I think I have found him.

[RockySullivan]

Ah, yet another theorist who claims to have "the facts".

in my opinion all of these are the same person...pretty much all the 2015er's who are talking to himself. i calls it as i sees it

[GUT]

Why offer him such a timescale? Why can't he just do it today?

That's the question isn't it.

[DJA]

I'm assuming '1888' is male.

I also doubt Pierre is Lucky enough to secure a female.

[DJA]

Have plenty of facts.

Two records actually place Nichols,Eddowes/Conway and our Jack together in 1867.
That information has been supplied to two Ripperologists,one of whom you have known for a long time.
The other is well known and liked on this site.
Awaiting replies.There is a lot to read and consider.

Worked out the gas lamp yet,after all these years?
Only stirring.Appreciated your photo of Dorset Street.

[Wickerman]

You ain't seen the facts.

You are still convinced a gas lamp three doors down from Miller's Court would light the entrance

So which one do you prefer......the one in jail,in America,Scotland,hospital,etc.

They are just pathetic jokes.

Cross/Lechmere....crikey,what a laugh.

Ah, yet another theorist who claims to have "the facts".

[David Orsam]

I'm assuming '1888' is male.

[David Orsam]

Would you be willing to reveal who you think pierre has identified if pierre has not come forwarded and named him in a reasonable time scale of 8 weeks or so say 1/1/2016.
Simple yes or no will suffice.

Why offer him such a timescale? Why can't he just do it today?

[paul g]

Plot thickens

I have been quite vocal on the content of pierres postings from his original post and also onother threads.
I stated quite clearly that i suspected that pierre is accually a existing member using a new user name via a v p n possibly.
Now we have 1888 arriving to support pierre which just thickens the plot .
I have never had a issue with pierres original post it is what the forum is here for. But what i have had issues with is the schoolboy teases that pierre puts into posts.
I asked pierre why post at all if you were a year away from accually finding out if his theory was correct. His answer in the thread titled pierres research did not sastify me and was very evasive.
However as the thread rolls on with 1888 possibly identifying pierres suspect and i would like to ask 1888 the following question.

Would you be willing to reveal who you think pierre has identified if pierre has not come forwarded and named him in a reasonable time scale of 8 weeks or so say 1/1/2016.
Simple yes or no will suffice.

I struggle to understand why anyone weather a first time poster,lifelong member or even a lurker would post on the forum that they think they have found him but cant reveal who it is until a year later it just does not add up. No benifit to the researcher no benifit to the members .

[Mayerling]

Hello Jeff.
I was fixing the phone system for a divorce lawyer here in San Antonio. We started talking; and since i turned fanatic about the case a few mnths back, i found opportunity to bring it up. In 1888, this lawyer would have been a Liberal because he saw Jack the Ripper very matter-of-factly. The killer was a sexual deviant, nothing more or less.
Anyways... He said that medical professors use a similar phrase when they are teaching new doctors how to analyze a problem. Fixing phone systems all day long, the saying spoke to my "trouble shooting" side.

All the best.

Thanks for the background Robert. I actually heard it (as a piece of advice) from Jonathan Goodman about 1996 or so.

Haven't heard anyone else use the phrase (until now) before Jonathan used it or since.

Jeff

[EmaEm]

Do I need one?

C4

Of course not, carry on being prissy dearie.

[Robert St Devil]

Hello Jeff.
I was fixing the phone system for a divorce lawyer here in San Antonio. We started talking; and since i turned fanatic about the case a few mnths back, i found opportunity to bring it up. In 1888, this lawyer would have been a Liberal because he saw Jack the Ripper very matter-of-factly. The killer was a sexual deviant, nothing more or less.
Anyways... He said that medical professors use a similar phrase when they are teaching new doctors how to analyze a problem. Fixing phone systems all day long, the saying spoke to my "trouble shooting" side.

All the best.

[David Orsam]

Well, I think this thread has got suitably off-topic. I thoroughly support calls to lock it down, especially as the OP has no real interest in adding any meaningful detail to the original post, other than the odd drips and drabs not far beyond "I can't say yet". Perhaps when Pierre is ready to reveal his suspect, we can revisit the issue. Until then, I cannot see what contribution this thread currently provides to both the case of Jack the Ripper's identity, or to the reputation of Casebook.org itself.

Although we had a major breakthrough yesterday in that '1888' claims to have worked out who Pierre's suspect is and, with one single post, could put an end to all this nonsense. Let us, perhaps, see if '1888' is able to justify his refusal to post that name.

[curious4]

No, Prissy, I don't. What's your excuse for being prissy?

Do I need one?

C4

[Mister Whitechapel]

Well, I think this thread has got suitably off-topic. I thoroughly support calls to lock it down, especially as the OP has no real interest in adding any meaningful detail to the original post, other than the odd drips and drabs not far beyond "I can't say yet". Perhaps when Pierre is ready to reveal his suspect, we can revisit the issue. Until then, I cannot see what contribution this thread currently provides to both the case of Jack the Ripper's identity, or to the reputation of Casebook.org itself.

Yours,
Mister Whitechapel

DISCLAIMER: I am neither a puppet account for any other member, nor am I an agent provocateur intending to stir an already frothing cauldron

[David Orsam]

I didn't post the name of the suspect who is presumably championed by Pierre because laying out my reasons would be equivalent to outing him as I see it.

I'm having difficulty with this, 1888, because Pierre has, in effect, invited us all to guess or work out his candidate's identity. You have, you tell us, very cleverly managed to work it all out. That means you are perfectly entitled to post that name (and there is no need for you to lay out your reasons).

According to Pierre, he is going to post the name of his candidate anyway in due course.

So why you do even care if posting the name of his candidate might lead to his identity being revealed a bit earlier than he might have expected? He's not a secret agent. Nor has he even expressed any concerns about his identity being revealed. In any event, you said that if you posted his name he would deny it. So what possible reason can there be for you not posting the name of the person you suspect to be his candidate right here and now?