I think I have found him.

[c.d.]

If the murders were intended as terrorist events why limit yourself to a group that no one really cared about that much? Why not include men and children?

c.d.

[Hunter]

I'm not sure what is sillier - a new poster claiming to have (almost) solved the case and hoping for a positive reaction around here, or a whole host of seasoned posters with the time and the will to turn the thread into an adolescent pie-throwing contest, and themselves into adolescent pie throwers.

Caz...
XXX

[Mayerling]

Are you sure that wasn't Jerome K Jerome with a large cheese?

To say nothng about the dog.

And now let's eat the cheese whilst walking through the maize at Hampton's Court.

[Mayerling]

If the murders were intended as terrorist events why limit yourself to a group that no one really cared about that much? Why not include men and children?

c.d.

Personally I have often thought of this point myself, even before Pierre started this thread. I think I have a notion of why - actually two.

First the desperation of the prostitutes to sell themselves to all comers for the money to survive make them good stalking stock.

But second, one has to be very very careful about what group you are targeting and when. Landru chose women seeking male boyfriends in the Paris newspaper ads. One of his victims was the nearly teenage son of the woman he chose at the time - he killed both by poison (presumably). Now Henri Landru was after money from his various female victims. Since it was wartime he had a fairly good over-cover of organized multi-national death going on throughout the globe (especially on the Western Front not too far from Paris and Gambais). But some people would miss those women, and one finally saw Landru and reported him to the police and the scheme unraveled.

But had his victims (or Jack's) been young children...I suspect the disappearance of kids would have been noticed far earlier. They too would have found it hard to fight a killer (like the prostitutes against Jack) but the whole public would have taken notice of large number of missing children. Look at cases like the evil Albert Fish in the U.S. or William Turner's victims in the early 1890s.

Similarly to choose young men or even middle aged men would have been asking for trouble - they'd probably fight back or do some damage too hard to cover.

So Jack is then forced to pick prostitutes as targets.

Jeff

So Jack

[Syclone]

This reminds me of Hook, Line, Sinker.

[Rosella]

Surely if you wished to point to all the injustices inherent in the slums of Victorian London a more effective way of doing it would be to dynamite the Union Workhouses in Whiechapel/Spitalfields and then send letters to the press explaining why. Similarly, like the Suffragettes' campaign, government ministers like the Home Secretary could be stalked, targeted and attacked. Killing a handful of obscure Whitechapel prostitutes in the goriest way possible seems to me to be so indirect as to be out of sight.

[caz]

This thread reminds me of kids in the playground....

"I know something you don't but I'm not going to tell....I know something you don't but I'm not going to tell....I know something you don't but I'm not going to tell...."

That's only one kid. He can't play the game by himself.

So what would teacher do in that situation:

Bait the kid

Beg for more info

Give him detention

Protect him from the howling mob of other kids

Keep out of it - kids will be kids and nobody's getting hurt.

Love,

Caz
X

[GUT]

That's only one kid. He can't play the game by himself.

So what would teacher do in that situation:

Bait the kid

Beg for more info

Give him detention

Protect him from the howling mob of other kids

Keep out of it - kids will be kids and nobody's getting hurt.

Love,

Caz
X

Depends on the teacher.

[caz]

He also reminds me of those "blind item" gossip columnists, who make up stuff, promise to reveal the details, then sit back, while people speculate on the who and how, and finally, the columnist cobbles together a story from the details the readers have provided.

Who's the fool then, hmmmmm?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I'd be a bit nervous if I came out with a new Ripper suspect who was well known and still having family members around. They could sue me for libel unless I had evidence that couldn't be challanged.

Anyway, I don't think provoking Pierre as some of you are doing will have him present us his evidence. What's the problem with waiting for him to introduce his theory whenever he deems it possible?

Bonjour Monsieur Poirot,

You can't libel the dead, and everyone from royalty to glove puppets have been accused so no worries there.

I agree with the rest of your post. Some people seem absolutely incapable of waiting patiently to see what develops, if anything. If the naughty man won't stop teasing them, why do they keep coming back for more, like flies round rotten fruit?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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

I wait with baited breath.

With worms on his tongue.

My thoughts too, Rivkah.

I'm not waiting with worms or maggots on my tongue, nor with bated breath either.

I want my breath unabated thanks.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Nope. The phrasings, hinting at something that is lookin like a Ripper Theory Greatest Hits blended together (conspiracy, well know suspect & the threat of TROUBLE over it), superior confrontational tone without anything added to the discussion or even a hint toward where to start... It makes my bullshit-sense tingle. Hey, if you find something new great, you want folks to "do their own research" great but if this is a grossly overlooked starting point you have... Maybe a little nudge toward it? Oh wait. There is nothing to start with, just interporn trolling.
I'll read his theory if it ever comes to light and admire his dedication to the joke.

Jeez, some posters around here could do with an injection of humour, if not anger management classes. Bloody Nora. Where did Pierre say his suspect was well known for starters? I thought he said none of us knows of this person's existence.

Is it just me?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I take him as saying something completely different ie that it was a "Rag Team" event.

But since he wants to online with his "I know something you don't na na na na na, " I'm not sure I care what he means this whole attitude of I know but aren't telling us plain ridiculous ans spells T.R.O.L.L.

If I'm wrong he can prove it be giving some (doesn't need to anywhere near all) facts. If he continues with his current BS this thread should go the way of Van Gogh and move to pub talk to fade into obscurity.

Do people actually pay for your legal services?

Just asking.

By all means slag Pierre off for what he does and doesn't say. It's what we do here. But when someone invents what Pierre has said and slags him off for that, it's a bad look and a rotten show.

Love,

Caz
X

[Joshua Rogan]

To say nothng about the dog.

And now let's eat the cheese whilst walking through the maize at Hampton's Court.

You know, the more I think about it, the more I think I'm on to something:
'J' often spent time on a boat on the Thames, with a suspiciously large amount of luggage; He talked about the corpses of 'unfortunates' floating on the river; He had a friend called George (last name never disclosed) who was known to wander the streets of London at odd times of the night; He was often secretive about his and his aquaintances' movements in town; and I suspect it was Montmorency who deposited the apron piece in Goulston Street.
I really hope I'm wrong though!

[Sally]

I don't see what is to be gained by attacking Pierre. If the lynch mob is right in their accusations of attention-seeking they'll only encourage him by giving him that attention; and if wrong, they'll alienate him [and a whole lot of other observers disinclined to attack first and ask questions later]

Or is it more about seeing off the interloper? I mean, the sheer audacity of somebody who might, potentially, allegedly, not be taking the case as seriously as they do.

I find it all rather depressing.