A major breakthrough

[David Orsam]

You set up conditions for my answers, David.

You first give a set of conditions and then demand yes or no.

Such nonsense Pierre. I didn't set up any "conditions" nor have I demanded a yes or no answer. I have simply asked you a question and I note that you have evaded that question once more.

So you force me to draw my own conclusion.

To the extent that anything you have told us in this thread is true, my conclusion is that you were actively seeking information about the inquest of your suspect so that you were expecting and hoping to obtain medical information relating to the cause of death. I'm not convinced that this hasn't been obtained from the British Newspaper Archive, due to your mention of "the archive", but if you actually did visit an archive in person it was to consult the inquest and post mortem records.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
The trouble with this case,is, we cannot rely on any source as accurate.
Official statements are ridiculed, hear say is ridiculed, there are flaws in every single suspect since day one
We can only hope that some day information will rear up. that is beyond ridicule, that will be a sensation to us all.
My aim over the years has been to present scenarios based on some fact, some hearsay, in order that discussion can take place, I initially presented a thread ''Joseph Barnett , number one suspect'' some 16 years ago, and Leanne Parry , and I, had intended to write a book, but continents apart it was difficult, but I was so pleased for Leanne , that she completed her dream , and had her book published.
I also presented the ''Grave spitting '' account which caused much discussion., and ''The thirty nine theory''which caused great debate.
Many more scenarios followed..because this fuels debate, and that is the way forward , the way Casebook members can gain fresh ideas , and inspirations.
But in the case of our friend Pierre, he forwards no scenarios , no suspect, and offers nothing for debate , apart from all of our frustrations, which are frequently aired.
Regards Richard.

[Harry D]

Another exercise in futility that will no doubt span another 20 pages. I honestly don't know what Mr. Orsam & co. are hoping to achieve by entertaining this charade. It's like you can tell you're being played but can't help yourselves. If nobody responded to these desperate grabs for attention, Pierre would either put up or shut up, but on and on it goes.

[Jon Wilkes]

I remember when I wanted attention also, good luck P

[Robert St Devil]

Another exercise in futility that will no doubt span another 20 pages. I honestly don't know what Mr. Orsam & co. are hoping to achieve by entertaining this charade. It's like you can tell you're being played but can't help yourselves. If nobody responded to these desperate grabs for attention, Pierre would either put up or shut up, but on and on it goes.

Spoken like a true sideliner, harry d. somebody wake me when he contributes.

[David Orsam]

Another exercise in futility that will no doubt span another 20 pages. I honestly don't know what Mr. Orsam & co. are hoping to achieve by entertaining this charade. It's like you can tell you're being played but can't help yourselves. If nobody responded to these desperate grabs for attention, Pierre would either put up or shut up, but on and on it goes.

Have you considered, Harry D, that your post is another "exercise in futility"? And the length of this thread, about which you and others seem to be obsessed, is already greatly extended by the number of people who seem to enjoy making utterly futile posts of this nature. Your post is also clearly off-topic. In this thread, Pierre has told us that he has obtained some relevant information about a possible suspect and I have been trying to establish exactly what that information is and how he obtained it. If you have a problem with that then I suggest you need to take a good look at yourself and your own posting behaviour.

[Harry D]

Have you considered, Harry D, that your post is another "exercise in futility"? And the length of this thread, about which you and others seem to be obsessed, is already greatly extended by the number of people who seem to enjoy making utterly futile posts of this nature. Your post is also clearly off-topic. In this thread, Pierre has told us that he has obtained some relevant information about a possible suspect and I have been trying to establish exactly what that information is and how he obtained it. If you have a problem with that then I suggest you need to take a good look at yourself and your own posting behaviour.

First of all, you are not a mod to decide what is or isn't off-topic. This discussion is just another in a long line of bait from our resident provocateur.

Secondly, Pierre says a lot of things. You know as well as I do that he'll continue to string you along and fail to provide the answers you're looking for. Meanwhile, the rest of us keep checking into the forum only to find it dominated by this self-defeating nonsense.

[Hercule Poirot]

Having te last word!

The thing here and in similar threads seems to be having the last word, but...

[David Orsam]

First of all, you are not a mod to decide what is or isn't off-topic. This discussion is just another in a long line of bait from our resident provocateur.

Secondly, Pierre says a lot of things. You know as well as I do that he'll continue to string you along and fail to provide the answers you're looking for. Meanwhile, the rest of us keep checking into the forum only to find it dominated by this self-defeating nonsense.

I don't need to be a mod to know when a post is off-topic nor do I need to be a rocket scientist to know when a post is futile and that's now two in a row from you on both counts.

No-one is stringing me along. Either you have something to say about Pierre's "major breakthrough" or you are guilty of unnecessarily extending the length of this thread which is what I thought you were complaining about in the first place.

[Geddy2112]

It's clear Pierre is not going to give out further details or actually wishes his 'points' (whatever they might be as he won't divulge) to be discussed. He has made it clear he is writing a book and then we will all know. Well I'm sure the way he has conducted his 'work' on these forums will put a large number of people off buying said book.
However one positive from this is apparent if you want to call it that and we now know that every single Pierre thread will be pointless as he will just come waltzing in making a bold statement then dodge everyone's questions who try to discuss anything with him.
Lets be honest here what are the chances he has found something so telling to name a solid suspect that has been missed for decades... fairly slim methinks. I know a lot of forums on various subjects I visit he would not have lasted two month with this type of behaviour.

[Harry D]

I don't need to be a mod to know when a post is off-topic nor do I need to be a rocket scientist to know when a post is futile and that's now two in a row from you on both counts.

No-one is stringing me along. Either you have something to say about Pierre's "major breakthrough" or you are guilty of unnecessarily extending the length of this thread which is what I thought you were complaining about in the first place.

My posts account for less than 3% of this topic, Mr. Orsam. You certainly don't need my help to drag this out any longer than necessary.

[David Orsam]

My posts account for less than 3% of this topic, Mr. Orsam. You certainly don't need my help to drag this out any longer than necessary.

I love statistics. Your posts account for 30% of the last 10 posts in this thread and have been responsible for at least 60% of them due to the replies they've prompted. I hope you are proud of yourself.

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;393494]

Hi John,

Yes, I may very well be wrong. But I do not think I have been carried away. On the contrary, I am very critical towards the data I work with. But also, I really want to test different hypotheses, since that is what I do as an historian. And I am convinced that everything I see and everything I think may be wrong. But when data kick back, I have to give up. Sorry.



I may be terribly misguided. Why not? After all, I am just a simple historian. I have found some sources and they may guide me wrong. Usually I find out when they do. But right now there is a set of sources and I have to try and disprove them all. I am afraid I have failed in doing so. Some of them are very questionable. Some have a very high validity and reliability.



Maybe I am more of a positivist than I thought I was! But I find that the post modern view blurrs things and make them very unsecure. I am not an absolutist but certainly not a relativist either.

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

You seem to be approaching this problem from a very unique perspective, which I don't really understand. For instance, your approach is clearly not that of a mainstream historian. Nor, of course, is it that of a postmodernist or relativist, as that would be self defeating, i.e. accepting that there is no universal truth or that one argument is as good as another.

However, whatever you're trying to achieve, based upon the evidence so far I don't see anything but a highly superficial argument. Thus, you have a tendency to make highly speculative leaps of faith, such as: my suspect is a police officer, Lawende may have been silenced, and the reason for this may be because he identified a police officer suspect, which the authorities may have conspired to cover up.

The difficulty is, of course, that almost any argument could be based upon similar extreme theorizing/speculation.

But in the final analysis, it doesn't actually amount to very much, does it?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;393584]

Hi Pierre,

You seem to be approaching this problem from a very unique perspective, which I don't really understand. For instance, your approach is clearly not that of a mainstream historian. Nor, of course, is it that of a postmodernist or relativist, as that would be self defeating, i.e. accepting that there is no universal truth or that one argument is as good as another.

However, whatever you're trying to achieve, based upon the evidence so far I don't see anything but a highly superficial argument. Thus, you have a tendency to make highly speculative leaps of faith, such as: my suspect is a police officer, Lawende may have been silenced, and the reason for this may be because he identified a police officer suspect, which the authorities may have conspired to cover up.

The difficulty is, of course, that almost any argument could be based upon similar extreme theorizing/speculation.

But in the final analysis, it doesn't actually amount to very much, does it?

Hi John,

As long as I have no possibility to discuss the sources I can always hypothesize about other sources. Others do the same.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;393585]

Hi John,

As long as I have no possibility to discuss the sources I can always hypothesize about other sources. Others do the same.

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

Yes, of course, but that largely assumes you have some substantive, and as yet undisclosed, evidence pointing to your suspect. Of course, if that is the case it would be perfectly logical to speculate as to how other information might support this theory.

However, the difficulty is there is currently no reason for me to believe that you have such evidence.