Decision

[GUT]

Yes, and more.

Pierre

Names the killer, but not a suspect book.

More Pierre BS

[John G]

John,

while I agree if there was no interruption, it seems hard to count her in; lets wait and see what evidence is presented, at that stage we can analysis what is actually presented and see if it stands up to scrutiny, rather than trying to analysis individual comments.

And if the book never appears, we need not be concerned. such as the Van Goth one.


steve

If he does write a book it will be like Bruce Robinson's, but with less factual information!

[Pierre]

Many thanks the comment about not a suspect book was the reason I asked, i suspect that is more to do with terminology than anything else.

No, Steve, it is not a matter of terminology. It is a matter of methodology and nothing else.

[Pierre]

In the case of no interruption, she definitely wasn't a Ripper victim.

That is what you believe.

[Elamarna]

No, Steve, it is not a matter of terminology. It is a matter of methodology and nothing else.

if you name a man and say he is the killer, is that not calling him a suspect in the widest meaning of the word? or are you insisting that he is the killer and therefore not a suspect?


Steve

[Pierre]

If he does write a book it will be like Bruce Robinson's, but with less factual information!

Dear John,

It will be nothing like it.

[Pierre]

if you name a man and say he is the killer, is that not calling him a suspect in the widest meaning of the word? or are you insisting that he is the killer and therefore not a suspect?

Steve

Dear Steve,

I am not insisting on anything at all.

For me it is a simple matter of presenting sources that should be presented.

The sources are more important than the "result". The result is the report.

[Elamarna]

Dear Steve,

I am not insisting on anything at all.

For me it is a simple matter of presenting sources that should be presented.

The sources are more important than the "result". The result is the report.

Pierre

if you name a potential killer how can he not be a suspect in the use of the word in suspect theory/book?

i will leave it there because there is no point arguing semantics.


steve

[Pierre]

Pierre

if you name a potential killer how can he not be a suspect in the use of the word in suspect theory/book?

i will leave it there because there is no point arguing semantics.

steve

Steve,

you have a historical problem with that concept. There were various suspects in 1888 suspected for various crimes. And then comes the ripperological concept which is a modern concept for ripperologists. The problem has been discussed on this forum earlier if you have seen that.

My own position is that the word is not needed when historical facts are established if it is not a matter of the old concept.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

Steve,

you have a historical problem with that concept. There were various suspects in 1888 suspected for various crimes. And then comes the ripperological concept which is a modern concept for ripperologists. The problem has been discussed on this forum earlier if you have seen that.

My own position is that the word is not needed when historical facts are established if it is not a matter of the old concept.

Pierre

Lets see , the sources are important correct?

Do those sources suggest that a named individual was the Whitechapel murder? apparently yes.

Do you accept those sources are accurate? apparently so.

Do you, having analyzed all the data, consider the result, the report to be valid?

Assuming your answer to the last question is correct or yes, then we must conclude that the person who will be named in the report is in your analysis likely to be the killer.

In the normal usage of the term in this field Ripper studies, and that is the field you are currently working in, a report or book which gives a name for the killer is referred to as a SUSPECT BOOK, you may not like such a term, and I have issues with it myself; However that is the reality of the field you are writing in.


And that really is my last word .


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Dear Steve,

I am not insisting on anything at all.

For me it is a simple matter of presenting sources that should be presented.

The sources are more important than the "result". The result is the report.

'The sources are more important than the "result."

Hypothetically speaking, if the police force had the choice of 2 outcomes which would they choose?:

a) an investigation where every piece of information that they had was meticulously sourced but they didn't catch the killer,

Or,

b) an investigation where they checked their sources but also used phrases like 'what if...' or 'maybe....' or 'I wonder if it's possible that...' and they went on to catch the killer?

I believe that there is more to an investigation than just the accuracy of the sources and the methods used.

[John G]

Steve,

you have a historical problem with that concept. There were various suspects in 1888 suspected for various crimes. And then comes the ripperological concept which is a modern concept for ripperologists. The problem has been discussed on this forum earlier if you have seen that.

My own position is that the word is not needed when historical facts are established if it is not a matter of the old concept.

Pierre

"La verite historique est souvent une fable convene."

[Herlock Sholmes]

"La verite historique est souvent une fable convene."

I didn't know that you could speak Welsh John

[Pierre]

Lets see , the sources are important correct?

Do those sources suggest that a named individual was the Whitechapel murder? apparently yes.

Do you accept those sources are accurate? apparently so.

Do you, having analyzed all the data, consider the result, the report to be valid?

Assuming your answer to the last question is correct or yes, then we must conclude that the person who will be named in the report is in your analysis likely to be the killer.

In the normal usage of the term in this field Ripper studies, and that is the field you are currently working in, a report or book which gives a name for the killer is referred to as a SUSPECT BOOK, you may not like such a term, and I have issues with it myself; However that is the reality of the field you are writing in.

And that really is my last word .


Steve

Hi Steve,

No, I am writing in the field of history. That is an existing field but ripperology is not a field. It is a small space in literature.

Cheers, Pierre

[Pierre]

'The sources are more important than the "result."

Hypothetically speaking, if the police force had the choice of 2 outcomes which would they choose?:

a) an investigation where every piece of information that they had was meticulously sourced but they didn't catch the killer,

Or,

b) an investigation where they checked their sources but also used phrases like 'what if...' or 'maybe....' or 'I wonder if it's possible that...' and they went on to catch the killer?

I believe that there is more to an investigation than just the accuracy of the sources and the methods used.

This is not a police investigation.

And the result, both for the police and for historians, can not be "what if" or "is it possible".

Those are questions that both historians and police investigators ask BEFORE they have a result or what you call an outcome.

Pierre