Blurred

[David Orsam]

Stop this behaviour, David.

Your theory doesn't even make sense on the face of it. If the journalists were trying to link the phrase "good round hand" to the writing on the wall in order to link it to previous correspondence for which the same description had been applied, why did the Times reporter record it as "good schoolboy hand"? Given that the Morning Post reporter recorded something similar you must be arguing that there was a conspiracy by the reporters to falsify the evidence for no good reason using different wording. It's madness isn't it?

[David Orsam]

Stop ridiculing what I say, David.

I cannot do that Pierre when you are posting such nonsense. You are ridiculing yourself.

The irony is that you fail to factor into your deliberations the fact that you have a "tendency" of your own. You seem to believe, without any evidence, that the writing on the wall included the word "Judges", so that the writing must have been hard to decipher, so you are biased in that direction, hence you promote an utterly ludicrous theory that the Times reporter simply fabricated a part of the evidence of Detective Halse in which the detective referred to the writing as being in a "good" hand. Are you aware how crazy that is?

The report in the Times about this evidence not "a non existing statement" as you seem to think. It exists. There is no reason to doubt it.

You should consider what Anthony Brundage said in his book 'Going to the sources: A Guide to Historical Research and Writing' when he warned researchers to guard against "the unconscious tendency of looking for – and seeing only that evidence that bolsters your preconceptions".

The Times reporter did not fabricate any evidence in his report. We can be sure of that. Your conclusion is crazy.

[Elamarna]

If you are indeed suggesting thst, I will ask what suggested to you that the blurred writing may have be written by a left hand?

What has lead you to that hypothesis?

"I will have to get back to you in the future with an answer to that question."

Pierre

That reply is completely inadequate, you claim you are building an hypothesis based on the sources. If so saying what leads you in this direction gives nothing away.

It does however exposes that you have no reason to suspecting this from the sources.
Is this an attempt to manipulate the evidence to fit. A preconceived idea.?

I ask you again. What evidence suggests to you the writing was written by a left hand..?

"The hypothesis is not that the writer of the GSG was among that type of population (if it would be representative of a population in 1888, and it isnīt)."

Your source for this definitive statement on human genetics please?

[Pierre]

QUOTE=David Orsam;378027 That is an utterly ridiculous conclusion.

I thought, when I saw that David replied here, that he would perhaps contribute. But instead and directly, he attacks my post with saying that I make an "utterly ridiculous" conclusion.

Stop ridiculing what I say, David.

As you should be aware, the inquest depositions do not contain everything said by a witness.

David often does this. He tells people what they "should".

Also, David is irrelevant when he says that one "should be aware" that the inquests do not "contain everything said by a witness". Why? Because historians do not use non existing statements. So being "aware" of their non existing ontology is meaningless.

The idea you have put forward that the Times reporter was including deliberately false information

Here is the traditional misinterpretation that David often uses to destroy anything I write. As those who can read can easily see that I have not (and here is me explaining why David is wrong, also traditional) written that a reporter "deliberately" included "false information".

when reporting the inquest testimony of Detective Halse because he wanted to speculate about the authorship of the writing on the wall is, I regret to say, one that demonstrates your complete ignorance of the sources in this case.

Firstly, Halse did not speculate according to the original sources. The speculations are entirely in the newspapers that David seem to cherish so much. This is clearly "demonstrated" by the fact that David is "reacting" very much in his posts, instead of discussing calmly and academically.

First we hear "ridiculous conclusion" and now we get "complete ignorance".

David uses ridiculing and belittling phrases to attack me. Stop this behaviour, David.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

But from where do we have the good schoolboy hand?

I searched the original sources from the inquest but the good schoolboy hand does not appear in the inquest sources.

Actually, it is in The Times 12 October - and in The Morning Post the same day it appears as "a good round hand".

Before that date you have the descriptions of the "Dear Boss-letter" handwriting in the papers, giving that it was written in a "round hand".

So it was probably a construction of the journalists, who wanted to speculate that the "Dear Boss-letter" should have been written by the same person who wrote the GSG.

That is an utterly ridiculous conclusion. As you should be aware, the inquest depositions do not contain everything said by a witness. The idea you have put forward that the Times reporter was including deliberately false information when reporting the inquest testimony of Detective Halse because he wanted to speculate about the authorship of the writing on the wall is, I regret to say, one that demonstrates your complete ignorance of the sources in this case.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;378011]Pierre
I will not go down the route again of telling you it is not up to you to say what is an usable question .

I will not talk here of my view on who wrote the GSG. Such is irrelevant to the point being discussed.

You did not confirm or deny that you are suggesting that the writing was done by a left hand.
Can you please confirm or deny that.

Hi Steve,

The hypothesis is that it was written with the left hand but the hypothesis is not that the writer was left-handed.

If you are indeed suggesting thst, I will ask what suggested to you that the blurred writing may have be written by a left hand?

What has lead you to that hypothesis?

I will have to get back to you in the future with an answer to that question.

Please take into account the writing is described as good schoolboy, meaning a trained stylized hand.

Steve - there seems to be a problem here.

Swanson states the writing was "in an ordinary hand" in the original police report.

But from where do we have the good schoolboy hand?

I searched the original sources from the inquest but the good schoolboy hand does not appear in the inquest sources.

Actually, it is in The Times 12 October - and in The Morning Post the same day it appears as "a good round hand".

Before that date you have the descriptions of the "Dear Boss-letter" handwriting in the papers, giving that it was written in a "round hand".

So it was probably a construction of the journalists, who wanted to speculate that the "Dear Boss-letter" should have been written by the same person who wrote the GSG.

Please also not that less than 15% of a population without high levels of inbreeding are left handed.

The hypothesis is not that the writer of the GSG was among that type of population (if it would be representative of a population in 1888, and it isnīt).

Please also note that in LVP, writing with the left hand was positive discouraged.

Not part of the hypothesis.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Pierre
I will not go down the route again of telling you it is not up to you to say what is an usable question .

I will not talk here of my view on who wrote the GSG. Such is irrelevant to the point being discussed.

You did not confirm or deny that you are suggesting that the writing was done by a left hand.
Can you please confirm or deny that.

If you are indeed suggesting thst, I will ask what suggested to you that the blurred writing may have be written by a left hand?

What has lead you to that hypothesis?

Please take into account the writing is described as good schoolboy, meaning a trained stylized hand.
Please also not that less than 15% of a population without high levels of inbreeding are left handed.
Please also note that in LVP, writing with the left hand was positive discouraged.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;378002]

Pierre

You are suggesting are you not, that the writing was written by a left hand, not a left handed person, otherwise why the link to youtube and your comments in the previous posts.

There is no source I am aware of to support the writting was written by a left hand. We have no copy to look at to attempt to determine which hand was used.

Is there such a source?

Swanson saying it was blurred cannot be a source for saying it is written by a left hand, it simply says it was blurred, with no further explanation.

regards

Hi Steve,

Firstly, everyone here, who has read your previous posts on the GSG, would know that you do not think that the GSG was written by the murderer. So this is your "view". And you interpret my post here, as well as what you know, or do not know, from that view.

Now, I am interpreting a source from Swanson. Since this is the only source we have for the statement that the writing was "blurred", I need to test this statement against other sources from 1888, where the concept "blurred" is used. This is a discourse analysis, a small one, a pilot study. And the pilot study gives an hypothesis.

This is what I do.

You, on the other hand, ask a question:

"Is there a source of the type of T that states Z?"

This is not an historical question, since we can not ask sources that are not left to us from the past to come into sudden existence, having special qualities, and answer our questions. (It is not Xmas and this is not a source-shop).

So this question that you ask is not usable.

As you see, we have different methods. And for me, it is a very small but interesting thing to discuss the GSG from the source of Swanson.

But it is NO thing to try and discuss the GSG from a non existent source from a wish list.

And this is due to a simple historical rule:

We can not discuss what is not at hand.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Pierre

You are suggesting are you not, that the writing was written by a left hand, not a left handed person, otherwise why the link to youtube and your comments in the previous posts.

There is no source I am aware of to support the writting was written by a left hand. We have no copy to look at to attempt to determine which hand was used.

Is there such a source?

Swanson saying it was blurred cannot be a source for saying it is written by a left hand, it simply says it was blurred, with no further explanation.



regards

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Geddy2112;377950][QUOTE=Pierre;377938]

Are you suggesting the writer of the GSG was left handed and thus the killer was left handed due to smudging???

Hi Geddy2112,

I do not hypothesize that the writer of the GSG "was left-handed". I.e. I do not have an essentialist hypothesis about his handedness.

There can be other reasons for writing with the left hand. For example:

1) Using a strategy so the normal handwriting would not be recognized
2) A problem with the right hand
3) An ability to write with both hands

Kind regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Rosella;377963]

Well, I'm a lefty and I don't smudge my writing, or at least I haven't since childhood, when, incidentally, I learned to write with a nibbed pen and an ink well, like the Victorians.

Hi Rosella,

I do not hypothesize that the writer of the GSG "was left-handed". I.e. I do not have an essentialist hypothesis about his handedness.

There can be other reasons for writing with the left hand. For example:

1) Using a strategy so the normal handwriting would not be recognized
2) A problem with the right hand
3) An ability to write with both hands

Having said that, chalk is notorious for smudging at just the slightest touch, whether you're left or right handed . If the GSG WAS smudged it's odd that it's not mentioned anywhere that we know of besides Swanson's report.

Yes, we have a single source for the text having been "blurred".

But that isnīt "odd". That is just the way that the sources have been left to us through time. And "odd" is not a scientific concept.

So what do we know about this source?

A) The source is high up in the hierarchy of sources, since it is the chief inspector of police who produced it.

B) There is a high probability that Swanson had enough information about the GSG to make this statement.

C) So the reliability of the source is high and the validity of the source is rather high. I say rather, since we do not, after all, know the sources Swanson used for his statement. But since he was he chief inspector and could get all the knowledge he needed, the validity is rather high.

Why would someone sit down to chalk a message on a wall? It seems rather an awkward way of doing it, to me.

OK. Some hypotheses here:

Someone would sit down on the stairwell and write:

1) so the text would get closer to the apron and the police would see it.
2) so he could managed to do that in a more ergonomic position.
3) so he could rest for a brief moment.
4) so he could have a good view of the entrance to the site.
5) all these motives taken together.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Would a right handed person cutting someone's throat from behind yield the same 'results' as a left handed person cutting the throat from the front?

Hi Geddy,

This has been much debated over the years, without knowing the relative positions of the victim and attacker it is almost impossible to give a clear answer on this.

however the first 4 of the C5 have cuts which start on the left of the neck, which does fit a right handed killer if they are behind a standing victim.

if the victim is already on the ground, it then depends on where the killer is.

in Kelly case it is a good bet the killer used the left hand to inflict the cut.

s

[Geddy2112]

Of course the evidence from the throat wounds, while very limited and certainly not definitive suggest that, if anything, the first 4 of the C5 may have been committed by a right handed, while Kelly may have been left handed.

Would a right handed person cutting someone's throat from behind yield the same 'results' as a left handed person cutting the throat from the front?

[Elamarna]

Sort of yes, I guess so. However whenever I wrote on a vertical surface I could not rest my hand on the board, it would be too uncomfortable. Regardless, if Mr P is using this 'evidence' and I use the term as lightly as possible to promote the fact the author of the GSG was left handed I would imagine it's as much as a stretch as anything I've ever seen posted here.

I am not sure if Pierre is suggesting that the writer of the GSG, who may not have been the killer: that is open for debate still, was left handed because Swanson, and only Swanson says the message was blurred; or if he is say it was blurred and thus hard to read because the writer was left handed and thus why the "J" word is debated.


Of course the evidence from the throat wounds, while very limited and certainly not definitive suggest that, if anything, the first 4 of the C5 may have been committed by a right handed, while Kelly may have been left handed.
Of course this cannot be proved, as Pierre is well aware.

Such "evidence" would suggest that the killer was not predominatly left handed.

Steve

[Geddy2112]

My left handed physics teacher was a nightmare, erased half of what he wrote. So there is a little merit in what Pierre says. But that really only applies when you are writing at eye level. When you write at chest level, you don't rest your hand against the surface at all. So unless the lefty was also about 4 1/2 foot tall, it doesn't really apply.

Sort of yes, I guess so. However whenever I wrote on a vertical surface I could not rest my hand on the board, it would be too uncomfortable. Regardless, if Mr P is using this 'evidence' and I use the term as lightly as possible to promote the fact the author of the GSG was left handed I would imagine it's as much as a stretch as anything I've ever seen posted here.