Lawende was silenced

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;391922]

That is not the problem!

The problem is the the apparent hypocrisy that is not being addressed.

It was clear that when replying to MsWeatherwax, no response was made to her final comment which was on that very issue.

You have not "supposedly accused police of knowing who the killer was."

Person have directly been accused of committing a crime on this thread that of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice:



In that during the time the murders took place it is alleged that these persons knew the Identity and refused to act on it in accordance with their duty.

Far worse is that according to the accusations made, they then stood back and allowed the killer to continue killing.

By applying the criteria which you are working to, that you cannot name someone as being guilty of a crime without tangible data to back up the hypothesis, it is clear that the criteria has not been met.

Please at least attempt to address this inconsistency !

When Anderson writes that, he is saying that to him the identity became known after the killings, and the killer was stopped and locked away.

This is very clear if one actually reads the whole source (book) in question.


That is completely different from what is being suggested in this thread!

Indeed to quote that from Anderson and to present it the way it has been done above is intentional misleading.

S

Hi Steve,

Could you please formulate a stringent historical question?

Do you want me to tell you that Anderson described the police finding the killer from a house-to-house search in 1888 - since that is what he writes - and do you want me to draw the conclusion that since Anderson knew that, and that he knew it when he came back from his leave, because this is what the text means?

I could tell you that, since you do not have the understanding to see it yourself. Instead you try and impose your personal view that Anderson did not know this in 1888 on me and everyone else here.

But Steve - I will not tell you that and why?

Because the source has a tendency.

So it doesn´t matter that Anderson confesses to knowing about a Polish Jew in 1888 when the man was not a Polish Jew.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

So your problem is that I am supposed to "accuse" the police for having known who the killer was.


Why is this a problem?

That is not the problem!

The problem is the the apparent hypocrisy that is not being addressed.


It was clear that when replying to MsWeatherwax, no response was made to her final comment which was on that very issue.




You have not "supposedly accused police of knowing who the killer was."


Person have directly been accused of committing a crime on this thread that of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice:



In that during the time the murders took place it is alleged that these persons knew the Identity and refused to act on it in accordance with their duty.

Far worse is that according to the accusations made, they then stood back and allowed the killer to continue killing.




By applying the criteria which you are working to, that you cannot name someone as being guilty of a crime without tangible data to back up the hypothesis, it is clear that the criteria has not been met.

Please at least attempt to address this inconsistency !

"I am almost tempted to disclose the identity of the murderer..." (Anderson 1910).

When Anderson writes that, he is saying that to him the identity became known after the killings, and the killer was stopped and locked away.

This is very clear if one actually reads the whole source (book) in question.


That is completely different from what is being suggested in this thread!

Indeed to quote that from Anderson and to present it the way it has been done above is intentional misleading.




S

[Abby Normal]

so there it is-Pierre says he wants to be ignored.

so why don't we grant his wish and end this nonsense?

[Pierre]

pierre knows that if he ever names his suspect its game over. And he dosnt want game over.

hes never going to name his suspect, so instead of playing the game, why don't we all just stop responding-and force his hand?

At the very least I think it will be interesting how he responds to being ignored.

but lets face it-hes probably never going to name.

Hi Abby,

I would like to be ignored. It would be a relief.

Then I will be able to write without people like David, GUT and you making belittling and pointless comments.

So thank you for the suggestion, Abby.

I hope it will be put into practice by those few who are trying to destroy my posts.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

It is not for you to say what I can say about validity, since you have no education within the fields where validity is a problem in written texts. Or do you have that? In that case, explain to everyone here how your own experiences from 2016 and the experiences of academics making notes on research can be relevant for discussing the source we are discussing?

Once again ignoring the issues and belittling others saying they are unqualified.

And it is not for one self appointed person to tell others what is valid and what is not.

Do they sign their notes?

Some certainly do .

He was present a CID at the Yard.

But not at the alleged id.
Not being present, and Anderson giving only sparse comments he apparently want to add more detail.

Giving a name and signing it. Why did he sign it?

Because he wanted to, or maybe because it is not genuine and was added at a latter date?

That has certainly been suggested, and while I do not subscribe to that idea myself, one must acknowledge the possibility.

He wrote "Kosminiski was the suspect" and signed it.

Yes exactly.

If the marginalia is genuine, he says the man is identified as the killer by a Witness and was called Kosminski.
Which is exactly what I said in the post you are replying too.

So glad you agree with me.

However many question the reliability and validity of the marginalia as an historic source.

Why did he sign it to himself?

Pierre you are so often telling the rest of us, we cannot know what a person was thinking in the past, that applies here too.
There is no why of knowing why.

Of course you have read the threads on the question of the authenticity of the marginalia, but do not acknowledge any possible problems here.

If it is a fake, then of course, much of your argument evaporates into thin air. ( for the record, I do not doubt it)

Once again you ignore the serious issues which are being addressed to you.



Steve

[Abby Normal]

pierre knows that if he ever names his suspect its game over. And he dosnt want game over.

hes never going to name his suspect, so instead of playing the game, why don't we all just stop responding-and force his hand?

At the very least I think it will be interesting how he responds to being ignored.

but lets face it-hes probably never going to name.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;391820]

Pierre

Why do you not address the issue of the apparent hypocrisy in many of the post on this thread?

The raison d'etre, regarding not naming a suspect, over the last year has been, it is morally wrong to accuse someone of a crime unless there is tangible data to support such a claim.

So your problem is that I am supposed to "accuse" the police for having known who the killer was.

Why is this a problem?

"I am almost tempted to disclose the identity of the murderer..." (Anderson 1910).

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;391817]

It is not for you to say what is and what is not valid my friend.

It is not for you to say what I can say about validity, since you have no education within the fields where validity is a problem in written texts. Or do you have that? In that case, explain to everyone here how your own experiences from 2016 and the experiences of academics making notes on research can be relevant for discussing the source we are discussing?

Many make notes in political diaries and autobiographies, it is the exactly the same as making notes in Anderson's autobiography and thus are indeed comparable.

Do they sign their notes?

Swanson was commenting on an alleged identification he was not present at.

He was present a CID at the Yard.

All Swanson appears to have done is to add the name of the suspect identified at the seaside home, information he must therefore have know.

Giving a name and signing it. Why did he sign it?

I repeat he never says kosminski was the killer only that he was the man identified by a witness.

He wrote "Kosminiski was the suspect" and signed it.

To himself, no more no less.

Why did he sign it to himself?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=MsWeatherwax;391847]

I could argue that knowing who a serial killer is, and having the authority to stop him but NOT stopping him is actually just as bad (perhaps worse) than being the killer himself.

There is at least anecdotal evidence that the killer was mentally ill and not in full control of his actions - to allow him to continue to circulate in society shows complete and very callous disregard for extremely vulnerable people. If the suggestion is that the killer was actually a serving Police officer, and therefore in a position of power, allowing him to continue is actually even worse

Hi MsWeatherwax,

This is a problem and it is the strongest reason for the hope to be wrong.

Regards, Pierre

[Abby Normal]

I think at this point that if people stopped responding to Pierre-ignore him-he would become so desperate for attention he would reveal his suspect sooner rather than later. I imagine he would create a few hint type posts, and when no one responds, would realize the only way he can get a response is to reveal.
And if he ever does its probably going to be a big ole let down. a farce along the lines of Royal conspiracy, Van Goghetc. and his own already revealed ideas like Gogmagog, Kellys room and this.

or he might just leave forever....which IMHO wouldnt be a bad thing. but I doubt it-as David pointed out he seems to love the attention too much.

[MsWeatherwax]

Pierre

Why do you not address the issue of the apparent hypocrisy in many of the post on this thread?

The raison d'etre, regarding not naming a suspect, over the last year has been, it is morally wrong to accuse someone of a crime unless there is tangible data to support such a claim.

It seems that the data is still not clear enough at present to allow the killer to be named.

On the other hand, it is, it seems perfectly acceptable to accuse others, using the same sources which are not clear, of committing serious crimes, up to and including a conspiracy not only to let the killer go free, but to allow him to carry on committing murders.


I have repeatedly over the last two days requested a response on this issue, to allow me to attempt to understand why the applying of such apparent double standards is viewed as acceptable.

There has been no attempt to answer.

Such an issue could seriously undermine the integrity of much which has been posted in the last year.




Steve

Thank you Steve - this is the exact issue that I was driving at.

I could argue that knowing who a serial killer is, and having the authority to stop him but NOT stopping him is actually just as bad (perhaps worse) than being the killer himself. There is at least anecdotal evidence that the killer was mentally ill and not in full control of his actions - to allow him to continue to circulate in society shows complete and very callous disregard for extremely vulnerable people. If the suggestion is that the killer was actually a serving Police officer, and therefore in a position of power, allowing him to continue is actually even worse.

Refusing to name the killer/suspect, but basically defaming the Police officers tasked with finding him (without any discernible evidence at all, by the way) is completely flawed ethically, in my opinion.

[Varqm]

It seems dangling a suspect is like meat to piranhas.

[David Orsam]

To Pierre,

Unlike many people on here I do think that you must have found a document in an archive somewhere which refers to Jack the Ripper. I am sure, however, that you have misunderstood it but, equally, I suspect that you genuinely think you are on the trail of the killer. No-one would spend so much time and effort on a wind-up or joke.

I just want to say that if you genuinely have found a Ripper document hitherto unknown to researchers and/or a confession unknown to researchers, that document (or documents) would be extremely valuable to Ripperologists and (because I know you don't care about Ripperologists) to historians as well.

Once you fail to find the missing piece of evidence, I do urge you to publish whatever information you have discovered so that others can conduct research arising out of it. That is how a proper historian should operate.

[David Orsam]

Pierre

Why do you not address the issue of the apparent hypocrisy in many of the post on this thread?

The raison d'etre, regarding not naming a suspect, over the last year has been, it is morally wrong to accuse someone of a crime unless there is tangible data to support such a claim.

It seems that the data is still not clear enough at present to allow the killer to be named.

On the other hand, it is, it seems perfectly acceptable to accuse others, using the same sources which are not clear, of committing serious crimes, up to and including a conspiracy not only to let the killer go free, but to allow him to carry on committing murders.


I have repeatedly over the last two days requested a response on this issue, to allow me to attempt to understand why the applying of such apparent double standards is viewed as acceptable.

There has been no attempt to answer.

Such an issue could seriously undermine the integrity of much which has been posted in the last year.

Can I suggest that the reason for the contradiction and the apparent hypocrisy is that Pierre's stated reason for not revealing his suspect's name is false.

The reason why the name is not revealed, I would suggest, is all about power and status. It's the same reason why we have threads started as if by a teacher talking to children, the same reason for the constant use of the self-description of 'historian' and the same reason why we get 'presents' at Christmas with a small revealing of information. It's all about knowing something that others don't, of being needed and in command, and having that feeling of power as a result.

I mean otherwise why does Pierre not tell us the rank of his suspect? Why does he not tell us the police force he was in? Why does he not give us sufficient clues so we can work out the name for ourselves and then there is no ethical issue for him to have to resolve? It's clearly nothing to do with not wanting to accuse an innocent man. It's all about keeping us hanging on his every word, or that's what he thinks we are doing.

That is why he can accuse perfectly innocent officers such as Monro, Warren, Swanson, Abberline and others of illegal actions without the slightest bit of evidence yet, at the same time, refuse to reveal the name of his suspect.

[GUT]

one has to be charitable, after all the data is not 100% clear to say there is none

Steve

No but I am looking for that last piece of data. I expect to find it soon,mAnd as I'm not a scientist, or historian I think I may get there.