JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis

[MrBarnett]

I said "I suspect", so was speculating. It is not a scientific claim. I suspect it because it could help bolster the theory.

I am from a science background also and I doubt anything scientific can actually be done in this case except modeling in pathology. DNA contamination sees an end to that sort of confirmation also, for the better part.

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

[Elamarna]

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

Not how this one works.

Steve

[Batman]

I see, it's pure speculation to support a theory, for which you have no actual evidence.
The suggestion that the police were somehow trained to subdue and overcome people is likewise pure speculation.

Yes, I am speculating. I made that clear.

Your comment confuses me, one can take a scientific approach to whatever evidence their is, it does not mean we have to have "scientific evidence".



Steve

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?

[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?

[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?

[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]

Thanks. That's made things much clearer.

I can't imagine it any other way.

[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]

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]

Thanks. That's made things much clearer.

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

[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]

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...

[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.

[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.

[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?