Blurred

[curious]

I have placed these four statements together, given that they are linked.

It is clear that there is no reliable academic research on the reliability of newspaper Court Reports in the 19th century, or at least none which are known.

If one is asked for data to support an hypothesis one puts forward, and such data is not available, it is normal and polite to say there is none; not to tell someone to go look for it themselves!

However the post claims this hypothesis is based on a pilot study, therefore it would be normal to supply this in place of the data requested above.
If this is in the form of a post already on the boards, and it is highly debatable that any post on this thread contains enough to be termed a pilot study, then it would be polite to point one towards it, even if it is inadequate.


Let us be clear, the post states the opinion that these reports are unreliable, they have a tendency, a bias.

However Pierre, this opinion is based on your own pilot study.

Anyone can say, I have done a study and that study shows that......

That is JUST the opinion of one individual, it is not an established fact, nor has it, far more importantly, been academically tested by peer review.

An opinion. nothing more, nothing less!

regards

Steve

Thank you, Steve. You said it far better than I would have, but those outrageous statements definitely needed to be addressed.

I log on only occasionally anymore, and I am stunned to find people continuing to dance to this particular fiddle. I can't understand the complete waste of time.

Again, thanks, Steve.

[GUT]

Thank you, Steve. You said it far better than I would have, but those outrageous statements definitely needed to be addressed.

I log on only occasionally anymore, and I am stunned to find people continuing to dance to this particular fiddle. I can't understand the complete waste of time.

Again, thanks, Steve.

I think that many just object to all the wrong statements made by a certain great historian.

[curious]

I think that many just object to all the wrong statements made by a certain great historian.

Thanks. Helps me to understand some as I realize that people do have different reactions and a different way of looking at things.

[DJA]

We have still not had an explanation for the suggestion the the GSG was written by a left hand.

Jack used to lecture and write on his green boards with his left hand in his trousers.

Have a few other instances that indicates he was born left handed.

Pretty sure he was ambidextrous.

He also used his sense of touch in regards to his patients ill health by actually feeling for the diseased organ.

Those patients included Nichols and Conway/Eddowes.

Anyone considered a link between Eddowes' son and her leaving her defacto at Houndsditch at 2pm on the last day of her life?

[GUT]

Thanks. Helps me to understand some as I realize that people do have different reactions and a different way of looking at things.

Some, I think, are also concerned that, if left unchallenged, in future newbies will read his rubbish and think it's true.

Yet others I suspect simply enjoy the argument.

[DJA]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNkjDuSVXiE

[drstrange169]

Thank you, David and Simon, that's very useful information.

[Mayerling]

I will have to consider your response Pierre.

Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Jack used to lecture and write on his green boards with his left hand in his trousers.

Have a few other instances that indicates he was born left handed.

Pretty sure he was ambidextrous.

He also used his sense of touch in regards to his patients ill health by actually feeling for the diseased organ.

Those patients included Nichols and Conway/Eddowes.

Anyone considered a link between Eddowes' son and her leaving her defacto at Houndsditch at 2pm on the last day of her life?

Who is your suspect/theory?

[Azarna]

Therefore, it was with high probability not written in a good round hand but As Swanson said, in a normal hand.

Regards, Pierre

A "good round hand" was a "normal hand".

[DJA]

Who is your suspect/theory?

Anyone heard of The Rose and Crown Coffee House at 38 Houndsditch!

[jerryd]

Anyone heard of The Rose and Crown Coffee House at 38 Houndsditch!

Sure have. Was used by the police to sequester witnesses. i.e Algernon Allies in the Cleveland Street Scandal case. Held there by Abberline.

Also, A good possibility to a link with Thomas Conway junior that you asked about before.

By the way, Charles Hammond is a shoe in for A-man. Same dark moustache turned up at the ends, dark skin, flashy dress[just like the pimp he was], gold watch chain and a seal from Major Moet.[Thanks to Glenn Chandler for the seal info in his book, The Sins of Jack Saul] The horseshoe pin probably came from the Equerry to the Prince of Wales, Lord Somerset, to keep quiet about his [Somerset] affair with Allies.

[DJA]

Sailorman George Hutchinson had an unexplained child living with him at one stage.

The child's parents resided in Primrose Street,an extension of Hanbury Street and Spital Square.

[Elamarna]

Thank you, Steve. You said it far better than I would have, but those outrageous statements definitely needed to be addressed.

I log on only occasionally anymore, and I am stunned to find people continuing to dance to this particular fiddle. I can't understand the complete waste of time.

Again, thanks, Steve.

Hi Curious,

yes I don't mind anyone having any ideas, that’s what makes this so interesting, however that seems to be something that some object to, and have stated that they wish to destroy the world of "Ripperology".

That is my destiny, David, since everyone is afraid of what they might hear in the future.

So everything I say must be disputed from the beginning.

Otherwise the small field of ripperology may be destroyed.

Regards, Pierre

Such an attitude shows:

1. A complete and fundamental misunderstanding of "Ripperology". Much of the research carried out here and at other sites is not directly related to the identity of the killer, or as some say killers. Naming the killer would not stop that.

2. The arrogance of such a statement, that naming a suspect, could prove beyond doubt the id, and that it would just be accepted, and that would lead to the end of "Ripperology", is unreal!

Some, I think, are also concerned that, if left unchallenged, in future newbies will read his rubbish and think it's true.

Yet others I suspect simply enjoy the argument.

Hi GUT that’s the point that those who make comments about people dancing to the tune of one person, miss completely.

The various statements made without naming a suspect and posts which tell the community how they MUST think, and what is ACCEPTABLE to ask as a question must be challenged.

Regards

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;378687][QUOTE]

Post 130 you said

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

The articles being discussed were the reports in the newspapers about the evidence given at the inquest about the GSG, those are referred to in press terms as Court Reports.

And in historical terms they are referred to as historical sources.

Yes Court Reports are different from other newspaper reports in that they reflect what was said, and do not give an opinion.

No. They are not different from other newspaper ARTICLES. They can contain bias just like any other source. Do not use the word "report". It is not a matter of "objective" and "neutral" reporting. It is a matter of written articles.

It is clear that there is no reliable academic research on the reliability of newspaper Court Reports in the 19th century, or at least none which are known.

So you have arrived at the same conclusion as I.

If one is asked for data to support an hypothesis one puts forward, and such data is not available, it is normal and polite to say there is none; not to tell someone to go look for it themselves!

There is DATA, Steve. In my pilot. How come you can not understand this? Do you understand the difference between data, analysis and interpretation? Do you understand what I have done?

However the post claims this hypothesis is based on a pilot study, therefore it would be normal to supply this in place of the data requested above.

But you see, the data is in the study. What you are asking for is other research, the same research that you just told me (after I did the same) was non existent.

If this is in the form of a post already on the boards, and it is highly debatable that any post on this thread contains enough to be termed a pilot study, then it would be polite to point one towards it, even if it is inadequate.

If you want to discard everything I write here I will not be able to answer your posts anymore, since they will be biased by you wish to discard everything I write. If you want to discuss with me, at least you should be honest in your comments.

Let us be clear, the post states the opinion that these reports are unreliable, they have a tendency, a bias.

Not "reports" but newspaper articles.

They are used here as a symbolic capital by ripperologists and therefore not subjected to the proper source criticism.

Instead there is an illusion among ripperologists that there are certain sources that are "neutral" and "objective".

They are not per definition a class of neutral and objective sources - they are, like any other sources, subjects for source criticism.

IF you do not perform source criticism you can NOT trust the sources, and then you can NOT generate knowledge about the past.

However Pierre, this opinion is based on your own pilot study.

It is not an "opinion" but a scientific fact well known in the world among historians and social scientists that sources have bias. That is just plain common knowledge and there is NOTHING radical about it.

Just because ripperologists love their newspaper article "reports" does not mean they are free from bias, error and problems.

Anyone can say, I have done a study and that study shows that......

What sort of a commentary is that? Now you are outside of reality. I am a historian. So I am not "anyone" but I specialize in source criticism.

That is JUST the opinion of one individual, it is not an established fact, nor has it, far more importantly, been academically tested by peer review.

An opinion. nothing more, nothing less!

regards

Steve

OK Steve, so you are behaving like a "postmodernist". "That is just an opinion". I could say the same to you: That is just your opinion. And then we have total relativism and circular arguments.

And all of this just because you do not want me to touch your precious "Reports" with a capital R and show you that they are biased.

Great!

And another thing. 128 years of knowledge of English did not lead to finding the ripper.

Regards, Pierre