Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Different Killers

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • experts

    Hello Batman. Thanks.

    The boards recently finished discussing an "expert." Turns out he was a silly billy who could not read even a data base, couldn't do 7th grade math, and was clueless about cytosine in the context of DNA.

    If you want a GENUINE expert on "JTR," you're in the right place. People here, like Scott Nelson and Jon Smythe (both of whom you seem bent on alienating), have FORGOTTEN more about the case than your lad will EVER know.

    Why not read and learn? It could happen, you know.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Comment


    • vive la difference

      Hello John. Thanks.

      "Regarding Nichols and Chapman. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the distinguishing factors are the bruising and swollen tongues (suggestion that they were either strangled or suffocated) and the parallel cuts."

      Yes, that's a good part of it. Of course, their dresses were not cut through, Kate's was. Kate was a hack and mangle job; Polly and Annie, not.

      As far as replicating the deep parallel cuts (one very long; one half as much), no, he was not bound to. But he DID replicate it in Annie's case.

      Cheers.
      LC

      Comment


      • outliers

        Hello Batman.

        "There is zero evidence for multiple lust murders of the very rare type -Picquerism, doing this."

        I'd go further. There is zero evidence that these killings were lust murders.

        "London 1888 is not a common set of murders at all."

        Indeed. They are outliers. Now, what are the statistics of outliers?

        Cheers.
        LC

        Comment


        • You are only proving the need the expert methodology that is tried and trusted

          Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
          Hello Batman. Thanks.

          The boards recently finished discussing an "expert." Turns out he was a silly billy who could not read even a data base, couldn't do 7th grade math, and was clueless about cytosine in the context of DNA.
          If you mean the shawl, then this is an excellent example of experts using academic references to falsify the claims of a popular culture book which are not expert publications.

          It was scientists who using science (not anything else) demonstrated why it was wrong. It was plainly obvious to the science community that because it was a pop culture book and not referencing/published in an academic journal, this didn't sound right, because that's not how science is done. When you say words like cytosine and DNA, we reference this to the litrature and its methodology that supports it.

          Plus you are comparing apples with oranges here.

          If you want a GENUINE expert on "JTR," you're in the right place. People here, like Scott Nelson and Jon Smythe (both of whom you seem bent on alienating), have FORGOTTEN more about the case than your lad will EVER know.
          I will select the sources whom I please. Notice that Keppel references sources which strongly disagree with your multiple killer hypothesis.

          Why not read and learn? It could happen, you know.
          Learn what? That your mad jew hypothesis for the murders of Nichols and Chapman is vindicated by the evidence because you think he resembles (which he doesn't in walk) some man who walked into a pub with specks of blood on his hands? We know that people with red paint on them got into trouble with mobs. Plus you are conflating psychiatric illness with murder as a reason for these crimes. Hardly.

          Anyway if Keppel is referencing the likes of Sugden, Begg, Evans and Rumbelow you can certainly confusing me about what you think an expert is? Are they experts or not?
          Last edited by Batman; 03-28-2015, 01:00 PM.
          Bona fide canonical and then some.

          Comment


          • Ada

            Hello Batman. You keep referring to Ada Wilson. Please be aware that there is AMPLE evidence about precisely whom her killer was.

            You will find the article in Rip which, in my estimation, is worth ALL the social science texts you can lay hands on.

            Cheers.
            LC

            Comment


            • savour the flavour

              Hello (again) Batman). Thanks.

              Those were NOT scientific experts. They were a mathematician and other "JTR" investigators--people who INSIST on understanding a claim before blindly rushing off and proclaiming, "Case closed."

              Mad Jew? What on EARTH are you talking about? Isenschmid was NOT Jewish--he was a Swiss Gentile. So you are wrong AGAIN.

              Need I say more? (Might ask how your foot tastes. It's planted firmly in your mouth just now.)

              Cheers.
              LC

              Comment


              • Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
                Hello Batman.

                "There is zero evidence for multiple lust murders of the very rare type -Picquerism, doing this."

                I'd go further. There is zero evidence that these killings were lust murders.
                I know you don't think these where sex crimes despite the fact that MJK is displayed out the way she was with both breasts removed. The females sexual organs are attacked and removed. Chapman has her hand on her breast. Legs are spread in many of the cases. Posed sexually.
                Bona fide canonical and then some.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
                  Hello (again) Batman). Thanks.

                  Those were NOT scientific experts. They were a mathematician and other "JTR" investigators--people who INSIST on understanding a claim before blindly rushing off and proclaiming, "Case closed."

                  Mad Jew? What on EARTH are you talking about? Isenschmid was NOT Jewish--he was a Swiss Gentile. So you are wrong AGAIN.

                  Need I say more? (Might ask how your foot tastes. It's planted firmly in your mouth just now.)

                  Cheers.
                  LC

                  Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys, the inventor of genetic fingerprinting, have dismissed the DNA test by molecular biologist Dr. Jari Louhelainen, which is the centrepiece of the case against Kosminski, pointing to an "error of nomenclature" when using a DNA data base of one of the victim's relatives.


                  Could have fooled me.

                  You have said so many things about your suspect I don't know what to trust.
                  Bona fide canonical and then some.

                  Comment


                  • Okay so he is not a Jew. You can have that one because I couldn't care a fiddle about him anymore than your delusional butcher hypothesis to explain a sex crime.

                    See more than willing to accept correction if you can show a shred of anything to corroborate what you are saying. Left side for Stride. Your suspect not a Jew.

                    What sort of a historian would ignore the historical record for lust murders? Plus, the whole Ipswitch Murders episode where 3 out of 5 victims couldn't even be given a cause of death, was the work of one lust murderer.
                    Last edited by Batman; 03-28-2015, 01:14 PM.
                    Bona fide canonical and then some.

                    Comment


                    • induction

                      Hello John. Good heavens! Forgot to thank you for the Hume quote.

                      That is essentially his induction problem.

                      By the way, it is WHY I say there is no proof of an empirical object.

                      Cheers.
                      LC

                      Comment


                      • own

                        Hello Batman. Thanks.

                        "Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys, the inventor of genetic fingerprinting, have dismissed the DNA test by molecular biologist Dr. Jari Louhelainen, which is the centrepiece of the case against Kosminski, pointing to an "error of nomenclature" when using a DNA data base of one of the victim's relatives."

                        As much as I respect Sir Alec, he was late to the party.

                        "Could have fooled me."

                        I daresay. It's easily done.

                        "You have said so many things about your suspect I don't know what to trust."

                        Well, you might try the research. In fact, IF you believed something because I said it, I would be DEEPLY disappointed. Same for anyone else.

                        Do your OWN research and draw your OWN conclusions. If we disagree, fine. No problem.

                        But religious veneration for an "expert" outside his field?

                        Cheers.
                        LC

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by lynn cates View Post

                          By the way, it is WHY I say there is no proof of an empirical object.

                          Cheers.
                          LC
                          Ah well I thought idealism explained your rejection of science. Unless its your custom version when you want it (cachous trajectories and what not).

                          Idealism is simply confusing imagination of the mind with matter. Bertrand Russell shrugs idealism off with ease.

                          Close your eyes. Imagine a chair. Open your eyes and look at a chair. Not the same substance at all.

                          Btw it was Berkeley not Hume who rejected empiricism. Kant endorsed Berkeley modified.
                          Bona fide canonical and then some.

                          Comment


                          • historians

                            Hello (again) Batman. Thanks.

                            I quite agree with your attitude towards JI. If one is not interested, then don't pursue. I have no NEED to be right.

                            "What sort of a historian would ignore the historical record for lust murders?"

                            One who had a flair for critical analysis, I suppose. This SAME historian would have ignored the revenge business half a century ago and whatever new rot will be dredged up in future.

                            Cheers.
                            LC

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
                              Well, you might try the research. In fact, IF you believed something because I said it, I would be DEEPLY disappointed. Same for anyone else.

                              Do your OWN research and draw your OWN conclusions. If we disagree, fine. No problem.

                              But religious veneration for an "expert" outside his field?

                              Cheers.
                              LC
                              Outside his field? Keppel?

                              He catches serial killers using the methodology. Bang to rights.

                              Ted Bundy.

                              Gary Ridgeway.

                              You do realize your view of no connection is often the reason police departments didn't cooperate early enough to prevent more murders?
                              Bona fide canonical and then some.

                              Comment


                              • foot taste

                                Hello (yet again) Batman. Thanks.

                                "Btw it was Berkeley not Hume who rejected empiricism."

                                Oh, for pity's sake, mate. Berkeley NEVER rejected empiricism. that is why he and Locke and Hume were called "British Empiricists" (as opposed to Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz--"The Continental rationalists).

                                Think you'd better leave history of philosophy to me--if you don't mind.

                                By the way, I have power point lectures on ALL these blokes. I can send them along.

                                Cheers.
                                LC

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X