A New Theory as to the Killer's Identity

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[Graham]

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

Graham

[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]

Goodbye, then.

So long, you boring git.

Graham

[David Orsam]

I am seriously considering taking my business elsewhere, to another Forum.

Goodbye, then.

[Graham]

Wow. This is probably one of the most childish things I've ever read on Casebook.

I don't particularly like that Casebook has pretty much become "Pierrebook" over the past month either, but this borders on bullying.

We get it, David. You don't think there's anything to Pierre's theory.

i couldn't agree more, Brenda. We now have 16 - yes SIXTEEN threads started by Pierre, and what has he told us: well, just about nothing.

It is, as you say, "Pierrebook" and I hate it. Time was when the good old A6 Case thread used to attract criticism because there were those who felt it was throttling Casebook, but it had nothing on the nonsense posted here by Pierre. And the really weird thing is that lots of posters are taking him seriously!

I don't suppose Admin or anyone else will give a bugger, but I am seriously considering taking my business elsewhere, to another Forum. Shall I be seeing some of you there?

Graham

[David Orsam]

Wow. This is probably one of the most childish things I've ever read on Casebook.

I don't particularly like that Casebook has pretty much become "Pierrebook" over the past month either, but this borders on bullying.

We get it, David. You don't think there's anything to Pierre's theory.

It's not bullying at all, Brenda, it's a practical demonstration for Pierre of how you anyone can extract a theory from the slimmest material.

You may get it Brenda but Pierre clearly doesn't, unless he is deliberately playing dumb.

[Brenda]

.

Wow. This is probably one of the most childish things I've ever read on Casebook.

I don't particularly like that Casebook has pretty much become "Pierrebook" over the past month either, but this borders on bullying.

We get it, David. You don't think there's anything to Pierre's theory.

[IchabodCrane]

'The Angry Ripper'

It doesn't matter. I will buy 'The Angry Ripper' by 'Pierre' , if the Kindle price is around 5 Euro.

[Robert St Devil]

{slow sardonic applause}. Okay okay. Who left the cage open and let Dave-O out of the MEDIA section again?

[David Orsam]

And here we see a new expression from you David: "unfortunate fact". Before this it was "doomed".

I am also "highly likely" to be wrong. (Not only likely.)

And that goes for "all" my sources and "all" my data.

That is some strong opinion you have there David, especially considering the fact that you donīt know any of my reasons for not giving you what you want or any of my theoretical sources.

You know, I should revise my statement.

You are extremely unlikely to have solved the Whitechapel Murders, or even one of them, after over 125 years.

I don't need to know anything about you or your sources. or your data. It's just a matter of calculating the odds in a scientific manner (which you should love). What are the chances of you being right? Just like anyone else, less than 1% I'd say. Probably 0.01%.

And then when we add into the equation the evidence of your incomprehensible arguments on this forum on various subjects, the tenuous, nay ridiculous, points you have made about this purported letter and your shifting explanations throughout, not to mention your failure to answer most of the straightforward questions you have been asked in a clear way, we can reduce this to less than 0.01%.

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