Blurred

[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]

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]

Seriously I stand corrected there. Thank you David.

No problem Jeff.

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[David Orsam]

OR: Was it Halse that had read about the Dear Boss letter and then applied this view on what he saw?

If you would like to, you could test that hypothesis. But it is difficult, since Halse says nothing of it in the original inquest sources. And also, he saw the GSG and why should he have made the same type of interpretations as the journalists did for the Dear Boss letter? Since he saw it.

Pierre, you have completely misunderstood and/or misrepresented the point that is being made against you. That point is that Halse saw the GSG and that when, a few days later, he saw a facsimile of the 'Dear Boss' letter, he thought to himself "oh, that handwriting in the Dear Boss letter is rather similar to the GSG" so that, when describing the GSG in court, he was influenced by the descriptions used by the newspaper journalists, having read that the 'Dear Boss' letter was in a 'round hand'.

It's no good you saying, "oh, there is no evidence that Halse saw the 'Dear Boss' letter in the newspapers, or read the descriptions", because there is equally no evidence that any of the court reporters saw the 'Dear Boss' letter or read the descriptions either.

It is a thousand times more likely that Halse was influenced by the press reports than that the court reporters were influenced by them because it was the job of the court reporters, for which they were paid, to accurately report what Halse said in the witness box. They were not paid to insert their own fabricated versions of what Halse, or any other witness, said in the witness box.

You need to at least understand the point and get to grips with it before you can possibly dismiss it.

[David Orsam]

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

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?

[Mayerling]

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

Hi,

Sure. And what was in their heads must have been internalized through reading. Otherwise they would not have had any knowledge about the style of the Dear Boss letter. So the journalists must have read the newspapers. seen the Dear Boss letter and the descriptions of the "good round hand" and remembered this when they interpreted the witness statements and when they wrote their articles.

Journalists read, interpret and write.

OR: Was it Halse that had read about the Dear Boss letter and then applied this view on what he saw?

If you would like to, you could test that hypothesis. But it is difficult, since Halse says nothing of it in the original inquest sources. And also, he saw the GSG and why should he have made the same type of interpretations as the journalists did for the Dear Boss letter? Since he saw it.

Therefore, it was with high probability not written in a good round hand but as Swanson said, in a normal hand. And Halse did not try and apply the general knowledge about the Dear Boss letter, which had been in the newspapers for days prior to the inquest, on the GSG - since he saw it.

Regards, Pierre

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.

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.

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).

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

Jeff

[DJA]

What suspects?

Thought you had it solved.

A policeman?

[Pierre]

I've been wondering for awhile now if Pierre is "neuro-typical" or more of an "atypical" sort of a guy (or gal-- mustn't make assumptions!) He's changed a bit from his early posts last year.

Yes. Suspicion is the fuel here. Try to classify the suspects.

And this is off-topic.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=MsWeatherwax;378774]

Read the thread "Troll-related doggerel".

And this is off-topic.

[Pcdunn]

Thanks, Steve and GUT, for continuing the fight, especially if you fear newbies will be led astray. I suspect I give people more credit for intelligence than they perhaps deserve.

I have noted the unparalleled arrogance. However, for me, it has gone from hilarious to pathetic and I wonder what's wrong. I've read widely, of course, but not being in the medical field, I can't be sure.

I've been glad numerous times, as I've read through a thread and found something I felt I needed to respond to, when I read a little further, the two of you (and others) had fought the fight before me.

Thanks again.

curious

I've been wondering for awhile now if Pierre is "neuro-typical" or more of an "atypical" sort of a guy (or gal-- mustn't make assumptions!) He's changed a bit from his early posts last year.

[MsWeatherwax]

Yes, thank you for continuing the fight. Let the fighters strive vigorously and resolutely to gain power over the enemy, and save the proselytes from being led astray into the dark paths of smoke screens and personal opinions!

Yes, thank you for continuing the fight. May the fighters enlighten the proselytes and hand over the intelligent old traditions to them, with objectivity and neutrality, through their eternal knowledge about the unbiased and reliable sources!

Yes, thank you for continuing the fight! Let these brave men defend ripperology against the hilarious and pathetic unparalleled arrogance of the enemy!

Let us rejoice and be glad, and perhaps the battle will soon be over!

Regards, Pierre

Pierre.

I think all of this is spiraling out of control now. I can quite see why you would feel like everyone is against you, but I'm not sure you understand why. Since you arrived on the boards you have been oddly antagonistic, and extremely dismissive (to the point of being extremely rude, actually) on several occasions. To begin with, nobody was actually being rude to you - they were just pointing out the factual errors in the information you were presenting. Rather than admitting that you have only recently come into the field that you are discussing, you belittled and attacked the people who, actually, were trying to help. When you combine this with your somewhat esoteric posts, it's not difficult to see why a lot of people (myself included) thought that you were trolling the board.

While I do believe that you are genuine at this point, I don't think you understand that many of the people on this board do not want to 'solve' the case (I think you'll find a good chunk don't believe that it can be solved) - they are here because they have an avid interest in Victorian history and would continue to research the lives of the victims and suspects regardless of whether the case is solved or not. Therefore, nobody is concerned or interested whether or not your discovery would 'destroy' Ripperology...because it wouldn't.

You have at least stimulated some interesting discussion, and I thank you for that.