Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis

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

  • Originally posted by Batman View Post
    I just told you I am not but it seems you want me to be really badly.

    I don't have a problem with corrections to the trivial details but they don't make the many hands hypothesis any more probable.
    Sorry, but you are very much a Ripperologist. Otherwise you wouldn't be spending hours on here discussing your case. None of us has JTR written on our hearts. We all come to it from different directions. I could claim that I'm not a Ripperologist, just a family historian, but that would be disingenuous.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
      Sorry, but you are very much a Ripperologist. Otherwise you wouldn't be spending hours on here discussing your case. None of us has JTR written on our hearts. We all come to it from different directions. I could claim that I'm not a Ripperologist, just a family historian, but that would be disingenuous.
      You certainly do enjoy telling other people what they should think of themselves and what their arguments should be for them, don't you?

      I have my own reasons for being here. Like the last time, I will spend my time asking what I want to and then head off and let you carry on with your multiple hands hypothesis as much as you want.
      Bona fide canonical and then some.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Batman View Post
        The scientific approach is called the scientific method in my world.

        There are other philosophical approaches used at the start of the method though and I think maybe you are talking about those. Conjecturing with some evidence. Maths that point to trying a certain direction or not but in the end the method has the experiment to be scientific.

        Statistics are even used in DNA profiling. No experiment with repeats can avoid it. A useful tool.

        I think my position on why I speculate JtR being LE is right there on the very first post on this thread.

        Not sure what you are saying here, Batman?
        Semantics over "method" or "approach" seem pointless.
        The point is the method used must be robust and consistent.

        Did I not say statistics are useful, but that usefulness depends on the subject and the sample size used.

        Your position is clear, and while i do not personally believe that the example you use can be easily transferred to the very small area of Whitechapel, you at least give some reasoning.
        However, while not saying it could not be a police officer, i see nothing at all to support the idea it was.


        To speculate that they bought their own uniforms, is not so far as you have shown, based on any factual evidence. You just think it fits the theory you have, great nothing wrong with that.
        The problem here has been that when asked what lead you to suspect they bought their own uniforms you become defensive, and said it was for others to prove such was not the case.

        That is not how science works, i know having worked in medical research for over 35 years,



        Steve

        Comment


        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
          But you ignore the raw data you feed into your scientific model.
          What "scientific model" are you inventing here? I guess since you are in the mind to come up with all sorts of claims I never made, why not just add that one in too for the kicks, right?

          And dismiss those who mention the fact as 'reductionist'.
          Well, all you have done here is confirm you don't understand this counter-argument. I'll try it another way for you then. To only consider wounds and omitting victimology, time, location, chronology means you aren't making a sound judgment. You need to consider all of the evidence and not just some of it. This is a problem with the many hand's hypothesis.

          Is there a name for that particular philosophical approach?
          Sure. There is a whole tool kit there. Parsimony is one. For example, many hands is a more complex argument than one hand. Probabilities is another. For example, many hands is highly improbable considering all the evidence.
          Inferences, deductions are some more. Maths is another.

          How many hands do you think are involved in Smith, Tabram and the C5? Which is really at the heart of your argument.

          I don't know why you skit around this stuff and just don't come out an argue it.
          Last edited by Batman; 11-01-2018, 04:07 PM.
          Bona fide canonical and then some.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Batman View Post
            You certainly do enjoy telling other people what they should think of themselves and what their arguments should be for them, don't you?

            I have my own reasons for being here. Like the last time, I will spend my time asking what I want to and then head off and let you carry on with your multiple hands hypothesis as much as you want.
            What you think of yourself is up to you. In the real world, someone who studies the WM in depth and spends hours upon hours discussing the case online is a Ripperologist. What else might the term mean?

            Multiple hands hypothesis? Tell me all about myself. You seem to know more than me.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
              The problem here has been that when asked what lead you to suspect they bought their own uniforms you become defensive, and said it was for others to prove such was not the case.

              Steve
              Actually, I didn't say that at all.

              First of all, I said that I 'suspect'...

              Someone else tried to turn that into a hard line. That's what I rejected and pointed out their position was same if speculating.

              You took that to mean I was shifting the burden of proof, right?

              Which I didn't do.

              I clearly said from the start in reply to their claim that I was speculating.
              Bona fide canonical and then some.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                What you think of yourself is up to you. In the real world, someone who studies the WM in depth and spends hours upon hours discussing the case online is a Ripperologist. What else might the term mean?

                Multiple hands hypothesis? Tell me all about myself. You seem to know more than me.
                In the end, it doesn't really matter to me at all. All I do is take away what I can learn from here. If you want to confirm your status as Ripperologist, have at it. Doesn't impact me.
                Bona fide canonical and then some.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Batman View Post
                  In the end, it doesn't really matter to me at all. All I do is take away what I can learn from here. If you want to confirm your status as Ripperologist, have at it. Doesn't impact me.
                  There you go again.

                  You refuse to learn anything. You arrived here with your bag of tricks, thinking yourself above mere 'Ripperologists' but have impressed no one as far as I'm aware. If you'd been prepared to learn - consider others' opinions - you might actually have learned something.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                    There you go again.

                    You refuse to learn anything.
                    Demonstrably wrong. I just admitted a mistake today and one a few days back. The only type of people who refuse to learn anything are those that can't reference themselves doing any such thing.

                    You arrived here with your bag of tricks,
                    Obviously, something impressed you enough but you want it to be a 'bag of tricks'. What exactly have I to gain from that? I doubt anyone believes I am here to 'trick' you.

                    thinking yourself above mere 'Ripperologists'
                    I never said that. If you need to lie to make a point, then I suggest you have lost that debate long ago.

                    but have impressed no one as far as I'm aware.
                    I am not here to impress anyone. Is that why you are here? To impress people?

                    If you'd been prepared to learn - consider others' opinions - you might actually have learned something.
                    I can even reference me learning and reference others I have learned from. I can even show where I admitted mistakes. I usually find hypocrites can't do that though.
                    Bona fide canonical and then some.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Batman View Post
                      Actually, I didn't say that at all.

                      First of all, I said that I 'suspect'...

                      Someone else tried to turn that into a hard line. That's what I rejected and pointed out their position was same if speculating.

                      You took that to mean I was shifting the burden of proof, right?

                      Which I didn't do.

                      I clearly said from the start in reply to their claim that I was speculating.

                      In post 179 mrbarnett said:


                      Why would you think that? Are you UK based?


                      In post 180 you replied


                      So the answer is you don't know for now? I am waiting for your source that doubts it.



                      That seems very much as I posted.

                      What was posted was shifting the burden of proof. It may not have been intended but that is how it appeared.


                      I asked you why you suspected the police may have bought their own uniforms

                      Your response was clear:

                      . I suspect it because it could help bolster the theory.



                      You just like the idea, because it fits a theory you have . Why not actually check it first to see if it was true?

                      A response along the lines of I will check it out, rather than what was posted in post 180, would have prevented this.
                      That is how research should work.



                      Steve
                      Last edited by Elamarna; 11-01-2018, 04:34 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Anyway enough of people trying to make this about me. It obviously isn't, any more than any other thread is.

                        Does anyone know the answer to if PCs back in 1888 had to buy parts of their uniform (clothes) or if they were issued their clothes which they handed back in if they left the force or retired?

                        Basically, we are looking at reasons for why officers who left the force may have retained these things.

                        Although it is not necessarily an important factor in decerning if JtR is LE or not.

                        Great, back on topic
                        Bona fide canonical and then some.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Batman View Post
                          Anyway enough of people trying to make this about me. It obviously isn't, any more than any other thread is.

                          Does anyone know the answer to if PCs back in 1888 had to buy parts of their uniform (clothes) or if they were issued their clothes which they handed back in if they left the force or retired?

                          Basically, we are looking at reasons for why officers who left the force may have retained these things.

                          Although it is not necessarily an important factor in decerning if JtR is LE or not.

                          Great, back on topic
                          There’s a book which covers all this.

                          Full kit was issued just prior to attestation, and should be handed back upon leaving the force. Boots used to be handed out however this was replaced by a boot allowance. Boots would be purchased from selected stores.

                          As stated, kit would be returned upon the Constable leaving, however it was common for a blind eye to be turned at the retention of the odd piece of kit such as helmet, tunic or commonly truncheon, as a keepsake.

                          Monty




                          Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                          http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Monty View Post
                            There’s a book which covers all this.

                            Full kit was issued just prior to attestation, and should be handed back upon leaving the force. Boots used to be handed out however this was replaced by a boot allowance. Boots would be purchased from selected stores.

                            As stated, kit would be returned upon the Constable leaving, however it was common for a blind eye to be turned at the retention of the odd piece of kit such as helmet, tunic or commonly truncheon, as a keepsake.

                            Monty
                            Thanks for this, Monty, very informative.

                            Would this have also applied to officers, i.e. inspector rank and above? The reason I ask is that my grandfather was a warrant officer second class at the end of World War 2 in the British Army and was then offered a commission. However, he turned it down for largely financial reasons, one of those being that, as an officer, he would have been required to buy his own uniform.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Batman View Post
                              Basically, we are looking at reasons for why officers who left the force may have retained these things.

                              Although it is not necessarily an important factor in decerning if JtR is LE or not.
                              An ex-copper might have retained the odd bit of kit but, having left, would also lose his access to insider knowledge of the plain clothes men and extra beats assigned to the reinforcements brought in to catch the Ripper. This would militate against an ex-officer being the killer, given that this insider knowledge is so key to the LE hypothesis.
                              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                                An ex-copper might have retained the odd bit of kit but, having left, would also lose his access to insider knowledge of the plain clothes men and extra beats assigned to the reinforcements brought in to catch the Ripper. This would militate against an ex-officer being the killer, given that this insider knowledge is so key to the LE hypothesis.
                                The firing could come after Kelly.

                                Joseph James DeAngelo was fired midstream between EAR and ONS.

                                He was caught shoplifting a hammer and dog repellent.
                                Bona fide canonical and then some.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X