The profession of Jack the Ripper.

[David Orsam]

</script>textarea" rows="10" cols="60" style="width:540px; height:250px" tabindex="1" dir="ltr">

Hello David,

Happy New Year to you. I'm starting to feel a little sorry for "Pierre". I mean, to be fair to him, when you've started so many threads it must be difficult to keep track of everything, i e. remembering what you've said and what you haven't said-the "suspect" is definitely not a police officer/ the "suspect definitely is a police officer...or maybe a police official!

As the great Walter Scott so succinctly put it: "Oh what a tangled web we weave..."

Hi John - yes, indeed, well, he definitely said (on 3 Nov) that his suspect "wasn't a Scotland Yard official" but now, for some reason, he seems to be unable to confirm that this statement was true.

[Elamarna]

Steve,

Aldgate East was an underground station and opened on 6 October 1884.

agreed i should have been more specific, i was responding to the from whitechapel to london hospital possibility.

[Pierre]

HI,

I saw this and must comment on it:

"Originally Posted by David Orsam
The thing about the uniforms that I don't understand is that Pierre told us on 2 November that his suspect was someone "with a high position connected to some important institution". He was someone who was "well educated" and had "a lot of experience, had special skills, was highly intelligent" and who had "all the advantages". How could this suspect be a mere uniformed officer?"

Who has said anything about his rank? And, reading this, I can see that David has even less knowledge about the British police than I have. Amazing.

Regards Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Craig,

I was reading the article by Bernard Brown that you published here and it contains something I have not seen before.

I think it is an extremely important clue and will publish a post about it soon in a new thread!

Thanks, Craig, for showing a real interest in the case and for publishing valuable material!

Kind regards, Pierre

yet another chance to confuse.

its a new year thread, number 31 I think, none of which say anything!

Can I suggest as a new years resolution , that when someone asks you a question, you don't reply by asking them an unrelated question.

You claim to killer was telling the police I am smarter than you.

The same thing you tell members of this board over and over again.

when are you going to apologise to me?

[Monty]

id never seen Bernards work before, very interesting!! (and monty, i'll check out your book - i assume that Amazon link is to it?)

Yes Marc,

Paperback due out this month.

Monty

[Pierre]

He is stating a possibility and that's all. I think he should have a reasonable expectation that people on the forum will see it for what it is. If, by some chance, it turns out he could be right, I think that would reflect well on him and upon the forum. What would look very poor for the forum would be that folks dismissed and ridiculed the poster in that case.

Hi,

What David is doing with the expression "a quarter of a mile" is called decontextualizing. It is one of his strategies to destroy everything I write.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Hi Steve,

youŽll find it in the post "An important discovery".

Happy new year!

Regards Pierre

[John G]

Hi,

What David is doing with the expression "a quarter of a mile" is called decontextualizing. It is one of his strategies to destroy everything I write.

Kind regards, Pierre

That's what I like about you "Pierre". You use impressive words, like "decontextualizing". I mean, it's just like you're a proper academic!

[Pierre]

That's what I like about you "Pierre". You use impressive words, like "decontextualizing". I mean, it's just like you're a proper academic!

I am not interesting, John. The case is. Go and read my new post about it, "An important discovery".

Kind regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi,

What David is doing with the expression "a quarter of a mile" is called decontextualizing. It is one of his strategies to destroy everything I write.

Kind regards, Pierre

Well you should know Pierre, you do it with my posts to you.

you quoted me:

"yes it would have been,...QUOTE]" thread a present for Scotland Yard, post 117

in the next post 118
i corrected you for doing just what you claim David is doing. i underline the part you quoted, taken by you and posted out of context with the aim to give a false impression

"don t cut quotes to give a false impression."

"yes it would have been, however there is much to suggest that Stride was killed by a different hand, not my view, but there are strong arguments in that viewpoint.

There is no evidence that the double event was planned as such in advance.

You claim you have such evidence, however until such evidence is available for inspection by others, it is with all due respect heresay."

"IF IT WERE PLANNED FROM START TO FINISH, WITH A TIMETABLE, KNOWING BEATS WOULD HELP. BUT SUCH A SUGGESTION AS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT."




Yes David's quote was incomplete,it said actually said "Nearly quarter of a mile" not "quarter of a mile" as he quoted.

The full quote as i have just given, actually weakens your cryptic argument, it does not support it.

[David Orsam]

Hi,

What David is doing with the expression "a quarter of a mile" is called decontextualizing. It is one of his strategies to destroy everything I write.

I haven't done anything with the expression "a quarter of a mile". You told us that it means "13 & 20 Miller's Court". You told us that when it was used by the author of the letter published in the Standard and LDN on 6 November 1888 it was providing the "exact address" to the next Ripper murder(s).

So I'm using it in the exact same way you used it. Perhaps you are destroying everything you write yourself?

[David Orsam]

HI,

I saw this and must comment on it:

"Originally Posted by David Orsam
The thing about the uniforms that I don't understand is that Pierre told us on 2 November that his suspect was someone "with a high position connected to some important institution". He was someone who was "well educated" and had "a lot of experience, had special skills, was highly intelligent" and who had "all the advantages". How could this suspect be a mere uniformed officer?"

Who has said anything about his rank? And, reading this, I can see that David has even less knowledge about the British police than I have. Amazing.

Who indeed said anything about his rank? I certainly didn't.

You told us that your suspect was someone "with a high position". I asked how he could be a mere uniformed officer.

But I said nothing at all about the rank.

Now perhaps you could explain for us what you are actually saying.

Was your suspect a uniformed officer in 1888?

Was your suspect a Scotland Yard official in 1888?

Very simple questions, capable of very simple answers.

[John G]

I am not interesting, John. The case is. Go and read my new post about it, "An important discovery".

Kind regards, Pierre

Cryptic aphorisms as well! Brilliant...absolutely brilliant! I like your style! By the way, did you read Monty's reply?

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

youŽll find it in the post "An important discovery".

Happy new year!

Regards Pierre

And the same to you

I have seen it.

its full of your views on yet another, but not unknown letter, your opinion.

and about that YOU said:

""Gut feeling", "personal opinions" and stuff like that can not be used to write history. "

[Mayerling]

Who indeed said anything about his rank? I certainly didn't.

You told us that your suspect was someone "with a high position". I asked how he could be a mere uniformed officer.

But I said nothing at all about the rank.

Now perhaps you could explain for us what you are actually saying.

Was your suspect a uniformed officer in 1888?

Was your suspect a Scotland Yard official in 1888?

Very simple questions, capable of very simple answers.

Hi David,

And to you and everyone reading this Happy New Year 2016!

I'm afraid I am more to blame about the issue of the uniform, because I wanted to get a point across. If the Ripper was a uniformed police officer I was curious about the rules concerning the care of the uniform (i.e. stains, rips, tears), and who was responsible: the police department or the officer.
However 1) I was also mentioning civilian clothes for Detectives, undercover officers, and officials of the police departments; and 2) I was seeking to see how any blood stains on the clothing of these parties would have escaped notice. Rochelle was nice enough to answer the question yesterday - quite fully by the way - about the variety of uniform washing systems used in 1888.

At the time I was surprised at Pierre's pithy comment regarding my inquiry, to the effect that he knew nothing about it. Reason I was surprised is that since I was obviously discussing damaged and bloodstained clothing worn by somebody in the police departments (City of London, Metropolitan, Counties Constabularies, .... now I should add railway police and I should not forget river police) it is connected to forensics even in 1888. And Pierre was discussing his interest being entirely towards forensics. Yet he dismissed the issue somewhat. That's up to him...I've dismissed questions too. Still it surprised me.

By the way, the railway police played a bad role in an 1881 murder case, when a railway police officer (ironically named "Holmes" of all things) managed to allow the man he was accompanying back to his home (in order to get a change of clothing) to fool him and leave the house out a back door while the officer was standing the house's front door. That was Percy Lefroy Mapleton who tricked the policeman - and was at large for two weeks before being captured.

Jeff