I think I have found him.

[Mister Whitechapel]

As a serial lurker, I too have been keeping a note of this thread, although after the 2nd post by Pierre, I've not given it too much stock.

I've removed it from my favourites and will revisit it in a year's time when, perhaps, there is something more tangible.

[caz]

yes- it seems to be only you who is attacking other posters questioning a dubious claim by an unknown poster to have possibly found the ripper but he cant tell us who for perhaps another year and who now is bring up analogies with Jesus. LOL. And by the way Pierre's manner of writing isn't the most clear either.

It's clear enough to me, Abby.

it seems rather odd to me Caz-your usually one of the more level headed posters on here.

And you think it's in any way level headed for posters to keep attacking and accusing Pierre of stuff and assuming the worst about him when we don't know a damned thing about him?

I rather hope the reason he has taken such bad manners in his stride is that he is indeed on a mission to wind up our little community and to show up those who can't cope. I'm finding it a fascinating study in its own right, to see how easily some people get upset.

Piere also keeps going on about not having the time etc. etc. re his research yet he has enough time to come on here, make his claims, and explain in lengthy detail his ideas, hints and situation, including not having enough time.

Ooh what a naughty boy he is, Abby. How utterly unforgivable. So what do you suggest? Thumbscrews? Waterboarding? Or do you not think ignoring him and getting on with more productive matters might be the more level headed option for those of a fragile constitution?

Pierre
Heres a little advice. Why don't you stop wasting your time posting here, get back to your research, and when you have that LAST little bit of evidence that you need-then come back in tell us.

Why, because it annoys the likes of you, Abby?

Why don't you stop wasting your time reading Pierre's posts and beefing about them, when you could be doing something you actually enjoy?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

this is getting embarrassing. wow.

Not for me, Abby. I can't help it if you are embarrassed.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

We could look at this situation in many ways. Let me suggest three that easily come to my mind.

The first one is keep on complaining for any damn reason one can find always pretending to have serious 'ripperologist' concerns.

The second one is dropping it, growing up and going on with your own life and theories somewhere else on the forum.

The third one, the one I prefer, is rolling up for a 'Magical Mystery Tour'!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzw5jB12EwY

Roll up
(That's an invitation)
Roll up for the Mystery Tour
Roll up
(To make a reservation)
Roll up for the Mystery Tour

The Magical Mystery Tour
Is waiting to take you away
Waiting to take you away

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

Wonderful, Hercule. I for one am seriously enjoying the ride.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

And you think it's in any way level headed for posters to keep attacking and accusing Pierre of stuff and assuming the worst about him when we don't know a damned thing about him?

Actually, it's what so many people dislike about the Lechmere theorists, who assume the worst without knowing a damned thing about him either.

Love,

Caz
X

[John G]

I must say that I'm generally enjoying this thread. The only reservation I have, causing me a slight sense of foreboding, is reflecting on how devastating it will be if Pierre returns to the board in, say a years time, to disclose a fundamental software glitch, which appears to have fatally undermined his data analysis. In fact, I remember how terrible I felt when the same thing happened to poor Dr L after he decided to give his DNA machine a thorough service examination. Devastating. Truely devastating.

[Admin]

Stepping in now.

Yes, its annoying when a newbie poster comes in and claims he's solved it.

Yes, it's annoying when they do the "I know something you don't know and I'm not going to tell you" routine.

Yes, it's happened a thousand times before.

That's why there's a rule that covers this, which is: if you find a thread too ridiculous to post sensibly on, ignore the thread. Not every thread will be for you. Avoid the ones you find annoying and have nothing sensible to contribute.

Everyone's skepticism and doubt has been well-registered. Since Pierre hasn't actually posted anything that can be discussed, there's nothing further to discuss.

If you wish to provide help for Pierre's "theory", feel free to offer it. If you only wish to attack him for being the thousandth poster to post with "I know something you don't know", time to find something more worthwhile to entertain you.

Short and sweet: Stop making this about the posters and focus on the content. The end.

[caz]

Sorry Admin, posts crossed.

I'll duck out now.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

It's clear enough to me, Abby.



And you think it's in any way level headed for posters to keep attacking and accusing Pierre of stuff and assuming the worst about him when we don't know a damned thing about him?

I rather hope the reason he has taken such bad manners in his stride is that he is indeed on a mission to wind up our little community and to show up those who can't cope. I'm finding it a fascinating study in its own right, to see how easily some people get upset.



Ooh what a naughty boy he is, Abby. How utterly unforgivable. So what do you suggest? Thumbscrews? Waterboarding? Or do you not think ignoring him and getting on with more productive matters might be the more level headed option for those of a fragile constitution?



Why, because it annoys the likes of you, Abby?

Why don't you stop wasting your time reading Pierre's posts and beefing about them, when you could be doing something you actually enjoy?

Love,

Caz
X

hi Caz
Thanks!That's actually the most sensible idea on this whole silly and utterly useless thread.

I think I shall take that advice! ; )

[Gene Lewis]

Hi,

My biggest problem right now is that I worry about revealing to the world who he was if the data turn out positive. Nobody will like the results. So I still hope I have the wrong suspect and that the data, if I find it, will be negative.

Pierre

Hum Hum, do you mean you found a shawl and scanned it for DNA, and now waiting for results ? Déjà vu, sir Pierre.

[Patrick S]

We know a lot about Charles Lechmere - contrary to your suggestion.

It applies in every case where a suspect is named that there is no conclusive evidence to convict on. Lechmere is no different in that perspective, apart from him being a factually better bid than any other suspect.

No, what "so many people" actually dislike is - if I am correct - that the proponents of the Lechmere theory will not budge a millimeter, plus they will say that they think he was the killer - and then there is absolutely nothing to lean against for those who desperately want to disbelieve it.

And still, some of these disbelievers will say that the theory has been "debunked", which is the ultimate proof of their inability to deal with the arrival of a REAL suspect, with REAL evidence attching to him.

That´s what it is all about, Caz. And sadly, you have ended up at the wrong end of the shitstick here....

But back to Pierre and his suspect no, least Robert takes it upon himself to say that I am hijacking the thread.

This is a serious question: Are you completely delusional? I mean, you have one thing correct: You will not budge, even when you have to invent new aspects to deal with major inconsistencies. For instance, your recent Paul revelations: Paul now must be a liar. You had to invent a motivation for his lying in the form of his outrage over Mizen's reaction to hearing that a woman was lying on the pavement, likely dead. It CANNOT be that Paul was actually upset over Mizen's reaction. No. It has to be that Paul was lying, thus unwittingly helping Jack the Ripper/Lechmere commit the...uh....Mizen....Scam..... You also have to invent nonsensical motivations for your killer - time after time after time..throughout. What is clearly a man acting with no consciousness of guilt is to you an elaborate ruse constructed and carried out by a cunning killer.

1. Seconds after killing Nichols he hears footsteps. He doesn't have to RUN...he must merely walk in the other direction. He doesn't. He approaches Paul - TOUCHES HIM - and asks him to come and see the woman he just killed. Remember, he HEARD Paul. Yet he knew that Paul wasn't a policeman or a watchman, etc. He knew that Paul would NOT attempt to revive the woman, thus discovering the wounds that - later in your absurd scenario he's so desperate to conceal (thus he refused to give her a prop). He knew that Paul didn't have a match that he'd strike to inspect the woman, thus seeing the blood, etc. Nope. HE KNEW what DID happen WOULD happen. That's the ONLY way your theory works.

2. After successfully keeping Paul from discovering Nichols wounds he embarks on an errand to FIND A POLICMAN! He does not suggest the split up. He doesn't say, "Oh! I go THIS way to work (the direction Paul had come from in Buck's Row) and I'll look for a cop this a'way and you look that a'way. No. He goes WITH Paul looking for a cop.

3. HE FINDS A COP! Thus, he KNEW the policeman would not search him (he carried the knife with him, according to you), detain him, or lead him back to the scene. BACK to the woman he just killed..... Let's - for a second - pretend Paul is not a liar. PAUL said a few things. 1. Mizen did not say if he would go to Buck's Row or not; 2. Mizen was told she was LIKELY DEAD; 3. That he thought Mizen's reaction was a 'great shame'. Paul also does NOT tell us that Mizen was told a POLICEMAN was waiting for him in Buck's Row.

THIS IS WHY people don't this nonsense! IT MAKES NO SENSE TO ANYONE WHO KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT ACTAULLY HAPPENED! Yeah, TV people bought it and presented NEW EVIDENCE, just like they presented NEW EVIDENCE in the BIGFOOT case. But few on this board buy it. Not because of you, narcisistic as you and and the good folks at Super Sleuth's may be, it's about the facts, not you.

I challenge you to a public debate at the Baltimore Conferenc in April.

[Hercule Poirot]

I may be wrong but what you just said, Patrick, has nothing to do with the content of this thread. Same goes for Fisherman's quote you refer to.

Would it be possible to carry that exchange somewhere else which would clear the way for those who are interested in Pierre's topic and have something to say?

Thank you,

Hercule Poirot.

[Pierre]

Hum Hum, do you mean you found a shawl and scanned it for DNA, and now waiting for results ? Déjà vu, sir Pierre.

Hi,

No, the data isn´t DNA. I am not a natural scientist.

Pierre

[Scott Nelson]

I challenge you to a public debate at the Baltimore Conferenc in April.

Just don't let it cut into the time it takes to present my Lifetime Achievement Award.

[Mister Whitechapel]

Pierre,

Given your virtual certainty (sans the final piece of evidence/research to all but cement your assertion) what are your opinions of other presented suspects throughout 'Ripperology' history? Have you identified any repeated omission, mis-interpreation, or missed angle, in their respective cases that these investigators should address to recognise and/or admit their own 'persons of interest' are incorrect?

Yours,
Mister Whitechapel