A Halloween Mystery: The Monro Standpoint

[Pierre]

OK its not Macnaughten then. So its Warren?

Hi Abby Normal,

Well, as I have said before, this person is not known so then it canīt be Warren. And why should Warren or Macnaghten be the Whitechapel killer? There is no evidence for that and I think people who try to imply such things are mere attention seekers.

Regards Pierre

[Hercule Poirot]

Hi Hercule,

well, if you reed my post again you might see that Iīm referring to Skinner and Evans.

And of course we canīt use ordinairy quantitative significance tests in this case.

The problem as I see it is that old thinking rules within ripperology. If you read the texts of Macnaghten for instance, his thinking is still the thinking of a lot of ripperologists.

Perhaps they believe they can believe "the experts" but thatīs wrong.
Experts are really bad sources for valid and reliable research. They are stuck within their fields and have to apply the point of view of their time.

So if you ask me about a sufficient method to start with, I sould say that historical source criticism is the most important one in this case.

And I feel sorry for the poor sods who read the so called Macnaghten Memoranda and then write a book on a shawl or things like that. Itīs a waste of time.

Regards Pierre

Hi Pierre,

I'm not in a position to affirm the presence of old rules of thinking prevailing in ripperology. I however notice different schools of thought which is per se a rather commun situation in so many domains. It allows for an exchange of ideas generating more ideas.

Up to acertain point, I agree with you about historical source criticism. There still seems to be a misunderstanding of the difference between primary and secondary sources, direct and secondary (or circumstantial) evidence, testimonial versus physical evidence. The same goes with the reliability and validity of inductive versus deductive reasonning. Again in the legal domain, some believe that a prima facie case against on suspect means he is guilty while it simply means that 'at first sight' it offers sufficient causes to be submitted to a court. It's completely different from a 'res ipsa loquitur' (it speaks for itself) case.

Now depending on the country an author comes from, the rules of evidence may vary. In many cases, the conclusion resulting from circumstantial evidence only requires to be global while in others, each line of proof has to be valid.

As you may see, there's no single path or approach allowing someone to conclude that a suspect is guilty or not. Now when someone come out with a 'case closed' book, it really pisses me when you quickly find out that most of his arguments haven't been tested given the availability of all the different standards (historical, legal, psychological, etc.) allowing one to do so.

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

[Hercule Poirot]

I should have concluded with these terms:
Regardless of the flaws one might complain about, we're all here to learn and enjoy the ride until the real Ripper is found.

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby Normal,

Well, as I have said before, this person is not known so then it canīt be Warren. And why should Warren or Macnaghten be the Whitechapel killer? There is no evidence for that and I think people who try to imply such things are mere attention seekers.

Regards Pierre

well if the person is not known then how can it be such a blow to the entire English nation?

[Rosella]

OK its not Macnaughten then. So its Warren?

Well, if it is, then I certainly don't think this would be an earth-shattering and deeply sad moment for the British. Sir Charles Warren was the Ripper! I suppose some would roll their eyes at Jack being a Scotland Yard official but really, except for JTR aficionados, most would say 'Charles who?'

If this person is an unknown why would the British nation be saddened? I think you are moving the goal posts, Pierre, and moving away from some statements in your early posts. People suggesting Sir Melville or Warren certainly aren't attention seekers. The identity JTR is unknown. Any name can be put forward.

[Pierre]

Well, if it is, then I certainly don't think this would be an earth-shattering and deeply sad moment for the British. Sir Charles Warren was the Ripper! I suppose some would roll their eyes at Jack being a Scotland Yard official but really, except for JTR aficionados, most would say 'Charles who?'

If this person is an unknown why would the British nation be saddened? I think you are moving the goal posts, Pierre, and moving away from some statements in your early posts. People suggesting Sir Melville or Warren certainly aren't attention seekers. The identity JTR is unknown. Any name can be put forward.

Hi Rosella,

Well, the person I have found wasnīt a Scotland Yard official. Interesting to read your statement that I should be moving away from statements I made earlier. Iīll go back and read it and comment on it. Thanks.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre,

I'm not in a position to affirm the presence of old rules of thinking prevailing in ripperology. I however notice different schools of thought which is per se a rather commun situation in so many domains. It allows for an exchange of ideas generating more ideas.

Up to acertain point, I agree with you about historical source criticism. There still seems to be a misunderstanding of the difference between primary and secondary sources, direct and secondary (or circumstantial) evidence, testimonial versus physical evidence. The same goes with the reliability and validity of inductive versus deductive reasonning. Again in the legal domain, some believe that a prima facie case against on suspect means he is guilty while it simply means that 'at first sight' it offers sufficient causes to be submitted to a court. It's completely different from a 'res ipsa loquitur' (it speaks for itself) case.

Now depending on the country an author comes from, the rules of evidence may vary. In many cases, the conclusion resulting from circumstantial evidence only requires to be global while in others, each line of proof has to be valid.

As you may see, there's no single path or approach allowing someone to conclude that a suspect is guilty or not. Now when someone come out with a 'case closed' book, it really pisses me when you quickly find out that most of his arguments haven't been tested given the availability of all the different standards (historical, legal, psychological, etc.) allowing one to do so.

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

Hallo Hercule Poirot,

I agree with what you say. And thatīs why I donīt read those type of books that you mention. Also, the point you make about different methodological approaches is interesting. Deductive thinking tend of course go allow us to see what we believe is "good evidence" for a certain suspect while inductive thinking leads us where it may, i.e. often into confusion. So combining these two is important - but difficult!

Regards Pierre

[Abby Normal]

Hi Rosella,

Well, the person I have found wasnīt a Scotland Yard official. Interesting to read your statement that I should be moving away from statements I made earlier. Iīll go back and read it and comment on it. Thanks.

Regards Pierre

You didn't answer our question. If the person is an unknown then how could it be so bad for the English nation?

[Pierre]

You didn't answer our question. If the person is an unknown then how could it be so bad for the English nation?

Unknown now. Not then.

Regards Pierre

[Abby Normal]

Unknown now. Not then.

Regards Pierre

whats your definintion of unknown? unknown in regards to the case? in general?

and how can someone be unknown now but known then? in order for them to be known then, or at all, we have to know of them now somehow to know them then? Because if they are unknown now then they are unknown always.

can you please elaborate on what you mean by unknown now but known then?


BTW-ive become a little more intrigued since I saw your post that the victims include not only tabram and McKenzie, who I also believe were probable victims, but also the three torsos, as I think I am one of the rare ones who also believe that its possible they were also ripper victims.

[Pierre]

whats your definintion of unknown? unknown in regards to the case? in general?

and how can someone be unknown now but known then? in order for them to be known then, or at all, we have to know of them now somehow to know them then? Because if they are unknown now then they are unknown always.

can you please elaborate on what you mean by unknown now but known then?


BTW-ive become a little more intrigued since I saw your post that the victims include not only tabram and McKenzie, who I also believe were probable victims, but also the three torsos, as I think I am one of the rare ones who also believe that its possible they were also ripper victims.

Hi,

well, letīs just say that history doesnīt say anything about forgotten people if historians donīt remember them and write about them. But in times past, a lot of people who were important or prominent were of course well known in society in their own days. Just because historians donīt write about them doesnīt mean they didnīt exist. And since they were known, and important, and prominent in their days, people in those days could not have imagined them being murderers and certainly not if they were known for doing important and good work.

My reason for thinking he did the three dismemberment murders is that I have sparse data indicating that he did them. Might I ask what your reason for believing so would be?

Regards Pierre

[Pcdunn]

Doing good work? Surely not....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_John_Barnardo

[Abby Normal]

Hi,

well, letīs just say that history doesnīt say anything about forgotten people if historians donīt remember them and write about them. But in times past, a lot of people who were important or prominent were of course well known in society in their own days. Just because historians donīt write about them doesnīt mean they didnīt exist. And since they were known, and important, and prominent in their days, people in those days could not have imagined them being murderers and certainly not if they were known for doing important and good work.

My reason for thinking he did the three dismemberment murders is that I have sparse data indicating that he did them. Might I ask what your reason for believing so would be?

Regards Pierre

Sure

Same victimology
Same general location
Same time frame
Unsolved
Abdominal mutilations
Also, the way Jackson's flaps of skin were removed from her abdomen is uncannily similar to Kelly.

I would also be remiss if I didn't mention that a suspect who is one of the least weak IMHO, George Hutchinson, may be the same man in the recent article in rip and he left England shortly after the Pinchon st murder.

And thanks for clarifying what you meant. I understand what you mean now.

[Hercule Poirot]

Hallo Hercule Poirot,

I agree with what you say. And thatīs why I donīt read those type of books that you mention. Also, the point you make about different methodological approaches is interesting. Deductive thinking tend of course go allow us to see what we believe is "good evidence" for a certain suspect while inductive thinking leads us where it may, i.e. often into confusion. So combining these two is important - but difficult!

Regards Pierre

Hi Pierre,
Inductive reasoning is often used when exploring possibilities, hypotheses. Premises may all be true but the conclusion may still be wrong. When using deductive reasoning, if the premises are true, the conclusion will be valid and also true. It's all about probability versus certainty. We often observe scientists bouncing from inductive to deductive reasoning, the risks being falling into the circular logic quicksand. And we know how often that happens in the Ripperology sand pit. LOL

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

[Pierre]

Sure

Same victimology
Same general location
Same time frame
Unsolved
Abdominal mutilations
Also, the way Jackson's flaps of skin were removed from her abdomen is uncannily similar to Kelly.

I would also be remiss if I didn't mention that a suspect who is one of the least weak IMHO, George Hutchinson, may be the same man in the recent article in rip and he left England shortly after the Pinchon st murder.

And thanks for clarifying what you meant. I understand what you mean now.

Hi,

thanks and I agree.

Same time frame albeit a little longer than just for the canonical five. But my data sources (sorry I canīt give them to you yet) shows there is a very clear reason to interpret this time frame as the correct one.

Same general location - also a larger area than for the canonical five but this is very easy to explain in the light of my sources.

Unsolved, yes. And amazing of course that he managed to work both indoors and outdoors without being discovered.

Abdominal mutilations, yes, and it shows that his signature was constant and did not change. He stuck to certain methods and was focused on doing as much mutilation as possible given the possibilities of the crime scene.

I didnīt know that there were similarities in the mutilations between Jackson and Kelly. Very interesting.

Thanks for your post.

Regards Pierre