Blurred

[GUT]

Hi GUT,

They failed miserably on both counts.

It would have been easier to take a photograph.

Happy Anzac Day.

Regards,

Simon

Thanks Simon.

Yep a photo.

For any who don't know ANZAC day is more or less what is called Veteran's Day in some parts. I'm not sure if we (AUS and NZ) are the only ones to commemorate such a thing on the day of a great military disaster or not.

[GUT]

Hi Gut,

It seems to me like a case of "over egging the omlette "

Which seems to have backfired..... because x amount of variants don't make good produce to present to the general public.

Suddenly it becomes questionable. . When it simply shouldn't.

You see.. I cant get around the fact that x amount of policemen didn't have a blooming pow wow and present a consensus of definitive factual evidence.

The amount of problems with over egging gets worse when Chief Sitting Bull Swanson throws the blurred spanner into the works.



Phil

Lot of over egging goes on around here. Seems we often see a good theory that the proponents over egg to the degree it turns people off, so why not in '88?

[David Orsam]

They failed miserably on both counts.

It would have been easier to take a photograph.

Would any of the murders have been solved by knowing the exact spelling and order of the words?

[David Orsam]

You see.. I cant get around the fact that x amount of policemen didn't have a blooming pow wow and present a consensus of definitive factual evidence.

Constables didn't tend to have "pow wows" with Chief Commissioners and City Police detectives didn't tend to have "pow wows" with Metropolitan Police constables or Metropolitan Police Chief Commissioners.

[David Orsam]

Hi All,

Never mind the newspapers. When it comes to describing the GSG, we cannot even trust three eye-witness policemen.

Why is DC Halse's 11th October testimony as to the nature and style of the GSG ["The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing," written on three lines], at odds with PC Long's 11th October testimony ["The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing] and his 6th November rendition ["The Jewes, are the men that will not be blamed for nothing," written on two lines], and Sir Charles Warren's 6th November rendition ["The Juwes are The men that Will not be Blamed for nothing," written on five lines]?

Their written descriptions of the GSG have survived, and each may be classified as an original/primary source.

Like I said earlier this evening in #117, "official primary sources can contain inaccurate information".

[Phil Carter]

Yep all primary sources.

The question is though we're they trying to lay it out as it had been on the wall?

Hi Gut,

It seems to me like a case of "over egging the omlette "

Which seems to have backfired..... because x amount of variants don't make good produce to present to the general public.

Suddenly it becomes questionable. . When it simply shouldn't.

You see.. I cant get around the fact that x amount of policemen didn't have a blooming pow wow and present a consensus of definitive factual evidence.

The amount of problems with over egging gets worse when Chief Sitting Bull Swanson throws the blurred spanner into the works.



Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi GUT,

They failed miserably on both counts.

It would have been easier to take a photograph.

Happy Anzac Day.

Regards,

Simon

[GUT]

Hi All,

Never mind the newspapers. When it comes to describing the GSG, we cannot even trust three eye-witness policemen.

Why is DC Halse's 11th October testimony as to the nature and style of the GSG ["The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing," written on three lines], at odds with PC Long's 11th October testimony ["The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing] and his 6th November rendition ["The Jewes, are the men that will not be blamed for nothing," written on two lines], and Sir Charles Warren's 6th November rendition ["The Juwes are The men that Will not be Blamed for nothing," written on five lines]?

Their written descriptions of the GSG have survived, and each may be classified as an original/primary source.

Regards,

Simon

Yep all primary sources.

The question is though we're they trying to lay it out as it had been on the wall?

Some have even gone so far as to say they were trying to copy the writing style.

[GUT]

G'Day GUT,

Just noticed from Wikipedia today. Happy Anzac Day to you and the missus.

Jeff

Thanks Jeff

Actually it's over 26th here now.

ANZAC day is a special day here.

Spent much of it travelling though, daughter had her latest graduation, in Armidale about 300 miles up the road.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Never mind the newspapers. When it comes to describing the GSG, we cannot even trust three eye-witness policemen.

Why is DC Halse's 11th October testimony as to the nature and style of the GSG ["The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing," written on three lines], at odds with PC Long's 11th October testimony ["The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing] and his 6th November rendition ["The Jewes, are the men that will not be blamed for nothing," written on two lines], and Sir Charles Warren's 6th November rendition ["The Juwes are The men that Will not be Blamed for nothing," written on five lines]?

Their written descriptions of the GSG have survived, and each may be classified as an original/primary source.

Regards,

Simon

[Mayerling]

G'Day GUT,

Just noticed from Wikipedia today. Happy Anzac Day to you and the missus.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

The journalists of whom Pierre speaks weren't "discussing the Grafitti incident" Jeff, nor did they write any "articles" as such. They were doing no more than reporting what Halse said in the witness box about the Grafitti, using Halse's words not theirs.

Thanks David. It was just the original source I read on this thread confused me. And you know, we have to rely ln those original or primary sources, no matter how bollixed up they can be.

Best wishes,

Jeff

[David Orsam]

So, what you mean is individually these journalists arrived at similar conclusions ("the link is in their heads") and wrote of said link in their articles. This bias makes their articles untrustworthy discussing the Graffiti incident.

The journalists of whom Pierre speaks weren't "discussing the Grafitti incident" Jeff, nor did they write any "articles" as such. They were doing no more than reporting what Halse said in the witness box about the Grafitti, using Halse's words not theirs.

[Mayerling]

[QUOTE=Pierre;378502][QUOTE=Mayerling;378491]

I do not remember having said that April 18th was significant. Could you please direct me to that post? Thank you.

It was on a thread regarding Annie Chapman.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

[QUOTE=Pierre;378502][QUOTE=Mayerling;378491]

I am not in the league of conspiracy theorists. I do not "suspect" people. I am a simple historian using source criticism. There is bias in the interpretations of the GSG, which comes from expectancy. That gives these sources a tendency. Therefore we can not know what was said about the GSG in the court room. That is my point. What we can do is to use the original sources. But they can also be problematic.

The Dear Boss letter and GSG are not linked. But some journalists expected a link. They use the same types of expressions and words for both sources. So the link was in their heads and they wrote it in their articles. The "new insight" is that we can not trust the newspaper articles describing the GSG. They have tendencies.

So, what you mean is individually these journalists arrived at similar conclusions ("the link is in their heads") and wrote of said link in their articles. This bias makes their articles untrustworthy discussing the Graffiti incident. So the reporters never met and compared notes on it or the earlier "Dear Boss" letter, but just went along similar paths. It was not a dark conspiracy to prod the police into considering evidence in some light.

Okay. Now that is explained.

Thanks.