Blurred

[David Orsam]

IF you do not perform source criticism you can NOT trust the sources, and then you can NOT generate knowledge about the past.

I could happily take each sentence from Pierre's post and respond to it but I'm just going to focus on this one for its remarkable circularity.

As we have seen in numerous posts, Pierre's starting position is that you cannot trust newspaper reports (or "articles" as he inaccurately prefers to call them). Thus, his starting position, without even reading them, is that you cannot trust the sources.

From that starting position, he has purportedly carried out what he describes as "source criticism" which, in the case of the report on Halse's evidence, is no more than an observation that there were a similar (but not identical) descriptions used in newspapers about the 'Dear Boss' letter to that having been used by Halse, according to at least four separate newspaper reporters, leading to a theory that all four reporters, independently, somehow became carried away with a desire to mis-report the evidence of the detective about the appearance of the GSG in order to link it to the 'Dear Boss' letter, despite the fact that no express connection was made between the two forms of handwriting in any of the reports.

In carrying out this "source criticism", no proper consideration has been given by Pierre to the possibility that the reporting was accurate but that Halse himself was influenced by the words used in the earlier newspapers when providing a description for the GSG. That is just bad, sloppy scholarship.

Further, no consideration whatsoever has been given by Pierre to the possibility that "round hand" was a common expression to describe handwriting of the age so that it was nothing more than a coincidence that it was used on both occasions. That is more bad, sloppy scholarship.

Further, no consideration has been given by Pierre to the fact that two of the four reporters did not even report the phrase "round hand" thereby completely negating his point that they were attempting to connect the GSG to the 'Dear Boss' letter. The reporters for the Times and the Daily News both reported Halse as referring to a "schoolboy hand" thus ensuring that the readers of their reports could not possibly make a connection between the GSG and the 'Dear Boss' letter. This is dreadful scholarship on Pierre's part because it actually disproves his theory, yet he makes no comment about it.

In short, from a starting position that you cannot trust the sources, Pierre has carried out his weird, unique and clearly non-scholarly method of "source criticism", about which he seems to believe he is a legend, and has come to the startling conclusion that, wow, you cannot trust the sources.

This is why Pierre, who has, on this forum, repeatedly shown a tendency to leap to conclusions based on data which he has failed to understand, seems to be unable to generate any knowledge about the past and why he will presumably never know what Detective Halse told the inquest on 11 October 1888.

[Mayerling]

Seriously, Jeff? You are talking about the 'Dear Boss' letter, a facsimile of which was reproduced on posters put up all over London and in newspapers prior to the inquest on 11 October? We need evidence to show that Halse might have seen it?

Seriously I stand corrected there. Thank you David.

Jeff

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Mayerling;378804][QUOTE=Pierre;378678][QUOTE=Mayerling;378524]

I have had some time to think of this.

If the reporters had been reading the reports on the "Dear Boss" letter to enable them to formulate any ideas about it, it means they had to be reading each other's reports of the letter to see if there was any trend. This may (in your great opinion) have been a silly error on their part, but it suggests a closer bunch of reporters (even from rival newspapers) than your suggestions of the "internalized" newspapermen coming to the same conclusion.

Yes, they hardly lived in a social vacuum where they had no idea of what the other journalists were writing. Of course one of their main interests was to sell a newspaper, and not to be scientists making perfect references and thinking objectively. Actually their "peer review" seems to not have worked at all, given the variation of expressions in the newspapers. They were journalists concerned with the production of the newspapers. The value of their capital was its news value. No news, no newspaper.

I can imagine these newspapermen, meeting at pubs after handing in their copy, discussing the mystery (everyone was doing it at the time), and considering the "Dear Boss letter" or the "GSG" and any similarities or whatever (they could have voiced differences about these too). No, I misused the word "cabal", but some concerted thinking together could have occurred.

They had the same interests: to dominate the field of the newspapers, to sell their papers, to produce news value and to increase the value of their journalistic capital. None of these interests are interests that the police or the juridical system had in 1888. Therefore we must consider the original sources from those institutions more reliable.

Of course, you can counter, "Do you any proof of this?" I don't, but I am curious if when you came up with the possibility of these newsmen with internalized ideas, you began looking at who exactly these reporters were (i.e., what their names were) and had they shown a similar unanimity of ideas on crimes in the past).

No, since it is not a radical statement I have made. In fact, it is well known sociology. Read anything written by Bourdieu or Berger & Luckman or why not Foucault about how discourses are created.

And not only did journalists from various newspapers write articles with low reliability, this is how Wikipedia describes the Central News Agency (I don´t like Wikipedia but it is easy to do source criticism on it):

"The Central News Agency was a news distribution service founded as Central Press in 1863 by William Saunders and his brother-in-law, Edward Spender. In 1870–71, it adopted the name Central News Agency.

By undercutting its competitors, the Press Association and Reuters, and by distributing sensational and imaginative stories, it developed a reputation amongst newsmen for "underhand practices and stories of dubious veracity".

In 1895, The Times directly accused the Central News Agency of embellishing its reports, and published a comparison between the original telegrams received by the agency and those that were distributed by it. A 200-word dispatch about a naval battle in the Far East had been expanded with details of the battle though hardly any information was given in the original.

The agency confirmed that words had been added, and The Times declared that: "More than two-thirds of the message was, therefore, admittedly manufactured in London."

One of its sensational and probably invented stories involved the so-called "Dear Boss" letter, dated 25 September 1888, in which a figure calling himself "Jack the Ripper" claimed responsibility for the Whitechapel murders.

Police officials later claimed to have identified a specific journalist as the author of both the "Dear Boss" letter and a later postcard called the "Saucy Jacky" postcard, also supposedly written by the killer.The journalist was named as "Tom Bullen" in a letter from one of the investigating inspectors to another journalist.

"Tom Bullen" was almost certainly Thomas John Bulling, who worked for Central News and claimed to have received a third letter from the Ripper in a message to police in October 1888.

"Jack the Ripper" was adopted as a name to refer to the murderer, and the international media frenzy, partly fed by Central News, bestowed enduring notoriety on the killer."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central...gency_(London))

When we read this, we can understand the interests of the journalists and how sensational the murders were. The journalists were competing to sell the most sensational news about them. That is why we find many strange things in the newspaper articles that we do not find in the original sources.

As for Halse, since there is no evidence that he saw the "Dear Boss" letter, we can ignore the point entirely.

Well, since he did not say anything in the original sources about a good / round / schoolboy´s / hand, there is nothing there. And since the original sources are produced by the justice system and not by attention seeking journalists, these sources are the most reliable sources for our history about the past.

The past has left small presents to us, let´s not destroy them.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

As an historical discipline Ripperology has zero credibility.

Its adherents are viewed by the public and the modern-day press as little more than trainspotters indulging in a hobby which operates on its own unique set of historical methodologies—

Anything which cannot be shown to be false must be true, and anything which cannot be shown to be true might still be true, depending on who said it or to what it refers. Press reports, medical opinions and public clocks are unfailingly accurate when promoting theories but hopelessly inaccurate if disputing them, and truth dripped like freshwater pearls from the lips of the policemen involved in the Whitechapel murders investigation.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Seriously I stand corrected there. Thank you David.

No problem Jeff.

[David Orsam]

Well, since he did not say anything in the original sources about a good / round / schoolboy´s / hand, there is nothing there.

That is not true Pierre. Halse does say in the original sources that the writing on the wall was in a good round schoolboy's hand. He says it in four newspapers.

Do you mean "official sources"?

[David Orsam]

And since the original sources are produced by the justice system and not by attention seeking journalists, these sources are the most reliable sources for our history about the past.

As already explained to you Pierre (about which you have remained silent), while official sources produced by the justice system in respect of inquests may be reliable, in the sense that they accurately record in summary form what a witness has said, they are not necessarily complete records of what a witness said. Nor will they ever contain a record of the questions that a witness was answering. For that we need to turn to "attention seeking journalists", namely court reporters, whose job it was to correctly and accurately record what a witness said, something which they were paid to do and something which they would have been expected not only by their editors and employers to do but also by the readers of their newspapers, including the police and the Home Office.

[David Orsam]

Press reports, medical opinions and public clocks are unfailingly accurate when promoting theories but hopelessly inaccurate if disputing them

You are the exception though Simon aren't you?

[David Orsam]

As an historical discipline Ripperology has zero credibility.

I'm sure Pierre would agree with you Simon but there is a rather delicious irony here. In the highly unlikely event that Pierre did ever reveal his suspect, how would the world know that he had correctly identified Jack the Ripper?

I'm reasonably confident in saying that there aren't any academic historians alive who have sufficient knowledge of the facts of the case to be able to assess whether he is right or wrong.

Instead, everyone will look to the most experienced Ripperologists to pronounce on whether Pierre has found him or not. So Pierre's fate is ultimately in the hands of Ripperologists, whether he likes it or not!

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Simon Wood;378822]

Hi All,

As an historical discipline Ripperology has zero credibility.

It is no historical discipline.

Its adherents are viewed by the public and the modern-day press as little more than trainspotters indulging in a hobby which operates on its own unique set of historical methodologies—

They are not historical methodologies.

Anything which cannot be shown to be false must be true, and anything which cannot be shown to be true might still be true, depending on who said it or to what it refers.

That is the type of thinking used in the theory about Lechmere.

Press reports, medical opinions and public clocks are unfailingly accurate when promoting theories but hopelessly inaccurate if disputing them, and truth dripped like freshwater pearls from the lips of the policemen involved in the Whitechapel murders investigation.

There are no press reports, only newspaper articles. They are often without value but sometimes they are valuable. Sources with medical opinions must be used together with other original sources.

I do not think it is a hopeless case. In fact, I think the sources are rather valuable.

Regards,

Simon

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

There are no press reports, only newspaper articles.

That is a false statement.

Why do you keep repeating it?

May we have a source to back it up if you are going to continue repeating it?

[Pierre]

Five posts in a row from David. Let me guess...

In defence of newspaper articles?

[David Orsam]

Five posts in a row from David. Let me guess...

In defence of newspaper articles?

Why not try reading them, then you might learn something.

[GUT]

That is a false statement.

Why do you keep repeating it?

May we have a source to back it up if you are going to continue repeating it?

Because he knows no better.

[Geddy2112]

There are no press reports, only newspaper articles.

Erm for the slow ones at the back what is the difference between a 'press report' and a 'newspaper article?'

Surely a press report IS a newspaper article (or vice versa)... sorry for being dumb here...