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:
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - by Wickerman 14 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - by etenguy 5 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 5 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Fisherman 6 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Fisherman 6 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 10 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (14 posts)
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - (7 posts)
General Discussion: Albert Backert - did he emigrate? - (3 posts)
Tumblety, Francis: Tumblety - Hermaphrodite. - (2 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Was Ernest Dowson Jack the Ripper? - (2 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (1 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
  #161  
Old 09-05-2017, 12:41 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

[quote=Elamarna;427971]

Quote:
However the above statement does fit well with the suggestion that the POLICE had reached a conclusion over the contrary statements about the exchange between the Carmen and Mizen, before Paul attended the inquested and certainly before the POLICE report 19th September.
But there is no evidence for a "conclusion over contrary statements".

So what is the point of this talk?

Basing "what fits your own ideas" on no sources. Why Steve?

Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 09-05-2017, 01:23 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,701
Default

[quote=Pierre;428058]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post



But there is no evidence for a "conclusion over contrary statements".

So what is the point of this talk?

Basing "what fits your own ideas" on no sources. Why Steve?

Pierre
But there are my dear Pierre!

You have been provided with sources for this suggestion, you refuse to accept such, so be it.

The suggestion that Lechmere lied, did see a policeman and told Mizen such, is however a view which sources suggest was NOT the view the Police subscribed to by the 19th.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 09-06-2017, 04:29 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

[quote=Elamarna;428063]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post

But there are my dear Pierre!

You have been provided with sources for this suggestion, you refuse to accept such, so be it.

The suggestion that Lechmere lied, did see a policeman and told Mizen such, is however a view which sources suggest was NOT the view the Police subscribed to by the 19th.

Steve
But there are no sources for:

Quote:
the POLICE had reached a conclusion over the contrary statements about the exchange between the Carmen and Mizen, before Paul attended the inquested and certainly before the POLICE report 19th September.
- Where are the sources with statements about reaching any conclusion?

- Where are the sources with police discussions?

- Where did they reach the conclusion?

- Are there any sources for a physical place in the past where it was actually reached??

- Who reached the conclusion?

- Are there any sources for living persons in the past saying things about it?

- WHERE and BY WHOM are the "contrary statements" discussed, Steve?

- In what sources?

I can tell you the answer, Steve:

NOWHERE and BY NO ONE is that in ANY source.

You have just invented a little scenario for yourself to "fit" your own ideas.

You have done that on "the silence of the sources" and on "lack of sources".

It seems we are getting more and more problems here.

Why you, Steve?

You claimed you had "real science".

I thought you would do better than the rest of the ripperologists.

Pierre

Last edited by Pierre : 09-06-2017 at 04:33 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 09-06-2017, 05:29 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,701
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post

But there are no sources for:

- Where are the sources with statements about reaching any conclusion?

- Where are the sources with police discussions?

- Where did they reach the conclusion?

- Are there any sources for a physical place in the past where it was actually reached??

- Who reached the conclusion?

- Are there any sources for living persons in the past saying things about it?

- WHERE and BY WHOM are the "contrary statements" discussed, Steve?

- In what sources?

I can tell you the answer, Steve:

NOWHERE and BY NO ONE is that in ANY source.
Sorry i believe you are incorrect in your intreptation of the sources.

The Police reports in September and October not only exclude any mention of Mizen's claim, they both to varing degrees support and repeat the alternative view.
The refusal to accept that the sources do this somewhat strange.

However there appear to be no sources at all which say they, the Police accepted the account of Mizen!
If you believe there is please point these sources out?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post

You have just invented a little scenario for yourself to "fit" your own ideas.

You have done that on "the silence of the sources" and on "lack of sources".

It seems we are getting more and more problems here.

Why you, Steve?

You claimed you had "real science".

I thought you would do better than the rest of the ripperologists.

Pierre
There are no problems here at all Pierre; other than perhaps one for the policeman theory.
On that we will have to wait and see.

The polite put down is of no concern to me, I am using the sources and looking at the possible intpretations of such.
One has to take an overview, looking at and analysing many different sources before one can form ideas based on the interpretation of such sources.

The issue you have is that you appear to disagree over the intpretation of some of those sources.
Of course we both beleive we are correct on this.

Rather than this continual ping pong exchange of whose interpretation is superior to the others, which of course is pointless in itself has that is a matter of personal opinion, why not wait until I give the full details of my work, rather than guessing what it will actually say.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 09-06-2017, 06:06 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 1,032
Default

whilst I understand the need for legitimate sources and applying a methodology I sometimes feel Pierre that you believe that this case can be solved by simply applying some kind of methodological equation. X(confirmed by s) + y(confirmed by d and f) + z(confirmed by q +w) = Jack q.e.d. There comes a point in viewing historical events when we run out of 'provable facts) and have to start making use of words like 'if' and 'maybe' or 'is it possible or likely that...' It's unavoidable but you seem completely averse to this. I see nothing wrong with using these words/phrases as long as it's clear that you are doing so and not presenting the conclusions drawn from them as definately proven facts.
When it comes to interpretations (for eg. conflicting statements) its difficult and often impossible to know whose version is the correct one. We can check for any corroboration, individual histories, context and likelihoods of bias but when these are scare it's is down to interpretation. Let's face it, we could have 2 statements, one has corroboration and one doesn't. It is still not absolutely certain that the one with corroboration is the correct one because 2 people can be as wrong as one.
The case is full of 'scenarios' that we try and sift through. We even modify them to see if they fit different outcomes. We have to accept that the unknown and unknowable exist and we have to work around them as best we can. This often requires 'creative thinking,' or (and this word might make you wince Pierre sorry) 'guesswork.'
I suppose that what I've tried to say is that 'sources' and 'methodology' are undoubtedly important they are not the be-all-and-end-all of
investigation.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 09-06-2017, 06:25 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 1,032
Default

whilst I understand the need for legitimate sources and applying a methodology I sometimes feel Pierre that you believe that this case can be solved by simply applying some kind of methodological equation. X(confirmed by s) + y(confirmed by d and f) + z(confirmed by q +w) = Jack q.e.d. There comes a point in viewing historical events when we run out of 'provable facts and have to start making use of words like 'if' and 'maybe' or 'is it possible or likely that...' It's unavoidable but you seem completely averse to this. I see nothing wrong with using these words/phrases as long as it's clear that you are doing so and not presenting the conclusions drawn from them as definately proven facts.
When it comes to interpretations (for eg. conflicting statements) its difficult and often impossible to know whose version is the correct one. We can check for any corroboration, individual histories, context and likelihoods of bias but when these are scare it's is down to interpretation. Let's face it, we could have 2 statements, one has corroboration and one doesn't. It is still not absolutely certain that the one with corroboration is the correct one because 2 people can be as wrong as one.
The case is full of 'scenarios' that we try and sift through. We even modify them to see if they fit different outcomes. We have to accept that the unknown and unknowable exist and we have to work around them as best we can. This often requires 'creative thinking,' or (and this word might make you wince Pierre sorry) 'guesswork.'
I suppose that what I've tried to say is that 'sources' and 'methodology' are undoubtedly important they are not the be-all-and-end-all of
investigation.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 09-06-2017, 09:58 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 1,032
Default

I haven't a clue how I managed to duplicate my last post, sorry.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 09-06-2017, 12:29 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

[quote=Herlock Sholmes;428123]

Quote:
whilst I understand the need for legitimate sources and applying a methodology
That is good.

Quote:
I sometimes feel Pierre that you believe that this case can be solved by simply applying some kind of methodological equation. X(confirmed by s) + y(confirmed by d and f) + z(confirmed by q +w) = Jack q.e.d.
On the contrary. That is pure logic. The social world is not ruled by logic. On the contrary.

Quote:
There comes a point in viewing historical events when we run out of 'provable facts
And there we stand. So why start inventing facts? What is the use of a fawlty result? What is the joy of such?

Quote:
and have to start making use of words like 'if' and 'maybe' or 'is it possible or likely that...'
But they have no value at all. That is the problem.

Quote:
It's unavoidable
No. They are not determined to rule our thinking. They can be avoided.

Quote:
but you seem completely averse to this.
Absolutely.

Quote:
I see nothing wrong with using these words/phrases as long as it's clear that you are doing so and not presenting the conclusions drawn from them as definately proven facts.
You mean you see nothing wrong with this type of statement then:

Jack the Ripper was a gang of ruffians. They would have used the cattle boats. They came to London to use prostitutes. There are many articles about the cattle boats. If they were lucky they could use the boats systematically to get to London and then leave. They would have had to meet somewhere and probably they met in the pubs. So that is why they saw Kelly at the pub drinking, she had met them in the pub. And it is not impossible that they could have been the ones loitering close to Millerīs Court. It would have been characteristic for them to have knives. And also if they killed Tabram that would be since they had different types of knives, they would even have pen knives and bayonets sometimes.

And Charles Cross would have lied about his name since he was the killer and he also told Mizen there was a PC in Buckīs Row to clear himself. It is possible that he also told Paul, since psychopaths are very good at lying, in fact that is what they do. And Lechmere would have many reasons to lie, since he would have wanted to go on killing. But if his wife would get to know about it, if she saw his real name in the papers, she would have become suspicious. And if he was a psychopath he was the killer and if he was the killer he was a psychopath and that is why he is the best bid and that is why he fits the bill.

And blah. And blah. And blah.

Do you really think that is interesting?

Quote:
When it comes to interpretations (for eg. conflicting statements) its difficult and often impossible to know whose version is the correct one.
But you see that problem is solved by using historical explanations and acchieving coherence. You can not, with one motive explanation, take the research all the way and get high coherence if the motive explanation is not valid!

Quote:
We can check for any corroboration, individual histories, context and likelihoods of bias but when these are scare it's is down to interpretation.
Wrong. It is not "down to interpretation" in the sense of pure hermeneutics! It is not "down to interpretation" in the post modern sense of "any interpretations will do"! and "your truth is as good as mine"!

There are more or less valid and reliable results. And there are big differences between them. And again: What is the point of not representing the past?

Quote:
Let's face it, we could have 2 statements, one has corroboration and one doesn't. It is still not absolutely certain that the one with corroboration is the correct one because 2 people can be as wrong as one.
Nonono. Now you are using your own "logic". That is not a scientific model even and it is not a paradigm for history. It has no contents, since it does not explain what "has corroboration" means. And "the two people can be wrong" is not a methodological tool but just a "common sense statement" and that is not a scientific tool.
Quote:
The case is full of 'scenarios' that we try and sift through. We even modify them to see if they fit different outcomes.
And the key word in this situation must be the word HOW. I.e. with what methods.

Quote:
We have to accept that the unknown and unknowable exist
I love the unknown and unknowable, it is a challenge.

Quote:
and we have to work around them as best we can.
But do you think that IF, Wouldhave and "possibly" is "the best"?

I think it is the worst.

Quote:
This often requires 'creative thinking,' or (and this word might make you wince Pierre sorry) 'guesswork.'
And the whole forum is full of guesswork. Nor just guesswork, but a lot. And that is OK, but when Steve claims to use "real science" - his own words (Hi Steve, sorry for speaking about you in the third person but what can I do now), that is when guesswork is not expected.

Quote:
I suppose that what I've tried to say is that 'sources' and 'methodology' are undoubtedly important they are not the be-all-and-end-all of
investigation.
I like your thinking and often enjoy your posts. Thanks.

Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 09-06-2017, 12:31 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

[quote=Elamarna;428119]

Quote:
The issue you have is that you appear to disagree over the intpretation of some of those sources.
No, the issue is I disagree over the interpretation of the non existing sources.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 09-06-2017, 01:03 PM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,270
Default

Hi El

can you in a nut shell, please give me your summary analysis of the situation on all this?
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
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 06:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.