A major breakthrough

[Abby Normal]

Abby, your suggestion is entirely sensible. Unfortunately this is the internet, and I'm as guilty as anyone of wiling away twenty minutes of an evening responding to the creep.

As the old cartoon has it:

Woman: "Honey, come to bed, it's late!"
Man (typing furiously): "I can't, someone on the internet is being an as*hole!"

LOL.I hear ya. I have to bite my lip sometimes when I see some of the things he posts because I really want to respond. but the urge eventually goes away and I feel good that I didn't. and I haven't in quite some time.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Of the 602 posts on this thread only 123 are from Pierre.

Regards,

Simon

[Abby Normal]

Hi All,

Of the 602 posts on this thread only 123 are from Pierre.

Regards,

Simon

idont know whats funnier. you making the point about too many people posting too many times in a Pierre thread while at the same time doing it yourself, or the fact that you actually wasted the time in counting how many times Pierre has posted. LOL

[Mayerling]

Jeff, I understand the desire to humiliate the arrogant, and yes, the boards would be a better place without his narcissism, but I can't go along with your suggestion. I'm sure it probably does break one or two laws somewhere along the line.

If Pierre had an ounce of sensibility he would realise that the fact people are even considering reacting to him in that way suggests he is behaving like a boorish, contemptible, posturing little jerk who is fooling nobody.

But he doesn't care. The name of his game is to irritate and grate. That's why I say admin are being negligent.

Hi Harry,

I do feel there are extremely legal reasons not to do anything like what I said, but if someone deserved a real trouncing it would be him. As for his realizing he's hated - well you said it all, at the start of your last third paragraph above: "But he doesn't care...."

Jeff

[Mayerling]

Hi All,

Of the 602 posts on this thread only 123 are from Pierre.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

I got your point, but your presentation of it...Remember an old comedy called "The Wrong Box" set in late Victorian England? The talkative character played by Sir Ralph Richardson, "Joseph Finsbery" is in a cart and sees the driver's using a whip. "Do you know,", Richardson says (to start a conversation - or in his case a lecture), "the word "whip" appears 146 times in the Old Testament!" The conversation goes downhill from there. Ever since I heard that factoid I have wondered how frequently it appears in the New Testament, but I have managed to keep from counting the word's appearances there.

Jeff

I just noticed. If he did do as many posts as you did count, it means over 1/5 of the posts on this thread were by him.

[Henry Flower]

idont know whats funnier. you making the point about too many people posting too many times in a Pierre thread while at the same time doing it yourself, or the fact that you actually wasted the time in counting how many times Pierre has posted. LOL

I vote for the latter. I like to think it was written with a wry smile in the first place, but this being Ripperland, who knows...

[Harry D]

idont know whats funnier. you making the point about too many people posting too many times in a Pierre thread while at the same time doing it yourself, or the fact that you actually wasted the time in counting how many times Pierre has posted. LOL

Doesn't take any counting, to be honest.

Advanced Search > Search by User Name

[GUT]

idont know whats funnier. you making the point about too many people posting too many times in a Pierre thread while at the same time doing it yourself, or the fact that you actually wasted the time in counting how many times Pierre has posted. LOL

No need to count the stats throw it up.

[GUT]

Just click the red number under replies it tells you who has posted how often in the thread.

[Pcdunn]

Now, now, gentlemen and ladies, in the "Human Tiger" thread Pierre has revealed that his Archives are "police archives"! That is something, surely? I typed in "London police archives" and got about 18,000 hits, and I will enjoy nosing about in the Met Police Archives, as well as those at the National Archives. Bound to be some Ripper articles as 2018 nears...

[Fisherman]

Hehe - no personal offence intended! I have a lot of time for you and for Mr Orsam.

Maybe not for Pierre; though his arrogant foolishness does give me a nice pretext for venting some spleen.

EDIT - what I mean is, I think both David and yourself have more worthwhile things to do with your time than argue with the pretender.

I know I have - which is why I do just that.

[The Good Michael]

No problem, it's called attention seeking, not sure it's a mental illness but that is what it boils down too. I could go on and on about his age, educational background, job, family life etc etc to some great accuracy but it's pointless. He basically feels he is better than us, he will have probably searched other forums looking for ways to gain attention and left due to being banned.

What better way to rope folk in than to claim to have solved the World's most famous crime, it's not a bad entering bet. Most people would have posted other stuff before showing their hand, not Mr P... boom straight in...

I don't think it's as simple as attention-seeking. Lying to this extent seems far more problematic. Delusion is another possibility. Regardless, I feel a bit sorry for him.

Mike

[Geddy2112]

I don't think it's as simple as attention-seeking. Lying to this extent seems far more problematic. Delusion is another possibility. Regardless, I feel a bit sorry for him.

Indeed like I said I did not want to go into further details. Maybe he is on the spectrum, then nowadays we all are...

[Henry Flower]

A trip down memory lane. Pierre's second contribution to the boards has a ring of dark comedy about it now, all these months later:

Hi everyone,

by asking if he is historically known one could exclude such a person if I were to answer "no" and then again one could start to try and figure out what other sort of person he was. Still there are a lot of famous or historically known persons in the past that we never heard of. By saying that, I am not saying that he was famous or historically known and I am not suggesting he wasn´t.

I can assure you that I am not here to play cat and mouse with you. My reason for posting is simple. Having the knowledge I have is a very heavy burden, so I would like to reflect some of that here. I am not feeling lucky or happy with my findings. But I would also like to post to let people know that we might get evidence and that the case probably is not a hopeless one to solve.

Answering the question of Patrick S:

I have analyzed historical sources and have found links between them. These links led me to a person who had all that takes to be the killer. Even the name Jack the Ripper has an explanation connected to his motive (his name was not Jack).

The historical sources are independent of one another but they can all be connected with this man. And the external sources connected to him matches the ripper-data even by months, weeks and days.

Thanks a lot to all of you for reading my post and asking questions.

Pierre

I feel that the most telling statement there is that last sentence: Thanks a lot to all of you for reading my post and asking questions. There is also a terrible comic poignancy about the incongruous use of the word 'we' in the 'cat and mouse' paragraph. Pierre, there is no 'we'. There wasn't then, and there certainly isn't now.

Poor Pierre sounds lonely. Maybe the other historians don't talk much to him, and he ends up sitting alone when all the historians go for after-work drinks at the Hobsbawm Arms. How anyone could read this and not immediately see him for the charlatan he is, well it's beyond me.

[Geddy2112]

(his name was not Jack)

Ah feck there goes my years and years of investigation, I thought I was onto a winner...