Originally posted by caz
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
I think I have found him.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Pierre View PostHi,
I haven´t studied the others since I think I have found the killer. But from what I have seen the biggest problem with all the others is lack of a connection to every victim, lack of a clear motive, lack of enough resources to be the killer and - methodologically - I have found many misinterpretations of the material from the 19th Century.
Regards Pierre
Thanks!
PDS
Comment
-
Originally posted by Patrick S View PostI must have missed that, caz. I recall him making a point about hoping he's wrong and people will not be happy....thus I assumed it was someone known to history.
I could be far off base, that's just how it has read to me.I’m often irrelevant. It confuses people.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pierre View PostThanks Jeff and I know they are trying to make me make a mistake. But it is very difficult to guess who the killer could be, since they don´t know of his existence, so they would not even notice if i actually made a mistake, which of course I avoid doing.
Maybe it's me who misunderstood this, but it does seem clear enough.
Love,
Caz
X"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov
Comment
-
Originally posted by caz View PostHere you are, everyone.
Maybe it's me who misunderstood this, but it does seem clear enough.
Love,
Caz
X
by asking if he is historically known one could exclude such a person if I were to answer "no" and then again one could start to try and figure out what other sort of person he was. Still there are a lot of famous or historically known persons in the past that we never heard of. By saying that, I am not saying that he was famous or historically known and I am not suggesting he wasn´t.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Patrick S View PostI'm struggling somewhat with what you've written here, Pierre. I think it's imprudent - when tring to ID a serial killer - to exclude individuals without motive and a connection to the vicitms. Thus, can we assume that your 'Jack' was not a serial killer at all? It stands to reason that if he had motive for killing each victim then was not a serial killer, but simply a murderer, killing specific individual for a reason. If that's the case, can you tell us - in broad terms at least - what his motive for killing these woman was? Was it one movtive for all five or different motives for each?
Thanks!
PDS
good question. It was one paramount motive for all of the murders. No personal connections to any of the victims. He had great personal problems with things connected to the motive and it ruled his life.
Regards Pierre
Comment
-
question for Pierre.
Hi,was thinking about your comment along the lines of the impact on history your Revelation if correct could cause.
The above statement makes me think that only something to do with royalty, government or the masons would have such a impact.
Would that be a correct assumption?.
Comment
-
Originally posted by paul g View PostHi,was thinking about your comment along the lines of the impact on history your Revelation if correct could cause.
The above statement makes me think that only something to do with royalty, government or the masons would have such a impact.
Would that be a correct assumption?.G U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pierre View Post
No. I´m a scientist.
Regards PierreI’m often irrelevant. It confuses people.
Comment
-
I seriously cannot see why so many posters to this forum, people whose posts and opinions I have read and respected for many years, are falling for this crap.
Pierre's nonsense is the biggest wind-up since the last time Big Ben stopped ticking. Can't you see he's having a laugh? Can't you see that he is, on a forum which over the years has had more than its fair share of trolls, the troll de la troll? He just sends in post after weird post, in his strange and (I say it again) semi-mystical style, and there you all are, lapping it up. Get real, folks! Pierre (if that is indeed his name, and I'm certain it isn't) is simply taking you all for a ride, and he's laughing up his sleeve as he does so. He no more knows the identity of Jack The Ripper than I know who's going to win the Rugby World Cup.
GrahamWe are suffering from a plethora of surmise, conjecture and hypothesis. - Sherlock Holmes, The Adventure Of Silver Blaze
Comment
-
Originally posted by Shaggyrand View PostPierre, could you be a little bit more specific on that? Psychology? Physics? A biologist? Library science? Crowd-science? Doing some PAR or participatory monitoring? Just curious. I do not mean to overstep your comfortable boundaries or pry much.
Pierre
Comment
-
Originally posted by Graham View PostI seriously cannot see why so many posters to this forum, people whose posts and opinions I have read and respected for many years, are falling for this crap.
Pierre's nonsense is the biggest wind-up since the last time Big Ben stopped ticking. Can't you see he's having a laugh? Can't you see that he is, on a forum which over the years has had more than its fair share of trolls, the troll de la troll? He just sends in post after weird post, in his strange and (I say it again) semi-mystical style, and there you all are, lapping it up. Get real, folks! Pierre (if that is indeed his name, and I'm certain it isn't) is simply taking you all for a ride, and he's laughing up his sleeve as he does so. He no more knows the identity of Jack The Ripper than I know who's going to win the Rugby World Cup.
Graham
Sure, perhaps I don´t know his identity. But I can assure you Graham that you will get the results when I´m finished with this.
Pierre
Comment
Comment