Local Man: Cop Outus Maximus

[Mr. Poster]

Stan R. brought up an interesting point which I think is a good one and possibly worth a round or two

Is the acceptance of "Unknown Local Man" or one of his near relations Local Nobody or Neverr Herad of Him as JtR a cop out?

I'll start off with a positve "It certainly is".

p

[Sam Flynn]

Hello MrP,

Since when was not limiting ourselves to known suspects (local or otherwise) a cop-out? My impression is that the arguments for most of the "knowns" have been largely refuted. Of those that haven't, some have had their wheels so spiked by partisans on the one hand, or saboteurs on the other, that they're doomed to go around in circles.

Besides - "unknown" does not mean "never-to-be-known", by the way. Some of the more interesting possible suspects were only brought to our attention after languishing in obscurity for nearly a century. Others may yet emerge, although I wouldn't bank on it.

[Stan Russo]

Sam,

I have always gone on record with the statement that JTR could have been LM. However, that is not what is being utilized by advocating LM and I think we both know that to be the case.

Prior to the rediscovery of Tumbelty in 1993, he was LM, in theory. Now that he is Tumblety once again and those who proposed his candidacy have failed to fully connect the dots enough to hold a consensus, it is a return to LM for many. This is a circular hypothesis that, at its true nature, is merely a method for sidestepping failure.

Your comment that other suspects may yet emerge but you wouldn't bank on it clearly defines your mindset in connection with this case. If you feel this way, then an endorsement of LM is the equivalent of announcing your acceptance of failure.

Imagine a researcher who favors or advocates LM and therefore does not need to continue any research on the case - would you consider that researcher one who has succumbed to their own failure without having the integrity or courage to admit it? I am not sure how you couldn't.

Then, imagine a researcher who favors or advocates LM, continues their research to find a suspect,finds one, cannot connect the dots enough to gain consensus and then returns to favoring or advocating LM. What do you make of that researcher?

The basic point here, is that almost all of the suspects are LM, yet have been identified. The only difference is that since they have been named and the researchers who have worked to prove their guilt have not completed their mission, for either of the two obvious reasons, it becomes an easy way out of having to put the effort in to favor or advocate LM. Also, in all fairness to the researchers who have come before those who favor or advocate LM, this is actually an endorsement of an unknown suspect in order to commit a veiled scathing attack on the named suspects so far, as well as the researchers who have named them.

Simply because none of the named suspects meets the criteria that does not mean none of them are 'JTR'. To endorse a blind concept such as LM is far worse than propose a flawed theory. At least in the case of the researcher who proposes a flawed theory, they are actually putting forth some effort, rather than sitting back and endorsing an unprovable pseudo-theory to stay in the ballgame. Sometimes it is okay to fail and acknowledge that - it eventually makes that person try harder the next time.

[Celesta]

No disrespect to anyone, but what is wrong with "Person or persons unknown?" That's what the inquest conclusions were. It doesn't rule anyone out.


Best to all,

Celesta

[How Brown]

No disrespect to anyone either, but I for one am not convinced that all we do when we write suspect books or theorize on these boards about suspects, is in reality, write biographies of said persons.

I don't look at the LM as a safe way out of trying to solve the case, but rather my own personal view of how I feel at this point in time. We all have changed something in our worldviews or specific views regarding the Case and I'm sure I will, for one ,change my mind again.

This looks like an interesting thread. Thanks for the idea,Stan...and thanks for starting it, Lars.

[Sam Flynn]

Your comment that other suspects may yet emerge but you wouldn't bank on it clearly defines your mindset in connection with this case. Not at all, Stan. I merely meant that, at this remove in time, I'd find it unlikely that any "sure-fire" suspect will emerge. I've no doubt that various possible subjects may be identified - whether "LM" or not.

[Stan Russo]

Celesta,

What is actually wrong with "person or persons unknown" is that it does not do anything for the case whatsoever. In case many have forgotten, this is a group of unsolved murders. By stating that the murderer was a "person or persons unknown" it is the exact equivalent as saying that the murderer was 'Jack the Ripper'. What is the point of a circular investigation when all we do is end up going in full circles? Advocating 'LM' / 'persons unknown' is remaining inside a circular argument with no end in sight.

Sam,

In stating that there has been no clear cut suspect to bank on, while also stating that you find it highly unlikely that any "sure-fire" suspect will emerge, is code for saying that the case is just too hard to solve. It is much easier to argue, and feel like you are still actively participating in the argument, by advocating an unprovable assumption, then it is to actively make a contribution. You may not be ready to accept that fact, but that does not change what it is and it still is what it is. If you seriously believe that it is 'LM' and not one of the named suspects, a contribution to the case would be to go out and find the murderer,not simply sit back and advocate a broad concept.

How,

It is not that the murderer could not have been 'LM'. To argue that would be illogical. To argue that it was 'LM' and do nothing more about it is one of the most stagnant and counter-productive measures currently infecting this murder case. I understand the argument that the case means different things to different people, with regards to solving the case. However, advocating 'LM' is not sitting along the sidelines as if interested in one minute aspect of the case. It is a direct statement on the unsolved nature of the case and has no foundational basis going for it. Its only existence as a "theory" is predicated upon the lack of proof for named suspects. Any "theory" that is founded upon the failure of others has no evidentiary basis and is not a valid one at that.

[Mr. Poster]

hi ho

What is really annoying about LM (and by the LM I mean unknown and likely never known generic local chap) is that at least specific suspect promoters, be they wrong or right, involve themselves in some work to provide or tweak evidence for their man. LM'ers absolve themselves of any responsibility to support their notion and can therefore delight and occupy themselves by poking holes in everyone elses suspects unburdened by ever having to do anything to support their own.

Unknown LM'ers do not and never will. Plus the LM concept goes against the police opinion of the day and the facts to hand.

For LM'ers to be credible they should cease their bleating and engage themselves in AP-esque trawling to try and find some character or LM who could feasibly be our chap.

p

[Stan Russo]

Mr.P,

That is exactly it to a tee. 'LM' advocates generally are sideline watchers who have committed themselves to the fact, perhaps without even knowing they have, that the case can never be solved so they hedge their bets in order to stay in the discussion. 'LM' is not just about 'JTR' being a local man - most or all of the suspects are local men, as I stated in my earlier post on Druitt. 'LM' theoreticians are really not advocating 'LM', but rather stating that all theorists are failures, without actually having the courage to come out and say that.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Stan,If you seriously believe that it is 'LM' and not one of the named suspects, a contribution to the case would be to go out and find the murderer,not simply sit back and advocate a broad concept.It seems more profitable to do so than to confine oneself to narrow concepts, based around a tiny clutch of "old favourites".

Besides - to be perfectly clear - I'm not saying that he was "LM", (to which I'd add "NLM" - the "non-local [unknown] man,) only that my view is that there's a reasonable chance that he was.
In stating that there has been no clear cut suspect to bank on, while also stating that you find it highly unlikely that any "sure-fire" suspect will emerge, is code for saying that the case is just too hard to solve.It's not a statement of insolubility - it's a simple acknowledgment that, if the trail was cold in 1888, then its supercooled now.

Plus, I'm not one to be put off by the "highly unlikelys" of this world - so it's not as pessimistic a statement as some might think.

[Sam Flynn]

LM'ers absolve themselves of any responsibility to support their notion and can therefore delight and occupy themselves by poking holes in everyone elses suspects unburdened by ever having to do anything to support their own.Poking holes in "rival" suspects is not a preserve peculiar to the "LM" lobby, MrP. In fact, the converse might well apply in many cases - God help anyone who strays unguarded into Hutchinson/Barnett/Chapman (etc) territory and dares to pose a challenge.

[Stan Russo]

Sam,

I am not saying it was not 'LM', but in advocating or favoring 'LM', without doing anything else, a false sense of inclusion and contribution exists that does not help the case one iota.

I can respect the stance that 'JTR' has not been named and to prove it will go out and find those absolute holes in a suspect's candidacy, to further their own stance that it is an unknown 'LM'. However, to state that it is 'LM', simply because other theories have failed, and then sit back from the sidelines and claim that you are actively taking part in the discussion, is false. At most, it is a passive attempt at trying to stay involved that will never bear any fruits. At worst, it continues the stagnancy of the case, so that in 30 years from now, people will look back and wonder why this was the decade where the 'LM' theoreticians, who did nothing to actively pursue their theory, took control of the case and halted its progression.

As far as straying into suspect territory and getting attacked for it, that is a further indictment of how 'LM' theory hurts this case. If your arguments against a suspect are solid, while others arguments for a suspect are weak, and they attack you for it, they are wrong and they need to be called out on it, because like many 'LM' theoreticians, they are doing nothing positive for the case and doing no actual work on their suspect to back up their theories.

[Celesta]

[quote=Stan Russo;44181]Celesta,

What is actually wrong with "person or persons unknown" is that it does not do anything for the case whatsoever. In case many have forgotten, this is a group of unsolved murders. By stating that the murderer was a "person or persons unknown" it is the exact equivalent as saying that the murderer was 'Jack the Ripper'. What is the point of a circular investigation when all we do is end up going in full circles? Advocating 'LM' / 'persons unknown' is remaining inside a circular argument with no end in sight.

Stan,

I agree that it doesn't move it forward, especially if one takes a passive attitude, but I don't think most people do have a passive attitude. I think it is partly a scale problem and partly an evidence problem. Right now there is nothing to nail it down to a local person, an itinerate, a seaman, or what have you. It also doesn't accomplish anything not to look for suspects, or consider the ones we already have. The chances of finding JTR are slim, yes, but are much slimmer if we don't look for him.

My problem with some of the suspect books is that there is little in the way of evidence. If an author has to stretch to put a suspect into position, I'm less inclined to accept what he/she theorizes. Some suspects are going to fit a lot closer than others. The person that finds Jack the Ripper is going to be someone who knows how to follow a trail, if such exists, and proving his theory means he is going to have to document that trail.

[Sam Flynn]

If your arguments against a suspect are solid, while others arguments for a suspect are weak, and they attack you for it, they are wrong and they need to be called out on itI'd agree there, Stan. I'm not so convinced that "LM" hurts the case, however - particularly if acceptance of the possibility of Jack being an as-yet-unknown should, by default, encourage a more open-minded view of the possibilities. It doesn't always, I grant you - but that's usually because of weak logic or asinine argumentation, neither of which are particular strangers to the "Known Man" tendency.

[Mr. Poster]

hi ho Celesta

The chances of finding JTR are slim, yes, but are much slimmer if we don't look for him.

The problem is that LM'ers are not, in the main, looking at all. They do not have to argue for his candidacy or find evidence and use him as an excuse to just faff about appearing knowledgeable by saying wistfully "Oh he was probably an unknown nobody".

At least AP and Co. are trying to put a face on LM and not just grinding out the usual mantra about never knowing who he was.

p

[Celesta]

hi ho Celesta



The problem is that LM'ers are not, in the main, looking at all. They do not have to argue for his candidacy or find evidence and use him as an excuse to just faff about appearing knowledgeable by saying wistfully "Oh he was probably an unknown nobody".

At least AP and Co. are trying to put a face on LM and not just grinding out the usual mantra about never knowing who he was.

p


Hi Lars,

There are some who categorically deny we'll ever know, but I bet even most of those look at new evidence on a suspect, when it comes along. I agree that just such a trail as AP & Co. are following is what it will take. They are looking for evidence, not just saying "Oh, well, suspect A could have been in the right spot at the right time because you can't prove he wasn't." It's going to take more than that. Of course proving Suspect A could have been there is a start, at least.

[Sam Flynn]

At least AP and Co. are trying to put a face on LM and not just grinding out the usual mantra about never knowing who he was.Hello MrP,

It's often fascinating to read about these characters that get (re)discovered from time to time, and AP and others do well to bring them to our attention. Heck - it's not beyond the pale to think that we might find a strong candidate amongst them or, with a following wind and a stroke of good luck, prove his (or her) culpability beyond reasonable doubt.

Quite how a "belief" in the Unknown Local Man flies in the face of all this is hard to understand - unless there are some out there who perversely want Jack's identity to remain forever hidden. Perhaps some secretly do, but - as one who tends to the "LM" myself - I'm certainly not one of them.

[Chris G.]

Mr.P,

That is exactly it to a tee. 'LM' advocates generally are sideline watchers who have committed themselves to the fact, perhaps without even knowing they have, that the case can never be solved so they hedge their bets in order to stay in the discussion. 'LM' is not just about 'JTR' being a local man - most or all of the suspects are local men, as I stated in my earlier post on Druitt. 'LM' theoreticians are really not advocating 'LM', but rather stating that all theorists are failures, without actually having the courage to come out and say that.

Hi Stan

I think you are being rather dismissive of those who think that "unknown local man" might be as likely as the killer as anyone. I would think that most students of the case would believe that the killer could have been an "unknown local man." Well, I am sorry if, as you put it, that does not do anything for the case. That can't be helped. As Sam indicates, at this remove of time from 1888, this seems a likely solution -- as we often say, we may never know who it was.

Chris

[Stan Russo]

Chris,

I am not being dismissive of those who believe that 'JTR' was an unknown local man. I think there becomes a line drawn in believing that and acting upon it versus believing that because the work has become too hard for others so endorsement of a nice safe non-disprovable theory fits perfectly.

I have always said that anyone can believe anything. Those beliefs come with opinions on them. Arguing that "unknown local man" was 'JTR' is about the same as arguing that 'JTR' was the murderer. They are not that far apart.

Rather than a likely solution, it is an easier way to get out of answering the question or putting in the requisite work to answer the question.

I will defer if someone can offer an explanation of why 'LM' is any greater of a suspect than Druitt, whom I believe is a poor suspect at best. In this, I only ask that the explanation does not include other suspects as the basis for 'unknown LM'. If I proposed Oscar Wilde because Lewis Carroll was a bad suspect, I'd be laughed off the boards, yet 'LM' is proposed for the same reasons.

Once again, 'unknown LM' may be the murderer, but then again so might Lewis Carroll. at least Lewis Carroll is not a poorly defined construct that can be fully investigated, such as 'unknown LM'.

[Sam Flynn]

at least Lewis Carroll is not a poorly defined construct that can be fully investigated, such as 'unknown LM'.That's rather the pessimistic way of looking at it, Stan, and history would tend to disagree with you there. Often, our fund of knowledge has increased because of human nature's abhorrence of vacuums or, in the cases of Dewar and Torricelli, because of its love of vacuums!

There are innumerable instances of "unknowns" (atomic particles, planets, functional regions of the brain, countries, the man who commissioned Mozart's Requiem) whose existence have been conjectured, even worked with in absentia as pure concepts, which have subsequently been proven true, often ending in the discovery of the previously missing piece of the given jigsaw. The "unknown made known", if you like.

I think what you're objecting to is actually the concept of the "Unknowable LM". History has shown that one can work perfectly well with, or work around, an "Unknown", and still reap significant rewards. In limiting one's scope to the known, one is almost by definition imposing, albeit unconsciously, severe limitations on what one might achieve.

[Scott Nelson]

The infamous "Dewar Implosion." Don't get acetone in your eyes.

[Stan Russo]

Sam,

I will concede that it is possible that 'JTR' is 'LM', even though the theory is based upon failed theories peripheral to the 'LM' concept, if you concede that there are people out there who use 'LM' theory for the exact reasons why Mr.P and I deplore it.

The unknown is good, just as far as seeking that unknown out is employed.

[Mr. Poster]

hi ho SamF

There are innumerable instances of "unknowns" (atomic particles, planets, functional regions of the brain, countries, the man who commissioned Mozart's Requiem) whose existence have been conjectured, even worked with in absentia as pure concepts, which have subsequently been proven true, often ending in the discovery of the previously missing piece of the given jigsaw. The "unknown made known", if you like.

Indeed. But you will find it difficult to find on example where something being an unknown was used as an excuse, unspoken or not, to do nothing about making it a known.

Nobody ever said "Gravity may or may not exist and we may never know its true nature and therefore we are not going to try and find it and just accept that it is probably and unknown. Our primary driving reason for this is that we feel we will seem smarter if we just accept it as being something we may never know".

I think what you're objecting to is actually the concept of the "Unknowable LM".

I would agree and do in part except the Unknowable LM and the Knowable LM are very much related in this case.

If I had the time to elucidate it I feel there is a Heisenbergian Principle in here somewhere. Something about the act of describing our Unknown LM or postulating him makes him cease to be the Unknowable LM or something.

But such a theory may actually be something that can not be proved.

Therefore I'm not going to bother. As it makes me seem smart.

Daft....isn't it?

p

[Mr. Poster]

Sorry about that....in my eagerness to answer SamF and my limited time I failed to read Stans post.

Which enunciates the point in a fashion that is clearer than my attempt.

But I think I am going to add Unknown-And-Not-Trying-To Find-Out LM to my long list of things that usually engender a response.

Like "profiling", GH-as-anything-but-innocent, chloroacetamide, psychic guff, facial reconstruction, biofuels, the environ-mental lobby, Paella, etc.

p

[Stan Russo]

Mr. P,

I hate paella too, almost as much as I feel sorry for those who feel the need to advocate 'LM' for the wrong reasons, which is once again, nothing more than an indictment of their own shortcomings.

[Chris G.]

Chris,

I am not being dismissive of those who believe that 'JTR' was an unknown local man. I think there becomes a line drawn in believing that and acting upon it versus believing that because the work has become too hard for others so endorsement of a nice safe non-disprovable theory fits perfectly.

I have always said that anyone can believe anything. Those beliefs come with opinions on them. Arguing that "unknown local man" was 'JTR' is about the same as arguing that 'JTR' was the murderer. They are not that far apart.

Rather than a likely solution, it is an easier way to get out of answering the question or putting in the requisite work to answer the question.

I will defer if someone can offer an explanation of why 'LM' is any greater of a suspect than Druitt, whom I believe is a poor suspect at best. In this, I only ask that the explanation does not include other suspects as the basis for 'unknown LM'. If I proposed Oscar Wilde because Lewis Carroll was a bad suspect, I'd be laughed off the boards, yet 'LM' is proposed for the same reasons.

Once again, 'unknown LM' may be the murderer, but then again so might Lewis Carroll. at least Lewis Carroll is not a poorly defined construct that can be fully investigated, such as 'unknown LM'.

Hi Stan

You are doing it again. No. "Unknown local man" -- hang the abbreviations WM LVP LM ugh -- is categorically not as fine a suspect as Lewis Carroll or Frank Miles or William Ewart Gladstone.

"Unknown local man" is actually an excellent suspect although I grant, unknowable, per se. Akin to someone saying the world was created by God or some unknown intelligence. Again, unprovable but theoretically plausible. Back to you Stan. :boxing:

Chris

[Stan Russo]

Chris,

First of all, Frank Miles is not a suspect - he was exonerated as a suspect and therefore is no longer a suspect.

Second of all, "unknown local man" is not a suspect - it is a construct. A construct is never as fine as an actuality. It is only a means toward an actuality.

If you (and I don't mean you personally) favor 'unknown local man' or whatever that construct is to be called, what is the next step? The problem lies with the researcher that sits back and does not take the next step.

I am not dismissing the possibility of 'JTR' not being among the named suspects and I have said that numerous times. I am commenting on the researcher who overtly proposes "unknown local man" in order to covertly dismiss other researcher's work as insufficient, while concurrently doing no work themselves.

Back to you - :boxing:

[Chris G.]

Hi Stan

I have a problem with your logic on several levels.

First, why can't a student of the field, researcher or whomever, believe both in unknown local man and a named suspect? I'd put myself in that category, thinking it could be a local man or possibly one of the named suspects, though I have no clear favorite

Second, you say unknown local man is no better a suspect than Lewis Carroll, an unlikely suspect at best. But Lewis Carroll is only one person, who likely can be easily eliminated, whereas there were thousands in the East End who might have qualified as the unknown local man. So the odds improve considerably if there were in fact a number of unbalanced individuals in the fall of 1888 whom we don't know about and who could have been the killer.

Third, you say Frank Miles is eliminated as a suspect, but I don't think he is any more eliminated than Thomas Neill Cream, is he? Sure incarceration is a pretty good point for elimination but there are still some who will contend that for some reason their man could have been on the loose at the right time.

Chris

[Stan Russo]

Chris,

Your first paragraph states that you, like many, believe that 'JTR' existed. That sums up your entire first paragraph. By saying that 'JTR' could have either been a named suspect or an unnamed suspect, you are basically hedging your bets. In an unsolved murder investigation, the bet hedger never gets anywhere but is also never wrong because they make the stand of 'someone did it'.

Your second paragraph is where the 'LM' argument fails. Since there are more 'unknown local men' than any one suspect, you believe it is a better proposition to advocate 'unknown local man' than any particular suspect. Since there are possibly tens of thousands of 'unknown local men' and only one of any particular suspect, you believe that it is better to advocate 'unknown local man/men' because there is a better probability of being right, yet you also advocate that it could be one of the named suspects, just in case, to once again, hedge your bets.

However, since there can only be one man who was 'JTR', if the 'unknown local man' theory is correct, you disregard that fact when embracing what you, and many others, believe is a more statistically probable construct to embrace, while also saying it could be a named suspects, which is code for it could be anyone, even though you don't have a favorite.

Your third paragraph is bizarre. It is also indicative of why I think you endorse the 'unknown local man' theory. You are correct in saying that Frank Miles is no more an eliminated suspect that Dr. Thomas Neill Cream. You are correct because Dr. Thomas Neill Cream, exactly like Frank Miles, is no longer a suspect, due to the fact that he, like Frank Miles, has been fully exonerated as a suspect. I know the Donald Bell theory of how Dr. Cream escaped from an Illinois jail, traveled to London, killed 5 women and then returned to jail without anyone knowing he was gone, but there is one reason why people believe Dr. Cream is still a suspect and it is because they do not understand how an unsolved criminal investigation works.

Most researchers have been disillusioned with the complexities of the case at one point or another, but its how they fight through those tough times that determines their prowess. On another note, I will ask you for one solitary shred of evidence that lends credence to the 'unknown local man' theory?

[jmenges]

whereas there were thousands in the East End who might have qualified as the unknown local man. So the odds improve considerably if there were in fact a number of unbalanced individuals in the fall of 1888 whom we don't know about and who could have been the killer.

Still, proponents of the "unknown local man" theory reject those named who seemingly fit most of the criteria of what they should be looking for in their suspect. One type of LM (as the specifics of LM can conveniently vary from one proponent to the next) and qualities that the police as much as I can gather believed were probably traits of the killer, were that he was a single man, possibly with some medical training, probably an immigrant, living alone (or with some degree of privacy) who lived very near the crime scenes.

Mention Severin Klosowski, who fits exactly all of the above criteria, and you get hammered about the change in MO when he became a poisoner. So it leaves some of us wondering: What more to the ULM supporters want? Someone who is almost just exactly like Klosowski but...not quite? They seek a degree of certainty that is seemingly impossible to attain. And while that is noble (we want the guilty man, after all) it is also one reason why IMO they are accused of absenteeism or laziness and complacency bordering on boredom when the discussion turns to who exactly killed these women.

JM

[Mr. Poster]

Ooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhh..

well said from JMenges.

Well said indeed...........................

p

[Chris G.]

Hello Stan

Let's take your answer to me bit by bit.


Chris,

Your first paragraph states that you, like many, believe that 'JTR' existed. That sums up your entire first paragraph. By saying that 'JTR' could have either been a named suspect or an unnamed suspect, you are basically hedging your bets. In an unsolved murder investigation, the bet hedger never gets anywhere but is also never wrong because they make the stand of 'someone did it'.


Didn't the Whitechapel murders happen? Therefore didn't someone commit them?


Your second paragraph is where the 'LM' argument fails. Since there are more 'unknown local men' than any one suspect, you believe it is a better proposition to advocate 'unknown local man' than any particular suspect. Since there are possibly tens of thousands of 'unknown local men' and only one of any particular suspect, you believe that it is better to advocate 'unknown local man/men' because there is a better probability of being right, yet you also advocate that it could be one of the named suspects, just in case, to once again, hedge your bets.


Stan, I did not say that "unknown local man" is a better prospect than a named suspect. All I am suggesting is that it is another option. What I did say is that mathematically "unknown local man" is a better prospect than a suspect such as Lewis Carroll who is only one man.


However, since there can only be one man who was 'JTR', if the 'unknown local man' theory is correct, you disregard that fact when embracing what you, and many others, believe is a more statistically probable construct to embrace, while also saying it could be a named suspects, which is code for it could be anyone, even though you don't have a favorite.


Stan, I actually don't know if "Jack the Ripper" was one man. I suspect he was, but this is one of the things that is unknowable about the case. It might have been one murderer but it might have been several, either working together or separately. I think you should stop putting words in my mouth.


Your third paragraph is bizarre. It is also indicative of why I think you endorse the 'unknown local man' theory. You are correct in saying that Frank Miles is no more an eliminated suspect that Dr. Thomas Neill Cream. You are correct because Dr. Thomas Neill Cream, exactly like Frank Miles, is no longer a suspect, due to the fact that he, like Frank Miles, has been fully exonerated as a suspect. I know the Donald Bell theory of how Dr. Cream escaped from an Illinois jail, traveled to London, killed 5 women and then returned to jail without anyone knowing he was gone, but there is one reason why people believe Dr. Cream is still a suspect and it is because they do not understand how an unsolved criminal investigation works.


Once again I don't particularly endorse the "unknown local man" theory. All I am saying is that it must remain an option. I am not promoting Miles or Cream as a suspect either. All I am doing is saying there are still people who hold out for them as possibilities, despite the odds. And I agree that is bizarre, not what I am saying.


Most researchers have been disillusioned with the complexities of the case at one point or another, but its how they fight through those tough times that determines their prowess. On another note, I will ask you for one solitary shred of evidence that lends credence to the 'unknown local man' theory?



The evidence is, Stan, that the present suspects are very poor and yet there must have been someone who committed the murders. Who was it? Was he an unknown man? Perhaps so. We are talking about logic here, Stan, not evidence, and that seems to me what you have a problem with. Sorry to be so blunt. I don't mean to be confrontational. I wish the dialogue to continue. Over to you, Stan.

All the best

Chris

[Celesta]

Hi Stan,

It's the attitude that JTR's identity will never be known, so we might as well throw up our hands, go home, and concentrate on the particulars of the case, rather than the man himself, that is worrying you. Do I understand correctly? Saying JTR was an unknown local man, anonymous in a crowd of anonymous people, and, therefore, there's no point in trying to tie his identity down, because the odds are against us? For someone actively researching the case, that would be a frustrating attitude to deal with, in regards to peer review. Fortunately, from what I've seen, most people are, at least, open to looking at any new evidence that comes up. If I were in London, or the UK, researching, and I turned up what appeared to be evidence, I'd appreciate a fair assessment of my info and not a flat dismissal of it, from some who are adamant that the killer's identity can never be established. Such flat dismissals aren't productive and could squelch important information. Do I understand correctly? If I do, then I appreciate the frustration that this would cause a researcher. How foolish our generation would look, if someone turned up evidence pointing to the killer, and it was dismissed due to a preconceived notion of who he could or could not have been, only to have the next generation prove us wrong. (Sorry this is so wordy!)

Let me add that I have nothing against the LM approach to the case. That's not the point. I'm have no problem with those who feel that we will never know JTR's identity. They may be right. What I refer to here is the attitude that there's no point in looking. Even if I thought there wasn't, I would want to see new evidence, and I believe that the majority of people also want to, no matter what they think about JTR ever being identified.


Best,

Celesta

[Stan Russo]

Celesta,

I agree - the attitude that the case is too hard so let's move on to something else, upsets me. It upsets me because people who endorse that attitude never openly endorse it, because that would require integrity. While that attitude is covertly endorsed, these people feel that they are above reproach for this attitude, which is utter bullshit.

It is the attitude, which does nothing for the progress of the case, that upsets me, as it seems to upset many. Now onto Chris G. (who is not one of these people).

:boxing:

Chris,

Of course someone did it. However, endorsing a suspect or a theory is extremely different than endorsing the idea that someone must have done it so it could have been anyone. There is a huge difference between working toward a better understanding of the case, suspect oriented or not and resting on one's laurel's. Anyone can believe in whomever they want, yet that comes with opinion and consequences.

Mathematically, 'unknown local man' is not a better suspect than Lewis Carroll for the specific reason that 'unknown local man' is not a suspect, it is a construct that is specifically designed to include an infinite number of men because of a lack of faith in the previously named suspects. The infinite number of men who could be or are 'unknown local man' does outweigh any singular suspect, from a theoretically mathematical standpoint, but not from a realistic standpoint. In reality, 'unknown local man', if he was 'JTR',is only one person, yet the construct includes an infinite number of possibles, therefore it is a "SAFE" choice.

Simply because people still choose to include Frank Miles and Dr. Cream as suspects, does not mean that rational researchers should follow suit. When there is a suspect, who has been exonerated, yet still has researchers who endorse their candidacy, despite not presenting evidence to challenge the previous exoneration, it is time to dismiss them as credible researchers.

I think you are mistaken about the concept of a poor suspect, if I can be so bold to state. There are a lot of suspects with little or zero evidence against them. One could call them a 'poor suspect', yet in a heartbeat, if someone came up with a seriously credible theory and evidence for that suspect, they would them become not a 'poor suspect'. Therefore, a 'poor suspect' is nothing more than a suspect that has not had proper theory and evidence proposed for their candidacy. Also, prior to the naming of Lewis Carroll, he was, in a theoretical sense, 'unknown local man', because he is included in the construct of the unnamed possibility.

Anyone can endorse anyone they choose. If they sit back and simply advocate a construct I can comment on it. You can challenge my logic, but I believe that since you are not one of the people who acts in this manner, you do not fully understand the nature of seriously advocating 'unknown local man' versus accepting the possibility, which is what we both do.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho

Stan again seems to put his finger on a problem which some (and Im not pointing at any one in particular...just generic "some') have difficulty acceoting possibly.

LM is most often not touted as a suspect by an individual because he is a good suspect but because (bullet point alert):

1. No work is necessary to support the opinion,

2. It places some distance between the touter and the (quite recent) perceived folly of named suspects,

3. It allows the touter to hack at any other theory secure in the knowledge that they can retreat to the unassailable bunker of LM,

4. JtR as a subject IS suspect orientated. If everyone thought it was an UNknown Never To Be Found man....Ripperology would not exist as we know it and it would be a technical discussion of cuts and organs and technique which we all full well know......it isnt. All work on the matter is focussed towards, ultimately, some suspect. Touting a never to be found LM is wanting to be in the game without playing by the "rules" so to speak. In so far as the game is suspect orientated discussion.

Actually point number 4 is a bit contentious. Is Ripperology suspect focussed or something greater? If its not suspect orientated then it isnt really ripperology and is physics, medicine or whatever......perhaps shoud start a thread on that.

p

[Sam Flynn]

LM is most often not touted as a suspect by an individual because he is a good suspect but because (bullet point alert):

1. No work is necessary to support the opinion.True enough, but not in every case, MrP. Some at least put some work and thought into why they've concluded that the "Known Men" are unlikely suspects and/or total red herrings.

There may be some who simply assert "It's an unknown local man" without having expended much effort at all, but (again) such groundless conclusions aren't peculiar to the "LM" brigade. Indeed, it seems far more common that we see baseless pronouncements, or conjecture masquerading as fact, when a writer has a suspect in mind.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho SamF

There may be some who simply assert "It's an unknown local man" without having expended much effort at all, but (again) such groundless conclusions aren't peculiar to the "LM" brigade. Indeed, it seems far more common that we see baseless pronouncements, or conjecture masquerading as fact, when a writer has a suspect in mind.

True, true......... but in the arena of groundless assertions by folk other than LM'ers....they are usually called to task and asked to bacjk up their groundless assertions.

LM'ers can make groundless assertions safe in the knowledge that they CANNOT be called to back them up. Thats the difference.

LM'ers are in the lucky and attractive position of being able to groundlessly assert as to their candidate (or lack of one) and can not be placed in the position of people willing to stand up and name someone. Its a handy thing!

have an example of two groundless assertions and spot the difference:


1. Person 1. "I think Chapman was the Ripper".
Person 2. "What about his MO?"
Person 1. "There is plenty of evidence that kilelrs change MO"
Person 2. "No there isnt" ad nauseum and with bitterness.

2. Person 1. "I think an unknown local man did it"
Person 2. "Why so?"
Person 1. "Because I do. So there".

p

[How Brown]

Stan and Lars put up a great argument for their cause,I think. I for one am really happy to see their positions put up so demonstratively.

On the other hand, a sentiment does exist within the community at large...and this is not in reference to "fly by nights", who are also valuable in their way...but among longtime scholars and aficianados .... that none of the suspects proposed as JTR are that suspicious. I'll start up a thread based on Lars' comments about "What IS Ripperology,if not Suspect-Based?"

[Mr. Poster]

Mother of God How Brown!

that none of the suspects proposed as JTR are that suspicious.

I object most strongly! If a known killer of women, in the area, who matches descriptions of witnesses, with a known problem with women, whom some police that a good candidate and who had a sailors hat....is not suspicious....then I do not know what to say!

You could say that my gast is well and truly flabbered.

p

[How Brown]

Lars:

I have a tendency to flabber many a gast,my brother !

I'll set up a thread especially for you and anyone else who wants to debate what is "suspicious" about these suspects right away.

How

[Stan Russo]

How,

As I stated earlier, I believe the term 'poor suspect' is erroneously used. Druitt was never a 'poor suspect' until information was discovered that made him a 'poorer suspect'. Just as status from suspect to 'poorer suspect' happens, so can suspect to 'prime suspect'. Because of accepting only the negative in that equation, 'unknown local man' moved from construct to endorsed theory.

And its time for me to pass some 'props' on to a poster - Mr. P is 100% correct in the fact that a theory that requires no effort is not a valuable one.

[Doctor X]

I think there is a lot of merit in both approaches.

"LM" can stand for a healthy skepticism of pat--heh! heh!--theories which are more cherrypicked than defended. On the other hand, to just slam the door shut on a suspect because "we know he is UNKNOWN!" and/or to prejudice the seeking of suspects is as closed-minded as picking a suspect and refusing to analyze him critically.

One other thing the "LM" recognizes is Jack simply may not have attracted attention as most of the suspects did in one way or the other--attracted enough attention to be remembered this long.

I will state that "LM" is a better suspect than a Lewis Carroll, since Carroll has a number of negatives.

--J.D.

[Sam Flynn]

Carroll has a number of negatives.Is "Ave Satani" (opening chorus from The Omen) a negative carroll?

[Doctor X]

Is "Ave Satani" (opening chorus from The Omen) a negative carroll?

Just an obstacle. . . .

--J.D.

[Stan Russo]

Doctor X,

What is the biggest factual negative against Lewis Carroll?

Please note two things;

a) Not believing is astrology is not a FACTUAL negative.

b) Believing in astrology is not a FACTUAL negative.

[Doctor X]

What is the biggest factual negative against Lewis Carroll?

I do not believe they quantify on a scale.

Please note two things;

a) Not believing is astrology is not a FACTUAL negative.

b) Believing in astrology is not a FACTUAL negative.

Ipse dixit and incorrect in the second, yet non sequitur none-the-less.

Please note two things:

a) Water is FACTUALLY wet.

b) The MFYs FACTUALLY suck.

In the rain.

--J.D.

[Stan Russo]

Doctor X,

If they do not quantify on a scale, then why not list your favorite FACTUAL negative.

Please note that my two criteria was not meant for you to mock, although it does show the tome of how you take this unsolved series of murders, but rather to illistrate that personal beliefs regarding the murders do not factually qualify as a suspect's negative candidacy.

[Doctor X]

If they do not quantify on a scale, then why not list your favorite FACTUAL negative.

I am unaware where I stated "FACTUAL negative."

Please note that my two criteria was not meant for you to mock, although it does show the tome [?--Ed.] of how you take this unsolved series of murders, . . .

Since a non sequitur does not I am unsure your point.

. . . but rather to illistrate that personal beliefs regarding the murders do not factually qualify as a suspect's negative candidacy.

Argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam since I am unaware where someone has argued they have.

Now, why not dispense with the maneuvering and get to the point.

--J.D.

[Stan Russo]

I am applauding myself because it only took me three posts by Doctor X to realize any conversation with him is an enormous watse of time.

You know what they say - ask a direct question and you get excessive douchebaggery in return.

[Doctor X]

Sorry logic and discussion makes Stan Russo cry. Certainly does not like being forced to come to an actual point rather than just troll for offense.

Nevertheless, it only took one for me to reach this conclusion with him. His temper-tantrum over the Ninja joke proved most revealing.

Now this.

Such . . . pathos!

Someone will inform me, I am sure, if he should further the discussion in a manner that does not involve his emotional incontinence and ego.

Miracles, they say, happen. . . .

--J.D.

[Stan Russo]

Seriously man - I asked you a real simple question - provide the biggest factual negative against Lewis Carroll. I even provided you with a criteria. Instead, you played foofy word games, inserted silly phrases and did everything in your power to avoid answering the question.

Then, I re-did the question to suit your sidestep, in another attempt to dialogue about a comment you made that has every right to be challenged, yet in your mind needs to be as far from challenge as possible. What followed was spelling correction and more wordplay, of course, in another effort to avoid having to answer the question.

At that point, I gave up, because I fully understood that, like many, you feel you can say anything you want, because it is how you feel, and you do not have the right to be challenged on it. You do noty answer challenges on it probably because you feel that you are above having your comments challenged or that you have no answer for the question. I believe it is a little of both.

Then, I call you out on it and you state that I am crying. This is the beautiful thing about the internet, for you, because in an actual debate you could not get away with this kind of behavior, because you would be laughed off the stage or whatever area was used for the debate.

As far as logic goes, I think anyone following this is still awaiting your answer of what the factual negatives against Lewis Carroll are, if any. I, for one, know that you will never supply a factual negative against Lewis Carroll, most likely due to the fact that you probably have no idea what the theory is suggesting He was the murderer or what the issues are with that theory. My opinion is that most people think he's an awful suspect, which is good enough for you. Don't feel bad - you are far from unique in this field.

[jmenges]

Hi Stan,

In order to not have this interesting thread derailed by pointless BS...

If I could be allowed to address Richard Wallace's theory that Carroll was the Ripper.

I believe it has a number of holes. All of the evidence Wallace comes up with to support his theory is ineffective, and some may say therefore negates his theory.

For instance, claiming that clues to the Ripper crimes can be found in the poem Jabberwocky, written in 1872, is mightily far-fetched. Also giving Carroll the foresight to know in 1874 what his victims would be carrying in their pockets 14 years later, and write about it in 'The Hunting of the Snark' is ridiculous.

That being said, the evidence against Carroll equals the evidence against an Unknown Local Man, none, since there is no valuable evidece presented in either case.

Factual Negatives? Such as an alibi? There are none. Only that the current and only theory about Carroll's involvement is based upon ludicrous anagrams and inventive subliminal readings of his decade old texts.

JM

[Stan Russo]

Jon,

I agree with you that Lewis Carroll is an awful suspect. I also agree with you that the theory behind Lewis Carroll's suspect candidacy is on par with the 'unknown local man' theory, in that they both are awful.

I also agree with you that there are numerous discrepencies in Wallace's theory proposing Lewis Carroll, some of which you have mentioned. As far as suspects go, Lewis Carroll is definately at the bottom of the list in terms of value, however, I still believe he is above a construct such as 'unknown local man'. Lewis Carroll is also above other constructs such as 'unknown woman hater', 'unknown sadist' and 'unknown psychopath'.

The FACTUAL negative query was done specifically to refute a statement that the person who delivered it felt he never needed to qualify, for whatever reasons anyone sees fit to believe. When challenged on it, that point was definitively proven. To state that 'LM' is a better suspect than Lewis Carroll is to not understand what one is saying about the case, so the idea of qualifying statements ceases to exist, which is where we get cute wordplay and spelling corrections as answers.

Now, you were at least kind enough to offer an answer. I think we both know that I do not believe in the guilt of Lewis Carroll, but was using this to make a point that simply because people have a preconceived notion of what 'JTR' was or 'JTR' had to be, does not necessarily mean they are correct.

I do think that statements need to be qualified and it is becoming more and more common for people to make statements without feeling they need to qualify them. This, in my opinion, is what fuels the general opinion outside of the message boards that we are all kooks who say anything we want, because a growing majority of the people do.

[Sam Flynn]

As far as suspects go, Lewis Carroll is definately at the bottom of the list in terms of value, however, I still believe he is above a construct such as 'unknown local man'.Not sure how that stacks up, Stan. For example, imagine you're back in the mid 19th Century and compare the following two statements:

1. It is likely that a vaccine will one day be found that will stop you contracting tuberculosis;

2. Sleeping with a bunch of dried parsley under your pillow will stop you contracting tuberculosis.

The former is the sort of prediction that might legitimately have been made, based on the knowledge and science of the time.

The latter is the sort of traditional folk-cure that might have been widely accepted amongst the general populace, including the well-educated, yet which with hindsight could be shown to have been hopelessly misguided.

Here, then, we have an "unknown" based on an informed projection, which is demonstrably more valuable than a "known" which might once have been believed, but which subsequent research has shown wanting.

Ergo, "unknowns" can be more powerful than "knowns", and often prove to be. The power comes from the fact that, whereas statements of type (1) prompt further investigation, statements of type (2) are closed loops which, unless they happen to be true, almost inevitably place unwarranted limitations on progress.

[Doctor X]

I believe it has a number of holes. All of the evidence Wallace comes up with to support his theory is ineffective, and some may say therefore negates his theory.

Indeed. Furthermore, it fails to account for the lack of evidence extant in what is known about Carroll.

That being said, the evidence against Carroll equals the evidence against an Unknown Local Man, none, since there is no valuable evidece presented in either case.

I would disagree with that. There is evidence that Jack was local. I am not claiming it proves he was "local"--"Are you local?" I am not claiming that it should be the default assumption. Nor, as I thought I made clear, should one throw in the face of anyone who investigates a lead or idea "LOCAL MAN!!" as if that ends the discussion.

For all we know . . . he could have come from Royston Vesey. . . .

--J.D.

[Pilgrim]

If killer 'Jack the Ripper' equals killer 'Tuberculosis', how would the search for a vaccine compare ? The hypothesis 'Unknown local man' may seem to imply that it ought preferably to be pursued within a closed circuit. The search for a tuberculosis vaccine did, in a sense, find place within a rather too "local area" at first, and unsuccessfully. The German scientist Robert Koch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Koch) (1843-1910) discovered and described the tuberculosis bacterium in 1882 already. And he was aware that there was a bovine variety, but he did not find it believable that it could be similar to human tuberculosis, which delayed the recognition of infected milk as a source of infection. As it turned out, the vaccine was found by venturing beyond the circuit of the human body. It seems quite likely, I would say, that the idea may have originated from "folklore", more than a 100 years earlier.

~~~

Benjamin Jesty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Jesty) (1736-1836) was a farmer at Yetminster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yetminster) in Dorset. He is one of the six English and German people recorded to have vaccinated with cowpox in order to artificially induce immunity to smallpox in the years 1770 till 1791. Unlike Edward Jenner (1749-1823), who used the cowpox vaccine as an immunization in 1796, Jesty was not in a position to publicise the procedure, which he carried out on his wife (Elizabeth Jesty) and first two children in the face of a smallpox epidemic in 1774.

Edward Jenner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Jenner) (1749–1823) is famous as the first doctor to introduce and study the smallpox vaccine. Jenner first did his vaccination on an 8 year old boy named James Phipps. He took pus from a cowpox pustule and inserted it into an incision on the boy's arm. He was testing his theory, drawn from the folklore of the countryside, that milkmaids who suffered the mild disease of cowpox never contracted smallpox - one of the greatest killers of the period, particularly amongst children. Jenner subsequently proved that having been inoculated with cowpox Phipps was immune to smallpox. In 1797 he showed his papers to the Royal Society, but they said it was too revolutionary and needed more proof. Edward Jenner did not give up, he tested on many more children, including his own 11-month-old son. In the end, his papers were accepted and his vaccination process was approved. He also founded the smallpox vaccine.

In 1897, Camille Guerin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camille_Guerin) (1872-1961), an immunologist and veterinarian, joined the Pasteur Institute in Lille and started to work with its director, French physician, bacteriologist and immunologist Albert Calmette (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Calmette) (1863-1933). Guerin started as a technician in charge of preparing Calmette's serum (antivenom against snake bites) and the vaccine against smallpox. In 1906 he had established that immunity against tuberculosis was associated with the living tubercle bacilli in the blood. Calmette investigated how immunity would develop in response to attenuated bovine bacilli injected in animals. This preparation received the name of its two discoverers - Bacillum Calmette-Guérin, or BCG, for short. The BCG vaccine was first used on humans in 1921 in France, but it wasn't until after World War II that BCG received widespread acceptance in the USA, Great Britain, and Germany.

~~~

[Doctor X]

If killer 'Jack the Ripper' equals killer 'Tuberculosis', how would the search for a vaccine compare ? The hypothesis 'Unknown local man' may seem to imply that it ought preferably to be pursued within a closed circuit.

Clarification: you mean that "ULM" means "closed circuit" as in how one defines "local"--Whitechapel area, for example?

--J.D.

[Pilgrim]

Yes, that is what I meant.

[Stan Russo]

Sam,

It is an interesting analogy - I will give you that. However,I think you have it totally backwards.

Sleeping with the dried parsley is the equivalent of doing nothing and hoping, which is much more similar to the 'ULM' theory and those who advocate it.

The search for the cure does not need to be gated around the science that is already known (named suspects), but it does not discard all the known science prior to the discovery.

For the umpteenth time, I believe that a search for the murderer within the ranks of the currently unknown is valid, yet the act of discarding the known suspects in favor of a 'mythic unknown' while simultaneously revelling in one's own perpetual stagnancy is fine, yet has no place within the ranks of an unsolved murder investigation.

I know that some people are on the message boards to make friends or swap recipes or whatever - that's fine, but that has its own place. If someone of that ilk wants to put their two cents in, they can, but I have the right to challenge their usually unqualified comments.

[Doctor X]

. . . and for those who post to gratify their ego, who willfully misinterpret and misrepresent the posts of others, and then try to get on their self-righteous high-hobby-horse: http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/images/smilies/_plonk__by_Link3Kokiri.gif.

--J.D.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho

The ULM is easily shown to be a nonsense.

ULM as a potential suspect obviously has the potential to become KLM if someone identifies a local suspect.

Once that is done, through the work of AP and others most likely, then ULM'ers will start picking holes in that suspect and persist in claiming it was ULM. Its demonstrable, daily and in a variety of guises, that ULM'ers will NEVER progress. They do not want to and the only reason they adhere to the ULM stuff is that it lets them conduct themselves in such a manner without ever having to defend it.

ULM'ers will never progress to an identified suspect. They never have. They are not going to. Why would they?

Can anyone point to a couple of people who faithfully adhered to ULM and now are willing to accept an identified suspect as a better candidate?

They are few and far between if they exists at all.

As for SamF's vaccine analogy.....its all very well and good but he is forgetting that the ULM'ers would decry each and every prototype vaccine as it came along with the statement that this one cannot be the right one and it must be one of the yet undiscovered ones. Which if course means that its never going to be discovered because it will always have to be the yet undiscovered one.

They will sit there and point out the flaws in each successive vaccine all the while maintaining that it is yet to be discovered and may, in fact, most likely never be discovered at all.

Is it any wonder Pasteur would have gotten a bit miffed and these chaps sitting in his lab, drinking his coffee, reading his newspaper, and all the while saying "Nope, you havent managed it yet, you probably never will".

p

[Doctor X]

Hi ho

The ULM is easily shown to be a nonsense.

Okay. . . .

ULM as a potential suspect obviously has the potential to become KLM if someone identifies a local suspect.

Once that is done, through the work of AP and others most likely, then ULM'ers will start picking holes in that suspect and persist in claiming it was ULM.

As stated above . . . or is it below . . . if one SIMPLY attacks a suspect proposed BECAUSE one has started with the PRECONCEIVED [No shouting!--Ed.] notion that Jack must be "unknown," then one is not doing research anymore than the person who must believe it is "Bob" and cherry picks the data to support "Bob."

Meanwhile, if one IS able to show that a proposed "Local Suspect" has "holes" one has merely shown why that suspect fails and the identity of Jack remains . . . well . . . unknown.

Thus:

Its demonstrable, daily and in a variety of guises, that ULM'ers will NEVER progress. They do not want to and the only reason they adhere to the ULM stuff is that it lets them conduct themselves in such a manner without ever having to defend it.

Methinks you are waving about a few strawmen. Perhaps there are some act that in that fashion as do those who are tied to a particular suspect. As above and below, such are not involved in research but activism, and need not concern us.

Can anyone point to a couple of people who faithfully adhered to ULM and now are willing to accept an identified suspect as a better candidate?

Show the evidence for a "better candidate."

They will sit there and point out the flaws in each successive vaccine all the while maintaining that it is yet to be discovered and may, in fact, most likely never be discovered at all.

Lost you there--vaccines rather prove effective based on the evidence. Or they do not. Again, it all has to do with the evidence.

--J.D.

[Mr. Poster]

HI ho DrX

As stated above . . . or is it below . . . if one SIMPLY attacks a suspect proposed BECAUSE one has started with the PRECONCEIVED [No shouting!--Ed.] notion that Jack must be "unknown," then one is not doing research anymore than the person who must believe it is "Bob" and cherry picks the data to support "Bob."

Absolutely. Of course the man who picks Bob for whatever reason is subject to defending his picking of Bob. If he manages that well, he has probably worked on the matter. If he doesnt he is subject to the ridicule and slagging he richly deserves.

The ifference is that Bobs supporter has to defend his choice. The ULM'er ....doesnt.


Methinks you are waving about a few strawmen. Perhaps there are some act that in that fashion as do those who are tied to a particular suspect. As above and below, such are not involved in research but activism, and need not concern us.

Methinks you are defending ULM'ers not because you have worked hard to put yourself in a philosophically sound position but rather because you are, demonstrably, someone with little to contribute to this debate or any other and less claim to being anything other than a troll?

They do concern us. Otherwise this thread would not have gotten beyond Post #1.


Show the evidence for a "better candidate."

Any candidate at all with one thing against him or for his inclusion as suspect, be that something so general as his having been in a mental hospital or disliking women is a better candidate than some ULM with nothing whatsoever against him apart from his perpetual anonymity. Being named a suspect for one reason alone, however slight that reason, however tenuous the connection, makes that suspect a better candidate than an ULM against whom nothing is proferred, for whom no evidence is provided, for whom no arguments can be put forward and who solely exists as an unassailable bastion for the terminally lazy.


Lost you there--vaccines rather prove effective based on the evidence. Or they do not. Again, it all has to do with the evidence.

Wrong again. No vaccine is 100% effective. It kills some, doesnt work for others, produces odd reactions in others.

Those are the bits that ULM will constantly spend his time poking at, all the while doing no work of his own and bleating about how the case will never be solved solely to justify his presence.

Of course judging by your posting record on this site and others......you are probably a ULM'er yuorself. Contributing nothing apart from an occassional foray into threads to try and start a row or get a recipe for rice pudding or to constantly tweak your avatar or whatever.

Your posts display no evidence of reasoning, you never display any knowledge of any aspect of anything remotely related to the over arching topic of this (and other) websites, your debating ability is shallow at best, you are bereft of the humour/wit/bad manners which would make your presence amusing if not useful, you contribute nothing and you demonstrate nothing bar an extraordinary lack of grasp of both logic and reason.

p

[Doctor X]

The ifference is that Bobs supporter has to defend his choice. The ULM'er ....doesnt.

On the contrary, the "ULM" had to defend against any suspect as well as the UNLM.

Methinks you are defending ULM'ers not because you have worked hard to put yourself in a philosophically. . . .

Methinks you should not attempt to read your biases into the posts of others.

. . . someone with little to contribute to this debate or any other and less claim to being anything other than a troll?

Sorry that correcting your strawmen, demonstrating where emotion rather than logic governed your sweeping generalizations, and, now, your temper-tantrum makes you cry.

This pretty much deals with the rest of your fallacious tantrum.

Come back when someone replaces the toys in your pram.

--J.D.

[Mr. Poster]

Hmmm....

Not only does Dr X display a stunning lack of debating skills but he resorts to a very limited skill set when it comes to arguing with people too.

First our non-contributory cretin uses this with StanR: http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=4647&page=2

Sorry logic and discussion makes Stan Russo cry. Certainly does not like being forced to come to an actual point rather than just troll for offense.Nevertheless, His temper-tantrum over the Ninja joke proved most revealing.

Then he uses this with me:

demonstrating where emotion rather than logic governed your sweeping generalizations, and, now, your temper-tantrum makes you cry.

Now I can tolerate most things.....morons, poor debaters, misguided people, midgets, "profilers", "psychics", Spainish lunatics, GH-as-suspect'ers...but what is really hard to tolerate is some berk who hasnt even what it takes to try and start an argument with two people on the same thread in the same week and have to resort to the same, pretty lame, insults.

So bankrupt for ideas and clumsy in the delivery of his extremely limited repertoire that he resorts to the same insult for want of anything better to say.

Its a sad day. When the trolls cant even troll properly.

Needless to say....I will not be engaging our trolling friend any more.

AS boring it would be when he reaches three posts and has to rehash what he said in the first. Which was of little consequence and less interest in the first place.

We really should try and import a higher quality idiot than the brand we are using.

Which seems to have come free at the bottom of a box of sugar laced, turd coloured, breakfasty goodness.

p

[Doctor X]

Not only does Dr X display a stunning lack of debating skills. . . .

Stunning ability to demonstrate where you have purposely wielded strawmen, ignored what posters actually wrote, and then had a tantrum over it.

Now I can tolerate most things.....morons, poor debaters, misguided people, midgets, "profilers", "psychics", Spainish lunatics, GH-as-suspect'ers...

Perhaps the problem is the company you keep?

Maybe a better mouthwash?

but what is really hard to tolerate is some berk who hasnt even what it takes to try and start an argument. . . .

Have you sought help for your malignant self-loathing?

So bankrupt for ideas and clumsy in the delivery of his extremely limited repertoire that he resorts to the same insult for want of anything better to say.

Do not judge others by your own standards.

Nevertheless, he is the one to descend to trite argumenta ad hominem and tantrum.

Not really sorry to make him cry.

Needless to say....I will not be engaging our trolling friend any more.

Do not let the door hit you in your nethers.

Typical of the self-absorbed weak of wit, this accused anyone who is better than him of being a "troll"--argumentum ad piscatorem. Novel fallacy, yes, but weak and pathetic nonetheless.

He whines a lot for some time.

Rest assur'd I will continue to tear apart his Men of Straw, his hasty generalizations, his eisegesis, his halitosis.

And when he throws his toys from his pram, I will gleefully laugh at him.

Babies are funny indeed.

Absent, though, is any evidence from him. He attacks his Men of Straw who--he claims--will only believe in the "Unknown Local Man" . . . but . . . he . . . can . . . provide no examples. No one HERE, in this thread, has actually argued as he has accused.

Funny that.

He would know that if he could read objectively rather than read his passions into the thread. I gather he had his hindquarters ravaged by a better thinker--not shocking--when he trotted out some suspect he did not really bother to do his homework on.

So now he is mad.

To quote the ronin: "Can't help fools!"

--J.D.

[Big Jon]

We really should try and import a higher quality idiot than the brand we are using.

Which seems to have come free at the bottom of a box of sugar laced, turd coloured, breakfasty goodness.



ACME presents the new and improved cretin. The idiot for the internet age. Now with 100% less braincells - guaranteed annoyance or your money back!

[Doctor X]

ACME presents the new and improved cretin. The idiot for the internet age. Now with 100% less braincells - guaranteed annoyance or your money back!

Will he have the same maledictory ineloquence as this "Mr. Poster?"

Nothing makes a tantrum like poo flinging.

--J.D.

[jmenges]

Any candidate at all with one thing against him or for his inclusion as suspect, be that something so general as his having been in a mental hospital or disliking women is a better candidate than some ULM with nothing whatsoever against him apart from his perpetual anonymity. Being named a suspect for one reason alone, however slight that reason, however tenuous the connection, makes that suspect a better candidate than an ULM against whom nothing is proferred, for whom no evidence is provided, for whom no arguments can be put forward and who solely exists as an unassailable bastion for the terminally lazy.

As far as suspects go, Lewis Carroll is definately at the bottom of the list in terms of value, however, I still believe he is above a construct such as 'unknown local man'.

Right. And that brings me back to Lewis Carroll vs. ULM. Carroll supposedly changed the ink in his diary only on days that a Whitechapel murder occurred. If true, this would be the only thing slightly odd about Carroll as it relates to the murders, and illustrative of something that we have on Carroll (an odd diary habit) that we don't have against an ULM. So, as Stan says, he rises above.

JM

[Stan Russo]

Mr. P,

It is a useless attempt to show some people what they are, because they are afraid to learn what they truly are. Life is easier to them that way.

It reminds me of the classic comment about winning a race at the Special Olympics. Sure you're a winner, but you're still retarded. There are people who don't want to contribute but still want to be a part of the discussion, for whatever reason (I think we both understand why). These people cannot be reasoned and this is the single greatest reason why the message boards should be segregated and perhaps the greatest reason why they never will be.

Sam F, Chris G. and many others like them are earnest in their research. I have never questioned that. As a result of that fact people can discuss their positions and have an honest debate. When someone steals a majority position and sits back to shout it from the rafters, while not having the mental capacity or even research background to back it up, the progress of the case, however minute that may be, suffers for it. The trick is that they do not care. It is the equivalent of me arguing over on the Betty Crocker recipe message boards - I don't bake cupcakes and I don't care if they ever find the best cupcake recipe, so I can pretty much say whatever I want and halt the progress of those attempting to do so.

The two of us can have an honest debate on the merits of your suspect or the merits of my suspects, but with some people, there can be no debate because, as I stated earlier, there is no qualification basis for their comments and as such, they sidestep at every turn, substituting what they believe is humor for real answers. The truth is that we do not deserve an answer to our questions and we dare not ask them any questions. They are free to say whatever they choose. It is why they are who they are and why no one, other than their own group, takes them seriously.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho Folk

I am ashamed to admit that I havent been followiing JMenges reasoning on LC vers. ULM for the simple reason that asided from him having an apparent liking for waifs in flimsy dresses...I know feck all about LC and his candidacy.

BUt wallowing in that ignorance he is a better probable suspect than ULM on the basis that someone has made a case against him.

NO matter how tenouos the thread between LC and dead prostitutes it is better than the thread between dead prostitutes and ....... . And therein is the problem. There is nothing. No suspect, no case, no intention of having a case, no prospect of a case, no interest in having a case.

Even if some poor sod who was an ULM becomes KLM through the drink fuelled fevers of AP...the ULM concept just adjusts itself, denigrates the former ULM and continues to promote some unknown in a blaze or self satisfactory ignorance, laziness and desire to "fit in".

Now however I have to wade back through some nonsense posts to read JMenges LC inputs. And that is unfortunate. The wading. Not the reading.

p

[Sam Flynn]

Even if some poor sod who was an ULM becomes KLM ...the ULM concept just adjusts itself, denigrates the former ULM and continues to promote some unknown in a blaze or self satisfactory ignorance, laziness and desire to "fit in".Not if, by some miracle, a "KLM" is found for whom a good case may be made.

[Doctor X]

Not if, by some miracle, a "KLM" is found for whom a good case may be made.

Exactly.

But you are ruining his conspiracy theory.

--J.D.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho SamF

It will never happen. YOu could have a video confession in Kellys room and it wont be enough.

Because we all know that there can never be a case made that will satisfy 100% of people. Its logically impossible.

And that is what sustains ULM. NO matter how you reduce the doubt ...its always there aand ULMers will be too.

And I think you know that having been around long enough to witness bolsters/arses, diaries, Eddowes-the-non-prostitute, etc. etc. etc.

p

[Sam Flynn]

Hi ho SamF

It will never happen.Gotcha! Now who's being close-minded?

Hugz :)

[Doctor X]

It will never happen. YOu could have a video confession in Kellys room and it wont be enough.

There are those who do not believe in a lot of the obvious. They are unimportant.

It would for 99.99937%.

Careful about those Straw men . . . creates a fire-hazard.

--J.D.

[Stan Russo]

Sam,

You display the want to solve the case, yet most advocates of 'ULM' do not. They are content with the construct existing, because the case is too hard for them, so it must be too hard for everyone else or else they'd have to face their limitations. That is a hard concept to come to grips with.

Please note that the majority of the suspects were 'ULM' at one time and now are crap because they have been named. Once again, we are not addressing that any of the named suspects would be better suspects if a better theory and or hard evidence was found to bolster their suspect candidacy. The 'ULM' advocate, as opposed to the 'ULM' possibility enthusiast, banks on the fact that the better theory and or hard evidence will never exist, allowing them to feel as if they were taking part in the issue, which they are not.

As many have said, other than just myself, those who sit back and preach about the 'ULM' can do just that, but do not believe for one minute that anyone outside their own circle thinks they offer anything of value. Their only effort comes from pushing their unresearched and uninformative construct as cure-all theory in order to grab newbies and those who are disillusioned with the named suspects. It is a ploy of the desparate.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho SamF

Gotcha? I think you have been dwinking.

Not if, by some miracle, a "KLM" is found for whom a good case may be made

That, as I said, will never happen. No ULM'er will ever recognise a good enough case.

Why would they? And spoil their fun? Denying themselves the chance to pontificate at length without ever having to actually substantiate or defend their opinions.

p

[Mr. Poster]

It just occurred to me....

Bad and all as fruit loops like Trenouth and the Frenchies were....at least they had the brass to put their tackle on the block and defend their suspects.

Which puts the average ULM'er somewhere lower than our mascot mad person.

p

[Stan Russo]

Sam F,

I think what Mr. P is saying, if I can clarify, is that even if a 'ULM' was named and became a good suspect, the possibility that this particular suspect will become like the others is too high for the classic 'ULM' advocate to actually get behind this newly named suspect. As such, the 'ULM' construct, which can never be fulfilled, is actually what the classic 'ULM' advocate is behind. They are behind the concept that the case will never be solved, primarily because they cannot do it, while trashing people who are trying to possibly achieve what they never can.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Stan,

There's a distinction between saying that "X is a crap suspect for reasons Y and Z" on the one hand, and "X is a crap suspect because he isn't an unknown local man" on the other. In fact, the latter stance is logically untenable because suspect "X", by definition, will always be known at the point of debate. All of which suggests that the "Classic ULM Advocate", as defined here, would seem to be something of a mythical beast.

[Doctor X]

No ULM'er will ever recognise a good enough case.

http://100veces.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/strawman.jpg

--J.D.

[Pilgrim]

Hi Stan,

There's a distinction between saying that "X is a crap suspect for reasons Y and Z" on the one hand, and "X is a crap suspect because he isn't an unknown local man" on the other. In fact, the latter stance is logically untenable because suspect "X", by definition, will always be known at the point of debate. All of which suggests that the "Classic ULM Advocate", as defined here, would seem to be something of a mythical beast.Why would the "unknown local" stance be logically untenable when facing any known suspect ? The general preference for an unknown local suspect may or may not be an empirically reasonable position, but when confronting a non-local suspect - known or unknown - it will surely be logically tenable ?

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho Pilgrim

You are being led down a path that will go nowhere except confusion.

What is important is to remember that ULM as Stan and I contend (Im being presumptious) is that certain groups, now denoted ULM'ers, promote ULM as a way of avoiding having to avoid defending their positions and to quickly adorn themselves witha cloak of respectability by attempting to distance themselves for the quickly ascertained general notion that it may not be cool to plump for a suspect.

They do not in the main select ULM from a logical startpoint and they have never thought about it. Its solely a convenient position to base ones contributions such as they are upon.

SamF argues for the select subset who could be described as working hard to put a face and name on the currently unidentified suspect.

That is not strictly what ULM'ers are as they will never accept any candidate and continue to support ULM through thick and thin as it means they will never have to defend their opinions.

It sounds cycnical but its true. ULM'ers should not be confused with folk like AP or whoever who actively strive to remove the U from ULM.

True ULM'ers, and they are legion, will continue to deny any suspect and whats more....are often found lurking on "profiling" threads, "psychic" threads etc.

They are here not out of an interest in Victorin crime or Ripper stuff but like hanging out on serial killer sities, talking about profiling, annoyinmg the arses of others, pontificating wildly about astrological charts and other guff and sticking "Unknown Local Man" in the "Favourite Suspect" section of their profiles.

They constitute the vast majority of posters who register and post once or twice.

I am not cynical at all.

p

[Sam Flynn]

Why would the "unknown local" stance be logically untenable when facing any known suspect ?It isn't. What is illogical is the idea that those who espouse "ULM" would dismiss a suspect because he isn't an unknown local man - on the simple basis that a "discovered" suspect is, by definition, "known".

[Pilgrim]

Hi Stan,

There's a distinction between saying that "X is a crap suspect for reasons Y and Z" on the one hand, and "X is a crap suspect because he isn't an unknown local man" on the other. In fact, the latter stance is logically untenable because suspect "X", by definition, will always be known at the point of debate. All of which suggests that the "Classic ULM Advocate", as defined here, would seem to be something of a mythical beast.Why would the "unknown local" stance be logically untenable when facing any known suspect ? The general preference for an unknown local suspect may or may not be an empirically reasonable position, but when confronting a non-local suspect - known or unknown - it will surely be logically tenable ?

[Sam Flynn]

Why would the "unknown local" stance be logically untenable when facing any known suspect ? The general preference for an unknown local suspect may or may not be an empirically reasonable position, but when confronting a non-local suspect - known or unknown - it will surely be logically tenable ?
I refer the honourable gentleman to the reply I gave earlier. (I could have copied or typed it here again, verbatim, but that would have been impolite.)

[Pilgrim]

You may or may not find me honorable. I couldn't care less. I say you are, whether you know it or not, acting dishonorably, by quoting me out of context the way you have done.

[How Brown]

Fight nice folks...its been a good thread so far..

Please & Thank you.:kiss:

[Sam Flynn]

You may or may not find me honorable. I couldn't care less. I say you are, whether you know it or not, acting dishonorably, by quoting me out of context the way you have done.I did no such thing. I focused on the part of your post relevant to my previous assertion, that's all. I did not see that the rest of what you posted had no relevance to the point I was trying - honourably - to make. In fact, I agreed with it, and on that basis felt no compulsion to argue. Just like to make that clear.

Now, onto the "politeness" bit:- if I missed something out, it would have helped if you'd rephrased your query with a view to clarifying your point. If people misunderstand or fail to address a point the first time, then you shouldn't feel too surprised if your regurgitating it verbatim doesn't cause them at least a little annoyance. </advice>

[Doctor X]

It isn't. What is illogical is the idea that those who espouse "ULM" would dismiss a suspect because he isn't an unknown local man - on the simple basis that a "discovered" suspect is, by definition, "known".

Can you identify a person who has espoused this position?

Thank you,

--J.D.

[Sam Flynn]

Can you identify a person who has espoused this position?I'd rather not - for the sake of harmony. It merely points out the absurdity of the argument that those who espouse "ULM" would dismiss a suspect because he isn't an unknown local man.

If an erstwhile-unknown is identified then, ipso facto, he becomes "known", and known suspects stand or fall on their own merits. Ergo: there can be no such thing as a "classic ULMer", as defined in earlier posts on this thread. There can only exist "ULMers" for whom known suspects have been rejected for good reason, and for whom the "ULM" hypothesis remains - quite justifiably - viable.

[jmenges]

But Sam, It tends to become a pose similar to the "I'm into the case for the historical, not the criminal, aspects of the field."

La Ti Da.

JM

[Doctor X]

I'd rather not - for the sake of harmony.

Well, if such are hounded by an actual individual on boards, meetings, e-mails . . . late night calls--I can understand it--but I have not seen that as a significant opinion. Seems to me it is one to Ignore much like one ignores the various crack-pot theories in this and other areas of research.

If an erstwhile-unknown is identified then, ipso facto, he becomes "known", and known suspects stand or fall on their own merits.

Precisely. Furthermore, what is "local?" Lived in Whitechapel? Use to live there? Walking distance? Blah . . . blah.

There can only exist "ULMers" for whom known suspects have been rejected for good reason, and for whom the "ULM" hypothesis remains - quite justifiably - viable.

I agree. It is a bit like the "null hypothesis." Until a suspect arises--or an argument arises that is sufficiently compelling--Jack remains "unknown." Since it appears he knew the area, he appears to have been "local" depending on how one defines "local."

One can reject, then, the strawman argument given by another individual that if one had a "videotaped confession in Mary Kelly's room," people would still reject it. There are loons who believe in a flat Earth. There are loons who believe the Earth is only 10,000 years old. This is willful ignorance, and neither comprise a majority or even a significant minority. If someone does provide a compelling case, with evidence, I think many would consider him.

--J.D.

[jmenges]

There is no evidence, nor IMO a compelling case, that the murderer appeared to know the area as a local, so you're stating your opinion here.

JM

[Doctor X]

There is no evidence, nor IMO a compelling case, that the murderer appeared to know the area as a local, so you're stating your opinion here.

Valid point.

Again, that may depend on how you define "Local." If you use the strict conception--grew up there or lived and/or worked in the area for many years--you are absolutely correct. While it seems he knew where to pick up prostitutes, avoid detection, his way around, et cetera, that knowledge does not require being born there, living there/working there for a significant amount of time. So you can argue that means he is not "Local (http://members.fortunecity.com/leagueofladies/wavs/1.2/telocalshopforlocalpeople.wav)."

Though I think, then, we are discussing semantics. If you have a suspect, who had that knowledge, but does not fit that strict--and legitimate--conception--then you can argue you have a "Not Local." I tend to take a much broader definition--there are a number of places that I visit, that I know very well, for example, but I would not be "Local" by the stricter conception. To which I would wonder "who cares?" because I think one should consider your "Not Local" based on your argument rather than the label! If you and a lot of researchers decide for the sake of simplicity to limit "Local" to the strictest sense, then I am happy to remove the "L" . . . giving us an "UM."

"UM."

Seems rather apt!

I think much of the argument between "local" and non-local" may just result from the lack of evidence. You can make the argument that a "Non-Local" Jack could gain that knowledge . . . commit the crimes . . . et cetera. I suppose someone can squawk "but . . . that makes him LOCAL!" but . . . meh! Someone else can make an argument that it is more likely that a "Local" Jack--by the strict conception--committed the crimes because of "this and that."

Either way, it is going to be a degree of likelihood rather than certitude (http://www.comedysounds.freeservers.com/).

http://skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/uploads/localforum.jpg

--J.D.