The meaning of the GSG wording

[caz]

There is NO PROVEN link between the murders of Eddowes and Stride beyond the day.

There is no PROVEN link between apron-piece and writing other than juxtaposition (and on that see my remarks earlier in this post).

The links you propose are circumstantial and suppositious - I would have less objection if you flagged them up as such and NOT as proven conclusions.

Phil

Hi Phil,

Considering there is very little that is PROVEN about this case, and the bare facts we have at our disposal have given us a thousand gaps and very few proven conclusions (hence the enormous number of debates that have been ongoing here since casebook began), I'm not sure on what grounds you can seriously object to others exploring potential links, keeping potential clues in mind and speculating about what could have made the killer, or killers tick. The bare facts are not up for debate, but everything else is, or you and I would not be on a thread discussing the (unknown and unknowable) meaning of the GSG!

I know what I'm doing here. Do you?

What circumstantial or suppositious links have I flagged up as 'proven conclusions'? I thought I always made it pretty clear when I was reciting bald facts and when I was speculating, based on those facts.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

e

Hello Mac.

"Anyone really going with the evidence would say:"

e: Jack whom?

Cheers.
LC

[Abby Normal]

There's a reason why lawyers aren't trained in the creative arts, Tom.

Your right its called money

[Abby Normal]

Buffoonery and selective reasing are the comments i wouldmake on many posts in this thread.

Think about it, those of you who want to complicate matters - contrary to Abby's utterly nonsensical post - wherever the apron-piece was found, it HAD to be in juxtaposition to SOMETHING be it a building or whatever. Had it been found under a poster pasted on a wall, or a street market stall, you'd be trying to show some link.

While there may be a link my point is that there is no proof that apron and writing did not come together accidentally, and in the absence of any conclusive link or even a concensus on the meaning of the words, the LOGICAL conclusion is to assume NO LINK.

As Jon S said:

Proximity does not constitute evidence. Association must be demonstrated, or better, proved. Remember the leather apron in the yard at No. 29 Hanbury St.? Just because another artifact lays close by does not mean we should assume a connection.

Caz:

I wish someone could finally explain to me, after yet another long debate on this supposed irrelevance, why 'ordinary' is the more logical stance to adopt here, and why the message could not have been one more 'out of the ordinary' discovery that night.

It is the right approach because it ASSUMES least.

There is NO PROVEN link between the murders of Eddowes and Stride beyond the day.

There is no PROVEN link between apron-piece and writing other than juxtaposition (and on that see my remarks earlier in this post).

The links you propose are circumstantial and suppositious - I would have less objection if you flagged them up as such and NOT as proven conclusions.

Phil

Think about it, those of you who want to complicate matters - contrary to Abby's utterly nonsensical post - wherever the apron-piece was found, it HAD to be in juxtaposition to SOMETHING be it a building or whatever. Had it been found under a poster pasted on a wall, or a street market stall, you'd be trying to show some link.

As opposed to your way of thinking if it had ben found undernieth writing that said I ******* did it it you woud say that it had nothing to do with it.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Not at all. That would be the other extreme. I'm in the middle. I suppose you'd call me a factist.

Fleetwood,

That's all well and good, but such a proposition lacks imagination.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

There's a reason why lawyers aren't trained in the creative arts, Tom.

[Soothsayer]

Not at all. That would be the other extreme. I'm in the middle. I suppose you'd call me a factist.

Fleetwood,

That's all well and good, but such a proposition lacks imagination.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Oh, the irony ...

[Tom_Wescott]

I see,

So you would be a fantasist.

Monty

Not at all. That would be the other extreme. I'm in the middle. I suppose you'd call me a factist.

Fleetwood,

That's all well and good, but such a proposition lacks imagination.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fleetwood Mac]

I'd agree with Phil.

Anyone really going with the evidence would say:

a) Long should be taken as read.

b) The writing doesn't mentioned a murder and as such should be discounted.

c) There is no evidence that Jack went to clean up.

d) Meaning: Jack didn't leave the streets and dropped the apron between 2.20 and 2.55. Were we to concentrate solely on and accept witness testimony, that is what we're being told.

[Phil H]

Buffoonery and selective reasing are the comments i wouldmake on many posts in this thread.

Think about it, those of you who want to complicate matters - contrary to Abby's utterly nonsensical post - wherever the apron-piece was found, it HAD to be in juxtaposition to SOMETHING be it a building or whatever. Had it been found under a poster pasted on a wall, or a street market stall, you'd be trying to show some link.

While there may be a link my point is that there is no proof that apron and writing did not come together accidentally, and in the absence of any conclusive link or even a concensus on the meaning of the words, the LOGICAL conclusion is to assume NO LINK.

As Jon S said:

Proximity does not constitute evidence. Association must be demonstrated, or better, proved. Remember the leather apron in the yard at No. 29 Hanbury St.? Just because another artifact lays close by does not mean we should assume a connection.

Caz:

I wish someone could finally explain to me, after yet another long debate on this supposed irrelevance, why 'ordinary' is the more logical stance to adopt here, and why the message could not have been one more 'out of the ordinary' discovery that night.

It is the right approach because it ASSUMES least.

There is NO PROVEN link between the murders of Eddowes and Stride beyond the day.

There is no PROVEN link between apron-piece and writing other than juxtaposition (and on that see my remarks earlier in this post).

The links you propose are circumstantial and suppositious - I would have less objection if you flagged them up as such and NOT as proven conclusions.

Phil

[Monty]

[ QUOTE=mariab;196396]By “minimalist“ they mean that one isn't willing to “lean out the window“ and express a theory further than the basic bare facts, Monty. You know, the way they say “the interior decorating in my crib is on the minimalist side“ when one's sleeping on a matress on the floor, with cartons for furniture, eating out of a paper bag. :-)[/QUOTE]

Wow, its like people know me.

Someone has to bring the factual content, otherwise the reality will be left at the mercy of those who replace fact with theory.

Monty

[Monty]

You mean as I have done? Oh, and you, my good sir, are a minimalist.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I see,

So you would be a fantasist.

Monty

[mariab]

Can someone explain what they mean by 'Mininalist' in this field.

By “minimalist“ they mean that one isn't willing to “lean out the window“ and express a theory further than the basic bare facts, Monty. You know, the way they say “the interior decorating in my crib is on the minimalist side“ when one's sleeping on a matress on the floor, with cartons for furniture, eating out of a paper bag. :-)

[Tom_Wescott]

Its not about ordinary, or extraordinary, its about fact and evidence and drawing a conclusion based on probability and possibility.

Fine, question and draw you conclusion. Just give me some sound evidence or conjecture instead of the 'what if' and twisted testimony.....oh, and false accusations with so far no foundation.

You mean as I have done? Oh, and you, my good sir, are a minimalist.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

This was no ordinary night, but many minimalists insist - without a shred of actual evidence - that we treat this communication as a perfectly ordinary one,...

Caz.
Proximity does not constitute evidence. Association must be demonstrated, or better, proved. Remember the leather apron in the yard at No. 29 Hanbury St.? Just because another artifact lays close by does not mean we should assume a connection.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

good

Hello Caz. Good points all. (And spoken in the Queen's English, I might add.)

Cheers.
LC