A major breakthrough

[MsWeatherwax]

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

I apologise, I completely missed your post. We're definitely thinking along the same lines here, glad it's not just me.

[John G]

I apologise, I completely missed your post. We're definitely thinking along the same lines here, glad it's not just me.

No problem, and it's definitely not just you! Your post highlighted a fundamental issue which Pierre seems reluctant, to say the least, to address.

[DirectorDave]

I'm a bit too long in the internet tooth to get wound up of things I read on messageboards especially from anonymous posters, a few years back I decided no matter how badly others behave I was going to try and conduct myself with some decorum on the net and just generally ignore those who don't.

I have observed many instances of posters who claim "secret squirrel" information who managed to have other posters hanging on their every word. Occasionally they might come up with something worthwhile to keep their followers hungry for more.

In my experience it's all about the attention for these posters and they usually but not always tend to be not "fully cooked". If people can have the constitution to avoid going down the rabbit holes with these posters they soon get bored and go off to get their jollies elsewhere.

It may be the case that that this is not what is happening here, but it it bears all the hallmarks imo.

[Abby Normal]

I've lost all interest in Pierre and who is suspect is.

What I'm really starting to find fascinating is how long it will take for everyone on here to get tired of his nonsense and stop responding to him.

I'll think three more months should do it. Well see.

[JadenCollins]

"I don't look good in an orange jumpsuit."

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

It's not worth it.

[Harry D]

I've lost all interest in Pierre and who is suspect is.

What I'm really starting to find fascinating is how long it will take for everyone on here to get tired of his nonsense and stop responding to him.

I'll think three more months should do it. Well see.

It truly is ludicrous. More fool anyone who's still being suckered in by this farce.

[Mister Whitechapel]

Plainly I am a rare poster on these boards, but an avid reader of many a discussion over the years, always fascinated and awed by the intelligence and ingenuity of researchers, no matter their suspect - controversial or otherwise. Members here are from an amazing mix of academics, law experts, medical practitioners, and (real!) historians.

Please note that I have utmost respect for those who choose to lay out their suspicions for all to see, despite the criticism and/or peer review that these attract. It matters to me not that these could be a prelude to a new book, or other media. The "workings out" on these boards are testament to their convictions, perhaps flawed or otherwise.

Sadly, there are those rare few that lack this courage, preferring to hide behind faux moral integrity purely for the purpose of playing out some fantasy of superiority and academic success.

This is why I have chosen to add "Pierre" to my sparsely populated list of ignored posters, as I feel that the (admitted) compulsion to read their empty and largely Narcissistic posts are eroding my interest in Casebook, especially as the vast majority of topics in "Most Recent Posts" and "Most Popular Threads" are oft dominated by "Pierre" and his many detractors (who valiantly fight the good fight in the face of such deliberately evasive facetiousness). Certainly, it is no co-incidence that this very thread was created almost a year to the day the now laughable and obviously baiting "I Think I Have Found Him" topic raised its head; both of which do nothing but to incite discord.

Casebook, to me at least, is the resource to those interested in facts, theories and knowledgeable debates of those god-awful events of 1888 (and beyond, if certain theories are to be considered!). While I am myself guilty of contributing to the issue by reading "Pierre" threads and posts as they arrive, I feel that Casebook slowly becoming 'The Pierre Show', and I for one would like to retain the respect I have for this incredible repository before it is sullied.

I suspect I will find the air soon to be fresher and free from the smell of excrement.

Yours,
Mister Whitechapel

[Abby Normal]

Plainly I am a rare poster on these boards, but an avid reader of many a discussion over the years, always fascinated and awed by the intelligence and ingenuity of researchers, no matter their suspect - controversial or otherwise. Members here are from an amazing mix of academics, law experts, medical practitioners, and (real!) historians.

Please note that I have utmost respect for those who choose to lay out their suspicions for all to see, despite the criticism and/or peer review that these attract. It matters to me not that these could be a prelude to a new book, or other media. The "workings out" on these boards are testament to their convictions, perhaps flawed or otherwise.

Sadly, there are those rare few that lack this courage, preferring to hide behind faux moral integrity purely for the purpose of playing out some fantasy of superiority and academic success.

This is why I have chosen to add "Pierre" to my sparsely populated list of ignored posters, as I feel that the (admitted) compulsion to read their empty and largely Narcissistic posts are eroding my interest in Casebook, especially as the vast majority of topics in "Most Recent Posts" and "Most Popular Threads" are oft dominated by "Pierre" and his many detractors (who valiantly fight the good fight in the face of such deliberately evasive facetiousness). Certainly, it is no co-incidence that this very thread was created almost a year to the day the now laughable and obviously baiting "I Think I Have Found Him" topic raised its head; both of which do nothing but to incite discord.

Casebook, to me at least, is the resource to those interested in facts, theories and knowledgeable debates of those god-awful events of 1888 (and beyond, if certain theories are to be considered!). While I am myself guilty of contributing to the issue by reading "Pierre" threads and posts as they arrive, I feel that Casebook slowly becoming 'The Pierre Show', and I for one would like to retain the respect I have for this incredible repository before it is sullied.

I suspect I will find the air soon to be fresher and free from the smell of excrement.

Yours,
Mister Whitechapel

post of the year. Amen brother

[David Orsam]

Pierre,

Can I ask you this:

When you said in #11:

"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."

By "it" did you mean the document containing medical information about your suspect that you say you found (i.e. the medical record/note) or did you mean the fact that your suspect had mental problems?

If the latter, were you expecting (or hoping) to find medical information about your suspect in "the archive" that you visited?

[JadenCollins]

Plainly I am a rare poster on these boards, but an avid reader of many a discussion over the years, always fascinated and awed by the intelligence and ingenuity of researchers, no matter their suspect - controversial or otherwise. Members here are from an amazing mix of academics, law experts, medical practitioners, and (real!) historians.

Please note that I have utmost respect for those who choose to lay out their suspicions for all to see, despite the criticism and/or peer review that these attract. It matters to me not that these could be a prelude to a new book, or other media. The "workings out" on these boards are testament to their convictions, perhaps flawed or otherwise.

Sadly, there are those rare few that lack this courage, preferring to hide behind faux moral integrity purely for the purpose of playing out some fantasy of superiority and academic success.

This is why I have chosen to add "Pierre" to my sparsely populated list of ignored posters, as I feel that the (admitted) compulsion to read their empty and largely Narcissistic posts are eroding my interest in Casebook, especially as the vast majority of topics in "Most Recent Posts" and "Most Popular Threads" are oft dominated by "Pierre" and his many detractors (who valiantly fight the good fight in the face of such deliberately evasive facetiousness). Certainly, it is no co-incidence that this very thread was created almost a year to the day the now laughable and obviously baiting "I Think I Have Found Him" topic raised its head; both of which do nothing but to incite discord.

Casebook, to me at least, is the resource to those interested in facts, theories and knowledgeable debates of those god-awful events of 1888 (and beyond, if certain theories are to be considered!). While I am myself guilty of contributing to the issue by reading "Pierre" threads and posts as they arrive, I feel that Casebook slowly becoming 'The Pierre Show', and I for one would like to retain the respect I have for this incredible repository before it is sullied.

I suspect I will find the air soon to be fresher and free from the smell of excrement.

Yours,
Mister Whitechapel

Preach.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;393414]Pierre,

Can I ask you this:

When you said in #11:

"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."

By "it" did you mean the document containing medical information about your suspect that you say you found (i.e. the medical record/note) or did you mean the fact that your suspect had mental problems?

Yes, David, even though you often try to misinterpret what I say, you can ask me, since I am an honest person who likes to answer questions when I can.

I did not expect any mental problem of that type. And the reason is that this type of problem must have been a problem for an organized killer. Do you understand? Letīs say, for example, that a killer has a brain problem that disturbs his ability for structured thinking and organized planning. Then we can not expect that killer to be organized.

And as it is, this source shows that there was a severe problem which must have had a major effect on such abilities. So the question is what I can do with it. What will the interpretations and conclusions be?

I am not finished with that question yet.

So it is a fact that this source does not "match" the whole set of hypothesis and it also calls into question the coherence of my historical research.

I still hypothesize that this set of hypotheses are valid for the killer. And obviously, I must accept that the killer was suffering from a severe mental problem. So I must now try to understand this source.

[David Orsam]

Yes, David, even though you often try to misinterpret what I say, you can ask me, since I am an honest person who likes to answer questions when I can.

I did not expect any mental problem of that type.

Right, thank you for answering, so can we be please clear about this Pierre:

Is it correct to say that when you went to "the archive" (i.e. as you walked through the entrance door) you were expecting (or hoping) to find some medical information about your suspect in that archive?

[Graham]

Mister Whitechapel,

I agree 101% with what you say. The problem is, so long as there are posters like David Orsam who seemingly cannot resist reacting to Pierre's rubbish, then Pierre will continue to post. All we have to do is just ignore him. But it seems we can't......

Graham

[David Orsam]

Mister Whitechapel,

I agree 101% with what you say. The problem is, so long as there are posters like David Orsam who seemingly cannot resist reacting to Pierre's rubbish, then Pierre will continue to post. All we have to do is just ignore him. But it seems we can't......

A reminder of what was said on 15 November 2015 in thread "A New Theory to the Killer's Identity":

Graham: I don't suppose Admin or anyone else will give a bugger, but I am seriously considering taking my business elsewhere, to another Forum. Shall I be seeing some of you there?

David Orsam: Goodbye, then.

Graham: So long, you boring git.

David Orsam: I think that post demonstrates perfectly why your threat to leave this forum did not worry me. I've certainly become tired reading your constant moans about Pierre on a topic on which Admin has already ruled.

Graham: So why are you arguing the toss with Pierre? And you really are quite boring, you know.....

David Orsam: I've been trying to find out what he is trying to say. You know, engaging in debate rather than moaning and attempting to run the board. But please don't let me interrupt you considering taking your business elsewhere.

Out of interest, are you still considering taking your business elsewhere Graham?

[John G]

Plainly I am a rare poster on these boards, but an avid reader of many a discussion over the years, always fascinated and awed by the intelligence and ingenuity of researchers, no matter their suspect - controversial or otherwise. Members here are from an amazing mix of academics, law experts, medical practitioners, and (real!) historians.

Please note that I have utmost respect for those who choose to lay out their suspicions for all to see, despite the criticism and/or peer review that these attract. It matters to me not that these could be a prelude to a new book, or other media. The "workings out" on these boards are testament to their convictions, perhaps flawed or otherwise.

Sadly, there are those rare few that lack this courage, preferring to hide behind faux moral integrity purely for the purpose of playing out some fantasy of superiority and academic success.

This is why I have chosen to add "Pierre" to my sparsely populated list of ignored posters, as I feel that the (admitted) compulsion to read their empty and largely Narcissistic posts are eroding my interest in Casebook, especially as the vast majority of topics in "Most Recent Posts" and "Most Popular Threads" are oft dominated by "Pierre" and his many detractors (who valiantly fight the good fight in the face of such deliberately evasive facetiousness). Certainly, it is no co-incidence that this very thread was created almost a year to the day the now laughable and obviously baiting "I Think I Have Found Him" topic raised its head; both of which do nothing but to incite discord.

Casebook, to me at least, is the resource to those interested in facts, theories and knowledgeable debates of those god-awful events of 1888 (and beyond, if certain theories are to be considered!). While I am myself guilty of contributing to the issue by reading "Pierre" threads and posts as they arrive, I feel that Casebook slowly becoming 'The Pierre Show', and I for one would like to retain the respect I have for this incredible repository before it is sullied.

I suspect I will find the air soon to be fresher and free from the smell of excrement.

Yours,
Mister Whitechapel

I agree this is an excellent post. Clearly, as regards Pierre, everyone must take a position. Personally, I think he's made the same mistake that others have made before him, such a Stephen Knight, by getting hopelessly carried away with a grand conspiracy theory.

Nonetheless, I will continue, like David, to engage him in debate because that is what I enjoy about this cite, whether I agree with a poster or not.

If I regarded Pierre as a "troll" I certainly wouldn't respond to his posts, but I have concluded that he is sincere in what he writes, albeit terribly misguided.

And, yes, he does seem to have an exaggerated view of his own analytical abilities-although I'm not really sure that he even completely believes in his own theory anymore, as this thread would seem to illustrate- but, on that score, he isn't the first and I'm sure he won't be the last.