Would a Doctor or a Policeman participate in major crimes such as these?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Yes they were.

There is a difference between speculation and deduction.

Arnold, Warren and I made deductions from the evidence.

Many wild speculations have been put forward on this forum, but not by me.

Yet I am the only one who has been alleged to have submitted wild speculation!

Completely reasonable deductions are being referred to by you and other posters as speculations.

They are not!

[c.d.]

It is not speculation but a reasonable deduction from the evidence.

Arnold and Warren made the same deduction.

They were not speculating.

If we assume that Arnold and Warren did not themselves write it then yes, they were speculating.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I quote from my comments in # 55:

My question was:

Please explain the apron being cut in two and being in the possession of the murderer for nearly an hour.

You haven't answered the first part!

Maybe he took it so that when he got somewhere quiet and away from the crime scene he could check himself over for blood and wipe with the cloth.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is a difference between speculation and deduction.

Arnold, Warren and I made deductions from the evidence.

Many wild speculations have been put forward on this forum, but not by me.

Yet I am the only one who has been alleged to have submitted wild speculation!

Completely reasonable deductions are being referred to by you and other posters as speculations.

They are not!

Yes they are.

[c.d.]

I quote from my comments in # 55:

My question was:

Please explain the apron being cut in two and being in the possession of the murderer for nearly an hour.

You haven't answered the first part!

Perhaps if your tone wasn't so aggressive and in your face your interactions with your fellow posters might just go a little smoother. Just sayin'.

Since I was not present at the time I can only speculate. My guess would be that it was cut in part by his knife during the mutilations. He then cut it completely off perhaps as a trophy, to hold organs or to staunch a cut. Maybe some other reason.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Perhaps if your tone wasn't so aggressive and in your face your interactions with your fellow posters might just go a little smoother. Just sayin'.

Since I was not present at the time I can only speculate. My guess would be that it was cut in part by his knife during the mutilations. He then cut it completely off perhaps as a trophy, to hold organs or to staunch a cut. Maybe some other reason.

I amazed that you say I'm aggressive.

I could quote plenty of aggressive remarks made to me on this forum, but writing 'please explain...' is not aggressive.

And that's a fact.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Yes they are.

I would respectfully suggest that you are unaware of the distinction between speculation and deduction.

[c.d.]

I would respectfully suggest that you are unaware of the distinction between speculation and deduction.

Except that a deduction, no matter how brilliant or well reasoned, doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusion reached is a fact.

c.d.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Except that a deduction, no matter how brilliant or well reasoned, doesn't necessarily mean that the conclusion reached is a fact.

c.d.

It seems to me that you are agreeing with me that there is a distinction between speculation and deduction.

[c.d.]

It seems to me that you are agreeing with me that there is a distinction between speculation and deduction.

I suppose that can be said although I am not really up for a debate on semantics right now.

Speculation seems to have a bit of a negative aura about it because in its lowest form it can be argued that someone is just pulling it out of their ass. So it would seem that there are degrees of speculation. But again, even if you are bolstering you argument with impressive deductions, your conclusion is not necessarily fact and therefore is speculation. Speculation bolstered by deductions is still speculation.

So take our discussion of the GSG for example. I made deductions to reach my conclusion. You simply ignored them because they didn't match yours. Now since I didn't write the GSG myself I was speculating as were you.

Deductions are not necessarily facts. So don't confuse the two.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I would respectfully suggest that you are unaware of the distinction between speculation and deduction.

As c.d. has said. Just because two people make a deduction we can’t assume it’s the truth. Two people can be wrong just as a 1000 people can be wrong.

We simply cannot assume that the graffito was written by the killer. It might have been; it might not have been. There’s absolutely nothing wrong in being of the opinion that it was but what we should all caution against is over-confidence.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

As c.d. has said. Just because two people make a deduction we can’t assume it’s the truth. Two people can be wrong just as a 1000 people can be wrong.

We simply cannot assume that the graffito was written by the killer. It might have been; it might not have been. There’s absolutely nothing wrong in being of the opinion that it was but what we should all caution against is over-confidence.

Well, now you seem to be calling my 'speculation' an assumption.

Would you accept that there is a distinction between speculation and deduction and that my assertion was not speculation but a deduction from the evidence?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, now you seem to be calling my 'speculation' an assumption.

Would you accept that there is a distinction between speculation and deduction and that my assertion was not speculation but a deduction from the evidence?

No, because a definition of speculation is….

“the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.”

Which sums things up perfectly. You have no firm evidence only opinion. We cannot say for certain that Long didn’t simply miss the apron first time around. We cannot say for certain that it was written by the killer. We cannot say for certain that the writer wasn’t Jewish.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I suppose that can be said although I am not really up for a debate on semantics right now.

Speculation seems to have a bit of a negative aura about it because in its lowest form it can be argued that someone is just pulling it out of their ass. So it would seem that there are degrees of speculation. But again, even if you are bolstering you argument with impressive deductions, your conclusion is not necessarily fact and therefore is speculation. Speculation bolstered by deductions is still speculation.

So take our discussion of the GSG for example. I made deductions to reach my conclusion. You simply ignored them because they didn't match yours. Now since I didn't write the GSG myself I was speculating as were you.

Deductions are not necessarily facts. So don't confuse the two.

c.d.

I would say that Arnold, Warren and I made a reasonable deduction from the physical evidence that the message was anti-Jewish and that our deductions are not speculative.

If the message had not mentioned Jews, then it might be speculative to say it was anti-Jewish.

Similarly, to say that the murderer wrote the message is a reasonable deduction from the evidence - not speculation.

According to Sugden, the prevailing view at Scotland Yard was that the message was a deliberate subterfuge, designed to incriminate the Jews and throw the police off the track of the real murderer (page 255).

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

No, because a definition of speculation is….

“the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.”

Which sums things up perfectly. You have no firm evidence only opinion. We cannot say for certain that Long didn’t simply miss the apron first time around. We cannot say for certain that it was written by the killer. We cannot say for certain that the writer wasn’t Jewish.

The best evidence we have is that the apron was not there at 2.20 a.m.

To suggest that Long missed it would be speculation.

It is reasonable, as Scotland Yard did, to deduce from the physical evidence that the murderer and the writer were gentiles.

To suggest that the murderer and writer were Jewish would be speculative.

It is a reasonable deduction from the physical evidence - the cutting of the apron, the long delay in leaving it at Wentworth Dwellings, and its positioning near the writing, as well as the content of the writing, that the murderer used the piece of apron to authenticate the message as coming from him.

To say that the writing was already there and no resident had bothered to erase it is speculative.