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:
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by Spitfire 9 minutes ago.
General Discussion: Do you think it will be solved? - by Mayerling 45 minutes ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by Sherlock Houses 2 hours ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by OneRound 5 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Sam Flynn 5 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Sam Flynn 6 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (28 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (6 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - (6 posts)
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - (4 posts)
Non-Fiction: The Whitechapel Murders of 1888: Another Dead End? - (3 posts)
General Discussion: Do you think it will be solved? - (3 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 > Letters and Communications

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #751  
Old 06-07-2016, 10:04 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,261
Default

Pierre

Thank you for the reply.

I have another question which follows on from question 4.

Do you have any source that directly links this person, lets continue your "T" for convenience sake, to the GSG?



Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #752  
Old 06-07-2016, 10:07 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Pierre

Thank you for the reply.

I have another question which follows on from question 4.

Do you have any source that directly links this person, lets continue your "T" for convenience sake, to the GSG?

Steve
Hi Steve,

It is very difficult to know what you mean by "directly". Could you please try some type of definition?

Regards, Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #753  
Old 06-07-2016, 10:30 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
It is very difficult to know what you mean by "directly". Could you please try some type of definition?
What do you mean by "definition"?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #754  
Old 06-07-2016, 11:04 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,261
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Hi Steve,

It is very difficult to know what you mean by "directly". Could you please try some type of definition?

Regards, Pierre
Ok Pierre I did think the use of the word directly was very clear, - linked specifically to the GSG.

The phrases "directly linked" or "directly links" are fairly common phrases in the English language, not sure why you require a definition?


However I will try and explain


By directly linked, I would include, and I have to say these may not be exhaustive and are in no particular order.

1. He was seen in the specific area around that time.

2. There is a similarity in the use of words, for instance the use of a double negative, between the GSG and some data source written by T.

3. He demonstrates a knowledge of the wording, at least equal to if not above that of what was available from the press, in a data source written by him.

4. He specifically links judges himself to the GSG in a data source.

5. A source from someone close to him, suggesting he may know something about it.



It may be easier to suggest what I would mean by indirect, only one example, but it is only meant to give an idea, not to be a suggestion of any sort.


To say T mentions Judges in general, so the J word must be Judges , does not I think work. ( I am not suggesting that is what you are doing, am just using it as an example) that would be indirect, and of a far lower probability than point 4 above.
Indeed it could be argued such was only a possibility at best,

There may be a link between T and Judges, and he may be the killer; such I am not attempting to debate here.
However that alone would not make him the writer of the GSG. as you yourself said a few posts back.


Steve

Last edited by Elamarna : 06-07-2016 at 11:11 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #755  
Old 06-07-2016, 12:15 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

[quote=Elamarna;383642]
Quote:
Ok Pierre I did think the use of the word directly was very clear, - linked specifically to the GSG.

The phrases "directly linked" or "directly links" are fairly common phrases in the English language, not sure why you require a definition?


However I will try and explain
Thanks, it is better when we use the concepts in a similar way.

By directly linked, I would include, and I have to say these may not be exhaustive and are in no particular order.
Quote:
1. He was seen in the specific area around that time.
Anyone could have been seen in the area without being the killer. Anyone could have written the GSG and having been seen in the area without being the killer.

Quote:
2. There is a similarity in the use of words, for instance the use of a double negative, between the GSG and some data source written by T.
There is something very important in the GSG which indicates a connection.

Quote:
3. He demonstrates a knowledge of the wording, at least equal to if not above that of what was available from the press, in a data source written by him.
Not enough to be called evidence.

Quote:
4. He specifically links judges himself to the GSG in a data source.
No.

Quote:
5. A source from someone close to him, suggesting he may know something about it.
No.

Quote:
It may be easier to suggest what I would mean by indirect, only one example, but it is only meant to give an idea, not to be a suggestion of any sort.
OK.

Quote:
To say T mentions Judges in general, so the J word must be Judges , does not I think work. ( I am not suggesting that is what you are doing, am just using it as an example) that would be indirect, and of a far lower probability than point 4 above.
No, there is no such thing.

Quote:
Indeed it could be argued such was only a possibility at best,

There may be a link between T and Judges, and he may be the killer; such I am not attempting to debate here.
However that alone would not make him the writer of the GSG. as you yourself said a few posts back.
I agree with you on this.

Regards, Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #756  
Old 06-07-2016, 12:57 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,261
Default

Pierre

Thank you for the reply,

I have 2 further questions related to the responses you gave


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post

1. He was seen in the specific area around that time.


Anyone could have been seen in the area without being the killer. Anyone could have written the GSG and having been seen in the area without being the killer.

Interesting response, I am not at present considering the Author of the GSG to be the killer. so that first point is unimportant.

My point was had your man T (sorry but I can't resist has you used the it first, but I will stop now.) been seen in the area at the time of the writing.

I am not sure if that is a yea or a nay from you.
However which ever I assume you are saying it is unimportant, so be it



Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post

2. There is a similarity in the use of words, for instance the use of a double negative, between the GSG and some data source written by T.

There is something very important in the GSG which indicates a connection.

This I find extremely interesting, why?

Well "there is some thing very important in the GSG" is an odd thing to say given we do not know for certain what it actually did say.

We have at least 2 on the spot versions of the wording:


"The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing." - Detective Daniel Halse.

"The Juews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." - PC Long.



A report by Swanson which you have cited from yourself:

"The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing."



A version from the memories of Sir Henry Smith:

"The Jews are the men that won’t be blamed for nothing".



There is also a version by Anderson, but since he was not actually around for the double event his version should be judged very critically given it is written over 20 years after the double event.

However for completeness he says:

"The Jewes are not the men to be blamed for nothing."



So we have 5 versions, all similar but none exactly the same.

Therefore what version are you using to say there is a connection to your Source/Sources?

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #757  
Old 06-07-2016, 01:06 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

[quote=Elamarna;383659]
Quote:
Pierre

Thank you for the reply,

I have 2 further questions related to the responses you gave

Interesting response, I am not at present considering the Author of the GSG to be the killer. so that first point is unimportant.

My point was had your man T (sorry but I can't resist has you used the it first, but I will stop now.) been seen in the area at the time of the writing.

I am not sure if that is a yea or a nay from you.
However which ever I assume you are saying it is unimportant, so be it
There is no source for such a sighting.

Quote:
This I find extremely interesting, why?

Well "there is some thing very important in the GSG" is an odd thing to say given we do not know for certain what it actually did say.

We have at least 2 on the spot versions of the wording:

"The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing." - Detective Daniel Halse.

"The Juews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." - PC Long.

A report by Swanson which you have cited from yourself:

"The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing."

A version from the memories of Sir Henry Smith:

"The Jews are the men that won’t be blamed for nothing".

There is also a version by Anderson, but since he was not actually around for the double event his version should be judged very critically given it is written over 20 years after the double event.

However for completeness he says:

"The Jewes are not the men to be blamed for nothing."

So we have 5 versions, all similar but none exactly the same.

Therefore what version are you using to say there is a connection to your Source/Sources?

Steve
Hi,

I prefer Halse in the original inquest papers, since it is the most reliable primary source.

Regards, Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #758  
Old 06-07-2016, 01:14 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
I prefer Halse in the original inquest papers, since it is the most reliable primary source.
Ah, so the word on the wall was "Juwes" as Halse said?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #759  
Old 06-07-2016, 01:32 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,261
Default

[quote=Pierre;383663]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post

There is no source for such a sighting.



Hi,

I prefer Halse in the original inquest papers, since it is the most reliable primary source.

Regards, Pierre
Why is it more reliable than Longs?

It cannot be that Halse's is the inquest statement as Long also gave testimony.

I assume you consider Longs inquest testimony to be less convincing .

Can I ask, going from my original point 2 that you can confirm there is a data source that uses similar words in a similar sentence construction?


regards

Steve

Last edited by Elamarna : 06-07-2016 at 01:47 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #760  
Old 06-07-2016, 01:50 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

[quote=Elamarna;383668]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post

Why is it more reliable than Longs?

It cannot be that Halse's is the inquest statement as Long also gave testimony.

I assume you consider Longs inquest testimony to be less convincing .

Can I ask, going from my original point 2 that you can confirm there is a data source that uses similar words in a similar sentence construction?

regards

Steve
Hi Steve,

Because Long was not sure about his own testimony. Halse was.

There is no data source to my knowledge that uses the similar construction.

Regards, Pierre
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 05:50 AM.


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