Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Blurred

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Blurred

    Hi,

    In a police report dated 6 November 1888, chief inspector Donald Swanson wrote about

    "Facts known to Met:Police. respecting the Murder in Mitresquare & writing on wall." (Evans & Skinner, p. 207-208).

    About the writing on the wall, he wrote:

    "Upon the discovery of the blurred chalk writing on the wall,...".

    What could Donald Swanson have known about this?


    Regards, Pierre

  • #2
    Originally posted by Pierre View Post
    Hi,

    In a police report dated 6 November 1888, chief inspector Donald Swanson wrote about

    "Facts known to Met:Police. respecting the Murder in Mitresquare & writing on wall." (Evans & Skinner, p. 207-208).

    About the writing on the wall, he wrote:

    "Upon the discovery of the blurred chalk writing on the wall,...".

    What could Donald Swanson have known about this?
    Do you think the blurred nature of the writing might explain why everyone who read the writing believed the word "Judges" was a reference to Jews?

    Comment


    • #3
      You don't think Swanson had access to all th reports?
      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.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Pierre View Post
        About the writing on the wall, he wrote:

        "Upon the discovery of the blurred chalk writing on the wall,...".

        What could Donald Swanson have known about this?


        Regards, Pierre
        That the writing was blurry?

        Not sure what the OP is driving at here.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post
          That the writing was blurry?

          Not sure what the OP is driving at here.
          I seldom know what he's talking about.
          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.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post
            That the writing was blurry?

            Not sure what the OP is driving at here.
            Check out post #2. Might contain a clue.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
              Check out post #2. Might contain a clue.
              don't you mean to say the word judges was mistakenly read as juwes?
              "Is all that we see or seem
              but a dream within a dream?"

              -Edgar Allan Poe


              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

              -Frederick G. Abberline

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                don't you mean to say the word judges was mistakenly read as juwes?
                No, I deliberately said "a reference to Jews" because not everyone read it as "Juwes".

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                  No, I deliberately said "a reference to Jews" because not everyone read it as "Juwes".
                  got it-sorry
                  "Is all that we see or seem
                  but a dream within a dream?"

                  -Edgar Allan Poe


                  "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                  quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                  -Frederick G. Abberline

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                    Check out post #2. Might contain a clue.

                    David,

                    If Pierre is about to suggest that being blurred the writing could be misunderstood by the witness's. the following must be answered first:

                    If it was blurred, does that not suggest that it was not fresh?

                    If it was blurred one reason would be it had been rubbed against by passers by.

                    If it had been rubbed by passers by this surely must have happened when the street was busy, then the writing almost certainly has no bearing at all on the murders as many have long argued.


                    However being blurred seems to go against the evidence of those who reported seeing it.
                    Pierre appears to be taking a second hand source, over that of the eyewitnesses, Swanson does not claimed to have seen the writing at anytime does he?


                    Steve

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                      David,

                      If Pierre is about to suggest that being blurred the writing could be misunderstood by the witness's. the following must be answered first:

                      If it was blurred, does that not suggest that it was not fresh?

                      If it was blurred one reason would be it had been rubbed against by passers by.

                      If it had been rubbed by passers by this surely must have happened when the street was busy, then the writing almost certainly has no bearing at all on the murders as many have long argued.


                      However being blurred seems to go against the evidence of those who reported seeing it.
                      Pierre appears to be taking a second hand source, over that of the eyewitnesses, Swanson does not claimed to have seen the writing at anytime does he?
                      Once Pierre has performed some internal and external source criticism, analysed all the sources systematically and explained what perspectives, classifications and operationalisations of concepts from the sources he is using for his analysis then we may start to see things very differently Steve.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                        Once Pierre has performed some internal and external source criticism, analysed all the sources systematically and explained what perspectives, classifications and operationalisations of concepts from the sources he is using for his analysis then we may start to see things very differently Steve.
                        He may try.
                        However its written in chalk, the witness's said in good schoolboy, so the style was clear.
                        If it is blurred, it is because it has been rubbed against or smudged. then it is not fresh, but old writing.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                          Check out post #2. Might contain a clue.
                          Welllll I did not really want to elaborate on the hunch that one person thought it said 'judges.' Might have been so blurry it said 'jumble.'

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Well it was also raining a bit. That blurs things.
                            The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Errata View Post
                              Well it was also raining a bit. That blurs things.
                              Hi Errata,

                              that could be but i was under the impression that the writing would have been mainly protected from the rain.
                              however again it does suggest that the writing was not fresh.

                              Steve

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X