I think I have found him.

[Henry Flower]

Wow. I have no real right to say this as I've been away from the boards for many months now, but seriously folks - over 50 pages responding to a guy who has actually not posted a single fact about his suspect, his sources, or his methods, and who responds to every question with evasive vagueness and empty pompous rhetoric about data. Really? Come on....

Pierre, we have a saying in the UK: put up or shut up.

[lynn cates]

Ah!

Hello All. Scientist? Hmm, that tells me just about everything I needed to know.

In the words of Professor Van Helsing, "I might have known."

Cheers.
LC

[barnflatwyngarde]

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.

Graham

I agree!

This has all the signs of a student gathering info for a doctoral thesis, possibly along the lines of a psychology or communication course.

[Pierre]

Pierre,

first off, like a lot of posters on this forum, I've been around far too long to fall for the kind of bollocks you're slapping on us here. Second, your attitude, your weird syntax, your whole persona, such as it is, remind me of someone who tried this same crazy game on this same forum many years ago. If you are that person, then please own up. Thirdly, you are by no means the first troll on this forum who seems, for strange personality reasons I do not pretend to understand, to like to try and convince other, more honest, posters, that you know something that we don't. I think you are a total and complete fraud, and if you care to preserve at least some self-respect, then please stop this nonsense right now. Your last post, prior to this, is just utter nonsensical bullshit and you know it. So please stop. Go and have a cold shower and a couple of beers, but please, PLEASE, bugger off. And get a life, preferably somewhere far away from this forum.

Graham

Hi Graham,

Well, if it is bollocks, at least it is honest bollocks. I do think I have found him.

And yes, I too wish I could get a life but that wonīt happen until I have proved myself wrong (hoping for this) or right (afraid of doing that).

Iīm really sorry for all the bad research in this forum and for the trolls, who feed on such research.

Perhaps if more people would admit that they only think they have found Jack the Ripper instead of posting myriads of posts claiming it, people like you would be more interested in the subject and less irritated.

And then perhaps we would get a better chance of doing honest research and even a better chance to find him.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

That's kind of a tricky question, Pierre. Do you mean knew him as his everyday self, whether he was important or unimportant? Or knew that he was "Jack the Ripper"?

Of course people are known by other people, by family, friends, etc. That is true, no matter which era of time we're discussing.

Hi,

OK, let me put the question to you like this:

Do you really think noone important knew who Jack the Ripper was in his own time?

And if someone knew, how come we donīt?

Pierre

[Pierre]

Scientist or not, Pierre ?

Hi,

I am a scientist but not within the field of natural science.

Pierre

[Mister Whitechapel]

Hi Graham,

Well, if it is bollocks, at least it is honest bollocks. I do think I have found him.

And yes, I too wish I could get a life but that wonīt happen until I have proved myself wrong (hoping for this) or right (afraid of doing that).

Iīm really sorry for all the bad research in this forum and for the trolls, who feed on such research.

Perhaps if more people would admit that they only think they have found Jack the Ripper instead of posting myriads of posts claiming it, people like you would be more interested in the subject and less irritated.

And then perhaps we would get a better chance of doing honest research and even a better chance to find him.

Regards Pierre

Dear Pierre,

With all respect, many of the proponents of their own suspects on these boards believe they have found the Whitechapel Killer, citing their own evidence - even building upon it as time goes on (with or without sucess).

At this moment in time, be it rightly or wrongly, they have greater credibility in their assertions, purely due to refraining from shadow-boxing. The sparkling new Lechmere/Cross section on the forum is a clear example of the benefits of this approach. I make no judgement here about the validity of that case, but nevertheless, Fisherman publically, and without apology, cites his research and defends his claim. It would go an awful long way if you did the same.

Unless your primary goal is to either concoct a paint-by-numbers theory using the discussions you incite, or to withhold your research for the inevitable, 'case closed' money-grabbing book. Now, I don't mind a book explaining how a researcher reached his conclusions, but one that is designed soley to reveal the name of a suspect is of dubious worth. In my opinion, of course.

Yours,
Mister Whitechapel.

[Graham]

Pierre,

I have posted for many years on the A6 Murder thread. I flatter myself that it is a subject I do know a little about. However, if I or anyone else baldly stated on that thread that they positively knew, or thought they knew, the identity of the true murderer if he was not Hanratty, they'd be expected to prove it.

Equally, possibly one of the largest 'research' programmes, and certainly the most expensive with the possible exception of Patricia Cornwell's, was that of the late Paul Feldman. He became absolutely convinced that the Ripper was James Maybrick and nothing but nothing would shake that conviction. However, unlike your good self, he was open about what he was doing, even if he did sometimes tend towards 'creativeness', and his resultant book was nothing if not informative and entertaining. He had an almost bottomless purse with which to pursue his theories, paid professional researchers and investigators, yet ultimately he became a broken man when his theory concerning the Ripper's true identity was not universally accepted.

I think it is almost an axiom of Ripperology that most people interested in this case don't, at the bottom of their hearts, really [I]want[I] the Ripper to be positively identified, as that would be the end of most of the fun!

If you wish posters to take you seriously, then I'm afraid you're going to have to bite the bullet and tell us at least something of what you've 'researched' and claim to have found. If you're not prepared to do that, then really no-one is going to take you at all seriously and you may as well quit these boards. As Mr Whitechapel correctly states, you have to establish some credibility for yourself, which in over 50 pages of posts you have failed to do.

Written in a slightly calmer state than my previous couple of posts were.......

Graham

[Henry Flower]

So Pierre can't even tell us what his scientific field is? He expects us to guess? Fifty pages of nothing, of hiding, of insinuations, of unsupported claims.

Enough, surely?

By the way - I've discovered who the Ripper was. I have data. You people have been looking at the wrong data in the wrong way. I know better because I'm a special indeterminate scientist. I can't tell you who the Ripper was, where my data came from, or anything else about my solution. I have my reasons. You will all know sooner or later, when I'm ready.

D'uh!

[GUT]

So Pierre can't even tell us what his scientific field is? He expects us to guess? Fifty pages of nothing, of hiding, of insinuations, of unsupported claims.

Enough, surely?

By the way - I've discovered who the Ripper was. I have data. You people have been looking at the wrong data in the wrong way. I know better because I'm a special indeterminate scientist. I can't tell you who the Ripper was, where my data came from, or anything else about my solution. I have my reasons. You will all know sooner or later, when I'm ready.

D'uh!

But did the ripper tell you?

[Harry D]

Hi,

OK, let me put the question to you like this:

Do you really think noone important knew who Jack the Ripper was in his own time?

No, I do not see why it's a given that anyone (no matter what their social status) should have known who the killer was. A lot of serial killers are perfectly capable of leading double lives, and depending on their social environment, even if they were to arouse suspicion their loved ones are not going to automatically assume they're moonlighting as a serial killer, nor would they choose to accept it. Even confessions have to be treated with extreme caution, because men falsely claiming to be Jack the Ripper were ten-a-penny at the time.

Swanson, Anderson & Macnaghten all claimed to know the killer's real identity, but since we don't have knowledge of their respective sources (Swanson/Anderson's witness, and Macnaghten's insider info), we can't examine the veracity of them. In any case, we can probably conclude that neither man knew for certain who the Ripper was.

And if someone knew, how come we donīt?

They took it to their grave?

[Pierre]

Pierre,

I have posted for many years on the A6 Murder thread. I flatter myself that it is a subject I do know a little about. However, if I or anyone else baldly stated on that thread that they positively knew, or thought they knew, the identity of the true murderer if he was not Hanratty, they'd be expected to prove it.

Equally, possibly one of the largest 'research' programmes, and certainly the most expensive with the possible exception of Patricia Cornwell's, was that of the late Paul Feldman. He became absolutely convinced that the Ripper was James Maybrick and nothing but nothing would shake that conviction. However, unlike your good self, he was open about what he was doing, even if he did sometimes tend towards 'creativeness', and his resultant book was nothing if not informative and entertaining. He had an almost bottomless purse with which to pursue his theories, paid professional researchers and investigators, yet ultimately he became a broken man when his theory concerning the Ripper's true identity was not universally accepted.

I think it is almost an axiom of Ripperology that most people interested in this case don't, at the bottom of their hearts, really [I]want[I] the Ripper to be positively identified, as that would be the end of most of the fun!

If you wish posters to take you seriously, then I'm afraid you're going to have to bite the bullet and tell us at least something of what you've 'researched' and claim to have found. If you're not prepared to do that, then really no-one is going to take you at all seriously and you may as well quit these boards. As Mr Whitechapel correctly states, you have to establish some credibility for yourself, which in over 50 pages of posts you have failed to do.

Written in a slightly calmer state than my previous couple of posts were.......

Graham

Hi Graham,

Well, Iīm not rich nor in it for the money. And it really doesnīt matter if people donīt take this seriously, I can actually understand them. Also, itīs not strange to me that people do get irritated and frustrated reading my posts. Iīm sure some of them are very anxious to know who the killer might be but I canīt answer them, since I donīt know myself. I just think I have found him and at least I do mean that seriously.

The data I have is, as I said, both old and new. The strange thing about it is that it all looks to good to be true, that is, if you would want to use it as a collective proof of who the killer was.

But I cantīt do that, since I am trained in working critically with data. So that would clearly go against not only my conscience but also my trust in my own ability when it comes to validating the data. So I need to finish this off and after that I can tell you who he is or who I thought he was.

I also understand that some doesnīt like the killer to be positively identified since that would put an end to their fun. Well, I think I have a responsibility to tell the world who he is if I really have found him even if I see some ethical problems with that as well.

In the meantime people can of course think what they want. I understand them.

Regards Pierre

[packers stem]

This is just plain daft now Pierre,a pointless conversation

[GUT]

Hi Graham,

Well, Iīm not rich nor in it for the money. And it really doesnīt matter if people donīt take this seriously, I can actually understand them. Also, itīs not strange to me that people do get irritated and frustrated reading my posts. Iīm sure some of them are very anxious to know who the killer might be but I canīt answer them, since I donīt know myself. I just think I have found him and at least I do mean that seriously.

The data I have is, as I said, both old and new. The strange thing about it is that it all looks to good to be true, that is, if you would want to use it as a collective proof of who the killer was.

But I cantīt do that, since I am trained in working critically with data. So that would clearly go against not only my conscience but also my trust in my own ability when it comes to validating the data. So I need to finish this off and after that I can tell you who he is or who I thought he was.

I also understand that some doesnīt like the killer to be positively identified since that would put an end to their fun. Well, I think I have a responsibility to tell the world who he is if I really have found him even if I see some ethical problems with that as well.

In the meantime people can of course think what they want. I understand them.

Regards Pierre

You don't know, but earlier you said he'd told you.

Which is it?

[Wickerman]

Hi,

I am a scientist but not within the field of natural science.

Pierre

So you hold a PhD then?

I speak with a number of PhD holders, typically in the field of archaeology and related sciences. One common distinction I find is that they are very reserved in their opinions.
Not the sort to jump to conclusions.