A present for Scotland Yard

[GUT]

my dear boy i am a good deal order than you are.
stop being patronising, you don't do it very well
relax? why do you think i am not relaxed?

Not sure if you are older than p or not but you sure act more mature.

I know something you don't nah nah nah nah nah

[Pierre]

How about pinning down if he was born before or after 1855 then, Pierre? Surely that would give away practically nothing at all.

He was born before 1858.

Regards Pierre

[Elamarna]

GUT

thanks

nothing to hide, 56 and proud of it

Steve

[Fisherman]

He was born before 1858.

Regards Pierre

He was born before ... 1858? Well, thanks - I think. But why did you not answer the question I put to you, using the year 1855?

Just curious.

[GUT]

He was born before ... 1858? Well, thanks - I think. But why did you not answer the question I put to you, using the year 1855?

Just curious.

My guess? He was born in '55 so couldn't answer.

[Pierre]

He was born before ... 1858? Well, thanks - I think. But why did you not answer the question I put to you, using the year 1855?

Just curious.

Because it is your classification. And since you have made a classification you might have an hypothesis about people being born before and after 1855. And your hypothesis is wrong anyway. So i picked an arbitrary year in the 1850s.

Regards Pierre

[Elamarna]

Because it is your classification. And since you have made a classification you might have an hypothesis about people being born before and after 1855. And your hypothesis is wrong anyway. So i picked an arbitrary year in the 1850s.

Regards Pierre

Pierre please tell me what magic allows you to deduce what hypothesis you think Fisherman may have. how can it be wrong if you do not know:
1. if it exists
2. what it is?

[Brenda]

.

Because it is your classification. And since you have made a classification you might have an hypothesis about people being born before and after 1855. And your hypothesis is wrong anyway. So i picked an arbitrary year in the 1850s.

Regards Pierre

You just said that Fisherman's hypothesis is wrong. How do you know that? Are you claiming to know who JTR was?

[Pierre]

Pierre please tell me what magic allows you to deduce what hypothesis you think Fisherman may have. how can it be wrong if you do not know:
1. if it exists
2. what it is?

Hi Steve,

Itīs no magic. If he has an hypothesis (he might have one, as I wrote) it is not the same as mine.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

You just said that Fisherman's hypothesis is wrong. How do you know that? Are you claiming to know who JTR was?

I am claiming this: I think I know who he was. And I think so because of the data I have.

Regards Pierre

[Elamarna]

Pierre

you really do have a closed mindset don't you?

because someone does not share your idea, they are wrong.

in this case i assume we are not talking about fisherman's know theory on Cross but a theory he may have in regards to your theory.

Please tell me how you know it is not the same as yours?

[John G]

I am claiming this: I think I know who he was. And I think so because of the data I have.

Regards Pierre

But this is the major flaw in your argument. Data cannot produce definitive proof, at least not at this juncture, over 125 years since the events in question. DNA evidence might, but you clearly don't have that (and even DNA evidence can be challenged-ask Russell Edwards.)

A signed confession? Well, we already have something akin to that with the Maybrick Diary. Witness statement? What good are they if they can't be challenged? And that won't happen without a time machine, which I'm assuming you also don't have!

Data connecting an individual with various crime scenes or victims? Again, clearly not definitive proof unless the suspect/witnesses can be challenged, and we're back to the time machine argument. In fact, if we're replying on witness testimony than we already have Lawende's identification of Kosminski.

Overall, your arguments simply don't hold up to close scrutiny. Put simply, if you could proove someone was guilty of a crime-let alone several crimes-based upon data uncovered by research, and to the criminal standard of proof, you could dispense with trials altogether and simply secure a conviction by submitting the research evidence.

And your work hasn't even been peer-reviewed, in order to test the quality of the work, i.e. in order to determine whether it is lacking in scholarly validity and rigour, and therefore whether it should be accepted or rejected.

And, frankly, if your evidence does not amount to the criminal standard of proof, then you do not "know who he was", that's just fanciful thinking.

[Elamarna]

But this is the major flaw in your argument. Data cannot produce definitive proof, at least not at this juncture, over 125 years since the events in question. DNA evidence might, but you clearly don't have that.

A signed confession? Well, we already have something akin to that with the Maybrick Diary. Witness statement? What good are they if they can't be challenged, and that won't happen without a time machine!

Data connecting an individual with various crime scenes or victims? Again, clearly not definitive proof unless the suspect/witnesses can be challenged, and we're back to the time machine argument. In fact, if we're replying on witness testimony than we already have Lawende's identification of Kosminski.

Overall, your arguments simply don't hold up to close scrutiny. Put simply, if you could proove someone was guilty of a crime-let alone several crimes-based upon data uncovered by research, and to the criminal standard of proof, you could dispense with trials altogether and simply secure a conviction by submitting the research evidence.

And your work hasn't even been peer-reviewed, in order to test the quality of the work, i.e. in order to determine whether it is lacking in scholarly validity and rigour, and therefore whether it should be accepted or rejected.

And, frankly, if your evidence does not amount to the criminal standard of proof, then you do not "know who he was", that's just fanciful thinking.

Dear Jon G

have you not read his view posted earlier today:

"you have an idea you and the others here on the forum could decide whether the person I have found should be "accepted" or not. Well, you canīt. And do you know why you canīt do that?
Because either he was the killer or not. So he can never be a "suspect", a "contender" or "accepted/rejected" and so on and so forth."

he cannot be peer reviewed.

it is clear that his belief is, he will only name the killer if his data backs him.
if it backs him, the person, we are not allowed to call the suspect, is the killer. no discussion.

All I can say is that the data must be so very STRONG.

[John G]

Dear Jon G

have you not read his view posted earlier today:

"you have an idea you and the others here on the forum could decide whether the person I have found should be "accepted" or not. Well, you canīt. And do you know why you canīt do that?
Because either he was the killer or not. So he can never be a "suspect", a "contender" or "accepted/rejected" and so on and so forth."

he cannot be peer reviewed.

it is clear that his belief is, he will only name the killer if his data backs him.
if it backs him, the person, we are not allowed to call the suspect, is the killer. no discussion.

All I can say is that the data must be so very STRONG.

Hello Elamarna,

Sorry, but I've long stopped reading all of his posts. "Either he was the killer or not"? That's just stating the obvious and could apply to anyone or anything, including Queen Victoria or, for that matter, a banana, but it doesn't logically follow that either were the killer! I'm afraid it's just just another example of his twisted logic, but I think he probably realises that. Personally, I'm not totally convinced that he has a suspect at all.

[Fisherman]

Because it is your classification. And since you have made a classification you might have an hypothesis about people being born before and after 1855. And your hypothesis is wrong anyway. So i picked an arbitrary year in the 1850s.

Regards Pierre

What am I doing here anyway...? Iīm out.