I think I have found him.

[Rosemary]

Wtf

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

GRAMPTON

Who dat???

[MysterySinger]

Pierre's suspect is as good as anyone else's. So what if it takes a while to reveal. If his subject is wrong so what? If he's right - what's another year?

[Mayerling]

But you canīt question what you donīt know, can you? So instead of questioning, people like David add their own ideas to what they think is my theory and my data and then try to destroy that. And this is of course meaningless. You canīt generalize from one statement to the whole theory or from one source to all sources.

And I am starting to wonder why people here get so nervous about the fact that I think I have found the killer. Why the frustration? People have been trying to solve this case for 127 years. Wouldnīt it be much better to have a calm and intelligent discussion about important aspects of the murders instead of getting upset or frustrated?

Regards Pierre

Pierre

Hello again Pierre,

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

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 when it causes a bit of growing frustration. Under that set of circumstances, David and others (including myself occasionally - sorry about that Pierre) hit back with some comments that may seem unfair.
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 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. 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.

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. Out of that I can't say anything.

Best wishes,

Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Come on. William Ripper is a joke. There were actually people named Jack Ripper in the 19th Century. They must be the killer then.

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.

[Elamarna]

I have just reread pinkmoon's first posting when he mentions Gramton

sorry i not sure how to use the quote feature, i have just cut and pasted it below:
"but is your suspect involved in the soon to be released "grampton" theory which I think will blow this case out of the water."
__________________
Now i could be wrong, but i get the feeling that the words "involved in " suggest that Grampton is not the suspect.

Either it refers to a place or maybe a group or club; or Grampton is someone who has left information.

A third option could be it is a codeword, designed to hide the identity,

Then again it could be a suspect. who knows?

regards to all

[Abby Normal]

{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. }

Thanks st devil
Nice-sounds reasonable. I live near Baltimore. I may need to go to this!
But I have feeling since the Cats out of the bag we may not need to wait that long.

[Abby Normal]

So now they are asking for my hints and thanking me in advance. And I thought I was just bothering them.

Very kind of you. But there is no reason for taking my hints and comparing them to some theory about some Grampton which I havenīt got the slightest idea about.

Just trying to save you from doing meaningless work.

Regards Pierre

Hi Pierre
I posted this before I saw the Grampton thread, as you can see, and was being totally sincere and not for comparison for anything else but for its own merit.

[Robert St Devil]

The intrigue just never stops here does it?

and with so many new suspects/theories Im starting to feel I need to find one myself! LOL.

Im going to get to work on it right away!

{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. }

[Pcdunn]

Name correct?

I found a Philip Grampton who was a surgeon. But he must have been to old for beeing a serial killer.

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?

[GUT]

But you canīt question what you donīt know, can you? So instead of questioning, people like David add their own ideas to what they think is my theory and my data and then try to destroy that. And this is of course meaningless. You canīt generalize from one statement to the whole theory or from one source to all sources.

And I am starting to wonder why people here get so nervous about the fact that I think I have found the killer. Why the frustration? People have been trying to solve this case for 127 years. Wouldnīt it be much better to have a calm and intelligent discussion about important aspects of the murders instead of getting upset or frustrated?

Regards Pierre

Pierre

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

[Elamarna]

Pierre,
you say that you found a grampton but he was too old? how old can i ask?

[Hercule Poirot]

Thanks Hercule.

Cela m'a fait plaisir. (T'was my pleasure)

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

[Pierre]

I would define the situation as the 'Ripperologist blue balls' syndrom after being a bit teased by what you've been daying for quite a while now. Don't take it bad, Pierre, I'm simply attempting to cool everyone down. LOL

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

Thanks Hercule.

[Hercule Poirot]

...
And I am starting to wonder why people here get so nervous about the fact that I think I have found the killer. Why the frustration? People have been trying to solve this case for 127 years. Wouldnīt it be much better to have a calm and intelligent discussion about important aspects of the murders instead of getting upset or frustrated?

Regards Pierre

Pierre

I would define the situation as the 'Ripperologist blue balls' syndrom after being a bit teased by what you've been saying for quite a while now. Don't take it bad, Pierre, I'm simply attempting to cool everyone down. LOL

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

[Hercule Poirot]

This is absolutely true. The "tearing down" process is part of "peer review". And peer review is very important, it finds extant holes in theories, it establishes the theories that hold water, it shows where weaknesses are, which parts of the theory need more thought and/or research, and is extremely important. Although I will say there are far more personal attacks in these forums than are usual for the peer review process...

I would even add that when we consider the remarks made here (including some of mine) and in other threads involving Pierre, we can't be seriously talking about a peer review. Looks more like a 'pear's review' as far as I'm concerned. In French, a pear (poire) also means 'imbecile' in our urban talk.




Cheers,
Hercule Poirot