Blurred

[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

[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,

Don´t 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 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”

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]

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

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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."

[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

[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]

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

[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, )

[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

[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]

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