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:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere The Psychopath - by Elamarna 21 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Local killer for local people................ - by Michael W Richards 28 minutes ago.
Swanson, Chief Inspector Donald: Seaside Home - by Robert 60 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere The Psychopath - by Rainbow 1 hour and 15 minutes ago.
Swanson, Chief Inspector Donald: Seaside Home - by John Malcolm 1 hour and 19 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere The Psychopath - by GUT 1 hour and 25 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere The Psychopath - (14 posts)
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: It was Lechmere. - (8 posts)
Swanson, Chief Inspector Donald: Seaside Home - (7 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Mitre Sq, The demise is almost complete - (6 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Hutchinsons statement.... - (6 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Recent 'Tour' - (5 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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1031  
Old 06-19-2017, 02:35 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 6,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bridewell View Post
Two people copied the text (that we know of). Their versions were slightly different but neither included the word "Judges". I see no reason to conclude that two people copied the same word and that both got it wrong. For reasons which I won't bore you with (I've posted them often enough in the past anyway) I believe that Dc Halse recorded the script accurately.
Not only both got it wrong, but the same wrong.

But of course the great historian can just disregard the "sources" he talks about all the time when it suits him.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1032  
Old 06-19-2017, 02:48 PM
Bridewell Bridewell is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bottesford, Leicestershire
Posts: 3,560
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
it was jutes. The ripper was obviously a disgruntled Celt.
"Like".
__________________
Regards, Bridewell.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1033  
Old 06-19-2017, 02:54 PM
Bridewell Bridewell is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bottesford, Leicestershire
Posts: 3,560
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post

But there is no source for that.

Cheers, Pierre
I don't need a source for a hypothesis, provided I acknowledge that that is what it is.
__________________
Regards, Bridewell.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1034  
Old 06-19-2017, 02:54 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bridewell View Post
And with all due respect to you, David, what I posted was a quotation from a book, not my own opinion.
Ah, the wonders of this forum where someone replies to a post I made on 6 March 2016, well over one year ago.

I wouldn't mind Bridewell - and perhaps you've had a senior moment - but you already replied to my post the next day, on 7 March 2016 (#80). And you were more articulate on that occasion, as you posted:

"Just for the record, it's not my logic. The quotation is from Paul Harrison's book, so the words (and logic) of the statement are his, not mine."

I didn't bother to respond because that was fair enough - you made your point in case there was any misunderstanding - but now I feel the need to mention that it was Craig H who posted in #5 in this thread on 6 March 2016:

"Bridewell made an interesting post about 4 years ago that the word "Juwes" was a nickname for the City of London Police."

He then quoted the extract from Harrison's book to which you refer, making clear it was an extract from his book which you had originally posted. I was well aware of this but, in my response (#6), - which was a response to Craig's post - I said, in respect of a statement by Harrison:

"With all due respect to Bridewell, the logic of that statement escapes me."

You can take it, Bridewell, that anyone reading the exchange between myself and Craig was aware, as I was, that I was challenging something said by Harrison, not by you, and I can confirm that now for you in writing if you need it said. I only mentioned you because Craig had said that it was your post and you had originally reproduced the quotation (which I imagine you did because you thought it was an interesting point of view).

I hope, with all due respect, that this resolves the incident to your satisfaction and I look forward to discussing this with you further in about September 2018.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1035  
Old 06-19-2017, 02:57 PM
Bridewell Bridewell is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bottesford, Leicestershire
Posts: 3,560
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Ah, the wonders of this forum where someone replies to a post I made on 6 March 2016, well over one year ago.

I wouldn't mind Bridewell - and perhaps you've had a senior moment - but you already replied to my post the next day, on 7 March 2016 (#80). And you were more articulate on that occasion, as you posted:

"Just for the record, it's not my logic. The quotation is from Paul Harrison's book, so the words (and logic) of the statement are his, not mine."

I didn't bother to respond because that was fair enough - you made your point in case there was any misunderstanding - but now I feel the need to mention that it was Craig H who posted in #5 in this thread on 6 March 2016:

"Bridewell made an interesting post about 4 years ago that the word "Juwes" was a nickname for the City of London Police."

He then quoted the extract from Harrison's book to which you refer, making clear it was an extract from his book which you had originally posted. I was well aware of this but, in my response (#6), - which was a response to Craig's post - I said, in respect of a statement by Harrison:

"With all due respect to Bridewell, the logic of that statement escapes me."

You can take it, Bridewell, that anyone reading the exchange between myself and Craig was aware, as I was, that I was challenging something said by Harrison, not by you, and I can confirm that now for you in writing if you need it said. I only mentioned you because Craig had said that it was your post and you had originally reproduced the quotation (which I imagine you did because you thought it was an interesting point of view).

I hope, with all due respect, that this resolves the incident to your satisfaction and I look forward to discussing this with you further in about September 2018.
Ouch! The senior moment reference is probably too close for comfort. Craig sent me a PM last year, telling me that he was quoting my earlier post. I saw it in my Inbox today and was concerned that I might have neglected to respond. Apologies for not checking whether or not I had already replied - and for any offence caused my that omission.
__________________
Regards, Bridewell.

Last edited by Bridewell : 06-19-2017 at 03:01 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1036  
Old 06-20-2017, 11:21 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 3,886
Default

[quote=GUT;418496]

Quote:
Not only both got it wrong, but the same wrong.
That is a very interesting answer, GUT.

Why did they get the same wrong?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1037  
Old 06-20-2017, 12:59 PM
Henry Flower Henry Flower is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hackney Wick
Posts: 726
Default

[quote=Pierre;418587]
Quote:
Originally Posted by GUT View Post


That is a very interesting answer, GUT.

Why did they get the same wrong?
Why don't you STATE SOMETHING rather than continually asking questions of others?

Oh of course: it's because every time you state something it is immediately and irrefutably shown to be hilariously erroneous.

My apologies. I forgot how badly things have gone for you here.
__________________
What should I do at Rome? I have not learnt
The art of lying


Decimus Iunius Iuvenalis - Satire III
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1038  
Old 06-20-2017, 01:31 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 6,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post


That is a very interesting answer, GUT.

Why did they get the same wrong?
The fact is they didn't.

I love that a so called academic historian is willing to ignore the only sources we have, that all say Juwes, and instead insert a word of his own choosing. Real academic integrity there. Even the great scientist or sociologist or whatever else you pretend to be wouldn't do that.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1039  
Old 06-21-2017, 11:41 AM
Merry_Olde_Mary Merry_Olde_Mary is offline
Cadet
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 46
Default

<< That would also explain the superlative use of "the men" in the phrase "the jews are the men than will not be blamed for nothing". If the phrase actually referred to the jews, it would say "The jews will not be blamed for nothing". >>

This was a time when women weren't always referenced as part of a culture...for instance, Englishmen could be used in place of The English. So the fact that the statement mentions men specifically doesn't mean it isn't discussing a mixed group of genders.
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 03:19 AM.


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