Blurred

[Robert St Devil]

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 schoolboy´s 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”


Regards, Pierre

Hello Pierre. I would ,go, with the Daily Telegraph above the others. The ,others, seem to be: either the same generic paragraph, or a slight variation of the same generic paragraph. I notice that frequently on BNA, reading the same story throughout the newspapers. T
he Times had more direct inquest testimony. What stood out to me about the Daily Telegraph was not only the expansion on the testimonies but also... how the reporter states there was laughter to Mr. Levy,s comment (putting him in the room).

It seems like a game of telephone, where words get lost along the way.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=GUT;378468]

Put simply a first year undergrad in history would (or should) know that Source criticism is whole different issue than classifying a source as Primary or Secondary.

Hi GUT,

Thank you. Here everyone can see now that you know absolutely nothing about academic history.

Source criticism is an important part of finding out whether the sources can and should be used as primary or secondary sources.

And since you know nothing about academic history, and this most probably goes for - what was it; "Mrs Gut"? - too, since she is not correcting you - I will show you a very simple example.

Let´s start with a question for you - you can enjoy it together with "Mrs Gut" - and while you try to answer it you can read more at the link I give you:

Are the Gospels primary or secondary sources for the life of Jesus?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...of_the_Gospels

Pierre would do much better if he stopped pretending to be an Historian while displaying such an appalling ignorance of the basics.

GUT would do much better if he stopped pretending to be a critic of historians, supporting himself on a "Mrs Gut", while displaying such an appalling ignorance of academic history.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Hello Pierre. I would ,go, with the Daily Telegraph above the others. The ,others, seem to be: either the same generic paragraph, or a slight variation of the same generic paragraph. I notice that frequently on BNA, reading the same story throughout the newspapers. T
he Times had more direct inquest testimony. What stood out to me about the Daily Telegraph was not only the expansion on the testimonies but also... how the reporter states there was laughter to Mr. Levy,s comment (putting him in the room).

It seems like a game of telephone, where words get lost along the way.

Thanks for your reply. But there is a source standing against the Daily Telegraph article and that is the original inquest source.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Pierre

please withdraw the personal attack on a family member of GUT, that is outrageous and not acceptable.

steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Mayerling;378491][QUOTE=Pierre;378407]

Gee, it's funny.

You like to break down sentence structure - always been doing that. I take it that it's a combination of a hopeless pedant and an attempt at a version of reduction ad absurdum. If so it is not appreciated, and very irritating.

Don't do it to me again please...and I strongly urge you (so your responses are more acceptable) not to do it to anyone else. You might find your counter-arguments more acceptable.

Hi Jeff,

I do it to be clear. I want people to see every word I write. I do not like to be interpreted. Interpretations lead to misunderstanding of what I write.

You were the source (that you enquired of me) for this cabal or group of journalists. It came from your opening in comment # 97 on this thread when you began responding to a comment Steve had put down earlier: "The Dear Boss letter is a red herring".

This is such a misunderstanding. I have never written the word "cabal". So it did not come from me. I did not even use the word "group" - since I am a sociologist and know what "group" means. I wrote "some journalists". I did not put any glue between them. The reason for their interpretation is expectancy bias: not being in a cabal, or a group, or a club, or eating at the same table.

For a change you seemed to be heading towards an interesting comment about the journalists acting the same way about the letter and the graffito.
At least that was how I read it. I never bothered with this issue - it never seemed really important. But you suddenly made it look interesting. Boy, now that I know you did not know of such a thing (or now claim you don't) you've blown that out of the water! I was considering that you might know of a group of newsmen, admittedly working for rival papers, who were comparing notes and trying to aid in the case by pushing in the same direction regarding the various clues. Now it seems that is totally false.

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.

Moreover I thought you believed they linked the GSG and the Dear Boss letter handwriting somehow. I see I may have misunderstood you in some way. Pardon me for that (and don't say, "You're pardoned"), but I was crediting you with some kind of new insight. Serves me right for thinking that.

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.

As for the comment about HMS Pinafore, as it was a well known and popular work, and it's music sung throughout the English speaking world - people would have known of it in 1888. Also Gilbert probably knew the expression "round hand" when he used it. So he probably was using that phrase because his audiences identified it.

By the way. On another thread you mentioned how April 18th was significant. Historically it represents the date of Paul Revere's ride in 1775 and the day of the San Francisco Earthquake/Fire of 1906. What was the reason you found it interesting?

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

Kind regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Let´s start with a question for you - you can enjoy it together with "Mrs Gut" - and while you try to answer it you can read more at the link I give you: [/B]

Are the Gospels primary or secondary sources for the life of Jesus?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...of_the_Gospels

I don't know what point you are trying to make from this Wikipedia article but in case you have been misled by the statement that the Gospels are "the primary sources of historical information about Jesus" this does not mean that the Gospels are a primary source. A secondary source can be the primary source of information about something. For example, your copy of "The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook" by Stewart P. Evans and Keith Skinner, first published in 2000, is clearly your primary source of information about the Whitechapel Murders yet it is a secondary source.

[David Orsam]

Thanks for your reply. But there is a source standing against the Daily Telegraph article and that is the original inquest source.

The deposition of Detective Halse does not "stand against" the Daily Telegraph source Pierre. You are simply showing your ignorance of how depositions were created.

The depositions were written out in longhand by the coroner or his deputy or clerk during the proceedings in real time. If you've ever tried to write in longhand while someone is speaking at normal speed it is a difficult and arduous process. It is evident that while care was taken by the writer of the depositions to try and record everything the witness said when he was giving his evidence "in-chief" - no doubt because the coroner controlled the speed at which he asked questions and at which the answers were given (by asking the witness to slow down if necessary) - there was little or no attempt to record the answers to questions asked by members of the jury because these exchanges would have taken place at normal speaking speed which was simply impossible to record in longhand. We can see that only the key information extracted by those questions has been put into writing.

Therefore your wilful determination to ignore and disregard anything in the newspaper reports of the inquest that does not appear in the deposition of Halse is not only perverse but based on pure ignorance.

[Pierre]

Pierre

please withdraw the personal attack on a family member of GUT, that is outrageous and not acceptable.

steve

First GUT shall withdraw all his outrageous and unacceptable attacks on me. I am truly fed up with them. And how can you let them pass? You see here that GUT is talking directly to me in an offensive and rude way, over and over again, repeatedly, whereas I do not even know if there is a "Mrs Gut" - since obviously, this person, who I do not know anything about, can not be a historian. So does she even exist?

If she does, she should apologize for this:

"Mrs Gut says that if any of the 14 year olds she has taught made such a basic mistake their work would get a big fat F."

written by GUT.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

First GUT shall withdraw all his outrageous and unacceptable attacks on me. I am truly fed up with them. And how can you let them pass? You see here that GUT is talking directly to me in an offensive and rude way, over and over again, repeatedly, whereas I do not even know if there is a "Mrs Gut" - since obviously, this person, who I do not know anything about, can not be a historian. So does she even exist?

If she does, she should apologize for this:

written by GUT.

Regards, Pierre

To attack a family member is not acceptable.

steve

[Pierre]

David

I see your point, yes Halse was there, and we surely must take his view over that of someone who was not and who has you rightly state being from a different force, may not have had a full report anyway.

steve

Halse is in the original inquest source. That is the primary source for Halse.

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

Finally we are talking history here.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

To attack a family member is not acceptable.

steve

To attack me is not acceptable.

[David Orsam]

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

Why do you think newspaper reports of inquest proceedings have "tendencies"? How have you managed to get that idea into your head?

[Elamarna]

Halse is in the original inquest source. That is the primary source for Halse.

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

Finally we are talking history here.

Regards, Pierre

let me confirm, the statement is that court reports are unreliable?
Is there an academic source, preferably more than one to back this assertion?

steve

[Pierre]

let me confirm, the statement is that court reports are unreliable?
Is there an academic source, preferably more than one to back this assertion?

steve

No. The statement is that there are tendencies in the newspaper articles giving descriptions for the GSG and the tendencies go back to the interpretations of the Dear Boss letter:

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”

The other problem you mention is just the old problem with witnesses lying or misremembering. A well researched problem. I have been discussing that before here in the forum.

If you want to read about it you can find the sources.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

No. The statement is that there are tendencies in the newspaper articles giving descriptions for the GSG and the tendencies go back to the interpretations of the Dear Boss letter:

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”

Pierre, we all understand that a similar, but not identical, description was used by some newspapers to describe the Dear Boss letter as Halse used to describe the GSG (and was reported in the newspapers) but why does that mean there is automatically a connection? "Round hand" was, as has already been stated, a common expression to describe handwriting, same for "good hand". Why does the similarity lead to the conclusion that there was a "tendency"?

If all you are saying is that there is a similarity of expression then it is not good historical argument - indeed not a good argument of any type - to say that the newspaper reporters were deliberately fabricating their reports of the inquest proceedings to try and link the Dear Boss letter with the CSG. It is, in fact, a bizarre argument.