Blurred

[Elamarna]

Pierre
I will not go down the route again of telling you it is not up to you to say what is an usable question .

I will not talk here of my view on who wrote the GSG. Such is irrelevant to the point being discussed.

You did not confirm or deny that you are suggesting that the writing was done by a left hand.
Can you please confirm or deny that.

If you are indeed suggesting thst, I will ask what suggested to you that the blurred writing may have be written by a left hand?

What has lead you to that hypothesis?

Please take into account the writing is described as good schoolboy, meaning a trained stylized hand.
Please also not that less than 15% of a population without high levels of inbreeding are left handed.
Please also note that in LVP, writing with the left hand was positive discouraged.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;378011]Pierre
I will not go down the route again of telling you it is not up to you to say what is an usable question .

I will not talk here of my view on who wrote the GSG. Such is irrelevant to the point being discussed.

You did not confirm or deny that you are suggesting that the writing was done by a left hand.
Can you please confirm or deny that.

Hi Steve,

The hypothesis is that it was written with the left hand but the hypothesis is not that the writer was left-handed.

If you are indeed suggesting thst, I will ask what suggested to you that the blurred writing may have be written by a left hand?

What has lead you to that hypothesis?

I will have to get back to you in the future with an answer to that question.

Please take into account the writing is described as good schoolboy, meaning a trained stylized hand.

Steve - there seems to be a problem here.

Swanson states the writing was "in an ordinary hand" in the original police report.

But from where do we have the good schoolboy hand?

I searched the original sources from the inquest but the good schoolboy hand does not appear in the inquest sources.

Actually, it is in The Times 12 October - and in The Morning Post the same day it appears as "a good round hand".

Before that date you have the descriptions of the "Dear Boss-letter" handwriting in the papers, giving that it was written in a "round hand".

So it was probably a construction of the journalists, who wanted to speculate that the "Dear Boss-letter" should have been written by the same person who wrote the GSG.

Please also not that less than 15% of a population without high levels of inbreeding are left handed.

The hypothesis is not that the writer of the GSG was among that type of population (if it would be representative of a population in 1888, and it isnīt).

Please also note that in LVP, writing with the left hand was positive discouraged.

Not part of the hypothesis.

Kind regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

But from where do we have the good schoolboy hand?

I searched the original sources from the inquest but the good schoolboy hand does not appear in the inquest sources.

Actually, it is in The Times 12 October - and in The Morning Post the same day it appears as "a good round hand".

Before that date you have the descriptions of the "Dear Boss-letter" handwriting in the papers, giving that it was written in a "round hand".

So it was probably a construction of the journalists, who wanted to speculate that the "Dear Boss-letter" should have been written by the same person who wrote the GSG.

That is an utterly ridiculous conclusion. As you should be aware, the inquest depositions do not contain everything said by a witness. The idea you have put forward that the Times reporter was including deliberately false information when reporting the inquest testimony of Detective Halse because he wanted to speculate about the authorship of the writing on the wall is, I regret to say, one that demonstrates your complete ignorance of the sources in this case.

[Pierre]

QUOTE=David Orsam;378027 That is an utterly ridiculous conclusion.

I thought, when I saw that David replied here, that he would perhaps contribute. But instead and directly, he attacks my post with saying that I make an "utterly ridiculous" conclusion.

Stop ridiculing what I say, David.

As you should be aware, the inquest depositions do not contain everything said by a witness.

David often does this. He tells people what they "should".

Also, David is irrelevant when he says that one "should be aware" that the inquests do not "contain everything said by a witness". Why? Because historians do not use non existing statements. So being "aware" of their non existing ontology is meaningless.

The idea you have put forward that the Times reporter was including deliberately false information

Here is the traditional misinterpretation that David often uses to destroy anything I write. As those who can read can easily see that I have not (and here is me explaining why David is wrong, also traditional) written that a reporter "deliberately" included "false information".

when reporting the inquest testimony of Detective Halse because he wanted to speculate about the authorship of the writing on the wall is, I regret to say, one that demonstrates your complete ignorance of the sources in this case.

Firstly, Halse did not speculate according to the original sources. The speculations are entirely in the newspapers that David seem to cherish so much. This is clearly "demonstrated" by the fact that David is "reacting" very much in his posts, instead of discussing calmly and academically.

First we hear "ridiculous conclusion" and now we get "complete ignorance".

David uses ridiculing and belittling phrases to attack me. Stop this behaviour, David.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

If you are indeed suggesting thst, I will ask what suggested to you that the blurred writing may have be written by a left hand?

What has lead you to that hypothesis?

"I will have to get back to you in the future with an answer to that question."

Pierre

That reply is completely inadequate, you claim you are building an hypothesis based on the sources. If so saying what leads you in this direction gives nothing away.

It does however exposes that you have no reason to suspecting this from the sources.
Is this an attempt to manipulate the evidence to fit. A preconceived idea.?

I ask you again. What evidence suggests to you the writing was written by a left hand..?

"The hypothesis is not that the writer of the GSG was among that type of population (if it would be representative of a population in 1888, and it isnīt)."

Your source for this definitive statement on human genetics please?

[David Orsam]

Stop ridiculing what I say, David.

I cannot do that Pierre when you are posting such nonsense. You are ridiculing yourself.

The irony is that you fail to factor into your deliberations the fact that you have a "tendency" of your own. You seem to believe, without any evidence, that the writing on the wall included the word "Judges", so that the writing must have been hard to decipher, so you are biased in that direction, hence you promote an utterly ludicrous theory that the Times reporter simply fabricated a part of the evidence of Detective Halse in which the detective referred to the writing as being in a "good" hand. Are you aware how crazy that is?

The report in the Times about this evidence not "a non existing statement" as you seem to think. It exists. There is no reason to doubt it.

You should consider what Anthony Brundage said in his book 'Going to the sources: A Guide to Historical Research and Writing' when he warned researchers to guard against "the unconscious tendency of looking for – and seeing only that evidence that bolsters your preconceptions".

The Times reporter did not fabricate any evidence in his report. We can be sure of that. Your conclusion is crazy.

[David Orsam]

Stop this behaviour, David.

Your theory doesn't even make sense on the face of it. If the journalists were trying to link the phrase "good round hand" to the writing on the wall in order to link it to previous correspondence for which the same description had been applied, why did the Times reporter record it as "good schoolboy hand"? Given that the Morning Post reporter recorded something similar you must be arguing that there was a conspiracy by the reporters to falsify the evidence for no good reason using different wording. It's madness isn't it?

[Elamarna]

Pierre
Just in case you misunderstood. The line aboutt left hand in population was meant to read
please note that less that 15%

not

not that less than 15%


Given that correction do you still maintain that a figure of less than 15% of the population being left handed is not accurate for 1888?

The commonly accepted figures are around 11-12% today

Some sources quote the 19th century at around 3%.
It has been speculated this was possibley due to people being actively discourage from using the left hand or that the development of the industrial revolution with machine built only for right handed operators contributed to this low rate.

You said this had no bearing on your hypothesis, however the number able to write with the left hand would have been in line with this percentage.

[David Orsam]

Firstly, Halse did not speculate according to the original sources. The speculations are entirely in the newspapers that David seem to cherish so much. This is clearly "demonstrated" by the fact that David is "reacting" very much in his posts, instead of discussing calmly and academically.

If you are going to academically conduct your "source criticism", Pierre, you actually need to understand what the sources are.

The inquest depositions are not verbatim transcripts of what the witnesses said in the witness box during the inquest, nor were they meant to be. They were summaries only of the evidence. They do not, therefore, include everything that a witness said.

Therefore, it follows that the fact that a piece evidence recorded and reported by a newspaper isn't found in the official record (i.e. the deposition) is not a reason to believe that this evidence was not given by the witness in the witness box. Any argument which uses the absence of evidence in a deposition as reported by a newspaper to cast doubt on the fact that this evidence was given is fundamentally flawed.

I repeat that it is not possible to conduct any analysis of the official sources without understanding what the official sources actually are.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;378032]

If you are indeed suggesting thst, I will ask what suggested to you that the blurred writing may have be written by a left hand?

What has lead you to that hypothesis?

"I will have to get back to you in the future with an answer to that question."

Pierre

That reply is completely inadequate, you claim you are building an hypothesis based on the sources. If so saying what leads you in this direction gives nothing away.

Well, Steve, boring as it might be, I have my limitations.

It does however exposes that you have no reason to suspecting this from the sources.
Is this an attempt to manipulate the evidence to fit. A preconceived idea.?

I donīt use ripperological strategies.

I ask you again. What evidence suggests to you the writing was written by a left hand..?

I will have to get back to you in the future with an answer to that question.

"The hypothesis is not that the writer of the GSG was among that type of population (if it would be representative of a population in 1888, and it isnīt)."

Your source for this definitive statement on human genetics please?

You donīt understand what I say. The statistics you presented here is not relevant for 1888, since it is not constructed from the population in 1888.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;378036]

Pierre
Just in case you misunderstood. The line aboutt left hand in population was meant to read
please note that less that 15%

not

not that less than 15%


Given that correction do you still maintain that a figure of less than 15% of the population being left handed is not accurate for 1888?

I do not say that the figure is not accurate, I am saying that the source is not relevant since it is not a result of a survey using a sample from 1888. That is just a simple fact.

The commonly accepted figures are around 11-12% today

Some sources quote the 19th century at around 3%.
It has been speculated this was possibley due to people being actively discourage from using the left hand or that the development of the industrial revolution with machine built only for right handed operators contributed to this low rate.

There you go. So you can see that postmodern sources are not relevant for modern sources. (If you now want to start debating on modernity/post modernity and modern / post modern, please start a new thread for that).

You said this had no bearing on your hypothesis, however the number able to write with the left hand would have been in line with this percentage.

OK. No problem. Not a relevant question in this context.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Well, Steve, boring as it might be, I have my limitations.

What has that reply got to do with the question asked?

You are avoiding the question, as normal with a non answer.
I am not asking about your limitations, your refusal to answer speaks volumes.

I donīt use ripperological strategies.

To suggest others, Ripperologists as you call us, do this and you do not ignores two points:

Firstly the point on which you bury your head in the sand on:

You say proudly "I am not a ripperologist.," Lechmere/cross sources post #56.

However by being here on a JtR forum on a daily basis and posting here in the volumes that you do. you are a Ripperologist yourself!
You may not want to admit it but you are!

Anyone looking from the outside at this forum would quickly come to that conclusion!

Again you are avoiding giving an answer, by not saying what leads you in this direction of thinking it gives an impression that reason is that you have a preconceived theory, which you do, and are attempting to fit evidence to that theory.
Yes people do it all the time, its the same strategy you are following, no matter how you dress it up.

I will have to get back to you in the future with an answer to that question.

Pierre, why is that? Do you not know why you are looking in this direction?
If you are not trying to fit evidence into a theory there should be no problem with answering that simple question.

You donīt understand what I say. The statistics you presented here is not relevant for 1888, since it is not constructed from the population in.
1888.

Pierre I do understand what you say, please don’t suggest I do not.

two points follow from reply

1. How do you know that it is not constructed from the population of 1888, I asked for a source to back up your statement which you have failed to provide. just telling me it is not based on the 19th century population will no longer do.

2. It is based on figures from the 19th century, I list one study below, therer are plenty more online if you wish to search for them, this come from an establish scientific publication, and was peer review before publication.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lefties-rare-19th-century-england/

regards

[Elamarna]

I do not say that the figure is not accurate, I am saying that the source is not relevant since it is not a result of a survey using a sample from 1888. That is just a simple fact.

It is not a fact, simple or otherwise just because you deem it to be one. Please provide a source to back up that statement.

I was careful in saying less than 15%. The figure of 3% for the 19th century is based on the population of that time, and is not contrary to the figure I gave first that being less than 15%.

Once again Pierre, and with all due respect it is not up to you to unilaterally decide what is and is not relevant.

There you go. So you can see that postmodern sources are not relevant for modern sources. (If you now want to start debating on modernity/post modernity and modern / post modern, please start a new thread for that).

see above

OK. No problem. Not a relevant question in this context.

Indeed it is relevant, you have said the writer wrote left handed, but may not have been left handed, why do you say that?
Is it because being left handed does not fit well with the limited evidence on the throat wounds?
It is relevant because the number of people who could write left handed, while not being left handed was very small.

It therefore follows that if the writer of the GSG was left handed, and you do not tell us why you are considering this, despite being asked at least 3 times, it is more probably that he was not the killer, than that he was.

Steve

[Mayerling]

I thought, when I saw that David replied here, that he would perhaps contribute. But instead and directly, he attacks my post with saying that I make an "utterly ridiculous" conclusion.

Stop ridiculing what I say, David.

David often does this. He tells people what they "should".

Also, David is irrelevant when he says that one "should be aware" that the inquests do not "contain everything said by a witness". Why? Because historians do not use non existing statements. So being "aware" of their non existing ontology is meaningless.


Here is the traditional misinterpretation that David often uses to destroy anything I write. As those who can read can easily see that I have not (and here is me explaining why David is wrong, also traditional) written that a reporter "deliberately" included "false information".


First we hear "ridiculous conclusion" and now we get "complete ignorance".

David uses ridiculing and belittling phrases to attack me. Stop this behaviour, David.

Regards, Pierre

Hello all,

You know, I have to admit I am not really keen on reading philosophers and I regret that failing. I find most of them boring as straight off writers. So I tend to read synopses of their main points.

The other day, when M. Bourdieu's name was first mentioned by Pierre, I had to try to see who he was - and turned to Wikipedia. Of course when I read a brief synopsis I have to recognize the author will be interpreting what he is abbreviating into what he feels it's main gist is. But I found the section concerning Bourdieu's use of language very interesting and advise all the people using this website to read it.

"Bourdieu takes language to be not merely a method of communications, but also a mechanism of power. The language one uses is designated by one's relational position in a field of social space. Different uses of language tend to be reiterate the respective position of each participant. Linguistic interactions are manifestations of the participants' respective positions in social space and categories of understanding, and thus to reproduce the objective structures of the social field, This determines who has a "right" to be listened to, to interrupt, to ask a question, and to lecture, and to what degree .

Interesting comment isn't it. Even taking that in discourse people argue over points, the idea is to build up one's arguments on facts - not on pounding and repetition and arrogance.

Now David, in the time he has been connected to this website, certainly has shared a great deal of interesting research he's made with us, regarding (for example) the Detectives who went to Canada in December 1888. Pierre, aside from some curious minor points (that he tends to blow up) regarding the position of arms in a picture of Queen Mary I of England and Mary Kelly, and the fifth rate play of a notable Poet Laureate, doesn't. Pierre's critics do tend to repeat themselves in directing questions to him - but they are questions he repeatedly does not wish to answer. Not that they threaten Pierre's theory, but for personal reason he fears to answer them. Even the issue of what his published writings are, and where to find them. Total silence. Very odd and interesting.

On the other hand he pounds back (and may very well pound back at this statement too) reiterating his positions from months or weeks ago.
Above I have taken some from one of his previous comments on David - admittedly dropping David's earlier statements that were attacked, but I wanted to consider Pierre's use of "Language".

He's following his philosophical master's ideas on the use of "Language". Can one blame him? - or that M. Bourdieu, who has other philosophical idols, apparently liked Marx (whose social theories were used by totalitarian regimes to control whole countries - even if they were "twisted" which is a debatable point) and ...I like this one...the early "existentialist" Martin Heiidegger, who was an avid supporter of the Nazis (who made him the rector of a university town in German - a post he used to advance their social ideas and theories; though, supposedly, he later regretted it)? Another well known Nazi (I believe he had a literary doctorate, and headed propaganda) summarized the "pounding the argument" theory Bourdieu seems to support more pithiy:

"Repeat a lie enough times and people believe it is the truth."

I am certain this will bring out a response/defense/attack on me. Can't help that. Probably deserved in some sense.

Steve is right though Pierre - by your constant appearance and arguing on the boards about Letchmere, Bloody Mary, the false door to Mary Kelly's room, the value of Tennyson's awful play, and whatever, you have achieved becoming what you denounced - a "Ripperologist". Welcome comrade (a wink to Bourdieu's favorite Marx Brother: Karl)!

Jeff

[David Orsam]

But from where do we have the good schoolboy hand?

I searched the original sources from the inquest but the good schoolboy hand does not appear in the inquest sources.

Actually, it is in The Times 12 October - and in The Morning Post the same day it appears as "a good round hand".

Before that date you have the descriptions of the "Dear Boss-letter" handwriting in the papers, giving that it was written in a "round hand".

So it was probably a construction of the journalists, who wanted to speculate that the "Dear Boss-letter" should have been written by the same person who wrote the GSG.

A rather important omission by Pierre in his summary of the newspaper reporting is the Daily Telegraph report of 12 October 1888. This reported Detective Halse's evidence on the writing as:

"There were three lines of writing in a good schoolboy's round hand."

If it was ever in doubt (which it wasn't) that the reports in the Times and Morning Post were correct, that should settle the issue. Bearing in mind the corroboration by three separate court reporters, each saying something slightly different, but all consistent with each other, we can safely say that it is 100% certain that Detective Halse said those words.

Unfortunately, Pierre's theory, which was clearly wrong on the face of it, was based on incomplete data.