A major breakthrough

[Geddy2112]

Because I want to share some of the findings.

I want to tell people about it

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

Some contradictions right there but with the greatest respect I think one of your earlier threads was the 'I think I've found him' thread. This was over a year ago IIRC. There was absolutely no point in making such a bold and 'history changing' statement unless you were willing to share your findings and name your man, or woman.. however to this date you have not. The burden you are finding yourself under is magnified by the lack of respect you are showing some very intelligent and skilled 'Ripperoligists' here. You are in fact making a mockery of the system of sharing and discovering to gain the greater good... the unmasking of the killer.

If you take your threads (and no I'm not going to) and take the initial statement that is all you have. Dozens of statements to see if the general population agree or disagree with your hypothesis. You are testing the water. You evade simple questions by reversing the situation, you pollute the threads with colourful flowery language that basically means nothing, it means you have nothing, it means you are hurting this investigation.

I'm sorry but the 'I'cant right now' is rubbish.... this is how it should have gone..

'I think I've found him. I've being doing some research and I've uncovered a few clues as to JtR's identity, or at least who I believe him/her to be. I believe JtR to be.. 'named suspect.'

That is it, that is all it took. No one is going to get arrested for naming a suspect. No one is going to get ridiculed, no one is going to get strips tore off them for having a go at solving the crimes. That is what this place is for. Name your man/woman, give some reasons let the discussion begin. Simple. But no for some reason or other we have had to endure a year or more of thread after thread of digging, conjecture, one up man ship, attention seeking and general bull. For humanities sake please stop this.. name your suspect or go away till you are ready to do so. No one likes an attention seeker... sorry to be frank.

[Robert St Devil]

I thought naming a suspect got you yanked from casebook. Am i wrong?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Geddy2112;393223]

Some contradictions right there but with the greatest respect I think one of your earlier threads was the 'I think I've found him' thread. This was over a year ago IIRC. There was absolutely no point in making such a bold and 'history changing' statement unless you were willing to share your findings and name your man, or woman.. however to this date you have not. The burden you are finding yourself under is magnified by the lack of respect you are showing some very intelligent and skilled 'Ripperoligists' here. You are in fact making a mockery of the system of sharing and discovering to gain the greater good... the unmasking of the killer.

You mean the mockering system of accusing dead people of being serial killers without evidence?

You mean like poor dead Charles Lechmere, who is outed as a "serial killer" by a journalist?

You mean the "unmasking" of innocent dead people?

If you take your threads (and no I'm not going to) and take the initial statement that is all you have. Dozens of statements to see if the general population agree or disagree with your hypothesis. You are testing the water. You evade simple questions by reversing the situation, you pollute the threads with colourful flowery language that basically means nothing, it means you have nothing, it means you are hurting this investigation.

I presuppose that no one agrees with me. I am not looking for agreement. I go with the sources. The water is muddy.

I'm sorry but the 'I'cant right now' is rubbish.... this is how it should have gone..

'I think I've found him. I've being doing some research and I've uncovered a few clues as to JtR's identity, or at least who I believe him/her to be. I believe JtR to be.. 'named suspect.'

That is it, that is all it took. No one is going to get arrested for naming a suspect.

No, but dead people can not defend themselves.

No one is going to get ridiculed, no one is going to get strips tore off them for having a go at solving the crimes. That is what this place is for. Name your man/woman, give some reasons let the discussion begin. Simple. But no for some reason or other we have had to endure a year or more of thread after thread of digging, conjecture, one up man ship, attention seeking and general bull. For humanities sake please stop this.. name your suspect or go away till you are ready to do so. No one likes an attention seeker... sorry to be frank.

So you mean that people like Fisherman, Bruce Robinson or Trevor Marriott are not attention seekers?

Regards, Pierre

[GUT]

I thought naming a suspect got you yanked from casebook. Am i wrong?

If naming a suspect got you "yanked" this'd be a pretty barren place.

[GUT]

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

Pretty sure that's his game

[Hercule Poirot]

A suspect is not a person accused.

You mean the mockering system of accusing dead people of being serial killers without evidence?

Pierre, believing someone is a suspect is quite different than accusing him of a crime. At least you could have said X is in your humble opinion a person of interest and offer your explanation.

Although Prince Albert Victor has been considered a suspect, Her Majesty hasn't sued anyone for diffamation neither did she go into therapy to 'cope' with that theory.

You probably heard of Srinivasa Ramanujan, the Indian mathematicien who kept coming out with formulas explaining complexe infinite series. Even if he had a hard time establishing the validity of his equations (mathematical proof he had but was found only after he died), everyone admired how easy it was for him to come with theories every one had serieous reasons to consider valid.

So, you see a problem where there isn't.

Respectfully,
Hercule

[Abby Normal]

I thought naming a suspect got you yanked from casebook. Am i wrong?

Naming a suspect is fine. It's not naming a suspect but declaring you've found him that might get you in trouble. Lol.

[Geddy2112]

No, but dead people can not defend themselves.

So in other words you are going to continue with this fairly pointless pursuit for an indeterminate amount of time? Since 1888 no one (that I'm aware of) has produced enough evidence to prosecute a suspect in the JtR murders. You are never going to be able to say 100% who JtR was. So there is always going to be a small doubt and we are never going to know for sure. So in your own words you are basically just going to go around and around and around...

So you mean that people like Fisherman, Bruce Robinson or Trevor Marriott are not attention seekers?

No absolutely not. Fisherman I believe puts forward the Torso killer being JtR, sorry I'm not too familiar with Bruce and Trevor as far as I know is a well respected ex Policeman and author. None of them that I am aware of litter these boards with far reaching attention seeking claims. None I have seen post the 'look at me' type of threads you so often do.

Have you posted all of this at the other forums or just here?

[Pierre]

Wait a minute........are you sure.....you concluded that the unprovoked killer and mutilators of several woman in Victorian London had mental problems?

Wow.

This really is ground breaking stuff.

Hi Michael,

Well, I am sorry to say that this is what the source confirms. I was not expecting it, since I have been hypothesizing a very intelligent and well structured killer.

Very often we see hypotheses about a disorganized Jack the Ripper. My hypothesis has, on the contrary, been that Jack the Ripper was a very well organized killer.

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.

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.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;393212]

Hi Steve,

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

Regards, Pierre

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?

that is what David asked, and what I asked, Why do you make it so difficult. the quote above in full refers to he data, why can you not answer?

it really is simple.

Stevre

[Geddy2112]

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.

So you haven't found him now then?

[Steadmund Brand]

I am curious as well,

Respectfully Pierre, I think what the question should be is, when you found the medical information, were you specifically looking for medical records or something else entirely and poof, there was this medical record.....A similar thing happened to me in my research (not on JTR but something else...not worth discussing as you will see)..I was searching for an address for someone at a certain time and found information that they had traveled during this time, placing them somewhere they "shouldn't" have been....So I understand how you can stumble on info unintended (in my case it made my theory on the subject even more convincing....as it seems to have in your case as well), sadly further digging proved me wrong... but hey, in a way I am glad, I mean, we are searching for the truth, not just the "truth" that serves our purpose right?

I do want to ask, when you are done with your research how do you intend to share the info, via a book, or documentary or right here on Casebook, or some other way?

You have to understand the frustration of people on here, it kinda' comes across as a tease, like dangling meat in front of hungry dogs, as for me, since this is the first time I am responding, you can see, I try not to let it get to me, but I felt I should play mediator in this case... why I'm not sure...just did.

Thanks

Steadmund Brand

[Hercule Poirot]

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. It's like asking Newton if he had planned the falling of the apple on his head or not while he was doing his research on gravity. Actually there's no proof it ever fell on his head.

What really matters is the validity of the overall approach one relies upon and what one does once he finds something or when something suddenly happens.

The rest is strickly a 'Pub talk' topic.

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'.

Respectfully,
Hercule

[David Orsam]

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.

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?

[John G]

Well that's a surprise! I've been away from casebook for weeks and Pierre still hasn't told us who it is, despite posts proclaiming "major breakthrough" , "I must have found him..."

Methinks I've defected a theme here!