I think I have found him.

[JadenCollins]

Cut the guy some slack. Everyone's allowed to have their own theory/version of what actually happened. Who knows maybe his theory is the truth? I mean, we all have our own theories, but no one can actually prove it. To all that say that this is none sense, how do you know? Were you there in 1888? No you weren't. Before you judge on someone's opinion, just know that everyone has freedom of speech. Everyone's allowed to speak up. And definitely in this case. Funny fact, we've all read books, documents, etc and did all the research and what do we got so far? Not much. This all also includes me, so don't think I'm just talking about some people here. You all have some strong arguments, why don't you all like put the
pieces together and create a theory that makes sense?

[Pierre]

Now of course if he told us anything at all he might get a different response but his rubbish about Stride's killer being covered in blood and gore show just how much he knows, but if he isn't even aware that her killer MAY have walked away with little or no blood on him, how can he possible have solved anything.

You donīt seem to understand the ironical text I wrote so I will explain it to you. If this serial killer had met his next victim with blood and gore on him, it would have been impossible for him to murder her.

As I said, he planned the double event. And he could not bring souvenirs from Stride with him to the next victim. If he could have done so and gotten away with it, he surely would have.

Pierre

[Pierre]

Ah so typically French: "Come and look at zis enormous carrot I am dangling before you!".

C4

Non, we just dangle wiz des baugettes. By the way, Iīm not French.

Pierre

[Rosemary]

Carrots

Entirely the most sensible post on this thread to date Richard [although also to Fish for his recent posts here]

What did Pierre do to incite the lynch mob? The reactions by some posters have been extreme - not exactly an enticement for anybody who does have something of interest/value to say, is it?

Pierre sha, even tho you're not French, as you say, might we have a few more carrots, sir? The hounds are chasin down the hoodoos & harshin my mellow. Just a little bit more, please.

[curious4]

Non, we just dangle wiz des baugettes. By the way, Iīm not French.

Pierre

Hello Pierre

Well ooh la la anyway! :-D

C4

PS Swedish?

[Pierre]

Funny fact, we've all read books, documents, etc and did all the research and what do we got so far? Not much. This all also includes me, so don't think I'm just talking about some people here.

Reading a lot of books can be very dangerous if you want to find a serial killer in the past. You get bias from it. Reading from different perspectives tend to influence your search for sources and your interpretations of these sources.

You have to go to the sources with a big question mark. You have to be absolutely neutral. You have to ask: "Why does this source even exist?" and "What does it really say?". You canīt read 19th century sources with a 20th century understanding. In 1888 the thinking and understanding of the world was in many ways radically different from our thinking. And they had knowledge that is now forgotten. You know that to.

If you want to know what your killer did and what he was thinking, then you have to forget all your own thinking first.

I know that I donīt know anything myself. Iīm not even English and donīt even master your language. So I just keep asking.

And I say it again: I think I have found him. I do not say "I know": Because I know that everyone wants proof and so do I.

So I have to get just one small peace of data to get that proof.

I can understand why this has taken such a long time: One has to find him first. Then you must get proof. The first bit is the hardest. I know because I think I have found him.

What I did was to go to the sources without bias. By coincidence I found one source that led to a few other interconnected sources.

So I have, after about one year of daily work with this, found a set of sources that point to one singular person.

They contain knowledge that only the killer could have. They contain statements about the killer that can only point to one person. And I have also found sources from his own life that matches the other sources.

Interestingly enough, if this person is NOT Jack the Ripper, it would be impossible to explain the existence of the other sources.

You canīt think only forensically when you study this case. You must think historically.

And as I said: I donīt like who he is and donīt think you would either. So I hope itīs not him. But I can say that now that I think I have found this terrible serial killer, it feels spooky.

I have seen a picture of one of his closest relatives and I can just imagine from that picture how he looked. Oh my god. He was no idiot, I can tell you that.

And it is highly likely that a lot of people around him has been suffering during a long time. I know who they were.

Someone asked me if he knew the victims. No, he didnīt. But he knew of their existence even if he didnīt know them personally.

He came to Whitechapel only to hunt. He had all the advantages and the victims had nothing.

And when/if people get to know who he was, there might be some trouble.

Pierre

[Hercule Poirot]

Expressing our disapointment and telling Pierre we can't wait to read more should be the only things we should say. I now accept the fact that he is not proceeding like we would expect him to do so let's do like Fish said: wait and see what happens. Otherwise, we're no better than these old ladies gossiping while hanging their clothes.

[Sleuth1888]

If you come to think about it since the advent of this thread, our task has been made exactly twice as tough.

Now not only are we trying to find out the identity of Jack the Ripper, but we also have to solve the mystery of the identity of a potential suspect!

[RockySullivan]

Expressing our disapointment and telling Pierre we can't wait to read more should be the only things we should say. I now accept the fact that he is not proceeding like we would expect him to do so let's do like Fish said: wait and see what happens. Otherwise, we're no better than these old ladies gossiping while hanging their clothes.

who made you the boss of what we should and shouldn't say. I say it's bullshit so there eat that cake

[Hercule Poirot]

who made you the boss of what we should and shouldn't say. I say it's bullshit so there eat that cake

I was just giving my opinion and not bossing around. Now of course, you can say whatever you want. It surely helps in defining who you are.

[John Wheat]

I'm awaiting Pierre's developments with baited breath.

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
Lets play Guess the suspect..
I will start..Lord Randolph Churchill..
Good as any.?
Richard.

[Pcdunn]

I suspect Pierre is not showing a lack of knowledge, but hinting that this is the conversation that would have had to take place, if he hadn't 'taken care' with Stride - that, knowing he had two murders to commit, he didn't risk getting messy during the first one.

That has occured to me, also, Joshua, and I agree.

But this does raise the question of how "planned" was the series of murders, who planned it, who carried it out, and why?

[RockySullivan]

It's nonsense! This sentence has no meaning!

"interestingly enough, if this person is NOT Jack the Ripper, it would be impossible to explain the existence of the other sources."

[Brenda]

.

"You canīt think only forensically when you study this case. You must think historically."

I like that quote.

Pierre, do you have any kind of time estimate of when you will have your evidence and can present your case?