I think I have found him.

[Patrick S]

I think most people know John Ruskin existed, don't they?

I thought Pierre said nobody knows (yet) of his suspect's existence.

Or has he gone back on that?

Love,

Caz
X

I must have missed that, caz. I recall him making a point about hoping he's wrong and people will not be happy....thus I assumed it was someone known to history.

[Patrick S]

Hi,

I haven´t studied the others since I think I have found the killer. But from what I have seen the biggest problem with all the others is lack of a connection to every victim, lack of a clear motive, lack of enough resources to be the killer and - methodologically - I have found many misinterpretations of the material from the 19th Century.

Regards Pierre

I'm struggling somewhat with what you've written here, Pierre. I think it's imprudent - when tring to ID a serial killer - to exclude individuals without motive and a connection to the vicitms. Thus, can we assume that your 'Jack' was not a serial killer at all? It stands to reason that if he had motive for killing each victim then was not a serial killer, but simply a murderer, killing specific individual for a reason. If that's the case, can you tell us - in broad terms at least - what his motive for killing these woman was? Was it one movtive for all five or different motives for each?

Thanks!

PDS

[Shaggyrand]

I must have missed that, caz. I recall him making a point about hoping he's wrong and people will not be happy....thus I assumed it was someone known to history.

This is how I think many people have taken his comments. He has made repeated references to hoping he was wrong, people not being happy and that his suspect has not been named as a Ripper suspect before (which I question since he has also commented on having not read that many Ripper books in order to not form a bias). It sounds like he has a considerable number of sources, which I assume must be fairly widely available and at least tangentially connected to the case based on the repeated suggestions that people do their own research when asked for any information on them, makes me think his suspect is known to history in some way at least.
I could be far off base, that's just how it has read to me.

[caz]

Thanks Jeff and I know they are trying to make me make a mistake. But it is very difficult to guess who the killer could be, since they don´t know of his existence, so they would not even notice if i actually made a mistake, which of course I avoid doing.

Here you are, everyone.

Maybe it's me who misunderstood this, but it does seem clear enough.

Love,

Caz
X

[Patrick S]

Here you are, everyone.

Maybe it's me who misunderstood this, but it does seem clear enough.

Love,

Caz
X

you are right on. I also found this from Pierre:

by asking if he is historically known one could exclude such a person if I were to answer "no" and then again one could start to try and figure out what other sort of person he was. Still there are a lot of famous or historically known persons in the past that we never heard of. By saying that, I am not saying that he was famous or historically known and I am not suggesting he wasn´t.

[Pierre]

I'm struggling somewhat with what you've written here, Pierre. I think it's imprudent - when tring to ID a serial killer - to exclude individuals without motive and a connection to the vicitms. Thus, can we assume that your 'Jack' was not a serial killer at all? It stands to reason that if he had motive for killing each victim then was not a serial killer, but simply a murderer, killing specific individual for a reason. If that's the case, can you tell us - in broad terms at least - what his motive for killing these woman was? Was it one movtive for all five or different motives for each?

Thanks!

PDS

Hi Patrick,

good question. It was one paramount motive for all of the murders. No personal connections to any of the victims. He had great personal problems with things connected to the motive and it ruled his life.

Regards Pierre

[paul g]

question for Pierre.

Hi,was thinking about your comment along the lines of the impact on history your Revelation if correct could cause.

The above statement makes me think that only something to do with royalty, government or the masons would have such a impact.
Would that be a correct assumption?.

[GUT]

Hi,was thinking about your comment along the lines of the impact on history your Revelation if correct could cause.

The above statement makes me think that only something to do with royalty, government or the masons would have such a impact.
Would that be a correct assumption?.

Doubt even the masons would have that much impact nor ovt for that matter.

[Amanda]

To Pierre

Dear Pierre,

Would you mind answering a question please:

Are you or have you ever been involved in a paranormal investigation?


Kind Regards,
Amanda

[Pierre]

Dear Pierre,

Would you mind answering a question please:

Are you or have you ever been involved in a paranormal investigation?


Kind Regards,
Amanda

Hi Amanda,

No. I´m a scientist.

Regards Pierre

[Shaggyrand]

No. I´m a scientist.

Regards Pierre

Pierre, could you be a little bit more specific on that? Psychology? Physics? A biologist? Library science? Crowd-science? Doing some PAR or participatory monitoring? Just curious. I do not mean to overstep your comfortable boundaries or pry much.

[Graham]

I seriously cannot see why so many posters to this forum, people whose posts and opinions I have read and respected for many years, are falling for this crap.
Pierre's nonsense is the biggest wind-up since the last time Big Ben stopped ticking. Can't you see he's having a laugh? Can't you see that he is, on a forum which over the years has had more than its fair share of trolls, the troll de la troll? He just sends in post after weird post, in his strange and (I say it again) semi-mystical style, and there you all are, lapping it up. Get real, folks! Pierre (if that is indeed his name, and I'm certain it isn't) is simply taking you all for a ride, and he's laughing up his sleeve as he does so. He no more knows the identity of Jack The Ripper than I know who's going to win the Rugby World Cup.

Graham

[Pierre]

Pierre, could you be a little bit more specific on that? Psychology? Physics? A biologist? Library science? Crowd-science? Doing some PAR or participatory monitoring? Just curious. I do not mean to overstep your comfortable boundaries or pry much.

Torn between beeing rude and polite.

Pierre

[Shaggyrand]

Torn between beeing rude and polite.

Pierre

Why not both? I merely asked a question. Don't have to answer it but if you do I'm dumb enough that I wouldn't pick up on you being rude or sarcastic. So...

[Pierre]

I seriously cannot see why so many posters to this forum, people whose posts and opinions I have read and respected for many years, are falling for this crap.
Pierre's nonsense is the biggest wind-up since the last time Big Ben stopped ticking. Can't you see he's having a laugh? Can't you see that he is, on a forum which over the years has had more than its fair share of trolls, the troll de la troll? He just sends in post after weird post, in his strange and (I say it again) semi-mystical style, and there you all are, lapping it up. Get real, folks! Pierre (if that is indeed his name, and I'm certain it isn't) is simply taking you all for a ride, and he's laughing up his sleeve as he does so. He no more knows the identity of Jack The Ripper than I know who's going to win the Rugby World Cup.

Graham

Hi Graham,

Sure, perhaps I don´t know his identity. But I can assure you Graham that you will get the results when I´m finished with this.

Pierre