A major breakthrough

[Geddy2112]

Something that concerns me about this particular claim.

Lets presume the 'I've found him' suspect is suspect A who can read and write and is a fully functional individual with no mental health issues.

Now according to this thread we have another suspect who does have mental health issues who is now the favoured suspect, suspect B.

Now this is what is confusing me. How if researching solely suspect A did information arise regarding B and thus propelling B to top suspect? If you have made a claim to have found him you must be pretty sure and more likely than not stop looking in different directions.

Who was A and why is he no good anymore? Who is B and why the change in direction?

[MsWeatherwax]

Something that concerns me about this particular claim.

Lets presume the 'I've found him' suspect is suspect A who can read and write and is a fully functional individual with no mental health issues.

Now according to this thread we have another suspect who does have mental health issues who is now the favoured suspect, suspect B.

Now this is what is confusing me. How if researching solely suspect A did information arise regarding B and thus propelling B to top suspect? If you have made a claim to have found him you must be pretty sure and more likely than not stop looking in different directions.

Who was A and why is he no good anymore? Who is B and why the change in direction?

I might be reading it wrong, but I don't think there is a suspect B. I think what Pierre is driving at is that he has discovered an unexpected brain abnormality in suspect A, which disproves his earlier theory that the killer was an organised, methodical killer. He is now examining his source to see if it entirely disproves his hypothesis that suspect A could be the killer.

JtR ticks a lot of boxes for me on the disorganised killer list, but I suppose we'll have to wait for Pierre to disclose what the alleged brain abnormality is before any of us can reach any conclusions.

Pierre: I can see no reason for you not to tell us what the brain abnormality is - after all, this is brand new information and is unlikely to allow anyone to identify your suspect prematurely. Disclosing the abnormality could possibly lead to some interesting discussion.

Also, could you please clarify whether or not this abnormality was discovered during a post-mortem examination?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Geddy2112;393473]

Something that concerns me about this particular claim.

Lets presume the 'I've found him' suspect is suspect A who can read and write and is a fully functional individual with no mental health issues.

Hi Geddy,

Yes, that is a concern for me as well. I did not expect such a serious problem.

We could expect some pshychological problem but not such a serious brain problem.

Now according to this thread we have another suspect who does have mental health issues who is now the favoured suspect, suspect B.

No, we don´t. But we have additional data making the case harder to understand.

Now this is what is confusing me. How if researching solely suspect A did information arise regarding B and thus propelling B to top suspect? If you have made a claim to have found him you must be pretty sure and more likely than not stop looking in different directions.

No, there is not two different cases. There is one case but with new data.

Best wishes, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;393443]

I agree this is an excellent post. Clearly, as regards Pierre, everyone must take a position. Personally, I think he's made the same mistake that others have made before him, such a Stephen Knight, by getting hopelessly carried away with a grand conspiracy theory.

Hi John,

Yes, I may very well be wrong. But I do not think I have been carried away. On the contrary, I am very critical towards the data I work with. But also, I really want to test different hypotheses, since that is what I do as an historian. And I am convinced that everything I see and everything I think may be wrong. But when data kick back, I have to give up. Sorry.

Nonetheless, I will continue, like David, to engage him in debate because that is what I enjoy about this cite, whether I agree with a poster or not.

If I regarded Pierre as a "troll" I certainly wouldn't respond to his posts, but I have concluded that he is sincere in what he writes, albeit terribly misguided.

I may be terribly misguided. Why not? After all, I am just a simple historian. I have found some sources and they may guide me wrong. Usually I find out when they do. But right now there is a set of sources and I have to try and disprove them all. I am afraid I have failed in doing so. Some of them are very questionable. Some have a very high validity and reliability.

And, yes, he does seem to have an exaggerated view of his own analytical abilities-although I'm not really sure that he even completely believes in his own theory anymore, as this thread would seem to illustrate- but, on that score, he isn't the first and I'm sure he won't be the last.

Maybe I am more of a positivist than I thought I was! But I find that the post modern view blurrs things and make them very unsecure. I am not an absolutist but certainly not a relativist either.

Regards, Pierre

[MsWeatherwax]

Pierre: I can see no reason for you not to tell us what the brain abnormality is - after all, this is brand new information and is unlikely to allow anyone to identify your suspect prematurely. Disclosing the abnormality could possibly lead to some interesting discussion.

Also, could you please clarify whether or not this abnormality was discovered during a post-mortem examination?

Hi Pierre.

Perhaps you missed these questions. If you're not prepared to answer them, that's fair enough, but I'd hate for anyone to be able to say that you're avoiding questions if you just hadn't seen them.

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre.

Perhaps you missed these questions. If you're not prepared to answer them, that's fair enough, but I'd hate for anyone to be able to say that you're avoiding questions if you just hadn't seen them.

Hi,

And the questions were:

Pierre: I can see no reason for you not to tell us what the brain abnormality is - after all, this is brand new information and is unlikely to allow anyone to identify your suspect prematurely. Disclosing the abnormality could possibly lead to some interesting discussion.

Interesting discussions is interesting. But I am not finished with this source. I have contacted a person who will help me look at the source, since I am not within the field of medicine and can not entirely understand the source and the consequences of this brain problem. I am surprised by this finding and need to look into it to understand how it affected, or could have affected, someone suffering from such a problem.

Also, could you please clarify whether or not this abnormality was discovered during a post-mortem examination?

Discussing different types of archives is also interesting but I am not ready to discuss the archives I am researching at this moment. I am sorry for that. Thank you for asking anyway, I appreciate it.

Best wishes, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Oh dear Pierre, what a shame, after saying to me yesterday "you can ask me, since I am an honest person who likes to answer questions when I can", you haven't answered my last question at all but simply ignored it.

You didn't even answer my previous question properly because it was an either/or question to which you answered "yes".

But the question that I would be grateful for an answer is this:

Is it correct to say that when you went to "the archive" (i.e. as you walked through the entrance door) you were expecting (or hoping) to find some medical information about your suspect in that archive?

[David Orsam]

Discussing different types of archives is also interesting but I am not ready to discuss the archives I am researching at this moment. I am sorry for that. Thank you for asking anyway, I appreciate it.

You do realise, don't you Pierre, that MsWeatherwax didn't ask you anything about the archives at which you are researching nor did you need to reveal anything about those archives in answering her question. She simply asked you if the information about the mental abnormality came from a post-mortem report.

What is so difficult about that question that you can't answer it?

[Pierre]

You do realise, don't you Pierre, that MsWeatherwax didn't ask you anything about the archives at which you are researching nor did you need to reveal anything about those archives in answering her question. She simply asked you if the information about the mental abnormality came from a post-mortem report.

What is so difficult about that question that you can't answer it?

Why should it have to do with difficulty?

You assume things without knowing anything about them.

[Pierre]

Oh dear Pierre, what a shame, after saying to me yesterday "you can ask me, since I am an honest person who likes to answer questions when I can", you haven't answered my last question at all but simply ignored it.

You didn't even answer my previous question properly because it was an either/or question to which you answered "yes".

But the question that I would be grateful for an answer is this:

Is it correct to say that when you went to "the archive" (i.e. as you walked through the entrance door) you were expecting (or hoping) to find some medical information about your suspect in that archive?

You set up conditions for my answers, David.

You first give a set of conditions and then demand yes or no.

[MsWeatherwax]

Hi,

And the questions were:


Interesting discussions is interesting. But I am not finished with this source. I have contacted a person who will help me look at the source, since I am not within the field of medicine and can not entirely understand the source and the consequences of this brain problem. I am surprised by this finding and need to look into it to understand how it affected, or could have affected, someone suffering from such a problem.



Discussing different types of archives is also interesting but I am not ready to discuss the archives I am researching at this moment. I am sorry for that. Thank you for asking anyway, I appreciate it.

Best wishes, Pierre

Interesting discussions is interesting. OK, fair play Pierre - now I know I've been had.

Give my regards to Reddit.

[Pierre]

Interesting discussions is interesting. OK, fair play Pierre - now I know I've been had.

Give my regards to Reddit.

What do you mean?

[MsWeatherwax]

What do you mean?

I mean that your entire 'hypothesis' has been open to question from the start, and you've just quoted a well known internet meme that originated on a website that is very also very well known for trolling other websites.

If you're genuine, good luck to you and I look forward to reading the inevitable book. If you're not, then congratulations. You've inspired some very interesting discussions that are interesting.

I'm out. Good luck to David and Elamarna if they choose to continue to entertain this - your rebuttals have been infinitely more useful and interesting than the source material.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=MsWeatherwax;393521]

I mean that your entire 'hypothesis' has been open to question from the start, and you've just quoted a well known internet meme that originated on a website that is very also very well known for trolling other websites.

Are you accusing me? If that is the case, please stop.

If you're genuine, good luck to you and I look forward to reading the inevitable book. If you're not, then congratulations. You've inspired some very interesting discussions that are interesting.

Well, of course I am what you call "genuine". I am different from many others.

I'm out. Good luck to David and Elamarna if they choose to continue to entertain this - your rebuttals have been infinitely more useful and interesting than the source material.

OK.

[MsWeatherwax]

Are you accusing me? If that is the case, please stop.

I have reached a conclusion based on what I have seen and read so far. If I am wrong, then I will apologise unreservedly. If that is the case I'm sure your research will speak for itself.