OK Pierre, then that is pretty much the end of the discussion, surely. You have popped up, announced you think you have found the man, implied that your powers of analysing data are superior in comparison to run-of-the-mill researchers, asked lots of very vague questions, given lots of very vague non-answers to each and every question you're asked, and so given all of this I have one question for you: if you are not giving us a single concrete, testable, checkable fact or idea to discuss, why do you expect others to waste their time debating abstract concepts with you?
I'd be willing to put money on you having no credible 'data' whatsoever.
You forgot to add that not only is he great at analyzing data, the ripper talks to Pierre, I was sceptical upto then, not I know 100% pure garbage.
G U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Doing my own research and looking at different theories others have come up with I come to think of the different types of data we prefer to use.
I guess we all have our own ideas as to what types of data should be considered as really important.
So what types of data do you think would be the most important if you would try to find the killer? And what would qualify as proof?
Here are some suggestions listed in no special order and you can probably add more to it:
1. Personal motive for murdering the victims
3. His profession
4. A confession
5. Items found at the murder sites
6. Handwriting match with a letter
7. His adress
8. Personal motive for mutilating victims
9. A letter containing knowledge only the murderer could have had
10. Several letters containing knowledge only the murderer could have had
11. Statements from witnesses
12. A combination of some of the above
13. A combination of all of the above