A major breakthrough

[John G]

Pierre,

When you refer there "severe brain problem", what exactly do you mean? Are you referring to a problem with a proven bio-medical cause?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Steadmund Brand;393294]

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?

Hi Steadmund Brand,

Yes, we are, or maybe I should speak for myself only, looking for what you call the truth. And given all the false ideas and theories about this killer, that is rather problematic, since people do not expect such a thing as "the truth".

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?

I will write a book with everything I have found.

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

Well, I am afraid that they are not hungry for the truth but for me.

Anyway, I appreciate your post and I agree with what you write here.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Pierre,

When you refer there "severe brain problem", what exactly do you mean? Are you referring to a problem with a proven bio-medical cause?

Hi John,

Yes.

[John G]

Hi John,

Yes.

Hi Pierre,

Thanks for the reply. That would therefore exclude, say, schizophrenia then.

However, it obviously wouldn't exclude dementia, i.e. Alzheimer's disease. And how effectively could dementia be diagnosed in the nineteenth century?

[David Orsam]

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

What on earth do you mean by "The source kicked back"?

And what do you mean by "I must follow the sources"?

I thought you just told me that the source you discovered is unclear, that you are not educated within the field of medicine and that "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."

Are you saying that since you wrote #11 four days ago, at which time you were certain that that Jack the Ripper the had a mental problem, your source has "kicked back" and, from the exact same source, you are now no longer sure about this at all?

[David Orsam]

I will write a book with everything I have found.

Aha, so this has all been a 12 month marketing campaign.

Well done, Pierre, I am truly impressed.

[MsWeatherwax]

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.

I have to admit, I find this quite troubling myself.

I'm also confused by the description of the medical issue in question. As Pierre says:

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.

This puzzles me, because 'brain problems' are not usually detectable without the use of medical imaging - particularly those common to violent offenders. Radiographic imaging was not available until 1895, and was certainly of no use in diagnosing brain injury, whether that be 'biological' or traumatic, for many years after this.

That really only leaves post-mortem reports. If this is the case, I would be very interested to know what was described in the report.

[John G]

I have to admit, I find this quite troubling myself.

I'm also confused by the description of the medical issue in question. As Pierre says:



This puzzles me, because 'brain problems' are not usually detectable without the use of medical imaging - particularly those common to violent offenders. Radiographic imaging was not available until 1895, and was certainly of no use in diagnosing brain injury, whether that be 'biological' or traumatic, for many years after this.

That really only leaves post-mortem reports. If this is the case, I would be very interested to know what was described in the report.

An excellent post, which effectively addresses a number of my own concerns expressed in Post 94.

[Pierre]

What on earth do you mean by "The source kicked back"?

And what do you mean by "I must follow the sources"?

I thought you just told me that the source you discovered is unclear, that you are not educated within the field of medicine and that "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."

Are you saying that since you wrote #11 four days ago, at which time you were certain that that Jack the Ripper the had a mental problem, your source has "kicked back" and, from the exact same source, you are now no longer sure about this at all?

No, David. As usual you fail to understand. My point was that I had no hypothesis about a killer with a severe brain problem. So the source kicked back. I.e., it surprised me. A lot.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Merda taurorum animas conturbit.

Always worth bearing in mind when trying to deal with Pierre.

Regards,

Simon

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Simon Wood;393335]

Hi All,

Merda taurorum animas conturbit.

Always worth bearing in mind when trying to deal with Pierre.

Regards,

Simon

Hi All,

Parva leves capiunt animas.

Always worth bearing in mind when trying to deal with ripperologists.

Regards, Pierre

[IchabodCrane]

Worth repeating after one year:

Originally Posted by richardnunweek
Hi,
Why are we all so concerned, about some newcomers theory, that is dangling a big carrot before us.
We all know that its very unlikely that anyone , without personal /private information, will ever uncover this mystery, its been attempted since 1888, and failed.
If this poster has uncovered a plausible suspect, he has two options, put the carrot away , and write a book...or reveal the suspect, so we can at least form an opinion.
If he is after financial reward, the former is the route to take, if he is, like many of us passionate about this case, and money is secondary, then tell Casebook..
Regards Richard

[David Orsam]

No, David. As usual you fail to understand. My point was that I had no hypothesis about a killer with a severe brain problem. So the source kicked back. I.e., it surprised me. A lot.

Okay, so you were "surprised" by the source but the day after you started this thread you wrote:

"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."

What you seem to be telling me today is that you are uncertain about the significance of the source. But, more than that, the position that you have not found sufficient evidence to say that your suspect is the killer remains.

So are you saying that four days ago, in your state of surprise, you felt that you had finally found the killer, and he had mental problems, but now, on reflection, you have changed your mind?

Or was your statement in #11 always just pure hyperbolic nonsense?

[MsWeatherwax]

[QUOTE=Pierre;393336]

Hi All,

Parva leves capiunt animas.

Always worth bearing in mind when trying to deal with ripperologists.

Regards, Pierre

Yet you still wish to engage those light minds, apparently.

[John G]

No, David. As usual you fail to understand. My point was that I had no hypothesis about a killer with a severe brain problem. So the source kicked back. I.e., it surprised me. A lot.

But I still don't understand how you can know that your suspect had a "severe brain problem", with a bio-medical cause. I would also note that in Post 87 you stated, "I am not educated in the field of medicine".