A major breakthrough

[David Orsam]

I will write a book with everything I have found.

I've been pondering on your above statement Pierre because it confuses me.

On 27 September 2015, in response to pinkmoon's comment in the "I think I have found him" thread that if he had a solution to the mystery he would be straight on the phone to a major book publisher, you said:

"Oh, dear. Why didnīt I think of that? I must go and find a publisher at once!

Eh, wait a minute...isnīt that just the problem with the so called research about Jack the Ripper? To many eager ripperologists and to many greedy publishers."

Yet, on the same day, in the same thread, you said:

"Iīm so tired of this case but have to go on. And he, the killer, consumes my time.

Perhaps the worst thing of all: if I get conclusive evidence I will have to write a book. I donīt want to."

So it is clear that you were saying you would only write a book if you got "conclusive evidence". You made clear your contempt for people who wrote books without conclusive evidence when you said in the same thread on 8 October 2015

"I havenīt claimed to solve the case. I have said that I think I have found him.

"Glory" and book deals mean nothing to me. Research does. To many ripperologists have already gone for the book deal and glory and I think thatīs part of the explanation as to why they havenīt found him. So I do understand your argument about "horseshit". I think you are right in saying that."

But from what you tell us in this thread, despite your "major breakthrough", you are no nearer to finding the conclusive evidence that your suspect was Jack the Ripper than you were when you first joined this forum. In fact, the medical information that you tell us you have found seems to have taken you further away from confirming that your suspect was the Ripper because it goes against your own hypothesis about how the Ripper behaved.

What I'm wondering, therefore, is if you have decided after all to become an "eager ripperologist", adding to the problem with research about Jack the Ripper by publishing another speculative book without any conclusive evidence. Do you have any comment to make about that?

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;393585]

Hi John,

As long as I have no possibility to discuss the sources I can always hypothesize about other sources. Others do the same.

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

Yes, of course, but that largely assumes you have some substantive, and as yet undisclosed, evidence pointing to your suspect. Of course, if that is the case it would be perfectly logical to speculate as to how other information might support this theory.

However, the difficulty is there is currently no reason for me to believe that you have such evidence.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;393584]

Hi Pierre,

You seem to be approaching this problem from a very unique perspective, which I don't really understand. For instance, your approach is clearly not that of a mainstream historian. Nor, of course, is it that of a postmodernist or relativist, as that would be self defeating, i.e. accepting that there is no universal truth or that one argument is as good as another.

However, whatever you're trying to achieve, based upon the evidence so far I don't see anything but a highly superficial argument. Thus, you have a tendency to make highly speculative leaps of faith, such as: my suspect is a police officer, Lawende may have been silenced, and the reason for this may be because he identified a police officer suspect, which the authorities may have conspired to cover up.

The difficulty is, of course, that almost any argument could be based upon similar extreme theorizing/speculation.

But in the final analysis, it doesn't actually amount to very much, does it?

Hi John,

As long as I have no possibility to discuss the sources I can always hypothesize about other sources. Others do the same.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;393494]

Hi John,

Yes, I may very well be wrong. But I do not think I have been carried away. On the contrary, I am very critical towards the data I work with. But also, I really want to test different hypotheses, since that is what I do as an historian. And I am convinced that everything I see and everything I think may be wrong. But when data kick back, I have to give up. Sorry.



I may be terribly misguided. Why not? After all, I am just a simple historian. I have found some sources and they may guide me wrong. Usually I find out when they do. But right now there is a set of sources and I have to try and disprove them all. I am afraid I have failed in doing so. Some of them are very questionable. Some have a very high validity and reliability.



Maybe I am more of a positivist than I thought I was! But I find that the post modern view blurrs things and make them very unsecure. I am not an absolutist but certainly not a relativist either.

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

You seem to be approaching this problem from a very unique perspective, which I don't really understand. For instance, your approach is clearly not that of a mainstream historian. Nor, of course, is it that of a postmodernist or relativist, as that would be self defeating, i.e. accepting that there is no universal truth or that one argument is as good as another.

However, whatever you're trying to achieve, based upon the evidence so far I don't see anything but a highly superficial argument. Thus, you have a tendency to make highly speculative leaps of faith, such as: my suspect is a police officer, Lawende may have been silenced, and the reason for this may be because he identified a police officer suspect, which the authorities may have conspired to cover up.

The difficulty is, of course, that almost any argument could be based upon similar extreme theorizing/speculation.

But in the final analysis, it doesn't actually amount to very much, does it?

[David Orsam]

My posts account for less than 3% of this topic, Mr. Orsam. You certainly don't need my help to drag this out any longer than necessary.

I love statistics. Your posts account for 30% of the last 10 posts in this thread and have been responsible for at least 60% of them due to the replies they've prompted. I hope you are proud of yourself.

[Harry D]

I don't need to be a mod to know when a post is off-topic nor do I need to be a rocket scientist to know when a post is futile and that's now two in a row from you on both counts.

No-one is stringing me along. Either you have something to say about Pierre's "major breakthrough" or you are guilty of unnecessarily extending the length of this thread which is what I thought you were complaining about in the first place.

My posts account for less than 3% of this topic, Mr. Orsam. You certainly don't need my help to drag this out any longer than necessary.

[Geddy2112]

It's clear Pierre is not going to give out further details or actually wishes his 'points' (whatever they might be as he won't divulge) to be discussed. He has made it clear he is writing a book and then we will all know. Well I'm sure the way he has conducted his 'work' on these forums will put a large number of people off buying said book.
However one positive from this is apparent if you want to call it that and we now know that every single Pierre thread will be pointless as he will just come waltzing in making a bold statement then dodge everyone's questions who try to discuss anything with him.
Lets be honest here what are the chances he has found something so telling to name a solid suspect that has been missed for decades... fairly slim methinks. I know a lot of forums on various subjects I visit he would not have lasted two month with this type of behaviour.

[David Orsam]

First of all, you are not a mod to decide what is or isn't off-topic. This discussion is just another in a long line of bait from our resident provocateur.

Secondly, Pierre says a lot of things. You know as well as I do that he'll continue to string you along and fail to provide the answers you're looking for. Meanwhile, the rest of us keep checking into the forum only to find it dominated by this self-defeating nonsense.

I don't need to be a mod to know when a post is off-topic nor do I need to be a rocket scientist to know when a post is futile and that's now two in a row from you on both counts.

No-one is stringing me along. Either you have something to say about Pierre's "major breakthrough" or you are guilty of unnecessarily extending the length of this thread which is what I thought you were complaining about in the first place.

[Hercule Poirot]

Having te last word!

The thing here and in similar threads seems to be having the last word, but...

[Harry D]

Have you considered, Harry D, that your post is another "exercise in futility"? And the length of this thread, about which you and others seem to be obsessed, is already greatly extended by the number of people who seem to enjoy making utterly futile posts of this nature. Your post is also clearly off-topic. In this thread, Pierre has told us that he has obtained some relevant information about a possible suspect and I have been trying to establish exactly what that information is and how he obtained it. If you have a problem with that then I suggest you need to take a good look at yourself and your own posting behaviour.

First of all, you are not a mod to decide what is or isn't off-topic. This discussion is just another in a long line of bait from our resident provocateur.

Secondly, Pierre says a lot of things. You know as well as I do that he'll continue to string you along and fail to provide the answers you're looking for. Meanwhile, the rest of us keep checking into the forum only to find it dominated by this self-defeating nonsense.

[David Orsam]

Another exercise in futility that will no doubt span another 20 pages. I honestly don't know what Mr. Orsam & co. are hoping to achieve by entertaining this charade. It's like you can tell you're being played but can't help yourselves. If nobody responded to these desperate grabs for attention, Pierre would either put up or shut up, but on and on it goes.

Have you considered, Harry D, that your post is another "exercise in futility"? And the length of this thread, about which you and others seem to be obsessed, is already greatly extended by the number of people who seem to enjoy making utterly futile posts of this nature. Your post is also clearly off-topic. In this thread, Pierre has told us that he has obtained some relevant information about a possible suspect and I have been trying to establish exactly what that information is and how he obtained it. If you have a problem with that then I suggest you need to take a good look at yourself and your own posting behaviour.

[Robert St Devil]

Another exercise in futility that will no doubt span another 20 pages. I honestly don't know what Mr. Orsam & co. are hoping to achieve by entertaining this charade. It's like you can tell you're being played but can't help yourselves. If nobody responded to these desperate grabs for attention, Pierre would either put up or shut up, but on and on it goes.

Spoken like a true sideliner, harry d. somebody wake me when he contributes.

[Jon Wilkes]

I remember when I wanted attention also, good luck P

[Harry D]

Another exercise in futility that will no doubt span another 20 pages. I honestly don't know what Mr. Orsam & co. are hoping to achieve by entertaining this charade. It's like you can tell you're being played but can't help yourselves. If nobody responded to these desperate grabs for attention, Pierre would either put up or shut up, but on and on it goes.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
The trouble with this case,is, we cannot rely on any source as accurate.
Official statements are ridiculed, hear say is ridiculed, there are flaws in every single suspect since day one
We can only hope that some day information will rear up. that is beyond ridicule, that will be a sensation to us all.
My aim over the years has been to present scenarios based on some fact, some hearsay, in order that discussion can take place, I initially presented a thread ''Joseph Barnett , number one suspect'' some 16 years ago, and Leanne Parry , and I, had intended to write a book, but continents apart it was difficult, but I was so pleased for Leanne , that she completed her dream , and had her book published.
I also presented the ''Grave spitting '' account which caused much discussion., and ''The thirty nine theory''which caused great debate.
Many more scenarios followed..because this fuels debate, and that is the way forward , the way Casebook members can gain fresh ideas , and inspirations.
But in the case of our friend Pierre, he forwards no scenarios , no suspect, and offers nothing for debate , apart from all of our frustrations, which are frequently aired.
Regards Richard.