An experiment

[barnflatwyngarde]

Apparently we don't. We're expected to just skip the dozens of concurrent threads the oaf starts, if we think he's full of crap. Oh, and skip his endless diatribes on any and every thread anyone else starts, especially re Lechmere, which threads he habitually destroys also, despite his frequent mewling that David Orsam must NOT destroy Pierre's own threads.

Personally I shall now take this forum off my bookmarks and go play somewhere else. Pierre is everywhere on the forums: it's like when you order fish at the restaurant, but it seems to be more bones than meat, and you end up nibbling little scraps until the pleasure of the meal is entirely ruined.

Henry, There is no doubt that the Casebook Forum is a much less enjoyable experience than I have found it in the past.

I try not to jump on to every posting unless I think I have something useful to contribute.
Many people simply take an idea for a walk, and that is an entirely legitimate and reasonable way to approach the boards.

Pierre however seems happy to jump on to a large number of postings and contribute absolutely nothing.
Indeed, the question could fairly be asked, is Pierre helping or hindering the Casebook?

With his superior knowing air, and his frankly sometimes bizarre ramblings, I find it almost impossible to get anything out of it.

Fisherman, on the other hand, has had the honesty and integrity to put out there his own (not outlandish) theory.
He puts his case well and rebuts his detractors with what he considers to be salient facts and hypotheses.

Can we say the same for Pierre?

I simply do not understand why Pierre does not set up his own web page (fairly easy to do) and publish his research on that particular site.

This is not a personal attack on Pierre, whom I have never met.

It is however an attack on his supposed "historical" approach on these boards.

Enough is enough!

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Bridewell;416985]

Where I think Pierre has a point of sorts is in suggesting that a man who can spell 'nothing' correctly (i.e. without using the 'u' which phonetic spelling would suggest) would be unlikely to insert a 'u' into a spelling of the word 'Jews'.

Yes, that is the question.

I'm drawn to the notion that the GSG has no relevance to the Whitechapel Murders beyond a coincidental proximity to the missing piece of the Eddowes apron. Whether relevant or not, what and why was the error made by whoever did write it?

Or why was the error made by whoever read it?

A couple of possibilities:

The writer's first language was not English: a German or French speaker might, from force of habit, begin to write 'Juden' or 'Juifs'.

But there is no source for that.

The GSG was written and then the spelling of this word was corrected - which might explain reports that the writing was blurred.

And there is a source for this.

Cheers, Pierre

[Harry D]

Jewes. It was Jewes.

[Abby Normal]

it was jutes. The ripper was obviously a disgruntled Celt.

[Michael W Richards]

Henry, There is no doubt that the Casebook Forum is a much less enjoyable experience than I have found it in the past.

I try not to jump on to every posting unless I think I have something useful to contribute.
Many people simply take an idea for a walk, and that is an entirely legitimate and reasonable way to approach the boards.

Pierre however seems happy to jump on to a large number of postings and contribute absolutely nothing.
Indeed, the question could fairly be asked, is Pierre helping or hindering the Casebook?

With his superior knowing air, and his frankly sometimes bizarre ramblings, I find it almost impossible to get anything out of it.

Fisherman, on the other hand, has had the honesty and integrity to put out there his own (not outlandish) theory.
He puts his case well and rebuts his detractors with what he considers to be salient facts and hypotheses.

Can we say the same for Pierre?

I simply do not understand why Pierre does not set up his own web page (fairly easy to do) and publish his research on that particular site.

This is not a personal attack on Pierre, whom I have never met.

It is however an attack on his supposed "historical" approach on these boards.

Enough is enough!

Gentlemen,

On a pleasant Sunday evening its always distracting when someone chooses to cut their lawn during the days last hours, but can we say its anything more than a simple irritation? It doesnt directly affect the wine we might be sipping, nor does it prohibit you from enjoying a new book, your favourite show, or the company of some friends. Its a minor irritation in a world rife with distractions...perhaps that context can help you enjoy what time you spend here more.

[Henry Flower]

Michael Richards, our neighbor Pierre insists on noisily mowing his lawn several times a day. He also insists that he is a trained professional and that nobody else here knows how to mow a lawn as well as he does; he enjoys wandering into every garden in the neighborhood and telling the owners that they are doing it all wrong because they are not as well-educated in gardening science as he is. Despite this his garden is famously bare, brown, and patchy, with nothing in it worth looking at, though he insists on telling everyone that he is very close to having produced the garden everyone else has been aspiring to.

He is a local laughing-stock, widely regarded as having a screw loose, yet talks to everyone as though he is patiently teaching simpletons the art of weeding and edging.

Understand?

[barnflatwyngarde]

Gentlemen,

On a pleasant Sunday evening its always distracting when someone chooses to cut their lawn during the days last hours, but can we say its anything more than a simple irritation? It doesnt directly affect the wine we might be sipping, nor does it prohibit you from enjoying a new book, your favourite show, or the company of some friends. Its a minor irritation in a world rife with distractions...perhaps that context can help you enjoy what time you spend here more.

Michael, Believe it or not I'm normally a chilled out old hippy.

It's "The Pierre Effect".

Damnit Janet!!!!

[Bridewell]

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

Superintendent Arnold and Sir Charles Warren explained their decision to remove the message to the Home Office. It had nothing to do with an alleged nickname attributed to the City Police.

And with all due respect to you, David, what I posted was a quotation from a book, not my own opinion.

[Bridewell]

I don´t want to be admirable or a contributor to ripperology. I want to do history.

If you don't want to be a contributor to ripperology what exactly are you doing on this forum?

[Bridewell]

Conclusion: The dictionary and the author can be hypothesized as more reliable than those who copied the text?

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.

[GUT]

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.

[Bridewell]

it was jutes. The ripper was obviously a disgruntled Celt.

"Like".

[Bridewell]

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.

[David Orsam]

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.

[Bridewell]

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.