I think I have found him.

[Shaggyrand]

He also reminds me of those "blind item" gossip columnists, who make up stuff, promise to reveal the details, then sit back, while people speculate on the who and how, and finally, the columnist cobbles together a story from the details the readers have provided.

Another good comparison. Maybe we should make a list of blind item code names for the suspect now & just apply the one that best fits later.

[RockySullivan]

Thanks Jeff and I know they are trying to make me make a mistake. But it is very difficult to guess who the killer could be, since they donīt know of his existence, so they would not even notice if i actually made a mistake, which of course I avoid doing.

I only started posting because I wanted to get some relief from the burden of having found who I think is the murderer and knowing how he performed his crimes and why.

Now he follows me 24/7 and I theorize about him even in my sleep. So, as somebody put it, "it sucks you in". But the fact is that I have only allowed the most sparse data to be connected to him. I have an extremely high degree of criticism doing this research and therefore I also trust I am onto something meaningful.

The worst kind of so called ripperology I can think of is Patricia Cornwells writings. She said in some TV-program that Jack the Ripper / Sickert could have written all the letters that exist. Very meaningless.

People like her does more damage than good to the search for this killer.

And the guy with the shawl and DNA, thatīs a laugh. Actually, I found out that it was a journalist in 1888 who wrote some small romantic peace of text in a paper, where he fantasized about Eddowes wearing a shawl on her head while walking into a dark alley and meeting the killer. This article has of course become myth.

And it isnīt sufficient anyway to connect one piece of data to one victim. You must have a connection to some of the others as well.

If you really want to find the killer you cannot start by letting every piece of data be "interesting" and you canīt start from old myths produced during the time of the crimes. You must be prepared to sort out all stuff that does not explicitly point to the real killer. The more you sort out and throw away, the more valid and reliable data you might get.

I do not believe in the method of "rubbish in, rubbish out". No. Get rid of your preknowledge if you have one, get rid of bias and of meningless sources.

Also, the more steps you take from the sources and the more elaborate your theory gets, the more ad hocs you have to put in, the more useless the result gets.

And there is no use fantasizing about the dark alleys in Spitalfields and trying to understand the "envorinment" and getting ideas of a "local guy" and knowing each little step the individual PC:s took.

One has to look for the sources left by the killer and forget the rest. These sources can be very unexpected but when you find them, it can be shocking.

Pierre

Yea those name you mention were just in it to make as much $ as possible. But i'm not sure whats worse...."I solved Jack the Ripper here's who it is and here's my meaningless proof that amounts to absolute dogshit" or "I solved Jack the Ripper but I'm not telling you"
The reality is there is no reason for you not to say who you think it is...especially because I'm sure your "sources" are even more worthless than every other person who "solved the case"

[Hercule Poirot]

Yea those name you mention were just in it to make as much $ as possible. But i'm not sure whats worse...."I solved Jack the Ripper here's who it is and here's my meaningless proof that amounts to absolute dogshit" or "I solved Jack the Ripper but I'm not telling you"
The reality is there is no reason for you not to say who you think it is...especially because I'm sure your "sources" are even more worthless than every other person who "solved the case"

I'd be a bit nervous if I came out with a new Ripper suspect who was well known and still having family members around. They could sue me for libel unless I had evidence that couldn't be challanged.

Anyway, I don't think provoking Pierre as some of you are doing will have him present us his evidence. What's the problem with waiting for him to introduce his theory whenever he deems it possible?

[richardnunweek]

I have waited about sixteen years on Casebook. and since 1965, when I started seriously looking at the case, so I am in no hurry.
Surely Casebook is here to offer opinions on the case, and present theories, not I know something . you don't know..?
Regards Richard.

[Shaggyrand]

I'd be a bit nervous if I came out with a new Ripper suspect who was well known and still having family members around. They could sue me for libel unless I had evidence that couldn't be challanged.

Anyway, I don't think provoking Pierre as some of you are doing will have him present us his evidence. What's the problem with waiting for him to introduce his theory whenever he deems it possible?

Then phrase it as an opinion and not as a definitive statement. Opinions aren't ever libel, definite statements that could harm a reputation are.

There's nothing wrong with waiting. Though you have to admit that Pierre's choices in wording and replies are a bit suspect. They aren't hints or a starting point or even about anything except trying to get responses. I think that wanting a bit more than a little post footsie or "do your own research" isn't asking too much. How about just this published letter that started them on their course? That's public and printed so long ago without comment that it can't possibly be considered libel as it's been around for over 100 years and hasn't been charged as libel which makes a fantastic defense everywhere.

[Shaggyrand]

Phone double posted and I don't see a delete option... might just be overlooking it. My bad.

[Mayerling]

Actually I was thinking of one where he sent letters written by Bertie to one of his mistresses to Alexandra or threatened to I'm a little hazy on the details but it caused a big stir. Not a very nice man at all

I'm not a fan of Lord Randolph - he was a brilliant politician (up to 1887 anyway), but he was an opportunist. The phrase, "Playing the Orange Card" is based on Churchill's boast in a speech regarding his opposition to Parnell and Home Rule in the 1880s. He obviously was willing to use religious bigotry on that level to prevent any attempt at a reform.

By the way, Bertie was one of those individuals who never apparently learned (witness his being called again as a somewhat soiled witness in that 1891 "Tranby Croft" case). In the 1890s his romance was with Daisy, Countess of Warwick. He wrote her some love letters - in 1897 SHE blackmailed him when she was in need of cash! There was a book on the story, "The Darling Daisy Affair" some three decades ago. It was an interesting sort of situation. One of those who were involved as a go-between was a very young Clarence Hatry, whom you may not have heard of - Hatry became a big time financier in the 1920s, but came acropper due to a fraud and ended up going to prison. His fraud (in 1929) is blamed, in part by some, for helping to cause the Great Crash that year.

Jeff

[pinkmoon]

Thanks Jeff and I know they are trying to make me make a mistake. But it is very difficult to guess who the killer could be, since they donīt know of his existence, so they would not even notice if i actually made a mistake, which of course I avoid doing.

I only started posting because I wanted to get some relief from the burden of having found who I think is the murderer and knowing how he performed his crimes and why.

Now he follows me 24/7 and I theorize about him even in my sleep. So, as somebody put it, "it sucks you in". But the fact is that I have only allowed the most sparse data to be connected to him. I have an extremely high degree of criticism doing this research and therefore I also trust I am onto something meaningful.

The worst kind of so called ripperology I can think of is Patricia Cornwells writings. She said in some TV-program that Jack the Ripper / Sickert could have written all the letters that exist. Very meaningless.

People like her does more damage than good to the search for this killer.

And the guy with the shawl and DNA, thatīs a laugh. Actually, I found out that it was a journalist in 1888 who wrote some small romantic peace of text in a paper, where he fantasized about Eddowes wearing a shawl on her head while walking into a dark alley and meeting the killer. This article has of course become myth.

And it isnīt sufficient anyway to connect one piece of data to one victim. You must have a connection to some of the others as well.

If you really want to find the killer you cannot start by letting every piece of data be "interesting" and you canīt start from old myths produced during the time of the crimes. You must be prepared to sort out all stuff that does not explicitly point to the real killer. The more you sort out and throw away, the more valid and reliable data you might get.

I do not believe in the method of "rubbish in, rubbish out". No. Get rid of your preknowledge if you have one, get rid of bias and of meningless sources.

Also, the more steps you take from the sources and the more elaborate your theory gets, the more ad hocs you have to put in, the more useless the result gets.

And there is no use fantasizing about the dark alleys in Spitalfields and trying to understand the "envorinment" and getting ideas of a "local guy" and knowing each little step the individual PC:s took.

One has to look for the sources left by the killer and forget the rest. These sources can be very unexpected but when you find them, it can be shocking.

Pierre

Why don't you take the weight of your shoulders and unburden yourself by contacting a publisher who would be able with the help of an established ripper author/expert get this published and then you will become a millionaire because there is no doubt whoever does solve this will become very rich very quickly.

[curious4]

Keep calm and wait and see?

Perhaps the best thing we can do with Pierre's thread is to keep calm and wait and see. I must admit that some of his rhetoric worries me a little. He does seem excessively worried about people who are long since dead. Perhaps he has reason to be, I don't know. We mostly all have our own theories and enjoy discussing them (at least I do :-D), so perhaps we should extend the same courtesy to Pierre. I find it difficult to agree with some of what he has said, but that doesn't automatically mean that I am right and he is wrong. He has perhaps gone about things slightly in the wrong way (or not in the way we are used to) and this has antagonised a few people but on the whole we are interested in new theories and information when we get it. It is difficult to discuss a theory when we don't know what it is and it is tempting to believe that we are being led up the garden path.

So - wait and see what transpires.

Best wishes
C4.

[Abby Normal]

HI Pierre
Abberline was JtR and when the police found out they tried to cover it up?
is that it?

[richardnunweek]

Oh No..not Fred.
It was near to home after all..
Richard.

[RockySullivan]

Well he's certainly making it sound like he was researching someone un-connected to the Ripper case and his "evidence" is based on letters they wrote that talk about the murders before hand. Just another looney theory like Lewis Carroll, Sickert, etc from what we've got so far

[Tecs]

So Pierre knows who the Ripper is but can't tell us.

Not related to Sir Robert Anderson is he?


regards,

[RivkahChaya]

I'd be a bit nervous if I came out with a new Ripper suspect who was well known and still having family members around. They could sue me for libel unless I had evidence that couldn't be challanged.

Can you libel the dead in the UK? you can't in the US.

So Pierre knows who the Ripper is but can't tell us.

Not related to Sir Robert Anderson is he?

[Paddy]

Pierre you spoke of seeing a photo of the suspects relation, Was the relation known to the boards or famous? I only ask as I wonder what sources you have, are they genealogical, online sources or private sources?
Pat...........