I think I have found him.

[Michael W Richards]

Thank you Craig.

Pierre

The problem is that Monsieur Pierre isn't here to work with us to try and solve the issues, he is here to bait bears.

[richardnunweek]

Hi..
Mrs Prater allegedly told McCarthy, that she was waiting for her young man, but he had not turned up. ''I am going up''.she said.
Question 'What young man was this?'..a few hours earlier, she had met Kelly , and both were going out ''To try their luck''..So I guess both succeeded.?
It has been suggested that Kelly was killed by accident, the killer was intending to kill Prater,and went in the wrong room..
Might have some merit, but I personally do not believe so.
Regards Richard.

[curious4]

I think I can see where Pierre is going with his theory.

For reasons mysteriously connected with events in the sixteenth century, the killer is determined to kill a Mary and an Elizabeth on the same night. On 30 September he successfully murders Elizabeth Stride but then mistakenly murders Catherine Eddowes, thinking she was called Mary Kelly due to her using that name sometimes (although, having already killed an Anne, and with MJK having the middle name of Jane, I'm personally wondering if he might have been after the wives of Henry the Eighth).

So having been foiled in his Mary/Elizabeth double event he tries again on 9 November, with Mary Jane Kelly and Elizabeth Prater, ensuring he does so on Lord Mayor's Day to humiliate both the Lord Mayor and the police (who failed to correctly interpret his advance warning in a letter to the press).

But he messes it up again because he failed to take the simple precaution of ensuring he would be able to access Elizabeth Prater's room. She must have slept through his attempts to force the door.

He also miscalculates in that the Lord Mayor is unaffected, with his parade not passing through the east end.

Well, it's a theory I suppose.

I think if she was woken by her kitten walking over her neck, she would have woken up by the sound of someone rattling her door knob/handle. And surely Mary's room would have been an easier target. Also Prater had been out and about, why would he not have approached her then?

C4

[DJA]

Are you implying that Pierre is trying to make a monkey (ape) out of us? Shocking! But I think you may be on to something :-).

C4

If you look at the Pierre Brassau fraud there are similarities.

Self proclaimed experts like Rolf Anderberg praised Pierre's work.
Prolly one of David Osram"s relatives.

Pierre lived at Boras.

[David Orsam]

I think I can see where Pierre is going with his theory.

For reasons mysteriously connected with events in the sixteenth century, the killer is determined to kill a Mary and an Elizabeth on the same night. On 30 September he successfully murders Elizabeth Stride but then mistakenly murders Catherine Eddowes, thinking she was called Mary Kelly due to her using that name sometimes (although, having already killed an Anne, and with MJK having the middle name of Jane, I'm personally wondering if he might have been after the wives of Henry the Eighth).

So having been foiled in his Mary/Elizabeth double event he tries again on 9 November, with Mary Jane Kelly and Elizabeth Prater, ensuring he does so on Lord Mayor's Day to humiliate both the Lord Mayor and the police (who failed to correctly interpret his advance warning in a letter to the press).

But he messes it up again because he failed to take the simple precaution of ensuring he would be able to access Elizabeth Prater's room. She must have slept through his attempts to force the door.

He also miscalculates in that the Lord Mayor is unaffected, with his parade not passing through the east end.

Well, it's a theory I suppose.

[Pierre]

I have been reading this site, on and off, for the last 10 years.

While I have not been a frequent contributor, I have always read the posts with interest.

One of the things I have enjoyed is the passion so many of you show in trying to solve one of the great mysteries of the last 150 years.

I have seen vigorous differences in opinion as you debate your personal theories about the Ripper. However, I always believed that no matter how vigorously you disagreed with each other, that you would still have a beer or a glass of wine with each other at the end of the day.

I thought this group debated ideas, not the person.

This is why I have been so disappointed in how this group has responded to Pierre’s involvement.

Pierre has a different approach to stimulate debate. He hasn’t presented a definite theory and forcefully argued his position. Instead, he has asked provocative questions that encourage us to think.

This approach can frustrate and irritate many people, which I can understand. Personally, I’ve found it interesting.

I believe any bulletin board needs to encourage diversity.

If someone irritates you, then simply click on their user name, add them to your “ignore list” then you won’t read their comments.

When I think about this site, and the other site, I think about some of the great posters such as Nemo and Chris Scott. I can’t remember either of them resorting into personal attacks.

Today, we awoke to the terrible news about the Paris tragedy.

Life is too short for the personal attacks.

We all share something in common in our interest in solving this 125 year old mystery.

Can we focus on that, and debate the ideas not the person ?

Craig

Thank you Craig.

Pierre

[curious4]

Are you implying that Pierre is trying to make a monkey (ape) out of us? Shocking! But I think you may be on to something :-).

C4

[DJA]

Strange. I would have placed you and your fellow carrot-waver in Sweden, judging by your English, but what do I know? Just the impression I got, could be wrong.

C4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Brassau#/media/File:Brassau.jpg

Bingo!

[paul g]

Two things at once

Hi I cant remember exactly when those words were first spoken and by whom . But i can guarentee that they were first spoken by a woman and sadly the words are correct. Every time i type the tv loses it' s picture or at least im told that .
I have been told to stop posting on the forum when strictly does jungle is on 😜

[Craig H]

Apolgies after the event regarding spelling. In process of moving house so relying on intermitent 3g for internet and i old i phone which is my only way of connecting to the web.
Currently stood on my roof typing with one hand while the other is holding the tv ariel. Did manage to change pissibly which should of been possibly 😀

Hi Paul,
I'm impressed ...... who said blokes can't do two things at the one time ???
Craig

[Craig H]

I’m also still grappling with his theory.

The reason why it resonates with me is it explains some of the mysteries.

My understanding is Pierre’s candidate is someone from a respected institution whose credibility would be tarnished if it was revealed. That suggests the legal courts, police, respected charity / church. He had previously said his candidate was not royalty or a senior Scotland Yard official.

This could explain why Macnaghten destroyed files, and why Monro allegedly said the Ripper should have been caught, but the issue was a “hot potato”.

The Police seemed to quietly shut down the Ripper case. This doesn’t make sense if the Ripper was a Jew or Druitt. However, it does make sense if the Ripper was someone of status.

Pierre’s recent posts about why there were no killings in October, was due to wanting to embarrass the sitting Mayor who called the Ripper a mad lunatic in an interview, also makes sense.

I don’t have the detailed knowledge that many other folk here have. Maybe it is all an elaborate hoax. For the time being, I can see how it could make sense.

There is an interesting discussion on the other thread (“Social Class of Jack the Ripper”) about the letter which the Ripper wrote to newspapers giving information on Mary Kelly’s murder.

It would be interesting if anyone with access to digital archives of newspapers can find the letter which Pierre is referring.

Craig

[paul g]

David

Hi David, nothing can stop Pierre changing his mind I guess just maybe me taking everyone at there word which is rather nieve.
At the time of writing the above I had not read any other threads started today.
After getting up to date I now think different and think and I know this will sound double dutch but Pierre is genuine in the sense that he has research a theory etc or will be gone as quickly as he arrived.
Probally not ecplained that very well but i know what i mean 😀

[David Orsam]

I must admit that since pierre has stated that even if his further research prives his suspicions wrong he will still post who the suspect was has mellowed me.

Sorry Paul but I can't help being amused by that statement.

I mean, assuming he is being sincere, what's to stop him changing his mind?

[paul g]

Spelling

Apolgies after the event regarding spelling. In process of moving house so relying on intermitent 3g for internet and i old i phone which is my only way of connecting to the web.
Currently stood on my roof typing with one hand while the other is holding the tv ariel. Did manage to change pissibly which should of been possibly 😀

[paul g]

Re craig

Hi craig you sound similar to myself in being here for years but hardly ever posting.
I started a thread regarding pierres research and the contents of his posts. The reason being i was annoyed by the teasing and constant lack of substance to his suspect.
The point i am trying to make is after his original post which in a nut shell goes like this ...
I have a suspect he may be known by some but is not a main suspect but I won, t be able to reveal anything for a year.
Unless i have missed anything added by Pierre nothing has been added to that so though pierre may be genuine and his research genuine i cant see the point of his original post.
Yes there has been debate but debate on what?
Accedemically i may not be as sharp as sime on here but all i gained from pierres posts is that his suspect is male, but accept there may be further clues that i have missed.
I do take your point about personell insults towards pierre .I am pretty sure I have not stooped to that level but some of the posts that have been posted i certainly dont condone.
For me and me alone it is the nagging thought of why post at all.
I may have missed or not taken everything in but if anyone can enlighten me in laymens terms this is what i understand so far.
Pierres suspect is male.
Pierres suspect is not a known or well known suspect
He was not in the police force.
He was not in goverment or a member of a political party.

I must admit that since pierre has stated that even if his further research prives his suspicions wrong he will still post who the suspect was has mellowed me.
It does seem such a shame that possibly pierre posting his suspect now with so many people on here with all the experts on various subjects it epuld not br advantagous to him and his research.