A major breakthrough

[Pierre]

So why did you say there was a source? See post 11.

Your last paragraph I would completely agree with. In fact, that's the exact point I was trying to make in Post 201.

Hi John,

OK, I see what you mean!

There is a source, but I have been told from an expert that the diagnosis in that source is not the diagnosis I thought it was. I am not within the field of medicine so I asked an expert. That means I can not use this source (which I was hoping for) to refute the hypothesis about the killer, since there was no such severe brain problem. The hypothesis about an organized and strategic killer did not match a person with such a severe brain problem, since such a problem would have made the organized and strategic murders impossible.

So now I have nothing to put against the hypothesis about this organized killer. That means I have to continue.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

So why did you say there was a source? See post 11.

Your last paragraph I would completely agree with. In fact, that's the exact point I was trying to make in Post 201.

Double posted.

[Mayerling]

Hi Pierre

[QUOTE=Pierre;395145]

[SO WHAT IF WHATEVER THIS "SEVERE BRAIN PROBLEM" WAS, IT HAD A SEVERE EFFECT ON HIS/HER BODY!!! THE TRAGEDY WAS IT DID NOT HAVE SUCH A SEVERE EFFECT BEFORE HE/SHE KILLED FIVE OR MORE PROSTITUTES AND LEFT ONE IN SHREDS]

I do not understand what you are saying here.

I am saying that if the debilitating effect of the "Severe Brain Problem had hit your suspect earlier and basically incapacitated him/her the killings would never have happened in the first place. I'm a little surprised you couldn't figure that one out.

I hate the killer. But let´s see if I can use this hate to get the last scrap of data we need.

I strongly doubt it.

Best wishes, Pierre

Sincerely,

Jeff

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Mayerling;395162]Hi Pierre

Sincerely,

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Well, the past is the past. We can not change it. If a brain problem had hit someone at some time in his life, if he had been hit by a train, if he had been hit by lightning. And so on and so forth.

I am just a simple historian, a coward analyzing papers after the events that produced the papers, someone who wasn´t there. I am sitting comfortably in my chair and read about how people suffered in 1888.

But if I can tell the world who the killer was, things will be clear and we will understand what happened and why.

As an historian I can always get upset but it doesn´t help. I have to work by the historical methods, that is what my education has put me here to do.

But personally, yes, I agree with you.

Best wishes, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Pierre, in #11 you said "The biological explanatory variable is in a source showing that there was a severe brain problem in this case....I did find it in the archive yesterday."

For those of us who have not got a clue what is going on in this thread, what exactly did you find in "the archive"?

Did you find out anything at all about your suspect?

[GUT]

[QUOTE=Pierre;395165]

Hi Pierre



Hi Jeff,

Well, the past is the past. We can not change it. If a brain problem had hit someone at some time in his life, if he had been hit by a train, if he had been hit by lightning. And so on and so forth.

I am just a simple historian, a coward analyzing papers after the events that produced the papers, someone who wasn´t there. I am sitting comfortably in my chair and read about how people suffered in 1888.

But if I can tell the world who the killer was, things will be clear and we will understand what happened and why.

As an historian I can always get upset but it doesn´t help. I have to work by the historical methods, that is what my education has put me here to do.

But personally, yes, I agree with you.

Best wishes, Pierre

Simple?? Mmmmmm

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

and thanks for sharing your medical knowledge with us.

We can forget the source for a severe brain problem now. This means that there are no such sources.

There are some sources for grandiosity, as I said. This is a personality issue and very problematic if one would like to connect it to some psychiatric diagnosis where grandiosity is one component.

We can not do this for such an old case.

But we do know that there were severe personal problems, there was hate, there were lies, there was fraud, there was manipulation, there was defense and there was grandiosity.

There are very, very good, reliable and valid sources for this. I promise you this, Steve.

It is indeed a very well established historical fact.

Best wishes, Pierre

My dear friend

Thank you for that little bit of info.

However we are really no further advanced as you are still making a decision not to give sources ( which is a personal choice).

In that position it is really impossible to debate the subject.


You are really saying trust me Ihave the sources..(Please note I am not quoting you just giving the position as it appears to be)

I am deeply sorrow but I cannot accept that as a viable poition from which to continue a serious debate.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Hi John,

OK, I see what you mean!

There is a source, but I have been told from an expert that the diagnosis in that source is not the diagnosis I thought it was. I am not within the field of medicine so I asked an expert. That means I can not use this source (which I was hoping for) to refute the hypothesis about the killer, since there was no such severe brain problem. The hypothesis about an organized and strategic killer did not match a person with such a severe brain problem, since such a problem would have made the organized and strategic murders impossible.

So now I have nothing to put against the hypothesis about this organized killer. That means I have to continue.

Regards, Pierre

Two simple questions what is the particular medical speciality of your expert.?

Is he/she an expert in neurology? Or similar field?

Secondly I see only one expert asked, I respectfully submit that on medical matters it is always best to have more than a single view.

From my own experience it is often the fact that two medics looking at the same case notes will come to diametrically opposed positions.

It is true that you stated there was a source and now there is not because one expert gives you advice.


To sum up


The claim was initially that the person had a Brian disease which may have affected them. However you would not give details.

Then you refer this unknown source about an undisclosed condition to a equally unknown expert.

The result is there was no disease which affected the person and therefore no source to discuss.

Release the information in the source, redact any names and dates so as to hide the I'd.

Note I say the information; not the name of the source.


Let's others decide on the viability of the hypothesis rather than ONE Unamed and Unknown Expert.



Steve

[MsWeatherwax]

Two simple questions what is the particular medical speciality of your expert.?

Is he/she an expert in neurology? Or similar field?

Secondly I see only one expert asked, I respectfully submit that on medical matters it is always best to have more than a single view.

From my own experience it is often the fact that two medics looking at the same case notes will come to diametrically opposed positions.

It is true that you stated there was a source and now there is not because one expert gives you advice.


To sum up


The claim was initially that the person had a Brian disease which may have affected them. However you would not give details.

Then you refer this unknown source about an undisclosed condition to a equally unknown expert.

The result is there was no disease which affected the person and therefore no source to discuss.

Release the information in the source, redact any names and dates so as to hide the I'd.

Note I say the information; not the name of the source.


Let's others decide on the viability of the hypothesis rather than ONE Unamed and Unknown Expert.



Steve

Totally, 100% in full agreement with this, particularly the parts in bold. I'd actually say that it's essential before discarding any evidence.

[The Good Michael]

Some people enjoy arguing with a fraud. It must stimulate them to, for more than a year now, rebut things continuously. This is the state of Ripperology; nonsense and rebuttals. Promises of genuine knowledge in a very short time have lead to the liar learning enough from his victims to build his own web of lies supported by the unwitting. And so, Ripperology has become victimology and ye unsuspecting unfortunates are split from groin to chest without so much as a whimper of protest. Pathetic.

Mike

[Elamarna]

Some people enjoy arguing with a fraud. It must stimulate them to, for more than a year now, rebut things continuously. This is the state of Ripperology; nonsense and rebuttals. Promises of genuine knowledge in a very short time have lead to the liar learning enough from his victims to build his own web of lies supported by the unwitting. And so, Ripperology has become victimology and ye unsuspecting unfortunates are split from groin to chest without so much as a whimper of protest. Pathetic.

Mike

Hello Mike,

You have made your view on this clear before, and while I understand where you are coming from and the frustration you obviously feel on this issue, I do find the suggestion that those of us who do rebut what is posted are somehow unaware of the situation and allowing themselves to be used, to be a touch condescending.

What do you suggest we do?

Just allow one poster to post their views, uncontested and allowing newer members of the forum to believe those views?


I am fully convinced if we did just ignore him and allow him to post unanswered, he would not stop, he would make even more claims. Of course that may be an incorrect assessment of the situation.

And actual there has been some good debate and research not linked to that poster over the last year.

The truth is that Pierre is not alone, there are several posters who regularly spout what I shall say is very inaccurate information as fact, some due actual give sources for what they say unlike Pierre; but at least one other keeps the overarching idea they have very very close to their chest.

Is it Pathetic?

Well I guess that is down to a personal viewpoint; but you are correct to a great extent about the field today.

All the best


Steve

[Paddy Goose]

What do you suggest we do?

I suggest Stop Cold Turkey

... allow him to post unanswered

Have you ever made a thread and nobody came? Not a single reply

I have It happens all the time

[Elamarna]

I suggest Stop Cold Turkey



Have you ever made a thread and nobody came? Not a single reply

I have It happens all the time

Paddy Goose


I am sure no replies would lead to even more posts and threads; the person in question is not you or me.
Often they post multiple threads on same day or a few days apart the reason for such must be more than simple troll behaviour in my view, but am happy to accept may be 100% wrong on the issue.

However the cold turkey approach may be correct, I just see it a different way.


Steve

[David Orsam]

No-one needs to justify their posts in this forum.

Now, Pierre's "major breakthrough". What was THAT all about?

[John G]

No-one needs to justify their posts in this forum.

Now, Pierre's "major breakthrough". What was THAT all about?

A biological explanatory variable, apparently!