I think I have found him.

[Pierre]

It's going to be big Tom it's also going to prove a lot of people wrong I'm just a bit upset that Pierre has obviously been tipped of. I wasn't going to post about it but I don't want Pierre to steal my thunder.

You are wrong. You made a mistake and now you are trying to put the blame on me.

That isnīt nice at all.

Pierre

[Pierre]

Pierre doesn't have all the pieces. Let's keep it that way, if you catch my drift. Where grampton is concerned, mums the word. Everybody write that five times or as many times as it takes to sink in.

Where grampton is concerned, mums the word.
Where grampton is concerned, mums the word.
Where grampton is concerned, mums the word.
Where grampton is concerned, mums the word.
Where grampton is concerned, mums the word.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

No, because Pierre doesnīt have any piece and knows nothing about this Grampton story. Pierre happens to have his own theory.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

No Pierre, it is not, as Abby has explained.

Once again you demonstrate a propensity to leap to conclusions based on misunderstood data.

And once again you demonstrate your propensity to misinterpret what you read.

[Amanda]

Thank goodness! Pierre finally admits that he has a theory and not the long awaited solution that he has led us all to believe.

[Pierre]

Abby,
for those of us not in on the secret I guess the question is :

Is Grampton a person, a place or a group of people.

We can only wait and see I fear

I found a Philip Grampton who was a surgeon. But he must have been to old for beeing a serial killer.

Pierre

[Pierre]

Thank goodness! Pierre finally admits that he has a theory and not the long awaited solution that he has led us all to believe.

No Amanda. I have stated that I have a theory all along. You just didnīt read what I said.

But you may call it what you want.

Pierre

[Pierre]

So now, in some ways fortunately, we have a name to pin on but it too is in abeyance until next April. "Grampton"! I'll wait for the developments.

Is it really going to be revealed on April 1, 2016? April Fools Day? That bolsters confidence, but again we'll see.

And Pierre, when people (for the most part) "tear down" new ideas (or "theories") it isn't because they like to destroy them - they are questioning them to see if the holes they may think exist in the ideas are answered sufficiently well in the new theory to support it's findings.

But you canīt question what you donīt know, can you? So instead of questioning, people like David add their own ideas to what they think is my theory and my data and then try to destroy that. And this is of course meaningless. You canīt generalize from one statement to the whole theory or from one source to all sources.

And I am starting to wonder why people here get so nervous about the fact that I think I have found the killer. Why the frustration? People have been trying to solve this case for 127 years. Wouldnīt it be much better to have a calm and intelligent discussion about important aspects of the murders instead of getting upset or frustrated?

Regards Pierre

Pierre

[Hercule Poirot]

This is absolutely true. The "tearing down" process is part of "peer review". And peer review is very important, it finds extant holes in theories, it establishes the theories that hold water, it shows where weaknesses are, which parts of the theory need more thought and/or research, and is extremely important. Although I will say there are far more personal attacks in these forums than are usual for the peer review process...

I would even add that when we consider the remarks made here (including some of mine) and in other threads involving Pierre, we can't be seriously talking about a peer review. Looks more like a 'pear's review' as far as I'm concerned. In French, a pear (poire) also means 'imbecile' in our urban talk.




Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

[Hercule Poirot]

...
And I am starting to wonder why people here get so nervous about the fact that I think I have found the killer. Why the frustration? People have been trying to solve this case for 127 years. Wouldnīt it be much better to have a calm and intelligent discussion about important aspects of the murders instead of getting upset or frustrated?

Regards Pierre

Pierre

I would define the situation as the 'Ripperologist blue balls' syndrom after being a bit teased by what you've been saying for quite a while now. Don't take it bad, Pierre, I'm simply attempting to cool everyone down. LOL

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

[Pierre]

I would define the situation as the 'Ripperologist blue balls' syndrom after being a bit teased by what you've been daying for quite a while now. Don't take it bad, Pierre, I'm simply attempting to cool everyone down. LOL

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

Thanks Hercule.

[Hercule Poirot]

Thanks Hercule.

Cela m'a fait plaisir. (T'was my pleasure)

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

[Elamarna]

Pierre,
you say that you found a grampton but he was too old? how old can i ask?

[GUT]

But you canīt question what you donīt know, can you? So instead of questioning, people like David add their own ideas to what they think is my theory and my data and then try to destroy that. And this is of course meaningless. You canīt generalize from one statement to the whole theory or from one source to all sources.

And I am starting to wonder why people here get so nervous about the fact that I think I have found the killer. Why the frustration? People have been trying to solve this case for 127 years. Wouldnīt it be much better to have a calm and intelligent discussion about important aspects of the murders instead of getting upset or frustrated?

Regards Pierre

Pierre

And whose fault is it that we can't debate your idea, because you won't tell us what it is????

[Pcdunn]

Name correct?

I found a Philip Grampton who was a surgeon. But he must have been to old for beeing a serial killer.

Pierre

I tried that information and found a Wikipedia page on an Irish surgeon named Philip CRAMPTON who died in 1858. Are you sure it was GRAMPTON?

[Robert St Devil]

The intrigue just never stops here does it?

and with so many new suspects/theories Im starting to feel I need to find one myself! LOL.

Im going to get to work on it right away!

{psst. Abby. Im trying to follow wtf is going on. All i got so far is 'new theory' and 'conference'. Im guessing that some or all the British researchers, Pierre included, may have gone to the Nottingham conference at the end of August. Maybe this is tbe conference Amanda alluded too. Im guessing there is no love lost between Amanda and Pierre since he never sends his 'regards'. Anyways. Three weeks after the conference, Pierre starts this thread "I think I found him", but the theory is incomplete. Tom Wescott says he is missing pieces.

I been wondering why Pierre has been letting David Orsan bait him these past few days. I guess he wrote something about Tumblety that made Pinkmoon bold it and quote it, as well as the insinuation that Pierre makes about "questioning other new and established researchers (Pinkmoon. Wescott, Panderoona) who have a theory but no suspect".

So makes me think that there are two theories built off similar research, Pierre's and Gotham, resulting in two conclusions. If April is the annoUnce date, it should make the Baltimore conference on April 9th a must-see. }