Blurred

[David Orsam]

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

This is an excellent question which I see Pierre has answered in the negative. So it's just his own personal and idiosyncratic opinion. No academic source for it at all he tells us!

In the absence of such a source, perhaps he can provide us with a list of books or articles by academic historians, of whom he approves, writing about nineteenth century British history so that we can see how they deal with newspaper sources.

[GUT]

[QUOTE=Pierre;378497]

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.

Letīs 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



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

Unfortunately Pierre displays his total ignorance yet again.

Even quotes Wikipedia a source no self respecting historian would rely on for anything.

Now are the gospels primary sources or not is a question open to debate no doubt.

Is a newspaper article about Jack the Ripper that was published in 1888 a primary source or not is a question beyond debate.

But Pierre is unable to grasp the basic difference.

[Mayerling]

[QUOTE=Pierre;378502][QUOTE=Mayerling;378491]

Hi Jeff,

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.

Kind regards, Pierre

No, I saw what appeared to be a joint effort by journalists from your comment, and I chose to call it a cabal or group. But it was simply a matter of just choosing some term to (in my way of interpreting your comment) simplified matters.

Jeff

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=GUT;378518][QUOTE=Pierre;378497]

Unfortunately Pierre displays his total ignorance yet again.

You are in no position to state that.

Even quotes Wikipedia a source no self respecting historian would rely on for anything.

That source is sufficient for you.

Now are the gospels primary sources or not is a question open to debate no doubt.

Which we use source criticism for. Good for you that you understood this. A step forward for you.

Is a newspaper article about Jack the Ripper that was published in 1888 a primary source or not is a question beyond debate.

The same applies. Systematic tools used for all times and all sources. Source critical tools.

But Pierre is unable to grasp the basic difference.

That is a lie and an attack. Stop lying about me and stop attacking me at once.

[GUT]

Pierre

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

steve

Steve

Thank you.

But I can assure you Mrs (more correctly Dr Gut) couldn't care less what a pretend historian like Pierre says about her, she teaches both at school and university I can assure you students she gives Fs to say worse about her all the time.

Fortunately she actually knows what she is talking about when it comes to matters like historical sources and source criticism and unlike Pierre had been published in her field, and unlike Pierre some of her peer reviewed work is, or has been, required reading at Universities around the world, not bad for a girl from a small country town that left high school at age 15.

[Elamarna]

Pierre

Confused:

post 130

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

However when asked about this statement in post 133


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


The reply came in post 134 with the following 2 statements

"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: "

and

"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."


The first statement from post 134 would suggest that post 130 did not mean :

The articles are not reliable.

even if it did state that.


The 2nd statement at the bottom of the post 134 Starts with:

"The other problem you mention "

However only one question was asked in post 133.

This suggests that the first statement from post 134 did not rule out that the statement from post 130 re the reliability of the Court Reports.

There is also a suggestion that if I wish to investigate this, then I should go and look for the sources myself!

Of course post 133 had asked for such sources to be provided to back up the statement in post 130.

This response is what is now expected.

so again:

Is there an academic source, preferably more than one to back up the assertion that court reports from 1888 are intrinsically unreliable?

steve

[GUT]

[QUOTE=Pierre;378520][QUOTE=GUT;378518]

You are in no position to state that.



That source is sufficient for you.



Which we use source criticism for. Good for you that you understood this. A step forward for you.



The same applies. Systematic tools used for all times and all sources. Source critical tools.



That is a lie and an attack. Stop lying about me and stop attacking me at once.

How's it an attack to state a simple fact, please define a primary source oh great historian.

[Mayerling]

[QUOTE=Pierre;378502][QUOTE=Mayerling;378491]

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.

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.

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.

[Mayerling]

[QUOTE=Pierre;378502][QUOTE=Mayerling;378491]

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

It was on a thread regarding Annie Chapman.

Jeff

[David Orsam]

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.

The journalists of whom Pierre speaks weren't "discussing the Grafitti incident" Jeff, nor did they write any "articles" as such. They were doing no more than reporting what Halse said in the witness box about the Grafitti, using Halse's words not theirs.

[Mayerling]

The journalists of whom Pierre speaks weren't "discussing the Grafitti incident" Jeff, nor did they write any "articles" as such. They were doing no more than reporting what Halse said in the witness box about the Grafitti, using Halse's words not theirs.

Thanks David. It was just the original source I read on this thread confused me. And you know, we have to rely ln those original or primary sources, no matter how bollixed up they can be.

Best wishes,

Jeff

[Mayerling]

G'Day GUT,

Just noticed from Wikipedia today. Happy Anzac Day to you and the missus.

Jeff

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Never mind the newspapers. When it comes to describing the GSG, we cannot even trust three eye-witness policemen.

Why is DC Halse's 11th October testimony as to the nature and style of the GSG ["The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing," written on three lines], at odds with PC Long's 11th October testimony ["The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing] and his 6th November rendition ["The Jewes, are the men that will not be blamed for nothing," written on two lines], and Sir Charles Warren's 6th November rendition ["The Juwes are The men that Will not be Blamed for nothing," written on five lines]?

Their written descriptions of the GSG have survived, and each may be classified as an original/primary source.

Regards,

Simon

[GUT]

G'Day GUT,

Just noticed from Wikipedia today. Happy Anzac Day to you and the missus.

Jeff

Thanks Jeff

Actually it's over 26th here now.

ANZAC day is a special day here.

Spent much of it travelling though, daughter had her latest graduation, in Armidale about 300 miles up the road.

[GUT]

Hi All,

Never mind the newspapers. When it comes to describing the GSG, we cannot even trust three eye-witness policemen.

Why is DC Halse's 11th October testimony as to the nature and style of the GSG ["The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing," written on three lines], at odds with PC Long's 11th October testimony ["The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing] and his 6th November rendition ["The Jewes, are the men that will not be blamed for nothing," written on two lines], and Sir Charles Warren's 6th November rendition ["The Juwes are The men that Will not be Blamed for nothing," written on five lines]?

Their written descriptions of the GSG have survived, and each may be classified as an original/primary source.

Regards,

Simon

Yep all primary sources.

The question is though we're they trying to lay it out as it had been on the wall?

Some have even gone so far as to say they were trying to copy the writing style.