Not to be trusted

[Fisherman]

On an adjacent thread, Gareth Williams claims that my suggestion that the Ripper and the Torso killer was one and the same is guided by my agenda, and that I only make the call I do because it serves the Lechmere theory. No other merit is ascribed to my suggestion, the primary reason why I don't acknowledge the significance of the differences Gareth mentions is because I "have an agenda to pursue".

This kind of senseless crap has plagued the boards for far too long. It should go without saying that any poster out here must judge any bid made on itīs inherent quality, instead of trying to hide behind unsubstatiated accusations of the opponent having an agenda to defend.

Other people, who have no suspects and/or who stand to gain nothing by acknowledging it, nevertheless say the exact same thing as I do: That the two were most likely one and the same. The late Richard Whittington-Egan said it too.

How can we account for that? If an agenda is the only thing that could make people go for a shared identity, then why do these people do so? Why is Gary Barnett speaking for the possibility? Why does Debra Arif point to it?

Maybe Gary, Debra and Richard Whittington-Egan are simply entitled to do so, since they do not have any suspects who are strengthened by the suggestion? Maybe logic is only obtainable if you do not promote Lechmere as the Ripper? Maybe what THEY say and think is correct and credible, but when I say it, it becomes suspicious and incorrect?

Is that it? Can the value of a bid alter depending on WHO offers it? Even if what is offered is the exact same thing? Putting it differently: Must I be a cheat and a liar, since I support Lechmere?

As I have already asked on the adjacent thread: Canīt I entertain any idea at all with any credibility, if that idea in any manner can be looked upon as supporting the Lechmere theory? Will the factual value of my argument always be eaten up by how I cannot be trusted since I have a suspect?

This is something that must be dealt with and these whacky notions must be dispelled. If it can be proved that I support the ideas I support only because it serves an agenda of mine, I am all for hauling me over the coals. But if it can only be slyly and disgustingly suggested with no substantiation at all, well then I simply say the one who does so is a shame for these boards.

Over to Gareth now, who has been awarded his wish - an appropriate thread for this discussion.

[Abby Normal]

On an adjacent thread, Gareth Williams claims that my suggestion that the Ripper and the Torso killer was one and the same is guided by my agenda, and that I only make the call I do because it serves the Lechmere theory. No other merit is ascribed to my suggestion, the primary reason why I don't acknowledge the significance of the differences Gareth mentions is because I "have an agenda to pursue".

This kind of senseless crap has plagued the boards for far too long. It should go without saying that any poster out here must judge any bid made on itīs inherent quality, instead of trying to hide behind unsubstatiated accusations of the opponent having an agenda to defend.

Other people, who have no suspects and/or who stand to gain nothing by acknowledging it, nevertheless say the exact same thing as I do: That the two were most likely one and the same. The late Richard Whittington-Egan said it too.

How can we account for that? If an agenda is the only thing that could make people go for a shared identity, then why do these people do so? Why is Gary Barnett speaking for the possibility? Why does Debra Arif point to it?

Maybe Gary, Debra and Richard Whittington-Egan are simply entitled to do so, since they do not have any suspects who are strengthened by the suggestion? Maybe logic is only obtainable if you do not promote Lechmere as the Ripper? Maybe what THEY say and think is correct and credible, but when I say it, it becomes suspicious and incorrect?

Is that it? Can the value of a bid alter depending on WHO offers it? Even if what is offered is the exact same thing? Putting it differently: Must I be a cheat and a liar, since I support Lechmere?

As I have already asked on the adjacent thread: Canīt I entertain any idea at all with any credibility, if that idea in any manner can be looked upon as supporting the Lechmere theory? Will the factual value of my argument always be eaten up by how I cannot be trusted since I have a suspect?

This is something that must be dealt with and these whacky notions must be dispelled. If it can be proved that I support the ideas I support only because it serves an agenda of mine, I am all for hauling me over the coals. But if it can only be slyly and disgustingly suggested with no substantiation at all, well then I simply say the one who does so is a shame for these boards.

Over to Gareth now, who has been awarded his wish - an appropriate thread for this discussion.

Hi fish
if I may. If I remember correctly-you and I were discussing the possibility of torso man and the ripper being one and the same long before you thought lech was a good candidate for the ripper or both. but even if not, the fact remains that there are similarities between the torso and ripper, and lech age wise fits the ripper/torso-so that is certainly not any agenda, its just a fact.

[Sam Flynn]

You've started this thread off right from the get-go by personalising the argument. Why on earth would you think that anyone would want to engage with you on that basis? I'm certainly not going to.

"Senseless crap", indeed! Grow up.

[Fisherman]

You've started this thread off right from the get-go by personalising the argument. Why on earth would you think that anyone would want to engage with you on that basis? I'm certainly not going to.

"Senseless crap", indeed! Grow up.

Iīve been grown for the longest now, Gareth. This thread is not about personalizing the argument at all. It is about whether posters with suspects can be trusted or not, and whether those who choose not to trust them must base their decision on facts or if they are free to simply accuse anybody with a suspect as being less reliable than themselves on no factual grounds at all.

Much as you may think that you are the only one targetted by such a framwork, let me tell you that this is not so. It is a very important issue and one that needs looking into.

Your way of looking on things is that if you promote Karl Marx as being Grouchos brother, and if I promote Zeppo, Harpo and Chico instead, then you are more likley to be correct than I am - if I stand to strengthen my theory by being correct.

The crux of this matter is that what you point to - that whenever somebody stands to strenghten a suspect by choosing a path, then that somebody is not to be trusted - would, if we decide to use this distinction, automatically cripple anybody who suggest a suspect, since any suggestion that has something pointing to that suspect would in your world be an exponent of a bias, and not of a rationally made choice.

These are sinple enough questions to answer, and very hard questions to avoid. The reason for the latter being that you will point to a hefty bias of your own by not doing so, instead trying to suggest that the topic of the thread is not a generally interesting and useful one.

You have made an accusation. Base it on facts or admit that you were wrong. Itīs the only decent thing to do.

[GUT]

In my opinion many suspect based posters become blinded to anything that does not support their suspect.

Not all, but many.

[Fisherman]

In my opinion many suspect based posters become blinded to anything that does not support their suspect.

Not all, but many.

That is no doubt true, Gut. And of course, that is troublesome for the veracity of what they have to say.
The problem arises when these peoples shortcomings are used as an excuse to generally downgrade everything anybody with a suspect says. It is tiresome and tedious in the extreme to have people telling you "you only say that because you have an agenda". And it is robbing people with suspects of their equal right to form a useful and insightful opinion based on the facts.

I have pointed out that there are numerous people who regard the suggestion of a shared identity between the Ripper and the torso killer as a good one. And I have asked how that affects the suggestion that I only say so because it fits with the age of Lechmere, whereas it sees off people like Kosminski, Chapman and Bury if we start counting victims in 1873.

Nobody seems to want to give an answer to that question. Maybe some are afraid to have a go, realizing that they may get it wrong and be held accountable for it in the future, I donīt know. But it would be nice to see people speak up. In that context, thanks to you for at least contributing!

I agree heartily that there are suspectologists who have overstated their cases in rather astonishing manners. But let that taint THEIR ideas and THEIR work, instead of making it a rule that every person with a suspect is unable to see clearly. If we were to translate that kind of behavior to the rerpresentatives of the police forces around the globe, anybody who promoted a suspect or followed a lead would be fired and replaced with a more docile creatures who would never accuse anybody of anything. It would be Alice in Wonderland stuff, and all criminals would have not a field day, but a field life.

Anybody with a clear head and a responsible attitude towards Ripperology should be able to see that - and act accordingly.

[Fisherman]

Hi fish
if I may. If I remember correctly-you and I were discussing the possibility of torso man and the ripper being one and the same long before you thought lech was a good candidate for the ripper or both. but even if not, the fact remains that there are similarities between the torso and ripper, and lech age wise fits the ripper/torso-so that is certainly not any agenda, its just a fact.

Exactly, Abby - it is a fact. What is troublesome is that the specific weight of that fact supposedly changes depending on who mentions it. If I call it a fact, Gareth will try and nullify it by saying that since this information strengthens Lechmereīs candidature, it should not be regarded as useful information as long as I am the one offering it.

Supposedly, the exact same information would become more credible to him if somebody with no suspect mentioned it.

Doing Ripperology in that way is compromising yourself very badly. It is one thing to be wary about how people may over- or underrate the value of different pieces of information, based on convictions of theirs. But is quite another matter to make an initial deduction of credibility on behalf of people with suspects, regardless of the inherent quality of what they say. That is indecent, illogical and totally disrespectful.

Gareth has not only violated this rule - he also seems to be proud of it. The only thing he has managed to establish by it is a glaring lack of credibility and fair judgment - but that will not mean that I will look at what he sees in the future as automatically being wrong. I will, however, apply a good deal of caution to it, and I will be quite wary of the imminent danger of it being misleading.

[Admin]

The Research thread on Casebook has a specific set of rules for posting. This thread does not meet them. Therefore, it is being moved to General Discussion.

[Sam Flynn]

Exactly, Abby - it is a fact. What is troublesome is that the specific weight of that fact supposedly changes depending on who mentions it. If I call it a fact, Gareth will try and nullify it by saying that since this information strengthens Lechmereīs candidature, it should not be regarded as useful information as long as I am the one offering it.

Supposedly, the exact same information would become more credible to him if somebody with no suspect mentioned it.

Doing Ripperology in that way is compromising yourself very badly. It is one thing to be wary about how people may over- or underrate the value of different pieces of information, based on convictions of theirs. But is quite another matter to make an initial deduction of credibility on behalf of people with suspects, regardless of the inherent quality of what they say. That is indecent, illogical and totally disrespectful.

Gareth has not only violated this rule - he also seems to be proud of it. The only thing he has managed to establish by it is a glaring lack of credibility and fair judgment - but that will not mean that I will look at what he sees in the future as automatically being wrong. I will, however, apply a good deal of caution to it, and I will be quite wary of the imminent danger of it being misleading.

Personalising things again, Fish? Tut, tut. "Glaring lack of credibility and fair judgement", "indecent, illogical" my arse.

Your remarks are not even remotely true. I don't "nullify" any facts at all, but I will challenge skewed interpretations where appropriate, whether the poster in question has a suspect or not. I will also point out any inaccuracies, logical fallacies, speculations asserted as facts or contrived generalisations, wherever they arise. It is these kinds of approaches that "compromise ripperology", not mine.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Personalising things again, Fish? Tut, tut. "Glaring lack of credibility and fair judgement", "indecent, illogical" my arse.

The personalising is something that YOU started by claiming that I cannot be trusted on what I say since I promote a suspect. That is the only reason that I am pointing you out as having a glaring lack of credibility and making indecent accusations and lacking judgment. As for your arse, it may well be that it was where your accusation took shape, I donīt know. And I am not very inclined to go looking either.
So, you see, once again you fall on your own grip. It is extremely easy to show where the personalising begins. You need to be aware of such things before you make these kinds of accusations.

Your remarks are not even remotely true.

Then I will ask you to prove that, and while you are at it, I demand that you prove that I cannot be trusted like other posters on account of my having a suspect. That is what the whole thread is about. Prove your point or leave it. Put up or shut up.

I don't "nullify" any facts at all, but I will challenge skewed interpretations where appropriate, whether the poster in question has a suspect or not.

Okay, then prove that how is skewed to say that the inherent likenesses inbetween the deeds of the Ripper and the Torso killer makes the suggestion that they were one and the same viable. You see, if that is only a skewed idea of yours, the argument falls. So letīs have some proof before that happens!

And while you are at it, prove how it is NOT skewed to say that it is "almost certain" that the torso killer lived in the Western parts of London! How is that for a skewed statement?

I will also point out any inaccuracies, logical fallacies, speculations asserted as facts or contrived generalisations, wherever they arise.

Then have a look at your own recent postings, Gareth. Look no further!

It is these kinds of approaches that "compromise ripperology", not mine.

Yes, of course inaccuracies, logical fallacies and speculations asserted as facts compromise Ripperology. Which is why I avoid them. But how about you? How is it not a speculation asserted as fact to claim that the torso man " almost certainly" lived in the western parts of London, for example? How is it not a logical fallacy to say that the damages done in two series of murders were NOT very much alike? How is it not speculation that the two killers cut out uteri for different reasons?

It may be that you actually believe that it is au fait to make the kind of statements you produce, but it is nowhere near so. And that is the problem - not only do you think that I am applying the kind of things you believe you have a duty to correct "whenever they arise" (oh, the irony!), you actually also believe that you are doing it all the correct way yourself! The ambition is commendable, but the effectuation is laughable.

Believe me - you are not doing it right at all. Instead, it seeems to me that you are doing it any way you can to try and disarm the Lechmere theory. That is seemingly why you conjure up that the torso killer almost certainly lived in the western parts - so that it could not have been Lechmere. It all shines through very clearly, when looking at it like that - but you cannot even see that, can you?

Let me be frank: What the thread is about is nipping the idiocy that people with suspects cannot be trusted in the bud. And it begins with you, since you are the one who did it and pointed me out as an example. Itīs called personalising, Gareth. P-e-r-s-o-n-a-l-i-s-i-n-g.

[etenguy]

Let me be frank: What the thread is about is nipping the idiocy that people with suspects cannot be trusted in the bud.

I don't want to step into a disagreement between two respected forum posters - but I think it is time to take it outside and duke it out.

Or - if you are up for it - maybe it would be useful to discuss how we ensure we look at evidence as objectively as we are able - given that every one of us has some form of bias, conscious or unconscious.

[Fisherman]

I don't want to step into a disagreement between two respected forum posters - but I think it is time to take it outside and duke it out.

Or - if you are up for it - maybe it would be useful to discuss how we ensure we look at evidence as objectively as we are able - given that every one of us has some form of bias, conscious or unconscious.

It is a very simple matter to me - I cannot accept people telling me that the only reason that I do not agree with them is because I have an agenda to pursue.

I do not expect Gareth to have the decency to retract it. I tried to force him to explain himself on the thread where he originally stated this, but he would not do so, claiming that the reason for his silence was that the topic was not suited for the thread. Which is interesting per se, given that he was the one who introduced it!

I therefore opened up a thread of itīs own on the issue, mainly because I think it is of vital importance that things like these are not allowed to pass.

So far, Gareth has avoided commenting on this reckless statement of his on this thread too.

That is all this thread is about, and I do not expect it to be a much visited one. If you - or anybody else - want to expand the thread to a more general discussion about how we should treat the fact that there will always be personal levels of bias involved in all we think and say, feel free to do so.

At the end of the day, I think the matter is a simple one - trying to gain an advantage in a discussion by baselessly making claims about an opponentīs lesser worth as a poster on account of this poster having a suspect is ridiculous and disrespectful, unless you can prove your point. End of story.

[Sam Flynn]

maybe it would be useful to discuss how we ensure we look at evidence as objectively as we are able - given that every one of us has some form of bias, conscious or unconscious.

True enough, myself included. The good news is that it's fairly easy for a person to spot their own biases and, if not avoid them entirely, then at least allow for them. This can be done, for example, by phrasing things in as balanced a manner as possible, and keeping posts of appropriate size and to-the-point. The longer a post goes on, the more likely it is that a bias will creep in and steer the argument in the direction of that bias. It's like a ouija board in that respect; people often don't realise they're doing it, they even deny that they've done it, but it happens nonetheless.

So, my advice would be: keep a cool head, keep things balanced, and keep things focused.

[Abby Normal]

True enough, myself included. The good news is that it's fairly easy for a person to spot their own biases and, if not avoid them entirely, then at least allow for them. This can be done, for example, by phrasing things in as balanced a manner as possible, and keeping posts of appropriate size and to-the-point. The longer a post goes on, the more likely it is that a bias will creep in and steer the argument in the direction of that bias. It's like a ouija board in that respect; people often don't realise they're doing it, they even deny that they've done it, but it happens nonetheless.

So, my advice would be: keep a cool head, keep things balanced, and keep things focused.

Sounds like my life motto (especially during trying times). Keep calm, be positive, forge ahead.

[etenguy]

At the end of the day, I think the matter is a simple one - trying to gain an advantage in a discussion by baselessly making claims about an opponentīs lesser worth as a poster on account of this poster having a suspect is ridiculous and disrespectful, unless you can prove your point. End of story.

I didn't see the exchange which led to this thread, so will refrain from commenting. Clearly this is something you feel strongly about so I will resist hi-jacking your thread and leave you guys to resolve the issue. Good luck.