Blurred

[Elamarna]

Dear Pierre

I am sure it is noted by all that you have not attempted to address the major points raised in posts 57 & 58.
Instead you have concentrated on the amusing issue of denying to be a ripperologist.

steve

[Elamarna]

Pierre

just one question, purely for my own amusement.
when you say:

We do not share the same symbolic capital

could you please let me know your own definition of this term, in this actual context.

regards

Steve

[Mayerling]

Hi Jeff,

Thank you, I enjoyed this.

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

Kind regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

I'm glad you enjoyed reading the comment as much as I did writing it. Too bad you chose a philosopher who (no matter how supposedly publicly known he was or followed) was influenced by two writers who served the purposes of totalitarian regimes, notorious for pounding garbage into the heads of captive audiences (their populations).

A cat among birds may not be able to grab any birds to dine on - they might forever fly to high for catching.

And Steve is right. You have actually put down more comments on these threads than many others - and this website deals with the Whitechapel Murders. So you have become a "Ripperologist" , whether you like it or not.

Jeff

[David Orsam]

When Swanson said that the writing was "blurred" he cannot have meant to say that it was smudged. Detective Halse expressly said that it had not been rubbed by anyone. He said it seemed to have been written recently and that "if it had long been written it would have been rubbed by people passing" (Daily News report of inquest, 12 October 1888).

What Swanson can only have meant is that the lettering, being on a rough or non-even surface, was diffuse, not sharp like lettering on a smooth surface such as a blackboard. It couldn't have been any more than that in view of Halse's evidence.

The Daily News, incidentally, records Halse as having said: "It was written on the black brick in good schoolboy's handwriting."

He also said: "The capitals were under an inch high and italics in proportion" thus confirming it was written in normal case.

[Elamarna]

When Swanson said that the writing was "blurred" he cannot have meant to say that it was smudged. Detective Halse expressly said that it had not been rubbed by anyone. He said it seemed to have been written recently and that "if it had long been written it would have been rubbed by people passing" (Daily News report of inquest, 12 October 1888).

What Swanson can only have meant is that the lettering, being on a rough or non-even surface, was diffuse, not sharp like lettering on a smooth surface such as a blackboard. It couldn't have been any more than that in view of Halse's evidence.

The Daily News, incidentally, records Halse as having said: "It was written on the black brick in good schoolboy's handwriting."

He also said: "The capitals were under an inch high and italics in proportion" thus confirming it was written in normal case.

David

I think that is a very good point, I understand what you mean, and it makes sense to me.
While the suggestion it may have been smudged, would personally support my view of the GSG; it does seem highly unlikely that not only has this not been commented on before, but it has been strongly denied by the evidence of the witnesses, has you point out with Halse.

Steve

[Pierre]

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

Hi Steve,

Donīt worry now, I will not try and eat you.

But I regret that you let David speak for you. I was interested in hearing your opinions and not the opinion of David, since they are often wrong and very problematic from a historical perspective since he does not manage to perform historical source criticism.

However, I have read the "answer" of David. He accuses me of ”omitting an article” and, as usual, he is wrong.

The British Newspaper Archive does not produce the article from The Daily Telegraph when I search ”round hand”.

So I have not ”omitted” the article, but the archive did.

Next problem: David is saying that ” we can safely say that it is 100% certain that Detective Halse said those words”.

That is wrong. We can not safely say that it is 100 percent certain that Halse said the words ”a good schoolboy`s round hand”.

And David can not measure the ”certainty” with percent.

To be able to do that, he must use frequency and go through all the papers. And even if he does that, he can not know anything about the validity for the result, since we have the statements about the Dear Boss letter preceding the statements about the GSG.

Now, a simple analysis of the relevant newspaper articles (sampling frame is the British Newspaper Archive and a search was made for ”round hand” and ”schoolboy(s)” respectively), shows that:

1. There is a discourse in the newspapers about the Dear Boss letter before the inquest, which

a) contains statements about the handwriting as being in ”a round hand”.

b)There are also statements about the education of the author of the letter and of the profession of the author of the letter.

Conclusion: Before the GSG was known to the journalists, the Dear Boss letter, and the descriptions of that letter, were known to the them and they discussed the Dear Boss letter from the same type of perspectives as they later used when they discussed the GSG.

Therefore there is an expectancy bias in the discourse about the GSG, since both the Dear Boss letter and the GSG is regarded by the journalists as having a possible connection to the murderer.

Therefore, both sources (the Dear Boss letter and the GSG) are interpreted from similar perspectives: the round hand and the question about the education or profession of the author.

These are the perspectives in the discourse about the Dear Boss letter:

London Daily News - Friday 05 October. And other articles:

”a round hand, appearantly by a person indifferently educated”.

Pall Mall Gazette - Saturday 06 October. And other articles:

”a good round hand, like that employed by clercs in offices”

These are the perspectives in the discourse about the GSG:

The Morning Post 12 October:

”a good round hand”

The Times 12 October:

”a good schoolboy hand”

London Daily News - Friday 12 October

”in good schoolboyīs handwriting”

The Daily Telegraph 12 October:

”a good schoolboy's round hand”

The Star - Saturday 13 October:

”a good round hand”

Reynolds's Newspaper - Sunday 14 October 1888

”a good round hand”

The problem here displayed is also important from the perspective of the original inquest sources. In these sources, there is no statement made by Halse about a ”round hand” or a ”schoolboy”.

Given that

A) these words are not in the original inquest source, given that
B) the newspapers are not consistent and given that
C) the journalists use the same categories when interpreting the GSG as when interpreting the Dear Boss letter

we have a tendency in the sources for the GSG which is due to the expectancy bias of some of the journalists.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Pierre

The Dear Boss letter is a red herring!
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.

The post is a long, tedious, diversion from answering the questions you were asked.

Mayerling raised the point about your steadfast refusal to answer seemingly easy questions yesterday and he is right:

"Total silence. Very odd and interesting."

While you refuse to say why you equate "blurred" with the text having been written by a left hand this entire thread is pointless.

Regards

[David Orsam]

However, I have read the "answer" of David. He accuses me of ”omitting an article” and, as usual, he is wrong.

The British Newspaper Archive does not produce the article from The Daily Telegraph when I search ”round hand”.

So I have not ”omitted” the article, but the archive did.

This is the problem with amateur non-historians, they don't know how to use the sources properly.

The "British Newspaper Archive" is not an archive of every British newspaper. Far from it, it contains only a small minority of British newspapers. It does not contain back issues of the Daily Telegraph. Therefore, there is no point searching for text of the Daily Telegraph in the British Newspaper Archive.

Very amusing, though, the way that Pierre blames the British Newspaper Archive for his own shoddy research. Somehow I managed to find the reference in the Daily Telegraph and the reference in the London Daily News; it wasn't difficult.

When added to the reports from the Times and The Morning Post, these self-evidently prove that Pierre has got it all completely and disastrously wrong and I don't think I need to say any more on the topic.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;378292]

This is the problem with amateur non-historians, they don't know how to use the sources properly.

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.

(This is the only type of language he manages and understands!)

The "British Newspaper Archive" is not an archive of every British newspaper. Far from it, it contains only a small minority of British newspapers. It does not contain back issues of the Daily Telegraph. Therefore, there is no point searching for text of the Daily Telegraph in the British Newspaper Archive.

That is something we all know, so perhaps you would try to understand this as well. And especially as I, in my initial post to Steve - and not to you - wrote that there "seems" to be a problem with the sources.

But "seems" is a word that you have had a hard time trying to understand in your conversations earlier with Fisherman so probably you did not understand it when I wrote it either.

Very amusing, though, the way that Pierre blames the British Newspaper Archive for his own shoddy research. Somehow I managed to find the reference in the Daily Telegraph and the reference in the London Daily News; it wasn't difficult.

Historians do not "blame" archives. Go to a university and ask people there. They will help you understand.

When added to the reports from the Times and The Morning Post, these self-evidently prove that Pierre has got it all completely and disastrously wrong and I don't think I need to say any more on the topic.

Disaster. Yes, that is a good description of your accusations and misinterpretations here.

And as others have done before me I say "bye David". You are not honest. So back to the ignore function again.

[Elamarna]

Historians do not "blame" archives. Go to a university and ask people there. They will help you understand.

That is so funny Pierre, my sides are splitting. If the below is not "blaming" the archive what is it?

So I have not ”omitted” the article, but the archive did.

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;378297]

That is so funny Pierre, my sides are splitting. If the below is not "blaming" the archive what is it?

You can not blame a collection of texts. This is just Davids strategy as usual. Belittling and ridiculing everything I say. The words are his, not mine.

And David fails do even discuss the subject. As do you. The subject is the reliability of the sources. Not "blaming" an archive.

But of course, that subject does not sit well with David. He relies on them 100 percent.

Steve

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;378298]

You can not blame a collection of texts. This is just Davids strategy as usual. Belittling and ridiculing everything I say. The words are his, not mine.

And David fails do even discuss the subject. As do you. The subject is the reliability of the sources. Not "blaming" an archive.

But of course, that subject does not sit well with David. He relies on them 100 percent.



Regards, Pierre

Pierre

These were your words

"So I have not ”omitted” the article, but the archive did."

So my friend you did say not my fault, archives fault.

Anyone who uses the British Newspaper Archive, should know of its limitations, some papers are not covered at all.
However it is still a useful source as you seem to feel having apparently relied on it for much of post #81.

If you were not aware of the limitations of the archive its not a problem, just say so and move on.

It sadly appears you are incapable of ever admitting a failing or a mistake.



Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;378300][QUOTE=Pierre;378298]

Pierre

These were your words

Donīt tell me what my "words" were. Read what I say instead.

"So I have not ”omitted” the article, but the archive did."

So my friend you did say not my fault, archives fault.

No, the archive omitted the article. But I am not "blaming" the archive.

What is the problem now, Steve? I know that this archive is not "complete". And my selection is not "complete". There are A LOT of articles about the two issues discussed. But many say the same thing.

Why donīt you read what I say here?

Do you just want to get cheap points?

Do you feel you want to protect David?

Are you in a bad mood?

I donīt see why you systematically misinterpret me.

It is raining today. But I donīt blame the sky. It is monday (if it was). But I donīt blame the week for not making it a tuesday. An archive is limited. I donīt blame it.

IT IS JUST AB OBJECTIVE FACT THAT THE ARTICLE DISCUSSED IS NOT IN THAT ARCHIVE.

That is no mistake. And nothing to worry about.

But look at the different articles and read the analysis. Also, read Davids post about 100 percent. There you have something to worry about.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Your post makes my point for me Pierre

"It sadly appears you are incapable of ever admitting a failing or a mistake."


Show some humility and maybe people may respond to you in a different way.


Back on topic

This is a thread you began, attempting to show that Swanson's use of the word "blurred" had somehow meant the GSG was written by someone using their left hand. you made it clear you were not saying the writer was left handed, that was a very interesting statement, and we both know why.

However to date you have failed to prove that suggestion, or even advance it.
Instead YOU bring the issue of the Dear Boss letter, which does nothing but mudy the waters as you well know.

I repeat the point from post #82,

"While you refuse to say why you equate "blurred" with the text having been written by a left hand this entire thread is pointless."

Regards

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;378302]

Show some humility and maybe people may respond to you in a different way.

As long as David sets the tone here with his constant misunderstanding, belittling and ridiculing that is what everyone here seems to favour.

Back on topic

Thank you.

This is a thread you began, attempting to show that Swanson's use of the word "blurred" had somehow meant the GSG was written by someone using their left hand.

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.

you made it clear you were not saying the writer was left handed, that was a very interesting statement, and we both know why.

However to date you have failed to prove that suggestion, or even advance it.
Instead YOU bring the issue of the Dear Boss letter, which does nothing but mudy the waters as you well know.

Steve, it was actually you who told me that I should take into account that the GSG was written in a good schoolboy hand. # 46:

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

And when you did so I became curious and started to analyse the sources for that expression. And then I found that the sources were not reliable and that the expression is not in the original inquest. I also found a variation of that expression and similar expressions about the Dear Boss letter so I hypothesized that the journalists expected the GSG to have been written by the author of the Dear Boss letter.

So since you wanted me to take that expression or that statement as you see it into account, I did, by analysing it.

And what could the connection be between that statement and the statement of Swanson?

He writes "an ordinary hand", so there does not seem to be any connection.

From this we can not draw any conclusions that the statement of the GSG being "blurred" was based on reliable sources (that Swanson had) but at least we can say that Swanson looked upon the matter differently than did some journalists.

I repeat the point from post #82,

"While you refuse to say why you equate "blurred" with the text having been written by a left hand this entire thread is pointless."

Regards

I do not think it pointless to try and get some knowledge about what Swanson could have known, given that he was the chief inspector and should know more about the GSG than some journalists.

So that was what I wanted to do.

Regards, Pierre