Blurred

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Errata;377955]

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.

The stairwell. Sitting down.

Regards, Pierre

[Rosella]

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

[Shaggyrand]

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

He wanted to be more comfortable when condemning the judges or Jews or juewes or jewels (merchants maybe?) or jwhoever. Why do you think he brought the bit of apron along? It wasn't to clean himself, it was so his poor bum wouldn't get cold on the step.

[GUT]

He wanted to be more comfortable when condemning the judges or Jews or juewes or jewels (merchants maybe?) or jwhoever. Why do you think he brought the bit of apron along? It wasn't to clean himself, it was so his poor bum wouldn't get cold on the step.

Or maybe to blur the chalk with.

[Mayerling]

He wanted to be more comfortable when condemning the judges or Jews or juewes or jewels (merchants maybe?) or jwhoever. Why do you think he brought the bit of apron along? It wasn't to clean himself, it was so his poor bum wouldn't get cold on the step.

Djew or Djuwe really believe "jwhoever" was pronounced that way?

[Mayerling]

Djew or Djuwe really believe "jwhoever" was pronounced that way?

In "Psmith Journalist" or "Psmith In the City", P.G. Wodehouse has his hero explain the "P" at the start of his last name as like the "p" in "pshrimp".

[Geddy2112]

The stairwell. Sitting down.

Regards, Pierre

Please do not misquote me. I did not say that. That was in a reply to my comments.

You are being rather ambiguous to say the least, as usual I note you rarely answer questions asked (not answered mine on left handedness) and seem to have 'your' theory (which you will not divulge) and go around making obscure threads to drop hints, or dare I say it gain attention.

What's your game?

[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.

[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]

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]

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

[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

[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

[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=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