The profession of Jack the Ripper.

[David Orsam]

Pierre gave several clues on his suspect :- an official of Scotland Yard / Metropolitan Police (not London City Policy)

Hi Craig,

I was surprised to read this because on 3 November 2015, Pierre said:

"the person I have found wasn´t a Scotland Yard official".

That is the direct opposite of what you now claim he is saying. Has he categorically stated that he was lying on 3 November and that his suspect was indeed a Scotland Yard official? If so, do you have a reference for this?

[John G]

Hi Craig,

I was surprised to read this because on 3 November 2015, Pierre said:

"the person I have found wasn´t a Scotland Yard official".

That is the direct opposite of what you now claim he is saying. Has he categorically stated that he was lying on 3 November and that his suspect was indeed a Scotland Yard official? If so, do you have a reference for this?

Hi David,

I would refer you to Pierre's posts 21 and 22 on this thread. Apparently he changed his mind because, "I don't want to carry this alone anymore". Seems he decided to share this great burden with all of us.

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

I would refer you to Pierre's posts 21 and 22 on this thread. Apparently he changed his mind because, "I don't want to carry this alone anymore". Seems he decided to share this great burden with all of us.

Well in #21 Steve (Elamarna) said: "I am sure that Pierre denied it was a police officer before".

Pierre replied:

"Yes, I did. But I have changed my mind."

So that's "police officer" only, which doesn't help us as to Scotland Yard.

Then in #22 it gets confusing because Steve realised that Pierre had never in fact denied his suspect was a police officer, only having said that he wasn't "a Scotland Yard official".

So Steve said: "I was mistaken in my belief that you said it was not a police officer, and I am happy to apologise".

But Pierre says: "No Steve, you were right. So no need to apologise."

Steve wasn't, in fact, right unless Pierre thinks that a Scotland Yard official is synonymous with a police officer.

In short, in neither #21 nor #22 did Pierre categorically confirm that his suspect was a Scotland Yard official. Further, in #163, Pierre point blank refused to say whether his suspect was a Scotland Yard official or not:

"So the question was not about the police in general but it was about me saying that he was not a Scotland Yard official? Then I won´t be able to answer the question, that is, if the question is "Was he a Scotland Yard official?". "

That is why I keep stressing the importance of two questions:

1. Was Pierre's suspect a uniformed officer in 1888? (this would rule out C.I.D. if so)

2. Was Pierre's suspect a Scotland Yard official in 1888?

Perhaps someone might care to ask him considering that he claims to be ignoring me.

[Elamarna]

Hi Whitechapel


"Monty has mentioned DS Thick, can you please name your policemen suspects as all I have found is poets, authors, lunatics, doctors (quacks or otherwise) and merchant seamen.!


sorry, i will list some of the threads for you, not sure why you could not find them:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8861

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8505

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=6243

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4393

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4474

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=858

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=319

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2311

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=1667

"I still think Pierre is doing original research, as on the subject of PC Jack he has moved the subject forward. The idea of PC Jack might be old but isn't that what a cold case review is about ? In my research on other things, not JTR, I can think the subject is dead and then discover something new and revolutionise it. I think love him or hate him (Marmite), Pierre is taking the subject to a new level. "


Can I ask what research Pierre you think is doing that has moved the subject forward?

He keeps talking about his research, but never tells us about it, re read his threads, see what he actually says, I could well have missed something?

All he has present on the boards in the form of evidence is :

1. A cryptic letter, if you read the general suspect threads there are literally hundreds of these, all being interpreted to prove the thread writers suspect is the killer.

Apparently Craig H found this letter, after he was given hints by Pierre in Private, why not just give it in the first place.

And in case you missed it Pierre says this is not research towards his theory.



2. A statement that the killer was a police official. Some comments about the cuts on the face of Eddowes, which he then would not elaborate on when asked, and yet again he says not part of his research



3. the letter of the 29th inst. again this was posted by Craig H, Pierre had not found it. Pierre then comes up with an idea, based on a mistake from 1959, when the date was changed from 29th inst. to 29th September.

With all due respect to you Whitechapel how is he taking it to anew level, you are seeing something which i just fail to see, which is why i ask you?




"Pierre doesn't have a background in ripperology but that has its advantages and disadvantages as yes he is going to stumble into old rehearsed debates but on the other hand he is looking at it with fresh eyes and might come up with something new to move the subject forward."


Yes it can have advantages, but the lack of background knowledge means ideas are posted that are easily refuted, but hours are spent trying to convince the poster of the facts. this time could be spent on useful discussion instead, don't you agree?
if he does come up with something indeed if anyone does it would be great!




"An excellent post by Craig H, listing likely PC Jack candidates. I have a degree but I don't really care where the ideas come from. There is such a limited database, that the only way of moving the subject forward is to broaden the number of people working on it."


Agreed, it is an interesting list, but if you read the threads I provided you will see nothing new.
Yes the more people working on it seriously the better

My view is that like Sutcliffe, JTR was missed. He is there in the documentary sources and as much as he seemed like a ghost, he was regularly making mistakes and that the policemen interviewed him at least once. I think that explains why there was a gap in his monthly cycle as he laid low for a while. Also Israel Schwartz identified Elizabeth Stride and felt that JTR was still in the yard due to the behaviour of his pony. However both PC Smith and Schwartz describe men that they saw talking to Stride but none of them were dressed as policemen. Over to you Pierre."


Could not agree with you more Whitechapel, I hope we can have some interesting sharing of views in the future.

regards

Steve

[Pcdunn]

Hello, David--

Re your recent post, I asked earlier in this thread if the person Pierre is investigating (he dislikes us calling him/her "a suspect") was CID. I have not yet received an answer.

[David Orsam]

Hello, David--

Re your recent post, I asked earlier in this thread if the person Pierre is investigating (he dislikes us calling him/her "a suspect") was CID. I have not yet received an answer.

Yes, I noticed. Very rude of him.

[John G]

Well in #21 Steve (Elamarna) said: "I am sure that Pierre denied it was a police officer before".

Pierre replied:

"Yes, I did. But I have changed my mind."

So that's "police officer" only, which doesn't help us as to Scotland Yard.

Then in #22 it gets confusing because Steve realised that Pierre had never in fact denied his suspect was a police officer, only having said that he wasn't "a Scotland Yard official".

So Steve said: "I was mistaken in my belief that you said it was not a police officer, and I am happy to apologise".

But Pierre says: "No Steve, you were right. So no need to apologise."

Steve wasn't, in fact, right unless Pierre thinks that a Scotland Yard official is synonymous with a police officer.

In short, in neither #21 nor #22 did Pierre categorically confirm that his suspect was a Scotland Yard official. Further, in #163, Pierre point blank refused to say whether his suspect was a Scotland Yard official or not:

"So the question was not about the police in general but it was about me saying that he was not a Scotland Yard official? Then I won´t be able to answer the question, that is, if the question is "Was he a Scotland Yard official?". "

That is why I keep stressing the importance of two questions:

1. Was Pierre's suspect a uniformed officer in 1888? (this would rule out C.I.D. if so)

2. Was Pierre's suspect a Scotland Yard official in 1888?

Perhaps someone might care to ask him considering that he claims to be ignoring me.

Clearly Pierre uses equivocation as a strategy. For instance, I asked him how he would differentiate a "police official" from a "police officer." Not surprisingly he declined to respond.

Mind you, I'm a bit surprised that he hasn't responded to my request to provide a list of academic texts, i.e. peer reviewed journal articles, that he's had published!

[Mayerling]

Hi Steve my view is based on what I have read and seen and I have not heard of a policeman being put forward as JTR. However I didn't know for sure and that is why I said "I think I'm right . . .Unless others know otherwise". I was floating the boat.

Monty has mentioned DS Thick, can you please name your policemen suspects as all I have found is poets, authors, lunatics, doctors (quacks or otherwise) and merchant seamen.

I googled Monty and first on the list was a thread in Casebook about Cliques and cartels in Ripperology, Pierre you are going to love this

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5362&page=2

Btw from this thread and this other one

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?p=122688

Monty is Neil Bell author of Capturing Jack the Ripper: In the boots of a Bobby in Victorian London

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Capturing-Jack-The-Ripper-Victorian/dp/1445621622

However jokes aside, I'm looking forward to Monty's new book.

"Neil Bell is one of the most respected students of the Ripper case. He has been published extensively in specialist journals such as Ripperologist and Casebook Examiner, as well as for the BBC. Neil has written numerous articles upon the case and was the runner-up for the Jeremy Beadle Prize for the year’s best articles featured in Ripperologist magazine in 2009 and 2010. Neil has also recently been Police Advisor for the Channel Five documentary Jack the Ripper: The Definitive Story. He has provided information for the TV series Ripper Street."

I still think Pierre is doing original research, as on the subject of PC Jack he has moved the subject forward. The idea of PC Jack might be old but isn't that what a cold case review is about ? In my research on other things, not JTR, I can think the subject is dead and then discover something new and revolutionise it. I think love him or hate him (Marmite), Pierre is taking the subject to a new level.

Pierre doesn't have a background in ripperology but that has its advantages and disadvantages as yes he is going to stumble into old rehearsed debates but on the other hand he is looking at it with fresh eyes and might come up with something new to move the subject forward.

An excellent post by Craig H, listing likely PC Jack candidates. I have a degree but I don't really care where the ideas come from. There is such a limited database, that the only way of moving the subject forward is to broaden the number of people working on it.

My view is that like Sutcliffe, JTR was missed. He is there in the documentary sources and as much as he seemed like a ghost, he was regularly making mistakes and that the policemen interviewed him at least once. I think that explains why there was a gap in his monthly cycle as he laid low for a while. Also Israel Schwartz identified Elizabeth Stride and felt that JTR was still in the yard due to the behaviour of his pony. However both PC Smith and Schwartz describe men that they saw talking to Stride but none of them were dressed as policemen. Over to you Pierre.

Hi Whitechapel,

As far as I recall few police officers or officials were specifically chosen or named as suspects. There were discussions of several who committed suicide in 1888 or later (the second was a relative in the Yard of the suspect Thomas Cutbush - so you might look there). But the main ones listed in the section on police on this website are discussed for their known roles in the Whitechapel murders. The idea of a policeman killer had been bandied about. Fictionally may I suggest a story that had the Whitechapel killings in mind entitled, "The Hands of Mr. Otterpoll". I believe that was the title.

Pierre certainly has an interesting approach to the subject matter here. I can't recall anyone who has stirred up so many with such pithy comments (for the most part), and even pithier crumbs of his theories. I hope you don't think I meant they were crummy, but they resemble crumbs of information being given to us to study and digest if we can.

By the way, I understand your comparison of Jack to Peter Sutcliffe, but it is not completely true - the authorities eventually caught up with and named Peter Sutcliffe as the "Yorkshire Ripper" and he is now in prison. But I take it you meant Sutcliffe was looked at by the police earlier, but discarded with short sightedness, and the Ripper was possibly also briefly noticed but discarded.

Jeff

[Elamarna]

Hi Jeff



I think you will find at least 6 in specific threads in the general suspects area, along with several post discussing several officers.

so that is a fair number.

steve

[Jeff Leahy]

Didn't some Frenchman write a book specifically naming Nelville MacNaughten as Jack the Ripper?

Yours Jeff

[Elamarna]

Yes

it was a woman

Sophie Herfort.

there was a thread on this stated by someone who had very poor English, and was extremely arrogant and very rude, they were banned from the site after a mere 35 posts.

steve

[Mayerling]

Yes

it was a woman

Sophie Herfort.

there was a thread on this stated by someone who had very poor English, and was extremely arrogant and very rude, they were banned from the site after a mere 35 posts.

steve

Thanks for the point about the six specifically suggested. I'll have to reviews them Steve.

Really, somebody who was rude and arrogant and had problems with English was supporting this theory of Ms Herfort? And he was banned? Amazing.

Jeff

[Elamarna]

Jeff
I know,

He said really rude things about the people on this site, things like we were all untrained and real experts had nothing to do with "Ripperology"

As I always say, nothing is new

steve

[Mayerling]

Jeff
I know,

He said really rude things about the people on this site, things like we were all untrained and real experts had nothing to do with "Ripperology"

As I always say, nothing is new

steve

Gee, I guess the book of "Ecclesiastes" was right: There truly is nothing new under the sun.

I wonder what ever happened to this rude man?

Jeff

[John G]

Thanks for the point about the six specifically suggested. I'll have to reviews them Steve.

Really, somebody who was rude and arrogant and had problems with English was supporting this theory of Ms Herfort? And he was banned? Amazing.

Jeff

The book's titled Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Knew, written by Sophie and Florence Herfort. Interestingly, there's also a French edition.