I think I have found him.

[caz]

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.

Agreed Sally.

Although life's far too short for me to get depressed over something like this. I'll be more depressed if Japan don't slaughter Scotland in the rugby this afternoon.

I find this all rather predictable - after so many years of the same old same old.

Love,

Caz
X

[Pierre]

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

Hi,

No, the killer wasn´t forced to select victims within a certain group at all.

He chose prostitutes in Whitechapel (and probably in Soho) for very good reasons. It also would have been meaningsless for him to murder men or children.

Pierre

[Pierre]

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.

Hi Sally,

no problem. I don´t care for the so called "attacks" since I have nothing to gain or loose. Everyone seem to think my goal in life is to solve the JtR case, but it´s not. It is perhaps their goal.

I just happened to get some good data and a qualified theory induced from it. The only friend of mine that knows the theory says "It is to good to be true". And I agree. It is really to good to be true, since it is very explanatory even at a micro level and in all parts.

So I just decided to go on and see if I can really proove that this is the killer. And that has obviously made some people a bit upset. But I can understand them. Trying to find out who this murderer was for so long and never knowing is frustrating.

I think that this case has gotten far to much interest for too long. So I hope I can put a stop to it if I am right. But most of all, I hope the descendants of the poor victims could get a real answer of who he was.

If I can´t give that answer conclusively by having the last piece of evidence in 12 months (I´m not going to spend more time on it) you will get the theory and data here so you can try it yourselves.

Pierre

[Patrick S]

Hi Sally,

no problem. I don´t care for the so called "attacks" since I have nothing to gain or loose. Everyone seem to think my goal in life is to solve the JtR case, but it´s not. It is perhaps their goal.

I just happened to get some good data and a qualified theory induced from it. The only friend of mine that knows the theory says "It is to good to be true". And I agree. It is really to good to be true, since it is very explanatory even at a micro level and in all parts.

So I just decided to go on and see if I can really proove that this is the killer. And that has obviously made some people a bit upset. But I can understand them. Trying to find out who this murderer was for so long and never knowing is frustrating.

I think that this case has gotten far to much interest for too long. So I hope I can put a stop to it if I am right. But most of all, I hope the descendants of the poor victims could get a real answer of who he was.

If I can´t give that answer conclusively by having the last piece of evidence in 12 months (I´m not going to spend more time on it) you will get the theory and data here so you can try it yourselves.

Pierre

Hi, Pierre. I'll say again that I'm excited to hear what you have. I'm glad you are exhibiting thick skin. I think that many posters here have seen this type of thing so many times before that they react cynically and with healthy amounts of sarcasm. For myself, I'll reference that old saying: If something seems too good to be true, it probably is. Alas, I view everything - except maybe Cornwell - as valuable in that every theory presents more detail and fabric to be examined, discussed, and eventually somewhat better understood. I'm one who is - at this point after 32 years of interest - not looking for a solution so much as information. It is very intersting to learn detail about the cast of characters, aspects of that time and place, to get a sense of the emotional state that existed. Regardless if I agree or disagree, I appreciate your work.

[John G]

Hi Sally,

no problem. I don´t care for the so called "attacks" since I have nothing to gain or loose. Everyone seem to think my goal in life is to solve the JtR case, but it´s not. It is perhaps their goal.

I just happened to get some good data and a qualified theory induced from it. The only friend of mine that knows the theory says "It is to good to be true". And I agree. It is really to good to be true, since it is very explanatory even at a micro level and in all parts.

So I just decided to go on and see if I can really proove that this is the killer. And that has obviously made some people a bit upset. But I can understand them. Trying to find out who this murderer was for so long and never knowing is frustrating.

I think that this case has gotten far to much interest for too long. So I hope I can put a stop to it if I am right. But most of all, I hope the descendants of the poor victims could get a real answer of who he was.

If I can´t give that answer conclusively by having the last piece of evidence in 12 months (I´m not going to spend more time on it) you will get the theory and data here so you can try it yourselves.

Pierre

Hello Pierre,

Of course, the difficulty with data is that it can always be interpreted and applied in different ways. A good example is the Keppel study, and data analysis, that you referred to on the other thread. Personally, however, the only thing that would completely convince me is incontrovertible DNA evidence, i.e not reliant on Dr L and his wonky machine!

I think your other thread, "Jack the Ripper is an extremely rare serial killer" is excellent by the way; surprised more posters haven't contributed.

[Shaggyrand]

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, Hello!

For future reference most of what I post is often to be read in a far less serious manner than you applied to it. Jaded, biter, cynical but with a wink and never actually angry. I am sorry that I failed there. *sniffle*
Also he has hinted at his target being a known person often. There are at least five such references in his phrasing of how it will upset people, once in how it will upset all Britons & two references to a conspiracy. He did not say his suspect was unknown, that I recall seeing so maybe he has, but that his suspect has never been linked to JtR before. Explain to me, please, how a complete unknown would "upset all Britons"? I'd love to hear Pierre's theory but the approach he's used I find a little annoying.

[belinda]

Hi Belinda,

You can't say the theory itself 'falls down' over this, as you have no idea if Stride's killer would have chosen to risk removing organs in that busy location (we know he didn't), only to have to find somewhere safe and private (do you have somewhere in mind?) to clean up and deposit them, or at least to clean up and take them with him, before he could go out and find another victim.

We know the killer didn't remove anything from Stride's body, and we can also be fairly sure that if the same man went on to kill Eddowes he couldn't have hoped to get anywhere if he had obvious signs of a recent bloody encounter on his person.

Love,

Caz
X

Yes I do have an idea. We don't know that the killer didn't have a hiding place where the kept all his trophies. If he was sharing lodgings it would have been difficult and dangerous for him to keep them there for risk of discovery. I believe Elisabeth Strides killer was interrupted by Louis Diemschutz. I also believe he probably took into account the necessity to clean himself up after the murders and very probably had somewhere he could do this quickly and unobtrusively. As to whether or not Pierre is genuine I have no idea.

[Mayerling]

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!

Well, anything is possible - but you were slightly beaten regarding "Three Men in a Boat (to say nothing about the Dog)" as worthy a look. Peter Lovesey wrote a "Sgt. Cribb" novel, "Swing, Swing, Together" where he ties the British public's renewed love in boating on the Thames on holiday (caused by Jerome's novel) to several murders involving Oxford University and a possible Ripper suspect (in fact Inspector Abberline is alluded to in one scene).

Jeff

[Pcdunn]

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!

I hope so, too. "Three Men in a Boat" was a very enjoyable book.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Sally,

no problem. I don´t care for the so called "attacks" since I have nothing to gain or loose. Everyone seem to think my goal in life is to solve the JtR case, but it´s not. It is perhaps their goal.

I just happened to get some good data and a qualified theory induced from it. The only friend of mine that knows the theory says "It is to good to be true". And I agree. It is really to good to be true, since it is very explanatory even at a micro level and in all parts.

So I just decided to go on and see if I can really proove that this is the killer. And that has obviously made some people a bit upset. But I can understand them. Trying to find out who this murderer was for so long and never knowing is frustrating.

I think that this case has gotten far to much interest for too long. So I hope I can put a stop to it if I am right. But most of all, I hope the descendants of the poor victims could get a real answer of who he was.

If I can´t give that answer conclusively by having the last piece of evidence in 12 months (I´m not going to spend more time on it) you will get the theory and data here so you can try it yourselves.

Pierre

12 months? you really going to keep us waiting that long?
I don't know if I can stand it!

[Abby Normal]

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

wow Caz. Some unknown comes on here and says I know who it is but im not telling, people start quibbling, and now your attacking other posters.
would have thought you were better than that.

And now he says 12 months?

yeah right. Im out.

Good luck Piere. if you are sincere, my apologies in advance, but right now im not buying it either.
12 months??

[Pierre]

Hi, Pierre. I'll say again that I'm excited to hear what you have. I'm glad you are exhibiting thick skin. I think that many posters here have seen this type of thing so many times before that they react cynically and with healthy amounts of sarcasm. For myself, I'll reference that old saying: If something seems too good to be true, it probably is. Alas, I view everything - except maybe Cornwell - as valuable in that every theory presents more detail and fabric to be examined, discussed, and eventually somewhat better understood. I'm one who is - at this point after 32 years of interest - not looking for a solution so much as information. It is very intersting to learn detail about the cast of characters, aspects of that time and place, to get a sense of the emotional state that existed. Regardless if I agree or disagree, I appreciate your work.

Thanks,

and I understand the case can be capturing. One learns a lot about the crimes and the Victorian society etc by reading books about JtR but still the books can create bias and that can prevent a reasearcher from finding the killer if that is what he wants to do.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

wow Caz. Some unknown comes on here and says I know who it is but im not telling, people start quibbling, and now your attacking other posters.
would have thought you were better than that.

And now he says 12 months?

yeah right. Im out.

Good luck Piere. if you are sincere, my apologies in advance, but right now im not buying it either.
12 months??

12 months is a short time compared to the time past since 1888.

Regards, Pierre

[GUT]

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

Actually Caz quite handsomely thank you.

Now if I misunderstood what he isn't saying that's his fault, simply because he isn't saying.

[pinkmoon]

This thread is becoming silly I think it's up to me to take the bull by the horns and inject some reality into the situation