Blurred

[drstrange169]

Thank you, David and Simon, that's very useful information.

[DJA]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNkjDuSVXiE

[GUT]

Thanks. Helps me to understand some as I realize that people do have different reactions and a different way of looking at things.

Some, I think, are also concerned that, if left unchallenged, in future newbies will read his rubbish and think it's true.

Yet others I suspect simply enjoy the argument.

[DJA]

We have still not had an explanation for the suggestion the the GSG was written by a left hand.

Jack used to lecture and write on his green boards with his left hand in his trousers.

Have a few other instances that indicates he was born left handed.

Pretty sure he was ambidextrous.

He also used his sense of touch in regards to his patients ill health by actually feeling for the diseased organ.

Those patients included Nichols and Conway/Eddowes.

Anyone considered a link between Eddowes' son and her leaving her defacto at Houndsditch at 2pm on the last day of her life?

[curious]

I think that many just object to all the wrong statements made by a certain great historian.

Thanks. Helps me to understand some as I realize that people do have different reactions and a different way of looking at things.

[GUT]

Thank you, Steve. You said it far better than I would have, but those outrageous statements definitely needed to be addressed.

I log on only occasionally anymore, and I am stunned to find people continuing to dance to this particular fiddle. I can't understand the complete waste of time.

Again, thanks, Steve.

I think that many just object to all the wrong statements made by a certain great historian.

[curious]

I have placed these four statements together, given that they are linked.

It is clear that there is no reliable academic research on the reliability of newspaper Court Reports in the 19th century, or at least none which are known.

If one is asked for data to support an hypothesis one puts forward, and such data is not available, it is normal and polite to say there is none; not to tell someone to go look for it themselves!

However the post claims this hypothesis is based on a pilot study, therefore it would be normal to supply this in place of the data requested above.
If this is in the form of a post already on the boards, and it is highly debatable that any post on this thread contains enough to be termed a pilot study, then it would be polite to point one towards it, even if it is inadequate.


Let us be clear, the post states the opinion that these reports are unreliable, they have a tendency, a bias.

However Pierre, this opinion is based on your own pilot study.

Anyone can say, I have done a study and that study shows that......

That is JUST the opinion of one individual, it is not an established fact, nor has it, far more importantly, been academically tested by peer review.

An opinion. nothing more, nothing less!

regards

Steve

Thank you, Steve. You said it far better than I would have, but those outrageous statements definitely needed to be addressed.

I log on only occasionally anymore, and I am stunned to find people continuing to dance to this particular fiddle. I can't understand the complete waste of time.

Again, thanks, Steve.

[GUT]

And it's not even a well argued opinion, or one for which there are any reasonable grounds to believe that it might be correct.

Nothing he says is well argued, all he does is tries to come over all intellectually superior when every post makes it more apparent that he knows very little.

And the questions he ignores?? Well enough said.

[Elamarna]

Pierre

We have still not had an explanation for the suggestion the the GSG was written by a left hand.

What data did you use to reach the hypothesis ?

If none was used, is not the use of the left hand just a guess?


Did you suggest the GSG was written by a person using their LEFT hand? yes or no?

Do you still hold that opinion? yes or no?

How did you come to this hypothesis?

Is it really that hard to answer and explain?

regards

[David Orsam]

An opinion. nothing more, nothing less!

And it's not even a well argued opinion, or one for which there are any reasonable grounds to believe that it might be correct.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

No, you also asked:

(that "courts reports are unreliable" = your hypothesis, not mine, if you generalize my pilot to "all" sources or if you try to construct "court reports" as some specific class of sources. )

That was your second question. And you got the answer.

Pierre

Where do I start, with this latest post which is nothing more than a smoke screen yet again. Full of assumptions and opinions presented as facts.

Post 130 you said

"The newspaper articles have tendencies. It doesn´t matter in the papers if "Halse was there". The articles are not reliable."


The articles being discussed were the reports in the newspapers about the evidence given at the inquest about the GSG, those are referred to in press terms as Court Reports.

No attempt to generalize about all sources was made; yet another attempt to divert attention.
Yes Court Reports are different from other newspaper reports in that they reflect what was said, and do not give an opinion.

I just asked you to clarify the point:

"The articles are not reliable."

It is clear the hypothesis, that the articles (Court Report) on Halse's inquest testimony were unreliable was put forward in post 130, and not one which I suggested.

To say it is my hypothesis is intentionally misleading.


Then l look at the suggestion of second question,

In post 134 it was referred to it as:


"The other problem you mention "


However it was not a problem I mentioned in post 133, it was a supplementary question to the first statement made in post 133.
Obviously no such data exist.

Your syntax is unclear here ("that the statement..." - what?), could you please pose the question in a clearer way? Thanks Steve. [/B]

I thought it was perfectly clear from the context, it meant the first statement I had referred to from post 134, a few lines before.
Of course I forget English is not your first language after all; so sorry if I confused you
.

Naturally you will have to look for scientific articles about the reliability of witness statements, if that is what you are after. If you are looking for general research on reliability of newspaper articles in the 1880s you will have to look for that too.

What I have done here is a pilot, i.e. empirical source criticism. This pilot is what I draw the conclusions from. So I do not deduce from later research or, if there is any from the 1880s, I do not draw from it but from the pilot I have presented here. [/B]



Such sources could not back the statement that the newspaper articles about the GSG are biased. There is no such research. I have done this empirical pilot and it is the first ever made that I know of.


[B]That is not my conclusion. My conclusion is that the newspaper articles about the GSG are not reliable. They have a tendency.

I have placed these four statements together, given that they are linked.

It is clear that there is no reliable academic research on the reliability of newspaper Court Reports in the 19th century, or at least none which are known.

If one is asked for data to support an hypothesis one puts forward, and such data is not available, it is normal and polite to say there is none; not to tell someone to go look for it themselves!

However the post claims this hypothesis is based on a pilot study, therefore it would be normal to supply this in place of the data requested above.
If this is in the form of a post already on the boards, and it is highly debatable that any post on this thread contains enough to be termed a pilot study, then it would be polite to point one towards it, even if it is inadequate.


Let us be clear, the post states the opinion that these reports are unreliable, they have a tendency, a bias.

However Pierre, this opinion is based on your own pilot study.

Anyone can say, I have done a study and that study shows that......

That is JUST the opinion of one individual, it is not an established fact, nor has it, far more importantly, been academically tested by peer review.

An opinion. nothing more, nothing less!

regards

Steve

[David Orsam]

Hi Phil,

there is nothing strange with that. The policemen had not been trained in text deciphering. They were no experts on text analysis.

So what did they do? They tried to "read"!

And it was dark.

At about 5.30 the GSG was rubbed out.

Sunrise started 05.59.

They had lamps.

And they didn't need to decipher or analyse the writing on the wall. Just read it.

[Pierre]

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.

Phil

Hi Phil,

there is nothing strange with that. The policemen had not been trained in text deciphering. They were no experts on text analysis.

So what did they do? They tried to "read"!

And it was dark.

At about 5.30 the GSG was rubbed out.

Sunrise started 05.59.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Hi Pierre,

You don't seem to be acknowledging or absorbing any of the points that are being made against you in this thread.

But if, as you keep saying, there is a connection between the descriptions of the GSG and 'Dear Boss' letter, isn't there a glaringly obvious alternative solution to the one you are offering?

When Halse saw the 'Dear Boss' letter could he not have thought the handwriting looked similar to the GSG? Thus, when asked to describe the GSG in court he used similar words to those he had recently read in the newspapers about the 'Dear Boss' letter. In which case, there is no "tendency" involved on anyone's part here but Halse has simply been influenced by the choice of words of journalists.

I'm not saying that IS what happened - coincidence seems to be an even better explanation - but surely it makes 100 times more sense than a mass hallucination by at least four separate court reporters.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Mayerling;378524][QUOTE=Pierre;378502]

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.

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