Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[David Orsam]

But Wescott is a surname someone identifiable. Jews are an ethnic group !

What difference does that make? It could be a widget or a vegetable or a fruit. It's about spelling.

[David Orsam]

It has been established what the spelling was, JUWES. So why continue to argue the issue. The only issue is whether it was supposed to refer to the Jews, or the writer wanted to include a word, which he was not sure how to spell and wrote it as it perhaps it sounded to him. Whats so difficult to comprehend that?

I do comprehend that Trevor but you are trying to argue that the word "Juwes" can't mean "Jews" because no-one in Whitechapel who could correctly spell the words "men", "nothing", "are", "the" "not, "who", "blamed", "be" and "will" could possibly spell the word "Jews" wrongly. That is the argument I am challenging.

[John G]

Always a good strategy to blame someone else Simon. We are, perhaps, starting to see how Long could have got confused under questioning by the City Solicitor.

To answer your question. It would have been a little strange if Long had reported on 6th November what he had written in his notebook on 30th September because he had admitted under oath on 11 October that the word "Jews" may in fact have been "Juwes" and, further, that his inspector told him (after he had written "Jews" in his notebook) that it was "Juwes".

As for the apparent discrepancy in his report between "Juewes" and "Juwes", while I appreciate that the word in Long's report has been transcribed in the Ultimate JTR Sourcebook as "Juewes", I would respectfully disagree with this transcription. I think it is "Juwes". For that reason I hope you don't mind me posting an extract from Long's report which you posted a while back in the forum to demonstrate this.

Frankly, the operative word from this transcript is so obscure it could mean any number of things.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

And I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of PC Long's 6th November spelling.

Extract from PC Long's 6th November report—



Regards,

Simon

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;395057]

Well Trevor if you are going to repeat almost word for word a post you made four months ago, I'm going to repeat my response.

The fact that Jews, in your view, and without any evidence, "was probably the most common known and identifiable word" in a local area does not mean that everyone in the country, or even in that area, could spell it correctly.

But almost everyone who saw the GSG and read about it in the papers was able to interpret it as having something to do with Jews, since it was a graffito from that area and since that is what they did.

That interpretation of the relation, based on A) the combination of the letters "Juwes" and B) a local area where Jews lived and worked, created a spurious relation who lasted like a curse for 128 years.

And there is a difference, isn't there, in a name being commonly known and it being commonly known in written form? Jose Mourinho is perhaps the most famous football manager in this country but loads of football fans can't spell his surname properly. That's even with it being in all the newspapers all the time. If you don't know how to spell a word you just don't know. The spelling might have derived from "Judas". Also, think of the word "true". It rhymes with "Jew" but is spelt very differently. If you are trying to work out a spelling of "Jew" based on how similar words or names in the English language such as "Judas" and "true" are spelt it can be very confusing.

You can not defend the spurious relation with discussions about fotball players or phonetic ideas from 2016.

As you are no doubt aware, the spelling of "Jews" as "Jewes" was common in the seventeenth century and one can find it spelt that way even in the nineteenth century.

Do not try to fool people, David.

1) The spelling in the GSG was not "Jewes" but Juwes according to the most reliable source.
2) 1888 was not the 17th Century.
3) And Jewes was not the most common spelling in 1888 for Jews.

See my sub-article "Reading the Writing on the Wall" in http://www.orsam.co.uk/somethoughts.htm. It only needed (for example) someone to believe that the word "Jew" (or "Jewe"), which they were familiar with in spoken form, was derived from "Judas" (or vice versa) to think that the correct spelling was "Juwe".

I would never see you sub-article since you are wrong and, more important, since you are not able to use historical methods, although you (wrongly) use historical material!

If we followed the logic of your argument to its extreme conclusion we might say that it would be impossible for a well-known Ripperologist to be unable to correctly spell the surname of another well known Ripperologist.

Another failure from the school teacher. "The Wrong Group Comparison Problem". Ripperologists in our time are not people in 1888.

Yet in a post on this forum on 17 June 2010 you spelt the surname of Tom Wescott first as "Westcot" then, in the same post, as "Westcott", and in your book, 'Jack the Ripper – The Secret Police Files', you also spelt it as "Westcott". Unless you were talking of a different person than Tom Wescott how is such a thing possible?

Another failure: "The No Valid Deduction Problem". You are deducing from the GROUP of ripperologists in 2016, drawing out one person and pointing out his "fault" to support your own hypothesis about people in 1888.

You might also have missed me pointing out single spelling mistakes in a couple of otherwise perfectly spelt postings in this very forum.

In one, the poster, despite spelling a number of long words correctly, spelt "diseases" as "deceases". In another perfectly spelt post the same person also typed "knew" instead of "new". A different poster, in an otherwise perfectly spelt post, wrote "proberbly" for probably.

The well known "Wrong Data Problem". A forum in 2016 is compared to a wall in Goulston Street in 1888!

And "The Wrong Group Problem" again. Posters in a forum 2016 are compared to people in London in 1888.

Indeed, as everyone can see here, David is jumping without any critical thinking and without any historical methods between times, groups and individuals - desperately trying to keep up the belief in the spurious relation from 1888!

All of those words were commonly known words but, for various reasons, people who can spell most words correctly can spell simple words wrongly at times. I could continue pointing such errors out on this forum but it would be rather tiresome and annoying for all concerned.

And I can continue pointing out your errors - which you try and use on Trevor, a man who is capable of critical thinking - on this forum but it might be too tiresome and annoying for you, David.

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;395117]

But almost everyone who saw the GSG and read about it in the papers was able to interpret it as having something to do with Jews, since it was a graffito from that area and since that is what they did.

That interpretation of the relation, based on A) the combination of the letters "Juwes" and B) a local area where Jews lived and worked, created a spurious relation who lasted like a curse for 128 years.



You can not defend the spurious relation with discussions about fotball players or phonetic ideas from 2016.



Do not try to fool people, David.

1) The spelling in the GSG was not "Jewes" but Juwes according to the most reliable source.
2) 1888 was not the 17th Century.
3) And Jewes was not the most common spelling in 1888 for Jews.



I would never see you sub-article since you are wrong and, more important, since you are not able to use historical methods, although you (wrongly) use historical material!



Another failure from the school teacher. "The Wrong Group Comparison Problem". Ripperologists in our time are not people in 1888.



Another failure: "The No Valid Deduction Problem". You are deducing from the GROUP of ripperologists in 2016, drawing out one person and pointing out his "fault" to support your own hypothesis about people in 1888.



The well known "Wrong Data Problem". A forum in 2016 is compared to a wall in Goulston Street in 1888!

And "The Wrong Group Problem" again. Posters in a forum 2016 are compared to people in London in 1888.

Indeed, as everyone can see here, David is jumping without any critical thinking and without any historical methods between times, groups and individuals - desperately trying to keep up the belief in the spurious relation from 1888!



And I can continue pointing out your errors - which you try and use on Trevor, a man who is capable of critical thinking - on this forum but it might be too tiresome and annoying for you, David.

On what basis do you state "the most reliable source"? This is just your subjective opinion, therefore not scientific.

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

And I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of PC Long's 6th November spelling.

Extract from PC Long's 6th November report—

Well, Simon, that "Extract from PC Long's 6th November report" is clearly different from "PC Long's rendition from his 6th November report" which you posted in the "An Experiment" thread at post #836 on 12 June 2016 (and which I reproduced above).

Can you explain why they are different? Which one is correct and where did the other one come from?

[John G]

Hi David,

And I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of PC Long's 6th November spelling.

Extract from PC Long's 6th November report—

[ATTACH]17786[/ATTACH]

Regards,

Simon

Well that's well and truly put the cat among the pigeons! So much for certainty on this issue.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;395118]

On what basis do you state "the most reliable source"? This is just your subjective opinion, therefore not scientific.

On the original inquest source:

Alfred Long is uncertain two times.

Daniel Halse is certain one time.

[David Orsam]

1) The spelling in the GSG was not "Jewes" but Juwes according to the most reliable source.
2) 1888 was not the 17th Century.
3) And Jewes was not the most common spelling in 1888 for Jews.

As usual, Pierre, you misunderstand the point. I was trying to explain why the CSG author might have had trouble spelling "Jews". The point about the old spelling is that it ended "wes". If he thought that "Jews" was derived from, or connected to, the name "Judas", he might have combined concept of "Judas" with the old spelling of "Jewes" to come up with "Juwes".

As for the rest of your comments, I appreciate that evolution is a compelling theory but I think you will find that it's a very slow process and that the human brain works in very much the same way in 2106 as it did in 1888. Therefore it is perfectly valid to draw comparisons between the way people spell in 2016 as in 1888.

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;395121]

On the original inquest source:

Alfred Long is uncertain two times.

Daniel Halse is certain one time.

How on earth can you reduce this issue to a mere numerical exercise? Detective Halse could have been certain a hundred times, it doesn't increase the probability that he was right or wrong.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Here is PC Long's 6th November 1888 report.



Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Here is PC Long's 6th November 1888 report.

Simon, would you mind responding to my post #682 and answering the questions therein.

[PaulB]

I know that based on what we do know his evidence cannot be totally relied on.

And does anybody know the truth behind Pc Long and his movements and actions that night? He also mentions another PC 190 I believe, but no mention of where he came from or what he did other than stand guard after Long left for the police station with his found rag.

And yet again, you avoid answering a direct question.

You see, you claimed that PC Long would have made a more thorough investigation of the properties on his beat at 2:55am because by that time he knew a murder had been committed. In reality PC did not know that a murder had been committed at 2:55am, so your claim is flat out wrong isn't it? As you do so often, you are making assumption based on your ignorance of the facts. Or do you have evidence that PC Long knew a murder had been committed? If so, fancy sharing it with group?

You do realise that nobody's word can 'be totally relied on'? Just because someone could have lied or been mistaken does not mean that they were, and it is not accepted practice to doubt someone's word unless you have good reasons for doing so. So, if you want to shed doubt of PC Long's account of his actions that night, what are your good reasons for doing so?

As for PC 109, we know where he came from and we know who he was. He was not called to give evidence at the inquest because he had no evidence to give. If he submitted a report on his actions, it has not survived.

It looks lke you know very little about what happened that night, Trevor, and that if we were to follow your line of reasoning that what they say can be therefore nothing, absolutely nothing, can be treated as absolute fact.

Should you be commenting on something you clearly know nothing about.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;395122]

As usual, Pierre, you misunderstand the point. I was trying to explain why the CSG author might have had trouble spelling "Jews".

As usual, David,you misunderstand the point. I explained to you that you are fixated on a spurious relation from 1888. You can not understand the concept of the author not trying to spell "Jews".

The point about the old spelling is that it ended "wes". If he thought that "Jews" was derived from, or connected to, the name "Judas",

"If he thought...?". Give me a break, David.

he might have combined concept of "Judas" with the old spelling of "Jewes" to come up with "Juwes".

"Might have"? You are getting worse and worse.

As for the rest of your comments, I appreciate that evolution is a compelling theory but I think you will find that it's a very slow process and that the human brain works in very much the same way in 2106 as it did in 1888. Therefore it is perfectly valid to draw comparisons between the way people spell in 2016 as in 1888.

This is truly embarrassing. You are now so desperate as to to deduce from the concept of "evolution". Really, David!