A major breakthrough

[Pierre]

Even if he was only having soup? You should make yourself clearer Pierre!

Jeff

Poor man. Living on soup for his whole life then.

[Harry D]

Oh, could this be an actual development in this thread!? Surprisingly it didn't come from messieurs Pierre and Orsam. Quelle surprise.

[David Orsam]

Maybe he is just being ethical.

Not the answer as it transpires Pierre.

[David Orsam]

Oh, could this be an actual development in this thread!? Surprisingly it didn't come from messieurs Pierre and Orsam. Quelle surprise.

If you're referring to Mayerling's post, Harry, this was in response to one of my posts so....wrong again.

[Harry D]

If you're referring to Mayerling's post, Harry, this was in response to one of my posts so....wrong again.

What would we do without you?

[David Orsam]

What would we do without you?

Most people would go on as usual but I'm guessing that you would make lots of posts containing uncorrected errors.

[Elamarna]

Maybe he is just being ethical.

Pierre

My dear Pierre,

Ah Ethics.

Yes that would be the subject which previous posts have indicated a complete lack of clarity on.

It would appear that ethics are an area to which an extremely flexible approach is taken in the continuing saga which began over a year ago.

The serious issues raised on this subject, which were referred to in posts 538 and 542 from this thread, not to mention post #71 from Thread : Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?, sadly seem to be an area which there is no willingness to address or discuss.

Certainly such a reticence calls into question most, if not all that you post given that the (Mythical) Ethical Issue is central to you not naming a suspect.



Steve

[Mayerling]

Poor man. Living on soup for his whole life then.

I don't know, could be worse. Like living on empty promises of revelations.

Jeff

[Henry Flower]

To repeat a question Pierre seems to want to avoid answering: is it not obvious to a real historian like Pierre that there is a very great ethical difference between stating:

a) I accuse **** of having been the dastardly Whitechapel Murderer!

and

b) I am researching and compiling evidence relating to the possible involvement of **** in the murders. At this stage there is no proof and I have an open mind. Obviously I hope I am wrong, so I am putting his name out there in the hope that others might help me uncover definite proof that he was not the killer.

What would be unethical about (b) Pierre? Others either help you to prove that he was the killer (in which case the ethical problem disappears) or they more likely offer some simple piece of 'data' you have overlooked which proves the hypothesis wrong - in which case no ethical lapse takes place and you are, as you have always claimed, delighted to be proved wrong about him, and the great burden is lifted from your shoulders.

Why not do that Pierre?

Why not?

[Pierre]

To repeat a question Pierre seems to want to avoid answering: is it not obvious to a real historian like Pierre that there is a very great ethical difference between stating:

a) I accuse **** of having been the dastardly Whitechapel Murderer!

and

b) I am researching and compiling evidence relating to the possible involvement of **** in the murders. At this stage there is no proof and I have an open mind. Obviously I hope I am wrong, so I am putting his name out there in the hope that others might help me uncover definite proof that he was not the killer.

What would be unethical about (b) Pierre? Others either help you to prove that he was the killer (in which case the ethical problem disappears) or they more likely offer some simple piece of 'data' you have overlooked which proves the hypothesis wrong - in which case no ethical lapse takes place and you are, as you have always claimed, delighted to be proved wrong about him, and the great burden is lifted from your shoulders.

Why not do that Pierre?

Why not?

Because I do not believe in adding more "suspects" to an already long and meaningless list.

[Henry Flower]

Because I do not believe in adding more "suspects" to an already long and meaningless list.

Ah, because you think you're better than that! You despise this suspect-led ripperological research, you're better than that....

But you're not, are you? You think you've found him, you know why the murders happened on certain dates, you have 100% explained the motive, all through researching one suspect, and so the only thing you have not done is give his name.

If you have a brain you can see that the distinction is meaningless. Anyone can see on other threads that you are already writing about the case through the prism of a settled suspect.

To do so without naming him is not ethical, it is merely cowardice. You already ARE adding a suspect to the list: the only difference is that you are too scared to name him, because once you name him then others can peer review your work, and possibly disprove it, and once somebody comes up with exculpatory evidence then you the great historian Pierre will have to step down from the pedestal you built for yourself...

So stop your posturing and your preciousness about ethics. You are already writing about your suspect, you have already added him to the dismal list; you are already a suspect-led ripperologist, not a historian in any meaningful sense; your withholding of his name is only an act of self preservation.

You're not the police, you're not the attorney general or the home secretary. You're just an alleged historian writing under a likely fictitious name on a little-read niche blog: take my word for it Pierre, if you name him here, in the two weeks before your theory is entirely demolished by other researchers and your suspect entirely cleared (which you've always hoped for, right?) the worldwide media are not going to notice, the History Channel is not going to be knocking at your door, you are not going to forever blacken the reputation of an innocent copper.

I think you need to stop the charade and either put up or shut up. And if you've actually proved your case, Ill be the first to say "well done" to the great historian of judicial methodologies and sociological sciences or whatever you are this week.

[Harry D]

Ah, because you think you're better than that! You despise this suspect-led ripperological research, you're better than that....

But you're not, are you? You think you've found him, you know why the murders happened on certain dates, you have 100% explained the motive, all through researching one suspect, and so the only thing you have not done is give his name.

If you have a brain you can see that the distinction is meaningless. Anyone can see on other threads that you are already writing about the case through the prism of a settled suspect.

To do so without naming him is not ethical, it is merely cowardice. You already ARE adding a suspect to the list: the only difference is that you are too scared to name him, because once you name him then others can peer review your work, and possibly disprove it, and once somebody comes up with exculpatory evidence then you the great historian Pierre will have to step down from the pedestal you built for yourself...

So stop your posturing and your preciousness about ethics. You are already writing about your suspect, you have already added him to the dismal list; you are already a suspect-led ripperologist, not a historian in any meaningful sense; your withholding of his name is only an act of self preservation.

You're not the police, you're not the attorney general or the home secretary. You're just an alleged historian writing under a likely fictitious name on a little-read niche blog: take my word for it Pierre, if you name him here, in the two weeks before your theory is entirely demolished by other researchers and your suspect entirely cleared (which you've always hoped for, right?) the worldwide media are not going to notice, the History Channel is not going to be knocking at your door, you are not going to forever blacken the reputation of an innocent copper.

I think you need to stop the charade and either put up or shut up. And if you've actually proved your case, Ill be the first to say "well done" to the great historian of judicial methodologies and sociological sciences or whatever you are this week.

Amen, brother.

[The Good Michael]

Because I do not believe in adding more "suspects" to an already long and meaningless list.

Ahh, so your suspect would be one more meaningless one. We already knew that.

Mike

[John G]

Because I do not believe in adding more "suspects" to an already long and meaningless list.

Hello Pierre,
!

[Henry Flower]

Ahh, so your suspect would be one more meaningless one. We already knew that.

Mike

Ha! #likebutton