I think I have found him.

[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

[Pierre]

So now, in some ways fortunately, we have a name to pin on but it too is in abeyance until next April. "Grampton"! I'll wait for the developments.

Is it really going to be revealed on April 1, 2016? April Fools Day? That bolsters confidence, but again we'll see.

And Pierre, when people (for the most part) "tear down" new ideas (or "theories") it isn't because they like to destroy them - they are questioning them to see if the holes they may think exist in the ideas are answered sufficiently well in the new theory to support it's findings.

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

[Pierre]

Thank goodness! Pierre finally admits that he has a theory and not the long awaited solution that he has led us all to believe.

No Amanda. I have stated that I have a theory all along. You just didnīt read what I said.

But you may call it what you want.

Pierre

[Pierre]

Abby,
for those of us not in on the secret I guess the question is :

Is Grampton a person, a place or a group of people.

We can only wait and see I fear

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

Pierre

[Amanda]

Thank goodness! Pierre finally admits that he has a theory and not the long awaited solution that he has led us all to believe.

[Pierre]

No Pierre, it is not, as Abby has explained.

Once again you demonstrate a propensity to leap to conclusions based on misunderstood data.

And once again you demonstrate your propensity to misinterpret what you read.

[Pierre]

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

No, because Pierre doesnīt have any piece and knows nothing about this Grampton story. Pierre happens to have his own theory.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

It's going to be big Tom it's also going to prove a lot of people wrong I'm just a bit upset that Pierre has obviously been tipped of. I wasn't going to post about it but I don't want Pierre to steal my thunder.

You are wrong. You made a mistake and now you are trying to put the blame on me.

That isnīt nice at all.

Pierre

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre
Could you(or anyone else if they want) list all the hints (for lack of a better word) you have given so far in one post for us?

Thanks in advance!

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

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre
Tumblety? who said anything about him? You know dang well the person that David put forth on this thread, and you responded to, is William Ripper.

But whos this Grampton fellow?

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

[Pcdunn]

It's a surname

Hi El
I just googled Grampton and all I got was this stupid thread. LOL!

But im sure we probably wont have to wait too long now that the cat is out of the bag.

It appears to be a surname of English origin, with distributions in the United States as well.

http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?MS_AdvCB=1&rank=1&new=1&MSAV=2&msT=1&gss=angs-c&gsfn_x=1&gsln=Grampton&gsln_x=1&msbdy_x=1&msbpn_x=XO&msbpn__ftp_x=1&msrpn_x=XO&msrpn__ftp_x=1&msydy_x=1&msypn_x=XO&msypn__ftp_x=1&gskw_x=1&_83004002_x=1&cpxt=1&uidh=000&cp=4&gl=35&gst=&ghc=20

[kookingpot]

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...

[Mayerling]

So now, in some ways fortunately, we have a name to pin on but it too is in abeyance until next April. "Grampton"! I'll wait for the developments.

Is it really going to be revealed on April 1, 2016? April Fools Day? That bolsters confidence, but again we'll see.

And Pierre, when people (for the most part) "tear down" new ideas (or "theories") it isn't because they like to destroy them - they are questioning them to see if the holes they may think exist in the ideas are answered sufficiently well in the new theory to support it's findings.

[Elamarna]

Just in case Pierre and this Grampton are same.

Image search of the house Pierre said was like one his suspect once lived in shows Kennington palace gardens. Very top end.

Just for information.