Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Torso Killings: torso maps - by Abby Normal 2 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by packers stem 10 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 35 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by packers stem 42 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 46 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 51 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (42 posts)
Torso Killings: torso maps - (17 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: If Mrs. Maxwell Didn't See Mary Who Did She See? - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Witnesses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 06-19-2018, 01:20 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,217
Default

A follow up to the last report is that the Times report mentioned by Joshua is very detailed and is probably correct, what can confuse however is the graphic from the Lechmere TV documentary which has Thain walking a very short beat, in a counter clockwise direction.

Agsin Thanks for quoting the Times Joshua


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-24-2018, 08:11 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,217
Default

I notice there has been no attempt to explain the factually untruths in post #6.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-24-2018, 08:28 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,176
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
I notice there has been no attempt to explain the factually untruths in post #6.


Steve
Still linguistically lacking, but the essence of matters is that I think that the Echo did not leave things out - I think the other papers did. And are they not very much alike - as if a singe source was quoted in all cases?

Regardless of that, I donīt think we will soleve the case on numerical grounds. As in "more papers have it A than B, so A is more likely to be true".

Such things do not depend on numbers only, at least not in my world.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-24-2018, 08:40 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Still linguistically lacking, but the essence of matters is that I think that the Echo did not leave things out - I think the other papers did. And are they not very much alike - as if a singe source was quoted in all cases?

Regardless of that, I donīt think we will soleve the case on numerical grounds. As in "more papers have it A than B, so A is more likely to be true".

Such things do not depend on numbers only, at least not in my world.


Avoiding addressing the issue. And a pathetic attempt to divert by attacking my use of language.

The Echo did not include the full account, and it did not, no mention of the assisting put the body onto the ambulance. Not interpretation just facts.

Please read post's 7, 8 and 9.

You claim two papers mention the bleeding description from Mizen, they do not.

You include such in your post several times.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-24-2018, 10:28 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,176
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Avoiding addressing the issue. And a pathetic attempt to divert by attacking my use of language.

The Echo did not include the full account, and it did not, no mention of the assisting put the body onto the ambulance. Not interpretation just facts.

Please read post's 7, 8 and 9.

You claim two papers mention the bleeding description from Mizen, they do not.

You include such in your post several times.


Steve
First: I am not attacking your language. I sometimes have problems understanding what you write, and I need help to have it clarified. You seem to have difficulties with it at times, and I recognize that it is a common thing. To hold it against somebody is low and despicable.

There, that should settle the issue.

Now, as for the Echo, they certainy add things that other papers do not. If anything, the Echo is more full, not less.

I donīt know where you think I am saying that two papers mention Mizen speaking of Nichols bleeding, and you are welcoime to point it out.

I do not include "such" in my posts several times at all. That is nonsense.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-24-2018, 11:24 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
First: I am not attacking your language. I sometimes have problems understanding what you write, and I need help to have it clarified. You seem to have difficulties with it at times, and I recognize that it is a common thing. To hold it against somebody is low and despicable.

There, that should settle the issue.

It is you who continually raises the issue of language,

I posted :

"I notice there has been no attempt to explain the factually untruths in post #6."

That is extremely clear, yet you respond with :

"Still linguistically lacking, "

How you can say that is not attacking is somewhat disingenuous.


Now, as for the Echo, they certainy add things that other papers do not. If anything, the Echo is more full, not less.


You in post #6 used what you called "layers" to present your case:


There are a number of layers involved:

1. Mizen goes to Bucks Row.
2. Mizen sees that there is blood flowing, appearing fresh.
3. Mizen is sent for an ambulance.
4. Mizen returns with the ambulance and helps placing the corpse on it
.



The Echo clearly does not include 4.
The Morning Advertiser, Star, Daily Post and the Evening Standard do.

Those 4 include all 4 elements or "layers".

The Echo with only 3 "layers" can therefore in no reasonable way be said to contain more information than the others.



I donīt know where you think I am saying that two papers mention Mizen speaking of Nichols bleeding, and you are welcoime to point it out.


What a shame you have not bothered to reread what you posted in post #6.

Firstly comments on the Daily News:


"If we look at the Daily News, they have the same backtracking as the Echo, but with no explanation:

"The witness went to Buck's row, where Police constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body. On returning with the ambulance he helped to put the deceased upon it."""



You are implying this agrees with the Echo about when a question is asked or a comment is made.
The quote you provide however does not provide that information.


"The Daily Telegraph reports like this:

"When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body., thus making things a bit easier to understand, but leaving out the passage of lifting Nichols onto the stretcher, and omitting to clarify the coroners role"".


However again there is no comment here about the bleeding.

Post #6 then goes on to say

"The Daily News has it 1-3-2-4.

The Daily Telegraph has it 1-3-2."


There are the two examples.

However lets us look at the full quotes to see if anything has been missed:

Daily News.



Police constable Mizen said that about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the corner of Hanbury street and Baker's row, when a carman passing by in company with another man said, "You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman; a woman is lying there." The witness went to Buck's row, where Police constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body. On returning with the ambulance he helped to put the deceased upon it.
A juryman - Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted? Witness - No. I only finished knocking up one person.


Clearly no mention of any bleeding or any question about such from Baxter.


DailyTelegraph


Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body.


Again no mention of bleeding, contrary to fhe now reposted claims in post #6.


I do not include "such" in my posts several times at all. That is nonsense.
Given that you quote the two papers to support the idea, before later in the post listing both as containing information on the bleeding, it seems that "such" is not nonsense in any logical use of the word


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-24-2018, 10:25 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,176
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Given that you quote the two papers to support the idea, before later in the post listing both as containing information on the bleeding, it seems that "such" is not nonsense in any logical use of the word


Steve
First of all, you can say that a text is linguistically lacking without attacking the one who produced the text. It really should not be too hard a concept to grasp. If I have to deal with language that is hard to understand at times, I will be at a disadvantage to formulate my own answers, and I may give the wrong answer as a result of that.
Therefore, pointing out that the language gos wrong every now and then is something I actually need to do, to clarify what it is you ask about.
Please do not take that as a criticism of yourself, because it is not. If anything, I want to give you the fairest treatment possible by trying to get things right before I answer.

Moving on, of course three layers of information can be more informative than four. It all hinges on the information involved in the different layers. Try this, focusing on football:

1. A football match was played today.
2. It was played in Russia.
3. It was played in sunny weather.
4. It was a tough match.

Compare with this:

1. A football match was played today.
2. It was a World Cup match.
3. England beat Marocko by 9-0.

Letīs not oversimplify, Steve. None of the other papers included the sequence of events in the way The Echo did, and that makes a humongous difference. For example. And certainly, the "majority" you lean on may have used the same source. Or?

Plus, of course, why in the whole world would Mizen say that the blood seemed fresh - if he KNEW it was not?

You then say that I use the Daily News to "imply" things...? That, Iīm afraid, is a rot. I pointed out that they did the kind of backtracking that the Echbo also did, meaning that there is support for that particular issue.

And then you start saying that there is no mentioning of any bleeding - as if I had said there was...? I have said no such thing at all. It seems you want to support my number listing as evidence of this, but that is just wrong.

I know full well that the Echo is the paper that speaks of Mizen and the bleeding, and I know ewually well that everybody else out here is aware of this too. I am not stupid enough not to be aware of this and I am certainly not one who would dishonestly try to fool people into thinking something. Moreover, I completely loathe the mere idea.

Discuss away, debate away - that is what the boards are for. But if you want to bring me along to some sort of dishonesty bog, sorry, but I am not up for that trip.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-25-2018, 01:19 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,217
Default

Before commenting, i see you are once again not able to accept responsibility for the items you post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
First of all, you can say that a text is linguistically lacking without attacking the one who produced the text. It really should not be too hard a concept to grasp. If I have to deal with language that is hard to understand at times, I will be at a disadvantage to formulate my own answers, and I may give the wrong answer as a result of that.
Therefore, pointing out that the language gos wrong every now and then is something I actually need to do, to clarify what it is you ask about.
Please do not take that as a criticism of yourself, because it is not. If anything, I want to give you the fairest treatment possible by trying to get things right before I answer.


The post you claim was "lacking" was concise and clear.
Maybe it is your failure to understand rather than mine to convey that should be questioned.
However it is clear from the content of the subsequent posts that it was an attack, minor and immature, but an attack none the less.



Moving on, of course three layers of information can be more informative than four. It all hinges on the information involved in the different layers. Try this, focusing on football:

1. A football match was played today.
2. It was played in Russia.
3. It was played in sunny weather.
4. It was a tough match.

Compare with this:

1. A football match was played today.
2. It was a World Cup match.
3. England beat Marocko by 9-0.

Letīs not oversimplify, Steve. None of the other papers included the sequence of events in the way The Echo did, and that makes a humongous difference. For example. And certainly, the "majority" you lean on may have used the same source. Or?


As a comparision to the Layers in post#6, that is intellectually dishonest.
We have in the about example 2 different sets of data, in the press reports we have only 1.
The ONLY difference is the order in the Echo is different.
To claim it contains additional data is untrue, its the same data
That is very clear.




Plus, of course, why in the whole world would Mizen say that the blood seemed fresh - if he KNEW it was not?

Why would he know?
Why would you expect him to be able to differentiate between fresh bleeding and secondary bleeding started by moving the body?


You then say that I use the Daily News to "imply" things...? That, Iīm afraid, is a rot. I pointed out that they did the kind of backtracking that the Echbo also did, meaning that there is support for that particular issue.

There is no evidence of backtracking, its purely imaginary

And then you start saying that there is no mentioning of any bleeding - as if I had said there was...? I have said no such thing at all. It seems you want to support my number listing as evidence of this, but that is just wrong.


That is contrary to what you have posted in post #6:


"1. Mizen goes to Bucks Row.
2. Mizen sees that there is blood flowing, appearing fresh.
3. Mizen is sent for an ambulance.
4. Mizen returns with the ambulance and helps placing the corpse on it."



You then posted :

"The Daily News has it 1-3-2-4.

The Daily Telegraph has it 1-3-2."


BOTH include point 2, that mizen sees there is blood flowing, appearing fresh.

There are no such comments in either the News or the Telegraph.
It follows that your inclusion of such comments for the News and Telegraph are untrue


I know full well that the Echo is the paper that speaks of Mizen and the bleeding, and I know ewually well that everybody else out here is aware of this too. I am not stupid enough not to be aware of this and I am certainly not one who would dishonestly try to fool people into thinking something. Moreover, I completely loathe the mere idea.

Discuss away, debate away - that is what the boards are for. But if you want to bring me along to some sort of dishonesty bog, sorry, but I am not up for that trip.

The problem of course is that you posted the statement, which is untruthful and i agree you are not stupid.

What is sad is that you are not able to admit that you posted that the two papers included bleeding in the accounts, when in Black and white and by your own hand you clearly did.
Even sadder is the inability to accept responsibility for the mistake, claim that you have not posted the comment, and are being somehow misrepresented.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-25-2018, 01:33 AM
MrBarnett MrBarnett is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Lyme Regis, Dorset
Posts: 1,475
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Before commenting, i see you are once again not able to accept responsibility for the items you post




The problem of course is that you posted the statement, which is untruthful and i agree you are not stupid.

What is sad is that you are not able to admit that you posted that the two papers included bleeding in the accounts, when in Black and white and by your own hand you clearly did.
Even sadder is the inability to accept responsibility for the mistake, claim that you have not posted the comment, and are being somehow misrepresented.


Steve
Steve,

Wouldn't the word 'incorrect' have been more appropriate than 'untruthful'?

Gary
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-25-2018, 01:56 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBarnett View Post
Steve,

Wouldn't the word 'incorrect' have been more appropriate than 'untruthful'?

Gary
Dear Gary,

In my initial response to post #6, i did indeed use the term incorrect, assuming a simple mistake.
In the next post #8 when realising that the Telegraph was also wrong i again used incorrect.

It was only on reflection that i used the word "untruthful".

Is it appropriate?
Yes i think it is, when a post provides information to be used to back up a propsal, in this case that the Echo is correct in its report, but that information is clearly incorrect , and known to be, (quotes were provided in post 6, so it cannot be down to a faulty memory) that information passes into the realm of untruthful.

It is not a term used lightly, however as posted and since defended the comments remain untruthful.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.