Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by Batman 1 minute ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Most Ridiculous Theory - by Michael W Richards 3 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by MrBarnett 6 minutes ago.
Torso Killings: JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful. - by Michael W Richards 17 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by Sam Flynn 25 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by Sam Flynn 28 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - (114 posts)
Torso Killings: JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful. - (27 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: distances between kills.odd - (19 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Did Mary Kelly meet the Bethnal Green Botherer? - (10 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - (8 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Most Ridiculous Theory - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > General Suspect Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1121  
Old 06-10-2018, 08:44 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,536
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
This thread if nothing else has given me fresh insight into the classic "scam".
This has resulted in a rewriting of the chapter dealing with it in my work.
Previously i had mainly argued the case for the scernero i was proposing, with the "Classic scam" mentioned in some detail, but no prolonged argument against it provided.

Fish has however now provided more than i could ever have seriously want to demonstate the failings of The "Classic Scam" .


A big thank you is need.

Steve
You are most welcome! I will undoubtedly contribute more when you publish. And I am equally thankful to YOU for showing me how you evaluate evidence. It has been fascinating!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1122  
Old 06-10-2018, 08:45 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Yes, I know it is, but I am used to that when you post. However, the fewest are so honest about it, so kudos to you, Steve!


Very funny


So "no evidence" equals "no possibility" now?

How very interesting!

Game playing again i see.
When there is evidence of an event, in this case both Carmen speaking to Mizen and thus Both being within earshot, it requires other contradictory evidence to challenge that.
If the position cannot be challenged, and it seems it cannot legitimately be done, then any alternative suggestiin is not possible.
Now you know this, but you ignoring the position.


So as long as there is no evidence against a suspect, there is no possibility that he is guilty?
Not wha i am saying, see abouve, as you well know. Such posts are not clever, just stubboneanly arrogant.

I really marvel at how genuine research is done these days.

that is obvious to all.

Do you not realize yourself how very far from logic you have strayed?
Posting deliberate misrepresentations achieves nothing.
Given the evidence we have, (reports saying paul talks to Mizen, No reports saying he is apart from Lechmere) there is No possability that Paul was out of earshot.



Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1123  
Old 06-10-2018, 08:48 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
You are most welcome! I will undoubtedly contribute more when you publish. And I am equally thankful to YOU for showing me how you evaluate evidence. It has been fascinating!
I evalute evidence as a scientist, you appear to keep to your training and do so as a journalist. There are significant and serious differences.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1124  
Old 06-10-2018, 08:55 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,536
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Posting deliberate misrepresentations achieves nothing.
Given the evidence we have, (reports saying paul talks to Mizen, No reports saying he is apart from Lechmere) there is No possability that Paul was out of earshot.



Steve
Even if you stubbornly claim that nothing points to the carmen splitting up at the stage when Mizen was approached (which is wrong), it STILL applies that they MAY have done so.

The only value of your thinking is to point out that if we only use the accounts and parts you favour, then it becomes more likely that the carmen never split up than that they did.

It is very much like Trevor Marriotts criticism of my theory: "If you are wrong, then your theory is useless".

Same kind of insightful thinking, same kind of contribution, the only difference being that you pat yourself on the shoulder and celebrate that you think you have followed the golden rules of research.

Itīs tiresome.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1125  
Old 06-10-2018, 08:56 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Read my post to Herlock and you may begin to see how I reason and work.
It does not include claiming things that cannot be proven to be facts, the way you do. Thatīs the bottom line.
I have read it, the post is self deceiving.

I do not claim timings are facts, only indicators of various possabilities, broad guides so to speak.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1126  
Old 06-10-2018, 08:59 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,536
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
I evalute evidence as a scientist, you appear to keep to your training and do so as a journalist. There are significant and serious differences.


Steve
Yes, there are VERY large differences. I fully agree. And I think the division works to my advantage, more so on account of my experience of how murder cases are covered in the press than on account of you having excelled in the topic of evidence evaluation.

But we can go on to gab about for this for years and it will get us no further. If you think that a journalist cannot evaluate evidence, I can offer a number of examples to the contrary.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1127  
Old 06-10-2018, 09:05 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Even if you stubbornly claim that nothing points to the carmen splitting up at the stage when Mizen was approached (which is wrong), it STILL applies that they MAY have done so.


complete denial of logic and facts, the point is not there is no evidence; its there is No Evidence to counter tge evidence which already exists


The only value of your thinking is to point out that if we only use the accounts and parts you favour, then it becomes more likely that the carmen never split up than that they did.


Talking about yourself again i see. I only question evidence when the is other evidence to counter it. And only reject evidence when the weight of contrary evidence is overwhelming as in this vase.


It is very much like Trevor Marriotts criticism of my theory: "If you are wrong, then your theory is useless".

Same kind of insightful thinking, same kind of contribution, the only difference being that you pat yourself on the shoulder and celebrate that you think you have followed the golden rules of research.

Itīs tiresome.
Iit is indeed tiresome to see the same unsupported theories posted time after time, theories which either ignore the weight of evidence, mistrepsent it blatantly or which simply are factual wrong.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1128  
Old 06-10-2018, 09:08 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,536
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
I have read it, the post is self deceiving.

I do not claim timings are facts, only indicators of various possabilities, broad guides so to speak.
I know a few things about self-deceiving, Steve. Much thanks to you.

What I said you treat as a fact in spite of how it is not possible to do so, is how you say that it is not possible that Paul was out of earshot.

Both of us know what a fact is - or should know it - and if you are stating that I have claimed a time as a fact that cannot be established as a fact, then please produce it.

And itīs possibilities, not possabilities, Steve. I donīt think I have ever seen you get that right, so I decided to help out. Please donīt think it is evil spirited, itīs just that Iīve grown tired of it.

I am actually growing tired of a lot when it comes to you.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1129  
Old 06-10-2018, 09:09 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Yes, there are VERY large differences. I fully agree. And I think the division works to my advantage, more so on account of my experience of how murder cases are covered in the press than on account of you having excelled in the topic of evidence evaluation.

But we can go on to gab about for this for years and it will get us no further. If you think that a journalist cannot evaluate evidence, I can offer a number of examples to the contrary.
Its not that journalists cannot evalute evidence, such a general claim would be laughable, its that they have a different objective and criteria for there work.
What is acceptable in journalism is not so in science.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1130  
Old 06-10-2018, 09:11 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,536
Default

Steve: "I only question evidence when the is other evidence to counter it. And only reject evidence when the weight of contrary evidence is overwhelming as in this vase."

So suddenly there IS evidence to the contrary?

How things change.

A few posts back, there was no such evidence-

E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E, Steve. If we ever meet, I will explain the term to you.

Goodbye for now.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.