Oh, murder!

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;413349]

Oh my dear boy, how charming of you to tell me what I can and cannot write, or what will or will not do. But I'm afraid to tell you, because you are so charming, that any historian worth his or her salt will use the expression "could have", it's perfectly normal, but I fully appreciate that you are not one so have difficulty understanding.

I see that you wrote "And since she did not hear beds or tables being pulled about they would have been pulled about when she was sleeping..."

Is there any material difference between "would have" and "could have"?

Yes. If you respect the physician you get a condition. Given x, they would have...

Put it this way, my dear boy, tell me why the bed and table could not have been pulled around after Prater went back to sleep or after she left for the Ten Bells or after she returned from the Ten Bells and went back to sleep?

Now you present a new expression indicating something impossible = "could not". I rule out a very weak "possibility" and go by the recommendation. Why? The coherence with the sources for rest of the murders. The murders did not take place at 8 in the morning.

[Abby Normal]

The interesting thing here, Abby, is that Pierre based his premise on the word "if". Thus:

"And since she did not hear beds or tables being pulled about they would have been pulled about when she was sleeping, i.e. before the cry of murder, if they were."

Yet whenever I use the word "if" I'm told by him that it's not allowed. It's clearly one rule for these academic non-historians and another rule for the rest of us.

Yes Pierre world ceratinly operates to its own unique laws

[Pierre]

I've tried to extract from Pierre a list of "approved" historians but he wouldn't tell me. One thing he has told us, however, is that Philip Sugden IS a historian.

A quick search of Sugden's book 'The Complete History of Jack the Ripper" reveals the use of the phrase "could have" seventy-two times, some of them in quotations but most of them written by Sudgen himself.

So Pierre must have got it all wrong about how historians write. But it's understandable, with him not being a historian himself.

"Could have" used in this case is an expression allowing for anything. That is the problem.

[Pierre]

Of course, even Philip Sugden wasn't infallible. For instance, he asserted that Dr Phillips believed Chapman and Eddowes were not killed by the same person whilst, in actual fact, the reference he cites reveals that the good doctor was referring to Stride and Eddowes.

No one is infallible.

[Pierre]

The interesting thing here, Abby, is that Pierre based his premise on the word "if". Thus:

"And since she did not hear beds or tables being pulled about they would have been pulled about when she was sleeping, i.e. before the cry of murder, if they were."

Yet whenever I use the word "if" I'm told by him that it's not allowed. It's clearly one rule for these academic non-historians and another rule for the rest of us.

If is allowed when you go by Dew. It is a later source.

And there is no absolute "rule" for "if". But you can not build a case on it.

Pulling about furniture is not something we need to establish as a fact to build a case.

[David Orsam]

Yes. If you respect the physician you get a condition. Given x, they would have...

But my dear boy, it's just another way of writing the exact same thing.

Given that the table and bed were pulled around, they would have been pulled around either before Prater was awakened or after she went back to sleep or after she went to the Ten Bells (at 5.45am) or after she returned.

[John G]

I would think that was a simple typo like mistake. Sugdan is by far the greatest ripper writer and researcher combo IMHO. Not only did he write one of the most accurate, unbiased and concise history but it also included major new insights due to his research, like discovering ostrog was in Paris jail and could finally be taken off the list.

Hi Abby,

The first two JtR books I ever bought were by Sugden and Begg, and I still think they were the best written works on the subject. I also agree with Paul, that everyone makes mistakes, and we need to take this into account when pouncing on every minor error: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...934#post412934

[John G]

No one is infallible.

And, of course, Sugden wasn't a social constructionist.

[Pierre]

But my dear boy, it's just another way of writing the exact same thing.

Given that the table and bed were pulled around, they would have been pulled around either before Prater was awakened or after she went back to sleep or after she went to the Ten Bells (at 5.45am) or after she returned.

No, not the same thing, learn more on the internet if you prefer it on sites like:

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/qa...uld-and-Should

[David Orsam]

The other curious thing about Sugden is that he quotes the same newspaper quote of the Hewitts that I quoted earlier in this thread about cries of murder being frequent in the district, in respect of the Tabram murder, and he (Sugden) says: "The Hewitts' comment suggests a possible solution to the problem." (i.e. the problem of why no-one seemed to hear anything out of ordinary).

But when I posted the exact same quote, Pierre told me: "You have a very serious problem with this source: it is not a statistical study but merely presenting a subjective opinion. Still, you use this article, which has no reliability, claiming that it is".

So we must have proof here that either Sugden isn't a historian, or Pierre isn't. I wonder which one is the truth.

[David Orsam]

No, not the same thing, learn more on the internet if you prefer it on sites like:

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/qa...uld-and-Should

Oh my dear boy, you appear to have posted a false reference. That is a short article discussing the difference between "could", "should" and "would". But it doesn't say anything about "could have" and "would have". Hence it is stated:

"Could is used to say that an action or event is possible. Would is used to talk about a possible or imagined situation, and is often used when that possible situation is not going to happen'"

When you used the expression "would have", you weren't talking about a possible situation that is not going to happen were you?

[David Orsam]

"Could have" used in this case is an expression allowing for anything. That is the problem.

No my dear boy, you have that unaccountably wrong. It's an expression allowing only for what was possible. If you ignore what was possible, then you have a problem.

[Pierre]

Oh my dear boy, you appear to have posted a false reference. That is a short article discussing the difference between "could", "should" and "would". But it doesn't say anything about "could have" and "would have". Hence it is stated:

"Could is used to say that an action or event is possible. Would is used to talk about a possible or imagined situation, and is often used when that possible situation is not going to happen'"

When you used the expression "would have", you weren't talking about a possible situation that is not going to happen were you?

You have posted a false post. Go and read about the difference between would (conditon) and could (possibility) on the internet. You will do that yourself. I have no time discussing the meaningless issue with you.

[Pierre]

No my dear boy, you have that unaccountably wrong. It's an expression allowing only for what was possible. If you ignore what was possible, then you have a problem.

Contradiction, is that all you are capable of? Because you have everything unaccountably wrong. If you ignore that you are wrong you have a problem.

(This is the type of post everyone gets when discussing meaningless issues with David).

[Pierre]

The other curious thing about Sugden is that he quotes the same newspaper quote of the Hewitts that I quoted earlier in this thread about cries of murder being frequent in the district, in respect of the Tabram murder, and he (Sugden) says: "The Hewitts' comment suggests a possible solution to the problem." (i.e. the problem of why no-one seemed to hear anything out of ordinary).

But when I posted the exact same quote, Pierre told me: "You have a very serious problem with this source: it is not a statistical study but merely presenting a subjective opinion. Still, you use this article, which has no reliability, claiming that it is".

So we must have proof here that either Sugden isn't a historian, or Pierre isn't. I wonder which one is the truth.

You have postulated a false dichotomy.