The profession of Jack the Ripper.

[Pierre]

The problem is Pierre you aren't capable of intelligent conversation all you have done is throw out hints that you know something that no one else knows,

Wrong. I have posted several hypotheses about the killer. But not the data for his ID and that is why you are critical.

There are a lot of people in the field of ripperology publishing ideas about the ID of the killer that are wrong and producing theories with poor data.

One example here on the forum is Fisherman. He has a theory with a wrong ID of the killer and very poor data. And people have been criticizing both his theory and his data.

Now, I can tell you that the data I have presented to you, being very little and not giving the ID for the killer, is not poorer then the data that Fisherman has presented, only I have not given the ID of the killer. One of the data sources I have presented is shared with Fisherman and that is Lechmere´s sighting of a police constable. I consider this to be very poor data.

that anyone with out academic qualifcations is beneath you and anybody who is ba "hobbyist" can't know anything.

Wrong again. You are confusing books with people.

Then you say things like the killer wrote a letter with MJK exact address and later his full name, but when put to the acid test can produce no such thing rather something that YOU (and maybe only you) interpret that way.

This data source has a low validity and is not connected to the ID of the killer. It is only an hypothesis and I have stated this several times.

Sure there are many here that are capable of intelligent (and at times heated) debate it appears apparent that you aren't.

Here we go again.

Or else you would do what you have ben challenged to do many times.

PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

And again.

Regards Pierre

[GUT]

So more of the same BS. You haven't posted one piece of data that hasn't been shredded and after it is shown to be the BS it is you say, "Well it has very low validity anyway" so why post it.

And it seems clear to me you have no0 grasp of Fisherman's theory anyway, as Fisherman doesn't believe,as I understand it, that Cross saw a policeman at all but that it was a "Scam" when he told Mizen that one was awaiting him.

You are the one who has twisted it into Cross having seen a policeman in the process of rapng and killing a victim, So if this is an example of your Data you have along long way to go.

[John G]

Regards Pierre

Hello "Pierre",

Unfortunately it has fallen to me to give you the sad news that some of your "data" appears to have got corrupted. Thus, you stated that your most recent "data" contains the "full name of the person I think was the killer." However, you then seriously contradicted this statement by revealing that the name was only written in "metaphorical" terms, therefore, logically, not the "the full name of the person". I can also confirm that I have undertaken a full data analysis of the source material, as well as a statistical analysis of the probability that I could be mistaken, but I'm afraid there's hardly any doubt about it.

I am sorry to be the bearer of such bad news, which I realize will be somewhat devastating to you, and I want to assure you that I agonized for some time before deciding to post, however I felt it was my duty to reveal the information to you.

On a more cheerful note, do you think that a serious academic would write something like this, "I'm going to do a statistical analysis of the probability that his name could be in the source."? Sorry to bother you with this, I appreciate you have many demands on your time, but I naturally thought you'd be the ideal person to ask, you being a "serious" academic and all.

And finally...as you're proving to be rather elusive I thought I'd try a 20 questions approach. Hope you don't mind. Okay, Question 1:

Are you conducting some bizarre social media experiment?

[Pierre]

So more of the same BS. You haven't posted one piece of data that hasn't been shredded and after it is shown to be the BS it is you say, "Well it has very low validity anyway" so why post it.

And it seems clear to me you have no0 grasp of Fisherman's theory anyway, as Fisherman doesn't believe,as I understand it, that Cross saw a policeman at all but that it was a "Scam" when he told Mizen that one was awaiting him.

You are the one who has twisted it into Cross having seen a policeman in the process of rapng and killing a victim, So if this is an example of your Data you have along long way to go.

Hi,

You are talking about Fisherman´s interpretation of a source. Not about the source itself. Making another interpretation is not "twisting" something, it is merely making another interpretation.

I have never said that the killer was raping the victim. Jack the Ripper was not a rapist.

And Mizen´s statement for Lechmere´s statement about the PC not "an example of my data" if you by that mean the data for the ID of the killer. It is merely a hypothetical supportive data source, but it has a very low reliability since we do not know if Lechmere told Mizen that there was another PC at the murder site. And if he did, the validity of the source is low, since we do not know why he did it. We can only put our interpretations to it and hypothesize about his motive.

And this is what I am doing. I am not building a whole theory on that single source.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

Hi,

You are talking about Fisherman´s interpretation of a source. Not about the source itself. Making another interpretation is not "twisting" something, it is merely making another interpretation.

I have never said that the killer was raping the victim. Jack the Ripper was not a rapist.

And Mizen´s statement for Lechmere´s statement about the PC not "an example of my data" if you by that mean the data for the ID of the killer. It is merely a hypothetical supportive data source, but it has a very low reliability since we do not know if Lechmere told Mizen that there was another PC at the murder site. And if he did, the validity of the source is low, since we do not know why he did it. We can only put our interpretations to it and hypothesize about his motive.

And this is what I am doing. I am not building a whole theory on that single source.

Regards, Pierre

Hi "Pierre",

Could you evaluate and present the effects of characteristics of the measurement instruments (hypothetical versus actual data sources) on obtained estimates of the reliability of your conclusions.

Hey! I'm starting to write like Pierre. I must be an academic! Either that or I'm the victim of some terrible gobbledygook contagion.

[Pierre]

Hello "Pierre",

Hi John,

Unfortunately it has fallen to me to give you the sad news that some of your "data" appears to have got corrupted. Thus, you stated that your most recent "data" contains the "full name of the person I think was the killer."

Yes. And I am about to do a statistical test on the probability for me being wrong. Statistics don´t have any respect for personal beliefs so I think that is the most reliable way of knowing how high the chance/risk is that I might be wrong in my interpretations of this source.

However, you then seriously contradicted this statement by revealing that the name was only written in "metaphorical" terms, therefore, logically, not the "the full name of the person".

John - if you were a serial killer and desperately wanted to communicate with the police to outsmart them and show them how immensely stupid they were and how smart you were, thereby also increasing the risk of being caught: Would you give the police a text containing you name written "John Gxxxxx"? Or would you use another system?

The BTK-killer thought he could outsmart the police by writing to them. They found his real name directly communicated to them in a source he sent them. The police went straight ahead and arrested him.

But the BTK-killer was not a police official who knew the forensics.

I can also confirm that I have undertaken a full data analysis of the source material, as well as a statistical analysis of the probability that I could be mistaken, but I'm afraid there's hardly any doubt about it.

Congratulations. But I don´t assume that you would share the method with us, or would you? Naturally, I will share my method with you as far as possible.

I am sorry to be the bearer of such bad news, which I realize will be somewhat devastating to you, and I want to assure you that I agonized for some time before deciding to post, however I felt it was my duty to reveal the information to you.

OK. Sociology now. You give me concepts like "devastating" and "bad news" - like I am giving the same to you, you think - and the rest is just tit for tat language. Conclusion: "Pierre wants to destroy ripperology, I want to destroy Pierre´s research". OK?

On a more cheerful note, do you think that a serious academic would write something like this, "I'm going to do a statistical analysis of the probability that his name could be in the source."? Sorry to bother you with this, I appreciate you have many demands on your time, but I naturally thought you'd be the ideal person to ask, you being a "serious" academic and all.

Serious academics test their own work.

And finally...as you're proving to be rather elusive I thought I'd try a 20 questions approach. Hope you don't mind. Okay, Question 1:

Are you conducting some bizarre social media experiment?

Certainly NOT. That would be extremely unethical. And my ONLY INTEREST is the murders.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Hi "Pierre",

Could you evaluate and present the effects of characteristics of the measurement instruments (hypothetical versus actual data sources) on obtained estimates of the reliability of your conclusions.

Hey! I'm starting to write like Pierre. I must be an academic! Either that or I'm the victim of some terrible gobbledygook contagion.

Hi,

You write:

"the effect of characteristics of the measurment instruments" would mean that you postulate that

characteristic 1 > y (obtained estimates for reliability)
characteristic 2 > y
characteristic 3 > y
and so on and so forth

Do you mean that I should do some factor analysis or other scale tests on the outcome or what?

This is just a probability test using frequence. And what characteristics are you talking about?

Regards, Pierre

[evertonmarc]

Going back to the railway police idea that was mentioned earlier in this thread.....I assume someone has tried to track back to see who worked as a railway policeman at the time?

[John G]

Regards, Pierre

Hello Pierre,

Thanks for the reply. I can assure you that I have not concluded that you want to "destroy Ripperology" and I certainly have no wish to destroy your research, although as you have largely yet to reveal what research you have gathered, I'm not sure how, at this stage, it would be logically possible to undertake such an endeavour.

Thus, I am still evaluating your likely motives, but have yet to arrive at an overall conclusion. I have, however, provisionally concluded that I am in need of more source material which, of course, will require testing and evaluating, as well as the application of a statistical test to determine the probability that any provisional conclusions are either defective (too broad, too specific, or non-existent) or substandard (lacking in completeness.)

Thus, a defective analysis would be unclear, ambiguous, unrelated to the data, or inconsistent with the rest of the research; whilst a substandard analysis would show bias towards one aspect of the data over another or does not fully present an analytical tool.

I'm sorry that my reply might seem a little vague, however, I'm sure you will realize that I am unable to share my overall results with you until my data analysis is complete.

However, I am able to reveal that the following source material, which I would kindly ask you to supply, will greatly assist my research: A list of academic texts and peer-reviewed journal articles that you have published.


Okay, Question 2: Are you a statistician in the information technology industry?

[John G]

Hi,

You write:

"the effect of characteristics of the measurment instruments" would mean that you postulate that

characteristic 1 > y (obtained estimates for reliability)
characteristic 2 > y
characteristic 3 > y
and so on and so forth

Do you mean that I should do some factor analysis or other scale tests on the outcome or what?

This is just a probability test using frequence. And what characteristics are you talking about?

Regards, Pierre

Hello Pierre,

I think you might just have answered Question 2.

[Abby Normal]

I think Commissioner James Monro is Pierre's suspect as he mentions in the Queen and Lord Mayor's thread post 35 that the letter provides "An explanation to Monro´s thinking"

Monro had a turbulent relationship with Commissioner Charles Warren and resigned before the main 5 canonical murders and was reappointed after them as Commissioner to replace Warren in November.

http://www.casebook.org/police_officials/po-monro.html

1888: August - Resigns after a struggle with Commissioner Charles Warren over the independence of the CID and Warren's blocking of the appointment of Melville Macnaghten. Monro is appointed "Head of the Detective Service" by Home Secretary Henry Matthews.

November - Charles Warren resigns as Commissioner and is replaced by Monro.

1889: June - Appoints Melville Macnaghten Assistant Chief Constable (CID).

July - Investigates the murder of Alice McKenzie.

This is the smoking gun or should I say knife.

"In their book "Jack the Ripper : Summing up and Verdict" Colin Wilson and Robin Odell mention a theory in which Monro is actually the murderer! His motive is revenge against the police and in particular Charles Warren for the way he was treated and made to resign. Needless to say this theory has not gained any support. "

Hi WC
Pierre has said that his suspect was known then, but not now-whatever that means. But Monro is clearly a well known person now so unless Pierre is twisting his words again, I don't think it could be him.

[Whitechapel]

Thanks for mentioning that Abby Normal and Pierre gives the reason for JTR starting as much worse than being fired and forced to resign. However Pierre has already said that he is coming fresh to Ripperology like me, I have heard of Warren and Anderson but not so much of Monro, even though he is listed among the police officials on Casebook Ripper. Also Pierre may have found a more extreme reason for Monro to be so upset with the Police Commissioner. Pierre can you confirm if your suspect is Sir James Monro ?

[Mister Whitechapel]

Pierre can you confirm if your suspect is Sir James Monro ?

Finally, my namesake and I are posting on the same page! And I second Whitechapel's question, but I doubt we'll get a yay or nay from Pierre regardless of if it's correct or not.

Yours,
Mister Whitechapel

[John G]

Hi WC
Pierre has said that his suspect was known then, but not now-whatever that means. But Monro is clearly a well known person now so unless Pierre is twisting his words again, I don't think it could be him.

Hi Abby,

I think you may have missed my post to Pierre, eons ago now, in which I cited that great orator Donald Rumsfeld:

"...beacuse as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns- the one's we don't know we don't know."

Hope this helps to clarify matters!

[Pierre]

Hello Pierre,

Thanks for the reply. I can assure you that I have not concluded that you want to "destroy Ripperology" and I certainly have no wish to destroy your research, although as you have largely yet to reveal what research you have gathered, I'm not sure how, at this stage, it would be logically possible to undertake such an endeavour.

Thus, I am still evaluating your likely motives, but have yet to arrive at an overall conclusion. I have, however, provisionally concluded that I am in need of more source material which, of course, will require testing and evaluating, as well as the application of a statistical test to determine the probability that any provisional conclusions are either defective (too broad, too specific, or non-existent) or substandard (lacking in completeness.)

Thus, a defective analysis would be unclear, ambiguous, unrelated to the data, or inconsistent with the rest of the research; whilst a substandard analysis would show bias towards one aspect of the data over another or does not fully present an analytical tool.

I'm sorry that my reply might seem a little vague, however, I'm sure you will realize that I am unable to share my overall results with you until my data analysis is complete.

However, I am able to reveal that the following source material, which I would kindly ask you to supply, will greatly assist my research: A list of academic texts and peer-reviewed journal articles that you have published.

Okay, Question 2: Are you a statistician in the information technology industry?

Hi John G,

No. But you must be into the nursing industry, since you are cutting and pasting from literature about planning nursing research to answer my statistical questions:

Basic Steps in Planning Nursing Research: From Question to Proposal

By Marilynn J. Wood, Janet Ross-Kerr.

Anyone here can find it on the internet. You have used text from page 74, (and put in a few of your own words in it since you could not give the reference).

OK. So you don´t understand statistics. That is OK, but when you do things like this it makes it hard to discuss with you.

Kind regards, Pierre