JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis

[Elamarna]

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

[Batman]

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.

[MrBarnett]

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.

[MrBarnett]

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.

But you ignore the raw data you feed into your scientific model. And dismiss those who mention the fact as 'reductionist'.

Is there a name for that particular philosophical approach?

[Batman]

Did I claim you were trying to be a Ripperologist? I don’t remember that, but you are one surely? A classic Ripperologist in tbe negative sense.

You do not make it clear when you are speculating. That’s the main issue I have with your posts. You started one thread by saying that Emma Smith was ‘stabbed’ and her attacker was covered in blood. I don’t recall any kind of caveat telling us that was all in your imagination.

Indeed, your ‘arguments’ are overwhelming...

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.

[Batman]

It seems we have a different view of a scientific approach to a problem.

Steve

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.

[MrBarnett]

This is like your claim I am trying to be a Ripperologist.

I have never claimed to be any such thing. Nor an authority. I do cite sources and refs when I can.

I certainly make clear what is speculative, when asked.

All you have done here is expose to us what you think others should think of you.

Maybe my arguments are so overwhelming you that you might be inclined to perceive me that way or something, lol.

No, I am neither a Ripperologist nor an authority.

Do you ever speculate on here, BTW?

Did I claim you were trying to be a Ripperologist? I don’t remember that, but you are one surely? A classic Ripperologist in tbe negative sense.

You do not make it clear when you are speculating. That’s the main issue I have with your posts. You started one thread by saying that Emma Smith was ‘stabbed’ and her attacker was covered in blood. I don’t recall any kind of caveat telling us that was all in your imagination.

Indeed, your ‘arguments’ are overwhelming...

[Elamarna]

Yes, I am speculating. I made that clear.




I'll make it clearer then. If there is no scientific experiment that can be repeated then it isn't scientific. That's my view of science. It either has the scientific method of the scientific experiment, and is science. If not, it isn't scientific.

There are philosophical and mathematical approaches to the case that I use instead. Probabilities is one of them. Geographic profiling another.

Have you ever speculated on this case, BTW?

It seems we have a different view of a scientific approach to a problem.

You appear to view that approach the same as scientific evidence. The two are very different beasts.
Indeed scientific experiments often fail, and theories fall. But that requires a scientific approach in the first place.

Of course if an experiment cannot be repeated, it's not a Scientific result, and given the total lack of reliable scientific evidence it is not going to happen, but that is not the same as taking a scientific approach

The scientific approach means to evaluate the evidence available. Here we have mainly press statements, the transcript of one inquest and a few police reports.
We can compare late Victorian medical views to modern knowledge and see if the old reports hold up. That is my view of a scientific approach.


Geoprofileing, can be useful, but it is only a tool, which can help, it does not always produce accurate results.
Statistics again are a useful tool, but some become over reliant on them.
I see far too many who see both the above as being foolproof.

Do I speculate?

Of course i do, however normally with some "evidence " no matter how weak.
And I don't speculate until I have researched to see if the theory holds water.
In this case, it would be sources which show that police officers in 1888 bought their own uniforms.

If you are going to suggest an idea, you must surely expect others to ask you to show support for the idea.



Steve

[MrBarnett]

Thanks. That's made things much clearer.

That’s a relief. I thought we had a real scientist talking bollocks.

[Batman]

But you put yourself forward as an authority, and you dress speculation up as fact. You, who are ignorant of the records of the Old Bailey, where the most significant crimes in London have been tried for half a millennium, put yourself forward as an authority on violent crime in London in the late 1880s.

This is like your claim I am trying to be a Ripperologist.

I have never claimed to be any such thing. Nor an authority. I do cite sources and refs when I can.

I certainly make clear what is speculative, when asked.

All you have done here is expose to us what you think others should think of you.

Maybe my arguments are so overwhelming you that you might be inclined to perceive me that way or something, lol.

No, I am neither a Ripperologist nor an authority.

Do you ever speculate on here, BTW?

[MrBarnett]

I know what I said and I know what I meant. I said I suspected. I didn't say I know. I didn't say I have evidence for it either. No matter how hard you want me to have said that. Likewise I didn't say it was scientific claim either.

I have no problem with people speculating.

At all.

However it seems you do, which begs the question, do you not speculate on here?

Like none?

But you put yourself forward as an authority, and you dress speculation up as fact. You, who are ignorant of the records of the Old Bailey, where the most significant crimes in London have been tried for half a millennium, present yourself as an authority on violent crime in London in the late 1880s.

[Batman]

Thanks. That's made things much clearer.

I can't imagine it any other way.

[Sam Flynn]

I'll make it clearer then. If there is no scientific experiment that can be repeated then it isn't scientific. That's my view of science. It either has the scientific method of the scientific experiment, and is science. If not, it isn't scientific.

Thanks. That's made things much clearer.

[Batman]

Suspicion is not the same as speculation. Suspicion implies bias. Is that how you 'scientists' work?

I know what I said and I know what I meant. I said I suspected. I didn't say I know. I didn't say I have evidence for it either. No matter how hard you want me to have said that. Likewise I didn't say it was scientific claim either.

I have no problem with people speculating.

At all.

However it seems you do, which begs the question, do you not speculate on here?

Like none?

[Batman]

And no doubt the press and the OB only started to get reluctant to use the word vagina after the Ripper? Are you suggesting that all deliberate injuries to women's 'private parts' post 1888 were inspired by JTR?

How were Mary Ann Austin's wounds reported on, do you remember?

Not sure if you're aware, but you are clutching at increasingly small straws.

The small straw will forever be the more complex proposition that multiple hands are responsible for Smith and Tabram and the C5.

How many hands in total are you proposing?

If you want to go to the full extent of your argument, go for it.

However, you know you will be hard pressed to show examples of this happening elsewhere because of the extremely low probability of the multiple hands suggestion.

You got a single case from 1895 and you are celebrating a win here?