A major breakthrough

[Bridewell]

I've just wasted 20 minutes of my time catching up on this thread. I'm going with The Good Michael on this. I'll no longer debate with a poster who claims to have made a major discovery but refuses to say what, or who it is.

[Mayerling]

Ha! well I don't want that to happen!!

I just want him to name is darn suspect already. Its been over a year now..

Time to shite or get off the pot. yeeesh!

Fully agree with you. And it will never happen.

Jeff

[MsWeatherwax]

I've just wasted 20 minutes of my time catching up on this thread. I'm going with The Good Michael on this. I'll no longer debate with a poster who claims to have made a major discovery but refuses to say what, or who it is.

I'm with you. However, I do have massive respect for both David and Elamarna for continuing to provide logical and well thought out counter-arguments. For one thing, I feel like I have actually benefitted in terms of knowledge from some of the debate that has arisen during this...whatever you want to call it....and for another, I think it's quite right that Pierre's ideas are challenged. That's not just bias against Pierre - regardless of who is making assertions regarding the identity of the killer, I think it's important that it is debated.

[John G]

"Major Breakthrough?" Wouldn't a more apt title for this thread be "Much Ado About Nothing.'

[John G]

I'm with you. However, I do have massive respect for both David and Elamarna for continuing to provide logical and well thought out counter-arguments. For one thing, I feel like I have actually benefitted in terms of knowledge from some of the debate that has arisen during this...whatever you want to call it....and for another, I think it's quite right that Pierre's ideas are challenged. That's not just bias against Pierre - regardless of who is making assertions regarding the identity of the killer, I think it's important that it is debated.

I agree.

[GUT]

Ha! well I don't want that to happen!!

I just want him to name is darn suspect already. Its been over a year now..

Time to shite or get off the pot. yeeesh!

I don't believe he has one, just making junk up.

[Bridewell]

I'm with you. However, I do have massive respect for both David and Elamarna for continuing to provide logical and well thought out counter-arguments. For one thing, I feel like I have actually benefitted in terms of knowledge from some of the debate that has arisen during this...whatever you want to call it....and for another, I think it's quite right that Pierre's ideas are challenged. That's not just bias against Pierre - regardless of who is making assertions regarding the identity of the killer, I think it's important that it is debated.

I too have great respect for those who are continuing to hold Pierre to account; if I have said anything which suggests otherwise I apologise to David and Elamarna both. Pierre doesn't really offer any ideas for debate though; he hints at knowledge but reveals nothing of any knowledge that he does have. As they say in the trade "he talks a good job".

"a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Macbeth Act 5 Scene V.

Shakespeare's "poor player" is actually 'life' but I like to think there are other candidates.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;395313]

Sorry Pierre that is just not an acceptable answer by any definition of the term.

Your word that something is clear and correct, without publish any details is neither scientific or debatable

Hi Steve,

Call it what you will, but the fact is that there is no source for a brain problem in this case. If I find one I will tell you.

And of course one can teat a cold case to look at symptoms, and hypothesis about the condition of a patient, just because it is historical it does not preclude diagnosis based on the data available..

No, one canīt when the patient is dead.

Hang on a moment is that not exactly what your expert has done!

No, he hasnīt, since there was just a diagnosis he had to read to see what the diagnosis was. That was all he had to do.

The failure to wish to debate this issue in a serious scientific manner suggests that you FEAR of any such discussion, where the failings of the research and approach are likely to be exposed once the thread is dissected.

Why would I be afraid of discussing a source giving a diagnosis which has nothing to do with any brain disease or mental problem?

If there was the slightest (!) chance that the source contained any indication of such a problem, I would use it to discard the hypothesis about a very well organized killer, if I could! And if I could have done that, I would get my normal life back. Why would I be afraid of that?

You have not given any indication of the expertise of your expert, nor have you answered why only one opinion as been sort or even given the briefest suggestion as to what you believed this person was suffering from at the start of this thread..

My expert is a medical historian, Steve.

Please do not insult the intelligence of persons on this forum any further, If you are not prepared to discuss any details then I conclude the first post in this thread was highly disingenuous.

Please do not insult me by accusing me of insulting people.

At no point as any indication been given of a desire to do anything other than lecture and tell us if you have failed in your own opinion.

The reality is that this thread yet waste of time, in many ways the post by "The Good Michael" was accurate.

I agree with you. This thread is a waste of time. The only thing I learned from this source, in the end, was that I could not discard the hypothesis and that I therefore have to go on with this research.

Regards, Pierre

[MsWeatherwax]

I too have great respect for those who are continuing to hold Pierre to account; if I have said anything which suggests otherwise I apologise to David and Elamarna both. Pierre doesn't really offer any ideas for debate though; he hints at knowledge but reveals nothing of any knowledge that he does have. As they say in the trade "he talks a good job".

"a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Macbeth Act 5 Scene V.

Shakespeare's "poor player" is actually 'life' but I like to think there are other candidates.

Hi Bridewell...sorry, didn't mean to imply that you had been in some way disrespectful. I was just expanding on the fact that I understand why you choose not to engage with this particular discussion.

[David Orsam]

If there was the slightest (!) chance that the source contained any indication of such a problem, I would use it to discard the hypothesis about a very well organized killer, if I could! And if I could have done that, I would get my normal life back. Why would I be afraid of that?....The only thing I learned from this source, in the end, was that I could not discard the hypothesis and that I therefore have to go on with this research.

That just isn't true Pierre. You must be deceiving yourself.

When you thought your suspect had a mental problem you didn't discard him as a suspect because it meant he couldn't have been a well organized killer. On the contrary, you simply prepared to ditch the notion of him being a well organized killer and told us it was a 'major breakthrough".

Thus, you said triumphantly: "I can now tell you that all the ripperologists, and of course all the people living in 1888 and in the past, who thought that Jack the Ripper had a mental problem, were right."

In other words, you were saying that Jack the Ripper had a mental problem because you thought your suspect had a mental problem. Now your suspect doesn't have a mental problem we are back to Jack the Ripper not having a mental problem but being a well organized killer!

[Pierre]

Pierre

I am perplexed by your statement that such a killer would not have a serious brain problem as you fail to suggest (or even hint) what the problem is. I refer you to the case of Phineas Gage, who was an Irish railway worker who suffered a spike through his brain. Not only did he live, he was photographed and continued a successful existence (presumably helped by his picture with a two foot metal spike). He was able to carry out a relatively normal life but the spike destroyed his personality centres leaving a short tempered and angry chap. If you are referring to a degenerative cerebral disorder, if it was purely localised to certain parts of the brain e.g. the frontal lobe, then there is no reason to doubt a new psychopathic/sociopathic tendency but maintained higher functioning.

Please provide further information rather than your trout fishery fly if you truly want a quorum to provide an answer (e.g. a hint to what your presumed diagnosis might be). You never know, some of those whom you chose to ignore and antagonise might know slightly more about certain things than you do, for surely is that not why we ask questions?

Paul

Hi Paul,

I am just a simple historian and I research sources. This is one single source and it does not say anything about a brain disease or mental problem.

This doesnīt mean that Jack the Ripper had no mental problem. But this source does not indicate such a problem.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;395450]

Hi Steve,

Call it what you will, but the fact is that there is no source for a brain problem in this case. If I find one I will tell you.



No, one canīt when the patient is dead.



No, he hasnīt, since there was just a diagnosis he had to read to see what the diagnosis was. That was all he had to do.



Why would I be afraid of discussing a source giving a diagnosis which has nothing to do with any brain disease or mental problem?

If there was the slightest (!) chance that the source contained any indication of such a problem, I would use it to discard the hypothesis about a very well organized killer, if I could! And if I could have done that, I would get my normal life back. Why would I be afraid of that?



My expert is a medical historian, Steve.



Please do not insult me by accusing me of insulting people.



I agree with you. This thread is a waste of time. The only thing I learned from this source, in the end, was that I could not discard the hypothesis and that I therefore have to go on with this research.

Regards, Pierre

How do you know the original diagnosis was correct, especially considering mental illness was poorly understood in the 19th century? If it wasn't, the opinion of your "medical historian" is pretty much worthless. And a medical historian isn't a medical professional anyway.

[David Orsam]

This doesnīt mean that Jack the Ripper had no mental problem.

Well if Jack the Ripper possibly had a mental problem why would you have got your "normal life" back if your original interpretation of the medical source had been correct?

[Pierre]

Well if Jack the Ripper possibly had a mental problem why would you have got your "normal life" back if your original interpretation of the medical source had been correct?

Because that sort of mental problem could have made my hypothesis refutable. And then I would have been able to drop the case.

[John G]

That just isn't true Pierre. You must be deceiving yourself.

When you thought your suspect had a mental problem you didn't discard him as a suspect because it meant he couldn't have been a well organized killer. On the contrary, you simply prepared to ditch the notion of him being a well organized killer and told us it was a 'major breakthrough".

Thus, you said triumphantly: "I can now tell you that all the ripperologists, and of course all the people living in 1888 and in the past, who thought that Jack the Ripper had a mental problem, were right."

In other words, you were saying that Jack the Ripper had a mental problem because you thought your suspect had a mental problem. Now your suspect doesn't have a mental problem we are back to Jack the Ripper not having a mental problem but being a well organized killer!

Unfortunately this is what tends to happen when, like Pierre, you write too many convoluted posts-you begin to loose the thread of your own story-sorry, I meant to say historical research!-after a while.

Here's an interesting quote by Walter Scott that might explain a few things:

"Oh what a tangled web we weave/when first we practice to deceive "