A major breakthrough

[Abby Normal]

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

ahhh Grampton solution.. almost forgot about that one!!

[Elamarna]

Pierre,

I note no attempt what so ever to answer the comments made in post 538 of this thread, nor indeed the ones from the following thread:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=396625#post396625

I also note that you continue to peddle unsubstantiated ideas as history, time after time.
This obviously means expending much time and effort; yet there is still an inability or unwillingness to discuss issues of ethics, in particular those involved over naming dead people of a crime without proof, a very laudable aim indeed.


Unfortunately that has not stopped the naming of individuals whom you claim covered up the murders and allowed them to continue into 1889.

This is a very serious issue; given that no disclosure without proof is THE keystone of the defence for not naming YOUR suspect, it appears now to be nothing other than pure hypocrisy.

There is also the issue of excuse, and that is the word, after excuse recently made with regards to the non use and indeed disregard of peer review made in posts, and the completely unsupported claims of academic achievement pronounced repeatedly in posts, while attacking the education and intelligence of users of this site in particular and this field in general.


Therefore I repost and await to see if there is any response, demonstrating the smallest smattering of academic integrity and decency.



Steve


Thread : Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

Post # 71


Originally Posted by Pierre


"No, it is "clear" to you, Steve. But it is not clear to me. And I think you should refrain from telling others what is "clear" to them. Surely, you can speak for yourself and David, your pal."


Steve

"So long as you feel free to tell people the unsubstantiated ideas that you do, I shall say what I want within the limits allowed."

"Actually I don't even know David, other than to engage here, I know him as well as I do you, so if he is my pal, so are you."




Originally Posted by Pierre

"But why then act like babies if it is a "knowledge base"?"


Steve

"Are you questioning this site is one of the leading knowledge bases on the subject?"

"How people behave does not effect that fact."


"However if we are talking about behaviour, few here ever actually call another poster A Liar, I can however think of one who does ( at least 4 times to one person alone)."




Originally Posted by Pierre

"But it should learn from such institutions how to behave."



Steve


"I have witnessed far worse behaviour and language in an university than here, and that almost certainly in a far more prestigious institution than you have been privileged to work in."

"If I am wrong I will of course apologize, however that will require the identity of the institution."





Originally Posted by Pierre

"Who cares?"


Steve

"Well it seems you at least do not care about honesty or integrity."





Originally Posted by Pierre

"But there are no seminars here and no scientific papers. So?"




Steve

"What does that matter, you claim you are following academic principles of research, I call that claim questionable at best."





Originally Posted by Pierre


"That was a stupid thing to say. The world is full of universities with historians ready to do peer review."



Steve

"It was not a stupid thing to say, I wait with baited breath to see which will allow their name to be linked to this subject."

"You need experts on the subject, not just any academic."




Originally Posted by Pierre


"Off topic."



Steve


"How can it be, you raised the issue of peer review in this thread, my statement is purely about peer review."

"You obviously have no answer to the comment, why am I not surprised in the slightest?"





Originally Posted by Pierre

"Of course you see only negative aspects. That is your bias. And is it the topic of this thread?"




Steve

"What an interesting reply to the mythical ethical problem."


"Pierre, it is you who went off topic, which is so unfair on those who were engaged in the thread."


"I apologize to all of those persons for my doing so."




Originally Posted by Pierre

"Bla. Bla. Bla. And once more since I am practising to get to the same level as some of the others here: Bla."



Steve

"The response of a mature academic or a child?"





Originally Posted by Pierre

"Researchers do peer review. People here do bla bla bla and, donīt forget, bla."




Steve

"Many here are Researchers, it is not down to you to say they are not."

"Unlike some they give details of any published works; they do not HIDE."




Originally Posted by Pierre

"How do yo think I am doing?"



Steve


"Very poorly, the responses appear uneducated at times and often poorly constructed."

"And as for research, no evidence has ever been shown of any,other than reading this site and Sugden."

[Henry Flower]

Putting aside for a moment Pierre's hypocrisy and self-contradictory policies on naming and shaming, is it not obvious to a real historian like him that there is a very great and real difference between stating:

a) I accuse **** of having been the dastardly Whitechapel Murderer!

and

b) I am researching and compiling evidence relating to the possible involvement of **** in the murders. At this stage I have an open mind. Obviously I hope I am wrong, so I am putting his name out there in the hope that others might help me uncover definite proof that he was not the killer

What would be unethical about (b) Pierre? Others either help you to prove that he was the killer (in which case the ethical problem disappears) or they more likely offer some simple piece of 'data' you have overlooked which proves the hypothesis wrong - in which case no ethical lapse takes place and you are, as you have always claimed, delighted to be proved wrong about him, and the great burden is lifted from your shoulders.

Why not do that Pierre?

Why not?

We all know why not. Don't think you fool anyone for a second. We all know.

You're a complete fake.

"My main interests lie within methodology in the fields of judicial history and social science."

[David Orsam]

I used to think that Pierre had genuinely found a document in an archive somewhere which set him off on his belief that he had solved the mystery but now I don't think he's even managed to do that.

He's told us that his interest in the case started when reading Sugden's book and he became suspicious of something in the book.

What are the chances of him then managing to find some "sources" showing that one individual was at several murder sites? The answer, of course, is that there is zero chance of this happening. Absolutely none.

So what do we make of Pierre's statement that:

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

My answer is that he can only be referring to his belief that (a) Lechmere saw a police officer in Bucks Row and (b) Lawende saw a police officer with Stride (but was silenced). He may have similar thoughts of this nature regarding the other murders.

In other words, he doesn't have any sources showing that his suspect was at several murder sites but he has used existing sources and applied his imagination to those sources to produce a result he thinks supports his theory that the murderer was a policeman and that this policeman was his suspect.

So I think the reason he doesn't give us any more details about his theory is that he knows it will be laughed off the board.

Why does he do this? I really don't know. He seems to like to post things like "There is a tiger waiting in the wilderness" to pretend that he knows more than he really does.

One thing is for sure. There has been no "major breakthrough" in this case.

[Mayerling]

Methinks, I'm beginning to see the light!

I used to think that Pierre had genuinely found a document in an archive somewhere which set him off on his belief that he had solved the mystery but now I don't think he's even managed to do that.

He's told us that his interest in the case started when reading Sugden's book and he became suspicious of something in the book.

Why does he do this? I really don't know. He seems to like to post things like "There is a tiger waiting in the wilderness" to pretend that he knows more than he really does.

One thing is for sure. There has been no "major breakthrough" in this case.

It is just possible that when Pierre said "There is a tiger waiting in the wilderness., he may have let something slip here.

We all do reading, and the word "tiger" hit me. There was, in operation, in the years 1887 to 1894, a ranking member of the British upper crust who was to prove a murderer. He never hanged for his crimes, and was still mentioned as being alive in the 1920s by a chronicler. He came from a distinguished family, his father once being an accredited representative of Her Majesty's government in the Near East. He was a brave hunter. A more recent student of his career showed his involvement in the Zulu War of 1879. Indeed, it turned out he was involved in the career of a notorious British diplomat and soldier now better remembered for his fascinating series of "memoirs". One private student who studied him said he was suspected of a murder of a woman in 1887, but nothing could be proved. His later career got murky, as he became a close associate to a noted early astronomer and mathematician with other, compelling interests. Quite good with cards...maybe too good! He was finally arrested after his activities led to an attempt on a man's life, but revealed an earlier killing.

The only thing that is wrong about this candidate is he never is mentioned as using knives. But that can be just an oversight from our sources.

Mysteriously yours,

Jeff

[Elamarna]

It is just possible that when Pierre said "There is a tiger waiting in the wilderness., he may have let something slip here.

We all do reading, and the word "tiger" hit me. There was, in operation, in the years 1887 to 1894, a ranking member of the British upper crust who was to prove a murderer. He never hanged for his crimes, and was still mentioned as being alive in the 1920s by a chronicler. He came from a distinguished family, his father once being an accredited representative of Her Majesty's government in the Near East. He was a brave hunter. A more recent student of his career showed his involvement in the Zulu War of 1879. Indeed, it turned out he was involved in the career of a notorious British diplomat and soldier now better remembered for his fascinating series of "memoirs". One private student who studied him said he was suspected of a murder of a woman in 1887, but nothing could be proved. His later career got murky, as he became a close associate to a noted early astronomer and mathematician with other, compelling interests. Quite good with cards...maybe too good! He was finally arrested after his activities led to an attempt on a man's life, but revealed an earlier killing.

The only thing that is wrong about this candidate is he never is mentioned as using knives. But that can be just an oversight from our sources.

Mysteriously yours,

Jeff

Jeff does he fit the pawn ticket anagram(not)?


steve

[Mayerling]

Jeff does he fit the pawn ticket anagram(not)?


steve

I have not worked at it that much as far as the pawn ticket anagram - I have my questions about that anagram anyway. However, Steve, I know that my candidate was sometimes hard up for cash, so he may have dealt with pawn brokers.

Jeff

[David Orsam]

Any particular reason you are not telling us the name of this person Jeff?

[Elamarna]

I have not worked at it that much as far as the pawn ticket anagram - I have my questions about that anagram anyway. However, Steve, I know that my candidate was sometimes hard up for cash, so he may have dealt with pawn brokers.

Jeff

yes i think anagram is certainly wrong, word puzzle perhaps is closer, just to help, the claim is that this name was used only by one person in history, but i think we can view that as only occurrence used at the time, so say from 1840 onwards.

hope that helps you

steve

[Pierre]

yes i think anagram is certainly wrong, word puzzle perhaps is closer, just to help, the claim is that this name was used only by one person in history, but i think we can view that as only occurrence used at the time, so say from 1840 onwards.

hope that helps you

steve

Thanks Steve,

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

It is just possible that when Pierre said "There is a tiger waiting in the wilderness., he may have let something slip here.

We all do reading, and the word "tiger" hit me. There was, in operation, in the years 1887 to 1894, a ranking member of the British upper crust who was to prove a murderer. He never hanged for his crimes, and was still mentioned as being alive in the 1920s by a chronicler. He came from a distinguished family, his father once being an accredited representative of Her Majesty's government in the Near East. He was a brave hunter. A more recent student of his career showed his involvement in the Zulu War of 1879. Indeed, it turned out he was involved in the career of a notorious British diplomat and soldier now better remembered for his fascinating series of "memoirs". One private student who studied him said he was suspected of a murder of a woman in 1887, but nothing could be proved. His later career got murky, as he became a close associate to a noted early astronomer and mathematician with other, compelling interests. Quite good with cards...maybe too good! He was finally arrested after his activities led to an attempt on a man's life, but revealed an earlier killing.

The only thing that is wrong about this candidate is he never is mentioned as using knives. But that can be just an oversight from our sources.

Mysteriously yours,

Jeff

Not even when he had dinner?

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Any particular reason you are not telling us the name of this person Jeff?

Maybe he is just being ethical.

Pierre

[Mayerling]

Any particular reason you are not telling us the name of this person Jeff?

Hi David,

Well, like someone else on this thread...I am working on a theory. It may take me a year or so to get it together...just a couple of more pieces of evidence...I think there is a clue in Browning's play "Pippa Passes" but I could be wrong.

Does this sound a bit familiar? I seem to hear an echo.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

Not even when he had dinner?

Regards, Pierre

Even if he was only having soup? You should make yourself clearer Pierre!

Jeff

[Mayerling]

Maybe he is just being ethical.

Pierre

Or being cagey...like some other I can think of?

Jeff