New piece of evidence found

[Pierre]

I must admit to being confused as to what objective your posts here are intended to achieve Pierre. Using the above as an example, of what value would that be to anyone here? Makes me think that your objectives have nothing to do with solving crimes or puzzles regarding these cases, and everything to do with narcissism.

Out of curiosity Ive read a few of you posts and so far Ive found nothing of any value to any student or researcher, which is the demographic that populates this site.

So...whats the point of saying you've solved anything if no-one but you knows what the hell you are talking about?

Hi Michael,

my reason for writing is letting off steam - and letting you know a little about what I am doing.

Regards Pierre

[JadenCollins]

His games won't last long, he'll mess up sooner or later, mark my words.

[Hunter]

Pierre,

You are really and truly a troll. The word was written for you. Why anyone plays along and tries to coax things out of you is exactly why you do this. You get your kicks out of controlling the emotions of others and by pushing their buttons. This behavior might define you as a sociopath though I'm no expert and don't even wish to append psychological labels on even the sickest people. Have your fun. It won't last.

Mike

What amazed me is the fact that adminn. has allowed this sh!t to continue to the detriment of the site itself. The regulars, who would at least post information if not indulge in the debate, rarely venture here anymore. It's a shame.

I have nothing else to say at this point. Not that anything I say is relevant anyway.

Cheers, Michael.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi,

I believe I have just solved a known problem in the case. It is a small problem that people have been discussing since the time of the Whitechapel murders.

Very often when you do historical research you reinterpret data sources.

There is a known data source connected to one of the victims. This source contains information that people have been discussing for a long time. It is not a big issue but a small one.

The reinterpretation of the source gives an explanation that is coherent with the life of the person I think was Jack the Ripper.

I would say that the validity of the interpretation is very high. But the significance of the source for my theory is rather unimportant.

Regards Pierre

I must admit to being confused as to what objective your posts here are intended to achieve Pierre. Using the above as an example, of what value would that be to anyone here? Makes me think that your objectives have nothing to do with solving crimes or puzzles regarding these cases, and everything to do with narcissism.

Out of curiosity Ive read a few of you posts and so far Ive found nothing of any value to any student or researcher, which is the demographic that populates this site.

So...whats the point of saying you've solved anything if no-one but you knows what the hell you are talking about?

[The Good Michael]

Pierre,

You are really and truly a troll. The word was written for you. Why anyone plays along and tries to coax things out of you is exactly why you do this. You get your kicks out of controlling the emotions of others and by pushing their buttons. This behavior might define you as a sociopath though I'm no expert and don't even wish to append psychological labels on even the sickest people. Have your fun. It won't last.

Mike

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre,
Whilst I agree with you, that many avenues of research may have wandered off in the wrong direction, and many a interpretation may have been misunderstood..It all boils down to how one perceives significance.
You still continue to use the same old line''I have solved''..without showing any clarity in posts.
I have often over the years, interpreted something via press reports, that would booster a theory, but I have always shared that find, with Casebook, even if I had to wear my flak jacket upon releasing it.
If you are a genuine Ripper enthusiast, and value Casebook, as the best source of Ripper studies in the world, then please respect fellow members intelligence,and try to be clearer in your presentation...not much to ask.?
Regards Richard.

Hi Richards,

Well put. But the problem is that my data sources are so simple, the connections so obvious, the theory so realistic and people here so intelligent.

Regards Pierre

[richardnunweek]

Hi Pierre,
Whilst I agree with you, that many avenues of research may have wandered off in the wrong direction, and many a interpretation may have been misunderstood..It all boils down to how one perceives significance.
You still continue to use the same old line''I have solved''..without showing any clarity in posts.
I have often over the years, interpreted something via press reports, that would booster a theory, but I have always shared that find, with Casebook, even if I had to wear my flak jacket upon releasing it.
If you are a genuine Ripper enthusiast, and value Casebook, as the best source of Ripper studies in the world, then please respect fellow members intelligence,and try to be clearer in your presentation...not much to ask.?
Regards Richard.

[Pierre]

Another known problem solved

Hi,

I believe I have just solved a known problem in the case. It is a small problem that people have been discussing since the time of the Whitechapel murders.

Very often when you do historical research you reinterpret data sources.

There is a known data source connected to one of the victims. This source contains information that people have been discussing for a long time. It is not a big issue but a small one.

The reinterpretation of the source gives an explanation that is coherent with the life of the person I think was Jack the Ripper.

I would say that the validity of the interpretation is very high. But the significance of the source for my theory is rather unimportant.

Regards Pierre

[Abby Normal]

Thats your prerogative..

I'm simply saying that in all 'probability' the 'Dear Boss' was the work of an enterprising young Journalist, and thus the pseudonym Jack the Ripper was an invention by the press..

Thats what the sources tell us, and it seems improbable they would have made that up...'known to heads of CID'

Of course there were later hundreds of letters claiming to be from the killler, Patricia Cornwall based most of her case against Sickert on them

I'm just saying they were almost certainly hoax's and the men who investigated them believed that to be the case so thats the most likely solution

Yours Jeff

Hi jeff
as of 1896 the police had no idea who wrote dear boss letter. In the official police files the record of the 1896 winters coming letter and the police actions about it prove it. Ill go with whats on the official police records at the time then the wishful guesses of a boastful wind bag and his loyal employee many years later.

[curious4]

Can't help it, for the sake of my blood pressure have had to block so-called Pierre again. It's like trying to discuss quantum physics with a goldfish.

C4

[curious4]

No, facts are not facts. They are social an historical constructions.

You establish so called facts by researching archives and different types of data. Facts have to be established using source criticism.

After doing that, you may compare your so called facts to eachother. If they seem to be correlated you can start to create hypotheses. Then you go back to the sources and try to find other sources to test your hypotheses.

Regards Pierre

Hello Pierre

A fact is the distance between Dutfield's yard and Mitre Square. A fact is that Annie Chapman showed signs of strangulation.

If I weren't a lady, I'd say you were talking b*ll*cks!

C4

[Pierre]

Postmodern social constructionism? That makes it all make so much more sense now.

What is "it all"?

[Shaggyrand]

Postmodern social constructionism? That makes it all make so much more sense now.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff

I'll stretch to possibility. But I don't believe it.

Best wishes
C4

Thats your prerogative..

I'm simply saying that in all 'probability' the 'Dear Boss' was the work of an enterprising young Journalist, and thus the pseudonym Jack the Ripper was an invention by the press..

Thats what the sources tell us, and it seems improbable they would have made that up...'known to heads of CID'

Of course there were later hundreds of letters claiming to be from the killler, Patricia Cornwall based most of her case against Sickert on them

I'm just saying they were almost certainly hoax's and the men who investigated them believed that to be the case so thats the most likely solution

Yours Jeff

[Elamarna]

Simon,

i have been wondering the same for the past couple of hours

regards