A New Theory as to the Killer's Identity

[David Orsam]

So long, you boring git.

I think that post demonstrates perfectly why your threat to leave this forum did not worry me. I've certainly become tired reading your constant moans about Pierre on a topic on which Admin has already ruled.

[Graham]

So why are you arguing the toss with Pierre? And you really are quite boring, you know.....

Graham

[David Orsam]

So why are you arguing the toss with Pierre?

I've been trying to find out what he is trying to say. You know, engaging in debate rather than moaning and attempting to run the board. But please don't let me interrupt you considering taking your business elsewhere.

[David Orsam]

I think I have found him

The surname of my suspect was included in plain English in at least two of the communications signed "Jack the Ripper" in 1888. Furthermore, my suspect was known to the police, having a criminal record, and was mentioned in correspondence passing between the Home Office and the Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police during the summer of 1888. He also lived in London during the latter part of 1888, having recently been released from prison on licence.

He was hiding in plain sight all along.....

[David Orsam]

For anyone confused. As one of a small group of people who has actually engaged Pierre to find out what he thinks he has discovered, the purpose of this thread has been to demonstrate to him the sheer absurdity of that part of his theory which he has revealed to us so far. It was the only way I could think of to practically show him why his theory (or what I know of it) is ludicrous. Assuming he is a genuine person, it might, just might, force him to reconsider his approach of continually posting in multiple threads about his belief that he has 'found him'. I appreciate that the odds of me succeeding, as they are for Pierre himself in his quest, are very much against me but I wanted to try.

That concludes this thread as far as I am concerned.

Oh, and was Billy Ripper also Jack the Ripper? Well, maybe, who knows.

[paul g]

Bullying

Read this thread twice now and there is nothing posted by david or anyone for that matter within this thread that can constitute bullying. Even I can see what david was attempting to acheive and as far as i can see went about it in a civil and well thought out manner.

There has been things posted towards pierre on different threads that werenot acceptable in my opinion but not on this thread.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I can agree with Graham, and fully understand the frustration aired by many[ including myself].
I have been with Casebook since before the Millennium, have debated many aspects of this case over the years, have started many threads, was a regular in chat, and have had many a slanging match to boot.
But in all cases, I have presented my theories in writing, and been totally honest in my beliefs , and recollections.
I must say, that I find this new 'style' of presenting, very frustrating, and annoying, because its hard to discuss what is not present.
To be honest I find it rather childish,and gives Casebook no credibility, I have always believed it was a avenue for Ripper discussions, and a good educational source.
But we have nothing to discuss , and nothing to educate,in this approach.
Regards Richard.

[Pierre]

I'm sorry to break it to you Pierre, but I think you might not have found him.

I hope you are right.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

it's a practical demonstration for Pierre of how you anyone can extract a theory from the slimmest material.

So that was your sociological experiment David: To demonstrate to the posters on the forum here "How anyone can extract a theory from the slimmest material".

That is, how someone can construct Y from X. X > Y. Data source > theory.

I have told you several times that the source I have is not a source on which I have built the theory of who the killer is.

You said you understood that.

But you did not, David. Your social bias led you to test and demonstrate something that every scientist within the field of social studies, history etc already know about.

Your bias is to defend your own ideas against others and to destroy the ideas of others.

My bias is to destroy my own data sources and not wanting to accept them.

But I can´t do that. That would be a crime against science. And if I am right, which I hope I am not, it would be a crime against history.

Another thing, David. You are thinking in functionalistic terms. Your thinking implies that you can take any source and misinterpret it and that this should be the function of the concept I have gone by.

But you do not have my source yet, so you do not know what my interpretations are based on or what the content of the source is. You just functionally assume that:

Any source > Pierre > misinterpretation of source.

That is now a function in your brain but it is not a function in history.

Regards Pierre

[MysterySinger]

I'm functioning as per usual so there'll be no startling revelations here - just some suppositions sorry.

However, trying to understand Mr Ripper Jr. and how he might or might not be a candidate from the limited info I've seen so far leads me to the following.

He married in December 1875 a lady called Caroline (Carrie) Elizabeth Foster - that name is of interest if it's the same Elizabeth Foster known by MJK. William was a chimney sweep.

He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment in 1879 having been convicted of rape.

He was in prison on both the 1881 and 1891 census returns (and maybe died in prison in 1903 (?)) but I've not located a 1901 entry as yet.

So he was also out on license at the time of (some of) the Ripper murders it seems. He may have been disturbed if his wife was seeing other men or living as an unfortunate. What's more the victims were probably all known to Elizabeth.

He must have had a striking appearance given his scars and his pock-face (blotchy??). There again, I could just have the wrong person entirely.

Do we have info on the communication referred to in Monro's second letter from an anonymous source?

[Abby Normal]

I see both sides of the argument on this one-having now held both of them LOL!

At first I was annoyed by Pierres posts and was wondering if Admin should intervene and stop posters and posts like this, but they ruled on it and so I just stayed away.

But over time and curiosity I started looking again (like a bad car accident) and now I find the whole thing amusing and at times interesting and dare I say-educational!?!

one of the things that has intrigued me is Pierre believes the victims are the C5, Tabram, McKenzie and the 3 torsos, which I also believe is possible. And some of the tidbits he releases are intriguing IMHO.

Like the ripper case Pierres posts are another mystery, which is I guess why a lot of people keep coming back.

I truly hope he is sincere, and I also wish he would share his sources and who the suspect is sooner rather than later, and I can also see why people are annoyed. If Admin ever came out and intervened and put the cabosh on the whole thing I could see that too as being fine.

Either way, I would be remiss if I didn't say I find this latest back and forth between David O. and Piere very interesting and don't have a problem with it at all and don't think anyones said or done anything wrong.

I would just end by asking pierre:
1. how long he thinks he is NOW about revealing all .
2.and also, would he admit to the suspect if anyone names him?

[curious4]

I'm functioning as per usual so there'll be no startling revelations here - just some suppositions sorry.

However, trying to understand Mr Ripper Jr. and how he might or might not be a candidate from the limited info I've seen so far leads me to the following.

He married in December 1875 a lady called Caroline (Carrie) Elizabeth Foster - that name is of interest if it's the same Elizabeth Foster known by MJK. William was a chimney sweep.

He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment in 1879 having been convicted of rape.

He was in prison on both the 1881 and 1891 census returns (and maybe died in prison in 1903 (?)) but I've not located a 1901 entry as yet.

So he was also out on license at the time of (some of) the Ripper murders it seems. He may have been disturbed if his wife was seeing other men or living as an unfortunate. What's more the victims were probably all known to Elizabeth.

He must have had a striking appearance given his scars and his pock-face (blotchy??). There again, I could just have the wrong person entirely.

Do we have info on the communication referred to in Monro's second letter from an anonymous source?

Just wondering. Were prisoners really let out on license in Victorian times? I'm not sure they were.

Best wishes
C4

[MysterySinger]

The Monro letter of August 1888 indicated that William Ripper was out on licence.

[curious4]

The Monro letter of August 1888 indicated that William Ripper was out on licence.

There you are! Learn something new every day :-)

C4

[curious4]

There you are! Learn something new every day :-)

C4

Hallo Mysterysinger

Could you point me in the direction of said letter?

Cheers
C4