The profession of Jack the Ripper.

[Mister Whitechapel]

Hi Pierre,

Since you are in a responsive mood, could you list academic texts and peer-reviewed journal articles that you have published?

Yours,
Mister Whitechapel

[John G]

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

Kind regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

I can confirm that I am not in the nursing industry, although I think I can also conclude that you are as capable as I at undertaking google searches! I can also confirm that I may have used non-original content in order to assist me with my attempts to learn Pierre-speak, which is a difficult and on-going process. However, I will also grudgingly confirm that I'm starting to quite like you, I find you intriguing!

Can you confirm how you have evaluated that I do not understand statistics? What is your method? Have you applied a statistical test to determine the probability you may be mistaken?

Can you please provide me with the source material I have requested, i.e. a list of all of your published academic texts and peer reviewed articles. If you keep ignoring this simple request I will be compelled to draw obvious inferences.

Question 3: Are you a French national?

[Whitechapel]

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

Yes, hurrah, the Whitechapels are on the same page in more ways than one.

.

[Joshua Rogan]

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?

I've not looked into the rosters of railway police (although I'm sure someone on here has), but I have looked at the proximity of the Ripper murder sites to railway stations and lines and, whilst it is an intriguing idea, it doesn't really work for me. Apart from Polly Nichols, who was killed beside a bridge over a railway cutting, none of the other C5 were within a couple of hundred yards as the crow flies of any tracks, underground or otherwise. Therefore, the idea of a killer committing his crimes and then 'disappearing' into a station or down a steam vent (which would be incredibly sooty, I'd imagine) seems unnecessary. After all, if you've initially evaded detection long enough to get out of sight and earshot, you've already done the hard work and wouldn't need to be in uniform to catch a train.

[Whitechapel]

Hi Pierre,

I can confirm that I am not in the nursing industry, although I think I can also conclude that you are as capable as I at undertaking google searches! I can also confirm that I may have used non-original content in order to assist me with my attempts to learn Pierre-speak, which is a difficult and on-going process.

Can you confirm how you have evaluated that I do not understand statistics? What is your method? Have you applied a statistical test to determine the probability you may be mistaken?

Can you please provide me with the source material I have requested, i.e. a list of all of your published academic texts and peer reviewed articles. If you keep ignoring this simple request I will be compelled to draw obvious inferences.

Question 3: Are you a French national?

John G there are lies, damned lies and statistics, a Professor of Statistics told me that at York University. I think you are being blinded with science. What are the chances ? lol

However what would be more feasible is to do a statistical study on the proximity of the murders to railway stations.

[Harry D]

Whoever this suspect is, it just sounds like more phony baloney conspiratorial nonsense. Dollars to donuts the Ripper wasn't a high-ranking policeman or even your average bobby. That's what my data's telling me, at least.

[Whitechapel]

I think for Pierre it's better to publish or be damned. There is a lot of heat being generated as people feel they are being strung along and this has been going on since October (#strainednerves). It might be better for him to come clean on both his identity and that of his suspect. This would dissipate some of the heat and calm it all down.

[John G]

John G there are lies, damned lies and statistics, a Professor of Statistics told me that at York University. I think you are being blinded with science. What are the chances ? lol

However what would be more feasible is to do a statistical study on the proximity of the murders to railway stations.

Hi Whiechapel,

I'm beginning to think you might be right! The quote that you refer to has been attributed to Disraeli I believe but, statistically- speaking, that is probably a false attribution. Okay, I'm going to stop now as I'm starting to sound like Pierre.

I think Pierre is essentially taking a "smoke and mirrors" approach. For instance, he's fine when citing technical statistical terns-and he probably is some type of statistician, but he says little of real substance (and when he does, he tends to get into trouble, such as not knowing the colour of police uniforms, or confusing a metaphorical suspect with a real suspect!)

And is failure to list his "academic achievements", leads to obvious inferences. He also claims to be an historian, but no history would use phrases such as "I'm going to do a statistical analysis of the probability that is name could be in the source." It's absurd.

I agree with you about the railway station connection though, this is an avenue of research well worth exploring.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Hi,

Who is behaving like a "troll" here? Depending on your definition of "troll", who could it be?

"trolling

Being a prick on the internet because you can. Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it's the internet and, hey, you can."

[URL="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling"]http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling

In spite of yours and a few others use of sarcastic remarks on my posts, I like you, GUT. I think you are funny. But you become irrelevant for the problems of the JtR-case.

And I think it is a shame, since I believe you are also able of an intelligent discussion.

Kind regards, Pierre

Pierre, I don't think you are a troll in the Urban Dictionary sense of the term.
But in the "fishing" sense of the term, you are trolling.
You create drama by stating you have a revolutionary theory, and refuse to reveal information, or answering questions in a direct manner, waiting for the fish to bite.
And we are biting.
The crime is more than 100 years old. Even if your solution is the real one, no empire will crumble as a result.
I suggest you keep researching, and create threads when you have something tangible or looking for help in some particular field. Most people here are very helpful and dedicated. Some of them have put a lot of work into it, and you come off as a bit mocking all that.
Voilā.

[John Wheat]

Of course Jack may have been unemployed.

[Mayerling]

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!

Hi Sir John,

I hate Rumsfeld, but I do love that quote. Classic example of semantics (which Rumsfeld was demonstrating at the time).

Jeff

[Mayerling]

John G there are lies, damned lies and statistics, a Professor of Statistics told me that at York University. I think you are being blinded with science. What are the chances ? lol

However what would be more feasible is to do a statistical study on the proximity of the murders to railway stations.

Hi Whitechapel [and while I am at it to Mister Whitechapel too],

An old family friend once put it very nicely, when we were talking about polling and statistics: "Figures never lie, but liars figure", which means that numbers by themselves are not lying, but liars can manipulate the numerical data.

That's why I have never believed a political poll.

And I would not trust any set of statistics given to us by Pierre either!

Jeff

[Abby Normal]

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 ?

HI WC.
Appears Pierre has gone incommuticato on your question, which makes me wonder, as he is usually pretty quick to deny a specific candidate put forth by posters.

Pierre is your suspect Monro?

[David Orsam]

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 Monroīs thinking"

While Pierre certainly was quite focussed on Monro in his early posts, and Monro would fit with the fact that Pierre claims to have seen his suspect's "texts" (with one of Monro's articles referred to by Pierre as a "text), there are two fundamental problems with Monro being Pierre's candidate:

Firstly, while it makes sense - in a very crazy sort of way - for Monro to have committed the murders to force Sir Charles Warren's resignation, one would have thought the murders would have stopped after MJK when Monro had achieved his objective. Instead, Pierre says the murders continued in 1889 when Monro was himself the Commissioner and thus ultimately responsible for the failure to catch JTR.

Secondly, Pierre told us he has not seen a photograph of his suspect whereas a photograph of Monro can be found very easily from a Google images search.

[David Orsam]

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.

Pierre's summary of how the BTK-killer was caught is typically misleading in the extreme, to the point where it is downright deceptive. Dennis Rader did not "directly communicate" his name to the police in a source he sent them. He was tricked by the police to communicate with them by way of a document contained on a floppy disk which, unknown to him, identified the computer from which the document had been last saved, which was in Rader's church. The disk also contained information that the document had been last saved by a user called "Dennis" - again unknown to Rader - but, without knowing the location of the computer, that information on its own was practically worthless to the police.

It's hardly worth stating but Pierre's logic on this point is ridiculously twisted because even if you were a serial killer who desperately wanted to communicate with the police to show them how immensely stupid they were and how smart you were (something which JTR may or may not have wanted to do) you would not necessarily want to tell them your name in any language, "metaphorical" or otherwise, nor would you necessarily want to give them any clues which would enable the police to identify you. In fact, it would be most unlikely that you would want to do this because you might end up being caught, convicted and, in 1888, executed.

If, however, for some bizarre reason, you did want to give the police a chance to catch you by including your name in some cryptic or coded form in a letter then there has to be some reasonable possibility that an intelligent person could work out that name, otherwise you are not achieving your intended aim in showing how stupid the police are. If it's impossible from the letter for anyone to work out the name then there is no point at all in including it. In other words, it has to be possible from the letter to see there is a clue or code to be deciphered and then a possibility for that clue or code to actually be deciphered.

From the example given by Pierre of the GOGMAHON letter, it was simply impossible for anyone reading that letter to have understood that it contained (according to Pierre) the name and address of the next victim and the date she would be murdered. It is only something that Pierre has claimed to have identified in hindsight. He has not shown us how anyone, however intelligent, could have worked it out in advance. Yet he used exactly the same arguments about the GOGMAHON letter as this one i.e. 'What do yo think, David? Do you think the Whitechapel murderer wrote the exact adress to the police?' and 'If he had written the actual names, the police would have been there waiting for him.'