Blurred

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;377798]

Pierre appears to be taking a second hand source, over that of the eyewitnesses, Swanson does not claimed to have seen the writing at anytime does he?

No, you are making the wrong interpretation. My question was:

What could Donald Swanson have known about this?

Does anyone know anything about that question?

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;377925]

No, you are making the wrong interpretation. My question was:

What could Donald Swanson have known about this?

Does anyone know anything about that question?

Regards, Pierre

Pierre fair question.

For Swanson to have said that obviously there are 2 options:

1. He was mistaken in that statement, could be a simple misinterpretation of a report as with this thread.

2. He either had a different written report to that which is known to exist, or he was informed it was blurred by a verbal communication which is not recorded.

I am not aware of anything specifically he could have been informed of for him to say this.

steve

[David Orsam]

What could Donald Swanson have known about this?

It's hard to say really Pierre. Swanson was a mere Chief Inspector in the Criminal Investigation Department of whom the Commissioner of Police said that he "must be acquainted with every detail" and that "He must have a room to himself, & every paper, every document, every report every telegram must pass through his hands." So it's a bit of a mystery as to what Swanson could possibly have known about the writing on the wall. Do you have any easier questions?

[Pierre]

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...glish/decipherhttp://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/decipher[/URL][QUOTE=Elamarna;377927]

Pierre fair question.

For Swanson to have said that obviously there are 2 options:

1. He was mistaken in that statement, could be a simple misinterpretation of a report as with this thread.

2. He either had a different written report to that which is known to exist, or he was informed it was blurred by a verbal communication which is not recorded.

I am not aware of anything specifically he could have been informed of for him to say this.

steve

Hi,

Sure, but I am trying to understand the statement, so I searched British Newspaper Archives for the word "blurred" and got an article about a blurred text and another about a blurred name - and in both these someone was trying to "decipher" some letters. So I searched

blurred decipher

only in 1888 and got some articles about people trying to decipher blurred texts and letters.

So from this empirical pilot we could hypothesize that Swansons statement has to do with a blurred text in Goulston Street and policemen trying to decipher it.

Decipher, meaning:

"to discover the meaning of something written badly or in a difficult or hidden way:
Can you decipher the writing on this envelope?"

(Source: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...glish/decipher)

So perhaps the issue, if we try to understand Swanson, was more complicated than it seems now, i.e. from the sources that are left to us.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Pierre;377934]http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...glish/decipherhttp://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/decipher[/URL]

Hi,

Sure, but I am trying to understand the statement, so I searched British Newspaper Archives for the word "blurred" and got an article about a blurred text and another about a blurred name - and in both these someone was trying to "decipher" some letters. So I searched

blurred decipher

only in 1888 and got some articles about people trying to decipher blurred texts and letters.

So from this empirical pilot we could hypothesize that Swansons statement has to do with a blurred text in Goulston Street and policemen trying to decipher it.

Decipher, meaning:

"to discover the meaning of something written badly or in a difficult or hidden way:
Can you decipher the writing on this envelope?"

(Source: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...glish/decipher)

So perhaps the issue, if we try to understand Swanson, was more complicated than it seems now, i.e. from the sources that are left to us.

Regards, Pierre

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-4hL_T_KgU

[David Orsam]

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...glish/decipherhttp://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/decipher[/URL]

Hi,

Sure, but I am trying to understand the statement, so I searched British Newspaper Archives for the word "blurred" and got an article about a blurred text and another about a blurred name - and in both these someone was trying to "decipher" some letters. So I searched

blurred decipher

only in 1888 and got some articles about people trying to decipher blurred texts and letters.

So from this empirical pilot we could hypothesize that Swansons statement has to do with a blurred text in Goulston Street and policemen trying to decipher it.

Decipher, meaning:

"to discover the meaning of something written badly or in a difficult or hidden way:
Can you decipher the writing on this envelope?"

(Source: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...glish/decipher)

[B]So perhaps the issue, if we try to understand Swanson, was more complicated than it seems now, i.e. from the sources that are left to us.

Isn't that rather a long-winded way of saying that if something is blurred it might be difficult to read?

[Elamarna]

Pierre

I am sorry what is it you are trying to understand?

Swanson talks of blurred writing, given that we are talking about chalk writing (which easily smudges if rubbed against or wetted) on a brick wall, that sort of writing does blur easily.

Unless one has evidence to suggest otherwise one should assume he means blurred if he says blurred.

Steve

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;377938]

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...glish/decipherhttp://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/decipher[/URL]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-4hL_T_KgU

Dear Pierre

what is that meant to show us, one can write with either hand without smudging the material used.
Its quite easy.

if the writing was burred, it is highly likely that it had been in place for sometime. Indeed one of the arguments used by those who believe that the GSG is related to the murders is that if it was old, it would either have been rubbed out or been smudged. they argue that the witnesses to the GSG do not say it was smudged, and therefore it is fresh; of course the witness do not say it was not blurred or smudged either.

s

[David Orsam]

I blame the Judges

When you add the blurred writing to the poor eyesight of the detectives it all adds up to a classic recipe for confusion.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;377944]

Dear Pierre

what is that meant to show us, one can write with either hand without smudging the material used.
Its quite easy.

if the writing was burred, it is highly likely that it had been in place for sometime. Indeed one of the arguments used by those who believe that the GSG is related to the murders is that if it was old, it would either have been rubbed out or been smudged. they argue that the witnesses to the GSG do not say it was smudged, and therefore it is fresh; of course the witness do not say it was not blurred or smudged either.

s

He is writing with his left hand.

Pierre

[GUT]

Does anyone have any idea what he is on about this time?

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;377946]

He is writing with his left hand.

Pierre

Your point?

How do you link left hand to blurred writing.

Steve

[Geddy2112]

[QUOTE=Pierre;377938]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-4hL_T_KgU

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

Funny enough I've been left handed all my life and as far as I know not smudged any writing. I've also used 'chalk boards' a lot in teaching and never smudged either. I actually think the technique employed writing on a vertical plane is different to writing on a horizontal one. I find it difficult to write on a vertical surface with the edge of my hand resting on the 'board' hence making smudging impossible.

[David Orsam]

Does anyone have any idea what he is on about this time?

I'm assuming he's trying to explain why the police couldn't decipher the writing on the wall correctly, reading "Juwes" instead of "Judges". He is, I think, suggesting the writing was accidentally smudged or blurred by the author when writing it, making it hard to read.

But who knows.

[Errata]

[QUOTE=Geddy2112;377950]

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

Funny enough I've been left handed all my life and as far as I know not smudged any writing. I've also used 'chalk boards' a lot in teaching and never smudged either. I actually think the technique employed writing on a vertical plane is different to writing on a horizontal one. I find it difficult to write on a vertical surface with the edge of my hand resting on the 'board' hence making smudging impossible.

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.