Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[John G]

But "freemasonary" is a large instituional organisation!

This is not about such an organisation, it is a particular, idiographic history, it is about biography and not about organisations.

Do organisations have preferred victimologies?

I'm guessing this means you're also rejecting the freemasonary hypothesis!

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;394845]

Why do you say he cared one way or another as to whether the writing was blurred? As it could clearly be understood he had achieved his objective.

Everything you call "clearly understood" here is a set of mistakes made by everyone who tried to understand the GSG and were not recipients.

The communication could be understood exclusively by one specific recipient.

[David Orsam]

There were other types of surfaces. There were not just walls with rough surfaces or "no blackboards". And there was another alternative: to abstain from writing on any surface.

Yes, he certainly could have abstained from writing anything but that's not the issue because he obviously wanted to write something and the only available surfaces were not blackboards.

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;394857]

Everything you call "clearly understood" here is a set of mistakes made by everyone who tried to understand the GSG and were not recipients.

The communication could be understood exclusively by one specific recipient.

In your opinion.

[Pierre]

I'm guessing this means you're also rejecting the freemasonary hypothesis!

Of course. There are many sources, all of them pointing in a very different direction.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;394859]

In your opinion.

It can´t be just an opinion. I wish it was.

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;394857]

Everything you call "clearly understood" here is a set of mistakes made by everyone who tried to understand the GSG and were not recipients.

The communication could be understood exclusively by one specific recipient.

By "clearly understood" I'm not referring to the meaning. I simply mean the words could be clearly read, so the choice of wall served its functional purpose.

[David Orsam]

NO. Roughness has a scale. It is not rough or not rough. Look at the Artisan dwellings writing for instance.

I'm not saying there aren't degrees of roughness.

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;394861]

It can´t be just an opinion. I wish it was.

So who else shares the same opinion?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;394854]

But firstly, as I've suggested, he wouldn't have cared if the writing was a bit blurred or not (especially as it was inevitable it would be).

What you postulate is a careless killer.

No. That is not what we see here. Working in detail on the victims, on the eylids of Eddowes for instance, and then being careless. That is not a good hypothesis.

Secondly, I'm suggesting that all walls would have created a blurring effect because the only suitable surface for chalk is a smooth surface like a blackboard and there weren't many of those around that night in Whitechapel.

"All" walls, for which you have no data. And note that I am talking about surfaces. The Artisan dwellings writing was not blurred at all.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;394862]

By "clearly understood" I'm not referring to the meaning. I simply mean the words could be clearly read, so the choice of wall served its functional purpose.

How is Juwes/Juews/Jews "clearly read"?

And that is the only key word.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;394864]

So who else shares the same opinion?

Why should that mean anything to me?

[Pierre]

I'm not saying there aren't degrees of roughness.

And therfore also very low degrees and no roughness.

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;394865]

What you postulate is a careless killer.

No. That is not what we see here. Working in detail on the victims, on the eylids of Eddowes for instance, and then being careless. That is not a good hypothesis.



"All" walls, for which you have no data. And note that I am talking about surfaces. The Artisan dwellings writing was not blurred at all.

Why would he be careless? The writing, if not the meaning of the writing, could be clearly understood. The wall's purpose was merely functional, and it served its function.

Quot erat demonstrandum.

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;394867]

Why should that mean anything to me?

Sorry, I misunderstood your post...I'm also feeling tired! I should have said you have provided no scientific proof to support your assertion...In fact, you haven't even presented a hypothesis. It therefore remains your opinion.