Was Jack or (were Jack’s) schizophrenic?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Because it’s true.

…..

So to sum up.

You got the colour of Kosminski’s brothers moustache wrong.

You got the fact that 69.15% disagreed that Nichols was the first victim wrong.

And you get touchy when questioned about any of this.

You got the colour of Kosminski’s brothers moustache wrong.


I didn't get the colour wrong.

It is a thin dark moustache.

That doesn't make me wrong and you know it.



You got the fact that 69.15% disagreed that Nichols was the first victim wrong.


You're the one who is wrong about that.

You yourself stated that 69.15% agreed with me.



You refuse to accept the proven fact about the perception of colour and light.

You refuse to explain how the moustache could have looked 'lighter' than it really was in what you claim was poor lighting.




And you get touchy when questioned about any of this.

It appears that you get to decide what constitutes a fact. what is true, what constitutes presentation of an opinion as fact, and what amounts to getting touchy when being questioned about something.

[Herlock Sholmes]

• There is no reference to hair colour with Lawende's man, only facial hair. I have provided you with an actual example of a real man, stood in a real court room, being described as having a mustache that is a different colour to his hair. Described as inclined to 'sandy' or. ........'fair' with dark brown hair. Fair does not unequivocally mean blond. Therefore Koz could have had a fair mustache and dark hair, as the example I gave you.
• As H said, lighting can make a difference

Simple really, fair does not definitely mean blond, as a necktie and peaked cap does not mean a sailor.

That reminds me of something Wellington once said when someone said that he was Irish because he was born in Ireland. He said “if I had been born in a stable would that make me a horse!”

[Herlock Sholmes]

As I wrote in another post, you claimed that the moustache may have looked lighter than it was because of the lighting, but that Lawende's evidence is questionable because of the poor street lighting.

And you say that I 'refuse to use logic and reason'!

Lighting affects perception of colour. This is an absolutely proven scientific fact which you are denying.

You complained - as has become customary here - that I made an invalid 'assumption' that Nichols' was the first murder.

That is nonsense.

Most researchers share my opinion.

Do they? A poll conducted on here in 2009 said that 69.15% felt that she was a victim whilst 30.85% said that she wasn’t. You are quite free to try another poll and the results might be different of course but I doubt whether the result would be anywhere near as clear cut as you assume.


Excuse me, but I wrote that most researchers share my opinion and your refutation of what I wrote is that only 69.15 percent of them share my opinion!

And you say I'M the one who refuses 'to use logic and reason'!

Again, you’ve failed to read properly. 69.15% disagree with you that Nichols was the first victim. They don’t agree with you.


You appear to believe ... that others should simply agree with you.

What is the point of a remark like that?

Because it’s true.

…..

So to sum up.

You got the colour of Kosminski’s brothers moustache wrong.

You got the fact that 69.15% disagreed that Nichols was the first victim wrong.

You refuse to accept the proven fact about the perception of colour and light.

You’ve provided no evidence that a coat described as ‘salt and pepper; was specifically worn by sailors.

You deny the fact that a hat and coat doesn’t prove someone’s occupation.

You claim that it’s proof that Druitt couldn’t have been the killer because he was far too busy.

You also think it’s proven logically that if a man is in x on the 30th and x on the 1st then he must have been in x on the 31st.

And you think that because, 134 years on, we can’t prove that an individual was a psychopath then we should eliminate him as a suspect.

And you get touchy when questioned about any of this.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If he couldn’t identify the colour of his moustache correctly why do you assume that he have got his hair right which was partially covered by a cap?

And do you deny the fact that light can affect someone’s interpretation of colour?

Oh, and do you admit that you were wrong about the brothers dark moustache?

You said the moustache could have looked lighter than it was because of the street lighting.

You have also said that Lawende could not have got a good look at the man because of the poor lighting.

You're the one one who has some explaining to do.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You'll get a lot less grief if you stop presenting opinions as fact.

And I suppose you don't present your opinions as facts?

You didn't write that you disagree with me.

You wrote a single word: 'Wrong'.

It's not a question of whether I get 'grief'.

It's a question of whether one can hold a normal conversation, which you evidently cannot.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You can tell from that photo that Kosminski's brother had a fair moustache, but Lawende wouldn't know when he saw someone in real life whether his moustache was fair?

If he couldn’t identify the colour of his moustache correctly why do you assume that he got his hair right which was partially covered by a cap?

And do you deny the fact that light can affect someone’s interpretation of colour?

Oh, and do you admit that you were wrong about the brothers dark moustache?

[Aethelwulf]

You can tell from that photo that Kosminski's brother had a fair moustache, but Lawende wouldn't know when he saw someone in real life whether his moustache was fair?

You'll get a lot less grief if you stop presenting opinions as fact.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You can tell from that photo that Kosminski's brother had a fair moustache, but Lawende wouldn't know when he saw someone in real life whether his moustache was fair?

[The Baron]

Someone produced a picture of someone who is said to have been Kosminski's brother and it shows him with dark hair and a dark moustache.

Wrong.

His brother moustache is pretty fair, and his sister had brown hair, just like one of the reports of Lawende's description of the man he saw with brown hair too.


TB

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

• There is no reference to hair colour with Lawende's man, only facial hair. I have provided you with an actual example of a real man, stood in a real court room, being described as having a mustache that is a different colour to his hair. Described as inclined to 'sandy' or. ........'fair' with dark brown hair. Fair does not unequivocally mean blond. Therefore Koz could have had a fair mustache and dark hair, as the example I gave you.
• As H said, lighting can make a difference

Simple really, fair does not definitely mean blond, as a necktie and peaked cap does not mean a sailor.

Someone produced a picture of someone who is said to have been Kosminski's brother and it shows him with dark hair and a dark moustache.

That's the evidence so far produced on this forum about Kosminski's likely hair colour.

The evidence about the suspect's hair colour is that it was fair.

In the photograph, Kosminski's brother is wearing a top hat, although I suppose he could have dressed down to look like a sailor.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

As I wrote in another post, you claimed that the moustache may have looked lighter than it was because of the lighting, but that Lawende's evidence is questionable because of the poor street lighting.

And you say that I 'refuse to use logic and reason'!



You complained - as has become customary here - that I made an invalid 'assumption' that Nichols' was the first murder.

That is nonsense.

Most researchers share my opinion.

Do they? A poll conducted on here in 2009 said that 69.15% felt that she was a victim whilst 30.85% said that she wasn’t. You are quite free to try another poll and the results might be different of course but I doubt whether the result would be anywhere near as clear cut as you assume.


Excuse me, but I wrote that most researchers share my opinion and your refutation of what I wrote is that only 69.15 percent of them share my opinion!

And you say I'M the one who refuses 'to use logic and reason'!


You appear to believe ... that others should simply agree with you.

What is the point of a remark like that?

[Aethelwulf]

The evidence is that the suspect had fair hair and a fair complexion.

• There is no reference to hair colour with Lawende's man, only facial hair. I have provided you with an actual example of a real man, stood in a real court room, being described as having a mustache that is a different colour to his hair. Described as inclined to 'sandy' or. ........'fair' with dark brown hair. Fair does not unequivocally mean blond. Therefore Koz could have had a fair mustache and dark hair, as the example I gave you.
• As H said, lighting can make a difference

Simple really, fair does not definitely mean blond, as a necktie and peaked cap does not mean a sailor.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I see no real point in anyone engaging with you if you refuse to use logic and reason. How many times does this have to be said. Druitt was never investigated because he was never caught (obviously he might not have been guilty) No one interviewed his family, his school friends, his adult friends. The Wikipedia biography is all that you have which would be funny if it weren’t so troubling.

You are making assumptions. Again

You write that I 'refuse to use logic and reason' and then claim that I'm hypersensitive!

And of course, what you write is a 'fact', I suppose!

It's not an 'assumption' - is it?

And you're obviously NOT being condescending - are you?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Bundy occasionally exhibited disturbing behavior at an early age. Louise's younger sister Julia recalled awakening from a nap to find herself surrounded by knives from the kitchen, and three-year-old Ted standing by the bed, smiling.^[22] Bundy's childhood neighbor Sandi Holt described him as a bully, saying, "He liked to terrify people... He liked to be in charge. He liked to inflict pain and suffering and fear."^[23]

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

Now take a look at Druitt's Wikipedia entry.

Apart from the unfortunate mental illness, it is a biography any of us would be proud of if it were ours.

It is quite obvious that he didn't torture animals as a child nor murder women in adulthood.

I see no real point in anyone engaging with you if you refuse to use logic and reason. How many times does this have to be said. Druitt was never investigated because he was never caught (obviously he might not have been guilty) No one interviewed his family, his school friends, his adult friends. The Wikipedia biography is all that you have which would be funny if it weren’t so troubling.

You are making assumptions. Again

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you really cannot comprehend why I have taken offence at the tone of your comments to me, then I'll send you a list of them.

If you don't like slanging matches, then I suggest you don't start them.

Grow up PI and stick to the topic at hand. I’ve said nothing offensive on here. I’ve merely said that you’re making assumptions…..and you are. You are the one using terms like ‘ridiculous’ and ‘nonsense.’

You repeatedly charge that I am making assumptions about Druitt.

I'm not.

I'm making reasonable deductions from everything we know about him and his family.

And of course, your deductions must be correct?

A history of depression and suicide in a family does not correspond to a history of psychopathy and torturing animals in childhood.

No one has said that it does so why do you claim something that no one has suggested. What has been said is that Druitt’s suicide shows mental health issues. We have also said that because there is no evidence of him being a psychopath this isn’t proof that he wasn’t.

It is quite obvious that Druitt was with his cricket-playing colleagues in Dorset at the time of the first murder.

Suggesting that he may have committed the first murder during that trip to Dorset is fanciful.

Simply repeating an untruth wont make it true. You cannot prove that he didn’t return to London just as I can’t prove that he did.


Ive made no comment about Kelly not being the last victim so I can’t see where your comment comes from.


You complained - as has become customary here - that I made an invalid 'assumption' that Nichols' was the first murder.

That is nonsense.

Most researchers share my opinion.

Do they? A poll conducted on here in 2009 said that 69.15% felt that she was a victim whilst 30.85% said that she wasn’t. You are quite free to try another poll and the results might be different of course but I doubt whether the result would be anywhere near as clear cut as you assume.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...r-not#post3202

As I pointed out, you don't confront them with their invalid 'assumptions', and neither does anyone else here.

What invalid assumptions are you talking about? If your talking about the assumption that most researchers believe that Nichols was the first victim I’ve shown that it is nowhere near as clean cut a you assume.

And then, you have the nerve to say that I'm hypersensitive.

I haven’t called anyone’s suggestions ‘ridiculous’ or ‘nonsense.’ I’ve simply called you out when you’ve made assumptions that aren’t facts but your own assessment.

You have said I'm making an assumption that Nichols' was the first murder and Elamarna complained that I made an assumption that Kelly's was the last murder.

I suppose I could find the comment, but you may have noticed that he hasn't denied it.

What's going on here?

It's somehow controversial when I - but no-one else - adheres to convention and the canonical five?

There’s nothing controversial about it PI but these are not set-in-stone facts. All that has been done is to suggest that you considered that Nichols might not have been the killers first victim. I can’t for the life of me see why you keep getting so uptight whenever someone simply expresses a different interpretation.


As for Lawende's evidence: I consider that to be the key to solving the case, or getting as close to it as is possible.

You don't like that.

Its not about ‘liking.’ Again you take everything so personally. This is your opinion, you are fully entitled to it, but it’s not a proven fact. You appear to believe that it is and that others should simply agree with you. You are in the wrong place for that I’m afraid.

I didn't notice your shooting down fanciful suggestions about Kosminski directing an anti-Jewish insult at a fellow Jew or dressing in religious garb for a police identification.

I haven’t ‘shouted’ anyone down. I have to wonder why you post on a forum for debate where agreement and disagreement goes on when you clearly dislike being disagreed with.

Why don’t you stick to the topic and leave aside the emotional stuff?

That's not provocative in your view.

No it’s not. Not even in the slightest. It’s called having a difference of opinion.

But when I say Lawende's evidence is reliable, you can't stomach that!

What a strange comment. I view Lawende as an honest witness but not an infallible one as you appear to do.

Did Lawende get a close look at the man’s appearance? - He appears to have gotten a general view of his clothing, hat, coat etc. He also mentions his hair colour. But the fact that he said that he wouldn’t be able to recognise him again is proof that he didn’t look too closely or for long.

Can we rely on his assessment of the man’s hair colour? - No we can’t. The fact that lighting can affect our interpretation of colour is just that…..an absolute fact. So to claim that he couldn’t have been wrong is simply untrue.

Can we be certain that he was a sailor because Lawende said that he had the appearance of one? - Of course we can’t. Who knows where he might have got his hat and coat from? How do we know that he didn’t wear other than his normal clothes when he went out to kill?

These are the unknowns which you repeatedly assume to be true. Like your assumption that Druitt was in Dorset on the 31st. Or you’re weird statement that he was somehow too busy to have been the killer.

………

Ill request again that you provide the evidence that the kind of coat worn was known to have been worn by sailors please.