Pierre's research so far...

[Elamarna]

a confession?

i think i will ask him

[David Orsam]

a confession?

Oh yes! Here is what he said on 17 November, in the "Queen Mary and Lord Mayor" thread:

"The evidence in support of the suspect consist of 3 data sources which I define as weak, 6 data sources defined as medium strong, and 6 data sources defined as strong. 4 of these strong ones 6 contains his name, 1 of the weak ones does so too.

I have also found a handwriting match lately but this one I consider weak at the moment since we are not sure about the provenience of the source which I compare his handwriting with.

I understand that this probably means nothing to you. So I will try to describe the contents a bit.

They contain:

A confession
A strong motive for the murders
A strong motive for taunting the police
A strong motive for spoiling Lord Mayor´s Day
A personal motive for the choice of the 9th November

...

An explanation to the mutilations
An explanation to the Goulston Street Graffito
An explanation to Monro´s thinking
An explanation to why he stopped after McKenzie

Indications that he was also the Torso killer

I don´t think we should over estimate the case. He was just a serial killer. And since he was interested in getting his message through to the police, he left clues.

Regards Pierre"

Good luck with extracting any more information from him about this!

[Elamarna]

David

i have posted a fairly innocent post on his si think i have found him thread.

just asking what type it is?

[David Orsam]

And I see he's provided his usual helpful answer.

[Mayerling]

that lead to Narnia? more like lead to nowhere..

That secret door was in a wardrobe. If Mary Kelly had had that and known of it, she would have run through it chased by Jack, and a lion would have confronted him and ate him! Any follower of C.S. Lewis would have known that.

Jeff

[Elamarna]

Yes as expected.

You will see I have replied.

Depending on his answer. I shall call him what he is a fake

[Mayerling]

Hi Elamarna,

I just looked at the last three entries on the "I Think I Have Him" thread. I do like the forward approach of your question and see again his parrying reaction. Always the same with Pierre.

I am reminded of a figure in criminal history of the 19th Century who had the same irritating habit. And (unfortunately) to this day some people (including criminal historians) believe him.

Jean Troppmann murdered the entire Kinck family in a series of planned steps in order to acquire their wealth to allow him to emigrate to America in 1869. Troppman slaughtered Madame Kinck and her younger four or five children in a clover field near the Pantin section of Paris, and hastily buried them - but the graves were discovered too early, and when confronted at a seaport by a suspicious gendarme Troppman panicked and tried to flee but was captured. At his trial the fact that he and the Kincks all came from the "Alsace" region got bandied about, so that many believed Troppman and the older Monsieur Kinck may have been involved in espionage for either the Prussians under Bismarck or the French under Napoleon III. Troppman noticed this and played the romantic tragic villain to the hilt. Were there accomplices to his murders, and what was the real motive. "I can't say", Troppman would begin, "Worthy motives must prevent my revealing anything that endangers others!" (or words to that effect). While some still argue he may have had help killing Madame Kinck and her children, the nature of the wounds on their bodies suggested that one individual killed them quickly and violently by blindly striking out on them.

Pierre has certainly not killed anyone but his refusal to say a word until he is perfectly sure his theoretical ideas are solid fact does resemble Troppman's similar wrapping of enobled secrecy around his actions.

Jeff

[JadenCollins]

Yes as expected.

You will see I have replied.

Depending on his answer. I shall call him what he is a fake

Whenever he gets proved wrong he changes his theory.
I bet by the end of the week, he'll turn it 360.

[JadenCollins]

Hi Elamarna,

I just looked at the last three entries on the "I Think I Have Him" thread. I do like the forward approach of your question and see again his parrying reaction. Always the same with Pierre.

I am reminded of a figure in criminal history of the 19th Century who had the same irritating habit. And (unfortunately) to this day some people (including criminal historians) believe him.

Jean Troppmann murdered the entire Kinck family in a series of planned steps in order to acquire their wealth to allow him to emigrate to America in 1869. Troppman slaughtered Madame Kinck and her younger four or five children in a clover field near the Pantin section of Paris, and hastily buried them - but the graves were discovered too early, and when confronted at a seaport by a suspicious gendarme Troppman panicked and tried to flee but was captured. At his trial the fact that he and the Kincks all came from the "Alsace" region got bandied about, so that many believed Troppman and the older Monsieur Kinck may have been involved in espionage for either the Prussians under Bismarck or the French under Napoleon III. Troppman noticed this and played the romantic tragic villain to the hilt. Were there accomplices to his murders, and what was the real motive. "I can't say", Troppman would begin, "Worthy motives must prevent my revealing anything that endangers others!" (or words to that effect). While some still argue he may have had help killing Madame Kinck and her children, the nature of the wounds on their bodies suggested that one individual killed them quickly and violently by blindly striking out on them.

Pierre has certainly not killed anyone yet but his refusal to say a word until he is perfectly sure his theoretical ideas are solid fact does resemble Troppman's similar wrapping of enobled secrecy around his actions.

Jeff

Interesting, Jeff!
I can see the similarities, who knows Pierre might be a copycat.

[JadenCollins]

You can actually compare Pierre's actions to a little kid.

A kid is all happy and stuff when he gets it his way
But when you take away his toys
Prepare yourself for a crazy scene

[Brenda]

.

Pierre is in a tough spot right now.

He loves the attention he is receiving, but in order to keep receiving that attention, he had to throw out a little bit about his "research". A lot of the things he threw out were instantly debunked, which led to a little less attention for Pierre. But if he doesn't keep posting, he is going to lose attention as well. If everyone would cooperate and stop feeding into this...pretty soon he's going to have to reveal more and more of his theory in order to keep receiving the attention, which is his true purpose for being here.

I went over to JTR Forums to see how those there were getting along with Pierre and discussing his theory, but I couldn't find anything. I'm guessing this kind of business would not be tolerated there.

[JadenCollins]

Pierre is in a tough spot right now.

He loves the attention he is receiving, but in order to keep receiving that attention, he had to throw out a little bit about his "research". A lot of the things he threw out were instantly debunked, which led to a little less attention for Pierre. But if he doesn't keep posting, he is going to lose attention as well. If everyone would cooperate and stop feeding into this...pretty soon he's going to have to reveal more and more of his theory in order to keep receiving the attention, which is his true purpose for being here.

I went over to JTR Forums to see how those there were getting along with Pierre and discussing his theory, but I couldn't find anything. I'm guessing this kind of business would not be tolerated there.

To be honest I wouldn't call it a research, he just keeps changing his theory over and over again. He has nothing to reveal though, he can't prove anything. And he clearly doesn't know how to answer tough questions, questions that will destroy his theory. And when everyone proves him wrong he snaps, leaves for 24h and then comes back with more nonesense. He's focused on MJK, only one victim, which makes me think he only got that far, I bet he doesn't know anything about the rest.

[Elamarna]

For anyone who may not have noticed,
I asked a reasonable question, did not ask any details. Pierre refused to answer.

I went out for the evening, came back and checked to see if he had replied.....no.

Before going out there was an exchange about the size of kellys bed on another thread. using the data he has quoted the bed is almost 9 foot long. i asked him if this was correct and went out.

Now i find he has actually accussed Me of lying, that is outrageous in my view!
Hes also threatening to "out " me on the ignore list, what ever that means.

At least David and i will be ignore together i guess

[Elamarna]

Hi Elamarna,

I just looked at the last three entries on the "I Think I Have Him" thread. I do like the forward approach of your question and see again his parrying reaction. Always the same with Pierre.

I am reminded of a figure in criminal history of the 19th Century who had the same irritating habit. And (unfortunately) to this day some people (including criminal historians) believe him.

Jean Troppmann murdered the entire Kinck family in a series of planned steps in order to acquire their wealth to allow him to emigrate to America in 1869. Troppman slaughtered Madame Kinck and her younger four or five children in a clover field near the Pantin section of Paris, and hastily buried them - but the graves were discovered too early, and when confronted at a seaport by a suspicious gendarme Troppman panicked and tried to flee but was captured. At his trial the fact that he and the Kincks all came from the "Alsace" region got bandied about, so that many believed Troppman and the older Monsieur Kinck may have been involved in espionage for either the Prussians under Bismarck or the French under Napoleon III. Troppman noticed this and played the romantic tragic villain to the hilt. Were there accomplices to his murders, and what was the real motive. "I can't say", Troppman would begin, "Worthy motives must prevent my revealing anything that endangers others!" (or words to that effect). While some still argue he may have had help killing Madame Kinck and her children, the nature of the wounds on their bodies suggested that one individual killed them quickly and violently by blindly striking out on them.

Pierre has certainly not killed anyone but his refusal to say a word until he is perfectly sure his theoretical ideas are solid fact does resemble Troppman's similar wrapping of enobled secrecy around his actions.

Jeff

Thanks Jeff

Steve

[Howard Brown]

I went over to JTR Forums to see how those there were getting along with Pierre and discussing his theory, but I couldn't find anything. I'm guessing this kind of business would not be tolerated there.
-Brenda-

You are correct, Brenda.