Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dew's early years.........

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I have to second what GUT said and ask Pierre not to infect the threads of others with his nonsense.

    For any serious readers, I attach a couple of census examples showing the difficulty of deciphering the name of Finnis Street if you didn't already know what it was. The second isn't even nineteenth century, coming from the 1911 census, and could have been written last week in style but the first is from the 1881 census. They were the first two examples that came up on an Ancestry search of those censuses and I'm sure even better ones could be found.

    I have little doubt that Connell ordered the birth certificate for Walter's son born in October 1887 and it says Dew was living in Finnis Street which he quite understandably misread as "Tinnis Street".
    Attached Files

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
      I have to second what GUT said and ask Pierre not to infect the threads of others with his nonsense.

      For any serious readers, I attach a couple of census examples showing the difficulty of deciphering the name of Finnis Street if you didn't already know what it was. The second isn't even nineteenth century, coming from the 1911 census, and could have been written last week in style but the first is from the 1881 census. They were the first two examples that came up on an Ancestry search of those censuses and I'm sure even better ones could be found.

      I have little doubt that Connell ordered the birth certificate for Walter's son born in October 1887 and it says Dew was living in Finnis Street which he quite understandably misread as "Tinnis Street".
      So now the time has come for you, David, to understand the difficulty of deciphering texts.

      At last you have made a small step forward.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Pierre View Post
        So now the time has come for you, David, to understand the difficulty of deciphering texts.

        At last you have made a small step forward.
        Yes, in respect of letters of the alphabet which look similar to each other such as the "f" and the "t".

        But I already knew it my dear boy because, unlike you, I have practical experience of deciphering 19th century documents.

        Comment


        • #19
          Here's another for dear Pierre
          Attached Files
          G U T

          There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

          Comment


          • #20
            Look closely at the F and the T Pierre and you might just finally understand.
            G U T

            There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

            Comment


            • #21
              I think in fairness a T could very easily be confused for an F, sometimes it's near on impossible to decipher Victorian handwriting. Anyway moving swiftly on. It appears that Finnis Street does in fact still exist, well in name only. It appears to have been heavily redeveloped and sadly 161 no longer exists in any form that Mr DEW would have recognised anyway.

              Comment


              • #23
                Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                Yes, in respect of letters of the alphabet which look similar to each other such as the "f" and the "t".

                But I already knew it my dear boy because, unlike you, I have practical experience of deciphering 19th century documents.
                It is remarkable how childish you are, David.

                Comment


                • #24
                  Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                  It is remarkable how childish you are, David.
                  Says the person who wrote "there is certainly no way anyone can "misread" the letter F written on a piece of normal paper", amongst many other gogmagog-like statements.

                  Comment


                  • #25
                    One of the most pointless debates I've ever read on this site. And there's been a few.

                    David, of course, is correct. It's Finnis Street, Bethnal Green Weirdly Annie Chapman witness, Albert Cadosch also lived on the same street, at No 54.

                    Monty
                    Monty

                    https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

                    Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                    http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                    Comment


                    • #26
                      Originally posted by Pierre View Post

                      MISREAD?

                      HOW can an F suddenly become a T?


                      As you can see, there are two lines on the F pointing to the right side. On the T, there is one and only one line pointing both to the right and to the left.

                      The general agreement, indeed, the Dominating Idea in the World, is that an F is an F and a T is a T.

                      The general agreement no 2, indeed the Dominating Theory and FACT (!) in the World is, as you yourself also well know, that there was and is a Finnis Street in Bethnal Green and NO TINNIS STREET.

                      There is therefore no way anyone can "misread" this.


                      And there is certainly no way anyone can "misread" the letter F written on a piece of normal paper.

                      It was not written in the dark, on a rough surface, and not written with chalk for example - but with a normal pen on a quite normal piece of paper!

                      And as I said, there was the real existing Finnis Street in the real world.

                      Really, David!

                      Pierre
                      This is an extraordinary post from someone who purports to be an historian. Handwritten records from the LVP are notoriously difficult to read and transcription errors are numerous.
                      I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.

                      Comment


                      • #27
                        Originally posted by GUT View Post
                        Just maybe this will assist the great one.
                        Just so. A transcription error easily made.
                        Last edited by Bridewell; 06-06-2017, 02:13 PM.
                        I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.

                        Comment


                        • #28
                          Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
                          This is an extraordinary post from someone who purports to be an historian. Handwritten records from the LVP are notoriously difficult to read and transcription errors are numerous.
                          "Purports" being the operative word.

                          One claimed to be a scientist

                          Then a sociologist

                          Been caught out numerous times not knowing the difference between a primary and secondary source, on a recent thread claims there are "No Facts".

                          Now can't understand how a F and T could be confused.

                          More and more I think he must be very young, just read his description of an F and T clearly never read anything written in script, let alone Victorian script.
                          G U T

                          There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                          Comment


                          • #29
                            Originally posted by GUT View Post
                            More and more I think he must be very young, just read his description of an F and T clearly never read anything written in script, let alone Victorian script.
                            That's my impression also.
                            I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.

                            Comment


                            • #30
                              Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                              But where is the actual evidence that Dew was living in Bethnal Green while he was in X Division? Connell says he moved to Bethnal Green at some point after his marriage in November 1886 but doesn't say when. It may be that he's taken this information from the birth certificate of Walter Dew (born 7 October 1887).

                              And evidently Dew didn't move to Whitechapel after his transfer to H Division because his son's baptism record of 15 January 1888 shows that he was living at 38 Leopold Buildings in Bethnal Green at the time.

                              Without having done any research into the issue myself, can I suggest that Dew probably moved from Paddington to Bethnal Green after his transfer to Whitechapel?

                              I've attached the image with this confirmed

                              Paul
                              Attached Files

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X