A major breakthrough

[ChrisGeorge]

So, let's update the conversation:

Pierre: The killer made mistakes.

Geddy2112: Name one please.

Pierre: Absolutely. He left clear communications for one person.

David Orsam: How does one leave "clear communications for one person" by mistake?

Pierre: Not "by mistake". The communications were very well planned.

David Orsam: Do you see the problem?

Pierre: No.

I sounds as if "Pierre" is playing the provocateur, pretending that he knows more than anybody else about this unsolvable case.

Best regards

Chris

[GUT]

I sounds as if "Pierre" is playing the provocateur, pretending that he knows more than anybody else about this unsolvable case.

Best regards

Chris

Exactly what he is doing Chris.

[Harry D]

I sounds as if "Pierre" is playing the provocateur, pretending that he knows more than anybody else about this unsolvable case.

Best regards

Chris

Bit slow on the old uptake aren't you, Chris? This was obvious from day one. Unfortunately, a contingent on here still hang on his every word and continue to play this charade.

[Elamarna]

Bit slow on the old uptake aren't you, Chris? This was obvious from day one. Unfortunately, a contingent on here still hang on his every word and continue to play this charade.

Dear Harry D

lets get this straight once and for all.

I and I assume David do not accept what he says, nor do we hang on every word he posts.

However from my point of view, I obviously cannot speak for David, I will not accept unproven and or inaccurate statements as fact from anyone.

I do not understand why some cannot understand that.


Steve

[GUT]

Dear Harry D

lets get this straight once and for all.

I and I assume David do not accept what he says, nor do we hang on every word he posts.

However from my point of view, I obviously cannot speak for David, I will not accept unproven and or inaccurate statements as fact from anyone.

I do not understand why some cannot understand that.


Steve

While I'm in Steve's camp to a degree, I say to each their own, if you want to ignore Pierre, (and I understand why you would) do so, if you want to challenge him do so. Can't see how doing one in any way impactson those who want to do the other.

[Elamarna]

While I'm in Steve's camp to a degree, I say to each their own, if you want to ignore Pierre, (and I understand why you would) do so, if you want to challenge him do so. Can't see how doing one in any way impactson those who want to do the other.

Geoff

i agree 100%

If someone wants to ignore i have no problem with that, yesterday I agreed with abby i would see if i could ignore him, but could not promise and guess what it last 3 hours or so.

i do understand those who say ignore him, but it seems some of those do not see our point of view.

oh well!

Steve

[Harry D]

I and I assume David do not accept what he says, nor do we hang on every word he posts.

Unfortunately, Elamarna, the proof is in the pudding, and the amount of time you devote to trying to trip up Pierre in this pointless game just proves that you do hang on his every word.

[Henry Flower]

Pierre, I'm sure this will come as a surprise to you, but actually you're not the only one here with some higher education. Those of us who have spent any time in academia or working with academics would doubtless agree unanimously that what you have been doing on these boards for the past year bears no resemblance to the work of an academic of any sort, or to that of a professional historian.

No one with any real training or aptitude for the discipline of history or research would be popping up on these boards making the absurd overblown claims that are your stock-in-trade, and backing them up with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, beyond repeated claims that 'there is a source', without divulging any details at all, and talking down to anyone who disputes your methods or your knowledge by implying that you are the only one here with the skill-set and background necessary to understand your own work.

Aside from a few words and phrases you've learned your imitation of a historian is actually contemptible, pathetic, risible, insultingly juvenile.

Admin have actually been negligent in allowing your stupid games to continue. I am taking casebook off my bookmarks and finding somewhere else to study this case, somewhere I won't have to put up with this feeble-minded posturing and self-contradictory garbage you vomit everywhere. I am entertained by David and others holding you to account and pointing out your falsehoods, absurdities, and errors, but I'm starting to think that, yes, it would be better for the boards if you were simply ignored, and went away.

There are loons who come on the boards from time to time and share the evidence they have compiled suggesting that a friend of Toulouse-Lautrec was the Ripper, or Vincent Van Gogh was the Ripper. They are 100% wrong about everything, and often borderline delusional. But at least they put it on the line here and take the mauling their nonsense warrants. I have far more respect for them than I do for you and your dismally repetitive child's game of "I know more than you do but I'm not telling you what, so there!"

Screw you Pierre.

[Elamarna]

Unfortunately, Elamarna, the proof is in the pudding, and the amount of time you devote to trying to trip up Pierre in this pointless game just proves that you do hang on his every word.

No Harry it does not.

In case you have not noticed, he gets tripped up most days, a non response to a direct question can be as telling, if not more so than a convoluted answer.

However if that is what you feel so be it.

You can’t please everyone and should not try to.

.
such is life

s

[Geddy2112]

Absolutely. He left clear communications for one person.

Since they were directed towards one person, the police did not understand them.

Yes okay, BUT WHAT ARE THEY? What is the communication, what does it say? Who was the person it was addressed to?

Why are you deliberately beating about the bush and using avoiding tactics?

[Geddy2112]

I sounds as if "Pierre" is playing the provocateur, pretending that he knows more than anybody else about this unsolvable case.

Bloody sure, if I'd I found him over a year ago and was so sure I was correct I'd be shouting it from the rooftops. I mean I'd be the greatest detective in modern history sovling the most famous murder case of all time. I'd be visiting the Queen to tell her granny is off the hook. I'd be on TV, signing book deals.... my whole drab existence would be turned around... what's he waiting for?

[Geddy2112]

Admin have actually been negligent in allowing your stupid games to continue. I am taking casebook off my bookmarks and finding somewhere else to study this case

I'm amazed he is still here tbh. On no other forum I frequent across various subjects would he be allowed to remain. Problem is what rule(s) exactly has he broken?
Sad to see you go. Take care.

[Observer]

Unfortunately, Elamarna, the proof is in the pudding, and the amount of time you devote to trying to trip up Pierre in this pointless game just proves that you do hang on his every word.

Spot on Harry. Pierre entered this Forum with a rickety old bamboo fishing rod, with string for tackle, and a safety pin as a makeshift hook. He's hooked more than his share of fish along the way, they can't get get off the hook. However look at him now he cruises this Forum in a state of the art super trawler, with all mod cons. A masterly performance in every way.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Geddy2112;395918]

Yes okay, BUT WHAT ARE THEY? What is the communication, what does it say? Who was the person it was addressed to?

Hi Geddy,

They were a threat to someone. The communications said that if you do not stop, you will suffer. The recipient of the communications was someone who knew the killer.

Why are you deliberately beating about the bush and using avoiding tactics?

I am trying very hard to share what little I can share with you without talking about things I canīt talk about.

Best wishes, Pierre

[Elamarna]

I am trying very hard to share what little I can share with you without talking about things I canīt talk about.

Pierre that statement is untrue, it is not that you can't talk about the subject, which suggests that something external is preventing you, but that you do not wish to talk about the subject.

still continuing the burden of history line, unrealistic.


Steve