I think I have found him.

[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.

[Pierre]

seems more and more like a royal conspiracy, sickert , van gogh type suspect theory.

Hi,

yes, the history is full of such ideas but this is not such a theory.

It is very realistic and simple.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

I agree with you Abby. After some of the hints pierre dropped, I'm not even interested in hearing the suspect's name. He's just another nutter.

Hi Rocky,

Sure. But if I happen to be right, I think you will be very interested.

You see, then we will have to rewrite history.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

yeh. and the ironic thing is-the only "suspect" to come out of the whole thing is the William Ripper character that David Orsam put out in the other thread to demonstrate the absurdity of it all!!

Hi,

the absurdity of "it all".

What exactly is that suppose to mean?

Regards Pierre

[Abby Normal]

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.

I tried to discuss some things seriously with him but he soon began ot write a lot of irrelevant nonsense posts containg accusations, which took a lot of time to comment on. But I donīt communicate with him anymore.

So answering your question now: I donīt know who G Cadbury or Henry Wellcome are.

Regards Pierre

Hi Pierre
If someone names your suspect-will you admit it?

[Pierre]

Hi Abby,
That not 100% accurate .
I did propose a suspect ., but only in that the person appeared to meet some of Pierre ' s vague hints.

Strangly the name seemed to be past over by everyone, Rocky even suggested I was a Pierre copycat, as did Pierre himself.
He missed my naming and didn't even both to deny.
I put forward G Cadbury; not as a serious suspect but much like David has done a person who fits the hints made . I could have suggested Henry Wellcome but he has already been suggested as a suspect in the last few years.

I fear that we may wait along time for the name.
So best we ignore until we do I think

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.

I tried to discuss some things seriously with him but he soon began ot write a lot of irrelevant nonsense posts containg accusations, which took a lot of time to comment on. But I donīt communicate with him anymore.

So answering your question now: I donīt know who G Cadbury or Henry Wellcome are.

Regards Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Abby,
That not 100% accurate .
I did propose a suspect ., but only in that the person appeared to meet some of Pierre ' s vague hints.

Strangly the name seemed to be past over by everyone, Rocky even suggested I was a Pierre copycat, as did Pierre himself.
He missed my naming and didn't even both to deny.
I put forward G Cadbury; not as a serious suspect but much like David has done a person who fits the hints made . I could have suggested Henry Wellcome but he has already been suggested as a suspect in the last few years.

I fear that we may wait along time for the name.
So best we ignore until we do I think

[Abby Normal]

I agree with you Abby. After some of the hints pierre dropped, I'm not even interested in hearing the suspect's name. He's just another nutter.

yeh. and the ironic thing is-the only "suspect" to come out of the whole thing is the William Ripper character that David Orsam put out in the other thread to demonstrate the absurdity of it all!!

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
Maybe Jonathan, could invite Pierre onto Rippercast, what a terrific show that would be , rather like interviewing a politician, with more sidesteps, then Strictly come dancing.
Regards Richard.

[RockySullivan]

Seems to me that the more little hints Pierre gives out the more of a crack pot theory this is going to be if he ever does give us the whole story. Mission oriented motivation, "metaphorical" nebulous connections to victims in letters the killer sent, a well known (then but not now?) affluent suspect, the reveal will shake England to its core, etc.-seems more and more like a royal conspiracy, sickert , van gogh type suspect theory.

Even if Pierre is sincere and eventually reveals the suspect I'm quickly coming to the opinion that it's going to be another whopping wangdoodle. In short-a fairy tale.

But hope springs eternal*

*usually followed by disappointment. Lol

I agree with you Abby. After some of the hints pierre dropped, I'm not even interested in hearing the suspect's name. He's just another nutter.

[Hercule Poirot]

Each time I get the 'I think I have found him' email notification, I say to myself "Maybe this time, I'll get it" as a kid waiting for the birthday present he always wanted but never got would be doing.

Well, maybe next year. LOL

[Abby Normal]

Seems to me that the more little hints Pierre gives out the more of a crack pot theory this is going to be if he ever does give us the whole story. Mission oriented motivation, "metaphorical" nebulous connections to victims in letters the killer sent, a well known (then but not now?) affluent suspect, the reveal will shake England to its core, etc.-seems more and more like a royal conspiracy, sickert , van gogh type suspect theory.

Even if Pierre is sincere and eventually reveals the suspect I'm quickly coming to the opinion that it's going to be another whopping wangdoodle. In short-a fairy tale.

But hope springs eternal*

*usually followed by disappointment. Lol

[Craig H]

I think Pierre has told us a lot about his theory – what was the Ripper’s motivation, how he operated and his status.

The only thing he hasn’t told us – which is what we want to know – is who is his suspect.

However, once we accept that he won’t disclose the name until he has more evidence, and respect his motivation is his integrity (and not to deliberately antagonise us), then we can see he has contributed a lot to the forum.

Some of his theory and ideas which he has provided is that JTR was relatively wealthy, didn’t live in the area, was also a Torso killer, the Mary Kelly murder was staged to embarrass the outgoing Mayor, he communicated with Police to taunt them, and the double murder was planned (not an accident).

So I don’t think we can say he hasn’t put forward any ideas.

I’m enjoying the new ideas and discussion, although also frustrated with no name.

Pierre – one compromise you may want to consider is limiting your posts to the Threads you start. There’s a lot of smart folk on the Board with a lot of experience who probably want to explore other ideas. Just a thought ….

Craig

[GUT]

When Pierre posts an idea we can debate it. All he's said so far is that he thinks he knows who the killer is but won't tell us why. There's nothing to debate.

makes you wonder doesnt it