An experiment

[Pierre]

If we follow your logic Pierre, this otherwise perfectly spelt sentence from the Edinburgh Evening News of 2 November 1878 must be saying "Hundreds of Judges are leaving Palestine", or maybe Jutes, because it can't mean Jews.

You are taking the article out of itīs context. It has nothing to do with the Whitechapel murders or the GSG. It is an entirely different source produced under entirely different conditions.

But the worst problem is that you canīt separate a "u" from an "e". You believe it is the same letter.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

David, the point is that it doesnīt matter if a number of policemen saw it - if they did not make any transcriptions.

The earliest and most reliable sources give the same word "Juwes".

And it doesnīt matter if people believed it was a text about the Jews. History has proven that people in the past believe the wrong things. Often.

And donīt say that you "are sorry". You are not sorry. You only want to prove me wrong. That is your main interest. But I donīt care fore that. You only waste your time. The "truth" (if you believe in that) lies not in what you say, David. It lies in the sources.

Regards, Pierre

Unfortunately, Pierre, you don't seem very interested in the "sources" anymore. Perhaps you'll make more progress if you start to assess the evidence objectively, rather than in a way that is most favourable to your "theory".

[David Orsam]

David, the point is that it doesnīt matter if a number of policemen saw it - if they did not make any transcriptions.

The earliest and most reliable sources give the same word "Juwes".

And it doesnīt matter if people believed it was a text about the Jews. History has proven that people in the past believe the wrong things. Often.

And donīt say that you "are sorry". You are not sorry. You only want to prove me wrong. That is your main interest. But I donīt care fore that. You only waste your time. The "truth" (if you believe in that) lies not in what you say, David. It lies in the sources.

I have no interest in proving you wrong Pierre. I just respond to your posts as I see them.

Sir Charles Warren did make a transcription which he provided to the Home Office on 11 October. But that transcription is actually not the important point. The important point is that all the officers who saw the writing on the wall, including very experienced senior officers, all, without exception, saw a "w" in the second word of the sentence. That is why they all understood the writing to be about the jews.

You talk about "the sources" but there is not a single evidential source which even hints at there being a "d" or a "g" in the relevant word. Not one. That is fatal for your theory and I am truly sorry because it's not fun to see someone going down a blind and lonely alley.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;373490]

Whatever the surface and size of the writing, they had no difficulty whatsoever in seeing the writing

So that is something that you know. Good for you.

because you don't dispute that the words "The - are the men that will not be blamed for nothing" are all absolutely correct.

It is written in a normal language. It is spelled correctly. Why should it be wrong? But still, they did not even get the order of the words right.

Yes, there is a problem with the letters "u" and "e" which, even at the best of times, can easily be confused with each other.

You make you own explanation for that. But your explanation is no good. "Confused". Who was confused? And why?

But there is no reason to think that a "d" and a "g" in small letters can be confused with a "w".

So they were only "confused" to some extent now? Only partially confused, perhaps?

And you are writing that there is "no reason to think". Well, at least YOU donīt have such a reason, David. But that doesnīt mean that others could not have a very good reason to think so.

You clearly recognise this yourself which is why you suggested earlier that the key word might have been written in capital letters.

The Zodiac did. Jack the Ripper did. For example in the word "Blame" and in the word "Will". So we must ask if that is the explanation for the misreading. It is our duty to do this. And that is why I do it.

I'm sorry Pierre but there is no rational basis at all to suggest that the word was "judges".

Now you are sorry again. Donīt be. Trust the sources. Donīt listen to me.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

But the worst problem is that you canīt separate a "u" from an "e". You believe it is the same letter.

Not correct Pierre. As I already mentioned, Inspector McWilliam wrote in his report that the writing on the wall read: "The Jewes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing". PC Long's recollection, according to his sworn and signed deposition at the Eddowes inquest, was "the Jewes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing". As I have also already mentioned, the letters "u" and "e" are easily confused in standard nineteenth century manuscript, so we cannot be 100% certain what the spelling was.

Are you saying that if everyone who saw it thought that the writing on the wall said "Jewes" there would be no reason to think it said "judges"?

[David Orsam]

The Zodiac did. Jack the Ripper did. For example in the word "Blame" and in the word "Will". So we must ask if that is the explanation to the misreading. It is our duty to do this. And that is why I do it.

Your duty, Pierre, is to consider the meaning of "good schoolboy hand" which would not include a mixture of words in capital letters and lower case.

[David Orsam]

Now you are sorry again. Donīt be. Trust the sources. Donīt listen to me.

I can assure you that I am trusting the sources Pierre. All the sources, without exception, say that there was a "w" in the second word in the sentence written on the wall in Goulston Street.

In saying there wasn't, you are contradicting ALL of the known sources on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, just convoluted speculation.

[Pierre]

Your duty, Pierre, is to consider the meaning of "good schoolboy hand" which would not include a mixture of words in capital letters and lower case.

Sure. There couldnīt have been many good schoolboys around at night in Goulston Street, could there?

So who was the good schoolboy and why did they misread the message?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Sure. There couldnīt have been many good schoolboys around at night in Goulston Street, could there?

So who was the good schoolboy and why did they misread the message?

You've misunderstood the evidence here Pierre. Detective Halse wasn't saying that the writing was by a schoolboy. He was saying it was written in a certain style. Schools in the nineteenth century taught a certain type of writing style which meant that nineteenth century handwriting of different individual adults was often very similar. Halse is simply saying that the sentence was carefully written in that sort of standardized style. And that style most definitely did not include words or sentences written in block capitals.

[Pierre]

You've misunderstood the evidence here Pierre. Detective Halse wasn't saying that the writing was by a schoolboy. He was saying it was written in a certain style. Schools in the nineteenth century taught a certain type of writing style which meant that nineteenth century handwriting of different individual adults was often very similar. Halse is simply saying that the sentence was carefully written in that sort of standardized style. And that style most definitely did not include words or sentences written in block capitals.

No I havenīt. You have. The writing style is maintained through life. It is a matter of class, not age.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

No I havenīt. You have. The writing style is maintained through life. It is a matter of class, not age.

But, Pierre, that's exactly what I'm saying. When Halse referred to a "good schoolboy hand" he wasn't talking about a schoolboy. He was saying that the handwriting of a schoolboy and an adult was the same.

[David Orsam]

Are you saying that if everyone who saw it thought that the writing on the wall said "Jewes" there would be no reason to think it said "judges"?

I can't help noticing Pierre that in this thread, and others, you seem to pick and choose what questions you answer, avoiding the difficult ones. Do you think you could do me the courtesy of answering the above question?

[Rosella]

Schoolchildren in England in the 19th century were taught in the same copybook style, with writing exercises in penmanship set out in textbooks. It would be the same style if you were the son (or daughter) of an unemployed porter in the London slums, the child of a gamekeeper in the country, or of a shopkeeper in town or the child of an aristocrat or prime minister. It was standardised script.

[Pierre]

I can't help noticing Pierre that in this thread, and others, you seem to pick and choose what questions you answer, avoiding the difficult ones. Do you think you could do me the courtesy of answering the above question?

The probability would be lower.

[David Orsam]

The probability would be lower.

Thank you Pierre.