A major breakthrough

[Geddy2112]

1) The motive is now 100 percent explained. A year ago there were still a
few questions marks. They are gone.

That is great news, you said you would reveal details when you were sure so 100% is as sure as you can be so please can you tell us what Jack The Ripper's motive was for killing the poor victims?
However please refrain from answers like 'he did it to gain revenge' or the like, can we has specifics please?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Geddy2112;396396]

That is great news, you said you would reveal details when you were sure so 100% is as sure as you can be so please can you tell us what Jack The Ripper's motive was for killing the poor victims?

However please refrain from answers like 'he did it to gain revenge' or the like, can we has specifics please?

The motive was a very serious personal problem.

When I am able to tell you what this problem was, I will.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

The motive was a very serious personal problem.

When I am able to tell you what this problem was, I will.

You mean you haven't worked it out yet?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=richardnunweek;396335]

Hi Pierre .
Researchers have scanned every document known , every suspect put forth, and have not satisfied anyone of a variable suspect.
Reason is, we have no idea , who the culprit/culprits were, and it is doubtful if that will ever change.
The word ''Data'' is so annoying, it implies that your research is beyond the intelligence of all of us, and eventually you will be satisfied you have the killer, the only problem is you would be at pains to reveal it, because it would be too painful.
What a lot of tosh.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard,

I have found interesting sources. When I started to read about this case I knew nothing and I wasn´t interested in forensic history. My main interests lie within methodology in the fields of judicial history and social science.

If ripperologists have tried to understand who the killer was and have not understood it, there is not much I can do about that but to conclude that there are so many sources that they did not understand how to handle them.

It is not a matter of being more "intelligent". On the contrary. I think it is about knowing nothing and approaching the case with no knowledge at all. That is what I did.

I am sorry that you do not understand my own problems with revealing who the killer was. But I think that someone who led a very interesting and privileged life and who, during some time, had everything he could wish for, and who used his knowledge and power to terrorize poor destitute people as well as others, should have been caught.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

I think it is about knowing nothing and approaching the case with no knowledge at all. That is what I did.

I will not comment on this.
I will not comment on this.
I will not comment on this.
I will not comment on this.
I will not comment on this.
I will not comment on this.

[Pierre]

You mean you haven't worked it out yet?

No. But the ethical aspect means I am not able.

There is not anything to "work out". It is all in the sources.

[Pierre]

I will not comment on this.
I will not comment on this.
I will not comment on this.
I will not comment on this.
I will not comment on this.
I will not comment on this.

But you did. Six times.

[David Orsam]

I am sorry that you do not understand my own problems with revealing who the killer was.

We all understand your problems with revealing who the killer was Pierre. You don't know who the killer was. You have a theory, you think you are right (as many ripperologists before you have done) but, as you have admitted, you might be wrong. Therefore, you feel you can't tell us who you think it is.

We know all that.

[David Orsam]

But you did. Six times.

No Pierre, I said I would not comment on it six times. I thought that was clearly expressed in plain English.

Had I commented on it I might have said that it is perfectly clear that you have approached this case with no knowledge.

[Pierre]

We all understand your problems with revealing who the killer was Pierre. You don't know who the killer was. You have a theory, you think you are right (as many ripperologists before you have done) but, as you have admitted, you might be wrong. Therefore, you feel you can't tell us who you think it is.

We know all that.

Sorry, David. There is a very small chance that I am wrong. Let´s hope I am.

And that was all I had to say to you for tonight.

[David Orsam]

No. But the ethical aspect means I am not able.

Yes I understand. The ethical aspect being that you don't know who the killer is. You only have a theory about who you think it is and you might be wrong. You've been unable to find any proof so you don't think it's ethical to name the person you think it is. It's all perfectly clear.

[David Orsam]

Sorry, David. There is a very small chance that I am wrong.

Yes, many ripperologists before you have believed that there was only a small chance that they were wrong, usually because they lacked objectivity in dealing with their own theories. It's a very common delusion. You think you know who the killer was but sadly you haven't been able to find the proof after searching for over 12 months. The major breakthrough that excited you a short while ago turned out to be nothing at all. Never mind Pierre, failure is nothing to be ashamed of. At least you tried.

[Elamarna]

No. But the ethical aspect means I am not able.

There is not anything to "work out". It is all in the sources.

Nothing about ethics Pierre, it is conscious choice, freely made.


To remind you, there was not an ethical problem was there with the claim that Anderson, Macnaghten, Monro and Swanson were involved in the crime of "perverting the course of justice".

Of course you tried to say you had not accused them of a crime, just that they were covering up; however to coverup when you know a crime has been committed is a crime under British law, and despite this being raised with you then, you did not give an answer for this apparent hypocrisy.


So Please stop this its ethically wrong to name a dead person line.

The same set of ethics applies to naming a murder as to naming those allow the murders to continue.


Once you exposed the double standards you use, the ethical get out was gone, exposed itself for the sham it is.


Steve

[David Orsam]

Pierre's Theory

So, to put it into a more appropriate thread, here's Pierre's theory about his suspect:

He had a terrible personal problem which made him utterly depressed and extremely desperate. He tried very hard to get out of it, but for every step he took it just got worse.

When he tried to free himself from the problem, he was threatened. In fact, his whole existence was at stake. It was a matter of life or death.

And to make it stop and to save himself, he had to do something. He knew the methods of hunting and cutting. And when the most shameful day in his life was coming up, he could not stand it anymore. He had to do something to get a reaction and to let off steam.

There are sources showing that he had terrible problems at dates when the Whitechapel killer was active.

And there are sources showing that he was at several murder sites.

And there are sources that show that he was sent away after Kelly and then he came back!

And personal signature elements can be connected to him, and classical evidence is explained by his own personal problem.

And when he finally got rid of that problem, the murders stopped and he emigrated.

Finally, there is a confession, unsigned but showing all the characteristics of this man.

So that's Pierre's theory in a nutshell. All that's lacking is any evidence to support it.

[Andrea_P]

Oh dear I thought this would have al petered out by know. still nothing from Pierre and the Grampton Project is still a secret - seems like were are living in the dark ages with regards to these theories