I think I have found him.

[Pierre]

I'm sure you do because let's face it you and me know it's the closest this case will ever come to be declared closed

Well, so what I say doesnīt matter then.

Then I could write just about anything here. Some people donīt understand it anyway.

Or maybe this is just an aspect of this forum: People tend to be suspicous here. Against anyone or anything.

Regards Pierre

[Amanda]

Pinkmoon,

I didn't think the 'Grampton theory' was going to be revealed until 2016, I'd heard a rumour of a 'Ripper Conference' exclusive.
Do you know something more? Will there be a publication soon?

And Pierre, if you don't know about it, why are you still posting when these new revelations will make anything you find look trivial?

Amanda

[Chris2307uk]

The Grampton Theory? This is the first I have heard of this. Could you shed any light on it please?

[pinkmoon]

Hi,

and thanks. But I donīt know anything about that theory.

Regards Pierre

I'm sure you do because let's face it you and me know it's the closest this case will ever come to be declared closed

[Pierre]

Hi pierre, I have been following your posts with great interest and excitement and I think I know who your suspect is I hope I don't get told of too much by my associates but is your suspect involved in the soon to be released "grampton" theory which I think will blow this case out of the water.

Hi,

and thanks. But I donīt know anything about that theory.

Regards Pierre

[pinkmoon]

Hi Abby,

And who is Davidīs "viable" suspect?

Is it Francis Tumblety?

Has Francis Tumblety left any evidence of being the killer?

And how does David (or anyone else) explain Elizabeth Jackson, Alice McKenzie and the Pinchin Street torso?

There are two reasons that I canīt name the person I think was Jack the Ripper and I have told you about these.

And I prefere to not take part in constructing garbage in > garbage out theories about the Whitechapel killer, which also the theory of Tumblety is, not matter how "respected" their authors are considered by you to be.

I can tell you that the best ideas of who the ripper might have been are some of the ideas written here on the forum by people who are not authors. Some of those are newcomers to the forum and some of them are people who, since many years, have had an interest in who the ripper was and have not decided on a certain susupect or theory.

The are the most reliable persons to debate with since they are not stuck with a suspect that they have to defend.

So if you think that writing and selling books about "Jack the Ripper" is a good way forward to find the Whitechapel murderer, you should go on buying these books.

But if you think that going over the sources from 1888-1889 again and again is a better idea, you should do this.

And I can tell you that I will be the first to admit if I am wrong. I would do it gladly.

Regards Pierre

Hi pierre, I have been following your posts with great interest and excitement and I think I know who your suspect is I hope I don't get told of too much by my associates but is your suspect involved in the soon to be released "grampton" theory which I think will blow this case out of the water.

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre

The irony that in this whole thing he (and others) actually researched and put forth the name of a viable candidate(s), while you have not.

Hi Abby,

And who is Davidīs "viable" suspect?

Is it Francis Tumblety?

Has Francis Tumblety left any evidence of being the killer?

And how does David (or anyone else) explain Elizabeth Jackson, Alice McKenzie and the Pinchin Street torso?

There are two reasons that I canīt name the person I think was Jack the Ripper and I have told you about these.

And I prefere to not take part in constructing garbage in > garbage out theories about the Whitechapel killer, which also the theory of Tumblety is, not matter how "respected" their authors are considered by you to be.

I can tell you that the best ideas of who the ripper might have been are some of the ideas written here on the forum by people who are not authors. Some of those are newcomers to the forum and some of them are people who, since many years, have had an interest in who the ripper was and have not decided on a certain susupect or theory.

The are the most reliable persons to debate with since they are not stuck with a suspect that they have to defend.

So if you think that writing and selling books about "Jack the Ripper" is a good way forward to find the Whitechapel murderer, you should go on buying these books.

But if you think that going over the sources from 1888-1889 again and again is a better idea, you should do this.

And I can tell you that I will be the first to admit if I am wrong. I would do it gladly.

Regards Pierre

[Rosella]

Oh please, not the old Prince Eddie, Roman Catholic thing all over again. I couldn't bear it. Prince A.V. taking revenge on his ancestors/forbears over the Reformation -Annie (Anne Boleyn, devout Protestant) a Katherine, two Mary's and an Elizabeth, because of his love for a Catholic girl.

[Abby Normal]

Dictionary definition of 'jack' (among other things) is:

a playing card bearing a representation of a soldier, page, or knave, normally ranking next below a queen

Are we looking at a claim for PAV here, I wonder?

(Damn. I said I wouldn't post again on this thread but I've been drawn back in. Note to self: Wait till OP says something which can be verified or disproved before returning)

Hi Bridewell
Don't feel bad. I have too, eventhough I was one of the most vocal dissenters in the beginning.HaHa.


Hey how about "Jack of all Trades"?

[Craig H]

Did anyone try to find the letter to the editor that Pierre mentioned ?

I tried using the Time Archive and also the British Newspaper Archive databases using different search criteria.

No success.

Craig

[Bridewell]

Even the name Jack the Ripper has an explanation connected to his motive (his name wasn't Jack).

Dictionary definition of 'jack' (among other things) is:

a playing card bearing a representation of a soldier, page, or knave, normally ranking next below a queen

Are we looking at a claim for PAV here, I wonder?

(Damn. I said I wouldn't post again on this thread but I've been drawn back in. Note to self: Wait till OP says something which can be verified or disproved before returning)

[Abby Normal]

Hi,

the absurdity of "it all".

What exactly is that suppose to mean?

Regards Pierre

Hi Pierre
It means the absurdity of:

You saying you think you have found the ripper but cant say.
The hints you have given.
The apparently crack pot theory along the lines of the royal conspiracy your ideas and suspect are seemingly headed.
The non responses and cryptic responses.
Specifically, the negative things and misrepresentations you have said against David Orsam, a fantastic researcher, writer and debater, when all he is doing is trying to get to the TRUTH.
The irony that in this whole thing he (and others) actually researched and put forth the name of a viable candidate(s), while you have not.
The hilarious responses of some of the posters here!!!!!
The fights amonst different posters your posts and threads have inspired.
The amount of bandwith your posts and threads have taken up.
The fact that eventhough you have not revealed your suspect a lot of people, including myself, keep coming back, posting and debating.
That there has actually been things learned (IMHO and at least for myself).
The mystery of it all, including whether you are sincere, or merely trolling.
That your posts have inspired people to join and leave this site.
The fact that some including myself have wondered if Admin should not allow threads and posts like this, and yet now have come full circle and find it interesting and participate.
The fact that im now taking the time in explaining in detail to you why I mean by absurd. LOL.

All of these things combined.

[Elamarna]

Dear Pierre,

I must say I find it strange but then again not surprising that you do not know 2 of the greatest philanthropist of the 19th century.
Both are internationally famous, not so much in themselves but because of the institutions they set up.

You have stated more than once that you are a scientist, yet you don't know of the Wellcome foundation.

What branch of science are you engaged in?
I ask because I actually have worked in science for 35 years. One of the main concepts in science is the idea of collaboration and Peer review. You seem not to use either.
It is normal in any science not to publish until you are ready I agree: that is normally done after peer review.
Indeed I know of no scientists who publish saying I have a theory; but you can't be told what that theory is.
I did say I would not comment again on your threads.
The problem is you have so many of them, all saying samantic variations of basically the same point.

This will be my last post on your non theory.
All the best in whatever you aim is

[Mayerling]

Hi,

I am sorry I havenīt answered your question. The reason is there are so many non serious posters here so I donīt bother to go through the posts anymore.

The worst of the non serious posts have been written by David.

Regards Pierre

That's just it, Pierre, David's posts have been serious - even when he started a thread to put up a "straw man" rival candidate as the Ripper.

It is very possible that you have found some extraordinary things in your own researches, but the dribs and drabs given to us are so arcane that we can read anything into them and get nowhere. This is leading a great many of us to feel not only frustrated but suspicious of your motivations. While you maintain great reasons for not giving information, you act like a miser holding onto a potential fortune.

And changing the interpretation of history does not count. History generally speaking is under constant reinterpretation on every matter. Even if the most beloved figure of the 19th Century in 1888 to 1900 turned out to be the Ripper, it would not change the effect of that person's presence in the era on the bulk of the population. It would remain the same.

The only thing I have gotten since you began your campaign on this website is that I read a bad play by a famous poet. You mentioned it, and then denied it's value (or so I gathered later on). If that is how you manage this you can't complain when a leading serious researcher like David asks some pertinent questions to pin down your exact meanings.

Again, I do hope you succeed on your quest, but if you insist on using the threads of this website, and putting up new ones, you will have to be clearer about why, and maybe give us more details about how it fits into your problems in your theory.

Really best of luck,

Jeff

[David Orsam]

The worst of the non serious posts have been written by David.

So, to put it another way, the best of the funny posts have been written by me. Thank you Pierre!

Mind you, yours have been quite funny too though so don't beat yourself up too much about your lack of non-seriousness.