A major breakthrough

[Pierre]

Talking of another year Pierre, do you think that's how long it will take before you really do make a "major breakthrough" in this case?

Hi David,

I donīt know. This week I have collected two specific sources which I was hoping a bit for but they are not meaningful in the way they could have been. So things can happen quickly and it can also take some time.

[David Orsam]

it can also take some time.

Yes, that is very clear Pierre. It's already taken over 12 months for you to find that "small piece of data" or that "last piece of evidence" that you've been looking for and you don't seem to be any closer to obtaining it than you were in September 2015. But, hey, perhaps after another year or 127 years and... you will still be looking.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;396315]

Yes, that is very clear Pierre.

It is clear to you. Good for you, David.

It's already

Everyone: note the word "already". Time modality dictated by you, David.

For you it is "already". For me it is nothing.

taken over 12 months for you to find that "small piece of data" or that "last piece of evidence"

And what do you want to do about that? I mean, since you are so very fixated on that?

that you've been looking for and you don't seem to be any closer to obtaining it than you were in September 2015.

Well, how close I am is nothing that you know anything about, of course. Therefore you speculate.

But, hey, perhaps after another year or 127 years and... you will still be looking.

What sort of meaningless comment is this and what do you hope to achieve by it?

[David Orsam]

Time modality dictated by you, David.

For you it is "already". For me it is nothing.

Oh no Pierre, you are quite wrong, the time modality was dictated by you. Do I really have to remind you what you posted in this forum on 23 September 2015? Clearly I do:

"If I canīt give that answer conclusively by having the last piece of evidence in 12 months (Iīm not going to spend more time on it) you will get the theory and data here so you can try it yourselves."

Do you see the time modality which you included in that sentence?

[David Orsam]

And what do you want to do about that? I mean, since you are so very fixated on that?

I'm suggesting you follow your own words and don't spend any more time on it.

I also suggest you keep your promise and post the theory and data here so we can "try it" ourselves.

[David Orsam]

What sort of meaningless comment is this and what do you hope to achieve by it?

It's not meaningless. It's saying that you will never solve the case, even if you had 127 years. So why not follow your own advice when you said over 12 months ago that if you didn't find the last small missing piece of evidence after 12 months: "I'm not going to spend any more time on it". It's what you said Pierre. Wise words on 23 September 2015 so why not wise words now?

[Pierre]

It's not meaningless. It's saying that you will never solve the case, even if you had 127 years. So why not follow your own advice when you said over 12 months ago that if you didn't find the last small missing piece of evidence after 12 months: "I'm not going to spend any more time on it". It's what you said Pierre. Wise words on 23 September 2015 so why not wise words now?

Thank you for a very good question, David. Of course there is a very good answer to this question as well. The answer is:

I have more evidence now.

So what is new?

1) The motive is now 100 percent explained. A year ago there were still a
few questions marks. They are gone.

2) The time periods are exactly correlated to the crimes. The time periods
given by the external sources correspond to the longer time periods but
also to the time periods on a micro level, i.e. for specific murder dates.
There are now external data sources for all these points in time.

3) Every relevant data source from the Whitechapel murders are now 100
percent coherent with the external sources.

4) New external sources show that there was not just one major problem but
a set of problems I did not know anything about a year ago. It
strengthens the evidence although it was already very strong.

So there are strong reasons for continuing with the research and I have no scientific right to stop here, even though I would like to do so.

Pierre

[David Orsam]

Thank you for a very good question, David. Of course there is a very good answer to this question as well. The answer is:

I have more evidence now.

So what is new?

1) The motive is now 100 percent explained. A year ago there were still a
few questions marks. They are gone.

You can't possibly 100% explain the motive without knowing 100% who the killer was. You don't know who the killer was so it follows that you don't know the motive.

It's very simple Pierre. If you don't understand please let me know which part of the above you are having trouble with.

[David Orsam]

So there are strong reasons for continuing with the research and I have no scientific right to stop here, even though I would like to do so.

But you had "strong reasons" for continuing with the research over 12 months ago when you thought you had found him. All you needed was a "small piece of data". If you didn't find that "small piece of data" within 12 months, you told us, you weren't going to spend any more time on it. You didn't find that small piece of data so you, according to your own wise words, you must now be wasting your time.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;396326]

But you had "strong reasons" for continuing with the research over 12 months ago when you thought you had found him.

And that is probably why I can put aside all hope of being wrong. I was hoping that every new data piece I found could be used to refute the hypotheses.

But instead they were strenghtened.

All you needed was a "small piece of data".

Yes, for you and the rest who want to know who Jack the Ripper was.

I have been looking away from the new sources even though they confirm that the hypotheses are right. I have tried to ignore them.

I sometimes feel rather stupid. It is like standing in front of a tree saying: "Is this a tree? Is has leaves, they are green, it has branches and it has a stem...".

It is on that level now.

If you didn't find that "small piece of data" within 12 months, you told us, you weren't going to spend any more time on it.

But I have found more data, so therefore I must continue.

You didn't find that small piece of data so you, according to your own wise words, you must now be wasting your time.

Obviously, this time has not been wasted, since I have found more data.

[David Orsam]

But I have found more data, so therefore I must continue.

Obviously, this time has not been wasted, since I have found more data.

Well it clearly has been wasted Pierre because you were not looking for "more data", you were looking for a specific piece of data which has proved to be elusive.

In September 2015 you thought you had found the killer and now in October 2016 you still think you have found the killer. You have, in other words, made no real progress at all. You clearly don't need "more data" because you had sufficient data over 12 months ago to conclude that you thought you had found the killer. What you need is not "more data" but proof.

You said that if you didn't find the proof in 12 months you wouldn't spend (waste) any more time on the search. Those were your own words Pierre. You were, if I may say so, talking great sense at that time. If you didn't find the "small piece of data" in over a year of looking for it, why do you think you will ever find it?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;396332]

Well it clearly has been wasted Pierre because you were not looking for "more data", you were looking for a specific piece of data which has proved to be elusive.

Of course I look for more data. I have found important data the last 6 months.

In September 2015 you thought you had found the killer and now in October 2016 you still think you have found the killer. You have, in other words, made no real progress at all. You clearly don't need "more data" because you had sufficient data over 12 months ago to conclude that you thought you had found the killer. What you need is not "more data" but proof.

Of course there is progress. The hypotheses are strengthened. That is no good news to me but may be to you.

You said that if you didn't find the proof in 12 months you wouldn't spend (waste) any more time on the search. Those were your own words Pierre. You were, if I may say so, talking great sense at that time. If you didn't find the "small piece of data" in over a year of looking for it, why do you think you will ever find it?

That is how historians work. If we didnīt believe in searching for sources and researching sources, there would be no history.

And that was the last I had to say to you in this thread for today.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Pierre .
Researchers have scanned every document known , every suspect put forth, and have not satisfied anyone of a variable suspect.
Reason is, we have no idea , who the culprit/culprits were, and it is doubtful if that will ever change.
The word ''Data'' is so annoying, it implies that your research is beyond the intelligence of all of us, and eventually you will be satisfied you have the killer, the only problem is you would be at pains to reveal it, because it would be too painful.
What a lot of tosh.
Regards Richard.

[David Orsam]

Of course I look for more data. I have found important data the last 6 months.

Of course there is progress. The hypotheses are strengthened.

Yes, I appreciate that you managed to find the killer's name in a mustard tin and you also found the lyrics of Sweet Violets published in the Pall Mall Gazette. These great finds, of course, do you credit as a researcher. Not to mention the major breakthrough of this thread in which the killer had a mental problem, or not as the case may be.

But there have been setbacks along the way too haven't there? I mean, you told us back in September 2015:

"I have found a letter written by him giving information that only the killer could have and published before the crime. He gives a lot of information in this letter and he does not sign it "Jack the Ripper". He tells us where and when and who. No one seem to have noticed it. But it was in the paper."

That strikes me as being rather darn important evidence and you must have thought so too. But it turned out that the killer did not write the letter signed "Gogmagog" which must have been a big disappointment. And then you discovered that you didn't understand what area of the east end was covered by the old parish of Minories. And a letter that you thought was dated 29 September 1888 did not in fact bear that date.

The one thing you didn't manage to locate was "the data I need to prove who the killer was". As you told us back in September 2015, "There is only some very sparse data I need for this and it is probably not impossible to find". But it did turn out to be impossible to find didn't it?

[GUT]

Hi Pierre .
Researchers have scanned every document known , every suspect put forth, and have not satisfied anyone of a variable suspect.
Reason is, we have no idea , who the culprit/culprits were, and it is doubtful if that will ever change.
The word ''Data'' is so annoying, it implies that your research is beyond the intelligence of all of us, and eventually you will be satisfied you have the killer, the only problem is you would be at pains to reveal it, because it would be too painful.
What a lot of tosh.
Regards Richard.

Great post.

But you don't understand because you're not a (the) great(est) whatever he claims to be this week (actually looks like he is back to trying to be a scientist).