The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Elamarna;429960

There is no evidence other than written sources and therefore it is an historical investigation.

Indeed. And therefore Steve, stop calling historical investigations "ripperology". And also stop calling historical persons "suspects".

Pierre

[Elamarna]

Trevor has a point in saying that the written evidence is not as clear as it could be sometimes. At least when focusing on one piece at a time. However, as others have said, there is a body of evidence and taken as a whole, we can say without fear of contradiction (except possibly by Mr Marriott) that Catherine Eddowes was wearing an apron when she was murdered.

I agree often things are not clear from a single source.


Steve

[Elamarna]

QUOTE=Elamarna;429960



Indeed. And therefore Steve, stop calling historical investigations "ripperology". And also stop calling historical persons "suspects".

Pierre

My dear Pierre.

I prefer Ripper studies myself.

If studying/investigating a particular event or period it is customary to refer to it by a title.

Steve

[Pierre]

And your point is caller?

The point is that there were portions of apron.

[Pierre]

My dear Pierre.

I prefer Ripper studies myself.

Steve

"Ripper studies" is another concept. You tend to do that to get away from what I say sometimes, Steve. You start using other concepts.

[Elamarna]

"Ripper studies" is another concept. You tend to do that to get away from what I say sometimes, Steve. You start using other concepts.

So how would you suggest one refers to the area of study?

The 1888 Whitechapel murders?

Or ?

Steve

[Pierre]

So how would you suggest one refers to the area of study?

The 1888 Whitechapel murders?

Or ?

Steve

That depends on the sources and the definitions for time and place. If you research 1888 and 1889 you have to use that definition (for example).

There is not always just simple concepts like "The Whitechapel Murders" or "Jack the Ripper".

As you said yourself, you do historical investigation.

That means the area of study is always depending on the sources and specific definitions.

Cheers, Pierre

[John G]

QUOTE=Elamarna;429960



Indeed. And therefore Steve, stop calling historical investigations "ripperology". And also stop calling historical persons "suspects".

Pierre

Are you suggesting the word "suspects" should be removed from the dictionary? Why? What on earth do you mean by "historical persons", considering that what happened ten seconds ago is "historical"?

[Wickerman]

Trevor has a point in saying that the written evidence is not as clear as it could be sometimes. At least when focusing on one piece at a time. However, as others have said, there is a body of evidence and taken as a whole, we can say without fear of contradiction (except possibly by Mr Marriott) that Catherine Eddowes was wearing an apron when she was murdered.

This is precisely why collating the various sources, court record with the more prominent press coverage, is paramount to gaining a clearer picture of what was said at the inquest.
Trevor falls into the old trap of selecting one source and dismissing the rest. Except when it comes to an issue that has no official source, then Trevor has no qualms about quoting his preferred press source - all of a sudden the press are reliable. Funny that....

[Wickerman]

The point of the exercise is to negate the newspaper report, which states it was attached to the body with the strings,....

It was not a single report though, at least three different newspapers mentioned it.

I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.
Daily Telegraph.

Dr. Phillips brought in a piece of apron found in Gouldstone street, which fits what is missing in the one found on the body.
Daily News.

There was a piece of apron found in Goulston-street, with finger marks of blood upon it, which fits on to the piece left round the body.
Morning Post.

The Court record makes no mention of whether Dr Browns piece was still on the body or not. So, there is no contradiction, what we have via the three press versions, is clarification.

You clearly dont want to accept what is primary evidence in this case.

The Court recorder, was present, right?
The press reporter, was present, right?
Both sources are therefore of equal status. There is no hearsay. There is no secondary account - both are primary sources.

[Trevor Marriott]

It was not a single report though, at least three different newspapers mentioned it.

I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.
Daily Telegraph.

Dr. Phillips brought in a piece of apron found in Gouldstone street, which fits what is missing in the one found on the body.
Daily News.

There was a piece of apron found in Goulston-street, with finger marks of blood upon it, which fits on to the piece left round the body.
Morning Post.

The Court record makes no mention of whether Dr Browns piece was still on the body or not. So, there is no contradiction, what we have via the three press versions, is clarification.

The Court recorder, was present, right?
The press reporter, was present, right?
Both sources are therefore of equal status. There is no hearsay. There is no secondary account - both are primary sources.

But they cant all be right can they?

Somewhere is the correct version of testimony, and that in my opinion is the signed depositions. In this case it doesn't matter if reporters were present. It only shows that it was they that took it down wrong, or misconstrued what was being said, or added to it for whatever purpose.

Take the morning post report. No where was it ever mentioned about bloody finger marks on the GS piece. A clear example of part of a report which you seek to rely on being made up.

I keep saying, and will go on saying, that the depositions were taken down in court by the court recorder. They were either read back over to the witness or the witness read it over before signing. If anything had been taken down wrongly or anything material left out it would have been noted and amended. So that is why these must take preference over all else.

Its like Collards lists, notes made at the time primary evidence.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[etenguy]

But they cant all be right can they?

Somewhere is the correct version of testimony, and that in my opinion is the signed depositions. In this case it doesn't matter if reporters were present. It only shows that it was they that took it down wrong, or misconstrued what was being said, or added to it for whatever purpose.

Take the morning post report. No where was it ever mentioned about bloody finger marks on the GS piece. A clear example of part of a report which you seek to rely on being made up.

I keep saying, and will go on saying, that the depositions were taken down in court by the court recorder. They were either read back over to the witness or the witness read it over before signing. If anything had been taken down wrongly or anything material left out it would have been noted and amended. So that is why these must take preference over all else.

Its like Collards lists, notes made at the time primary evidence.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But this is my point. These all refer to one witness. There were several others all of whom stated independently that Eddowes was wearing an apron. For me Collard's statement is the least open to interpretation when he stated:

No; no money whatever was found. A piece of cloth was found in Goulston-street, corresponding with the apron worn by the deceased.

[Sam Flynn]

But they cant all be right can they?

The truth lies somewhere in between, Trevor. The official records will pick up on some things but miss others, and the same is true of the newspapers. The official records, like the newspapers, will also be in error sometimes, because that's the nature of the world.

No single source is ever good enough on its own. We need to consider all the sources at our disposal, in order to draw the most pragmatic and sensible conclusions from them.

[Wickerman]

You still do not appreciate the difference between secondary and primary historical sources.
Steve

Hi Steve.

Seeing as we are once again on this Primary/Secondary subject, can I ask you something just to settle my own curiosity.

We have a reporter present at the inquest, and his coverage provides verbatim accounts - this is a Primary Source, I'm sure we agree.
What if this reporter produces a paraphrase account?

As example, in one version we have Mr Crawford asking "Was your attention drawn to the apron?"
Dr Brown responds: "Yes".

In another version we have Dr Brown saying:
"My attention was drawn to the apron....".

Which is what he meant, but not exactly what was said.

So, is the former version a Primary Source, and the latter version a Secondary Source?
The reason I ask is due to the fact that in the sciences a true Secondary Source is one that analyzes, or interprets a Primary Source.
Well, surely, providing a paraphrase version is 'interpretation', isn't it?

Can you offer an opinion?

[Sam Flynn]

I keep saying, and will go on saying... If anything had been taken down wrongly or anything material left out it would have been noted and amended.

Don't go on saying that, because it's patently not the case. Court clerks, or whatever inky-fingered public servant was asked to jot down an inquest's testimony on a given day, were not superhuman and neither were they immune from error. Equally, it isn't necessarily true that a witness would be particularly bothered if a word or two had been missed by said inky-fingered public servant; indeed, it's by no means guaranteed that they'd even notice.