I think I have found him.

[Pierre]

Wouldn't it be fantastic if there really was an old house with bags hidden away by JTR which were found today! Maybe you're psychic, Rocky!

Hi,

I understand that youīd like to let off some steam after the mistake someone made with writing about the "Grampton solution".

Anyway, I find it hard to make jokes about the Ripper case, since I believe I know who he was. I also know that I have to report on my findings when I am finished with this. And that is another thing I donīt find amusing.

At this point I feel certain that this person is the serial murderer we are discussing here. But since feelings have no place in research, I put those aside.

I find it hard to accept that I might be the one who will solve this case. Why me?

I still hope I am wrong.

Regards Pierre

[Rosella]

I had a dream about the crampon theory last night. It was revealed and there was a large old victorian house that belonged to the family where bags containing remnants of the crimes had been found hidden in the house. There was a brick wall with a name written in blood or red paint the name was "ben" something. There was a also ship where the guy who discovered the killer's identity gave interviews with reporters. He was a flashy author type with sunglasses that had flip up shades. It was a weird dream ha ha

Wouldn't it be fantastic if there really was an old house with bags hidden away by JTR which were found today! Maybe you're psychic, Rocky!

[Mayerling]

I invite you to that thread in the pub, then, in which I point out that while the DNA results themselves are fine, the interpretations are not (and the only fact that fit well was the location of the skeleton - and nothing more). DNA really cannot help us with identification in the distant past, not for serial killers, and not for kings.

Thanks Karl, I'll take a look.

Jeff

[Karl]

Yes. There was a thread under "Pub Talk" about Richard III and the Car Park. It was a fun kind of thread, as it did go into the investigation and the controversy regarding where the King would end up being buried. As far as I recall the DNA evidence was hardly questionable, and everything fit pretty well, especially when they made (based on the skeleton's skull) that model of what the skull looked like (King Richard, of course). I don't think that there is any real question it is the king.

Back to the rest of this thread.

Jeff

I invite you to that thread in the pub, then, in which I point out that while the DNA results themselves are fine, the interpretations are not (and the only fact that fit well was the location of the skeleton - and nothing more). DNA really cannot help us with identification in the distant past, not for serial killers, and not for kings.

[RockySullivan]

I had a dream about the crampon theory last night. It was revealed and there was a large old victorian house that belonged to the family where bags containing remnants of the crimes had been found hidden in the house. There was a brick wall with a name written in blood or red paint the name was "ben" something. There was a also ship where the guy who discovered the killer's identity gave interviews with reporters. He was a flashy author type with sunglasses that had flip up shades. It was a weird dream ha ha

[Mayerling]

Yes you are correct but that was too much 'splaining for me that moment!

And yes it is a topic I enjoy, love me some Plantagenets! There's a nice thread on here somewhere that got started back before the body was discovered all the way through the genetic testing.

Yes. There was a thread under "Pub Talk" about Richard III and the Car Park. It was a fun kind of thread, as it did go into the investigation and the controversy regarding where the King would end up being buried. As far as I recall the DNA evidence was hardly questionable, and everything fit pretty well, especially when they made (based on the skeleton's skull) that model of what the skull looked like (King Richard, of course). I don't think that there is any real question it is the king.

Back to the rest of this thread.

Jeff

[Brenda]

.

Dear Brenda

My understand of the Richard III DNA was that the mDna showed a link from the sisters descendents to the bone. The y chromosome show a break but this was a modern sample from a branch of the plata genes family. There was a break but no way of knowing when. So maybe no a break in rule line.

Anyway that's off topic but obviously interesting to both of us

Regards
E

Yes you are correct but that was too much 'splaining for me that moment!

And yes it is a topic I enjoy, love me some Plantagenets! There's a nice thread on here somewhere that got started back before the body was discovered all the way through the genetic testing.

[Pcdunn]

"Grampton" a wild goose chase for me

As one of the Grampton six, I'm gutted as all I was asked to do was check certain archives.

I'm glad you have the right information, Panderoona.

"Grampton" as a surname turned up little, the most interesting being a 1928 song called "Ode to Grampton" referring to "Otto" on his Honda motorcycle.

"Grampton" as a place name in the U.K's National Archives did turn up two very old mentions to Huntingdonshire, but absolutely nothing on the open web. Does the place even exist today? I doubt it.

"Grampton Convalescent Home" is a no go in the National Archives.

I think the average Casebook reader will not, as feared by some here, be able to find anything from the "leaks" on this thread, and you should be able to rest easy until the revelation is made at a later date.

[David Orsam]

No, all the evidence can not disappear since some of it is in the newspapers and some of it is already known. But some small important piece that I donīt have at the moment could.

Is the 'confession' safe, Pierre?

[Pierre]

Pierre

Your comments are welcome.
I was not suggesting you had leaked, that was aim at others. May I say you have most certainly leaked nothing.

So you feel that all the evidence could dissappear or am I miss understanding you?

Regards

Hi Elamarna,

No, all the evidence can not disappear since some of it is in the newspapers and some of it is already known. But some small important piece that I donīt have at the moment could.

Regards Pierre

[Elamarna]

Dear Brenda

My understand of the Richard III DNA was that the mDna showed a link from the sisters descendents to the bone. The y chromosome show a break but this was a modern sample from a branch of the plata genes family. There was a break but no way of knowing when. So maybe no a break in rule line.

Anyway that's off topic but obviously interesting to both of us

Regards
E

[Elamarna]

Pierre

Your comments are welcome.
I was not suggesting you had leaked, that was aim at others. May I say you have most certainly leaked nothing.

So you feel that all the evidence could dissappear or am I miss understanding you?

Regards

[Pierre]

It is pretty clear the the " Grampton " folk got the feeling that information had been leak to Pierre.
There can be only one explanation for this.
Whilst Pierre's list of reasons or hints was obscure to most of us.; it must have ticked many boxes with the "gramps".

Or at least they might have interpreted it in that way.

Indeed I would assume that they are looking at the same theory.

I think the probability for that is extremely low.

Indeed both Pierre and they have suggested that if announced now evidence could dissappear

I do not believe it is same pieces of evidence.

So Pierre who is going to steal whose thunder?

No. I wish them luck with their research.

I can think of no other reason why they would break their "non disclosure order".
To use such a term which has its roots in the law, in a situation like this is laughable.

This is a dead century old case which as Brenda says is of interest to very few. I do admit that the few are very passionate about it!

It would seem from the limited leaks that we are looking at some type of conspiracy.

Well, first of all, I do not "leak" but try to discuss different matters with people. Pinkmoon, who I donīt know, started the talk about Grampton. Whatever that is.

One of the group has suggested in the recent past a poltical motive which would I guess tie in.

The person I believe to be the killer had no political motive. That is a misinterpretation some people have made. He had his own very egoistic motives.

Indeed both Pierre and they have suggested that if announced now, evidence could dissappear .

I am beeing careful even if it is leading nowhere.

It's so obvious that this to quote another " it's just too big"
It will obviously change history. I think not!

Well, in my case, changing history is just changing history and nothing more.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre,

Do you believe Alice McKenzie was a victim of "your" suspect?

Hi,

As far as one of my sources are concearned I think she was. James Monro also believed she was a victim of Jack the Ripper.

Regards Pierre

[Panderoona]

As one of the Grampton six, I'm gutted as all I was asked to do was check certain archives.