Blurred

[Elamarna]

Pierre

I am sorry what is it you are trying to understand?

Swanson talks of blurred writing, given that we are talking about chalk writing (which easily smudges if rubbed against or wetted) on a brick wall, that sort of writing does blur easily.

Unless one has evidence to suggest otherwise one should assume he means blurred if he says blurred.

Steve

[David Orsam]

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...glish/decipherhttp://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/decipher[/URL]

Hi,

Sure, but I am trying to understand the statement, so I searched British Newspaper Archives for the word "blurred" and got an article about a blurred text and another about a blurred name - and in both these someone was trying to "decipher" some letters. So I searched

blurred decipher

only in 1888 and got some articles about people trying to decipher blurred texts and letters.

So from this empirical pilot we could hypothesize that Swansons statement has to do with a blurred text in Goulston Street and policemen trying to decipher it.

Decipher, meaning:

"to discover the meaning of something written badly or in a difficult or hidden way:
Can you decipher the writing on this envelope?"

(Source: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...glish/decipher)

[B]So perhaps the issue, if we try to understand Swanson, was more complicated than it seems now, i.e. from the sources that are left to us.

Isn't that rather a long-winded way of saying that if something is blurred it might be difficult to read?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Pierre;377934]http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...glish/decipherhttp://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/decipher[/URL]

Hi,

Sure, but I am trying to understand the statement, so I searched British Newspaper Archives for the word "blurred" and got an article about a blurred text and another about a blurred name - and in both these someone was trying to "decipher" some letters. So I searched

blurred decipher

only in 1888 and got some articles about people trying to decipher blurred texts and letters.

So from this empirical pilot we could hypothesize that Swansons statement has to do with a blurred text in Goulston Street and policemen trying to decipher it.

Decipher, meaning:

"to discover the meaning of something written badly or in a difficult or hidden way:
Can you decipher the writing on this envelope?"

(Source: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...glish/decipher)

So perhaps the issue, if we try to understand Swanson, was more complicated than it seems now, i.e. from the sources that are left to us.

Regards, Pierre

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-4hL_T_KgU

[Pierre]

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...glish/decipherhttp://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/decipher[/URL][QUOTE=Elamarna;377927]

Pierre fair question.

For Swanson to have said that obviously there are 2 options:

1. He was mistaken in that statement, could be a simple misinterpretation of a report as with this thread.

2. He either had a different written report to that which is known to exist, or he was informed it was blurred by a verbal communication which is not recorded.

I am not aware of anything specifically he could have been informed of for him to say this.

steve

Hi,

Sure, but I am trying to understand the statement, so I searched British Newspaper Archives for the word "blurred" and got an article about a blurred text and another about a blurred name - and in both these someone was trying to "decipher" some letters. So I searched

blurred decipher

only in 1888 and got some articles about people trying to decipher blurred texts and letters.

So from this empirical pilot we could hypothesize that Swansons statement has to do with a blurred text in Goulston Street and policemen trying to decipher it.

Decipher, meaning:

"to discover the meaning of something written badly or in a difficult or hidden way:
Can you decipher the writing on this envelope?"

(Source: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...glish/decipher)

So perhaps the issue, if we try to understand Swanson, was more complicated than it seems now, i.e. from the sources that are left to us.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

What could Donald Swanson have known about this?

It's hard to say really Pierre. Swanson was a mere Chief Inspector in the Criminal Investigation Department of whom the Commissioner of Police said that he "must be acquainted with every detail" and that "He must have a room to himself, & every paper, every document, every report every telegram must pass through his hands." So it's a bit of a mystery as to what Swanson could possibly have known about the writing on the wall. Do you have any easier questions?

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;377925]

No, you are making the wrong interpretation. My question was:

What could Donald Swanson have known about this?

Does anyone know anything about that question?

Regards, Pierre

Pierre fair question.

For Swanson to have said that obviously there are 2 options:

1. He was mistaken in that statement, could be a simple misinterpretation of a report as with this thread.

2. He either had a different written report to that which is known to exist, or he was informed it was blurred by a verbal communication which is not recorded.

I am not aware of anything specifically he could have been informed of for him to say this.

steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;377798]

Pierre appears to be taking a second hand source, over that of the eyewitnesses, Swanson does not claimed to have seen the writing at anytime does he?

No, you are making the wrong interpretation. My question was:

What could Donald Swanson have known about this?

Does anyone know anything about that question?

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Well it was also raining a bit. That blurs things.

Hi Errata,

that could be but i was under the impression that the writing would have been mainly protected from the rain.
however again it does suggest that the writing was not fresh.

Steve

[Errata]

Well it was also raining a bit. That blurs things.

[Geddy2112]

Check out post #2. Might contain a clue.

Welllll I did not really want to elaborate on the hunch that one person thought it said 'judges.' Might have been so blurry it said 'jumble.'

[Elamarna]

Once Pierre has performed some internal and external source criticism, analysed all the sources systematically and explained what perspectives, classifications and operationalisations of concepts from the sources he is using for his analysis then we may start to see things very differently Steve.

He may try.
However its written in chalk, the witness's said in good schoolboy, so the style was clear.
If it is blurred, it is because it has been rubbed against or smudged. then it is not fresh, but old writing.

[David Orsam]

David,

If Pierre is about to suggest that being blurred the writing could be misunderstood by the witness's. the following must be answered first:

If it was blurred, does that not suggest that it was not fresh?

If it was blurred one reason would be it had been rubbed against by passers by.

If it had been rubbed by passers by this surely must have happened when the street was busy, then the writing almost certainly has no bearing at all on the murders as many have long argued.


However being blurred seems to go against the evidence of those who reported seeing it.
Pierre appears to be taking a second hand source, over that of the eyewitnesses, Swanson does not claimed to have seen the writing at anytime does he?

Once Pierre has performed some internal and external source criticism, analysed all the sources systematically and explained what perspectives, classifications and operationalisations of concepts from the sources he is using for his analysis then we may start to see things very differently Steve.

[Elamarna]

Check out post #2. Might contain a clue.

David,

If Pierre is about to suggest that being blurred the writing could be misunderstood by the witness's. the following must be answered first:

If it was blurred, does that not suggest that it was not fresh?

If it was blurred one reason would be it had been rubbed against by passers by.

If it had been rubbed by passers by this surely must have happened when the street was busy, then the writing almost certainly has no bearing at all on the murders as many have long argued.


However being blurred seems to go against the evidence of those who reported seeing it.
Pierre appears to be taking a second hand source, over that of the eyewitnesses, Swanson does not claimed to have seen the writing at anytime does he?


Steve

[Abby Normal]

No, I deliberately said "a reference to Jews" because not everyone read it as "Juwes".

got it-sorry

[David Orsam]

don't you mean to say the word judges was mistakenly read as juwes?

No, I deliberately said "a reference to Jews" because not everyone read it as "Juwes".