which Barnett was it.

[lynn cates]

crime statistics

Hello Heinrich. Thanks.

Speaking of statistical probabilities, there is nearly a perfect positive correlation between milk consumption as an infant and violent crime. Indeed, over 99% of violent criminals consumed milk as infants.

So I suppose serial killers did too.

Cheers.
LC

[Heinrich]

Speaking of statistical probabilities, there is nearly a perfect positive correlation between milk consumption as an infant and violent crime. Indeed, over 99% of violent criminals consumed milk as infants.

So I suppose serial killers did too.

May I recommend you have a look at a book understanding psychometrics in the behavioral sciences, Lynn, in particular the distinction between descriptive and inferential statistics.

[lynn cates]

probability

Hello Heinrich. Thanks for the recommendation.

Of course, the result of a psychometric analysis would have a certain probability. So again . . .

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Humble Pie

Originally by Sally Joe Barnett wasn't a dosser. He had a job. Demonstrably, he had a job for the majority of his adult life. He wasn't one of the idle poor; he was one of the working poor. Fact. Not my opinion. Fact. His siblings were the same, respectable, working people.

By Heinrich You are wrong; he had been fired from his porter's job for pilfering.

By Richard NunweekBarnett's sacking, is unknown, and speculation is all we have, albeit Pilfering, and being drunk are two possibilities.

And yet Heinrich, you have the brazen gall to carry on, ad infinitum, in the same vein...without proof, without any references at all in fact. Where DID you get this pilfering from? I hesitate to suggest it, but it is perfectly clear that your personal prejudices by far outweigh your powers of reasoning...

I would suggest that, having been proved wrong, at the very least you owe Sally an apology...at worst you might have to back down at least a little...

All the best

Dave

[Sally]

Dave -

yet Heinrich, you have the brazen gall to carry on, ad infinitum, in the same vein...without proof, without any references at all in fact.

Oh, who has proof these days? Or evidence for that matter? And REFERENCES?!! Are you kidding? 'Bolster the Suspect' has become de riguer apparently; without regard to evidence as such. Supposition, much of it utterly baseless, has become the name of the game. Sadly.

Where DID you get this pilfering from?

Bruce Paley. I've read his book myself.

When I was a girl, I was told not to believe everything I read; so I know that opinion is not fact; something which plainly escapes some. And Murdering Bad Joe Barnett? That theory has holes big enough to drive a tank through - no, a battalion of tanks.

But I've seen worse.

I would suggest that, having been proved wrong, at the very least you owe Sally an apology...at worst you might have to back down at least a little...

Ta Dave, but I can't see it happening anytime soon. Suspect Blindness. It's everywhere I look and is generally lacking in critical awareness.

I do apologise for coming across as grouchy - I'm increasingly shocked and depressed by what some people will accept as evidence, when it is nothing of the kind.

Best regards, Dave.

[Heinrich]

... Where DID you get this pilfering from? ...

"July, 1888: Barnet loses his license as a fish porter, apparently for theft."

http://www.casebook.org/suspects/barnett.html

"In July/August 1888 after working at Billingsgate market for over 10 years, Joseph Barnett was sacked, for reasons that are not clear, though was most probably theft."

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/cjmorley/14.html

I would suggest that, having been proved wrong, at the very least you owe Sally an apology...at worst you might have to back down at least a little...

On the contrary, I have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt in another thread that Joe Barnett is the most likely murderer of Mary Kelly.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2983&page=2

It makes no sense for me to apologize for being right.

[Rubyretro]

On the contrary, I have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt in another thread that Joe Barnett is the most likely murderer of Mary Kelly.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2983&page=2

It makes no sense for me to apologize for being right.

[/QUOTE]

Heindrich, Heindrich......Heindrich...

How can I put this ?

Either, you are a man with an incredible sense of humour, or the biggest prat that these boards have ever known (and there has been some competition at times). I'm not betting on the former.

[Cogidubnus]

"July, 1888: Barnet loses his license as a fish porter, apparently for theft."

http://www.casebook.org/suspects/barnett.html

"In July/August 1888 after working at Billingsgate market for over 10 years, Joseph Barnett was sacked, for reasons that are not clear, though was most probably theft."

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media...morley/14.html

I thought, being such an authority on Barnett, maybe you'd have primary sourses lined up....I'm disappointed but unsurprised.

All the best

Dave

[Heinrich]

I thought, being such an authority on Barnett, maybe you'd have primary sourses lined up....I'm disappointed but unsurprised.

There is no primary source relating to the cause of Barnett losing his job. It is specified in the licensing authority for fish porters, however, that a person could be fired for drunkenness or theft. Sometimes we have to make educated guesses as to the most plausible explanation available to us. Otherwise, we would never have been able to identify Mary Kelly's murderer with a high degree of certitude.

[Sally]

Either, you are a man with an incredible sense of humour, or the biggest prat that these boards have ever known (and there has been some competition at times). I'm not betting on the former.

I am. I think Heinrich's having a laugh.

[Rubyretro]

I am. I think Heinrich's having a laugh.

Yes, I suppose that it makes a change from dead dogs...

[Cogidubnus]

There is no primary source

Exactly...you don't know...it's nothing more than a wild guess...you have exactly nothing...go away...

Dave

[Sally]

Yes, I suppose that it makes a change from dead dogs...

Or indeed, doorknockers...

Heinrich. You have no argument. Only personal conviction - sadly in your case in direct contravention of the evidence.

Bad Luck.

[Heinrich]

Exactly...you don't know...it's nothing more than a wild guess...you have exactly nothing...go away...

No, not a wild guess; an educated one.
I might be wrong but it is probably against the rules to be harassing other members by telling us to leave Casebook.

... Heinrich. You have no argument. Only personal conviction - sadly in your case in direct contravention of the evidence.

The belief that Joe Barnett is Mary Kelly's murderer is based only on solid corroborated evidence as I demonstrated on the other thread. The only conviction I have is that a jury would have found Barnett guilty had the police prepared a proper book of evidence for the prosecution.

[Cogidubnus]

No, not a wild guess; an educated one.
I might be wrong but it is probably against the rules to be harassing other members by telling us to leave Casebook.

Possibly English isn't your first language, but where on earth did you get this from? Do you think "persecution" is a good argument against being pursued by those seeking nothing more than the truth?

The only conviction I have is that a jury would have found Barnett guilty had the police prepared a proper book of evidence for the prosecution.

Your certitude is quite appalling, as is your total misunderstanding of the British justice system, both then and now.

All the best

Dave