|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 524
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 1:13 pm: |       |
Hi All,
‘Essentially, we can tentatively intuit that we are on the right track if we seem to be generating adequate evidentiary confirmations as we proceed.’
I agree, but I immediately thought of all those people who only think they are on the right track because they look for confirmation of their own theory (or of their preconceived ‘right track’) when they should be trying to test it. We naturally desire things to be as they seem to be, and we feel uncomfortable when forced to change direction, or abandon a theory we may have spent some considerable time and effort developing in the hope of turning it into a conviction. (Once it becomes a conviction, it’s too late.)
As a result, it’s all too easy to recognise and pick up on all the information that tends to confirm, or at least doesn’t counteract, our theories, while failing always to acknowledge anything that hinders or could even invalidate them.
And then I read Sarah’s post, and it appeared to confirm my thoughts – people tend not to see the flaws, or obstacles, in their own ‘right’ tracks, that to other, often detached and neutral observers, indicate a dead end.
As we don’t yet know too much, if anything, about David’s theory, it’s rather difficult to ascertain how far he has tested it for potential flaws.
Shannon,
‘You go to the spot where you were the closest and make your own path…’
Using my fishing line analogy, if you start down a wrong line, it will be one not connected to the solution, so you can never get to it – a miss is as good as a mile. How do you know when you get the ‘closest’? How does that work when you don’t actually know what the solution will turn out to be? The rusty tin might on paper appear right next to the prize salmon, but you can’t leap between the twisted lines to get from ‘close’ to Jack, you have to go back to the start and hope you use the right line next time.
Love,
Caz
|
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 428
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 1:47 pm: | |
Hello
-Phillip Sugden had the temerity to suggest that Packer's identification should be thrown on the trash heap.
I'm burning my copy of this worthless fountain of misinformation as we speak.
Caz-perhaps playing with fishing lines hooked to used condoms wasn't conducive to what I would term constructive childsplay.
All The Best
Gary |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 8:45 am: | |
Alan,
The licensing laws in the 1880's weren’t the same as they are now where there is a defining time to stop serving Ale.
Back then, it was left to the discretion of the publican to say when to close shop.
Thus it would be very unwise to assume that Nelson's closed at midnight.
Packer didn't specify that he was citing Nelson's as his criteria for determining the time.
Cludgy
|
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 1:19 pm: | |
1. "...what would you say to others who have gone along a different track to you and say they also have found no flaws but have a different idea to you?"
>>They are welcome to their ideas. But if they want to claim they've solved the case, then they have to submit themselves to critical review. This would involve a reasonable determination of whether or not they have explained the whole of the case evidence adequately enough to be satisfactory. They wouldn't be allowed to have any assumptions not justified within the case evidence left over. They wouldn't be allowed to have significant unexplained pieces of the empirical case evidence left over, either. Please note that a case solution truly satisfactory on these terms is a very, very difficult task to accomplish. It has never been done yet. The sheer difficulty of having accomplished it in a logically estimable manner would contribute significantly to its credibility.
2. "...A?R relies on this second man coming out of Nelson's Beer Shop."
>>No it does not. The Pipe man was positioned and moving in a manner to suggest that he either came out of the Nelson or was simply hanging a left turn up Berner Street at the time. In the latter case he'd be passing by the door of the Nelson just about when Schwartz first noticed him. The Nelson was in fact closed at the time; perhaps the Pipe man was its owner or manager, and was exiting the place after having cleaned up after business hours. No matter either way. The appearance of the Pipe man may have in some way contributed to what the murderer did or did not do in Berner Street, however the Pipe man was not otherwise involved in the case.
3. "...He also recently took Glenn to task for daring to say that Matthew Packer's testimony was not reliable. So plainly A?R must rely on Matthew Packer's testimony."
>>Not true. Packer I believe ought to be trusted up to a point. Based on the evidence it appears Packer did see Stride with someone, but likely it was early in the scheme of things that evening. By the evidence (or lack of it,) the man she was with at that time is not to be considered particularly likely to have been the man who killed her, unless one can determine some compelling perspective based on the evidence to so indicate. It is reasonable to think, all things taken as a whole, that Packer embroidered his testimony in order to stay at the center of public attention and maybe somehow collect a piece of the reward. Therefore you have to take him, but with a grain of salt. That is difficult to do in a logically clean way.
4. >>It seems the criticisms above are based on assumptions concerning my theory. Keep in mind I've not fully elucidated it yet. You don't really know what evidenciary pieces I do or do not "depend on" yet.
5. "When you fail to reach your destination, you come back to the point you started from and travel in another direction."
>> This is only one way to proceed. Another way is to to discard the very point you started from and try again. If your starting point was wrong, then you have to get rid of it. THIS IS WHAT MOST RIPPEROLOGISTS STUBBORNLY REFUSE TO DO, I'VE FOUND. OVER AND OVER, THEY GET STARTED FEELING GOOD ABOUT THEMSELVES, AND THEN ARE LATER FORCED TO NUMBLY PLOW THROUGH LOGICAL AND EVIDENCIARY CONTRADICTIONS IN A DECEPTIVE MANNER IN ORDER TO HANG ONTO THEIR STARTING POINT. A STARTING POINT IS CENTRALLY IMPORTANT, AND THEREFORE SHOULD NOT BE PRESERVED AGAINST SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS BEYOND A REASONABLY DECENT POINT. IF YOU'VE GOT TOO MANY DIFFICULTIES HAVING STARTED AT A GIVEN POINT, THEN IT IS BETTER TO GIVE UP AND TRY AGAIN THAN TO ASK YOUR READERS TO SWALLOW CONTRADICTIONS. But, as has been amply and abundantly demonstrated throughout the history of Ripperology, neither the Ripperologists nor their readers are philosophical enough to be concerned about such matters.
6. "Its not the destination, its the journey, and what we learn about ourselves, and about others along the way..."
>>If you don't get to the destination of having solved the case, then you may still be trying to find the right starting point. You wouldn't have properly journeyed yet. The starting point and the case solution may be more simultaneous than many think. The '2 + 3' doesn't occur two million years before the '= 5,' does it? As soon, or almost as soon as you may have the former, you may have the latter.
Use your own mind.
Saddam
|
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 11:12 pm: | |
Per usual, Caz is correct. Famous case theories published for $$$ if tested internally for contradictions would indicate such fallacies as to disqualify. In order to finish, I worked backwards--purposely trying to dream up a starting point that would drive me down the mountain by avalanche. I had given up trying numerous starting points and then trying to crawl up the mountain of evidence on my knees by them. What I wound up with was an "order of ideas" that works. You can too.
Saddam
|
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 9:13 am: | |
By the way Alan, it was me who took Glenn to task over the Packer testimony, not Saddam.
I was instructed by various people, that Packers testimony was worthless.
But as i said in my previous message Nelson's needn't have closed at midnight. Thus Packer could still have been speaking the truth.
Cludgy.
|
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 251
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 6:04 pm: | |
Cludgy,
Not that it matters, but seeing as Nelson's was next door to Packer's shop and the only other two public houses in the area were one out of sight in Batty Street and the other way down the road on the corner of Boyd Street which would have been out of Packer's line of sight, I think it is pretty safe to say that Nelson's was the public house that Packer was referring to. |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 252
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 09, 2003 - 6:06 pm: | |
David
Reluctant though I am to say it...... Good Answer!
|
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 274
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 9:23 am: | |
Packer may have told the truth up to a point but as anyone should know if the tiniest bit of it is false then the whole thing would get thrown out the window. It doesn't matter that he saw a man, what matters is if he told the whole truth or not, otherwise how could anyone know which part was the truth and which was a lie.
If a witness in a trial was found to lie about some things he would be deemed an unreliable witness and the jury would be asked to ignore everything he has said (even he part of what he said was the truth).
Sarah |
Jim DiPalma
Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 44
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 10:44 am: | |
Hi All,
David writes:
>>They are welcome to their ideas. But if they want to claim they've solved the case, then they have to submit themselves to critical review.
I agree completely. So, since you've been claiming since 1996 that you've solved the case, when are you planning to submit your work to critical review?
Just wondering.
Jim |
Sarah Long
Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 278
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 10:47 am: | |
Jim,
I was just thinking that.
Sarah |
Ally
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ally
Post Number: 117
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 10:48 am: | |
Walked right into that one, didn't he? |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 494
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 10:50 am: | |
OUCH !
Monty
 |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 10:54 am: | |
"If a witness in a trial was found to lie about some things he would be deemed an unreliable witness and the jury would be asked to ignore everything he has said (even he part of what he said was the truth)."
>>Jury, schmury. How is Ripperology a jury trial? We aren't trying to convict anybody under the law here. Why should we restrict ourselves by trial rules?
Patient analysis of the whole context of Packer's information and how he gave it indicates that he is an embroiderer and embellisher. This doesn't necessarily mean he is a liar. It appears the information he gives over several days' time becomes increasingly less reliable. This at least MAY leave open the possibility that some part of it given early may have been correct. He embroiders in self-interest, but he ostensibly has to start with something to embroider, and no one has ever proven by empirical evidence that his starting point is incorrect. At least PART of what he says seems confirmed by physical evidence. Apparently fruit juice stains are found on Stride's handkerchief, and Packer says he sold her escort a bunch of grapes for them to eat. Stride's behavior pattern with her escort as Packer describes seems confirmed by her similar behaviors with other men that evening, as told by other witnesses.
The notion that the whole of Packer's testimony MUST be thrown out, for our purposes, seems an immature idea. We have had a flush of immature posters on the message boards recently, most of whom seem confident in putting me in their crosshairs.
Saddam
|
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 11:26 am: | |
"...since you've been claiming since 1996 that you've solved the case, when are you planning to submit your work to critical review?"
>>This question is its own answer. There can be no critical review of work not yet submitted. There is no claim of such-and-such being the solution of the case until such-and-such propositions are offered. Therefore it is improper to be critical of me here. Don't I have the right to be silent about what I chose? Don't you?
What I claim is that there is a solution of the case, and that anyone studying the case earnestly can find it if they try, and I try to make suggestions to help them at some length. What I do here is the same that hundreds of good profesors of philosophy in colleges and universities across the country do for their students every day, in class and in their offices. They would damage the efforts of the student to understand on their own if they were to give matters under evaluation away to them. Therefore I do not claim that such-and-such is the solution. I should therefore not be criticised on an ongoing basis for a wrong I have not done. There has been no wrong done.
Fractious people use me as their proxy. They don't know how to satisfy themselves in their lives, so they pick on someone other.
Saddam
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 762
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 7:56 pm: | |
Mr David Radka,
"If no starting point can analyze the present evidence, then the present evidence is insufficient to solve the case."
That was my whole point -- I think it is fair to assume that the facts and evidence ARE insufficient. I'm happy you hit the nail at last.
Then, regarding Packer's statements: I agree that there is a possibility that he really did see something of value and that some of his testimony was worth its ink and paper to being with -- I have myself suggested that. But since he changed it a number of times and started to elaborate in a questionable manner, then that destroys the whole validity of his testimony, because we can't really tell what's right and what's fairy-tales. It is possible that his early statements are the most valid ones, but we can't know that for sure. Ones a witness has proven unreliable it is hard to value also the more plausible passages of the statements. That is why his credibility must be thrown in the can and stay there.
"This question is its own answer. There can be no critical review of work not yet submitted."
And that is why we want to see it submitted, Saddam. If you critizise and correct others, and don't bother to show your own cards, you're taking the easy way out.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 266
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 5:10 am: | |
David
I will just say that your analogy is a bad one, because Professors of Philosophy, by definition, have published a thesis.  |
Ally
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ally
Post Number: 119
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 6:29 am: | |
David,
And I would like to add to Alan's post and say that no one takes someone seriously who makes the kind of claims you do for YEARS and fails to back them up. We are not college students needing to be guided by a Savant who hasn't got the (insert whatever here) to put his intellectual masterpiece on the line. You are alienating the very audience that you will need to take you seriously should the day ever come when you do decide to publish your theory. Set yourself up as a crackpot/crank for years and you will never be taken seriously when you do publish.
And also, considering your sole goal is to get credit for your solution, what are you going to do when someone you have :guided to enlightment: who has been sitting quietly reading the boards actually figures out your solution, writes up a quick 3 page paper on it and publishes it here as their original work.
They get the credit and there won't be a damn thing you can do about it.
|
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 324
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 10:51 am: | |
Ally, here here... 
Right or wrong about the solution, the chutspza to dare to have your work available for critical review speaks volumns about the author.
Shannon
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 236
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 11:29 am: | |
There is a hidden orthodoxy in Mr. R's method. We have entered the Dark Ages. The source material is static (he tells us). The text has been written, there will be no more revelations, and the only thing left is for the monks and the scholastics to interpret the word.
RP
(Message edited by rjpalmer on December 12, 2003) |
Erin Sigler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 130
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 12:22 pm: | |
Well-put, Ally. I couldn't agree more.  |
Natalie Severn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Severn
Post Number: 66
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 12:50 pm: | |
Ally-congratulations -perfectly put!Natalie |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 11:23 pm: | |
1. "If you critizise and correct others, and don't bother to show your own cards, you're taking the easy way out."
>>I'm showing my own cards all the time! Center, epistemology, erotic pursuit of knowledge, respect for the case evidence as ground, unifying analysis, logical methodology, mediation of oppositions, etc. What are you folks doing? A little bit of this and a little bit of that. A blip about Barnett here, a drib of DNA there, etc. At least I used to make rhymes for you--e.g., jury, schmury. But you didn't learn what I was trying to teach you. THROUGHOUT HISTORY, PEOPLE HAVE SYSTEMATICALLY BURNED AND DESTROYED EVERY LAST BIT OF WHAT TEACHERS HAVE TRIED TO DO FOR THEM.
2."There is a hidden orthodoxy in Mr. R's method..."
>>The only orthodoxy I have is open for anyone's interpretation. It is called epistemology, and can be studied at length principally in Plato's dialogues (like 'Theaetetus') and also in the work of many other philosophers.
3. It's not so much that I have an "intellectual masterpiece," it's more that you have your own gifts and abilities that you don't fully use.
Saddam
|
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 9:58 am: | |
Alan you wrote that Packer had noted the time by the fact that the pubs were closing. Pubs, plural.
Shouldn't he have said pub, meaning Nelsons's.
Or could he have been refering to the fact that there were people walking up and down the streets, thus in his mind equating this fact with the pubs turning out. Not that it matters.
Cludgy. |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 12, 2003 - 3:17 pm: | |
"...we can't really tell what's right and what's fairy-tales...Ones a witness has proven unreliable it is hard to value also the more plausible passages of the statements. That is why his credibility must be thrown in the can and stay there."
>>If you know what the witnesses said that is correct, and what they said that is incorrect, then please enter your complete solution to the case right here, right now. If you can't solve the entire case right here, right now, then please explain how you know what parts of what the witnesses said were true, and what parts were not. See what I mean? Whenever you set up arbitrary standards for what you are going to believe and disbelieve, and by "arbitrary" I mean "based on anything but knowledge of the meaning of the case evidence," then you may unknowingly be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There MAY be something in what Packer said that is necessary to solve the case; without it, no solution. What you say above, that Packer's information has to be completely thrown out, is tantamount to making a claim that you have perfect knowledge of the dynamic interrelationships among all elements of the case. Why hamstring yourself?
Saddam
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
