Pawn tickets in Mitre Square

[Pierre]

Vague and non-specific answers like this support my conclusion that you think we are all stupid and that you think you can get away without providing a single source for what you have said on this subject by making generalised and meaningless statements such as the above.

CPD 2:

Accusing other people for thinking things they do not think.

[Pierre]

I thought we were looking at the problem from the perspective of a statistician.

If you can ask "what is a heap?" and "where starts the rich and ends the poor?" you clearly don't understand the concept of statistical significance. That's what you are supposedly trying to establish, i.e. whether you can conduct an experiment which produces a statistically significant result.

CPD 3: Trying to control other peoples abilities.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;389035]

If you do your experiment and we end up asking ourselves philosophical questions about whether you have achieved anything then you will have achieved...well...precisely nothing.

CPD 4: Accusing people in advance before they have performed their task.

[David Orsam]

Pierre stop obsessing about me and deal with the subject at hand please.

[Pierre]

Pierre stop obsessing about me and deal with the subject at hand please.

CPD 5: Commanding other people.

[David Orsam]

Talking about the subject at hand, Pierre, are you able to confirm that when you say that "2 or 3" of the 42 characters from the pawn ticket are not included in your suspect's name this means that your suspect's name is comprised of either 39 or 40 characters.

Please don't tell me that you are excluding duplicates from your total of "2 or 3" so that your suspect's name could be comprised of much less than 39 characters.

You do realise how much this will affect the probabilities don't you?

[Pierre]

Talking about the subject at hand, Pierre, are you able to confirm that when you say that "2 or 3" of the 42 characters from the pawn ticket are not included in your suspect's name this means that your suspect's name is comprised of either 39 or 40 characters.

Please don't tell me that you are excluding duplicates from your total of "2 or 3" so that your suspect's name could be comprised of much less than 39 characters.

You do realise how much this will affect the probabilities don't you?

Thank you for sharing your ideas, David.

I have a series of evidence here. It is a disturbing collection.

And it makes me tired. As do you.

[Elamarna]

Jolly good! Let us start with "Characterizing the posts of David", shall we? This is

CPD 1:

Trying to control other peopleīs answers in the forum.

Pierre my friend,

That is so pointless a post.

You know my view that I will challenge anything I find to be misleading or pointless.

You and David do not agree, however he is asking a question, giving his view and asking if you agree or not.

I really do not see how it can be said that post is trying control your or anyone’s answer.


You may not agree with David or indeed the post by Joshua, which he is talking about (I suspect you do not), in which case say so and say why.
You may find that if you give a reasoned reply people may accept your view.


However rather than do that, or even ignore the point, what I do see is an attempt to evade answering the question, by attacking the poster of the question.

While I have been writing this I see 4 more such replies.

I see this often, when peoples views and abilities are challenged by others, there is a tendency to defend oneself by attacking the person asking the uncomfortable questions. ( this applies to many, not just you.)

Far better would be a response which kept to the "facts", backed up the views which are challenged with evidence/sources and concentrating on completing the research to either prove your theory or not.

Sorry if that sound harsh, but it is how I see the issue.

Steve

[David Orsam]

I have a series of evidence here. It is a disturbing collection.

If you truly have evidence, Pierre, post it or publish it. If you don't then I'm afraid I simply don't believe you.

Not that I'm saying you are lying but it's clear that you don't always understand documents and you have shown repeatedly on this forum that you have a tendency of leaping to conclusions based on things you haven't properly understood. Unless any of your "evidence" is produced it cannot be assumed to exist.

So I regret to say that I do not accept your claim that you have "a series of evidence here" and that it is "a disturbing collection". I fear you are seeing what you want to see.

But on the subject of the pawn tickets do you have anything else to say?

Because if not then perhaps this thread has finally come to an end.

[Elamarna]

Thank you for sharing your ideas, David.

I have a series of evidence here. It is a disturbing collection.

And it makes me tired. As do you.

Pierre,

yet another example of the major issue I have with your replies on occasions

You are asked a question, and it is a valid question

Your reply is just more evasion, why do you do this?

Its so easy to give a meaningful answer is it not?

I do not need a reply, but others will, and deserve to have one.



frustrated

steve

[MrBarnett]

Jolly good! Let us start with "Characterizing the posts of David", shall we? This is

CPD 1:

Trying to control other peopleīs answers in the forum.

The pair of you should grow up.

[Abby Normal]

The pair of you should grow up.

What do you mean by pair? Pierre and his overactive imagination?

[MrBarnett]

What do you mean by pair? Pierre and his overactive imagination?

Nope, Pierre and David. What are we trying to achieve here, a better understanding of the circumstances of the WM, or which of our posters is the smartest arse?

Once upon a time it was the former, nowadays it seems it is the latter.

[Abby Normal]

Nope, Pierre and David. What are we trying to achieve here, a better understanding of the circumstances of the WM, or which of our posters is the smartest arse?

Once upon a time it was the former, nowadays it seems it is the latter.

You've got to be kidding.

Honestly it's like a retarded chimp vs. well,,,an intelligent human being.

And if you've followed David's overall writings, you would definitely know he has "better understanding of the circumstances of the WM"

But frankly, I don't know how he keeps it up. He has the patience of a saint when dealing with Pierre.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;389050]

Pierre my friend,

That is so pointless a post.

You know my view that I will challenge anything I find to be misleading or pointless.

Hi Steve,

Donīt worry, I know your position. Perhaps I know it better than you think I do.

You and David do not agree, however he is asking a question, giving his view and asking if you agree or not.

I really do not see how it can be said that post is trying control your or anyone’s answer.

Since I know that your main interest here is not the ethos of the communication between me and David, but the historical facts I am dealing with, and since you are able to pose questions in a good manner, something you always do where not-mentioning-any-name fails, I will answer you.

(I will also abstain from starting an off-topic discussion about the "controlling of other peopleīs posts", since it is not helping the case.)

You may not agree with David or indeed the post by Joshua, which he is talking about (I suspect you do not), in which case say so and say why.
You may find that if you give a reasoned reply people may accept your view.

Now to the question and here is the answer. Jeff postulated that the pawn ticket dated 31 August might have belonged to Polly Nichols. That was a new idea to me. I always try new ideas, sometimes by just saying them, sometimes by just thinking about them and sometimes by writing and reading about them. Here I said the new idea and I said it in the form of an hypothesis, since this method is the best one. I did not need to test the hypothesis though, since Joshua afterwards wrote that the pawn shop was not open at night. I donīt know if that is correct, but letīs say it is. In my case, the question is a non question, since I already have another hypothesis which is bothering me now.

So, no, I do not think Polly Nichols pawned the shirt, even if the shop would have been open at midnight or sometime during the night. I do not think anything actually, i.e. I do not believe anything about the pawn tickets. But I have an hypothesis, as I made clear here and earlier on, that the pawn tickets might not have belonged to Emily Birell, Jane Kelly or Catherine Eddowes. If they were not, one could ask what the probability is that a serial killer left the pawn tickets at the murder site. This question could then be seen as a consequence of the hypothesis that the tickets never did belong to someone named on the tickets or to the murder victim in Mitre Square.

So Polly Nichols has nothing to do with it if you ask me.

(For those who need a simple explanation about the difference between an hypothesis and belief; you can have an hypothesis that a god exists without believeing in a god).

However rather than do that, or even ignore the point, what I do see is an attempt to evade answering the question, by attacking the poster of the question.

You do not need to say that. David is already doing what he can to accuse me of different things.

While I have been writing this I see 4 more such replies.

I see this often, when peoples views and abilities are challenged by others, there is a tendency to defend oneself by attacking the person asking the uncomfortable questions. ( this applies to many, not just you.)

I think I will stop to communicate with David soon again. He destroys the discussions by going off topic and it takes time. Where do you prefere that I invest that time - in answering very meaningless questions or in working on the case? I know the answer of that.

Far better would be a response which kept to the "facts", backed up the views which are challenged with evidence/sources and concentrating on completing the research to either prove your theory or not.

I agree with you completely. And so I can not answer questions like "What is the difference between 15 and 20 percent?" or make comments on "Such screams were common because Prater has told everyone such screams were common" or "Taken on face value, he was lying". Just to mention a few.

Sorry if that sound harsh, but it is how I see the issue.

You donīt sound harsh at all.

Best wishes, Pierre