Cautious?

[Abby Normal]

Hi,

I found something interesting in the Stride inquest.

Firstly, as we all know, he killer did not perform any mutilations on Stride.
Therefore people have thought that the killer was not Jack the Ripper - or they have thought that he was interrupted.

Did the killer assume that the police would think along these lines, given that he had performed mutilations on Nichols and Chapman and were going to do the same on Eddowes after Stride? And if he did assume that, would he want to tell the police that he was the actual killer of Stride?

Earlier I have stated that he was not interrupted after killing Stride. I said he could not go searching for the next victim and come to her with blood all over him. He would have been caught directly.

I believe that is why he did not perform any mutilations on Stride:

He was being

cautious. (Avoiding risk.)

I just I found something in the inquest, and I am wondering if this could be a communication from the killer at the murder site of Stride. I have not seen it before.

There were discussions on this issue during the inquest. And one problem that was been discussed was why Stride did not drop the thing she had in her left hand when she fell to the ground.
http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...st_stride.html

Could it have been placed in her hand by the killer?

Did he try to identify himself by explaining to the police why he did not perform any mutilations on Stride?

It is not an hypothesis, just a question.

The thing that Stride had in her left hand after death was a paper tissue containing -

cachous.

Kind regards, Pierre

yes!!!Yes!!

He was trying to tell them he didn't mutilate her because she had bad breath!!

Brilliant Pierre!

[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!

But you donīt know what it is, John.

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?

You donīt know anything about that either.

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.

But it isnīt.

I bet you like this: "...raises serious questions about your credibility and the scientific rigour of your research".

But it doesnīt help. Nothing helps. Whatever you say. I will not be provoked.

Regards Pierre

[Elamarna]

Regards Pierre

I was going to write along set of questions again, but remembered I am not talking directly to the poster anymore and will not be provoked myself.

so just going to echo what more senior posters have said.

ignore him and his games

[Pierre]

I was going to write along set of questions again, but remembered I am not talking directly to the poster anymore and will not be provoked myself.

Hi Steve,

but you are still talking to me as you very well know. Indirectly.

so just going to echo what more senior posters have said.

ignore him and his games

If there is a game, you and others here are the only ones playing it. I have stated from my very first post that I can not tell you the ID of the person I think was the killer. It is my right not to do so. And I am sorry if people get offended by that. But a lot of people here have been trying to get his ID by using all sorts of strategies. So they have created a game where the rules they have set up are that they should have the privilege to be rude and to provoke me in any way they like, while I try to tell people as much as I can, without giving them the ID of the killer. That is the only game here. We will see how long I will stand it.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

"I was going to write along set of questions again, but remembered I am not talking directly to the poster anymore and will not be provoked myself"

"Hi Steve,

but you are still talking to me as you very well know. Indirectly."


Well I did say I would still comment on his posts, and i am, but i will not engage in any DIRECT talk with the him, if he doesn't like what people say why doesn't put everyone who does not agree with him on ignore like David.

[Pierre]

"I was going to write along set of questions again, but remembered I am not talking directly to the poster anymore and will not be provoked myself"

"Hi Steve,

but you are still talking to me as you very well know. Indirectly."


Well I did say I would still comment on his posts, and i am, but i will not engage in any DIRECT talk with the him, if he doesn't like what people say why doesn't put everyone who does not agree with him on ignore like David.

Hi Steve,

Not a question of likeability. David has constantly displayed one single strategy: to destroy everything I write at any price. So I quickly learned that it would be way too time consuming to try and answer all his "BS" to use GUTīs expression my own writings.

Regards, Pierre

[Craig H]

Hi Craig,

I understand your concern. I will try to give you an idea of the quality of the sources that give his ID. They are sources that I never discuss here. Not yet.

I have sources stating his real name, not in any other written form, which are connected to the murders. And I have sources with his real name (again) giving the motive for the murders. There are also sources giving his profession, in real words and not in any other written form. I also have a confession containing data for him but not with his name.

Outside of these sources for his ID I have chosen to discuss with you some interesting possibilities concerning other sources, that are NOT giving his ID. I donīt mind being explorative and trying different hypotheses for those.

Kind regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre

Thanks for your email and clarification.

Also, good on you for continuing to put out different ideas which provokes discussion.

All the best in your ongoing research

Craig

[David Orsam]

David has constantly displayed one single strategy: to destroy everything I write at any price.

There is no such strategy, either "at any price", whatever that means, or at selective prices. I respond to what I read on a post by post basis. To date, every single post in which you have put forward some type of positive case has been ridiculous and lacking all credibility, especially, but by no means limited to, your interpretation of the GOGMAGOG letter. This thread is another classic example.

[GUT]

Hi Pierre

Thanks for your email and clarification.

Also, good on you for continuing to put out different ideas which provokes discussion.

All the best in your ongoing research

Craig

Even better that he will apparently give you information that he won't post here.

[Purkis]

"I was going to write along set of questions again, but remembered I am not talking directly to the poster anymore and will not be provoked myself"

"Hi Steve,

but you are still talking to me as you very well know. Indirectly."


Well I did say I would still comment on his posts, and i am, but i will not engage in any DIRECT talk with the him, if he doesn't like what people say why doesn't put everyone who does not agree with him on ignore like David.

Times like this I'm reminded how relieved I was when my kids finally grew up and left home.

[Elamarna]

Times like this I'm reminded how relieved I was when my kids finally grew up and left home.

point taken

yes perhaps my response should have been just to ignore him, sometimes however we all behave in a way that is best forgotten about.

Steve

[Pierre]

Hi,

I found something interesting in the Stride inquest.

Firstly, as we all know, he killer did not perform any mutilations on Stride.
Therefore people have thought that the killer was not Jack the Ripper - or they have thought that he was interrupted.

Did the killer assume that the police would think along these lines, given that he had performed mutilations on Nichols and Chapman and were going to do the same on Eddowes after Stride? And if he did assume that, would he want to tell the police that he was the actual killer of Stride?

Earlier I have stated that he was not interrupted after killing Stride. I said he could not go searching for the next victim and come to her with blood all over him. He would have been caught directly.

I believe that is why he did not perform any mutilations on Stride:

He was being

cautious. (Avoiding risk.)

I just I found something in the inquest, and I am wondering if this could be a communication from the killer at the murder site of Stride. I have not seen it before.

There were discussions on this issue during the inquest. And one problem that was been discussed was why Stride did not drop the thing she had in her left hand when she fell to the ground.
http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...st_stride.html

Could it have been placed in her hand by the killer?

Did he try to identify himself by explaining to the police why he did not perform any mutilations on Stride?

It is not an hypothesis, just a question.

The thing that Stride had in her left hand after death was a paper tissue containing -

cachous.

Kind regards, Pierre

I do not agree with this.

Pierre