A major breakthrough

[Geddy2112]

Did Jack the Ripper have a mental problem or didn't he? If you say he did, how do you know, considering that you have't been able to prove his identity?

Same way he knows JtR can read and write...

I need to find that thread where all the Pierre claims are tossed together in a sort of 'what do we know' type of fashion. Mental issues and being able to read and write need throwing in there...

If you say he didn't, then does that mean your suspect is not Jack the Ripper after all and the past year has been a complete waste of time?

Basically what I was asking previously. This sort of means Pierre has now lost 'him.' Which is a total shame because after a year or so I thought we were getting close to the big reveal. Actually I thought the reveal was going to be after something else was published last April but that seems to have come and gone also... shame.

[John G]

I'm really starting to think that the "big reveal", which will probably occur in about 20 years' time, will be something along the lines of "Ha-Ha. Fooled you all!

[David Orsam]

For me, knowing if a piece of evidence or official data was found as the result of a specific research aimed at finding it or simply unintentionaly falling on it is irrelevant.

What I am trying to get at, Hercule, is the nature of Pierre's "archive". One does not normally stumble across medical records of individuals in archives let alone medical records of individuals suspected of being Jack the Ripper. That might, of course, be different in some kind of medical archive. But if Pierre was at a medical archive then he must have been expecting to find medical records. Yet he has told us he wasn't even thinking of finding such a document.

Do you see my confusion?

So firstly I would like to know if Pierre was at this "archive" searching for information about his suspect. And then I would like to know if he found the medical record by accident while searching for information about his suspect.

I would also like to know more about this magical archive because other researchers could no doubt benefit from using it considering that it produces such wonderful and unexpected material.

And I would also like to know why Pierre initially referred to it as "the archive" when he appears never to have mentioned it on this forum before.

[John G]

Hi PcDunn,

Yes, I can explain it so you understand.

The biological explanatory variable is in a source showing that there was a severe brain problem in this case.

This severe brain problem is very common in the brains of murderers according to reliable biological research.

I did not expect to find it in this case. I had not even been thinking about it.

But I did find it in the archive yesterday.

I can now tell you that all the ripperologists, and of course all the people living in 1888 and in the past, who thought that Jack the Ripper had a mental problem, were right.

Best wishes, Pierre

Please cite authority to support this proposition. For instance, what reliable biological research?

Okay, because I can't be bothered to wait for the reply, let me help you out.

Is it The Raine Study by any chance?

[John G]

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.

Is it really just over a year ago? Because, frankly, it feels like centuries!

[Pcdunn]

Proving and disproving...

It's very odd that you say this Pierre because in #11 you stated with great confidence that: "I can now tell you that all the ripperologists, and of course all the people living in 1888 and in the past, who thought that Jack the Ripper had a mental problem, were right."

So despite the fact, as you have admitted, that you don't have sufficient evidence to know that your suspect was Jack the Ripper, you were telling us in #11 that Jack the Ripper had mental problems simply because your suspect had mental problems. How does that make any sense?

Did Jack the Ripper have a mental problem or didn't he? If you say he did, how do you know, considering that you have't been able to prove his identity? If you say he didn't, then does that mean your suspect is not Jack the Ripper after all and the past year has been a complete waste of time?

I think (and Pierre will correct me if I'm wrong) that Pierre meant his hypothesis was that JtR was "a very well-organized killer without any mental illness", and this new evidence (from an archive of whatever type) may help him disprove THAT hypothesis, not necessarily that it disproves his suspected person wasn't Jack.

[David Orsam]

I think (and Pierre will correct me if I'm wrong) that Pierre meant his hypothesis was that JtR was "a very well-organized killer without any mental illness", and this new evidence (from an archive of whatever type) may help him disprove THAT hypothesis, not necessarily that it disproves his suspected person wasn't Jack.

The problem with that interpretation, Pcdunn, is that in the previous sentence Pierre said:

"With such a mental problem as this source indicates, the hypothesis about a well organized killer must be rejected. At least that is what I think."

As we know, he then says:

"So the source is a big problem for me. But it is still a major breakthrough, since I might be able to use it to DISPROVE the hypothesis."

On your interpretation, doesn't this latter sentence contradict the former? Pierre has already told us that the hypothesis about the killer being well-organized has been rejected by his new source. Yet, at the same time, he still only "might" be able to disprove the hypothesis using that same source.

That's why I thought he was talking about his big hypothesis about the killer's identity in the last sentence but, at the same time, it would not surprise me if Pierre has managed to contradict himself in consecutive sentences.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;393284][QUOTE=Pierre;393212]

Its really very clear, the thread is about some data you say you have found, the question is did you look for this information or did it surface while searching for other information?

Hi, Steve,

OK, let´s try. I was looking for any data. That must be the exact description.

The question I was asking the archive was: Is there any source in this archive with any data?

So I did not look for "other information" and I did not look for "this information".

I was searching for any source, with any information, i.e. I searched this specific archive for it.

Also, I can tell you that searching the archives in this case is depending on different archives in different countries. It is a rather interesting and a bit different type of source situation.

The sources are not were one would expect them to be at first, and there are a few changes of names and addresses in a few different places around the world. Also a change in profession.

That is the character of these sources.

I hope that my answer has made it a bit clearer for you.

Best wishes, Pierre

[Hercule Poirot]

What I am trying to get at, Hercule, is the nature of Pierre's "archive". One does not normally stumble across medical records of individuals in archives let alone medical records of individuals suspected of being Jack the Ripper. That might, of course, be different in some kind of medical archive. But if Pierre was at a medical archive then he must have been expecting to find medical records. Yet he has told us he wasn't even thinking of finding such a document.

Do you see my confusion?

So firstly I would like to know if Pierre was at this "archive" searching for information about his suspect. And then I would like to know if he found the medical record by accident while searching for information about his suspect.

I would also like to know more about this magical archive because other researchers could no doubt benefit from using it considering that it produces such wonderful and unexpected material.

And I would also like to know why Pierre initially referred to it as "the archive" when he appears never to have mentioned it on this forum before.

I understand your point of vue. But by now, you must be aware there's no use insisting for a clear answer from Pierre. Like I said above,

The thing that bothers me is if Newton opened a thread about gravity without giving details to his collegues and mentions the breakthrough an apple provided him with again without explaining it, I would tell him 'You either be serious and explain your theory or don't waste our time with this gravity fairy tale of yours'.

Until he comes out clear with his theory, he's wasting our time, and by doing so, he's destroying any credibility he would want us to give him once he decides to explain everything he's found. He placed himself in a '3 balls, 2 strikes, last inning, Pierre 0, Casebook 3' position. He better come out with a base loaded home-run. Then again, given his low batting average (he's afraid of hitting the ball), that's quite unlikely!

Respectfully,
Hercule

[Dr. John Watson]

Pierre's Folly

Pierre, whoever he/she is, must be getting a real laugh out of all this. I know I am!

[John G]

Is it just me or is Post 83 about as clear as mud? In fact, I'd really appreciate it if someone could explain the post to me, assuming that's logically possible.

[Pierre]

The problem with that interpretation, Pcdunn, is that in the previous sentence Pierre said:

"With such a mental problem as this source indicates, the hypothesis about a well organized killer must be rejected. At least that is what I think."

As we know, he then says:

"So the source is a big problem for me. But it is still a major breakthrough, since I might be able to use it to DISPROVE the hypothesis."

On your interpretation, doesn't this latter sentence contradict the former? Pierre has already told us that the hypothesis about the killer being well-organized has been rejected by his new source. Yet, at the same time, he still only "might" be able to disprove the hypothesis using that same source.

That's why I thought he was talking about his big hypothesis about the killer's identity in the last sentence but, at the same time, it would not surprise me if Pierre has managed to contradict himself in consecutive sentences.

Hi David,

To make it clearer for you: I did not know that there was such a severe mental problem. And I think it must have been difficult for Jack the Ripper to do what he did with such a problem. But still, I am not educated within the field of medicine and may be wrong about that.

On the other hand, if this mental problem would make it very hard to committ the crimes that were committed, I can perhaps use this source to disprove the hypothesis about a killer. That would be a relief. But I am afraid it is not enough.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

To make it clearer for you: I did not know that there was such a severe mental problem. And I think it must have been difficult for Jack the Ripper to do what he did with such a problem. But still, I am not educated within the field of medicine and may be wrong about that.

On the other hand, if this mental problem would make it very hard to committ the crimes that were committed, I can perhaps use this source to disprove the hypothesis about a killer. That would be a relief. But I am afraid it is not enough.

With all this uncertainty, Pierre, how did you feel able to say to us in #11:

"I can now tell you that all the ripperologists, and of course all the people living in 1888 and in the past, who thought that Jack the Ripper had a mental problem, were right." ????

[Pierre]

I think (and Pierre will correct me if I'm wrong) that Pierre meant his hypothesis was that JtR was "a very well-organized killer without any mental illness", and this new evidence (from an archive of whatever type) may help him disprove THAT hypothesis, not necessarily that it disproves his suspected person wasn't Jack.

Hi PcDunn,

No, I really think that Jack the Ripper was a highly organized killer and that is something that I will not be able to reinterpret.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

With all this uncertainty, Pierre, how did you feel able to say to us in #11:

"I can now tell you that all the ripperologists, and of course all the people living in 1888 and in the past, who thought that Jack the Ripper had a mental problem, were right." ????

Easy. The source kicked back. I must follow the sources.