Casebook Examiner No. 2 (June 2010)

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Lynn. As a fellow Holmes buff, you can bet your sweet Bippy that I printed Don's article out to read. This is the first time I've heard that 'deduction' or 'deducing' is not a correct term!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

deduction and induction

Hello Tom. Good to know you're a Rathbone and Bruce man.

Roughly speaking, a deductive argument is one, such that, if it is sound, its premises can guarantee the truth of its conclusion.

An inductive argument has premises, such that, they provide some support for the conclusion. (That support will always be some real number k, such that
0 < k < 1. To put it another way, induction always gives a greater or less probability of its conclusion.)

Compare to the scientist's use of these terms which is roughly analogous.

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor. The fact that Le Grand was adept at the use of virtually every known weapon, including knives, suggests to you that he wouldn't be a killer? That's fascinating. I think it's quite telling that when his bag and house were searched in 1891, the only thing missing was his knife collection that had clearly existed in 1888 and 1889 prior to his coming under the interest of investigators.



The books, essays and posts where people say he was the suspect police took most seriously.

HEARSAY



I don't recall any published assessment of Le Grand where he was 'dismissed' as a suspect.

Please see below another extract from your essay clearly shows he had been looked at and dismissed.

Nixon failed to demonstrate that Le Grand was anything other than an unscrupulous thief, and presented little reason for anyone to take him seriously as a Ripper suspect. Probably for this reason, the article — an impressive achievement in research — passed by with absolutely no comment on the Internet and only one ‘letter to the editor’ at Ripperologist, this being from renowned Ripper author, Paul Begg,who provided additional details about Le Grand, culled from the illustrated circular of the Sept. 8th, 1884 edition
of the Police Gazette, issued by then Assistant Commissioner James Monro. Only Begg knows why he chose not to include these crucial details under Le Grand’s entry (as Grand, Mr. or Le Grand) in the various editions of Jack
edition published only two years prior.With issue 28, Begg took the reins as editor of Ripperologist, and was suitably impressed with Nixon’s work to publish it as a ‘From the Archives’ reprint in number 42, August of 2002.Once again, the article failed to garner any comment at all from the Ripper community. I was a subscriber to the magazine at this time and read the article, but admit I thought little of it. This is no slight on Nixon’s groundbreaking work, but perhaps a small condemnation of we Ripperphiles
being too busy chasing tired suspects or minding the old canard that ‘all roads lead to Dorset Street’. As for myself, I was busy at the time shadowing Robert Donston Stephenson, and had little time to consider the misgivings of a character whose only attachment to the Ripper mystery is through the long-ago disqualified tale of a bumbling old fruit salesman, who, as was
generally believed, made up the whole thing simply for publicity





I said Le Grand wasn't involved in pimping? I said that? Wow.



I assume you're aware that nobody saw the Ripper actually kill anyone, right?



A guy who served time with Le Grand for 11 years and was well-acquainted with the investigators who had intimate knowledge of his criminal behavior said he was "skilled in the use of a knife". It's in the essay. I'm sorry I don't have a Youtube of Le Grand throwing and twirling blades. I'm sure nothing less would impress you.

HEARSAY

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I am sorry Tom but your suspicions and the facts you have put forward simply do not stand up to close scrutiny.

[Supe]

Trevor,

To alter or add to direct quotations, as you did in your last post, is unethical. I hope that is not a reflection on your normal research methods.

Don.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Supe;137346]Trevor,

To alter or add to direct quotations, as you did in your last post, is unethical. I hope that is not a reflection on your normal research methods.

Don

I have copied them as they appear in the essay it is only right and proper that i do so in order to prove the point and the observations that I initlally made which Tom has argued against.

Tom at the conclusion of his essay gave 15 reasons why Le Grand should be regarded as "THE PRIME SUSPECT" as is the heading of his essay. That is a sweeping statement to make. I have simply given my observations on the marjority of his reasons. I am sure many others will have no doubt concurred with me.

[protohistorian]

Thats bizzare, the giant word "hearsay" does not show up in the original post I am viewing, is casebook broken? Perhaps before you recheck the rigging on the Le Grand ship Mr. Marriott, you should staunch the flow of water into the Feigenbaum ship. Might I suggest narrowing his location down from Europe to Whitechapel. Dave

[Trevor Marriott]

Thats bizzare, the giant word "hearsay" does not show up in the original post I am viewing, is casebook broken? Perhaps before you recheck the rigging on the Le Grand ship Mr. Marriott, you should staunch the flow of water into the Feigenbaum ship. Might I suggest narrowing his location down from Europe to Whitechapel. Dave

I am quite happpy with the evidence linking Feigenabum to Whitechapel thank you very much. At least it is not a wild speculative theory full of "hearsay"

Well if you or anyone else wants to join in the argument about Le Grand feel free to post. By what Tom has said he has had a number of posters contact him voicing concerns about a number of his issues. Come out into the open I say dont be scared of the handful on here who subject new postings to ridicule and scathing attacks.

The trouble is some of you people can give it but you cant take it !

[Ally]

Don,
I think it's clear that Trevor, rather than deliberately altering his quotes is clearly just an out of touch old geezer baffled by this new fangled technology and completely useless in so far as figuring out such complicated things as the "quote" feature.

The trouble is some of you people can give it but you cant take it !

Take what? Shrill, hysterical people running around screaming at the top of their lungs: Hearsay! NO PROOF! all the while having a theory that is, to put it mildly, completely retarded and lacking in even basic common sense? Yeah you are right, I don't know anyone who can take that.

If you were a woman, Tom would no doubt be making a scathing sexist comment about how you argue like a hysterical little girl right about now.

[protohistorian]

I am quite happpy with the evidence linking Feigenabum to Whitechapel thank you very much. At least it is not a wild speculative theory full of "hearsay"

Well if you or anyone else wants to join in the argument about Le Grand feel free to post. By what Tom has said he has had a number of posters contact him voicing concerns about a number of his issues. Come out into the open I say dont be scared of the handful on here who subject new postings to ridicule and scathing attacks.

The trouble is some of you people can give it but you cant take it !

Well thats odd also Mr. Marriott, that is not what you said in this podcast!http://www.casebook.org/podcast/listen.html?id=44
But that is neither here nor there, back to the LeGrand issue. This may come as a surprise to you as in your mind cobbled together and disconnected "facts" constitute proof, but the historical method is dependent on the re-evaluation of what others have said and done. This is a constantly ongoing process within the field of history. It is in this fashion that we can re-evaluate what Sr. police officials say in the light of them suspecting serial masturbators. Establishing validity of what has been done before is critical to the historic process, and efforts like Mr. Wescott's bring old issues to the fore for re-examination. David

[Trevor Marriott]

Don,
I think it's clear that Trevor, rather than deliberately altering his quotes is clearly just an out of touch old geezer baffled by this new fangled technology and completely useless in so far as figuring out such complicated things as the "quote" feature.




Take what? Shrill, hysterical people running around screaming at the top of their lungs: Hearsay! NO PROOF! all the while having a theory that is, to put it mildly, completely retarded and lacking in even basic common sense? Yeah you are right, I don't know anyone who can take that.

If you were a woman, Tom would no doubt be making a scathing sexist comment about how you argue like a hysterical little girl right about now.

Hmmmm seems the comment I made yesterday about you being a nasty vindictive scathing person have been proven correct yet again.

And for your benfefit the matters I have referred to are hearsay and should be treated as such and are not to be totally relied on. despite what you and others say.

It seems you dont have the basic ability to differentiate between what is evidence and what is not.

Take some advice from an out of touch old "geezer" Get a reality check !

[protohistorian]

The issue is not whether they are or not. The issue is you cannot ethically alter quotes. How come anytime anyone levels a criticism of you Mr.Marriott you resort to personal attcks? I checked out your website, and truthfully, you do not look 5 years old. Dave

[Trevor Marriott]

Well thats odd also Mr. Marriott, that is not what you said in this podcast!http://www.casebook.org/podcast/listen.html?id=44
But that is neither here nor there, back to the LeGrand issue. This may come as a surprise to you as in your mind cobbled together and disconnected "facts" constitute proof, but the historical method is dependent on the re-evaluation of what others have said and done. This is a constantly ongoing process within the field of history. It is in this fashion that we can re-evaluate what Sr. police officials say in the light of them suspecting serial masturbators. Establishing validity of what has been done before is critical to the historic process, and efforts like Mr. Wescott's bring old issues to the fore for re-examination. David

I dont have a problem with bringing old issues to the fore and as i said Toms essay was well written and he should be aplauded for that however he has crossed the line by making those 15 sweeping statements and heading his essay "Prime Suspect. he has put himslef in the firing line.

Lets be fair I am now the whipping boy because I have stood up and professionally questioned his reasons. But to be fair all the points i have raised are valid and I am sure if people on here are honest will agree. However Tom has his band of faithful followers who look on him as a demi god and in their eyes he can do no wrong and come what may will say nothing negative about what he writes or posts on here.

Well I am sorry i say it as it is i dont fanny about. Some people dont like to hear the truth and cant accept the truth, especially if it doesnt fall in line with their thinking.

I give no quarter nor do I expect any. I say what should be said. I have been invloved in crime and puishment for over 30 years and still am to this day. So I think i ought to know a little about what I am talking about. I think that gives me a slight edge.

For far to long many researhers have been sitting here in front of the screens having become brainwashed to reject anything execpt
1. JTR killed only 5
2. JTR removed the organs
3. JTR Cut the apron
4. JTR wrote the graffiti
5 JTR was one of a handful of so called named suspects

Accept it these facts may not be correct. Be prepared to assess and evaluate in a professional and not personal way all new evidence and facts which have come to he forefront in recent years and which may come to the forefront in the future. If you do this your thoughts and views may change drastically, and on that day the moon will turn to cream cheese !

I am getting to the stage where i feel trying to add professional input to this site is counter productive and i am seriously considering severing all ties on here and channeling all my time into the concluding part of my investigation.

[Supe]

Trev,

It seems you dont have the basic ability to differentiate between what is evidence and what is not.

And you lack the innate grace to address what Dave has mentioned and apologize to Tom for willfully distorting his comments. Or are you really as much a witling as Ally suggested and don't understand that the quote function is to be used only to post exactly what another poster wrote? Any alterations, emendations or additions are quite unethical--surely even you can understand that.

Don.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trev,

It seems you dont have the basic ability to differentiate between what is evidence and what is not.

And you lack the innate grace to address what Dave has mentioned and apologize to Tom for willfully distorting his comments. Or are you really as much a witling as Ally suggested and don't understand that the quote function is to be used only to post exactly what another poster wrote? Any alterations, emendations or additions are quite unethical--surely even you can understand that.

Don.

i have not wilfully distorted any of Toms comments i have tried to address them fairly and see no need to apologise it seems neither he or you and others want to accept the truth.

Please can you and your other posters across the pond refrain from directing childish comments at me. It makes you all look so immature. Perhaps you and others time would be best spent helping Tom with his investigation

P

[Ally]

LOL...I think it's clear Trevor doesn't even have the slightest clue what we are talking about regarding his distorting the quotes.

So much for his lauded investigation skills. However, it is a simple mistake, and a result of his carelessness, and witlessness rather than a deliberate lack of ethics.