Pierre and his research.

[Robert]

Oh, I don't think LRC would be too damaging. Hands off Elgar, though.

[Fisherman]

I have my own ideas about this. I hope I am wrong.

Now, where have I heard that before...?

[paul g]

I'm sorry, I hate to be a party-pooper, but does this thread exist for any other reason than to slam a board member?

I started this thread and have read back through it and can,t see where you would think the said board member has been slammed.
His style of postings yes maybe but Pierre himself don,t think so.
If you want to view my original post as a personnel attack on Pierre you are sadly mistaken. The post is a attack on his postings the content and style.

There is a world of difference between cyber bullying someone personally and being critical of someones postings.

I think admin would of stepped in should they have thought the original post was in anyway offensive to a board member.

I state categorically here that I have no opinion good or bad on Pierre just his contents and style of his posts.

[Pierre]

I started this thread and have read back through it and can,t see where you would think the said board member has been slammed.
His style of postings yes maybe but Pierre himself don,t think so.
If you want to view my original post as a personnel attack on Pierre you are sadly mistaken. The post is a attack on his postings the content and style.

There is a world of difference between cyber bullying someone personally and being critical of someones postings.

I think admin would of stepped in should they have thought the original post was in anyway offensive to a board member.

I state categorically here that I have no opinion good or bad on Pierre just his contents and style of his posts.

Hi Paul g,

don´t worry, I´ve taken no offense at all so please go on and enjoy the discussion!

Regards Pierre

[Mayerling]

Surely Lord Randolph Churchill is a more likely suspect to be murdering prostitutes than his son, especially at this point in time?

Would discovering that Winston was the son of Jack the Ripper be a blow to "the British nation", as Pierre puts it?

What would be the public reaction to news such as this? Britain's greatest prime minister is related by blood to Britain's most famous serial killer? Surely good for a few million tabloid sales, at least?

Note: This is probably pointless speculation, as a) Pierre won't tell us, and b) most of us don't really care, anyway...

On another thread I put down the idea of Lord Randolph as the Ripper, and it has some possibility but not much. He was supposedly decaying and slowly dying from tertiary syphilis in 1888 - 1895, and this was supposedly due to his having had a one night stand with a prostitute who had the disease. Yet he did not give the illness to his two sons or Jenny (as far as we know). His anger at it sapping his chance of being Prime Minister would be his reason for the rampage (though I hardly think that Mary Kelly would have been the prostitute who did him in).

I once toyed with this possibility - back in the 1970s at the highpoint of the "Stowell" theory of a high ranking individual being the Ripper. I don't know enough about Dr. Thomas Stowell to verify my suspicion, but the doctor seems to have worked on his theory for several decades. As he actually never stated it was the Duke of Clarence and Avondale, but rumor said he meant it to be, I wondered if rumor was wrong. Perhaps he was a Labour Party or Liberal Party supporter who hated the Churchills, and wished to build a theory up that would have smeared them, but was prevented and a substitute (one who was shocking, but as Clarence died with no legitimate heirs) not damaging to the Royal Family at all. I might add that the "Sherlockian" scholar Michael Harrison, urged on the theory that it was not Prince Eddy but his tutor, the poet James Kenneth Stephen, who was the actual Ripper, using Stowell as a jumping off place, but Harrison's work on Clarence is not really so hot.

In the last half of the 20th Century Winston Churchill gained general recognition as the greatest British Statesman of the century. But in his own lifetime there were plenty of voices that were against him. He earned the distrust of other political figures due to his "crossing the aisle" twice in the House of Commons (1905 and 1923) to make sure he was not stopping his rise for the Prime Ministership. He was kept at bay for a decade after 1929 by Stanley Baldwin, who kept him out of the National Governments of the Depression (assisted by Ramsay MacDonald and Nevil Chamberlain), he did lose the 1945 election to Attlee, as though the public of the period were tired of him. His return in 1951 was a personal triumph (his last) but his age and infirmities show he should have retired in 1953. Instead he stayed too long.

Sir Winston did show multiple talents, as an orator and writer as well as a politician and statesman. But his errors were immense too, such as getting it into his head that he was a genius at military strategy - that "soft underbelly" theory of Europe that led first to the "Gallipoli" mess in World War I, and then to the "Crete" mess in World War II. His removal of Auchenleck (who had just checked Rommel at the first battle of El Alemein) and replacement with Montgomery is still debated. So is his constant pushing of Montgomery until that general decided to shorten the war with his "Arnhem" fiasco. Churchill's other flaws, his suspicions of Labor Party ideas and his rejection of Baldwin's consideration of gradually leaving India, show he could be terribly wrong headed at times. But to be fair a list of similar failings can be showed by other contemporaries of his like Franklin (and Theodore) Roosevelt, Wilson, Lloyd George, Lenin, Trotzky, Eisenhower, Truman, De Gaulle. All leaders are flawed.

Saying all this, Churchill by his determination to fight to the death against the Nazis and their allies, won great admiration and affection for him, especially in England. But Lord Randolph - although admired as an adroit political figure in his day - never won that affection. He was an extremely capable and colorful figure, but it was an age of colorful political movers and shakers - he shared the scene with Joseph Chamberlain, Gladstone, Parnell, and (until 1884) Dilke. He was a full partner with Lord Salsibury's nephew and political heir Balfour. Good company, but not quite modern for our tastes. The rise of Lord Randolph was fantastic in a short, four year period, and took him to the Colonial office and Exchequer. But he blew it in a confrontation with Salisbury's able but colorless leader of the House, Stafford Northcoate. Salisbury allowed Northcoate to resign, but did this to allow him to accept Churchill's "I'll resign if you don't approach", accepting the needless resignation by Churchill as well. It cut the political legs from under Lord Randolph. That was in 1887 - the year before Whitechapel.

It's all fascinating politically, but the public never really cared (which Salisbury seems to have been aware of). Lord Randolph managed to make a mark for brilliant speeches and tropes (his best recalled one, unfortunately, was "I'll play the "Orange" card!!" uttered against Parnell and Home Rule, which shows Lord Randolph's willingness to use religious bigotry on one subject). He never demonstrated more that an ability to win loyalty from people - not love from them. There was nothing loveable about him.

To prove Lord Randolph to be the Ripper would not cause a political consternation in England today. It might annoy the Spencer-Churchill family, but that is about it. But maybe in the 1950s or 1960s it might have caused some heat, and definitely if presented in the 1940s, when Winston was trying to destroy Hitler and his goons. Again, what was Stowell like? If he actually meant Lord Randolph and not Eddy, was Stowell against the Churchills? Why would he have been?

These become empty questions at this point, really. It just doesn't matter because by now the issue would cease to be a major one (if it ever really was), and the theory has been mostly dismissed. But it remains a nagging little matter - what bugged Stowell to even concoct his theory?

Jeff

[paul g]

Many thanks.
Just waiting for your reply to my question regarding why you post comments like " i know the motive " and other similar comments on most posts that you post.

[Karl]

I started this thread and have read back through it and can,t see where you would think the said board member has been slammed.
His style of postings yes maybe but Pierre himself don,t think so.
If you want to view my original post as a personnel attack on Pierre you are sadly mistaken. The post is a attack on his postings the content and style.

There is a world of difference between cyber bullying someone personally and being critical of someones postings.

I think admin would of stepped in should they have thought the original post was in anyway offensive to a board member.

I state categorically here that I have no opinion good or bad on Pierre just his contents and style of his posts.

Oh come on. When you start a thread dedicated entirely not to a specific theory, but a specific person's style of research, then it goes beyond being merely critical. You have all the opportunity to be critical elsewhere. I have never felt a need to dedicate an entire thread to the criticism of a person. Perhaps Pierre really does not take offence to it, but I certainly would, and I would never do it to anyone else either - no matter how insane I thought their reasoning.

Why does this thread exist? If you are critical of someone's statements, why not address those statements when they happen? What is to be gained by announcing, quite separately, that you this this certain someone speaks a lot of toss? If the questions in your original post was not meant to draw attention to him, to draw others in to offer their input in the same manner as you have, why not simply ask those questions in a private message? This thread looks very much like a pillory to me. It is a very odd way to "just" disagree with someone (I haven't seen anything like it elsewhere on these boards).

There is, after all, a world of difference between disagreeing someone and creating a whole new thread for the sake of announcing the fact.

[paul g]

the thread

I have never asked anyone but Pierre to comment to the questions I have asked.
The purpose of making a thread for that reason was so I could pin questions in one place. I dont know what a pillory is or means but will google it after this reply.
I stand by my statement this is not and has never meant to be a attack on Pierre but a observation that I had observed on his comments regarding his research posts and the various comments and a thread where I could post my questions/observations to Pierre.
The reason I did not ppm Pierre is I did not want too.

[paul g]

Pillory

a attempt to attack or ridicule.

Not by me, sorry.
And (can you begin a sentence with and) I have on Pierres original thread commented and give my view think it was WALOS at the time.
Pierre or anyone could consider this a personal attack the same as Pierre or anyone could consider this a criticism of his posts.
I have not criticised Pierres view on his research but criticized his reasoning for posting knowing that he is 11 months and two days away from possibly discovering who JTR is.
I think I have been civil, i think I have the right to ask questions on a public forum and I also think I have the right to start a thread asking those questions.

I would be grateful if you so wish, could you point out to me why a separate thread is not allowable.
ALSO if you please point out where I have posted anything depremental or abusive towards pierre personally.
In the grand scheme of things it is after all o0nly a thread nothing else nothing more.

[EmaEm]

Oh come on. When you start a thread dedicated entirely not to a specific theory, but a specific person's style of research, then it goes beyond being merely critical. You have all the opportunity to be critical elsewhere. I have never felt a need to dedicate an entire thread to the criticism of a person. Perhaps Pierre really does not take offence to it, but I certainly would, and I would never do it to anyone else either - no matter how insane I thought their reasoning.

Why does this thread exist? If you are critical of someone's statements, why not address those statements when they happen? What is to be gained by announcing, quite separately, that you this this certain someone speaks a lot of toss? If the questions in your original post was not meant to draw attention to him, to draw others in to offer their input in the same manner as you have, why not simply ask those questions in a private message? This thread looks very much like a pillory to me. It is a very odd way to "just" disagree with someone (I haven't seen anything like it elsewhere on these boards).

There is, after all, a world of difference between disagreeing someone and creating a whole new thread for the sake of announcing the fact.

You appear to be missing what is wrong with Pierre's posts by a country mile. He is being an adolescent bore and bringing standards in this forum to a pretty pass. I am quite confident in my belief that 'Pierre' has, in actual fact, nothing to publish and at best, only a new theory. Well, most of us have theories about JtR. Presumably you're being a bit naive not to spot that his posts, are in fact, nothing more than a wind up. Extraordinary that you haven't realised that yet.

[Karl]

a attempt to attack or ridicule.

Not by me, sorry.
And (can you begin a sentence with and) I have on Pierres original thread commented and give my view think it was WALOS at the time.
Pierre or anyone could consider this a personal attack the same as Pierre or anyone could consider this a criticism of his posts.
I have not criticised Pierres view on his research but criticized his reasoning for posting knowing that he is 11 months and two days away from possibly discovering who JTR is.
I think I have been civil, i think I have the right to ask questions on a public forum and I also think I have the right to start a thread asking those questions.

I would be grateful if you so wish, could you point out to me why a separate thread is not allowable.
ALSO if you please point out where I have posted anything depremental or abusive towards pierre personally.
In the grand scheme of things it is after all o0nly a thread nothing else nothing more.

I did not mean to imply that you have been less than civil. But one can insult someone while still being courteous, and in fact those are the best insults. There are others here who have been less than civil, however.

The reason a separate thread is less than cricket in this case is that you could simply ask those questions in reply to Pierre's posts in the threads they were posted. That would should not be off topic so long as his posts were not. Second, this thread is titled "Pierre and his research", which means it is specifically dedicated to him. This being a thread rather than a private message, it invites the input from anyone who has a tuppence to spare. And given the overall expression of the opening post, I definitely get vibes in the sense of, "look at this fellow and the unsupported claims he makes". I maintain that if the aim was not exposition, PMs would be the way to go.

And yes, you can begin a sentence with "and". It is all about context. You're not supposed to use contractions either, nor end sentence with prepositions. But to quote Churchill, "this is the sort of language up with which I will not put".

[Karl]

You appear to be missing what is wrong with Pierre's posts by a country mile. He is being an adolescent bore and bringing standards in this forum to a pretty pass. I am quite confident in my belief that 'Pierre' has, in actual fact, nothing to publish and at best, only a new theory. Well, most of us have theories about JtR. Presumably you're being a bit naive not to spot that his posts, are in fact, nothing more than a wind up. Extraordinary that you haven't realised that yet.

But I am not talking about Pierre's post or what's wrong with them. That's neither here nor there. I actually agree with the majority opinion here about Pierre's posts, but not with the method of criticism. And in fact, if you think he is an adolescent bore bringing standards in this forum to a pretty pass, then all the more reason not to draw attention to him by making threads which can only serve to do just that.

[paul g]

thread

Having digested your comments and observations Karl I have soul searched and concluded that I am comfortable in starting the thread, and am content in my own personnel posts on the said thread.
This is not to say your observations are not incorrect or correct but I have digested them and took what you have said into account. Food for thought should I ever start a thread again on similar veins.

Admin will have the final say I guess on this or any thread they remain judge and jury not you or I.

Pierre has the right not to respond should he wish to do so and other board members have the right to comment or not to comment should they so wish.
Hopefully any observations on Pierre personally will be constrained and posts will be on the title of the thread " pierres research.
I appreciate the time you have taken to post Karl nothing like opinions for all.

[curious4]

I found Pierrie's posts irritating and sometimes a little worrying. For this reason I decided to block them (better for my blood pressure). I would advise anyone who feels the same to do this.

Best wishes
C4

[Pierre]

Many thanks.
Just waiting for your reply to my question regarding why you post comments like " i know the motive " and other similar comments on most posts that you post.

Hi,

well, as I said it is a very difficult situation having a coherent theory about the Whitechapel killer and not being able to tell people about it. I have a reason for that, as I also have written before. So I am having a hard time keeping my mouth shut, to put it simply.

Regards Pierre