No announcement yet.

Did Walter Sickert write any of the Ripper letters?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    "Is that a scientific "Us" or are you simply referring to the other personalities that inhabit the confined space that you call a body?"

    Have you ignored the rest of the posts on this thread? The meaning of "us" is pretty clear.

    Game on Dan, you're now making up statistics as well as theories.

    I'm sorry if you don't understand the science and think that I am making things up. Perhaps if you read some introductory texts on the topic you might follow along a little better.

    So the mitochondrial DNA was a mix, huh? You throw many laughable (I pause to call them) "theories" into the mix (no pun intended), but fail to mention that we all come into contact with several other people every day and no doubt swap samples of skin and bodily fluids including, dare I suggest, saliva?

    Which doesn't change the fact that the mtDNA Cornwell tested was mixed and thus even less traceable to a single individual than an already extremely tenuous single donor mtDNA test. In fact, this little argument you made advances my point, but you are so confused you don't even realize it.

    You are trying to refute my point by giving reasons why the sample might be mixed. Why isn't the issue. The fact that it was mixed already means that the test isn't reliable, regardess of why it happened. That's like looking at a police line up, declaring that the guy at the end robbed you, and when someone points out that it was dark out at the time and asks how can you be sure, instead of disputing that it was too dark to see you explain that you couldn't afford to buy light bulbs...

    Or do you not stick your tongue in when you kiss someone?

    If you need some advice in that department you can check with Dr. Ruth Westheimer.

    I'm right, you're wrong, nothing that has been posted since my last visit convinces me otherwise.

    Yeah, it's been pretty obvious that you think you are right regardless of what anyone else says. You still haven't shown that you understand DNA testing in the slightest, especially with your latest comments.

    That's ok, you don't like her writing, I can accept that and have no intention of abusing you the way that Dan might along the lines of "You just don't get it because you are foolish and inferior".

    Funny, that's exactly the tone you took when you first posted to this thread. The difference being that I supported my argument with reasons (in this case, the science behind DNA testing) while you still just maintain that you are right because you say you are right.
    Last edited by ; June 2, 2004, 02:44 PM. Reason: bolding got screwed up because of dropped tag, fixing it


    • #17
      On the eighth day God made Dan.

      Dear Mr Wrong

      Seeing as you can't master the concept that no one will ever come up with conclusive proof of JTR's identity, and that Cornwell's excellent expose is just about the finest work on the subject outside of all writing on the Maybrick Diary, I thought you might like to try this little tongue twister instead:

      Ken Dodd's Dad's Dog's Dead.

      The idea is to say it loudly and quickly several times over. But s**t, that's what Dan does with everything, right? No problem there then.

      Dan's method of proving the identity of JTR: Shout the loudest, shout the longest, bore every one else into submission and, when faced with overwhelming proof that someone other than Dan has come up with an excellent argument, just deny it and call them fools.

      Are you John Omlor in disguise?

      Mr Right.


      • #18
        Anyone got the newest issue of Ripperologist yet? The cover story there is about DNA, but my copy will take a bit to get overseas. It should be interesting to watch Peter throw more childish insults at people for looking at the actual science behind DNA testing instead of just believing whatever Cornwell claims.


        • #19

          Firstly, your stating that Sickert definitively wrote some of the letters in question is absurd. Not only because Sickert's handwriting cannot be conclusively matched with the letters in questions, but also because you weren't standing over Sickert's shoulder his entire life, to see whether he did, in fact, do so. Secondly, all the "evidence" Cornwell has brought to light, is inconclusive (that's putting it mildly). That only thing she has "PROVEN BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT", is that she practices poor science, promotes fiction as fact (Maybe she's friends with Michael Moore?) and misleading investigative techniques.

          Nobody on this board honestly gives a damn about her sexuality. But if her sexuality taints her preception of men in general, than YES, it's a point worth bringing to light.

          As for your comment, "When will you learn?". Well, I won't. If I "follow the heard" as you do. I choose not to. So at the very least, right or wrong, at least I'm practicing good science, and proper detective work.