A major breakthrough

[Elamarna]

I donīt want to accuse Scotland Yard for having protected Jack the Ripper.

You won't be my friend; history will be!
That is if the data backing such a suggestion exist and is reliable.

And my friend is not down to you to give positives on those two issues; it is for the process of peer review, you know as used in academia.

I donīt want to tell the descendants of the victims that the killer was someone who was supposed to protect people.

Why not?
If your theory is indeed the correct one, do they not deserve to know the truth?

Can one ask do you personally know any of the descendents?

If not, it will not be you telling them anyway, it will be the world’s media

I donīt want to destroy this little field of ripperology.

What really makes you think that would happen.

You have no real understanding of how the world of Ripperology moves, or what its aims or purposes are.

That much is clear from all you have posted.

I donīt want to write a book about the case.

I do not accept that statement for one minute!

This is the chance for fame which has always eluded.

Its how respect will be gained from Peers in Academia, to solve such an historical puzzle would prove the status held.

I donīt want to spent the rest of my life with this.

Then stop.

If all the above is true, there is nothing forcing you to carry on is there?

If you cannot cope with the heat then get out of the kitchen.


Steve

[Hercule Poirot]

Cause he's making it up as he goes along, has been since day one.

It's all about 'The butler did it' theory and some of our members take for granted that the butler actually existed and keep asking how old was the butler!!

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

[Elamarna]

Steve, your points are well made, though I feel you are being overly generous. Given the points you raise - the things Pierre could address or communicate without compromising his own work or his ethics, but which he has chosen not to - the term 'research failings' does not seem appropriate.

This is a spoof, and has been since day one. And I don't mean merely this thread. What other explanation can there be for his announcement that the ripper/his suspect had a mental illness, then his reversal of that diagnosis, and his subsequent assertion that a mental illness of that type would've falsified his theory and allowed him to wash his hands of the case? He's trapped himself in one of his own lies and he knows it, and that is why I expect that visitors to this thread over the next few days will be able to hear tumbleweed rolling through, and the chirping of crickets.

Henry I do hope you are right. It is tideious to rebut the nonsense. But not difficult.

I fully accept my term "research failings" may be over generous but everyone understands what I meanI think.

Steve

[Henry Flower]

Gut and Henry


What I fail to understand if he is being honest is why he does not understand that it is perfectly possible to diagnose the dead, and despite giving him examples he will not comment.

The possible clincher of course is why will he not give details of what he claimed he found.

I suggested he redact all identifying details, he could even write it in his own words, and not quote directly at all.

Of course no comment on that either, and he admits the whole thread as been a waste of time!

Actually that is wrong, it has served to expose more research failings.

Steve

Steve, your points are well made, though I feel you are being overly generous. Given the points you raise - the things Pierre could address or communicate without compromising his own work or his ethics, but which he has chosen not to - the term 'research failings' does not seem appropriate.

This is a spoof, and has been since day one. And I don't mean merely this thread. What other explanation can there be for his announcement that the ripper/his suspect had a mental illness, then his reversal of that diagnosis, and his subsequent assertion that a mental illness of that type would've falsified his theory and allowed him to wash his hands of the case? He's trapped himself in one of his own lies and he knows it, and that is why I expect that visitors to this thread over the next few days will be able to hear tumbleweed rolling through, and the chirping of crickets.

[Elamarna]

Cause he's making it up as he goes along, has been since day one.

Gut and Henry


What I fail to understand if he is being honest is why he does not understand that it is perfectly possible to diagnose the dead, and despite giving him examples he will not comment.

The possible clincher of course is why will he not give details of what he claimed he found.

I suggested he redact all identifying details, he could even write it in his own words, and not quote directly at all.

Of course no comment on that either, and he admits the whole thread as been a waste of time!

Actually that is wrong, it has served to expose more research failings.

Steve

[GUT]

You really haven' addressed David's point: you now claim that a diagnosis of that mental problem would've somehow falsified your theory and you could've walked away, but earlier, before the reversal, you were shouting from the rooftops that yes, you could confirm the Ripper did indeed have a mental illness.

You have absolutely caught yourself out.

(1) He had a mental problem, I can confirm my suspect/the Ripper had a mental illness!

(2) Oh, turns out I was wrong. He didn't after all.

(3) I wish he'd had a mental illness, then I'd have known my hypothesis was wrong and I could've got on with my life, but I must suffer further in the noble cause.....

Somewhere along the line you lost track of your own story.

Cause he's making it up as he goes along, has been since day one.

[Henry Flower]

You really haven' addressed David's point: you now claim that a diagnosis of that mental problem would've somehow falsified your theory and you could've walked away, but earlier, before the reversal, you were shouting from the rooftops that yes, you could confirm the Ripper did indeed have a mental illness.

You have absolutely caught yourself out.

(1) He had a mental problem, I can confirm my suspect/the Ripper had a mental illness!

(2) Oh, turns out I was wrong. He didn't after all.

(3) I wish he'd had a mental illness, then I'd have known my hypothesis was wrong and I could've got on with my life, but I must suffer further in the noble cause.....

Somewhere along the line you lost track of your own story.

[Henry Flower]

"I am very, very interested in getting this case out of my life, believe me. So if I had had the chance, I would have taken it."

I do genuinely sympathize Pierre. I would like it if your research and theories on the case were out of my life too, so I know how you feel.

Why not minimize the toll the case is taking on you by, say, not feeling the need to pop up on forums foolishly and erroneously announcing major breakthroughs, or whatever?

Why not just finish your research and publish your damned book? You offer nothing for debate anyway, so there's no point wasting your valuable historian powers on these pointless posts.

[Elamarna]

I donīt know anything about medicine and canīt help you. Sorry.

You may not: but John gave you 2 examples, a 2 second Google search would tell you if the condition which you claimed was related.

Again why not give the diagnosis out and let those who do know about such matters give an opinion, they may agree with your expert.

For clarification:

Was there a condition recorded which you found or not? your posts seem somewhat unclear on this.

Is it that your expert said there was no condition? or such a condition would not effect the person?

Finally why would the person having a problem rule them out of being the killer, would it not just mean your hypothesis was incomplete.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Pierre,

some answers at last.

However there are questions i must ask in order to clear this thread up.

No, one canīt when the patient is dead.

Yes you can, it happens often, has i have posted previously

No, he hasnīt, since there was just a diagnosis he had to read to see what the diagnosis was. That was all he had to do.



Why would I be afraid of discussing a source giving a diagnosis which has nothing to do with any brain disease or mental problem?

Then why not do has you were asked an post the diagnosis with all identifying items redacted. To see if others agree.

My expert is a medical historian, Steve.

Well that partially answers the question, however you have not been clear about if the person is medically qualified, as it is possible to be a medical historian without being so.


And you have still not told us the medical speciality of the expert.

Please do not insult me by accusing me of insulting people.

It is not an insult to say you are insulting people, it is my humble opinion, which of course you can disagree with, but in English it is not an insult.

I agree with you. This thread is a waste of time. The only thing I learned from this source, in the end, was that I could not discard the hypothesis and that I therefore have to go on with this research.

Then with all due respect why did you not check the facts before posting it would have saved a lot of time.


Steve

[David Orsam]

Nothing is a "revealing admission". You do as always, you misintepret everything you want to misinterpret to destroy what I write.

I haven't misinterpreted anything Pierre.

I'm just wondering if it was a barefaced lie when you said earlier this evening: "If there was the slightest (!) chance that the source contained any indication of such a [mental] problem, I would use it to discard the hypothesis about a very well organized killer, if I could! And if I could have done that, I would get my normal life back....The only thing I learned from this source, in the end, was that I could not discard the hypothesis and that I therefore have to go on with this research....that sort of mental problem could have made my hypothesis refutable. And then I would have been able to drop the case."

So far you haven't offered any explanation to explain the contradiction where you said earlier in this thread that Jack the Ripper had a mental problem, which must have been exactly the same mental problem as you thought your suspect suffered from, which must mean you had no intention of dropping the case, so what else am I supposed to think?

[Pierre]

Well this is a revealing admission:

David Orsam: As soon as you thought your suspect had a mental problem you announced that Jack the Ripper had a mental problem.

Pierre: Of course. That was the first hypothesis I got.

So clearly, Pierre, having discovered, as you thought, that your suspect had a mental problem, you were NOT going to "drop the case" and go back to your normal life which is what you claimed earlier this evening.

Nothing is a "revealing admission". You do as always, you misintepret everything you want to misinterpret to destroy what I write.

[David Orsam]

Well this is a revealing admission:

David Orsam: As soon as you thought your suspect had a mental problem you announced that Jack the Ripper had a mental problem.

Pierre: Of course. That was the first hypothesis I got.

So clearly, Pierre, having discovered, as you thought, that your suspect had a mental problem, you were NOT going to "drop the case" and go back to your normal life which is what you claimed earlier this evening.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;395482][QUOTE=Pierre;395479]

Like Alzheimer's, or vascular dementia, for example. I should have said, with a proven organic cause.

I donīt know anything about medicine and canīt help you. Sorry.

[David Orsam]

I donīt want to accuse Scotland Yard for having protected Jack the Ripper.

I donīt want to tell the descendants of the victims that the killer was someone who was supposed to protect people.

I donīt want to destroy this little field of ripperology.

I donīt want to write a book about the case.

I donīt want to spent the rest of my life with this.

And still, you put words into my mouth.

All the above is canting nonsense. You want to be proved right. And badly so.