I think I have found him.

[curious4]

Are you implying that Pierre is trying to make a monkey (ape) out of us? Shocking! But I think you may be on to something :-).

C4

[Pierre]

I have been reading this site, on and off, for the last 10 years.

While I have not been a frequent contributor, I have always read the posts with interest.

One of the things I have enjoyed is the passion so many of you show in trying to solve one of the great mysteries of the last 150 years.

I have seen vigorous differences in opinion as you debate your personal theories about the Ripper. However, I always believed that no matter how vigorously you disagreed with each other, that you would still have a beer or a glass of wine with each other at the end of the day.

I thought this group debated ideas, not the person.

This is why I have been so disappointed in how this group has responded to Pierre’s involvement.

Pierre has a different approach to stimulate debate. He hasn’t presented a definite theory and forcefully argued his position. Instead, he has asked provocative questions that encourage us to think.

This approach can frustrate and irritate many people, which I can understand. Personally, I’ve found it interesting.

I believe any bulletin board needs to encourage diversity.

If someone irritates you, then simply click on their user name, add them to your “ignore list” then you won’t read their comments.

When I think about this site, and the other site, I think about some of the great posters such as Nemo and Chris Scott. I can’t remember either of them resorting into personal attacks.

Today, we awoke to the terrible news about the Paris tragedy.

Life is too short for the personal attacks.

We all share something in common in our interest in solving this 125 year old mystery.

Can we focus on that, and debate the ideas not the person ?

Craig

Thank you Craig.

Pierre

[David Orsam]

I think I can see where Pierre is going with his theory.

For reasons mysteriously connected with events in the sixteenth century, the killer is determined to kill a Mary and an Elizabeth on the same night. On 30 September he successfully murders Elizabeth Stride but then mistakenly murders Catherine Eddowes, thinking she was called Mary Kelly due to her using that name sometimes (although, having already killed an Anne, and with MJK having the middle name of Jane, I'm personally wondering if he might have been after the wives of Henry the Eighth).

So having been foiled in his Mary/Elizabeth double event he tries again on 9 November, with Mary Jane Kelly and Elizabeth Prater, ensuring he does so on Lord Mayor's Day to humiliate both the Lord Mayor and the police (who failed to correctly interpret his advance warning in a letter to the press).

But he messes it up again because he failed to take the simple precaution of ensuring he would be able to access Elizabeth Prater's room. She must have slept through his attempts to force the door.

He also miscalculates in that the Lord Mayor is unaffected, with his parade not passing through the east end.

Well, it's a theory I suppose.

[DJA]

Are you implying that Pierre is trying to make a monkey (ape) out of us? Shocking! But I think you may be on to something :-).

C4

If you look at the Pierre Brassau fraud there are similarities.

Self proclaimed experts like Rolf Anderberg praised Pierre's work.
Prolly one of David Osram"s relatives.

Pierre lived at Boras.

[curious4]

I think I can see where Pierre is going with his theory.

For reasons mysteriously connected with events in the sixteenth century, the killer is determined to kill a Mary and an Elizabeth on the same night. On 30 September he successfully murders Elizabeth Stride but then mistakenly murders Catherine Eddowes, thinking she was called Mary Kelly due to her using that name sometimes (although, having already killed an Anne, and with MJK having the middle name of Jane, I'm personally wondering if he might have been after the wives of Henry the Eighth).

So having been foiled in his Mary/Elizabeth double event he tries again on 9 November, with Mary Jane Kelly and Elizabeth Prater, ensuring he does so on Lord Mayor's Day to humiliate both the Lord Mayor and the police (who failed to correctly interpret his advance warning in a letter to the press).

But he messes it up again because he failed to take the simple precaution of ensuring he would be able to access Elizabeth Prater's room. She must have slept through his attempts to force the door.

He also miscalculates in that the Lord Mayor is unaffected, with his parade not passing through the east end.

Well, it's a theory I suppose.

I think if she was woken by her kitten walking over her neck, she would have woken up by the sound of someone rattling her door knob/handle. And surely Mary's room would have been an easier target. Also Prater had been out and about, why would he not have approached her then?

C4

[richardnunweek]

Hi..
Mrs Prater allegedly told McCarthy, that she was waiting for her young man, but he had not turned up. ''I am going up''.she said.
Question 'What young man was this?'..a few hours earlier, she had met Kelly , and both were going out ''To try their luck''..So I guess both succeeded.?
It has been suggested that Kelly was killed by accident, the killer was intending to kill Prater,and went in the wrong room..
Might have some merit, but I personally do not believe so.
Regards Richard.

[Michael W Richards]

Thank you Craig.

Pierre

The problem is that Monsieur Pierre isn't here to work with us to try and solve the issues, he is here to bait bears.

[Bridewell]

I thought this group debated ideas, not the person.

When Pierre posts an idea we can debate it. All he's said so far is that he thinks he knows who the killer is but won't tell us why. There's nothing to debate.

[GUT]

The problem is that Monsieur Pierre isn't here to work with us to try and solve the issues, he is here to bait bears.

exactly his purpose it seems

[GUT]

When Pierre posts an idea we can debate it. All he's said so far is that he thinks he knows who the killer is but won't tell us why. There's nothing to debate.

makes you wonder doesnt it

[Craig H]

I think Pierre has told us a lot about his theory – what was the Ripper’s motivation, how he operated and his status.

The only thing he hasn’t told us – which is what we want to know – is who is his suspect.

However, once we accept that he won’t disclose the name until he has more evidence, and respect his motivation is his integrity (and not to deliberately antagonise us), then we can see he has contributed a lot to the forum.

Some of his theory and ideas which he has provided is that JTR was relatively wealthy, didn’t live in the area, was also a Torso killer, the Mary Kelly murder was staged to embarrass the outgoing Mayor, he communicated with Police to taunt them, and the double murder was planned (not an accident).

So I don’t think we can say he hasn’t put forward any ideas.

I’m enjoying the new ideas and discussion, although also frustrated with no name.

Pierre – one compromise you may want to consider is limiting your posts to the Threads you start. There’s a lot of smart folk on the Board with a lot of experience who probably want to explore other ideas. Just a thought ….

Craig

[Abby Normal]

Seems to me that the more little hints Pierre gives out the more of a crack pot theory this is going to be if he ever does give us the whole story. Mission oriented motivation, "metaphorical" nebulous connections to victims in letters the killer sent, a well known (then but not now?) affluent suspect, the reveal will shake England to its core, etc.-seems more and more like a royal conspiracy, sickert , van gogh type suspect theory.

Even if Pierre is sincere and eventually reveals the suspect I'm quickly coming to the opinion that it's going to be another whopping wangdoodle. In short-a fairy tale.

But hope springs eternal*

*usually followed by disappointment. Lol

[Hercule Poirot]

Each time I get the 'I think I have found him' email notification, I say to myself "Maybe this time, I'll get it" as a kid waiting for the birthday present he always wanted but never got would be doing.

Well, maybe next year. LOL

[RockySullivan]

Seems to me that the more little hints Pierre gives out the more of a crack pot theory this is going to be if he ever does give us the whole story. Mission oriented motivation, "metaphorical" nebulous connections to victims in letters the killer sent, a well known (then but not now?) affluent suspect, the reveal will shake England to its core, etc.-seems more and more like a royal conspiracy, sickert , van gogh type suspect theory.

Even if Pierre is sincere and eventually reveals the suspect I'm quickly coming to the opinion that it's going to be another whopping wangdoodle. In short-a fairy tale.

But hope springs eternal*

*usually followed by disappointment. Lol

I agree with you Abby. After some of the hints pierre dropped, I'm not even interested in hearing the suspect's name. He's just another nutter.

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
Maybe Jonathan, could invite Pierre onto Rippercast, what a terrific show that would be , rather like interviewing a politician, with more sidesteps, then Strictly come dancing.
Regards Richard.