The profession of Jack the Ripper.

[FrankO]

And I understand why they are so angry. They are simply afraid that someone will take away their favourite toy.

I don’t think it has something, if anything at all, to do with that, Pierre.

What makes people angry or frustrated is that you’ve come out here claiming you think you’ve discovered the identity of the Ripper without offering anything in the form of evidence/data or straightforward answers.

You seem to only answer questions that can be answered with ‘yes’ or ‘no’, but mostly beat around the bush, ignore, evade and give vague references or odd posts. The things you did offer like the letter and the photographs are flimsy as evidence and, therefore, don’t help you. Or at least, not in the sense that they support your hypothesis, if that’s genuinely your aim. And, unsurprisingly, posters doubt whether this is genuinely your aim.

Regards,
Frank

[GUT]

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."?

And even then he won't even tell us what his idea is.

Since Pierre wants to be all scientific, it's not a theory, in fact it's not even a hypothesis, it's nothing more than an dea, if it is even that.

Given Pierre's reticence to reveal anything (let alone all) his changing positions, and his obvious ignorance of pretty much anything to o with the case, I seriously doubt he has done any more research than a quick read of casebook and a hyper active imagination.

[GUT]

I don’t think it has something, if anything at all, to do with that, Pierre.

What makes people angry or frustrated is that you’ve come out here claiming you think you’ve discovered the identity of the Ripper without offering anything in the form of evidence/data or straightforward answers.

You seem to only answer questions that can be answered with ‘yes’ or ‘no’, but mostly beat around the bush, ignore, evade and give vague references or odd posts. The things you did offer like the letter and the photographs are flimsy as evidence and, therefore, don’t help you. Or at least, not in the sense that they support your hypothesis, if that’s genuinely your aim. And, unsurprisingly, posters doubt whether this is genuinely your aim.

Regards,
Frank

Yep and making it up as he goes.

[Mister Whitechapel]

I don’t think it has something, if anything at all, to do with that, Pierre.

I agree. The idea that there is an unspoken 'Ripperologist Conspiracy' that wishes to keep the identity of the Whitechapel Killer unsolved so they can perpetuate their own hobby and/or industry is frankly ludicrous. If anything, the industry would just adapt to digging into the psychology of whatever suspect is finally proven beyond doubt to have been the perpetrator. We know who the Yorkshire Ripper was, but there are many books about the background; be it the personal or sociological motivations. But if the draw of trying to solve the identity of a murderer that has yet gone undiscovered is too much to resist, there are plenty more to choose from; unless Pierre has solved that too, I hear the Zodiac Killer has still got away with it...

Personally, it smells to me like Pierre thinks he has developed a built-in defence to anyone who negatively peer-reviews his hypothesis (if he ever finds the courage to produce the name of his suspect); not accepting his suspect? That's not because it's wrong, no it's because they're conspiring to keep the 'Ripper Myth' going for monetary gain! Not that Pierre is looking to publish his own book(s); good lord no - he's going to reveal the name of his suspect to the world for free, to save us from further commercial exploitation. The weight of knowing the identity of the Ripper must be unbearable to shoulder, but he's doing it for our own good.

Yours,
Mister Whitechapel

[David Orsam]

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.

We really mustn't let the above sentence pass unnoticed.

The question "Who was Jack the Ripper?", Pierre tells us, is the most important question "to avoid answering".

Just let the impact of that remarkable statement flow over you.

Does Pierre actually appreciate the amazing humour of it? The sheer comedy genius of such a sentence. Or is he blissfully unaware of the hypocrisy?

[John G]

And even then he won't even tell us what his idea is.

Since Pierre wants to be all scientific, it's not a theory, in fact it's not even a hypothesis, it's nothing more than an dea, if it is even that.

Given Pierre's reticence to reveal anything (let alone all) his changing positions, and his obvious ignorance of pretty much anything to o with the case, I seriously doubt he has done any more research than a quick read of casebook and a hyper active imagination.

Something that I've suspected from his very first post! Mind you, he does learn from his mistakes: variously referring to his "suspect" as a "police official" and "police officer", seems like the perfect "get out of jail free card"to me!

[kookingpot]

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 don´t understand what I have been doing. And when I try to explain the importance of using scientific methods, they don´t 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.

Pierre, as someone with multiple degrees in history-related fields I am exactly the academic you think should be working on this problem. And this is why I know your methods are very, very flawed and you don't know what "academic history" is supposed to be. There is nothing you have said that has made me believe otherwise. You accuse people of not knowing what academic history is, but you clearly don't know it either. Clearly you have experience in sociology, but not history. None of the evidence you have presented to us so far has been remotely "scientific". Merely a subjective opinion regarding the shape of some wounds that is derived from a primary source that has been read out of context. And several people have pointed this out to you (as part of the scientific process known as peer review), and you dismiss them as lesser than you. That is why your reception has been less than ideal. Not because people are "afraid of finding the answer". It's because you arrogantly refuse to engage after criticism.

Plenty of people are willing to engage in discussion with you. I'm willing to engage in discussion with you. I'm doing it right now. But you are not willing to engage in discussion back when their comments are critical of yours.

I've tried to bring up the importance of reading everything you can on a subject before making claims, and you can go back to the other thread (which I know you read, because you responded to one of my messages) and reread it.

I know how to do academic history. I have been doing it for the past decade. And because I know how it is conducted, I can see that you are not doing it correctly the way you say you are. Yet when I bring this up, you continue to ignore me, as you do with most others who disagree with you. It's true, some people are much more abrasive than necessary. I too have found the majority of David Orsam's posts to be much more derogatory and insulting to people he disagrees with than I find to be appropriate. However, it doesn't help to be just as derogatory and insulting right back.

And you really, really need to start reading more. It's the first thing you learn in graduate school.

[GUT]

Something that I've suspected from his very first post! Mind you, he does learn from his mistakes: variously referring to his "suspect" as a "police official" and "police officer", seems like the perfect "get out of jail free card"to me!

I think I was one of the first o reply to him, and I'm pretty sure I included BS in my first response.

[David Orsam]

I too have found the majority of David Orsam's posts to be much more derogatory and insulting to people he disagrees with than I find to be appropriate.

Well thank you! Would it be too much to ask for some examples of what you are talking about?

Should be an easy task considering you are speaking of "the majority" of my posts.

Have you also considered whether the above sentence of yours that I have quoted was more derogatory and insulting to me than you would find to be appropriate?

[John G]

Pierre, as someone with multiple degrees in history-related fields I am exactly the academic you think should be working on this problem. And this is why I know your methods are very, very flawed and you don't know what "academic history" is supposed to be. There is nothing you have said that has made me believe otherwise. You accuse people of not knowing what academic history is, but you clearly don't know it either. Clearly you have experience in sociology, but not history. None of the evidence you have presented to us so far has been remotely "scientific". Merely a subjective opinion regarding the shape of some wounds that is derived from a primary source that has been read out of context. And several people have pointed this out to you (as part of the scientific process known as peer review), and you dismiss them as lesser than you. That is why your reception has been less than ideal. Not because people are "afraid of finding the answer". It's because you arrogantly refuse to engage after criticism.

Plenty of people are willing to engage in discussion with you. I'm willing to engage in discussion with you. I'm doing it right now. But you are not willing to engage in discussion back when their comments are critical of yours.

I've tried to bring up the importance of reading everything you can on a subject before making claims, and you can go back to the other thread (which I know you read, because you responded to one of my messages) and reread it.

I know how to do academic history. I have been doing it for the past decade. And because I know how it is conducted, I can see that you are not doing it correctly the way you say you are. Yet when I bring this up, you continue to ignore me, as you do with most others who disagree with you. It's true, some people are much more abrasive than necessary. I too have found the majority of David Orsam's posts to be much more derogatory and insulting to people he disagrees with than I find to be appropriate. However, it doesn't help to be just as derogatory and insulting right back.

And you really, really need to start reading more. It's the first thing you learn in graduate school.

Hi,

If Pierre actually is an academic historian, which like you I seriously doubt, presumably he would have no problem in referring us to a selection of his published works, i.e. academic books, peer-reviewed journal articles etc.

Of course, the irony is that, as your post implies, he come across as just the kind of amateur hobbyist he professes to despise.

[kookingpot]

To be honest, your attitude (as expressed through the text on the internet here) tends to come across as needlessly confrontational. Posting the same comment regarding Pierre's evidence at least three times in short succession, i.e.:

Does arguing that "a quarter of a mile" means 13 Miller's Court do credit to this forum?

just seems rather juvenile and conflict-seeking to an otherwise disengaged observer.

This other quote I found to be also needlessly confrontational:

I entirely agree. No-one who tells the members of this forum that the killer wrote the exact address of Mary Jane Kelly in a letter to a newspaper editor published some days before her murder - which address turns out to be written as "a quarter of a mile" - deserves to be ridiculed in any way.

Sarcasm doesn't work terribly well without a tone of voice to go with it, I've found, and you are a rather sarcastic personality, in my experience, especially with those you disagree with or with arguments you find silly.

There have also been a number of occasions when you respond to a post with excellent information and arguments, but you introduce it with a rather insulting and dismissive tone or phrase, such as:

Hilariously pompous last paragraph there.

It was a number of these sorts of interactions I observed at the beginning of my time lurking on Casebook that initially left a bad taste in my mouth, and I associated your username with insults and demeanment. As time has gone on, you have done quite a lot to mitigate that first impression, and perhaps I should have amended my post to read "a number of David Orsam's posts that I have read", as I haven't spent a whole lot of time in the victim sections of the forums, where you have been doing a large of excellent posting.

I have been a bit hasty in my reply, and I apologize for that. And yes, upon further reflection I do find my above sentence to be more derogatory and insulting than I find appropriate. I hope you will forgive me for that. However, I do still find your name beside posts of this sort occasionally, which has kept it in my mind with negative associations. Perhaps it's the problem of communication via text over the Internet without cues from the tone of voice in which you speak, and the way I have read many of your posts (perhaps colored by my early experiences on the site) have been read in my head in a confrontational, insulting, sarcastic tone.

[David Orsam]

Thank you for your response, kookingpot.

To be honest, your attitude (as expressed through the text on the internet here) tends to come across as needlessly confrontational.

Language is important. You said "derogatory and insulting" before and now you refer to "needlessly confrontational" which is very different; and "needlessly" is simply a matter of opinion (yours) with which I happen to disagree.

Posting the same comment regarding Pierre's evidence at least three times in short succession

I'm sorry but I think you missed the point here. I didn't post the same comment three times in succession. I was asking MysterySinger a question which he or she didn't ever answer and I actually re-phrased it to encompass a slight shift in what he/she was saying (i.e. "credit to the forum" and "credit to Pierre"). Take another look at the exchange but if you didn't understand what I was doing, that is, with the very greatest of respect, not my fault.

just seems rather juvenile and conflict-seeking to an otherwise disengaged observer.

Again, the issue I was asking about was "derogatory and insulting" not juvenile and conflict seeking but, as I don't think you quite understood the context of my posts to MysterySinger, I will forgive you.

This other quote I found to be also needlessly confrontational:

In the post of mine you quoted, I was actually responding to a couple of confrontational posts by other users who, for reasons best known to themselves, considering they are not Admin, were criticising other users of this forum for their posts. I have little time for posters who take it upon themselves to tell others members of the forum what they can or cannot post, and the sarcasm in my post, which you have correctly identified, was directed at that purpose.

Sarcasm doesn't work terribly well without a tone of voice to go with it, I've found, and you are a rather sarcastic personality, in my experience, especially with those you disagree with or with arguments you find silly.

That really is just your opinion and I'm not sure why you feel the need to express that opinion. Whether you like or don't like my "sarcastic personality" is not to the point because I was asking about the derogatory and insulting posts that you claim to have seen.

There have also been a number of occasions when you respond to a post with excellent information and arguments, but you introduce it with a rather insulting and dismissive tone or phrase .

We have shifted from insults to "insulting and dismissive tone or phrase". I can't recall the exact post that you have quoted but I have no doubt that the pompous paragraph I identified was indeed hilariously pompous. Or are you saying that if I see an hilariously pompous statement I am not allowed to say that I find it so?

It was a number of these sorts of interactions I observed at the beginning of my time lurking on Casebook that initially left a bad taste in my mouth, and I associated your username with insults and demeanment.

Although you are unable to provide a single example of one of my alleged insults?

As time has gone on, you have done quite a lot to mitigate that first impression, and perhaps I should have amended my post to read "a number of David Orsam's posts that I have read", as I haven't spent a whole lot of time in the victim sections of the forums, where you have been doing a large of excellent posting. .

Thank you but, as I have said, language is important and there is a very big difference between "the majority" and "some" of my posts.

I have been a bit hasty in my reply, and I apologize for that. And yes, upon further reflection I do find my above sentence to be more derogatory and insulting than I find appropriate.

You will forgive me for laughing I hope. The biter bit and all that. But well done, not many people would have admitted it.

I hope you will forgive me for that.

Of course.

However, I do still find your name beside posts of this sort occasionally, which has kept it in my mind with negative associations. Perhaps it's the problem of communication via text over the Internet without cues from the tone of voice in which you speak, and the way I have read many of your posts (perhaps colored by my early experiences on the site) have been read in my head in a confrontational, insulting, sarcastic tone.

You can have whatever impressions of me and my username that you like but I would suggest/advise/recommend that if you feel the need to express those feelings that you do it accurately, ideally with some specific examples in mind, so that we don't have to go through such a needlessly time-wasting exercise as this again.

[kookingpot]

Thank you, David. Message received.

You will forgive me for laughing I hope. The biter bit and all that.

But this is the sort of comment I am talking about, and which I dislike, which ends up mixed in with quite excellent and useful commentary. It takes an otherwise useful and appropriate response and reduces it to what feels to me (and given what I have seen on these forums in the past) like the insults to which I refer. It may not be directly what you define as an "insult", but it still feels dismissive and demeaning to the one receiving the comment.

Now, I hope we can put this behind us and focus on things that are more important than interpersonal drama and Internet slapfights.

[David Orsam]

But this is the sort of comment I am talking about, and which I dislike, which ends up mixed in with quite excellent and useful commentary. It takes an otherwise useful and appropriate response and reduces it to what feels to me (and given what I have seen on these forums in the past) like the insults to which I refer. It may not be directly what you define as an "insult", but it still feels dismissive and demeaning to the one receiving the comment.

It probably only feels like that because you have (with apologies) misunderstood it. I was commenting on something I found genuinely amusing and it wasn't supposed to be "confrontational" or "dismissive". I won't bother explaining the humour to you if you can't see it immediately save to say that you should have focussed on the last part of that paragraph where I congratulated you for the admission you made, which was genuine. Believe me, very few posters on this forum would have made such a concession as you did. In a way, it was the fact that you made such a surprising concession which was what was funny about it. Not many people that I've argued with on this board are as rational or reasonable as you. Anyway, I unreservedly retract that particular statement if it upset you. Can't say fairer than that!

[kookingpot]

It probably only feels like that because you have (with apologies) misunderstood it. I was commenting on something I found genuinely amusing and it wasn't supposed to be "confrontational" or "dismissive". I won't bother explaining the humour to you if you can't see it immediately save to say that you should have focussed on the last part of that paragraph where I congratulated you for the admission you made, which was genuine. Believe me, very few posters on this forum would have made such a concession as you did. In a way, it was the fact that you made such a surprising concession which was what was funny about it. Not many people that I've argued with on this board are as rational or reasonable as you. Anyway, I unreservedly retract that particular statement if it upset you. Can't say fairer than that!

I appreciate that. I did read the rest of your post and appreciated what you said. Thanks. On with the investigations!