in the newspaper reports.

We see time and time again newspaper reports from as far a field as Scotland, Ireland, with conflicting evidence, and it is quite clear that those newspapers did not have reporters at the proceedings. So how in gods name can they be primary sources in the true sense.

I fully understand that from a historical perspective all historical documents can be loosely described as primary sources because they were all made at the time. But in the case of the Ripper we have the original documents and original reports, which in themselves are primary sources, and all others that are not originals in my opinion then become secondary. because primary sources will always take preference over secondary.

In criminal trials secondary evidence will only be admitted if the primary sources are not available for whatever reason.

I have right from the start always looked on this mystery from a criminal investigative perspective, which entails assessing and evaluating the primary sources. Because the problem has been as I see it, is that far to many people have become embroiled in all the various econdary conflicting newspaper reports to the point that the real facts, and real evidence, have become lost in individuals attempts to prop up theories,explanations by using what I deem to be secondary

You only have to look back on this thread and see all those who have been posting various newspaper reports, and all of these conflict with each other.

I have to ask where does the truth really lie?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
I must say I am pleasantly surprised that you are conscious of the distinction between primary and secondary sources.

It is surprising, because you have always insisted - and still do - that newspaper reports that contradict your baseless theory are secondary and not to be relied on.
It is pleasant, because it means you might still arrive at a truthful understanding of the Ripper-events.

I certainly hope you will apply an analysis of the sources on those reports, official or otherwise, which should form the basis of your theory.

Perhaps you would then understand, that if you wish to know what Eddowes was wearing, we have primary sources containing a firsthand account of what witnesses during the inquest said she was wearing.

Yes, Collard's list is a primary source - but it is not the only one!

Perhaps you would then realize that newspaper reports from the inquests are, in fact, also primary sources if you wish to know what was said during the proceedings. Bonus points for realizing, as you mention, that not all such reports are primary since there were such things as syndication and copying from one newspaper to another.

Perhaps you would then refrain from making broad, sweeping statements about sources and posters that disagree with you.


And perhaps you might stop accusing others of being gullible. "researchers have been naive enough to accept the old accepted theories without question"

The truth is that everyone else mainly accept the "old theory" because everybody knows that serious research has to based on the sources available. It is after a close reading of the sources, including questioning previous assumptions, that we can state as historical facts that Eddowes was wearing an apron when murdered, and that approximately half the apron was later deposited in Goulston Street.

So please don't pretend that others accept anything without question. Apply the categories of primary /secondary sources you refer to above, and see what happens to your theory.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1697  
Old 09-14-2017, 04:34 AM
Hunter Hunter is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,684
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Again that is not quite correct there is a newspaper report from a reporter who was it would appear waiting at the mortuary, he states that Dr Phillips had not arrived at the mortuary with the Gs piece before 5.20am, and by then the body had been stripped and the lists made up, so the two pieces could not have been matched before then, and by then the body had been already stripped and the lists made up.

There is no evidence that shows a preliminary post mortem examination took place.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
I really ought to know better than to even provide information here by now.
Have a good day.
__________________
Best Wishes,
Hunter
____________________________________________

When evidence is not to be had, theories abound. Even the most plausible of them do not carry conviction- London Times Nov. 10.1888
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1698  
Old 09-14-2017, 04:52 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is online now
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Again that is not quite correct there is a newspaper report from a reporter who was it would appear waiting at the mortuary, he states that Dr Phillips had not arrived at the mortuary with the Gs piece before 5.20am, and by then the body had been stripped and the lists made up, so the two pieces could not have been matched before then
The match could have been made at any time. And there was a match; that's all we need to know.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1699  
Old 09-14-2017, 06:05 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

[quote=Elamarna;429096]

Quote:
It may just be that the sources are so bad an answer is not possible, hence the number of utterly ridiculous suspects.
Hi Steve,

On the contrary, actually. The sources are very good and if you study them you may see the pattern.

Cheers, Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1700  
Old 09-14-2017, 06:59 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,776
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Guy View Post
Because they are only theories, unsupported by facts.

If you really have uncovered facts that CHALLENGE the historical record, you won`t need acceptance from the hardliners.
I dont care whether they accept it or not, my findings are there for all to read,digest, and then accept or reject all or part.

Either way I will not lose any sleep.

Historical facts are there to be challenged and not accepted as written in stone.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.