Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jumping to conclusions?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by m_w_r View Post
    Hi Mr Lucky,

    You can see what Cris is saying, though?
    Hi m_w_r

    No, I don't think there was any danger that the article could "create an unfound bias from the historical perspective" at all. That's why I called it melodrama.

    If one wasn't aware of the retraction, then one might interpret the original criticisms incorrectly - and, if one were to do that, one might well interpret it, quite improperly, in line with one's existing preconceptions. That, surely, is the moral of the story? Isn't it?
    That why I'm pointing out that it's hypocritical of him to do that when he written an article claiming something was mystery when it wasn't, when not a single contemporary source suggests that it was a mystery, and he only thinks it was a mystery, because it's 'in line with one's existing preconceptions.'

    Additionally he's criticising the writer in the Medical Gazette for his choice of the Times as a source, but at least it actually existed, he produces quotes in his article that claim to be from the Coroners Act 1887 which simply aren't there in the version passed by parliament.

    I think the moral of the story is that the proverbial pot never recognizes it's own similarity with the kettle.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post
      Which was, in part at least, what I was attempting to say in post #17
      No, you were saying the usual glib, simplistic - "Journalists...word prostitutes...discuss at length!"

      You most certainly CAN claim in this case that Bond's evidence WAS understandable for the lay men at the police court because he both stated the nature of the medical evidence technically, and then, (specifically by admission of the apology), explained it again in laymans terms...because, (in this case at least), the Times abbreviated the evidence given, (for whatever reason), the Medical Times and Gazette jumped to a false conclusion and printed the item Debs quoted, which they then subsequently retracted...
      You most certainly CAN'T, that's not at the police court, that was at either the TRIAL or THE INQUEST
      Just read the apology - THE JURY !

      "But we learn that Mr Bond carefully explained to the jury all the medical or technical terms used by him, while the reporter omitted his explanations; that he was moreover, reported to have said many things which he did not say"

      See what I mean, pot / kettle

      Comment


      • #33
        Hi Pete

        No, you were saying the usual glib, simplistic - "Journalists...word prostitutes...discuss at length!"
        Calling it glib and simplistic does not necessarily make it untrue. How many journalists can you identify who publish their words purely out of a simple charitable desire to disseminate news and communicate ideas? To that extent any of us who work for another (rather than being self employed) are prostituting our talents...and that's more or less all I'm implying...

        The Victorian journalist was generally paid according to the column inches he produced...I expect Editors and Sub-Editors worked under different criteria and employed the blue pencil accordingly.

        You most certainly CAN'T, that's not at the police court, that was at either the TRIAL or THE INQUEST
        Just read the apology - THE JURY !

        "But we learn that Mr Bond carefully explained to the jury all the medical or technical terms used by him, while the reporter omitted his explanations; that he was moreover, reported to have said many things which he did not say"
        But from the same apology (my emphasis) "The reports on which we relied of the proceedings before the Coroner, THE MAGISTRATES, and at the trial, were imperfect or incorrect"

        Clearly the Medical Gazette were basing their expressed opinions on more than just one account of the trial...otherwise why drag in all three sets of legal proceedings into their apology, thus, on the surface at least, worstening their own moral position?

        All the best

        Dave

        Comment


        • #34
          uggghhh. When I started this thread it was mainly with Bond's (modern) reputation in the Mylett case in mind.

          Comment


          • #35
            Sorry Debs...we appear to have drifted away off topic...for my part I apologise...

            All the best

            Dave

            Comment


            • #36
              No worries,Dave, It's one of those times when we are all at cross purposes I think!

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
                When I started this thread it was mainly with Bond's (modern) reputation in the Mylett case in mind.
                Bond was a brilliant guy but he obeyed his masters.

                After MJK the JTR case was over.

                He was told not to rock the boat and he didn't.
                Itsnotrocketsurgery

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Stephen Thomas View Post
                  Bond was a brilliant guy but he obeyed his masters.

                  After MJK the JTR case was over.

                  He was told not to rock the boat and he didn't.
                  yeah?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Bond was a brilliant guy but he obeyed his masters.

                    After MJK the JTR case was over.

                    He was told not to rock the boat and he didn't.


                    -Stephen Thomas-

                    Contradiction, please.....Bond believed Mackenzie was a Ripper victim.
                    To Join JTR Forums :
                    Contact [email protected]

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      For some reason its become a question of my credibility - at least in the mind of one poster - than that of Bond's.
                      Best Wishes,
                      Cris Malone
                      ______________________________________________
                      "Objectivity comes from how the evidence is treated, not the nature of the evidence itself. Historians can be just as objective as any scientist."

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
                        Bond was a brilliant guy but he obeyed his masters.

                        After MJK the JTR case was over.

                        He was told not to rock the boat and he didn't.


                        -Stephen Thomas-

                        Contradiction, please.....Bond believed Mackenzie was a Ripper victim.
                        Indeed, Howard, and that was exactly my point though I should have elaborated.

                        No way in a billion years can MacKenzie be dismissed outright as a JTR victim except for one thing, namely that JTR was known to be already safely caged.

                        Do you not find it rather strange that in every single murder of a woman in the East End after MJK that the police bent over backwards to de-emphasize any JTR connection?
                        Itsnotrocketsurgery

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          1.Indeed, Howard, and that was exactly my point though I should have elaborated.

                          2.No way in a billion years can MacKenzie be dismissed outright as a JTR victim except for one thing, namely that JTR was known to be already safely caged.

                          3.Do you not find it rather strange that in every single murder of a woman in the East End after MJK that the police bent over backwards to de-emphasize any JTR connection?

                          -Stephen Thomas-

                          1. After posting, I recalled us talking about this a while back...I remember you mentioning this idea before...

                          2. Those who appear to have believed the Ripper had been caught/died/incapacitated/incapable of committing any further murders after Kelly's can be counted on one hand....SRA,MLM, and DSS. Most other officials believed otherwise, particularly those who got down and dirty in the investigation.
                          However !
                          I brought up the strange response Sir Robert Anderson gave to the Under Secretary following one of E. L. Larkins's suggestions on apprehending the Ripper in 1893....its in Stewart Evans's and Keith Skinner's 'Ultimate' on pages 460 and 461...Nina and I as well as some other researchers,perhaps, feel it demonstrates that the search for the murderer was still underway, regardless of what Anderson and Swanson posited in the subsequent years ( 1895 onwards). I have wondered why in the past....and I'm doing just that right now...why the response to the Home Office has seldom been discussed among us. The concomitant fanfare over the important comments provided by Anderson in 1910 ( for example) does not and has not materialized among modern researchers over the 1893 reply to the H.O.

                          3. It can appear like there was an attempt to minimalize the murders at times....but I'm not 100 percent sure about the Mylett murder & Anderson, Stephen....that he felt it was not a murder might have been due to something other than a preferred suspect dying/incapacitation.....and there were two major murders which occurred at least 8 months after Kelly ( Mackenzie's murder) and in the other, 27 months later (Coles' murder)....so the possibility that 'time' had something to do with SRA and DSS's views may exist.....'may' exist.
                          To Join JTR Forums :
                          Contact [email protected]

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Hello Howard

                            You'll have to pardon my vagueness but my books are currently packed away upstairs pending the construction of my new "den"...(another argument where I won a battle but lost a war - spent all of today dismantling my "wall of bookshelves")...

                            I brought up the strange response Sir Robert Anderson gave to the Under Secretary following one of E. L. Larkins's suggestions on apprehending the Ripper in 1893....its in Stewart Evans's and Keith Skinner's 'Ultimate' on pages 460 and 461...Nina and I as well as some other researchers,perhaps, feel it demonstrates that the search for the murderer was still underway, regardless of what Anderson and Swanson posited in the subsequent years ( 1895 onwards). I have wondered why in the past....and I'm doing just that right now...why the response to the Home Office has seldom been discussed among us.
                            Is this the one about the guy who keeps on writing in with suggestions and wasting a lot of police time? If so, I do recall seeing it, but really never put two and two together before...that is indeed interesting in the context you mention and now I feel a bit stupid!

                            All the best

                            Dave

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Is this the one about the guy who keeps on writing in with suggestions and wasting a lot of police time? If so, I do recall seeing it, but really never put two and two together before...that is indeed interesting in the context you mention and now I feel a bit stupid!
                              -Dave-

                              Dave...don't feel that way....most of us , I believe, haven't put 2 and 2 together for one reason or the other...
                              To Join JTR Forums :
                              Contact [email protected]

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X