An experiment

[Abby Normal]

Now you are off topic.

so you only respond to off topic posts now?lol
how about Henrys very relevant post right before mine?

[Pcdunn]

how about Henrys very relevant post right before mine?

Indeed, Abby makes a good point, and I echo the question: Have you found the last few pieces of evidence needed to confirm for yourself that you had found the identity of Jack the Ripper yet?
I remember your first post, many months ago (when we were all younger) in which you told us you weren't interested in solving the case, but you thought you had found out who the Ripper had been, and how interested we all were to read this!
Alas, we haven't yet heard his name, I think.

[ohrocky]

With some trepidation......judges have sat alone in UK criminal cases (ie without a jury). This was first introduced in Northern Ireland during the period of "The Troubles" and were known as Diplock Courts. The judge determined guilt and passed sentence.

In England, the law was changed in 2004 to allow a criminal case to be heard by a judge, sitting alone without a jury and I believe the first case under the new provisions was not heard until 2010. However...............

The 2010 case was the first time in over 400 years that a criminal trial was held without a "jury". (We need to remember that jurors were not always 12 good men and true selected at random from the qualifying populous eg trial of Charles I).

I can certainly find no reference to a capital trial in the LVP where a judge sat alone.

So Mr Orsam is correct! In all criminal trials in the LVP there would have been a jury determining guilt and a judge determining sentence.

Sorry...what was Pierre's question again???

[Pierre]

With some trepidation......judges have sat alone in UK criminal cases (ie without a jury). This was first introduced in Northern Ireland during the period of "The Troubles" and were known as Diplock Courts. The judge determined guilt and passed sentence.

In England, the law was changed in 2004 to allow a criminal case to be heard by a judge, sitting alone without a jury and I believe the first case under the new provisions was not heard until 2010. However...............

The 2010 case was the first time in over 400 years that a criminal trial was held without a "jury". (We need to remember that jurors were not always 12 good men and true selected at random from the qualifying populous eg trial of Charles I).

I can certainly find no reference to a capital trial in the LVP where a judge sat alone.

So Mr Orsam is correct! In all criminal trials in the LVP there would have been a jury determining guilt and a judge determining sentence.

Sorry...what was Pierre's question again???

Hi,

The question was how we can understand the use of both the word ju--es and "men" in the GSG.

David thought the word men was redundant.

However, David did destroy the question by ignoring my answer to his remarks and seems to have encouraged certain posters to go off topic and post big black pictures instead of discussing the content in the thread.

That is why you now had to ask your question and add three questions marks after it.

And that is why I am answering your question.

Perhaps you have an answer?

Cheers, Pierre

[barnflatwyngarde]

Hi,

The question was how we can understand the use of both the word ju--es and "men" in the GSG.

David thought the word men was redundant.

However, David did destroy the question by ignoring my answer to his remarks and seems to have encouraged certain posters to go off topic and post big black pictures instead of discussing the content in the thread.

That is why you now had to ask your question and add three questions marks after it.

And that is why I am answering your question.

Perhaps you have an answer?

Cheers, Pierre

"The question was how we can understand the use of both the word ju--es and "men" in the GSG."

Pierre,I note that you consider there to be 2 letters missing (ju--es).

Do you have a source for this remarkable claim?

[Pierre]

"The question was how we can understand the use of both the word ju--es and "men" in the GSG."

Pierre,I note that you consider there to be 2 letters missing (ju--es).

Do you have a source for this remarkable claim?

What remarkable claim?

The construction "Ju-es" is purely a test instrument for a hypothesis which can be used for thinking outside the theoretical box.

The box of course being "Jews".

[GUT]

With some trepidation......judges have sat alone in UK criminal cases (ie without a jury). This was first introduced in Northern Ireland during the period of "The Troubles" and were known as Diplock Courts. The judge determined guilt and passed sentence.

In England, the law was changed in 2004 to allow a criminal case to be heard by a judge, sitting alone without a jury and I believe the first case under the new provisions was not heard until 2010. However...............

The 2010 case was the first time in over 400 years that a criminal trial was held without a "jury". (We need to remember that jurors were not always 12 good men and true selected at random from the qualifying populous eg trial of Charles I).

I can certainly find no reference to a capital trial in the LVP where a judge sat alone.

So Mr Orsam is correct! In all criminal trials in the LVP there would have been a jury determining guilt and a judge determining sentence.

Sorry...what was Pierre's question again???

No one really knows what Pierre's question is or was or means. At any time.

And yes trial by judge alone in the Common Law system is a new concept, late 20th early 21st Century. But we can't expect a mere historian to grasp this concept.

[GUT]

With some trepidation......judges have sat alone in UK criminal cases (ie without a jury). This was first introduced in Northern Ireland during the period of "The Troubles" and were known as Diplock Courts. The judge determined guilt and passed sentence.

In England, the law was changed in 2004 to allow a criminal case to be heard by a judge, sitting alone without a jury and I believe the first case under the new provisions was not heard until 2010. However...............

The 2010 case was the first time in over 400 years that a criminal trial was held without a "jury". (We need to remember that jurors were not always 12 good men and true selected at random from the qualifying populous eg trial of Charles I).

I can certainly find no reference to a capital trial in the LVP where a judge sat alone.

So Mr Orsam is correct! In all criminal trials in the LVP there would have been a jury determining guilt and a judge determining sentence.

Sorry...what was Pierre's question again???

Ohhhh welcome to Casebook.

[barnflatwyngarde]

What remarkable claim?

The construction "Ju-es" is purely a test instrument for a hypothesis which can be used for thinking outside the theoretical box.

The box of course being "Jews".

Pierre, you haven't answered my question.

Your post implied that the word "ju--es" was missing 2 letter; 2 gaps in the word equate to two letters.

I asked you what your source was for the word having 6 letters (which could support your premise that the word was "judges") as opposed to the commonly held belief that the word was "Juwes" (which has 5 letters).

It is not a trick question.

I am simply asking what is your source for the" J" word at Goulston Street being 6 letters long.

Historians and researchers use verifiable sources to back up their arguments.

What are your sources on this matter?

[MysterySinger]

Historians and researchers haven't been able to resolve the mystery of the GSG.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Historians and researchers haven't been able to resolve the mystery of the GSG.

I agree that there are elements of the GSG that are still contentious, but I am simply asking Pierre his reasons for believing that the "J" word in the GSG had 6 letters as opposed to the generally accepted 5.

[Pierre]

I agree that there are elements of the GSG that are still contentious, but I am simply asking Pierre his reasons for believing that the "J" word in the GSG had 6 letters as opposed to the generally accepted 5.

w = v+v.

Pierre

[GUT]

I agree that there are elements of the GSG that are still contentious, but I am simply asking Pierre his reasons for believing that the "J" word in the GSG had 6 letters as opposed to the generally accepted 5.

Because he thinks w= v v

So the word must be juvves. Otherwise it makes about much sense as most of what he posts.

[David Orsam]

Not a lot of people know there were 4 letters in the word "men".

n+n e n

and 8 in "blamed" - b l a n n e c l

[GUT]

Not a lot of people know there were 4 letters in the word "men".

n+n e n

and 8 in "blamed" - b l a n n e c l

Yep and in Pierre there are hundreds, gogomagog just for one, wait till he starts in From He'll or Dear Boss. Bet he can make up lots of rubbish with those.