I think I have found him.

[Fisherman]

Don't you think it's a bit silly for someone to say I've solved the JTR case but won't say a word about it and having so many members coming up with some 16 pages of comments that actually don't mean a thing since they're essentially repeting what they may have said before to everybody!!!

Of course it is. But at the same time it is extremely enlightening and has a lot to say about Ripperology and what it is really all about.

Anybody who wants to understand how it works should do precisely what Pierre has done - postulate that he has a solution to the case to offer, a solution that is detailed and covers the whole case. After that, say nothing more and see what happens.

Like I said, itīs extremely enlightening.

[GUT]

Of course it is. But at the same time it is extremely enlightening and has a lot to say about Ripperology and what it is really all about.

Anybody who wants to understand how it works should do precisely what Pierre has done - postulate that he has a solution to the case to offer, a solution that is detailed and covers the whole case. After that, say nothing more and see what happens.

Like I said, itīs extremely enlightening.

Now of course if he told us anything at all he might get a different response but his rubbish about Stride's killer being covered in blood and gore show just how much he knows, but if he isn't even aware that her killer MAY have walked away with little or no blood on him, how can he possible have solved anything.

[belinda]

Jack the Ripper meeting Eddowes:

"Well good evening! Will you come with me? Please do not take any notice of the blood and gore on my clothes or hands. I wonīt cause you any harm. I am not who you might think I am. Please donīt alert the police!"

The double event was planned. Why was it so important for him to make it a double event?

Pierre

That's really not a very satisfactory answer Pierre. He had plenty of time to clean up before meeting Eddowes, should he have needed to. You say the Double Event was planned? Yet you are asking me why? Unfortunately, I do not know as I do not have access to your research so only you can tell me why the Double Event was planned and indeed the importance you ascribe to it. You also ignored my question about dismemberments, in my 27 years of following this case I have not come across any reference to actual dismemberment of any of the victim s. Could you please elaborate.

[GUT]

I've got it...

It's Van Gogh...

I knew this thread reminded me of something.

[Fisherman]

Now of course if he told us anything at all he might get a different response but his rubbish about Stride's killer being covered in blood and gore show just how much he knows, but if he isn't even aware that her killer MAY have walked away with little or no blood on him, how can he possible have solved anything.

So you are saying that a guy who seems unaware of how Strides killer could have left the site with little or no blood on him could not have solved the case?

Exactly how does that work, Gut? I mean, I am all for case knowledge. But that does not mean that somebody with little knowledge of an isolated detail could not have much and crucial knowledge about other parts of the case.

What Pierre says is that he has found some pieces of information that can solve the case. To what extent would not being familiar with the general view of how much blood Strides killer had on him disenable him to do so?

Nota bene, Gut, I am not saying that I think Pierre IS in possession of said information. I have my own ideas about it, but as of now, I am keeping them to myself.

Once again, if Pierre has brought nothing else to Ripperology, he has at the very least held up a mirror in front of itīs face.

It is not very nice to look at.

[DJA]

Dismemberments?

Cautious? Why should he become cautious with only one victim? Then proceed to be anything but a mere half hour later with Catharine Eddowes? Why did he need to exercise caution with Elisabeth Stride in particular?

Prolly meant Cachous.
Didn't want her eating the whole packet

Dismemberment.....prolly a good idea for our newest sleuth.

[DJA]

So you are saying that a guy who seems unaware of how Strides killer could have left the site with little or no blood on him could not have solved the case?

Exactly how does that work?

OP purports to have sources that connect the CV5 to Jack.

I have no problem with that,except in Stride's case there is a reason that she was not ripped.

Pierre obviously has no idea.

The "blood and gore" is a testament to that.

[Hercule Poirot]

Of course it is. But at the same time it is extremely enlightening and has a lot to say about Ripperology and what it is really all about.

Anybody who wants to understand how it works should do precisely what Pierre has done - postulate that he has a solution to the case to offer, a solution that is detailed and covers the whole case. After that, say nothing more and see what happens.

Like I said, itīs extremely enlightening.

I was under the impression that Ripperology involved deep and serious research, cross-referencing data leading to the formulation of a theory that can be validated and proven, then submitting it again to be checked by peers. Isn't it what you and so many others have done? You just didn't suddenly appear and declared Lechmere as a prime suspect telling others I'll get back to you eventually and explain the whole thing. You sort of began by introducing certain elements openly discussing them, adding pieces of the puzzle you again presented to others.

The same thing works for those who, like me, have been working on a fiction novel. One builds up a plausible storyline, creating characters, placing everthing within it's historical context and once it seems finished, submit it for a review before having it published. You just don't go and see a publisher and tell him "I got this idea for a JTR novel, sign me up and I'll send it to you once I've finished".

Respectfully yours,
Hercule Poirot

[Mayerling]

G'day Jeff

I thought the one singing was MJK was Doolittle her real name?

Now I'm really confused.

G'Day GUT,

You're confused? How about me inventing imaginary play dialogues?

Technically, by the way, 1) Eliza Doolittle's name (if you recall Shaw wrote a series of explanatory notes at the end of the play nobody ever does more than read out of curiosity) is Eliza Eynsford-Hill, as she marries Freddie in the future, not Higgins; 2) In the 1912 play "Pygmalion" there is no singing - I was really looking ahead to the 1950s musical version by Lerner and Loewe "My Fair Lady" and the tune Eliza (Julie Andrews/Audrey Hepburn with Marnie Nixon's assistance) sings, "Wouldn't It Be Lovely!" ("Lotsa chocolate for me to eat....").

By the way, I do have a theory regarding Shaw and the composition of "Pygmalion" in 1912 and a true crime. In one of the scenes Eliza is trotted out for testing at the home of the Professor's mother, Mrs. Higgins, by the Professor and Col. Pickering. The Eynsford-Hills are there with several others for lunch, and Eliza at first is doing well, but becomes too talkative, and starts mentioning how her aunt was possibly murdered for her possessions (i.e. a hat and some other items) by the people she was living with. The effect of the scene is quite funny as Eliza has the attention of everyone in the house, but does not realize that visitors do not usually talk about such a sordid subject with newly met strangers. It does amuse Freddie who is charmed by what Professor Higgins refers to as the new small-talk, though Eliza wonders what Freddie is finding so amusing.

The thing is that in 1912 there was a famous poisoning case involving two people, Frederick Seddon and his tenant Eliza Barrows, in which Ms Barrows made the mistake of signing over a considerable amount of property to Seddon for a really big (for that date) annuity. Her death (eventually shown to be by arsenic) ended the strain on Seddon and his wife to produce the weekly annuity payment. In the course of the arrest, investigation, and trial of the Seddons, Frederick Seddon proved to be a truly greedy individual who made a bad showing (too glib with his answers and too lacking in any real feeling for the victim) in the witness box. His wife was acquitted but Frederick Seddon found guilty and hanged in April 1912 (about three days after the sinking of the Titanic). In the play Eliza suggests that the people her aunt was living with would have killed her for a hatpin let alone a hat. Certainly (if magnified into monetary amounts) that describes Seddon. The similarities of the names of "Eliza" and "Freddie" in the two fictional characters and the murderer and the victim in the crime make me wonder if Shaw had been following the trial, and decided to drop a comic version of it into the dialogue of one of the play's scenes. He actually does similar types of things in other plays (the "Ardlamont" shooting is suggested in "Mrs. Warren's Profession" at one point). But aside from what I have just suggested I have no real proof, just a feeling about it all.

Jeff

[Fisherman]

OP purports to have sources that connect the CV5 to Jack.

I have no problem with that,except in Stride's case there is a reason that she was not ripped.

Pierre obviously has no idea.

The "blood and gore" is a testament to that.

The blood and gore is testament to absolutely nothing. For all you know Pierre may be very well aware of the common perception about how bloodied Strides killer was. Or he may not be. How he chooses to post on it is his own choice, and he may have his reasons - or not. The point being that you donīt know.

And just as I said in my former post, what somebody knows - or lacks specific knowledge about - on one isolated detail of a case, tells us nothing at all about how much the same person knows about other details of the same case.

Nor is there any law of nature that predisposes that it is not until we know all there is to know about a case that we can find the solution to it - or may speculate on such a thing.

I take it we can agree that neither of us knows which sources Pierre has used, reaching his stance. It is not until you know what he suggests and have access to his sources that you can make a call about the quality of his bid.

As it is, you have chosen to diss a suggestion you have not even heard. Much as it may seem uninformed on Pierres account to perhaps not be aquainted with the common view of the bloodspill in the Stride murder, Iīm afraid it is still nowhere near the debacle you make yourself guilty off.

Some say that Pierre is a troll, making fun of us. I donīt know if that is true, I have not the material nor the reason to make the call either way. But if he IS a troll, then you are one of the people who willingly and eagerly took the bait and swallowed it whole.

[Fisherman]

I was under the impression that Ripperology involved deep and serious research, cross-referencing data leading to the formulation of a theory that can be validated and proven, then submitting it again to be checked by peers. Isn't it what you and so many others have done? You just didn't suddenly appear and declared Lechmere as a prime suspect telling others I'll get back to you eventually and explain the whole thing. You sort of began by introducing certain elements openly discussing them, adding pieces of the puzzle you again presented to others.

The same thing works for those who, like me, have been working on a fiction novel. One builds up a plausible storyline, creating characters, placing everthing within it's historical context and once it seems finished, submit it for a review before having it published. You just don't go and see a publisher and tell him "I got this idea for a JTR novel, sign me up and I'll send it to you once I've finished".

Respectfully yours,
Hercule Poirot

That is correct! I agree totally.

However, that does not move me a fraction of an inch closer to being able to judge Pierres idea.

So I leave it at that.

If he has the solution, Iīll be interested to take part of it, and to get informed about how he reached it.

If he has not, but has instead acted as a troll, then I will not waste another second on him.

It nevertheless applies that we are not at liberty to diss him up until we know.

We can criticize him for not being open about his ideas and ask him why he says A but not B. But sadly, that is nowhere near where the line is drawn out here.

[GUT]

OP purports to have sources that connect the CV5 to Jack.

I have no problem with that,except in Stride's case there is a reason that she was not ripped.

Pierre obviously has no idea.

The "blood and gore" is a testament to that.

Exactly, how can he have data that puts the pieces together if he doesn't know what the pieces are?

[DJA]

The blood and gore is testament to absolutely nothing.

Some say that Pierre is a troll, making fun of us. I donīt know if that is true, I have not the material nor the reason to make the call either way. But if he IS a troll, then you are one of the people who willingly and eagerly took the bait and swallowed it whole.

Some help was offered to save time.

There were problems with his first post.

How did I partake of any bait?

Pierre has nothing to tell us.

Suspect he is one of two sock puppets.

[GUT]

I was under the impression that Ripperology involved deep and serious research, cross-referencing data leading to the formulation of a theory that can be validated and proven, then submitting it again to be checked by peers. Isn't it what you and so many others have done? You just didn't suddenly appear and declared Lechmere as a prime suspect telling others I'll get back to you eventually and explain the whole thing. You sort of began by introducing certain elements openly discussing them, adding pieces of the puzzle you again presented to others.

The same thing works for those who, like me, have been working on a fiction novel. One builds up a plausible storyline, creating characters, placing everthing within it's historical context and once it seems finished, submit it for a review before having it published. You just don't go and see a publisher and tell him "I got this idea for a JTR novel, sign me up and I'll send it to you once I've finished".

Respectfully yours,
Hercule Poirot

Pierre didn't even go that far, all he said was I've solved it, I wont tell you who or how or why but I've solved it.

I wonder why people are crying rubbish?

[RivkahChaya]

If he's not a troll, and he really does have a theory, he is probably incorrect that the candidate has never been presented before. He claims not to know much about JtR or Ripperology, so he won't know about the huge numbers of more obscure candidates. His candidate may be Lusk, and he may have a theory about Lusk wanting to call attention to conditions in the East End, not realizing it's been done and overdone.

Or his candidate may be the SO of one of the women, who wanted to hide his murder behind a mysterious serial killer. Also done and overdone.