I think I have found him.

[Mayerling]

So, Pierre....if you are not prepared to give detail, why post about it? Why not post some of what you found without giving a name? I think you'll find some valuable resources here. One guy, for instance, recently saw his theory, thirty years of work, the subject of a 'world wide sent documentary'....flushed right down the ye olde turd box....thanks to the analysis provide here! Not that we'd want to torpedo your work. Not at all. But, you may be able to get some clarification or get some measure of confidence in what you have uncovered.

But if you tell me that it's a painter, an author, an actor, or a carman....I'm coming to your house.

Hi Pierre,

Best of luck on your work. Personally I have no real candidate.

As for the guessing game one can invent a checklist:

1) Did he enjoy painting starry nights and sunflowers?
2) Did he do trading in cotton futures, and was his wife running around with a fellow named Brierley?
3) Did the Russian Secret Police send him (for some ridiculous reason) to show up the British police?
4) Did he leave a practice as a barber-surgeon and go to American for awhile?
5) Was he in Joliet Prison for poisoning a fellow named Stott?
6) Did he build a "hotel" in Chicago to make a real killing in the 1893-94 World's Fair?
7) Did he leave a vague trail in 1888 after a series of swindles (and perhaps murders - no rippings) in Africa and Australia?
8) Did she (if it was a woman) think nothing of leaving blood stains on her walls when killing rodents in her home?
9) Did he enjoy photographing young girls, and dream of a blood-thirsty Queen ordering executions?
10) Was he a titled non-entity whose sexual interests may have gone both ways?
11) Was he a doctor who had resided in South America, and whose son died of venereal disease?
12) Was he an American Quack who claimed he knew and helped everyone famous, and was suspected of involvement in an earlier notorious murder case?
13) Was he a secretive and mysterious person who wrote for a leading yellow journalist of the age, and who was interested in the paranormal?
14) Was he a successful painter trying to bring impressionism to Britain, and who liked to discuss crimes at dinner parties?
15) Was he a man who supposedly saw the last victim with the killer, but whose own behavior was suspicious?
16) Was he all of these or none of the above?

And the answer is....

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I have been with Casebook since around 1999, and I have seen all kinds of posts stating they know the killers identity,.
We are of a age,where many people are jumping on the commercial bandwagon, with ''Case closed'' or DNA proven..
So we must forgive old posters like myself, if we are suspicious of claims.
Regards Richard.

[John G]

Hi Pierre,

Best of luck on your work. Personally I have no real candidate.

As for the guessing game one can invent a checklist:

1) Did he enjoy painting starry nights and sunflowers?
2) Did he do trading in cotton futures, and was his wife running around with a fellow named Brierley?
3) Did the Russian Secret Police send him (for some ridiculous reason) to show up the British police?
4) Did he leave a practice as a barber-surgeon and go to American for awhile?
5) Was he in Joliet Prison for poisoning a fellow named Stott?
6) Did he build a "hotel" in Chicago to make a real killing in the 1893-94 World's Fair?
7) Did he leave a vague trail in 1888 after a series of swindles (and perhaps murders - no rippings) in Africa and Australia?
8) Did she (if it was a woman) think nothing of leaving blood stains on her walls when killing rodents in her home?
9) Did he enjoy photographing young girls, and dream of a blood-thirsty Queen ordering executions?
10) Was he a titled non-entity whose sexual interests may have gone both ways?
11) Was he a doctor who had resided in South America, and whose son died of venereal disease?
12) Was he an American Quack who claimed he knew and helped everyone famous, and was suspected of involvement in an earlier notorious murder case?
13) Was he a secretive and mysterious person who wrote for a leading yellow journalist of the age, and who was interested in the paranormal?
14) Was he a successful painter trying to bring impressionism to Britain, and who liked to discuss crimes at dinner parties?
15) Was he a man who supposedly saw the last victim with the killer, but whose own behavior was suspicious?
16) Was he all of these or none of the above?

And the answer is....

You've forgotten "Did he own a shop on Dorset Street?"

[John G]

Hello All. Actually, since I have been with Casebook, we've had 2 similar posts. Both purported to have a solution, the language was similar, but the poster left and never returned.

Short version: I think you've been had.

Cheers.
LC

The only thing that would convince me would be incontrovertible DNA/forensic evidence. Oh wait a minute...what am I saying? Russell Edwards and Dr L have obviously already provided that!

[Paddy]

Pierre

I´m planning to go on with the research and I know what data I need to prove who the killer was. There is only some very sparse data I need for this and it is probably not impossible to find.

Hi Pierre, I can understand you not wanting to name your suspect. I once thought one of my own was Jack but was afraid to name him for two reasons.
I would either feel a fool if I was wrong or if I was right I was afraid how it would affect my children especially my son. In the end as I studied more I found it was probably not him.

I am sorry that you have not replied, its a shame we could not find a way round this. Is there no way we could help you find this data without you having to name the person or your sources?
Best of luck anyway
Pat.....

[Mayerling]

You've forgotten "Did he own a shop on Dorset Street?"

That I did, but I had to stop somewhere - and 16 choices was a good place to stop.

[RivkahChaya]

Like...?

Well, judging by interviews, home movie footage, and their success in getting strangers to go home with them (or otherwise getting people to trust them), Jeffrey Dahmer, Herb Baumeister, John Wayne Gacy, Albert Fish, Gary Ridgway, for starters. Gacy may have been active in his community, in the Chamber of Commerce, a hospital volunteer, etc., but his general demeanor was "average shmo."

RE: the OP. Yeah, sure. Whatever. I know it's not nice, but since the OP seems not to be back, I'll venture that he's either deluded or a troll. Or he's a kid badly in need of attention, who wants us all to beg him to tell us what he knows.

Is there a "Don't feed the troll" smilie?

[Phil Carter]

Pierre,

Welcome to Casebook. You will have noted a certain amount of negativity in the various responses to your post. This is because any number of people have joined the forum claiming to have identified the killer. You have posted only in very general terms about the identity of the killer and the evidence you claim to have unearthed. You say that you have no real interest in the subject but that your man (assuming it's a he) is "not one of the known suspects". There have been more than 200 people put forward as being the Whitechapel Killer, many of them with little or no supporting evidence. You will need to post something specific to be taken seriously on this forum but, in the meantime, good luck with your research.

Hello Colin, Pierre,

Bang on Colin. Totally bang on.

Pierre, I obviously..like most of us, don't know you. On that basis, a very warm welcome.
However, dotted around here are some of the foremost enthusiasts and long time researchers of this genre. Believe me when I say this..With all due to respect, which your polite posts deserve, the cryptic non giveaway temptation of bait dangling in front of our eyes, has, I'm afraid, been done many times before. I am sure you appreciate the "oh my...not another one" feeling from many. As we appreciate your need for withholding info.
Now what I suggest is that you grab hold of the wealth of knowledge around here to help your final bits of research, and at the same time do it openly.
You see, if it gives you no pleasure nor profit, the whole genre will help you and concede that you have been the 1st and main man to disclose the identity before all others anyway. You have nothing to lose. .only gain. Because everyone...and that means EVERYONE. .has failed before you. So you will just join the club of the very many. No shame there. We all have or had dreams.

If you choose to remain secretive and drop only the tiniest of hints, it gives the impression that you feel the pack of wolves will tear your presentation to pieces. ..whether or not you mean to.
If you really really really are convinced in your man's overwhelming guilt..take the bold step. .announce it and let us all help you become famous for being the man that solved the JTR riddle.

Many of us would be delighted to get this annoying piece of veiled history cleared up once and for all.

Good luck.


Phil

[RivkahChaya]

If he isn't a troll or a teenager, then this is an attempt at viral advertising for his book. Does his OP read a little like a preface?

[Fisherman]

Thanks for the Payne-James link, Fish. Could you say how his opinions differ from, say, Dr Biggs? I take your point about Dr Biggs: he seemed to focus on what was possible, rather than expressing an opinion of what was probable. And, of course, as you imply he expressed only a medical opinion without also taking into consideration the wider attendant circumstances.

Exactly so, John. I work from the presumption that aside from mere trifles, both Payne-James and B(r)iggs (does anyone know which his real name is?) will have exactly the same view of things.
However, Jason P-J has worked from the specific information we have in Nichols whereas B(r)iggs has always tended to speak in very general terms.

There is nothing wrong with that, basically. It is desirable, even, sinve we get both pictures. The only problem is when somebody (and I would NEVER disclose who ) takes it upon him to work from the assumption that chosen generalizations applied specifically to Nichols.

[Dr. John Watson]

Am I the only one who suspects that "Pierre" is a tease and we're all being taken for a long buggy ride into nowhere?

Suspicious John

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
No I doubt you are alone..If i knew the identity of the worlds most famous serial killer, I would shout it from the rooftops, money would never enter my head, I would just have complete satisfaction , which is priceless..
Richard.

[Pierre]

Hi everyone,

Thanks to you all for your comments. Whatever comments you have posted and whatever ideas you now seem to have about my ideas, I appreciate them.

I really understand that there are a lot of people out there wanting to know things. I do to.

Initially I wrote “I think I have found him” and I made clear that I need a small piece of data to have conclusive evidence.

That means that if I would start to discuss the data, that would be problematic since we still need another piece of data.

Thanks a lot to all of you who have offered to help me. I appreciate that but have to do it myself for certain reasons.

When I say that I think I have found him, I mean what I say and say what I mean.

So why do I think I have found him?

1.A few sources produced during the killing spree can easily be connected to the same person.
2.The sources seem to be independent to each other but they point to one person.
3.The sources give the motive. It is a clear motive.
4.The motive can easily be connected to his own personal history in specific sources about his life.
5.His background and knowledge makes him clearly capable of committing the murders and performing the mutilations and dismemberments.
6.Sources that he produced, which today are impossible to understand because they are misinterpreted, become very easy to understand with this theory.

So what can I tell you about what I know about him?

1.He was extremely organized.
2.He was not a jew, not a “lunatic”, not a doctor.
3.The murder dates are connected to his own personal motive.
4.The methods he used are clearly connected to his own motive.
5.He wrote to the police.
6.He wrote a letter to the editor in a paper not signing it “Jack the Ripper” where he gave the exact address to one of the murder sites.
7.If the police had understood his communications, they would have caught him.
8.He wasn´t interrupted efter killing Stride. He was just being very cautious.
9.With the murders he wanted to say something to society.

Now, if you look at the methods of murdering the victims and the methods of mutilation and dismemberment – what do you think he wanted to say and why do you think he wanted to say it?

Pierre

[Abby Normal]

Hi everyone,

Thanks to you all for your comments. Whatever comments you have posted and whatever ideas you now seem to have about my ideas, I appreciate them.

I really understand that there are a lot of people out there wanting to know things. I do to.

Initially I wrote “I think I have found him” and I made clear that I need a small piece of data to have conclusive evidence.

That means that if I would start to discuss the data, that would be problematic since we still need another piece of data.

Thanks a lot to all of you who have offered to help me. I appreciate that but have to do it myself for certain reasons.

When I say that I think I have found him, I mean what I say and say what I mean.

So why do I think I have found him?

1.A few sources produced during the killing spree can easily be connected to the same person.
2.The sources seem to be independent to each other but they point to one person.
3.The sources give the motive. It is a clear motive.
4.The motive can easily be connected to his own personal history in specific sources about his life.
5.His background and knowledge makes him clearly capable of committing the murders and performing the mutilations and dismemberments.
6.Sources that he produced, which today are impossible to understand because they are misinterpreted, becomes very easy to understand with this theory.

So what can I tell you about what I know about him?

1.He was extremely organized.
2.He was not a jew, not a “lunatic”, not a doctor.
3.The murder dates are connected to his own personal motive.
4.The methods he used are clearly connected to his own motive.
5.He wrote to the police.
6.He wrote a letter to the editor in a paper not signing it “Jack the Ripper” where he gave the exact address to one of the murder sites.
7.If the police had understood his communications, they would have caught him.
8.He wasn´t interrupted efter killing Stride. He was just being very cautious.
9.With the murders he wanted to say something to society.

Now, if you look at the methods of murdering the victims and the methods of mutilation and dismemberment – what do you think he wanted to say and why do you think he wanted to say it?

Pierre

cool. who is it?

[RockySullivan]

Sounds like the same type of nonsense speak that appeared with the Craig theory. ".A few sources produced during the killing spree can easily be connected to the same person" what? the **** does that mean...but hey...he's including the torso killings so i'd be willing to hear out his theory if he starts talking sense