A major breakthrough

[GUT]

Peer review is not interesting. I want to move beyond that. I want to give you a piece of good evidence. Something that everyone can accept. I want you to get the real killer.

Funny I was certain that you told us before that you didn't want to find the killer because the world would end or something like that.

And I thought peer review was at the centre of any real Academic research.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;395565]

You won't be my friend; history will be!

It is impossible to separate history from the historian in some aspects.

That is if the data backing such a suggestion exist and is reliable.

Exactly, Steve. Otherwise there will just be a silly addition to the rest of the candidates.

And my friend is not down to you to give positives on those two issues; it is for the process of peer review, you know as used in academia.

Peer review is not interesting. I want to move beyond that. I want to give you a piece of good evidence. Something that everyone can accept. I want you to get the real killer. And then there can be peer review for everything else.

Why not?
If your theory is indeed the correct one, do they not deserve to know the truth?

I donīt know. The truth is to terrible. I think it would be easier to accept a killer like Barnett or Lechmere. Much easier.

Can one ask do you personally know any of the descendents?

No, I donīt. But I feel sorry for them.

If not, it will not be you telling them anyway, it will be the world’s media

If I find the last bit of evidence, I will tell the descendants first.

What really makes you think that would happen.

You have no real understanding of how the world of Ripperology moves, or what its aims or purposes are.

That much is clear from all you have posted.

Yes, what moves it is the hope of finding Jack the Ripper.

Then stop.

If all the above is true, there is nothing forcing you to carry on is there?

If you cannot cope with the heat then get out of the kitchen.

No problem. But today I also realized that if I do not find the source I think I might find, I will have to report this case anyway. I can not take it to the grave. If I did, there will be no chance of solving the case unless someone else finds the same sources and draws the same conclusions.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

[QUOTE=jerryd;395651][QUOTE=Pierre;395648][QUOTE=John G;395644]

PTSD perhaps Pierre?

Did that condition even exist in 1888?

[jerryd]

[QUOTE=Pierre;395648][QUOTE=John G;395644][QUOTE=Pierre;395642]

I see, John. You have not understood anything I have written here.

There was no brain problem. There was another problem. It had nothing to do with a brain problem.

That is why I go on with this.

Regards, Pierre

PTSD perhaps Pierre?

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;395648][QUOTE=John G;395644][QUOTE=Pierre;395642]

I see, John. You have not understood anything I have written here.

There was no brain problem. There was another problem. It had nothing to do with a brain problem.

That is why I go on with this.

Regards, Pierre

So why did you say there was? And why did you say it was common in murderers if you have no understanding of such things? What underpinned your rationale? See post 11.

Unfortunately, I fear it is you that doesn't understand anything you've written on this thread, which is troublesome to say the least.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=GUT;395570]

And real police and prosecutors wrongly accuse every day, guess what..... they live with it.

Yes. But they do not research the history of Jack the Ripper.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;395644][QUOTE=Pierre;395642][QUOTE=John G;395575]

The "severe brain problem" that you mentioned is what I was referring to. Put simply, how do you know your "suspect" had a severe brain problem? And what "severe brain problem", with a proven biomedical cause, is common in murderers? I'm not aware of any.

Your basic premise was therefore seriously flawed.

I suspect hidden agendas based upon a rational analysis of the available evidence.

I see, John. You have not understood anything I have written here.

There was no brain problem. There was another problem. It had nothing to do with a brain problem.

That is why I go on with this.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Hercule Poirot;395568]

Coming out with a theory or a hypothesis has nothing to do with a formal accusation which is the responsability of a state or country prosecutor.

Ripperology has easily survived whatever ludicrous theory anyone has ever presented.

Hi Hercule,

Yes. But would it survive the actual killer?

As for writing a book about this case, the kind of hypothesises you keep coming out with and doing everything you can to avoid a minimalistic form of peer review would better serve a fiction novel earning you more money than a series of non proven affirmations you keep offering us and would have all of us enjoy your storyline.

We must move beyond peer review. That is the method for other dimensions in books and articles. I must be able to give you what you want. A small scrap of evidence which everyone accepts. Then you can peer review the rest.

If you don't want to spend the rest of your life with this, simply jump off a bridge. Everyone here will understand why you would have done it.

And become the C-6? (For those who belive in the C-5).

And finally, it's sometimes better to put words into someone's mouth than shoving nonsense up everyone else's ass.

How very sophisticated of you, Ridi..Hercule.

Respectfully,
Hercule Poirot

Respectfully?

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;395642][QUOTE=John G;395575][QUOTE=Pierre;395506]

Hi John,

What mental health issue?



Exactly. I know nothing about medicine, which is more than obvious, since I obviously did not understand that diagnosis.



What "real purpose"?

Do you presume hidden agendas? Am I a so called suspect now?

Regards, Pierre

The "severe brain problem" that you mentioned is what I was referring to. Put simply, how do you know your "suspect" had a severe brain problem? And what "severe brain problem", with a proven biomedical cause, is common in murderers? I'm not aware of any.

Your basic premise was therefore seriously flawed.

I suspect hidden agendas based upon a rational analysis of the available evidence.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;395575][QUOTE=Pierre;395506][QUOTE=John G;395482]

In that case how do you know that your suspect's mental health issue wasn't a socially constructed condition? See, for example, schizophrenia and the social defeat hypothesis.

Hi John,

What mental health issue?

Moreover, in Post 11 you stated, "The severe brain problem is very common in the brains of murderers according to reliable biological research." Why do you therefore say you know nothing about medicine? I mean, you clearly know something, i.e. based upon the aforementioned research you've carried out.

Exactly. I know nothing about medicine, which is more than obvious, since I obviously did not understand that diagnosis.

I would also point out that there are no brain problems common to murderers, unless you're referring to the controversial Raine study: see Raine et al., 1997.

However, this research involved PET scans, which wouldn't have been possible in the nineteenth century. Therefore, no initial diagnosis, on which your "expert" could base his conclusions on, would be possible.

This is all a bit of a conundrum, the answer to which, I suspect, would reveal the real purpose of this thread.

What "real purpose"?

Do you presume hidden agendas? Am I a so called suspect now?

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

Autism spectrum disorder, and anti social behavioural disorder, referred to in the articles, may well be socially constructed conditions.

[Pcdunn]

http://www.medicaldaily.com/serial-killers-more-likely-have-autism-head-trauma-or-psychosocial-issues-not-all-who-suffer-are

Serial killers may be more likely to have autism or suffer from head trauma (often due to an abusive childhood), but not all who cope with these problems will become serial killers.

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;395506][QUOTE=John G;395482]

I donīt know anything about medicine and canīt help you. Sorry.

In that case how do you know that your suspect's mental health issue wasn't a socially constructed condition? See, for example, schizophrenia and the social defeat hypothesis.

Moreover, in Post 11 you stated, "The severe brain problem is very common in the brains of murderers according to reliable biological research." Why do you therefore say you know nothing about medicine? I mean, you clearly know something, i.e. based upon the aforementioned research you've carried out.

I would also point out that there are no brain problems common to murderers, unless you're referring to the controversial Raine study: see Raine et al., 1997.

However, this research involved PET scans, which wouldn't have been possible in the nineteenth century. Therefore, no initial diagnosis, on which your "expert" could base his conclusions on, would be possible.

This is all a bit of a conundrum, the answer to which, I suspect, would reveal the real purpose of this thread.

[GUT]

Coming out with a theory or a hypothesis has nothing to do with a formal accusation which is the responsability of a state or country prosecutor.

Ripperology has easily survived whatever ludicrous theory anyone has ever presented.


Respectfully,
Hercule Poirot

And real police and prosecutors wrongly accuse every day, guess what..... they live with it.

And re the second point there have been some humdingers I think Dale Larner's thread is still here somewhere.

[Hercule Poirot]

I donīt want to accuse Scotland Yard for having protected Jack the Ripper.

I donīt want to tell the descendants of the victims that the killer was someone who was supposed to protect people.

I donīt want to destroy this little field of ripperology.

I donīt want to write a book about the case.

I donīt want to spent the rest of my life with this.

And still, you put words into my mouth.

Coming out with a theory or a hypothesis has nothing to do with a formal accusation which is the responsability of a state or country prosecutor.

Ripperology has easily survived whatever ludicrous theory anyone has ever presented.

As for writing a book about this case, the kind of hypothesises you keep coming out with and doing everything you can to avoid a minimalistic form of peer review would better serve a fiction novel earning you more money than a series of non proven affirmations you keep offering us and would have all of us enjoy your storyline.

If you don't want to spend the rest of your life with this, simply jump off a bridge. Everyone here will understand why you would have done it.

And finally, it's sometimes better to put words into someone's mouth than shoving nonsense up everyone else's ass.

Respectfully,
Hercule Poirot