The profession of Jack the Ripper.

[David Orsam]

Why can't Pierre clarify if his suspect was a Scotland Yard official or not?

[MysterySinger]

Would you mind clarifying. You are saying that arguing that "a quarter of a mile" means 13 Miller's Court does do credit to this forum?

Is that right?

I think what I said was quite clear David and it wasn't what you're trying to twist it into - there's not a lot of point in constantly repeating yourself.

What would do credit to the forum is if posters were allowed to air their opinion (as an idea and not presented as fact) and, if people feel that it is wrong provide reasoned argument against it. That's not what I see.

[GUT]

Why can't Pierre clarify if his suspect was a Scotland Yard official or not?

Because he hasn't decided yet?

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

127 years. They havenīt found the killer. The only hope is science.

But now Simon Wood (a theatre designer?) tries to get people to think that the killer did not exist.

And this is just after Russell Edwards (a businessman?) has tried to make people believe in a totally unreliable DNA-test on an equally unreliable artefact from heaven knows where.

Please.

Donīt give me the talk about "respect" Steve. Where is the respect for the victims of Jack the Ripper when they are sold out on this monkey bazaar that constitutes ripperology?

Regards Pierre

by


My Dear Pierre

You won't stop will you, still belittling people.

I won't play along and do the same back.

Please don't try and justify your lack of respect shown above by using the the Victims to do it.

Of course this is the point: you don't like people having an interest in the subject, you find it distasteful. such is your right.

on the subject of using Science, I fully agree, and would suggest people read the following posts :


thread "Pierre’s research so far."

posts 223, 227 and229

Elamarna

[David Orsam]

I think what I said was quite clear David and it wasn't what you're trying to twist it into - there's not a lot of point in constantly repeating yourself.

Well I asked you a question and you didn't actually answer it. You were the one telling us what brought no credit to this forum and I wanted to know if Pierre's argument about "a quarter of a mile" actually meaning 13 Miller's Court brings credit to this forum, something which you seem to have difficulty answering in the affirmative (or negative) for some reason.

[GUT]

by


My Dear Pierre

You won't stop will you, still belittling people.

I won't play along and do the same back.

Please don't try and justify your lack of respect shown above by using the the Victims to do it.

Of course this is the point: you don't like people having an interest in the subject, you find it distasteful. such is your right.

on the subject of using Science, I fully agree, and would suggest people read the following posts :


thread "Pierre’s research so far."

posts 223, 227 and229

Elamarna

Yet in spite of his "distaste" still here he is, playing the "game" he detests so much.

[David Orsam]

What would do credit to the forum is if posters were allowed to air their opinion (as an idea and not presented as fact) and, if people feel that it is wrong provide reasoned argument against it. That's not what I see.

You must be seeing a different forum to me. I am seeing loads of reasoned argument against Pierre's theories, far more than they deserve, but little of which is responded to with rational responses from Pierre.

For myself, I would be perfectly happy to engage Pierre in reasoned discussion but he literally refuses to engage with me. Does that do him any credit?

[Harriet the Student]

You must be seeing a different forum to me. I am seeing loads of reasoned argument against Pierre's theories, far more than they deserve, but little of which is responded to with rational responses from Pierre.

For myself, I would be perfectly happy to engage Pierre in reasoned discussion but he literally refuses to engage with me. Does that do him any credit?

I agree; I think it's an interesting theory that I'd like to know more about. But the only evidence he's produced so far have been the 'chevrons' on Eddowes' face, which he seems unwilling to debate them in a reasonable manner. When I asked him for more details on the theory, he referred to 'data sources' and hasn't revealed what these are so far.

[GUT]

I agree; I think it's an interesting theory that I'd like to know more about. But the only evidence he's produced so far have been the 'chevrons' on Eddowes' face, which he seems unwilling to debate them in a reasonable manner. When I asked him for more details on the theory, he referred to 'data sources' and hasn't revealed what these are so far.

And time and again he shows ignorance of even the most basic issues and people involved in the case (and I mean those involved in 1888).

[Hercule Poirot]

I agree; I think it's an interesting theory that I'd like to know more about. But the only evidence he's produced so far have been the 'chevrons' on Eddowes' face, which he seems unwilling to debate them in a reasonable manner. When I asked him for more details on the theory, he referred to 'data sources' and hasn't revealed what these are so far.

The 'chevrons' on Eddowes' face can not be considered as evidence legally speaking. It's the interpretation offered by Pierre regarding the cuts on her face and seems to be one of the elements of his theory still not presented.
Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

[Pierre]

The 'chevrons' on Eddowes' face can not be considered as evidence legally speaking. It's the interpretation offered by Pierre regarding the cuts on her face and seems to be one of the elements of his theory still not presented.
Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

Hi Hercule,

This is what I have been trying to say several times here in the forum. The Ripper case is a cold case. It canīt be solved by giving any proof in the juridical meaning. So science has to do it if it is ever to be done.

The natural sciences have the problem of old data which can not be used any longer (DNA for instance) and so it runs the risk of using sources that are not reliable.

I think the only possible method to use is forensic history. And I donīt think so because I am a forensic historian - I am not - but I think so because the methods used within forensic history are among the methods that I have been using for finding the killer.

But I would also stress all the ordinary methods within sociology as potentially useful as well as theories within sociology.

I can understand why people are upset. Most of them donīt understand what I have been doing. And when I try to explain the importance of using scientific methods, they donīt even understand that. There are those, for instance, that confuse popular history with academic history. They get very upset when I question the value of the writings of popular history and the authors of these writings. The authors are often journalists or former policemen, who have no idea whatsoever of what academic history is. And often, not knowing what something is, means rejecting it.

I also know that there is a lot of honor thinking within this field of ripperology and the forum is a part of this field since some of the authors of ripperology post here as well. I am often told that one should have "respect" and that there are "distinguished" people here.

And I suspect that the further away from the real crime history of the killer we get, the more honorable and distinguished people become and the more defensive everyone within ripperology will get.

And since the question of who the killer was has never been solved, at least not by ripperologists, the question "Who was Jack the Ripper?" is the most important question in the field - not the most important to answer but to avoid answering. If this question is answered it will no longer be there. And if the question is no longer there, the authors will no longer be there. And then the ship is going down, and everyone will jump off.

And this fear of the destruction of ripperology makes a lot of people defend the maintenance of the question "Who was Jack the Ripper?", making sure it will not be answered.

And although I agree with Hercule on his point and have stressed it myself several times, there is also the aspect of trying to make sure that no one answers the question since it can not be answered "legally" speaking. And this strategy is what makes the field of ripperology survive.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

I think what I said was quite clear David and it wasn't what you're trying to twist it into - there's not a lot of point in constantly repeating yourself.

What would do credit to the forum is if posters were allowed to air their opinion (as an idea and not presented as fact) and, if people feel that it is wrong provide reasoned argument against it. That's not what I see.

Hi MysterySinger and David,

Yes. "Twisting" questions into something that they are not is certainly the speciality of David.

Knowing this, I no longer speak with him.

You have a lot to learn from MysterySinger, David. There you have a fresh brain thinking freely.

But you canīt of course, David, can you? To much invested, perhaps? To many catalogues of "facts" to write? To busy with holding on to what little positon within the field of ripperology one might have?

Some people are desperate, some are not. Twisting other peoples questions and issues is a sign of desperation. You do it when you are not able to do anything else to destroy them.

Oh, by the way, I liked Davidīs catalogue of "facts" on the issue of the GOGMAGOG-letter. I found it interesting to read. Thanks, David.

Regards Pierre

[David Orsam]

Yes. "Twisting" questions into something that they are not is certainly the speciality of David.

Knowing this, I no longer speak with him.

Do you think you could refrain from lying about me Pierre? I do not "twist" things. I have always taken care to quote you (and others) accurately.

When it comes to twisting in the wind, however, it's a good description of you.

On 2 December you posted:

"And David is now ignored since he has only one interest as I see it and that is to destroy anything I write, thereby destroying the discussion here."

On 5 December you posted (about me):

"I ignore him so I donīt read his posts anymore since he is only trying to destroy what I say."

Your reason you gave for ignoring me was, therefore, quite clear: because I supposedly tried to "destroy" everything you said. A ridiculous reason in itself which simply showed you don't like being contradicted.

Since then, however, your reason for ignoring me has twisted and shifted and now you tell MysterySinger that you no longer speak to me because I supposedly twist questions into something they are not.

Just another false representation from the king of false representations. The person who categorically told this forum that his suspect was not a Scotland Yard official but is now unable to confirm whether his suspect was or was not a Scotland Yard official!!!

[David Orsam]

But you canīt of course, David, can you? To much invested, perhaps? To many catalogues of "facts" to write? To busy with holding on to what little positon within the field of ripperology one might have?

Some people are desperate, some are not. Twisting other peoples questions and issues is a sign of desperation. You do it when you are not able to do anything else to destroy them.

Oh, by the way, I liked Davidīs catalogue of "facts" on the issue of the GOGMAGOG-letter. I found it interesting to read. Thanks, David

As you appear to be speaking to me, I might tell you that I have nothing "invested" - whatever you mean by that - nor do I have any position at all within the field of ripperology. Once again you leap to false conclusions on the basis of things you have misunderstood.

I don't know what "catalogue of facts" on the issue of the GOGMAGOG letter you are referring to but if you mean my post which showed you had failed to understand the context in which that letter was written, and which also showed that your interpretation of the letter could not possibly be correct, I am glad you enjoyed it and you are welcome.

[John G]

Hi Hercule,

This is what I have been trying to say several times here in the forum. The Ripper case is a cold case. It canīt be solved by giving any proof in the juridical meaning. So science has to do it if it is ever to be done.

The natural sciences have the problem of old data which can not be used any longer (DNA for instance) and so it runs the risk of using sources that are not reliable.

I think the only possible method to use is forensic history. And I donīt think so because I am a forensic historian - I am not - but I think so because the methods used within forensic history are among the methods that I have been using for finding the killer.

But I would also stress all the ordinary methods within sociology as potentially useful as well as theories within sociology.

I can understand why people are upset. Most of them donīt understand what I have been doing. And when I try to explain the importance of using scientific methods, they donīt even understand that. There are those, for instance, that confuse popular history with academic history. They get very upset when I question the value of the writings of popular history and the authors of these writings. The authors are often journalists or former policemen, who have no idea whatsoever of what academic history is. And often, not knowing what something is, means rejecting it.

I also know that there is a lot of honor thinking within this field of ripperology and the forum is a part of this field since some of the authors of ripperology post here as well. I am often told that one should have "respect" and that there are "distinguished" people here.

And I suspect that the further away from the real crime history of the killer we get, the more honorable and distinguished people become and the more defensive everyone within ripperology will get.

And since the question of who the killer was has never been solved, at least not by ripperologists, the question "Who was Jack the Ripper?" is the most important question in the field - not the most important to answer but to avoid answering. If this question is answered it will no longer be there. And if the question is no longer there, the authors will no longer be there. And then the ship is going down, and everyone will jump off.

And this fear of the destruction of ripperology makes a lot of people defend the maintenance of the question "Who was Jack the Ripper?", making sure it will not be answered.

And although I agree with Hercule on his point and have stressed it myself several times, there is also the aspect of trying to make sure that no one answers the question since it can not be answered "legally" speaking. And this strategy is what makes the field of ripperology survive.

Regards Pierre

Hi "Pierre",

The problem is that all you claim to have is a "theory", not scientific proof. And, of course, all theories are capable of being challenged, even "hard science" theories, such as evolution or special relativity. So simply publishing a "theory", if it ever comes to that, won't stop the debate.

And that logic clearly applies to historians just as much as anyone else. For instance, David Irving is a graduate historian, but I agree with very little of what he has to say.

Hey, I've just had a thought. I have a degree, and also an advanced qualification in sociology, so maybe I should set aside a few days in order to "solve" the mystery myself!

Not sure if you've considering publishing a book containing these new "theories", but I've just thought of a brilliant title. What do you think to "They All Love Pierre."?