Blurred

[Elamarna]

Nice Try,

Yes I agree there is no way of knowing if the GSG was blurred or not, and I also agree that Swanson's would have had all the information before him, so his views cannot be completely ignored. And to look at what this could have meant was a good idea.

However you hypothesised that the GSG was written by a left hand, an idea from left field so to speak.

Despite repeated attempts to know why you suggested this? what lead you to consider this?, the far lesser of the two possibilities, you have STILL not given an answer.

You further went on to say that you were not saying the writer was left handed. Again you give no reason for this suggestion.

When I first saw the length of the post #90 I hoped you had given the answer to the question asked.
Alas while you have attempted to explain the Dear Boss letter; there is no attempt to answer the other question.
Why do you find it so hard to explain, if as you say:

"Not really attempting to show this, not trying to prove it, but testing the hypothesis. It is not important to me personally,"


You are truly adept at smoke screens my friend.

Steve

[jerryd]

Nice Try,

Yes I agree there is no way of knowing if the GSG was blurred or not, and I also agree that Swanson's would have had all the information before him, so his views cannot be completely ignored. And to look at what this could have meant was a good idea.

However you hypothesised that the GSG was written by a left hand, an idea from left field so to speak.

Despite repeated attempts to know why you suggested this? what lead you to consider this?, the far lesser of the two possibilities, you have STILL not given an answer.

You further went on to say that you were not saying the writer was left handed. Again you give no reason for this suggestion.

When I first saw the length of the post #90 I hoped you had given the answer to the question asked.
Alas while you have attempted to explain the Dear Boss letter; there is no attempt to answer the other question.
Why do you find it so hard to explain, if as you say:

"Not really attempting to show this, not trying to prove it, but testing the hypothesis. It is not important to me personally,"


You are truly adept at smoke screens my friend.

Steve

My personal opinion is that he/she thinks the killer used both hands. Trained by the 9th Lancers. That's why he/she is so concerned with the GSG. Alfred Long was trained to use both hands.

[Elamarna]

My personal opinion is that he/she thinks the killer used both hands. Trained by the 9th Lancers. That's why he/she is so concerned with the GSG. Alfred Long was trained to use both hands.

Hi Jerry

That is my point, he is trying to fit the theory he has to the evidence, this is all theory lead, not evidence lead .

Not heard Long mentioned in ages, think the last time was by you.
As a matter of interest how many can he be tied to apart from Mackenzie?, I know you have said you don't suspect him, so may not have an answer to that?

Steve

[David Orsam]

Yes, I know. You do not know to use the sources properly, being an amateur. But that is why I told you that the sampling frame was The British Newspaper Archive. So perhaps you will learn this now.

In your post #47, when you made the point under discussion, you didn't say anything about a "sampling frame"; in fact, you didn't mention the British Newspaper Archive at all. Even if you had done, it would simply have meant that you selected an inappropriate "sampling frame" which produced a false result. This is the sign of a rank amateur non-historian and it is no wonder that you don't want to read this reply which is a sign of someone unable to face up to the reality of their own sloppy research.

[jerryd]

Hi Jerry

That is my point, he is trying to fit the theory he has to the evidence, this is all theory lead, not evidence lead .

Not heard Long mentioned in ages, think the last time was by you.
As a matter of interest how many can he be tied to apart from Mackenzie?, I know you have said you don't suspect him, so may not have an answer to that?

Steve

Last time I mentioned Long was in regard to Pierre. I don't think Long can be tied into anything other than the GSG controversy.

I don't know Long's "beat" history, so no clue as to where he was on the other relevant nights.

[Elamarna]

Last time I mentioned Long was in regard to Pierre. I don't think Long can be tied into anything other than the GSG controversy.

I don't know Long's "beat" history, so no clue as to where he was on the other relevant nights.

Thanks Jerry

was just wondering ?

cheers

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;378290]

Pierre

The Dear Boss letter is a red herring!

Yes, but the journalists used the same types of descriptions for it as for the GSG, THAT is my point. <

So - and thanks for highlighting this - the view on the red herring became the view on the GSG. This means that we have many problems with the 1888 views on the GSG, i.e. the following:

1. Some journalists expected the handwriting to have been looking something like the Dear Boss letter and they distributed this perspective through their newspaper articles - and here we are with it!

2. The GSG was interpreted in different ways, so you have a variety of interpretations about the deciphering of the GSG - and on top of that you have interpretations based on the view on the Dear Boss letter.

3. Swanson did not state anything of the above when he wrote about the GSG!

4. Swanson had another description, in fact two:
a) The text was written in "a normal hand".
b) The text was "blurred".

So I think these discrepancies between the descriptions of the journalists and Swanson - as well as the view of ripperologists on the GSG - are important to discuss.


You have argued on the thread "An important discovery", which of course it was not, that not only was it not from the killer, but was a fake, written after the event, did you not? You then introduced it into this thread, post #47, on the face of it, to attempt to use it as an argument for not accepting the press reports on the GSG, has you claim they carried a bias from the Dear Boss letter.

However it is obviously that it may have been introduced as a diversion, to avoid answering the question first raised in post #27 and again in post #44 of this thread:

as to why you equate Swanson's word "blurred" with being written by a left hand. Of course you have still given no support for for this suggestion.

Did you read the result of my pilot study? The hypothesis is built on that.

Also there is new data that I am researching now and can not discuss.

Kind regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Yes, but the journalists used the same types of descriptions for it as for the GSG, THAT is my point.

But actually they didn't. Aside from the fact that the description of "round hand" used to describe the Dear Boss letter was a very common description for handwriting, so that there is nothing special that those words were used, with the writing on the wall, the words "good" and "schoolboy" were used by Detective Halse so his description had nothing to do with the different words used to describe the Dear Boss letter.

Once again Pierre you have leapt to a conclusion based on data that you have failed to understand or consider properly.

[David Orsam]

3. Swanson did not state anything of the above when he wrote about the GSG!

Swanson didn't even see the writing on the wall. Isn't it better to take the evidence of someone who actually did see the writing? Halse was very clear about it.

[Pierre]

Swanson didn't even see the writing on the wall. Isn't it better to take the evidence of someone who actually did see the writing? Halse was very clear about it.

Eyewitnesses are always to be preferred.

But primary sources are to be preferred over secondary sources.

So this is part of our historical problem!

[David Orsam]

Eyewitnesses are always to be preferred.

But primary sources are to be preferred over secondary sources.

I don't know where you get that idea from as if it's a law everyone has to obey but, in any event, newspaper reports of inquests are not "secondary sources", something you would know if you were not an amateur non-historian, because the court reporters were in court reporting what they heard with their own ears and saw with their own eyes.

[Elamarna]

This really is becoming too easy.

1. Some journalists expected the handwriting to have been looking something like the Dear Boss letter and they distributed this perspective through their newspaper articles - and here we are with it!

Where do you get this conclusion from Pierre?
Is there any evidence to support this view that they expected it to look alike.
Is it not something you have decided, from your own thoughts?
It is wrong to present such as fact!

2. The GSG was interpreted in different ways, so you have a variety of interpretations about the deciphering of the GSG - and on top of that you have interpretations based on the view on the Dear Boss letter.

3. Swanson did not state anything of the above when he wrote about the GSG!

Pierre, looking at the GSG, not from the point of what it meant, but purely from the point of its physical properties we can come to the following conclusions.

1. It was not written by the killer,( as you know, my view) the word, "blurred" could support this.
However on reflection, David's suggestion that blurred did not mean smudged, this being based on the police officers whom saw the GSG stating it was not smudged, but rather distorted by being written on a rough textured surface is highly likely.

2. It was written by the killer. the same comments about blurred as given above apply.

3. It was neatly written, all the reports which you have produced say either "good round hand", "good school boy hand" or "good round schoolboy hand".

4 Swanson:

from your post:

4. Swanson had another description, in fact two:
a) The text was written in "a normal hand".
b) The text was "blurred".

Swanson's report is almost certainly based on second hand information, did he see the GSG?
The same is again probably true of the press reports.
Given those facts, how can comparing second hand reports, without knowing if the first hand source was the same or not tell us anything definitive.
If anything the sources: Swanson and the Press agree that it was neatly written.

So I think these discrepancies between the descriptions of the journalists and Swanson - as well as the view of ripperologists on the GSG - are important to discuss.

See above for the so called discrepancies between Swanson and the press.
However you are not discussing those views!

Your "hypothesis" such as it is, appears to be that the GSG was written by a left hand, this is without apparent evidence of such or reason for such to support such an hypothesis.

if we want to hypothesise on which hand the text was written with, we have no copy of the physical evidence to look at to help with this, with out anything else to assist all that we can do is look at the population in 1888.
The percentage of people who could write neat left hand as opposed to right hand is not 50% it is much nearer13-15%. In 1888 judging by the available sources that figure was around 5%.

You contested these figures in the week, but when asked to produce data to do so, you did not and still have not.

Taking that into account to suggest that the writing was by a left hand needs a great deal of support, which has not been provided.

Did you read the result of my pilot study? The hypothesis is built on that.

Also there is new data that I am researching now and can not discuss.

Yes i did, and you said in post #45:

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.

I see nothing there about deducing that the GSG was written by a left hand, indeed you are discussing how "blurred" is used in 1888.

Nowhere in any post do you state why you chose left handed for the hypotheses. In post #90 you said the following:

Not really attempting to show this, not trying to prove it, but testing the hypothesis. It is not important to me personally, but I find it interesting. I want to see if history can develop the knowledge about the case. So hypotheses are good.

There is no attempt at an answer there.

Strange when a whole thread is based on the answer to that question

"What leads you to hypothesise that the GSG was written by a left hand?".

I see yet another attempt to hide quoting new data which you say you cannot discuss.
Therefore we have an hypotheses which is based on an idea we are not allowed to know about, that is really a waste of time.

warmest regards

Steve

[David Orsam]

Swanson's report is almost certainly based on second hand information, did he see the GSG?
The same is again probably true of the press reports.
Given those facts, how can comparing second hand reports, without knowing if the first hand source was the same or not tell us anything definitive.
If anything the sources: Swanson and the Press agree that it was neatly written.

The press didn't have any view on the matter Steve. They were only reporting what Detective Halse said in the witness box (i.e. first hand information).

[Elamarna]

The press didn't have any view on the matter Steve. They were only reporting what Detective Halse said in the witness box (i.e. first hand information).

One assumes Swanson was doing the same, based on the reports he had, but of course we cannot know.
I see no problem between what the press said and Swanson.

I think you explanation of blurred referring to the effect of the writing surface is highly likely to be correct.

Steve

[David Orsam]

One assumes Swanson was doing the same, based on the reports he had.
I see no problem between what the press said and Swanson.

If so, he was basing his conclusion on first hand information but the fact remains that Swanson didn't see the writing whereas Halse did and Pierre seems to be ignoring that. Halse, of course, was City of London Police whereas Swanson would only have been entitled as a right to Metropolitan Police reports although there might have been some sharing of information in this case.

My focus isn't on the blurring, though, it's on the fact that Pierre said (in #97) that Swanson didn't say anything about the handwriting being in a good schoolboy or round hand. On that basis, Pierre seems to be concluding that it wasn't in a good schoolboy or round hand! My point is that he is ignoring what Detective Halse said at the inquest (as recorded in multiple newspapers) and Halse saw the writing whereas Swanson didn't.