I think I have found him.

[Panderoona]

It's a secret group. It's not searchable.

[Chris2307uk]

[/QUO
Not happy I've had lots of pms over this from fellow members could you please refrain from mentioning grampton on here and save it for the grampton facebook page.[/QUOTE]

May I ask what Facebook page please?

[Pierre]

Hello again Pierre,

Hi Mayerling

There seem to be too many cross currents involved. You are upset

No, but a bit resigned since there is a lack of meaningful discussions.

because you feel you never gave sufficient information (nor ever intended to at this time, if ever) about the work you were on, and yet you feel that people like David are trying to break down what they are not in any position to understand.

Yes, I think that is what he is doing.

I can follow that, but at the same time you have a little responsibility in setting up this situation, because (aside from little thngs you drop in your messages about the Lord Mayor and "Jack" or about a kind of "Tennyson" influence (sorry if that is not the exact terminology) referring indirectly to that awful play of his about Mary I, and the business of the position of Mary Kelly's hand resembling the portrait of Mary, Queen of Scots) and expect us to show huge interest

Well, I do not expect huge interest but perhaps some interesting hypotheses about it or some good serious criticism.

when it causes a bit of growing frustration.

Feelings should not be drawn into discussions of the case, it is pointless and destroys progress.

Under that set of circumstances, David and others (including myself occasionally - sorry about that Pierre) hit back with some comments that may seem unfair.

No offense taken but actually, when that happens we get meaningless discussions where there could be really interesting ones. We must get over over our own feelings and our own frustration if we want good discussions.

But the situation has just mushroomed this way as the parameters of your discussion are limited to begin with to whatever you feel is necessary.

I think if you read what I have written very carefully you might find a lot of interesting aspects of it.

I suspect you are seeking responses to these "minor points" to see if they fill in the aspects of the theory (sorry again to use that word) so that you are closer to certainty.

I can only get closer to certainty (of this person being or not being the killer) from analyzing the sources.

The problem about that as an approach is that since none of us (only you) know what you aim for any responses given (even if they seemingly fit your ideas) are actually quite questionable. They may fit well, but turn out to have been unwittingly forced into the position you needed, and when looked at more closely turn out to be wrong.

The responses can not prove the theory right. Only the sources can. I am only interested in how you think and in trying to refute my own theory.

I really don't know what to advise you - if you were seeking my advise. I keep hoping it all works out well enough for you to produce a final result that you are satisfied with.

I am most grateful for that.

Out of that I can't say anything.

Best wishes,

Jeff

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

{psst. Abby. Im trying to follow wtf is going on. All i got so far is 'new theory' and 'conference'. Im guessing that some or all the British researchers, Pierre included, may have gone to the Nottingham conference at the end of August. Maybe this is tbe conference Amanda alluded too. Im guessing there is no love lost between Amanda and Pierre since he never sends his 'regards'. Anyways. Three weeks after the conference, Pierre starts this thread "I think I found him", but the theory is incomplete. Tom Wescott says he is missing pieces.

I been wondering why Pierre has been letting David Orsan bait him these past few days. I guess he wrote something about Tumblety that made Pinkmoon bold it and quote it, as well as the insinuation that Pierre makes about "questioning other new and established researchers (Pinkmoon. Wescott, Panderoona) who have a theory but no suspect".

So makes me think that there are two theories built off similar research, Pierre's and Gotham, resulting in two conclusions. If April is the annoUnce date, it should make the Baltimore conference on April 9th a must-see. }

Hi,

Sorry to disappoint you Robert. I have never attended any conference like this and probably never will. I do not know the researchers you are speaking about and do not know Tom Wescott.

I will not be in Baltimore either.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

Uh yeah. That was kind of the point I think.

On the other hand he was local, available and had a violent criminal record including a sex crime. And his name WAS ripper-and since i beleive theres a slightly better than 50/50 chance that the killer wrote the dear boss letter , its not insignificant imho. Plus he was described as pocked mark face which tallys with one of my least weak suspects, blotchy.

Hi,

I think the chance that the killer wrote that letter is 0.

Concearning "Blotchy" - there is no evidence that this man has committed any of the murders. He is just seen by a witness, like so many others.

If I were you I would start thinking about things no one has thought about earlier.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

I tried that information and found a Wikipedia page on an Irish surgeon named Philip CRAMPTON who died in 1858. Are you sure it was GRAMPTON?

I found that fellow too. But there are some Gramptons, George and William for instance, when you go to Familysearch.

But I am not going to engage in this Grampton stuff. I have my own research.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

And whose fault is it that we can't debate your idea, because you won't tell us what it is????

Hi,

But I have given you some important aspects of my theory, and these aspects could very well be discussed.

I even think that if we do so, you might perhaps be able to find him too. It isnīt that difficult.

Regards Pierre

[Elamarna]

I am really sorry and I do not wish to be disrespectful at all. However for weeks people have been having a go at Pierre for not saying a name.
Indeed there was even a spoof in the pub talk section.
Now suddenly we have the same from a respected group of posters.
Not only are they doing the very same thing. They are saying it's not in anyone's interest to even discuss their theory.

.
Some of the posts are almost coming across as if they are in fear.
Sorry is this all about Comercial interest of have they simply lost the plot

With the deepest regret this is becoming a complete farce and doing no good at all for this forum.
Regards to all

[Robert]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXRYX3luHac

[Robert]

Well I'm jiggered if I'm going to spend time looking for someone who may have been called Grampton or Crampton or Frampton or who may have been called something else entirely, and whose existence is apparently only being discussed because of some loose-tongued blunder somewhere along the line. As for Pierre, I can only wish him good luck with his theory if he ever publishes it.

[pinkmoon]

[QUOTE=Tom_Wescott;360718]Pierre doesn't have all the pieces. Let's keep it that way, if you catch my drift. Where grampton is concerned, mums the word. Everybody write that five times or as many times as it takes to sink in.

Where grampton is concerned, mums the word.
Where grampton is concerned, mums the word.
Where grampton is concerned, mums the word.
Where grampton is concerned, mums the word.
Where grampton is concerned, mums the word.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott[/QUO
Not happy I've had lots of pms over this from fellow members could you please refrain from mentioning grampton on here and save it for the grampton facebook page.

[Pcdunn]

If "Grampton" is a code name for something similar, enter "Crampton" and "1888" into a good web browser. The results may be of interest.
I do not say more, as I don't really know things, I merely search for them.

[Pcdunn]

What theory?

I don't think it's in anyone's interests to discuss the Grampton Theory on a public forum.

Why? Those of us not in the know can hardly get anywhere without a first name, and I'm not in the know, certainly.
As for Crampton, he was reasonably famous and a baronet, but could not possibly have had anything to do with our subject of inquiry, having passed away in 1858. Wrong name, too.

[Purkis]

I don't think it's in anyone's interests to discuss the Grampton Theory on a public forum.

[Hercule Poirot]

Oh yay, it's finally becoming fun...

GRAMPTON

Who dat???

Grampton was Grumpy's well known ole fart head brother-in-law.