The profession of Jack the Ripper.

[John G]

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.'

Thanks for this David. Clearly, Pierre's analysis of Rader's communications to the police is seriously flawed. I'm afraid it further undermines his credibility.

[GUT]

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.

As does more or less everything Pierre posts.

[GUT]

Of course Jack may have been unemployed.

Well I suspect Pierre is.

Or more to the point if this is an example of his scientific thinking and he is the great scuentist, soon will be.

[David Orsam]

The colour of the uniforms are not important. So I have had no interest in that matter.

That is not true at all is it Pierre. In #309 you wrote:

"And this makes me think of a very relevant research question for discussing the case: Are blood stains on black material visible?"

So there the colour of the uniform was "very relevant", no doubt because you believed that blood stains on black material were not visible. Once you discover that police uniforms are blue you lose interest.

[GUT]

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.'

Yep as always dead wrong, if not deliberately misleading, or as I prefer to say, BS or Horse Twaddle for the more polite.

[GUT]

Hi Whitechapel,

I am sorry but I have chosen to not answer any more questions about who he was or wasn´t.

All I can tell you is that when I have the last source, and if this source confirms that I have found him, you will be surprised.

Regards, Pierre

You needed the last source about 6 sources back.

[David Orsam]

Would the killer have been intelligent if he´d given the police his real name?

Would the killer have been intelligent if he'd given the police a chance of discovering his real name by including some form of clue to it in a letter?

[John G]

Would the killer have been intelligent if he´d given the police his real name?

Regards, Pierre

No, but how do you know he was an "intelligent" killer? That is pure speculation.

[David Orsam]

Would the killer have been intelligent if he´d given the police his real name?

And also, how do we know the killer was intelligent?

[David Orsam]

Great minds think alike John.

[John G]

Great minds think alike John.

I was about to say the same thing David!

[Mayerling]

That is not true at all is it Pierre. In #309 you wrote:

"And this makes me think of a very relevant research question for discussing the case: Are blood stains on black material visible?"

So there the colour of the uniform was "very relevant", no doubt because you believed that blood stains on black material were not visible. Once you discover that police uniforms are blue you lose interest.

As I brought up the issue of blood stains, I can say this - even if the night was the darkest in memory, and there was fog, and a power failure, unless the killer washed the uniform off very quickly and THOUROUGHLY there would have remained some traces or spots of blood to be seen the next day.

Then the killer could have enjoyed explaining away the stains - on his black or dark blue uniform. And sorry, Pierre, if you don't have an interest in the colour of the uniform or the bloodstains. The issue is still there staring at you and your "theory".

And if you are going into the semantics about "he's not a police officer/he's not a police official/ he is a would-be power hungry police official* with a grudge to humiliate the police department" keep in mind the same thing stands if he wore a civilian suit (of any color), a coat (of any color), or just some shirt and skivvies (of any color) - although given this is August to November he'd be quite cold in the streets after awhile.

Jeff

*By the way, you once posted that he liked to dominate woman and make them fear him. Curiously I have never heard of this trait by any of the leading Scotland Yard figures, not even Anderson or Warren. Most of them seem to have been gentlemen. What proof had you that he mistreated women and made them fear him?

[GUT]

And also, how do we know the killer was intelligent?

Gosh David anyone capable of using all that metaphoric talk that only a genius like Pierre can work out in 127 years must be 'telligent surely?

[David Orsam]

I would go further and allege that one of the authors of 'Summing up and verdict' is Pierre (apologies to either if I am wrong). I make an open offer to either of them to come on here and deny it.

Hold on, you think Pierre is either Colin Wilson or Robin Odell?

Colin Wilson is very unlikely to come on here and deny it considering he died in 2013.

[David Orsam]

Gosh David anyone capable of using all that metaphoric talk that only a genius like Pierre can work out in 127 years must be 'telligent surely?

I swear that Pierre is only capable of thinking within the framework of his own theory. He has a suspect who he believes is Jack the Ripper and who is an intelligent man. Therefore he cannot conceive that the Ripper might have been unintelligent. When he asks the question about whether the killer would have been intelligent if he'd given the police his real name he doesn't even realise that it is a question based on his own assumption as to the identity of the killer.

No doubt if he ever deigns to respond he will say that his sources tell him that the killer was intelligent, as if that answers it.