Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

An experiment

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

  • Pierre

    Thank you for the reply.

    I have another question which follows on from question 4.

    Do you have any source that directly links this person, lets continue your "T" for convenience sake, to the GSG?



    Steve

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
      Pierre

      Thank you for the reply.

      I have another question which follows on from question 4.

      Do you have any source that directly links this person, lets continue your "T" for convenience sake, to the GSG?

      Steve
      Hi Steve,

      It is very difficult to know what you mean by "directly". Could you please try some type of definition?

      Regards, Pierre

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Pierre View Post
        It is very difficult to know what you mean by "directly". Could you please try some type of definition?
        What do you mean by "definition"?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Pierre View Post
          Hi Steve,

          It is very difficult to know what you mean by "directly". Could you please try some type of definition?

          Regards, Pierre
          Ok Pierre I did think the use of the word directly was very clear, - linked specifically to the GSG.

          The phrases "directly linked" or "directly links" are fairly common phrases in the English language, not sure why you require a definition?


          However I will try and explain


          By directly linked, I would include, and I have to say these may not be exhaustive and are in no particular order.

          1. He was seen in the specific area around that time.

          2. There is a similarity in the use of words, for instance the use of a double negative, between the GSG and some data source written by T.

          3. He demonstrates a knowledge of the wording, at least equal to if not above that of what was available from the press, in a data source written by him.

          4. He specifically links judges himself to the GSG in a data source.

          5. A source from someone close to him, suggesting he may know something about it.



          It may be easier to suggest what I would mean by indirect, only one example, but it is only meant to give an idea, not to be a suggestion of any sort.


          To say T mentions Judges in general, so the J word must be Judges , does not I think work. ( I am not suggesting that is what you are doing, am just using it as an example) that would be indirect, and of a far lower probability than point 4 above.
          Indeed it could be argued such was only a possibility at best,

          There may be a link between T and Judges, and he may be the killer; such I am not attempting to debate here.
          However that alone would not make him the writer of the GSG. as you yourself said a few posts back.


          Steve
          Last edited by Elamarna; 06-07-2016, 11:11 AM.

          Comment


          • [QUOTE=Elamarna;383642]
            Ok Pierre I did think the use of the word directly was very clear, - linked specifically to the GSG.

            The phrases "directly linked" or "directly links" are fairly common phrases in the English language, not sure why you require a definition?


            However I will try and explain
            Thanks, it is better when we use the concepts in a similar way.

            By directly linked, I would include, and I have to say these may not be exhaustive and are in no particular order.
            1. He was seen in the specific area around that time.
            Anyone could have been seen in the area without being the killer. Anyone could have written the GSG and having been seen in the area without being the killer.

            2. There is a similarity in the use of words, for instance the use of a double negative, between the GSG and some data source written by T.
            There is something very important in the GSG which indicates a connection.

            3. He demonstrates a knowledge of the wording, at least equal to if not above that of what was available from the press, in a data source written by him.
            Not enough to be called evidence.

            4. He specifically links judges himself to the GSG in a data source.
            No.

            5. A source from someone close to him, suggesting he may know something about it.
            No.

            It may be easier to suggest what I would mean by indirect, only one example, but it is only meant to give an idea, not to be a suggestion of any sort.
            OK.

            To say T mentions Judges in general, so the J word must be Judges , does not I think work. ( I am not suggesting that is what you are doing, am just using it as an example) that would be indirect, and of a far lower probability than point 4 above.
            No, there is no such thing.

            Indeed it could be argued such was only a possibility at best,

            There may be a link between T and Judges, and he may be the killer; such I am not attempting to debate here.
            However that alone would not make him the writer of the GSG. as you yourself said a few posts back.
            I agree with you on this.

            Regards, Pierre

            Comment


            • Pierre

              Thank you for the reply,

              I have 2 further questions related to the responses you gave


              Originally posted by Pierre View Post

              1. He was seen in the specific area around that time.


              Anyone could have been seen in the area without being the killer. Anyone could have written the GSG and having been seen in the area without being the killer.

              Interesting response, I am not at present considering the Author of the GSG to be the killer. so that first point is unimportant.

              My point was had your man T (sorry but I can't resist has you used the it first, but I will stop now.) been seen in the area at the time of the writing.

              I am not sure if that is a yea or a nay from you.
              However which ever I assume you are saying it is unimportant, so be it



              Originally posted by Pierre View Post

              2. There is a similarity in the use of words, for instance the use of a double negative, between the GSG and some data source written by T.

              There is something very important in the GSG which indicates a connection.

              This I find extremely interesting, why?

              Well "there is some thing very important in the GSG" is an odd thing to say given we do not know for certain what it actually did say.

              We have at least 2 on the spot versions of the wording:


              "The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing." - Detective Daniel Halse.

              "The Juews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." - PC Long.



              A report by Swanson which you have cited from yourself:

              "The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing."



              A version from the memories of Sir Henry Smith:

              "The Jews are the men that won’t be blamed for nothing".



              There is also a version by Anderson, but since he was not actually around for the double event his version should be judged very critically given it is written over 20 years after the double event.

              However for completeness he says:

              "The Jewes are not the men to be blamed for nothing."



              So we have 5 versions, all similar but none exactly the same.

              Therefore what version are you using to say there is a connection to your Source/Sources?

              Steve

              Comment


              • [QUOTE=Elamarna;383659]
                Pierre

                Thank you for the reply,

                I have 2 further questions related to the responses you gave

                Interesting response, I am not at present considering the Author of the GSG to be the killer. so that first point is unimportant.

                My point was had your man T (sorry but I can't resist has you used the it first, but I will stop now.) been seen in the area at the time of the writing.

                I am not sure if that is a yea or a nay from you.
                However which ever I assume you are saying it is unimportant, so be it
                There is no source for such a sighting.

                This I find extremely interesting, why?

                Well "there is some thing very important in the GSG" is an odd thing to say given we do not know for certain what it actually did say.

                We have at least 2 on the spot versions of the wording:

                "The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing." - Detective Daniel Halse.

                "The Juews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." - PC Long.

                A report by Swanson which you have cited from yourself:

                "The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing."

                A version from the memories of Sir Henry Smith:

                "The Jews are the men that won’t be blamed for nothing".

                There is also a version by Anderson, but since he was not actually around for the double event his version should be judged very critically given it is written over 20 years after the double event.

                However for completeness he says:

                "The Jewes are not the men to be blamed for nothing."

                So we have 5 versions, all similar but none exactly the same.

                Therefore what version are you using to say there is a connection to your Source/Sources?

                Steve
                Hi,

                I prefer Halse in the original inquest papers, since it is the most reliable primary source.

                Regards, Pierre

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                  I prefer Halse in the original inquest papers, since it is the most reliable primary source.
                  Ah, so the word on the wall was "Juwes" as Halse said?

                  Comment


                  • [QUOTE=Pierre;383663]
                    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                    There is no source for such a sighting.



                    Hi,

                    I prefer Halse in the original inquest papers, since it is the most reliable primary source.

                    Regards, Pierre
                    Why is it more reliable than Longs?

                    It cannot be that Halse's is the inquest statement as Long also gave testimony.

                    I assume you consider Longs inquest testimony to be less convincing .

                    Can I ask, going from my original point 2 that you can confirm there is a data source that uses similar words in a similar sentence construction?


                    regards

                    Steve
                    Last edited by Elamarna; 06-07-2016, 01:47 PM.

                    Comment


                    • [QUOTE=Elamarna;383668]
                      Originally posted by Pierre View Post

                      Why is it more reliable than Longs?

                      It cannot be that Halse's is the inquest statement as Long also gave testimony.

                      I assume you consider Longs inquest testimony to be less convincing .

                      Can I ask, going from my original point 2 that you can confirm there is a data source that uses similar words in a similar sentence construction?

                      regards

                      Steve
                      Hi Steve,

                      Because Long was not sure about his own testimony. Halse was.

                      There is no data source to my knowledge that uses the similar construction.

                      Regards, Pierre

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                        Because Long was not sure about his own testimony. Halse was.
                        That's good. So the word he saw that he was sure about was "Juwes" not "Judges"?

                        Comment


                        • [QUOTE=Pierre;383671]
                          Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                          Hi Steve,

                          Because Long was not sure about his own testimony. Halse was.

                          There is no data source to my knowledge that uses the similar construction.

                          Regards, Pierre
                          Pierre

                          we are getting somewhere.

                          If it is not connected to the structure, we are left only with the words contained in the GSG are we not?

                          Halse stated it read:

                          "The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing."

                          Which of those words can be the "something very important in the GSG which indicates a connection"?

                          Apart from Juwes the other words seem reasonably innocuous, and it is hard to see how they could link to another Data source?

                          Am I wrong on that assessment?

                          However have you not said that Juwes is wrong, and it should read Judges?

                          If that is the case, and I say if:

                          There is actually nothing in the GSG as recorded by Halse or indeed any other witness, which indicates a connection, as Judges is not one of the recorded words.

                          Would you like to comment?

                          Steve

                          Comment


                          • [QUOTE=Pierre;383671]
                            Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                            Hi Steve,

                            Because Long was not sure about his own testimony. Halse was.

                            There is no data source to my knowledge that uses the similar construction.

                            Regards, Pierre
                            Technically the above emboldened quote is inaccurate, he wasnt absolutely sure about the writing,...but he stated without reservation that the cloth "was not there" when he first passed by after 2am. My point is that Longs empirical pronouncement suggests that the apron section was not taken directly from the murder scene. Which then suggests the cloth was intentionally left there over an hour after the crime, which leads one to surmise that the message, if left by the killer, is related to its location. A housing development almost entirely occupied by Juwes/Jews/Juewes....not Judges/Judgez/Jugis.
                            Michael Richards

                            Comment


                            • [QUOTE=Michael W Richards;383690]
                              Originally posted by Pierre View Post

                              Technically the above emboldened quote is inaccurate, he wasnt absolutely sure about the writing,...but he stated without reservation that the cloth "was not there" when he first passed by after 2am. My point is that Longs empirical pronouncement suggests that the apron section was not taken directly from the murder scene. Which then suggests the cloth was intentionally left there over an hour after the crime, which leads one to surmise that the message, if left by the killer, is related to its location. A housing development almost entirely occupied by Juwes/Jews/Juewes....not Judges/Judgez/Jugis.
                              One point which appears to have been overlooked is that in 1888 the East End was heavily populated with Jews. In fact the word Jews was probably the most common known word, and even the most illiterate person would have probably be able to recognise the word Jews, and if that person only knew one word to write it might have been the word Jews. So I fail to see how anyone can say that the word spelt Juwes relates to Jews as an ethnic group.

                              Especially as there were no spelling mistakes in the rest of the writing

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 06-07-2016, 04:06 PM.

                              Comment


                              • [QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;383695]
                                Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                                One point which appears to have been overlooked is that in 1888 the East End was heavily populated with Jews. In fact the word Jews was probably the most common known word, and even the most illiterate person would have probably be able to recognise the word Jews, and if that person only knew one word to write it might have been the word Jews. So I fail to see how anyone can say that the word spelt Juwes relates to Jews as an ethnic group.

                                Especially as there were no spelling mistakes in the rest of the writing

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                Hi,

                                That is a relevant point to make.

                                Regards, Pierre

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X