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:
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - by etenguy 3 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 3 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Fisherman 4 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Fisherman 4 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 8 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 8 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (14 posts)
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - (6 posts)
General Discussion: Albert Backert - did he emigrate? - (3 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (2 posts)
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - (2 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Was Ernest Dowson Jack the Ripper? - (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 > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 08-05-2017, 12:15 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Hi Steve,

That was the first thing I looked for. No address is given.

It just says:

"Mr. E. Walker was the first witness examined."

There are a number of differences between the Globe report of his evidence and the Evening Post report.

For example, the Globe records the following question and answer:

"The coroner: How do you know her to be your daughter? - The witness: From her general appearance, and a scar which she had on her forehead, and which was done when she was a child."

Evening Post doesn't have this Q&A verbatim and refers to "a mark" rather than a scar.

Evening Post says the mark was "slightly visible" which isn't in the Globe report.

Plenty of other differences too.

And yes I do see differences between the Neil reports in the Globe and Post.
Hi David,

If there would have been no other differences than the expression "slightly visible", how would you have explained that?

Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-06-2017, 04:34 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,932
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Hi David,

If there would have been no other differences than the expression "slightly visible", how would you have explained that?
Oh my dear boy, a world renowned and respected academic historian once told me that questions containing "would have" and "if" are not correct questions for a historian and do not assist us at arriving at historical truth, or some such guffins.

So I would normally refuse to answer - were it not for the fact that this same expert historian has also opened my eyes to the fact that Jack the Ripper was leaving coded clues all over the place in 1888, including in newspapers, so that one needs to be very alert when we see a single discrepancy of this nature.

So my dear boy, my thought process, if there would have been no other differences than the expression "slightly visible" would, obviously, be that the killer had somehow managed to insert those words into the newspaper and was sending out a message in code.

Clearly he was telling us that within the words "slightly visible" there is a clue which is slightly visible.

Now, it was the first murder in a series so I would be looking to rearrange some of the letters to form some kind of number. Because I would assume he was going to tell us how many murders he was going to commit.

And, oh my lord, there it is, right there, just slightly visible. THE NUMBER EIGHT !!!!

It's the only number in there between one and fifty. He was intending to murder eight women.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-06-2017, 11:10 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Oh my dear boy, a world renowned and respected academic historian once told me that questions containing "would have" and "if" are not correct questions for a historian and do not assist us at arriving at historical truth, or some such guffins.

So I would normally refuse to answer - were it not for the fact that this same expert historian has also opened my eyes to the fact that Jack the Ripper was leaving coded clues all over the place in 1888, including in newspapers, so that one needs to be very alert when we see a single discrepancy of this nature.

So my dear boy, my thought process, if there would have been no other differences than the expression "slightly visible" would, obviously, be that the killer had somehow managed to insert those words into the newspaper and was sending out a message in code.

Clearly he was telling us that within the words "slightly visible" there is a clue which is slightly visible.

Now, it was the first murder in a series so I would be looking to rearrange some of the letters to form some kind of number. Because I would assume he was going to tell us how many murders he was going to commit.

And, oh my lord, there it is, right there, just slightly visible. THE NUMBER EIGHT !!!!

It's the only number in there between one and fifty. He was intending to murder eight women.
Firstly this is an example drawn from an historical fact, i.e. the paper did write that expression, even though it in itself is insignificant.

The example is just a tool for testing hypothetical options and not part of history writing.

So it has nothing to do with if:s and wouldhaves in history writing.

But you donīt understand the example and the question I wrote.

The expression would have been be made up by the paper if there was just one paper writing it. No paper had any "extra" information.

That is an if and would have answer to an if and would have question.

And this has now turned into an hypothesis. What do you say about it?

Pierre

Last edited by Pierre : 08-06-2017 at 11:13 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-06-2017, 11:41 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,932
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Firstly this is an example drawn from an historical fact, i.e. the paper did write that expression, even though it in itself is insignificant.

The example is just a tool for testing hypothetical options and not part of history writing.

So it has nothing to do with if:s and wouldhaves in history writing.

But you donīt understand the example and the question I wrote.

The expression would have been be made up by the paper if there was just one paper writing it. No paper had any "extra" information.

That is an if and would have answer to an if and would have question.

And this has now turned into an hypothesis. What do you say about it?
Oh my dear boy, I understood your question perfectly. You were asking me about something that never happened or existed at any time in history but, at the same time, asking me to explain what it would have meant if it had happened.

And, my dear boy, I gave you my answer.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-06-2017, 11:45 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Oh my dear boy, I understood your question perfectly. You were asking me about something that never happened or existed at any time in history but, at the same time, asking me to explain what it would have meant if it had happened.

And, my dear boy, I gave you my answer.
But your answer was meaningless. So clearly you did not understand the question.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-06-2017, 11:49 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,932
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
But your answer was meaningless. So clearly you did not understand the question.
Well the question was meaningless, my dear boy, which is why you received a meaningless answer.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-06-2017, 11:54 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Well the question was meaningless, my dear boy, which is why you received a meaningless answer.
It was meaningless for you because you failed to understand it.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-06-2017, 12:02 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,932
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
It was meaningless for you because you failed to understand it.
Oh I understood it, my dear boy, a pointless hypothetical question:

"If there would have been no other differences than the expression "slightly visible", how would you have explained that?"

As there are, in fact, other differences between the two reports, the question, as you asked it, cannot sensibly be answered in any meaningful way.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-06-2017, 12:06 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Oh I understood it, my dear boy, a pointless hypothetical question:

"If there would have been no other differences than the expression "slightly visible", how would you have explained that?"

As there are, in fact, other differences between the two reports, the question, as you asked it, cannot sensibly be answered in any meaningful way.
As I said, you did not understand the question. In it, there are no differences except for one expression.
The question is an example and not history.

And that is what you can not understand.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-06-2017, 12:16 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,932
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
As I said, you did not understand the question. In it, there are no differences except for one expression.
The question is an example and not history.
Exactly, my dear boy, it was a hypothetical question in which you posited that there was a single small difference between the two reports. You asked me to explain that single difference. But as there never was only a single small difference between the two reports, it was a meaningless question. I understood it perfectly my dear boy. Hence my answer.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.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 04:53 AM.


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