Coincidences, possibilities and probabilities

[Pierre]

You might have missed this question Pierre.

Hi David,

That one I would put into the category of "fairy-tale".

Regards, Pierre

[Errata]

Like the GOGMAG letter predicting the identity of the next murder victim and her exact address?

What category would you include that particular story in? "Truth" or fairy tale?

These are the types of conspiracy theories that are not coincidence. Not because they are conspiracies, but because there is a causal link. The conspiracy theorist themselves.

[Elamarna]

Hi David,

That one I would put into the category of "fairy-tale".

Regards, Pierre

Pierre

am a reading this correct? Are you saying that the thread on GOGMAGOG was based on an idea you are now saying was a "Fairy-Tale" ?

I await a reply before i say anything else on this matter.

steve

[Pierre]

These are the types of conspiracy theories that are not coincidence. Not because they are conspiracies, but because there is a causal link. The conspiracy theorist themselves.

Hi Errata,

Yes, those theories are very biased by the interests of the ripperologists themselves.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Pierre

am a reading this correct? Are you saying that the thread on GOGMAGOG was based on an idea you are now saying was a "Fairy-Tale" ?

I await a reply before i say anything else on this matter.

steve

Hi Steve,

I only say that if you chose between "truth" and "fairy-tale", you must make a scientific choice.

When any source is not scientifically proven to be "truth", naturally you must chose the other category.

I don´t know what your idea is about me. But as you can see, I am not a ripperologist so I do not accuse dead people of being murderers without a scientific reason.

Kind regards, Pierre

[John G]

Hi Steve,

I only say that if you chose between "truth" and "fairy-tale", you must make a scientific choice.

When any source is not scientifically proven to be "truth", naturally you must chose the other category.

I don´t know what your idea is about me. But as you can see, I am not a ripperologist so I do not accuse dead people of being murderers without a scientific reason.

Kind regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

In light of this astonishing reply, I feel that I must now ask for some clarification. Have you actually got any scientific evidence whatsoever in favour of your suspect?

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

I only say that if you chose between "truth" and "fairy-tale", you must make a scientific choice.

When any source is not scientifically proven to be "truth", naturally you must chose the other category.

I don´t know what your idea is about me. But as you can see, I am not a ripperologist so I do not accuse dead people of being murderers without a scientific reason.

Kind regards, Pierre

Pierre,


Given that the thread did not name anyone, I found you response interesting.

You argued, very strongly in that particular thread that it did give the information David's question asked about:

"Like the GOGMAG letter predicting the identity of the next murder victim and her exact address?"


To now say that was not true, I found truly astonishing.
To say, that given David's question you can only reply as you did is also truly surprising; you could have said, that it was not proven, but you stood by your interpretation.


You once again attack people you see has "Ripperologists", yet you post far more frequently than anyone else on this site, any casual observer would conclude that you are indeed one yourself.

Given that you are now saying that you cannot prove the statements you made about GOGMAGOG and have now called it a "Fairy-Tale", and are continuing to say that:

"I do not accuse dead people of being murderers without a scientific reason"


Are you now reaching the conclusion you may be wrong full stop?

Your post asks serious questions about the credibility of your post's and thread's.

I am well aware that you have said before that you are not interested in how others view your credibility, but as a scientist your work surely must retain credibility with you peers if you work is to be taken seriously.

steve

[John G]

Sarcasm aside,... just 3 of the Five women actually had organs taken, something I would say is rather uncommon..., we know of only 2 that were actively soliciting strangers at the time they met their killer, so random acquisitions is a position without current validation in the evidence,... there is evidence that any skill and knowledege perceived based on the actions of the killer(s) varied, and was eventually completely absent,... and lots of other factor too long to list here make a continous series from Polly to Mary unlikely.

If people would just say said they "assume", like the contemporary police assumed, we are looking at a series of Five, then I would have been saved a lot of typing. But they dont, do they? They assume 5 or more and then select snippets of evidence to bolster that theory. They review data from Modern anaylsis of serial killers before we know for a fact that we have one here in the form of Jack...they ignore the imperical evidence that there were multiple murderers in that town at that time, they ignore that a commission was investigating THE most dangerous threat to London in the form or self rule anarchists, and they ignore the fact thatn we already have a known other killer running free in the form of Torso man.

Regrettably, I don't think I can agree with any of this. Thus you refer to the fact that only 3 of the 5 canonical victims had organs removed, but in the past you have argued that Nichols, who didn't have organs removed, and Chapman, who did, were killed by the same perpetrator!

Regarding, whether the victims were soliciting: all of the C5 may have been, we just don't know. Moreover, Sutcliffe initially attacked prostitutes and then targeted non prostitutes, so the point may be incidental.

Regarding skill. Unfortunately, as I've noted before, modern forensic analysis has demonstrated that the conclusions of the Victorian GPs cannot be relied upon. And this shouldn't come as a shock to anyone: I mean, Dr Llewellyn didn't even initially notice that Nichols had been mutilated, and Dr Phillips was ill-prepared to give a detailed account of Chapman's injuries are the inquest!

The argument about "anarchists" is obviously based on a conspiracy theory, for which you offer no evidence, so I'll just ignore it.

However, remarkably, having rejected the possibility of there being one Whitechapel murderer, you seem to think that there was a single Torso killer! That is despite the fact that there is no proof most of the victims were actually murdered; unlike the Whitechapel murders they took place over a long period, with body parts turning up all over London; dismemberment cases are more common; and, as Debra has pointed out, several of the victims were dismembered in different ways, surely pointing to different perpetrators.

By the way, are you aware how incredibly rare mutilators, who are also body abandoners, are? If not, may I suggest that you read Errata's excellent thread, "How to sort the Ripper."

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

That one I would put into the category of "fairy-tale".

Well Pierre, this is one of those rare occasions where I find myself in complete agreement with you.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;374197]

To now say that was not true, I found truly astonishing.

If you are astonished, it is only because you do not understand, or do not want to understand, what I am saying:

Look at this thread, what is the subject of it?

Try to connect the subject of the thread to old treads you like to ask about here.

As you know people discuss a range of evidence in the JtR-case but that doesn´t mean they discuss everything here.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

I understand completely.




[QUOTE=Pierre;374200]

If you are astonished, it is only because you do not understand, or do not want to understand, what I am saying:

Look at this thread, what is the subject of it?

Try to connect the subject of the thread to old treads you like to ask about here.

As you know people discuss a range of evidence in the JtR-case but that doesn´t mean they discuss everything here.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;374201]

I understand completely.

What is it that you understand, Steve? Do you for instance understand the extremely unnecessary and meaningless mission to try and build a case on coincidences, possibilities and probabilities? Or do you honestly think that it has any advances? If you do, how far does building a case with these concepts take us and which ones would be the most promising ones?

Also, I wonder what your understanding of the difficulty of solving an old murder case would be, considering that we do not only have to deal with the inherent problems of the three concepts above, but with aspects both of classical juridical proof and of scientific evidence?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Also, I wonder what your understanding of the difficulty of solving an old murder case would be

I would say it gets more difficult when people post fairy tales on this forum purporting to be truth such as:

'He wrote a letter to the editor in a paper not signing it “Jack the Ripper” where he gave the exact address to one of the murder sites.'

AND

'I have found such a letter (unknown by ripperology) in the press. He uses a metaphorical language and gives the adress to Miller´s Court, the name of Mary Jane Kelly, her room number and the date of the murder.'

Those particular fairy tales were posted on this forum on 18 September 2015 and 13 November 2015 respectively.

[Pierre]

I would say it gets more difficult when people post fairy tales on this forum purporting to be truth such as:

Those particular fairy tales were posted on this forum on 18 September 2015 and 13 November 2015 respectively.

Hi David,

Nothing can be classified as truth until you have evidence for truth. Everything is outside of that classification until then.

If you give exclusively two (2) classifications, one being "truth", the other being "fairy tales", everything that is outside of the first classification is "fairy tales".

This means you have done a lot of writing in your life which must be put into the category of "fairy tales".

But it says nothing about your writing about "truth".

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

If you give exclusively two (2) classifications, one being "truth", the other being "fairy tales", everything that is outside of the first classification is "fairy tales".

This means you have done a lot of writing in your life which must be put into the category of "fairy tales".

I don't write fairy tales Pierre but you have now admitted that you do.

I didn't give two exclusive classifications at all. You said: "Some people like to hear the "truth", and some like fairy tales." I asked you which category you would put the GOGMAGOG letter in. Of your own free will you described it as a fairy tale.

I then made the point that solving an old murder is more difficult when people post fairy tales on this forum as if they are true.