Pierre's research so far...

[JadenCollins]

Why does he need 24 hrs, wouldn't be hard to come up with better BS than he has so far.

Well, you never know. He might be undercover.

[Elamarna]

no , he is back on the prater's stairs thread.

he has worked out the exact size on 13 millers court,
that should help Richard's plans

[Natasha]

I think you are dealing with a nutter so be careful peeps

[belinda]

I think you are dealing with a nutter so be careful peeps

Agreed

[John Wheat]

I think you are dealing with a nutter so be careful peeps

Well he wouldn't be the first on this site.

[Elamarna]

Hi All
sorry it looks to me as if an attempt is being made to change the direction of the Prater's stairs thread.
This was developing very nicely then suddenly, no comments about Richards work, but where do the plans come from.
And we start to talk about 13 again.
hands up I got drawn into it,

Have posted now asking people to not let this really interesting and serious thread be taken away from its main purpose.

regards

Elamarna

[JadenCollins]

Natasha has a point there.
What if he's really nuts? And gets all caught up in this case?...
Uh-oh..
I don't want history to repeat itself...

[Elamarna]

What we have been told!

HI All

just trying to get a handle on Pierre's work and how it has changed over the last few months.

I recall the following items:

1. There was a letter which categorically said there would be a double murder planned on the 9th November, naming the 2 intended victims and giving the address.

This became a letter, which he refused to identify, but was metaphorically, in what it said.

2.Revealing the name of his suspect would upset people in Britain.
this was never really explained other than the institution this suspect belonged to would be damaged.

Unless it was the royal family, I doubt many would bat an eyelid over any other institution

3.It was vitally important that the MJK body was found quickly, he suggested that Bowyer may have been prompted to collect the rent so as to find her.

He couldn't say prompted by whom. but later said Bowyer knew the killer..
This seemed to then go cold.

4. He has several times said he has found new evidence, but does not say what, however he has informed us he knows why Kate Eddowes had "v" cut on her face,.

We have all heard others say same thing, but or course he can't tell us anything about it.

5. It turns out that the killer entered and left 13 Millers Court by a Secret door. Everyone has been wrong all these, including the witnesses at the Inquest.

When asked for evidence that this was a working door, or that it had been used, he could or would not provide any


it seems the killer left evidence in number 26 Dorset street, that is why the police boarded it up,

he proves this by use of a newspaper sketch, but cannot say what was left.

Not only that but he has seen the light and MJK3 proves the door was barricaded.

when first challenged on this by use of inquest testimony he said that Dr Phillips misled the inquest

He was asked to provide any evidence that Dr Phillips had perjured himself.

His response to this was along the lines of " this is not a court of law."

This has now changed to Dr Phillips told the truth, but we do not understand what he meant.

The current theory is Dr Phillips testimony supports the door being barricaded.

6. MJK3 proves he is right,

when suggested he may be wrong in his interpretation, firstly he tries to rewrite physics by saying such things as a bright light will not be seen in a dark area.

Next, the answer is MJk3 is not central to his theory that the door was barricaded anyway, he has plenty of other evidence.

We are then supplied with a list of questions, which he sees has evidence.
These questions are answered time and time again.
He does not respond unless someone gives an answer he likes and keeps asking the questions over and over again.

I think we would all agree the theory is certainly flexible.

it has been helpful in some areas such as Richardh's work, so not all bad

I wonder if anyone could had anything else ?

[Pcdunn]

Hi, Elamarna,

I have followed Pierre's threads since he first began posting. Initially he said he needed one last piece of evidence, but it might take him a year to obtain it. He claimed the reason for posting was to unburden himself, as what he feared he had found out was something that could upset people. He rejected offers of help from other posters, but did begin to ask questions such as "Who would you not want the Ripper to be?"
He usually denies everything people ask him about his theory, and has indicated his person of interest isn't a Royal, politician, writer, artist, etc. He did state the person could be someone well-known in his own day, but less so now.
He has at times objected to people making fun of his posts, but continues stubbornly to harp upon his secret door theory.

Finally, he began posting shortly after a film-maker contacted the group, saying he wished to do a documentary about Ripperology and Ripperologists themselves, rather than try to solve the case. This film-maker has not posted again in some time. Why? Is there a connection?

[Elamarna]

Hi Pcdunn

that is interesting about the film maker,

we will have to wait and see on that,
if so I would have thought he may have ventured on to Howards boards as well

Thanks for reminding us all about his early set of question, trying to get information.

Left the bit about his getting upset out intentionally ,i wanted to try and make this an objective post if possible, looking at change of stance, without attacking the man or his behaviour.

[David Orsam]

1. There was a letter which categorically said there would be a double murder planned on the 9th November, naming the 2 intended victims and giving the address.

This became a letter, which he refused to identify, but was metaphorically, in what it said.

On 18 September he said of his suspect:

'He wrote a letter to the editor in a paper not signing it “Jack the Ripper” where he gave the exact address to one of the murder sites.'

On 13 November he elaborated on this by saying:

"I have found such a letter (unknown by ripperology) in the press. He uses a metaphorical language and gives the adress to Miller´s Court, the name of Mary Jane Kelly, her room number and the date of the murder."

On 14 November, a slight shift, as it is now only the name of Mary that is included:

"I have also told you about a letter I think he wrote in the press, giving the adress to Miller´s Court and the name of the victim: Mary."

Under questioning from me, however, on 15 November, he said:

"Of course he would not write their true names and adresses in the newspapers. The police would have been waiting for him. "

So from initially giving the "exact address" to one of the murder sites (Miller's Court) the murder now does not actually include the "true address" in the letter. Nor does he include Mary Kelly's "true name" in the letter.

When I pointed out this dramatic shift in position, Pierre became quite agitated and it was actually from this point that he refused to speak to me.

[Elamarna]

Thank you David,

he ignores you? sorry I hadn't noticed. he seems to read your posts!

i personally have been waiting for a thread on Mitre Sq, much more open for discussion, 3 routes of exit, empty buildings, possible sightings.

Given he says the double event was planned, I was expected lots on this.

Yet apart from the cuts to Eddowes face not very much if anything? Have to be honest not read every post he has put up. Sure that is against the DISCOURSE post

Steve

[David Orsam]

We should also not forget the forum member called "1888", claiming to be a criminal psychologist from Germany, who briefly appeared for one day on 11 November to say that not only had he (or she) worked out who Pierre was but also believed he knew who Pierre's suspect was. This person told us:

"If I'm right I can say that he [Pierre] has a genuinely intriguing theory which ticks many boxes and makes a lot of sense."

He also told us:

"his suspect isn't entirely new either. He has been named before. But maybe Pierre is talking more in the allegorical sense."

Further:

"if he's a troll he's an intelligent one and probably has a lot of genuinely good ideas. Maybe, that's why you are all so intrigued. By the way, it wouldn't make sense to tell you right now who he probably is. He would simply deny it. But as I said, it's not that difficult."

When I pressed him to explain why he could not simply tell us who Pierre's suspect was, he said: "I didn't post the name of the suspect who is presumably championed by Pierre because laying out my reasons would be equivalent to outing him as I see it."

When I asked him why he cared about outing Pierre when he believed Pierre would simply deny everything, in circumstances where Pierre had said he was eventually going to tell us the name of his suspect in any event, I never received a reply. In fact, after making just 9 posts, "1888" never posted again.

[David Orsam]

he ignores you? sorry I hadn't noticed. he seems to read your posts!

Oh yeah, I'm sure he's reading them but he hasn't responded to any of my posts since I caught him out making false claims about that "metaphorical" letter of his (the one we now don't hear anything more about!).

[David Orsam]

I wonder if anyone could had anything else ?

Yes, he supposedly has a "confession"!!!

Something that hardly anyone ever asks him about for some reason.