Cautious?

[GUT]

Ned's first siblings were Mary Jane and Annie.

I raised that in another thread.

Along with the idea that Dan hanged instead of Ned (an idea I suspect you know is far from original and gets support from some serious historians).

[DJA]

Ah Fook.

Ned's first "customer".

[GUT]

Ah Fook.

Ned's first "customer".

Well if we believe Joes story was true, Ned and Mary were both descended from a John Kelly.

[DJA]

Well if we believe Joes story was true, Ned and Mary were both descended from a John Kelly.

Ned's father was sent here for stealing pigs from a guy named Cooney.

[GUT]

Ned's father was sent here for stealing pigs from a guy named Cooney.

Yep, lucky bugger, free cruise to Aus.

[DJA]

105 years later, the cruise only cost ten pounds.

[Mayerling]

Funny thing is that I always thought "cachous" sounded like the noise one makes as one sneezes ("Ah CHOOO"!!).

If we are going to make wild guesses as to the murder victims of the Double Event, has anyone ever thought seriously of the Stride - Swedish connection? Maybe Jack was injured by a prostitute in Stockholm, or while visiting Upsala? Maybe Jack liked the misogynist plays of the contemporary Swedish genius August Strindberg? Perhaps "cachous" has a homophonic sounding word in "Swedish" that means something our killer was hinting at in his metaphysical/metaphorical language of confusion to everyone else.

Jeff

[GUT]

105 years later, the cruise only cost ten pounds.

Now about $10K depending on line and cabin category.

[The Good Michael]

It was meant for Pierre anyways.

Since he's interpreting every single word differently, there should be a new dictionary out there, the Pierre's bizarre view of words.

Except it was David's suggestion of cachous for cochon and it was a joke. A good one, but it was taken like bait.

Mike

[Pierre]

Except it was David's suggestion of cachous for cochon and it was a joke. A good one, but it was taken like bait.

Mike

David is such a jokester, isnīt he?

And the more everybody are doing their best to behave like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIIk4f9MLEk

the more they think they can make others think that Pierres theory is bogus!

Regards Pierre

[Mayerling]

David is such a jokester, isnīt he?

And the more everybody are doing their best to behave like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIIk4f9MLEk

the more they think they can make others think that Pierres theory is bogus!

Regards Pierre

No...because it is bogus.

Regards Jeff

[Pierre]

So.....a mutilator who is so out of control that he cant resist killing and mutilating a prostitute in the street... then again 10 days later in a dawn lit backyard, suddenly, and just for 1 hour, gains control over his actions?

Better premises make better discussions Pierre. But I suppose there is as much evidence of your suggestion as there is some interruption halted the process.

Heres a thought...Liz Stride was killed because her killer wanted her dead. Not in pieces.

Hi Michael

Thanks for your contribution.

What theory are you referring to when you postulate that the killer was "out of control"?

Do you mean that he was "disorganized"?

Research has shown that the dichotomy of an organized / disorganized serial killer has low validity if you want to use this as a classification.

See for instance Hunting Serial Predators. A Multivariate Classification Approach to Profiling Violent Behavior by Grover Maurice Godwin (CRC Press 1999).

Another question.

You write: "Heres a thought...Liz Stride was killed because her killer wanted her dead. Not in pieces."

But could you not just as well hypothesize that the killer was in control, since he abstained from mutilating the first victim, knowing that he was going to look for another one to perform mutilations on her instead?

I am really interested to hear what you think about these two questions.

Kind regards, Pierre

[John G]

David is such a jokester, isnīt he?

And the more everybody are doing their best to behave like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIIk4f9MLEk

the more they think they can make others think that Pierres theory is bogus!

Regards Pierre

You haven't actually presented a theory yet, so how do you expect anyone to assess your credibility?

[Pierre]

You haven't actually presented a theory yet, so how do you expect anyone to assess your credibility?

Yes, I have presented a part of the theory but not the data sources for his ID.

And if you want to assess the credibility, go on and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of a theory that hypothesizes that Jack the Ripper was a police official. I think you will find out more about the killer in that process than you will in the process of making up jokes.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

Yes, I have presented a part of the theory but not the data sources for his ID.

And if you want to assess the credibility, go on and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of a theory that hypothesizes that Jack the Ripper was a police official. I think you will find out more about the killer in that process than you will in the process of making up jokes.

Regards, Pierre

But you have not confirmed the name of the suspect or the substantive evidence, if any, that you have.

For instance, in your first post of the thread, "He gave the Police His Name", you intimate that you have discovered some crucial evidence-"There is now hardly any doubt. I must have found him." And what did this supposedly concrete evidence consist of? Your subjective interpretation of a name that was supposedly disclosed in metaphorical form! No document containing a confession, with a name expressly revealed. No document that you had sent for handwriting analysis to confirm its validity. Hardly conclusive, is it?

Frankly, if the only "substantive" evidence you have is names written in metaphorical form, and conclusions derived from virtual homophones, then that is clearly far from conclusive and raises serious questions about your credibility and the scientific rigour of your research.