A major breakthrough

[David Orsam]

"your failure to answer will tell me everything I need to know"

So I now know that you don't have a clue about the solution to the case.

[Pierre]

So I now know that you don't have a clue about the solution to the case.

That seems to be the knowledge that you, David, have. Yes.

[David Orsam]

That seems to be the knowledge that you, David, have. Yes.

That is right, thank you for confirming Pierre. Yes, I know very well that you don't have a clue about the solution to the case.

[Pierre]

That is right, thank you for confirming Pierre. Yes, I know very well that you don't have a clue about the solution to the case.

That is the knowledge you have, yes. Youīre welcome.

[Elamarna]

If you find things I say "strange", fine. I am not interested in going into debate about how baffled people are ore how little they understand or how strange they find me, since it is only meaningless, time consuming and has nothing to do with the case. So we should leave all such talk aside. At least I do that.

Pierre, you really have a problem in understanding what is written, no one finds you strange, just the processes applied.

Now, concearning your statement "it is only now that he has decided to check the death records and health records of this person.":

I have been very clear all the time about my method: I work exclusively with the inductive method in this case. I.e. I do not work with deduction, i.e. I do not presuppose a specific "type" before I find data connected to the Whitechapel murders. I do not presuppose, like ripperologists, that there is a specific type, a "mentally ill person" or a "lunatic" or someone who was staying at an asylum (where they mixed people with and without what we now call psychiatric diagnoses).

Therefore, I did not presuppose that there was a "mad" person, and that I should go and look among the "mad" persons for the Whitechapel killer. There are many reasons for why that it the wrong approach. If you want me to list some of them, let me know.

Again misunderstanding what is written.

No one is suggesting you go looking for a mad man, only that if you had a suspect, it would seem natural and scientific to before launching on in depth research to check on the suspects death and state of health, I am not sure why you find this objectionable.

I am rapidly losing patience with this approach of answering questions not asked, giving the impression other questions have been asked.

Why does it matter? If I went to the other side of the earth to find it, will it become more reliable? Will the original source be more correct?

Not at all, I was just asking if you had travelled to get this info, you had said you would be.
It was just a question, which again you take exception too.

Let David ask his questions by himself, Steve. I seldom answer him, since he is only trying to destroy what I say.

He is not, it is how you see people who ask questions you do not like. I find the response very sad.

If you actually showed respect to those on this forum who attempt to engage with you and answered the questions asked, it would be so much more civilized.

And another thing: the question is meaningless. "Stumbled across the data"? Historians search for sources all the time. And we look for "something else" all the time. We find sources. And we find "something else".

That is so typical of the responses from you.

You don't like the term "stumble across" so you write about those words and not answer the question.

In plain English it was:

Did you find this data after specifically looking for it?

Or did you find it while doing research on another area of your theory,?

Its simple really , YES or No

[Geddy2112]

Pierre, why do you continue to make these threads where you say you have found something about someone or the like then refuse to divulge any further details?
You do know how infuriating this is to the vast number of members who after all are basically here trying to solve the same puzzle. I suggest you look into the old adage of 'put up or shut up' to put it in basic terms. Tis' a shame.

[Hercule Poirot]

I think it's rather childish. Remember the song: 'I know something you don't know, nah nah nah nah nah'

[David Orsam]

That is the knowledge you have, yes.

And my knowledge that you don't have the solution to the case, Pierre, is based on the evidence of over one year of your posts in this forum, all 2,670 of them.

Despite proclaiming on 17 September 2015 that you thought you had found the killer, we are no nearer today knowing the actual identity of the killer than we were all the way back then.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;393201]

Did you find this data after specifically looking for it?

Hi Steve,

What do you mean by "specifically looking for it"? Do you mean specifically looking for medical data?

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

And my knowledge that you don't have the solution to the case, Pierre, is based on the evidence of over one year of your posts in this forum, all 2,670 of them.

Despite proclaiming on 17 September 2015 that you thought you had found the killer, we are no nearer today knowing the actual identity of the killer than we were all the way back then.

Thatīs right, David. Because there will be no addition to a long, worthless list of so called "suspects", i.e. innocent people in the past who struggled to survive.

But as you can see, I am working on the case and I am updating you when new data is found.

And now you have tried to destroy this thread, and it doesnīt matter to me. All that matters is history.

But there are others who would like to discuss this issue, so now I ask you to stop destroying this thread.

[Pierre]

And my knowledge that you don't have the solution to the case, Pierre, is based on the evidence of over one year of your posts in this forum, all 2,670 of them.

Despite proclaiming on 17 September 2015 that you thought you had found the killer, we are no nearer today knowing the actual identity of the killer than we were all the way back then.

Compare 1 year to 128 years.

[Pierre]

Pierre, why do you continue to make these threads where you say you have found something about someone or the like then refuse to divulge any further details?
You do know how infuriating this is to the vast number of members who after all are basically here trying to solve the same puzzle. I suggest you look into the old adage of 'put up or shut up' to put it in basic terms. Tis' a shame.

Hi Geddy,

I appreciate you question. Thank you.

Because it is a terrible burden on me.

Because I want to share some of the findings.

I will not stop until this is finished. Everyone will get to know everything there is to know when I am finished. I am working on it to finish it as soon as possible.

And I do not want to be stuck in this for 30 years.

I want to tell people about it, especially older people who have been interested in the case for a long time.

And that is something I can not do right now. And that is also a terrible burden.

[David Orsam]

Thatīs right, David. Because there will be no addition to a long, worthless list of so called "suspects", i.e. innocent people in the past who struggled to survive.

But as you can see, I am working on the case and I am updating you when new data is found.

And now you have tried to destroy this thread, and it doesnīt matter to me. All that matters is history.

But there are others who would like to discuss this issue, so now I ask you to stop destroying this thread.

There is absolutely no point in updating us when "new data is found", Pierre, unless you are prepared to tell us precisely what that data is.

I have not tried to "destroy this thread" at all, whatever you mean by that strange assertion, although I have certainly suggested that there has not, in fact, been a "major breakthrough" as you assert, something for which no evidence has been yet presented. I have also attempted to ask you straightforward questions about your purported "major breakthrough" which you have, as usual, evaded and failed to answer.

One thing that is good is that you now seem to realize that naming your suspect will simply be to add him to a "worthless list" of suspects. That being so, and considering you have admitted that you do not have sufficient evidence to accuse your subject of any crime, why are you continuing to post here about this suspect?

[David Orsam]

Compare 1 year to 128 years.

The previous 127 years literally flew by, Pierre, whereas the last twelve months seem to have gone on for ever with your empty boasts.

[David Orsam]

I want to tell people about it

And when do you propose to start doing so?

How many years do you need????