A present for Scotland Yard

[Pierre]

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.

Exactly, Steve. It must be very strong. Actually, it must be conclusive.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

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?

Hi Steve,

Fisherman can not have the same data sources.

Regards Pierre

[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.

Well, it is easy for you to criticize both me and what you believe is my data and my theory, since you do not know the data sources. You can just assume they have a low validity and reliability. And you are hoping that this strategy will get me to start defending the sources, thereby revealing them and the person I think was the killer. But 127 years have passed and people have been wondering who he was during all this time. Generations have passed by. So I am in no hurry. But that doesnīt mean I will wait longer than necessary with presenting the results as soon as the last bit is done.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

pierre

are they personal then?
otherwise surly if they are out in the world any researcher could find them?
if they are personal how do you have sole ownership of them?
or are they PERSONAL?

[Pierre]

pierre

are they personal then?
otherwise surly if they are out in the world any researcher could find them?
if they are personal how do you have sole ownership of them?
or are they PERSONAL?

Dear Steve,

They are out in the world. They are not personal.

Regards Pierre

[Elamarna]

so how can you be sure someone else does not have the same data?

you said:

"Fisherman can not have the same data sources."

how can you know that?

[John G]

Well, it is easy for you to criticize both me and what you believe is my data and my theory, since you do not know the data sources. You can just assume they have a low validity and reliability. And you are hoping that this strategy will get me to start defending the sources, thereby revealing them and the person I think was the killer. But 127 years have passed and people have been wondering who he was during all this time. Generations have passed by. So I am in no hurry. But that doesnīt mean I will wait longer than necessary with presenting the results as soon as the last bit is done.

Regards, Pierre

Hi "Pierre",

You know I'm starting to quite like you. At least you're an antidote to those who sometimes take themselves a little too seriously- oh, wait a minute, that might include me! Scratch that last comment!

Anyway, regarding the latest irrational gem: apparently you don't regard your "suspect" as a mere suspect. However, logically even from your own perspective he, or she, is just that and no more, i.e. because by your own admission you haven't completed your research yet and what you currently have is therefore merely a "theory", and you only "think" the person is the killer.

By the way, you're not Bruce Robinson are you?

[Pierre]

so how can you be sure someone else does not have the same data?

you said:

"Fisherman can not have the same data sources."

how can you know that?

Because then he would immediately have revealed everything here on the forum and he would immediately have made a new TV documentary. He would never have been able to wait if he had my data sources.

He revealed his suspect having very little evidence. I donīt reveal the person who I think is the killer although I have a lot.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Hi "Pierre",

You know I'm starting to quite like you. At least you're an antidote to those who sometimes take things a little too seriously- oh, wait a minute, that might include me!

Anyway, regarding the latest irrational gem: apparently you don't regard your "suspect" as a mere suspect. However, logically even from your own perspective he, or she, is just that and no more, i.e. because by your own admission you haven't completed your research yet and what you currently have is therefore merely a "theory", and you only "think" the person his the killer.

By the way, you're not Bruce Robinson are you?

Hi "John G",

how nice. No, I am not Bruce Robinson. But who knows? Being so misleading and contradictory, maybe I am?

Regards, "Pierre"

[John G]

Hi "John G",

how nice. No, I am not Bruce Robinson. But who knows? Being so misleading and contradictory, maybe I am?

Regards, "Pierre"

Hi "Pierre",

Now you're actually starting to make logical sense!

[jerryd]

Hi "Pierre",

Now you're actually starting to make logical sense!

Did Pierre just admit to being misleading and contradictory?

Before the crash on this site there was a poster going by the name John Drake. He did almost the exact same thing Pierre is doing now. Strangely, his imaginary suspect was also a police officer, PC James Harvey.

Maybe this is the re-birth of our friend, Mr. Drake. I can't remember his real name, but he was into firewalking.

[JadenCollins]

Cuilibet fatuo placet sua calva

So accurate!

[Elamarna]

Jerrrd,
there was at least one more. who had a different suspect'

he thinks he is being witty when he says those things

[GUT]

GUT

thanks

nothing to hide, 56 and proud of it

Steve

Hey same.

[GUT]

Because then he would immediately have revealed everything here on the forum and he would immediately have made a new TV documentary. He would never have been able to wait if he had my data sources.

He revealed his suspect having very little evidence. I donīt reveal the person who I think is the killer although I have a lot.

Regards, Pierre

You haven't so why must he?