The profession of Jack the Ripper.

[GUT]

Has Pierre said his suspect may have been a City policeman? I apologise for having to ask but I'm in a muddle at the moment about what Pierre has stated as a fact, retracted, hinted at, phrased in metaphorical language and outright denied.

If he has hinted at the City Police being involved I wouldn't be surprised if Inspector Sagar is the suspect, in spite of Sagar not having lived in a mansion as far as I know. Perhaps Pierre has tracked down Sagar's long-lost memoirs. (He seems to be the likeliest on Craig's shortlist anyway.)

No idea which force Oierre has his suspect in, it seems to keep changing.

[el_pombo]

Pierre is now following the premise that the ripper was a member of the Police and has narrowed down his suspect list to Gordon Matthew Sumner, Henry Padovani, Andy Summers and Stewart Copeland.

[GUT]

Pierre is now following the premise that the ripper was a member of the Police and has narrowed down his suspect list to Gordon Matthew Sumner, Henry Padovani, Andy Summers and Stewart Copeland.

and how do you know that??

[el_pombo]

and how do you know that??

I was just joking, those names are a list of members of "The Police", a well known English rock band.

I apologise, I know this is a serious forum.

[Hercule Poirot]

Pierre can't tell you as you are not an academic of his lofty standards.

Gut, you and many got to get over with the academic/no degree issue. We all know that even if one has a university degree, all it gives you is a series of parameters possibly helping one to build a way of thinking. But once in the real world, one quickly understands that it's all he's got. Through experience, one becomes aware it has introduced a fundamental bias and he has to confront it with reality. That's when you find out the world splits in two, theoricians who will go for a Phd and pratical commun sense humans who will rediscover their domain of expertise thanks to facts, limits introduced by collegues and years of experience on how the world works.

I've studied law and business trade and have at least one university degree and can only repeat what I said, it gives us a way of thinking. I used to be a computer nerd who did some serious hacking 40 years ago but only studied elementary computer science. I was soon hired by a company working for the Canadian armed forces and developped for them a 128 byte encryption scheme using Markov matrices they still use today. I've been a serious landscaper, wrote a book on water gardening and teached during years without any diploma. So when some try to seperate the world of expertise between academics and non academics and thinking only academics are worthful, as far as I'm concerned and many collegues of mine, it's pure crap.

I hope this will help you calm down a bit and confirm what you already are aware of.

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

P.S. Sorry again for my poor English, just finished drinking a bottle of French Champagne. LOL

[GUT]

I was just joking, those names are a list of members of "The Police", a well known English rock band.

I apologise, I know this is a serious forum.

OK Sorry didn't know they were the Police, for me music stops in the mid 70s

[GUT]

Gut, you and many got to get over with the academic/no degree issue. We all know that even if one has a university degree, all it gives you is a series of parameters possibly helping one to build a way of thinking. But once in the real world, one quickly understands that it's all he's got. Through experience, one becomes aware it has introduced a fundamental bias and he has to confront it with reality. That's when you find out the world splits in two, theoricians who will go for a Phd and pratical commun sense humans who will rediscover their domain of expertise thanks to facts, limits introduced by collegues and years of experience on how the world works.

I've studied law and business trade and have at least one university degree and can only repeat what I said, it gives us a way of thinking. I used to be a computer nerd who did some serious hacking 40 years ago but only studied elementary computer science. I was soon hired by a company working for the Canadian armed forces and developped for them a 128 byte encryption scheme using Markov matrices they still use today. I've been a serious landscaper, wrote a book on water gardening and teached during years without any diploma. So when some try to seperate the world of expertise between academics and non academics and thinking only academics are worthful, as far as I'm concerned and many collegues of mine, it's pure crap.

I hope this will help you calm down a bit and confirm what you already are aware of.

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

P.S. Sorry again for my poor English, just finished drinking a bottle of French Champagne. LOL

No HP it's Pierre who keeps insisting that without a degree you mean nothing.

And sorry I've got a few, my wife has even more (all in history) my daughter more still and my son tops the whole family,

I have never said having a degree makes me better than anyone else, but it is Pierre's oft repeated position that without one any research you do is worthless.

So if you want to defend your hero that's fine, but at least know who is arguing what.

He's already declared that the work of most in the field of ripperology is worthless as they are not "academics".

John has asked a few times what he has published, so far the silence, in response, is deafening.

[Wickerman]

I was just joking, those names are a list of members of "The Police", a well known English rock band.

I apologise, I know this is a serious forum.

No, not at all, a bit of levity is good. If you had just put (Sting) after Sumner we might have cottoned on.
Speaking for myself, some of us are a bit slow when we don't know the poster well enough to see a joke coming.

[GUT]

No, not at all, a bit of levity is good. If you had just put (Sting) after Sumner we might have cottoned on.
Speaking for myself, some of us are a bit slow when we don't know the poster well enough to see a joke coming.

agreed

[Hercule Poirot]

No HP it's Pierre who keeps insisting that without a degree you mean nothing.

And sorry I've got a few, my wife has even more (all in history) my daughter more still and my son tops the whole family,

I have never said having a degree makes me better than anyone else, but it is Pierre's oft repeated position that without one any research you do is worthless.

So if you want to defend your hero that's fine, but at least know who is arguing what.

He's already declared that the work of most in the field of ripperology is worthless as they are not "academics".

John has asked a few times what he has published, so far the silence, in response, is deafening.

Hey Gut, quick and appropriate response, exactly the kind I expected. I hope Pierre will pick up what you and I just said and learn from us old Mountain Dew "Been there, Done that" farts. LOL

BTW, I'm not trying to defend him, just pointing out some interesting elements he may bring out and expecting a minimum respect from senior members towards a junior member.

Cheers,
hercule Poirot

[GUT]

expecting a minimum respect from senior members towards a junior member.

Cheers,
hercule Poirot

I was bought up that one should respect their seniors.

Not much respect from Trollierre unless someone has "academic qualification".

[el_pombo]

No, not at all, a bit of levity is good. If you had just put (Sting) after Sumner we might have cottoned on.
Speaking for myself, some of us are a bit slow when we don't know the poster well enough to see a joke coming.

You're right, that sometimes happens to me too!

I've been avidly reading this thread (and others) but posting very little because I'm totally out of my league in terms of knowledge about the murders.

I also have a "pet theory", since I was 12.

The best (and probably only) way to prove the identity of the ripper after well more than a century would be if the Police had actually caught the murderer but, for some reason, decided to keep it quiet. It's not impossible that someone could find official records of this.

The thing with Pierre's theory - for which he has shown no proof yet - is that if the ripper was indeed a policeman, this could be sufficient to guarantee that, at a time of great civil unrest, the authorities would decide to deal with the matter out of the public eye to avoid outrage against the police.

I'm very skeptic about Pierre's theory - at this point I'm not even sure if the really has a suspect - but at least it got people re-exploring a different approach to the case and we might find something that was previously overlooked.

[Hercule Poirot]

I was bought up that one should respect their seniors.

Not much respect from Trollierre unless someone has "academic qualification".

"academic qualification" is a myth. One has to proove to himself and eventually to his peers to be worthful regardless of the existence or absence of any academic stamp.

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

[Whitechapel]

Just a summary of where I think we are with Pierre's theory and all the clueses. I was going to call it a PC Jack theory like Monty but it seems to be more a Detective-Sergeant Jack or an Inspector Jack theory.

The person that Pierre has found was a police official but not a police surgeon but at the moment he won't confirm if he is a Scotland Yard official.

The suspect once lived in a mansion or expanded farmhouse hinting that the suspect was a higher rank than a constable or sergeant.

Pierre's data can connect this person to five of the canonical murders and two of the dismemberment murders.

Since they are linked to the dismemberment murders, they have some anatomical knowledge praised by the medical men and Dr Bond

The reason for starting on the killing spree was worse than being fired or forced out of the Police service

Chronology of murders
31st August 1888 Ann Nicholls (PC Mizen said Lechmere said a PC was already at the scene). After Nicholls JTR changes his MO of appearing in Uniform.
8th September 1888 Annie Chapman
11th September 1888 Female arm discovered on Thames off Pimlico
28th September 1888 Arm found on Lambeth Road
30th September 1888 Elizabeth Stride & Catherine Eddowes, the latter with V shaped police chevrons on her face
2nd October 1888 Female torso found in construction site of New Scotland Yard. Pierre's hypothesis is that Jack the Ripper wanted to taunt the police by giving them a present, placing it in their new police building.
7th November 1888 Lord Mayors Show
9th November 1888 Mary Jane Kelly murder was designed to upset the London establishment so soon after the Lords Mayor's Show

The reason for ending the long killing spree from 1888 to 1889 was strictly personal and had nothing to do with insanity or suicide.

[Monty]

Point of fact,

All policemen, despite their rank, are officially police constables.

Apart from Commissioners who, until the 1970s, were Justices of the Peace.

So PC Jack remains in my opinion.

Monty