Most important data: a wish list

[Pierre]

Hi,

Doing my own research and looking at different theories others have come up with I come to think of the different types of data we prefer to use.

I guess we all have our own ideas as to what types of data should be considered as really important.

So what types of data do you think would be the most important if you would try to find the killer? And what would qualify as proof?

Here are some suggestions listed in no special order and you can probably add more to it:

1. Personal motive for murdering the victims
2. DNA
3. His profession
4. A confession
5. Items found at the murder sites
6. Handwriting match with a letter
7. His adress
8. Personal motive for mutilating victims
9. A letter containing knowledge only the murderer could have had
10. Several letters containing knowledge only the murderer could have had
11. Statements from witnesses
12. A combination of some of the above
13. A combination of all of the above


Another question concerns the amount of data we have. Is it "the more the better" or "just a few but very significant". What do you think?

Regards Pierre

[GUT]

Hi,

Doing my own research and looking at different theories others have come up with I come to think of the different types of data we prefer to use.

I guess we all have our own ideas as to what types of data should be considered as really important.

So what types of data do you think would be the most important if you would try to find the killer? And what would qualify as proof?

Here are some suggestions listed in no special order and you can probably add more to it:

1. Personal motive for murdering the victims
2. DNA
3. His profession
4. A confession
5. Items found at the murder sites
6. Handwriting match with a letter
7. His adress
8. Personal motive for mutilating victims
9. A letter containing knowledge only the murderer could have had
10. Several letters containing knowledge only the murderer could have had
11. Statements from witnesses
12. A combination of some of the above
13. A combination of all of the above


Another question concerns the amount of data we have. Is it "the more the better" or "just a few but very significant". What do you think?

Regards Pierre

1. Personal motive for murdering the victims

Certainly not anywhere near enough 125+ years down the track, also not sure how you'd establish it.

2. DNA

From where matching what?

3. His profession

Nope

4. A confession

Depends on the provenance of sad confession, they had confessions at the time.

5. Items found at the murder sites

Liking them to a suspect, how?

6. Handwriting match with a letter

Since hardly anyone accepts that he wrote any particular letter, nope.

7. His adress

How does that help?


8. Personal motive for mutilating victims

Maybe


9. A letter containing knowledge only the murderer could have had

And 127 years down the track how do we prove that the information is correct?

10. Several letters containing knowledge only the murderer could have had

See above re one letter

11. Statements from witnesses

We have some, not sure where you'll get more now.

12. A combination of some of the above
13. A combination of all of the above

Perhaps but they need to answer each individual question before they're worth diddly squat.

[Mister Whitechapel]

Pierre,

Which category does your remaining, case-clinching, data fall in to?

I'd also be interested in your opinion(s) of your list. What elements would you consider as proof?

Yours,
Mister Whitechapel

[GUT]

Pierre,

Which category does your remaining, case-clinching, data fall in to?

I'd also be interested in your opinion(s) of your list. What elements would you consider as proof?

Yours,
Mister Whitechapel

I suspect whatever one(s) he (thinks) he can tie to his suspect of choice.

[Mister Whitechapel]

I suspect whatever one(s) he (thinks) he can tie to his suspect of choice.

Indeed. I'm understandably curious at what specifics will be presented as evidence once Pierre has uncovered that final nail in the proverbial coffin, and what has been excluded from his investigation due to his own views on what constitues as proof.

I just think it's important for the OP to state their own views before seeking those of others, and - for my own curiosity - which of the list presented does the last piece of evidence fall into.

Yours,
Mister Whitechapel

[gnote]

Outside of what was listed the murder weapon(s) would be nice.

[GUT]

Indeed. I'm understandably curious at what specifics will be presented as evidence once Pierre has uncovered that final nail in the proverbial coffin, and what has been excluded from his investigation due to his own views on what constitues as proof.

I just think it's important for the OP to state their own views before seeking those of others, and - for my own curiosity - which of the list presented does the last piece of evidence fall into.

Yours,
Mister Whitechapel

Agree, I get the sneaking suspicion that he is simply shopping for information so he can make up his theory.

[Pierre]

Agree, I get the sneaking suspicion that he is simply shopping for information so he can make up his theory.

Hi GUT,

well, why do you assume that discussing different types of data on a forum in the year 2015 would create information as to who the Whitechapel killer could have been?

And what makes you think a theory could be built on such discussions?

If you take the time to analyze extensive data from the 19th century instead, you might get what you call information. Then you might be able to derive some hypotheses and even a theory from it.

Regards Pierre

[packers stem]

Hi GUT,

well, why do you assume that discussing different types of data on a forum in the year 2015 would create information as to who the Whitechapel killer could have been?

And what makes you think a theory could be built on such discussions?

If you take the time to analyze extensive data from the 19th century instead, you might get what you call information. Then you might be able to derive some hypotheses and even a theory from it.

Regards Pierre

Hi Pierre
I think the problem might be that the only 'data' links you've posted so far have been to articles on casebook and it may be making people wonder if your sole source for your data is in fact.....casebook

[Patrick S]

In my view, it's folly to think that any such evidence exists. The fog of 127 years has obscured any trail that may ever have led to the killer(s). Further, I think that it's foolish for any individual to think that he's "found him" by uncovering "evidence" that identifies "Jack the Ripper". This is why I'm so critical of those who promote such ideas. I see the act of doing so as either simple naiveté or profound arrogance. Thus far, Peirre, I think you have a bit of the former (Christer, clearly, truckloads of the latter).

Do not take this to mean that I do not appreciate the ideas, the discussion, the reseach and effort involved. However, I think that - with time - we learn patience, prudence, and perspective. We realize what's realisic, what's possible, and why we are interested in the subject as a whole. Those of us who realize all this, yet remain fascinated and involved, even as we know there are not now, nor will there likely ever be legitimate "suspects" will study these times, places, and people, until our dying days. I suspect a love of history drives most of us. We also love a good mystery...and any mystery worth it's salt will remain such for time immemorial.

[Pierre]

In my view, it's folly to think that any such evidence exists. The fog of 127 years has obscured any trail that may ever have led to the killer(s). Further, I think that it's foolish for any individual to think that he's "found him" by uncovering "evidence" that identifies "Jack the Ripper". This is why I'm so critical of those who promote such ideas. I see the act of doing so as either simple naiveté or profound arrogance. Thus far, Peirre, I think you have a bit of the former (Christer, clearly, truckloads of the latter).

Do not take this to mean that I do not appreciate the ideas, the discussion, the reseach and effort involved. However, I think that - with time - we learn patience, prudence, and perspective. We realize what's realisic, what's possible, and why we are interested in the subject as a whole. Those of us who realize all this, yet remain fascinated and involved, even as we know there are not now, nor will there likely ever be legitimate "suspects" will study these times, places, and people, until our dying days. I suspect a love of history drives most of us. We also love a good mystery...and any mystery worth it's salt will remain such for time immemorial.

Hi Patrick,

I agree. I think I am a bit naive to, or rather very naive indeed. And I donīt want to get into the position of beeing arrogant as well. But most of all I want to stick to science. So thatīs why I say I think I have found him. I donīt know. And until I know or until I have managed to prove my research to be wrong, I donīt talk much about it.

But I can tell you that my data scares me.

Regards Pierre

[Patrick S]

Hi Patrick,

I agree. I think I am a bit naive to, or rather very naive indeed. And I donīt want to get into the position of beeing arrogant as well. But most of all I want to stick to science. So thatīs why I say I think I have found him. I donīt know. And until I know or until I have managed to prove my research to be wrong, I donīt talk much about it.

But I can tell you that my data scares me.

Regards Pierre

WHY does it SCARE you?

[Pierre]

WHY does it SCARE you?

Because there are many significant independent datasources clearly pointing in the direction of one specific person. Why - if it isnīt him?

These sources shed light on historical problems concearning the killer that people have tryed to solve and understand for a long time. Why - if it isnīt him?

I donīt want to believe the data, since I never wanted to be a ripperologist and never wanted the responsibility for all this. The killer wanted to be known and Iīm supposed to be his messenger. I donīt like that. And many will take offense.

Pierre

[Pcdunn]

I donīt want to believe the data, since I never wanted to be a ripperologist and never wanted the responsibility for all this. The killer wanted to be known and Iīm supposed to be his messenger. I donīt like that. And many will take offense.

Pierre

See, that's the sort of talk that makes people ask if you're involved in paranormal experiences (i.e. "Are you a medium?") -- might want to tone it down if you're really a scientist instead.

[GUT]

See, that's the sort of talk that makes people ask if you're involved in paranormal experiences (i.e. "Are you a medium?") -- might want to tone it down if you're really a scientist instead.

Or that it's all just a gee up.