I think I have found him.

[Michael W Richards]

There is no evidence for any religious connection in the Ripper case.

Regards Pierre

There is no physical evidence within the murders themselves had aspects that could be construed as being based on any specific religion. That is not to say religious beliefs can be ruled out as a possible motive....since we don't understand what the motives were.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=pinkmoon;360912]

Lowercase 'b' and upper case 'P' sometimes with an umlaut, if we're to be correct. And no, Phil, I don't think the team would want me discussing this yet.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott[/QUOTEo
No we don't want this discussed on here !I think it might upset the grandson so let's save it for the Facebook group.

Grampton
Grandson

[Elamarna]

Pierre.
I agree.

If your,forgive me please, hints were not bad enough for many here.
It is clear we now have a group who have a idea just like you and are even more secretive.
But hang on. One of them almost blows the whole thing and actually says it's not a secret. Another also give very obscure hints.
And some of them seem to think they know who you are.

I am left with the following conclusions

Either the whole thing is invented to wind you up. Or there is a real group working on a serious theory. Some of whom feel it is a secret for some reason and some who don't.
Now they are saying it will upset a family member. Well families of all the suspects named must have been upset too when their family member was named.

Still obviously it's so big it will solve the case . So I guess the rest of us will keep on waiting.



This

[David Orsam]

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.

Can I just point out that this is not true at all. I did question Pierre very closely about his claim that his suspect wrote a letter to the press in advance of Mary Kelly's murder in which Mary Kelly's name and address, as well as the date of 9 November, was mentioned. Once I discovered (after some teeth pulling) that Mary Kelly's name and address was not, in fact, mentioned in the letter, I pointed out that if the rest of his data sources were like that letter then his theory is doomed.

At some point, having originally made clear that the letter was part of his theory, he decided to distance himself from it and now wants us to believe that it is no part of his theory, which makes it impossible to understand why he even mentioned it on this forum in the first place.

[pinkmoon]

[QUOTE=Pierre;360937]

Grampton
Grandson

I only posted on here to see if my friends had blabbed about grampton I'm pretty sure by your reaction they havnt I do think I have chosen at least one of my gramptonites as they have been christened unwisely

[Pierre]

Pierre.
I agree.

If your,forgive me please, hints were not bad enough for many here.
It is clear we now have a group who have a idea just like you and are even more secretive.
But hang on. One of them almost blows the whole thing and actually says it's not a secret. Another also give very obscure hints.
And some of them seem to think they know who you are.

I am left with the following conclusions

Either the whole thing is invented to wind you up. Or there is a real group working on a serious theory. Some of whom feel it is a secret for some reason and some who don't.
Now they are saying it will upset a family member. Well families of all the suspects named must have been upset too when their family member was named.

Still obviously it's so big it will solve the case . So I guess the rest of us will keep on waiting.

This

Hi Elamarna,

Yes, I have been thinking the same. And if they want to play a game, I honestly hope they enjoy it. But I have no interest in it.

Best wishes
Pierre

[David Orsam]

Yes, I have been thinking the same. And if they want to play a game, I honestly hope they enjoy it. But I have no interest in it.

Pierre, can I introduce you to the kettle?

"Kettle, pot, pot, kettle."

Best not mention it's a black kettle, Pierre.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;360942]

At some point, having originally made clear that the letter was part of his theory, he decided to distance himself from it QUOTE]


YOU ARE LYING ABOUT ME AGAIN DAVID.

[Pierre]

Pierre, can I introduce you to the kettle?

"Kettle, pot, pot, kettle."

Best not mention it's a black kettle, Pierre.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS DAVID ORSAM PERSON?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=pinkmoon;360946]

I only posted on here to see if my friends had blabbed about grampton I'm pretty sure by your reaction they havnt I do think I have chosen at least one of my gramptonites as they have been christened unwisely

Well, if they were your friends you would have known without testing them wouldn´t you?

But are we going to find the Whitechapel killer or play games?

Regards Pierre

[David Orsam]

YOU ARE LYING ABOUT ME AGAIN DAVID.

I am not lying about you at all Pierre. I quote from your post #58 in this thread:

'When I say that I think I have found him, I mean what I say and say what I mean.

So why do I think I have found him?

1.A few sources produced during the killing spree can easily be connected to the same person.
2.The sources seem to be independent to each other but they point to one person.
3.The sources give the motive. It is a clear motive.
4.The motive can easily be connected to his own personal history in specific sources about his life.
5.His background and knowledge makes him clearly capable of committing the murders and performing the mutilations and dismemberments.
6.Sources that he produced, which today are impossible to understand because they are misinterpreted, become very easy to understand with this theory.

So what can I tell you about what I know about him?

1.He was extremely organized.
2.He was not a jew, not a “lunatic”, not a doctor.
3.The murder dates are connected to his own personal motive.
4.The methods he used are clearly connected to his own motive.
5.He wrote to the police.
6.He wrote a letter to the editor in a paper not signing it “Jack the Ripper” where he gave the exact address to one of the murder sites.
7.If the police had understood his communications, they would have caught him.
8.He wasn´t interrupted efter killing Stride. He was just being very cautious.
9.With the murders he wanted to say something to society.'

It was there in point 6 of your list of things you claimed to know about your suspect. It was, in other words, a part of your theory. I mean, it had to be given that your suspect was supposedly identifying the victim who was to be killed at some point in the future as well as the victim's address and the date of her murder.

But your most recent position is that the letter: 'is not a source on which I have built the theory of who the killer is'.

So I feel confident in saying you originally made clear to the forum that the letter formed part of your theory and now you want to distance yourself from that very same letter.

[David Orsam]

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS DAVID ORSAM PERSON?

Don't worry Pierre, my post about the pot and the kettle was written in metaphorical language, which is why you had no chance of understanding it.

[Mayerling]

[QUOTE=pinkmoon;360946]

I only posted on here to see if my friends had blabbed about grampton I'm pretty sure by your reaction they havnt I do think I have chosen at least one of my gramptonites as they have been christened unwisely

Hi Pinkmoon,

I plead guilty at creating the term "gramptonites" (or "Gramptonites"). I thought it more euphonic than "Gramtonphiliacs" or "Gramptonphiles"*. In time, when that solution or theory is spelled out, you can correct the nickname. At the moment, however unwisely chosen or christened, what's the harm in using it?

Best of luck,

Jeff

*In thinking it over it could have been "Gramtonophiles" or "Gramtonophiliacs" but it is expanding into too many syllables. And that means someone reading it might put the em-PHA-sis on the wrong "syl-LA-ble", as some old song said.

Jeff

[pinkmoon]

[QUOTE=Mayerling;360959]

Hi Pinkmoon,

I plead guilty at creating the term "gramptonites" (or "Gramptonites"). I thought it more euphonic than "Gramtonphiliacs" or "Gramptonphiles". In time, when that solution or theory is spelled out, you can correct the nickname. At the moment, however unwisely chosen or christened, what's the harm in using it?

Best of luck,

Jeff

Thank you no offence taken I'm just sorry grampton had to be mentioned on here because I thought one of my "friends" had tipped Pierre of.The facebook page was set up so there would be no need to involve everybody.

[Phil Carter]

[QUOTE=pinkmoon;360960]

Thank you no offence taken I'm just sorry grampton had to be mentioned on here because I thought one of my "friends" had tipped Pierre of.The facebook page was set up so there would be no need to involve everybody.

Hi Pinkmoon,

I have been asking around. .and nobody. . To my knowledge, has given Pierre the tip off. Including moi. The fb group is pretty tight on the important bits imho.

What this site knows is findable anyway. The juicy stuff is pretty safe I reckon.

Pockets