Coincidences, possibilities and probabilities

[Pierre]

Are you being serious, with this?

If so, then you're very wrong, because California.

For a start.

So do you want to say that Jack the Ripper is a national or a transnational serial killer?

[Errata]

Are you being serious, with this?

If so, then you're very wrong, because California.

For a start.

You think that's scary, look at Texas sometime.

[Ausgirl]

Hi John,

I agree with you on your comment on the signature analysis by Keppel et al.

And I would like to add that the probability for multiple murderers not knowing each other is low given the limited geographical area of the murders and the short period of time.

Regards, Pierre

Are you being serious, with this?

If so, then you're very wrong, because California.

For a start.

[DJA]

Pierre,

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.

steve

Six months yesterday,started 43 threads,posts 6 to 7 times a day......knows nothing.....

[David Orsam]

Lying about me is another.

I've never lied about you Pierre and despite having made this allegation in the past you've never produced any evidence in support.

But what I've noticed is that you really don't like it when I quote your own words at you.

[Pierre]

Perhaps we should go back to the classifications of Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.

Hi Errata,

I would appreciate if we went back to the questions about coincidences, possibilities and probabilities.

Regards, Pierre

[Errata]

Perhaps we should go back to the classifications of Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.

[David Orsam]

Certainly not. But David gave me only two choices.

So it's my fault now that you post fairy tales?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;374206]

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

I donīt "write fairy tales" David.

I didn't give two exclusive classifications at all

.

Yes you do. Mine.

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.

No David. I gave you the answer you wanted.

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.

How very interesting. But you see, I have earlier explained a lot of things to you. But you have totally failed to understand them. And since you do not contribute at all to this thread, you will now be ignored.

But donīt worry. You will be satisfied in due time.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;374212]Hi Pierre,

I don't really understand this post. You imply that any evidence that isn't "scientifically proven" is a "fairy-tale".

Hi John,

Certainly not. But David gave me only two choices.

He used the simple comment I gave on one of his posts, where I said: "Some people like to hear the "truth", and some like fairy tales." The comment only had to do with him suggesting I donīt "understand human beings" or something silly like that.

Using that simple and meaningless comment he asked a question and I gave him exactly the answer he wanted.

That is the starting point for this meaningless categorization.

However, a fairy-tale suggests a myth or fantasy, but theories-such as Einstein's theory of general relativity- are not necessarily wrong, and therefore "fairy-tales", simply because they're unproven.

Naturally, I agree with you. But when I discuss with David, the discussions tend to become meaningless, which is a result of his strategies. He has been trying to destroy what I write for a long time. He does it by using many silly methods. Getting the discussions off topic is one. Lying about me is another. And here is the example of making incorrect use of two meaningless categories.

And now he has taken everyone off topic again. So it is only a matter of time before I have to ignore him again.

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 donīt 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,

I don't really understand this post. You imply that any evidence that isn't "scientifically proven" is a "fairy-tale". However, a fairy-tale suggests a myth or fantasy, but theories-such as Einstein's theory of general relativity- are not necessarily wrong, and therefore "fairy-tales", simply because they're unproven.

[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.

[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]

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 Millerīs 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]

[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