Time gap

[GUT]

Pierre, you claim to be a historian. Is there any data for that?

None that I've seen.

[GUT]

Pierre, you claim to be a historian. Is there any data for that?

None that I've seen.

Actually I withdraw that, there is date,


Negative data is still data.

[Pierre]

The double event would surely have been enough to spook any killer who valued his continued freedom and control as much as he valued life itself.

Waking up to reality the day after he killed Eddowes, he may have realised what close calls he'd had in Dutfield's Yard and Mitre Square, leading to a longer cooling off period than if he'd only carried out one attack, in less perilous circumstances.

Love,

Caz
X

Certainly not. There is no historical reason to postulate such a time period, on the contrary. There was no fear of being caught.

The only reason for the time gap was the date for the next event. It had to be that date.

[Elamarna]

Certainly not. There is no historical reason to postulate such a time period, on the contrary. There was no fear of being caught.

The only reason for the time gap was the date for the next event. It had to be that date.

Pierre

Once again you make a statement which reads like an Established Fact; of course it is not.

It is your hypothesis which is unsubstantiated because you will not discus it.

We are expected however to believe you. if you say you do not mind if we believe you or not, there really is no need for you to post in the first place is there?

Sorry that is not going to carry on..

There is no known reason to believe there was no fear of being caught.

There is no known data which suggests that the dates of the muders were important.

Undisclosed sources do not exist.

To propose hypotheses and argue without sources is of course what those amateur historians, Ripperologists do!!



Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;398095]

Pierre

Once again you make a statement which reads like an Established Fact; of course it is not.

It is your hypothesis which is unsubstantiated because you will not discus it.

Well, that is nothing controversial.

We are expected however to believe you. if you say you do not mind if we believe you or not, there really is no need for you to post in the first place is there?

Absolutely not. I would never ask anyone to believe me. But I can not do this alone. It is too much.

Sorry that is not going to carry on..

There is no known reason to believe there was no fear of being caught.

There is no known data which suggests that the dates of the muders were important.

Not yet.

Undisclosed sources do not exist.

To propose hypotheses and argue without sources is of course what those amateur historians, Ripperologists do!!

And the difference is "without sources". But I understand that there is a risk of confusing these two types.

[Elamarna]

Well, that is nothing controversial.

Certainly not for you Pierre, par for the course.

And the difference is "without sources". But I understand that there is a risk of confusing these two types.

Until if ever, you disclose those sources there is no difference whatsoever.



steve

[Pierre]

Certainly not for you Pierre, par for the course.

Until if ever, you disclose those sources there is no difference whatsoever.

steve

I understand that. That is fine with me.