Blurred

[Pcdunn]

Another lefty!

Well, I'm a lefty and I don't smudge my writing, or at least I haven't since childhood, when, incidentally, I learned to write with a nibbed pen and an ink well, like the Victorians.
Having said that, chalk is notorious for smudging at just the slightest touch, whether you're left or right handed . If the GSG WAS smudged it's odd that it's not mentioned anywhere that we know of besides Swanson's report.
Why would someone sit down to chalk a message on a wall? It seems rather an awkward way of doing it, to me.

Hello, Rosella, I'm a lefty too! For some reason, once I moved from printing with a pencil to writing cursive, it was with a fountain pen at my parochial school, so I did tend to leave behind some rather smudged papers.

I grew up hearing that Jack the Ripper and Billy the Kid were left-handed. Now it seems Billy's photo in which he holds his shotgun with the left hand may have been "flipped", and it was really his right hand.

As for JtR, what is the evidence? Supposedly he cut his victims' throats from left to right? (Or is it the other way around?) Yet somewhere here I read that forensic experts say it really isn't simple to tell handedness from wounds. Why should blurred chalk writing help us, then?

[Elamarna]

Hello, Rosella, I'm a lefty too! For some reason, once I moved from printing with a pencil to writing cursive, it was with a fountain pen at my parochial school, so I did tend to leave behind some rather smudged papers.

I grew up hearing that Jack the Ripper and Billy the Kid were left-handed. Now it seems Billy's photo in which he holds his shotgun with the left hand may have been "flipped", and it was really his right hand.

As for JtR, what is the evidence? Supposedly he cut his victims' throats from left to right? (Or is it the other way around?) Yet somewhere here I read that forensic experts say it really isn't simple to tell handedness from wounds. Why should blurred chalk writing help us, then?

Hi Pat

that is just the question I have been asking Pierre, which he has said he cannot answer at present, I am not sure what that means..

Note he is not saying the writer was left handed, just that the GSG was written with the left hand? he has gone to some length to stress this point!

Yes it is very difficult to make definitive statements about the handedness of the killer, because we do not know the respective positions of the killer and victims.
For instances if the killer is behind the victim and both are standing, a right hander would more probably make the cut in that direction.

Steve

[Pcdunn]

The only explanation to Pierre's reluctance to answer you now that comes to my mind is-- he knows his suspect was either left-handed or ambidextrous, and can't say that to us without being asked (again!) to reveal the identity of his suspect. So he delays. [Or not. Whatever.]

[Shaggyrand]

that is just the question I have been asking Pierre, which he has said he cannot answer at present, I am not sure what that means..

Note he is not saying the writer was left handed, just that the GSG was written with the left hand? he has gone to some length to stress this point!

Its easy to forget but P HAS a suspect... or at least claims to. Said suspect, that no one has ever named and has been mostly forgotten by history despite being a mover and shaker of the day, must be known to be right handed.
I am, of course, assuming that there actually is a suspect reveal at some point in the future which, of course, assumes this isn't just one long troll joke which, of course, assumes that he won't get bored with these endlessly empty posts before naming the suspect which, of course, is highly unlikely to ever be named regardless of its existence.

[Geddy2112]

The only explanation to Pierre's reluctance to answer you now that comes to my mind is-- he knows his suspect was either left-handed or ambidextrous, and can't say that to us without being asked (again!) to reveal the identity of his suspect. So he delays. [Or not. Whatever.]

Ding ding ding.... and today's winner is Pcdunn.

To me his threads are teases to what he thinks he knows to be true. They are not open for debate or discussion they are there for Mr P to make everything fit his model...

[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

Hi Jeff,

Thank you, I enjoyed this.

And Steve is wrong. Because sometimes one can find a cat among the birds.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Jeff,

Thank you, I enjoyed this.

And Steve is wrong. Because sometimes one can find a cat among the birds.

Kind regards, Pierre

Pierre

If the "cat" has wings and feathers and flies it is indeed a bird, if it thinks it is a cat, that does not make it one, it just shows it is confused and somewhat in denial.

You are a bird. Get use to it my friend

tweet tweet

Steve

[Pierre]

Pierre

If the "cat" has wings and feathers and flies it is indeed a bird, if it thinks it is a cat, that does not make it one, it just shows it is confused and somewhat in denial.

You are a bird. Get use to it my friend

tweet tweet

Steve

We do not share the same symbolic capital and the same field to start with. I am only here as a visitor and as soon as I can get away from all this, I will. But I have a duty to history and before this duty is done I can not do that.

By the way, did you see what I wrote about the sources for the descriptions of the GSG? If you did, what do you say?

Meow, Pierre

[Elamarna]

We do not share the same symbolic capital and the same field to start with. I am only here as a visitor and as soon as I can get away from all this, I will. But I have a duty to history and before this duty is done I can not do that.

By the way, did you see what I wrote about the sources for the descriptions of the GSG? If you did, what do you say?

Meow, Pierre

thread and post please on the GSG?

seen nothing since i posted last night,

[Pierre]

thread and post please on the GSG?

seen nothing since i posted last night,

Naturally, sorry. This thread, post 47:

You wrote:

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

I wrote:

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.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

We do not share the same symbolic capital and the same field to start with. I am only here as a visitor and as soon as I can get away from all this, I will. But I have a duty to history and before this duty is done I can not do that.

By the way, did you see what I wrote about the sources for the descriptions of the GSG? If you did, what do you say?

Meow, Pierre

"A Duty to history", eh. An onerous and noble responsibility, indeed. Something akin to noblessse oblige, perhaps?

However, I suppose it ultimately depends on how we define history. I like this definition myself:

"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon." (Napoleon Bonaparte, )

[Elamarna]

Pierre

I see David has already answered that in several posts including post 60 , I see no point in me adding any more, repetition for the sake of it achieves nothing.


tweet
steve

[GUT]

Ding ding ding.... and today's winner is Pcdunn.

To me his threads are teases to what he thinks he knows to be true. They are not open for debate or discussion they are there for Mr P to make everything fit his model...

Exactly

[Elamarna]

We do not share the same symbolic capital and the same field to start with. I am only here as a visitor and as soon as I can get away from all this, I will. But I have a duty to history and before this duty is done I can not do that.

By the way, did you see what I wrote about the sources for the descriptions of the GSG? If you did, what do you say?

Meow, Pierre

Pierre

You are not a visitor, this is your Avery, come down from the loft perch you have flown up to .

To suggest an individual owes something to "history" suggests a highly elevated view of ones own importance.
All know you have no intention of ever crowing about the the fox anyway.

steve

[John G]

Naturally, sorry. This thread, post 47:

You wrote:



I wrote:



Regards, Pierre

Hello Pierre,

At the Eddowes inquest Dr Inspector Halse referred to the graffiti as being written in a "Good schoolboy's round hand."