Blurred

[Elamarna]

Many posts ago, a list of several articles/reports were listed accounting for what term was used in reference to the handwriting. Most of the 12 Oct newspapees accounts of the Eddowes inquest, i found, were the same generic report... like an Associated Press report. No embellishment of details.

However, the 12 Oct Daily Telegraph reported the sequence of dialogue... moreso than the Times.

When Levy responds to a particular question, the reporter mentions that his response drew laughter. Two witnesses later, Halse states that it was a,, good schoolboy round hand,,.

Wouldn t the inclusion of (Laughter) suggest that the reporter was in the same room as the witnesses that day?

Hi Robert,
not chatted to you in ages, hope you are ok?

of course it would, and it actually shows factual based reporting.
That however is not Pierre's point, his view is that the comments the reporters made were based on a preconceived idea they had about the Dear Boss letter.


steve

[GUT]

Many posts ago, a list of several articles/reports were listed accounting for what term was used in reference to the handwriting. Most of the 12 Oct newspapees accounts of the Eddowes inquest, i found, were the same generic report... like an Associated Press report. No embellishment of details.

However, the 12 Oct Daily Telegraph reported the sequence of dialogue... moreso than the Times.

When Levy responds to a particular question, the reporter mentions that his response drew laughter. Two witnesses later, Halse states that it was a,, good schoolboy round hand,,.

Wouldn t the inclusion of (Laughter) suggest that the reporter was in the same room as the witnesses that day?

Most likely, or else took the report from an agency that had been.

[Robert St Devil]

Many posts ago, a list of several articles/reports were listed accounting for what term was used in reference to the handwriting. Most of the 12 Oct newspapees accounts of the Eddowes inquest, i found, were the same generic report... like an Associated Press report. No embellishment of details.

However, the 12 Oct Daily Telegraph reported the sequence of dialogue... moreso than the Times.

When Levy responds to a particular question, the reporter mentions that his response drew laughter. Two witnesses later, Halse states that it was a,, good schoolboy round hand,,.

Wouldn t the inclusion of (Laughter) suggest that the reporter was in the same room as the witnesses that day?

[GUT]

Why should anyone even consider, let alone accept, the a Great One's "Pilit Study" when he gives no information about it.


Oh that's right because he says we MUST.

Sheesh this is really getting ridiculous.

But why am I surprised given the Source of the Data.

[GUT]

The great historian (he started as the great scientist I seem to recall) likes telling others how they must do things.

[Elamarna]

Pierre,

A rambling response at best, a post of unproven assumptions and misleading statements.

However for the sake of fairness let us look at each point raised:


“And in historical terms they are referred to as historical sources. “


They can be referred to generally has such of course, but they are the newspaper Reports of testimony at Inquests and are specifically termed Court/Inquest Reports



“No. They are not different from other newspaper ARTICLES. They can contain bias just like any other source. Do not use the word "report". It is not a matter of "objective" and "neutral" reporting. It is a matter of written articles. “

First of all Pierre, do not presume to tell me what I may or may not call a document. It is not your place or your right to do so.

They are Reports.

They are indeed different from general newspaper articles.
In general, articles contain ideas, discussion and conclusions.
Reports such as these contain details and fact with little if any additional information include.



“So you have arrived at the same conclusion as I. “


The conclusion I have reached is that there are no studies to suggest that Newspaper Court/Inquest Reports in the 1880’s were unreliable.



“There is DATA, Steve. In my pilot. How come you can not understand this? Do you understand the difference between data, analysis and interpretation? Do you understand what I have done?
But you see, the data is in the study. What you are asking for is other research, the same research that you just told me (after I did the same) was non existent.

If you want to discard everything I write here I will not be able to answer your posts anymore, since they will be biased by you wish to discard everything I write. If you want to discuss with me, at least you should be honest in your comments. “


Pierre, that there is nothing to suggest that these reports are unreliable apart from the many times mentioned Pilot Study.

The claim is that a pilot study has been presented to this forum, however all I see is another hypothesis, followed by the statement that a pilot study has been undertaken.

I can find no details of:

1. What is that data used for the study, and where is it?
2. What methodology was used?
3. What was the sample size?

Surely you are not referring to the lines in post 81, quoting 6 newspapers and selected wording. please tell me it is somewhere else.

Please point me towards the details of the study.

The fact remains until Its methodology and conclusion have not been tested by peer review, it is only an untested and unproven opinion.

That is not an attempt to belittle it, however that is how research, all research works.

I notice the post ignores that point- what a surprise.



Where am dishonest?

Unlike post 172 which said

“(that "courts reports are unreliable" = your hypothesis, not mine”


Which was and is untrue, as I demonstrated in post 177, something I see the post does not address, surprise, surprise!




“Not "reports" but newspaper articles.

They are used here as a symbolic capital by ripperologists and therefore not subjected to the proper source criticism.

Instead there is an illusion among ripperologists that there are certain sources that are "neutral" and "objective".

They are not per definition a class of neutral and objective sources - they are, like any other sources, subjects for source criticism.

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


No they are Reports

The rest of the the above statement is full of the normal psuedo-scientific nonsense, yet another attempt to slur the very forum the post is in.


Pierre in post 172 it was said (note I have underlined certain parts of the following for emphasis.):

“What I have done here is a pilot, i.e. empirical source criticism. This pilot is what I draw the conclusions from. So I do not deduce from later research or, if there is any from the 1880s, I do not draw from it but from the pilot I have presented here.

Such sources could not back the statement that the newspaper articles about the GSG are biased. There is no such research. I have done this empirical pilot and it is the first ever made that I know of.

That is not my conclusion. My conclusion is that the newspaper articles about the GSG are not reliable. They have a tendency. “


However when I repeated that below, there was a change of direction and it is now said that the conclusion is actually not based on the pilot study , but is an already known fact.

If that is so why was there a need for a pilot study.

Either the statement above is misleading or the one which follow is, Which is it?

Let us be clear, the post states the opinion that these reports are unreliable, they have a tendency, a bias.

However Pierre, this opinion is based on your own pilot study.

“It is not an "opinion" but a scientific fact well known in the world among historians and social scientists that sources have bias. That is just plain common knowledge and there is NOTHING radical about it. “




“What sort of a commentary is that? Now you are outside of reality. I am a historian. So I am not "anyone" but I specialize in source criticism. “


All persons in the world are covered by the term anyone!
All using this forum are covered by the term anybody!
Do you consider yourself special and above all others?



“And another thing. 128 years of knowledge of English did not lead to finding the ripper.”

What has that to do with anything being discussed on this thread?

The post has said nothing apart from once again, attempting to tell others what they may say, what words they may use and what they must think.
Once again the post does not address the questions that have been asked many time, it does not even attempt to look at the view of others.
It is a very poor and completely inadequate response to post 177.

Steve

[David Orsam]

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...

It's for Pierre to justify his ludicrous statement that there are "no press reports" but there certainly is a difference between a report and an article. To save me the bother of explaining it, and to remove any subjectivity on my part, I'm going to give you the "best answer" from Yahoo (to the question "What is the difference between a newspaper article and a newspaper report?")

It was written by L.E. Grant five years ago as follows:

"Generally, a report is simply a presentation of the facts, with little addition. It can include everything down to the smallest detail, but it is all fact based on observation at the scene, with no 'editorialising'. It has no additions to embellish the details or any moralising. It can be as simple as 'Joe Bloggs died with his boots on while on patrol in Afghanistan when a bomb exploded under his truck."

An article, on the other had, may contain research about the topic, and conclusions that are not directly a statement of the facts. Usually, an article tries to explain what happened and why, rather than the basic facts."

I think that pretty much sums it up reasonably well.

In the case of reports of court proceedings (especially in 1888 when they took these things seriously), you basically have no embellishment or opinion at all, they are usually direct reports of what was said, seen or heard by the reporter, hence it's inappropriate to call such a reports "articles" and I'm sure that no serious historian or media studies expert would do so.

[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...

[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.

[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.

[Pierre]

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

In defence of newspaper articles?

[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]

[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]

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!

[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?