A present for Scotland Yard

[Pierre]

He was born before ... 1858? Well, thanks - I think. But why did you not answer the question I put to you, using the year 1855?

Just curious.

Because it is your classification. And since you have made a classification you might have an hypothesis about people being born before and after 1855. And your hypothesis is wrong anyway. So i picked an arbitrary year in the 1850s.

Regards Pierre

[GUT]

He was born before ... 1858? Well, thanks - I think. But why did you not answer the question I put to you, using the year 1855?

Just curious.

My guess? He was born in '55 so couldn't answer.

[Fisherman]

He was born before 1858.

Regards Pierre

He was born before ... 1858? Well, thanks - I think. But why did you not answer the question I put to you, using the year 1855?

Just curious.

[Elamarna]

GUT

thanks

nothing to hide, 56 and proud of it

Steve

[Pierre]

How about pinning down if he was born before or after 1855 then, Pierre? Surely that would give away practically nothing at all.

He was born before 1858.

Regards Pierre

[GUT]

my dear boy i am a good deal order than you are.
stop being patronising, you don't do it very well
relax? why do you think i am not relaxed?

Not sure if you are older than p or not but you sure act more mature.

I know something you don't nah nah nah nah nah

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

I donīt know your age, Steve. But during 127 years people, and generations of ripperologists, have been wondering who Jack the Ripper was.

Presuming you have some years left in your own life, you should be happy knowing that you and your generation might be the ones who will get to know the real ID of Jack the Ripper.

So relax.

Regards Pierre

my dear boy i am a good deal order than you are.
stop being patronising, you don't do it very well
relax? why do you think i am not relaxed?

[Fisherman]

[/COLOR]

No.

Regards Pierre

How about pinning down if he was born before or after 1855 then, Pierre? Surely that would give away practically nothing at all.

[Pierre]

Because you don't know or because you refuse to say?

I know it.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

regards

Hi Steve,

I donīt know your age, Steve. But during 127 years people, and generations of ripperologists, have been wondering who Jack the Ripper was.

Presuming you have some years left in your own life, you should be happy knowing that you and your generation might be the ones who will get to know the real ID of Jack the Ripper.

So relax.

Regards Pierre

[GUT]

[/COLOR]

No.

Regards Pierre

Because you don't know or because you refuse to say?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Fisherman

Your policeman, Pierre - can you give an approximation as to when he was born? A span of five years will do, and it will leave him incognito.

No.

Regards Pierre

[GUT]

I am not enjoying myself at all. there is no fun in trying to discuss with a "Brick Wall" A truly Pointless exercise

A bit like hitting your head against that same brick wall Steve, feels good when you stop.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

You write "he would have to say more and more".

I donīt know what gave you the idea that I donīt chose to write want I want here and nothing else.

EGO

Also, you have an idea you and the others here on the forum could decide whether the person I have found should be "accepted" or not. Well, you canīt. And do you know why you canīt do that?

You actually believe you evidence is so "STRONG"

Because either he was the killer or not. So he can never be a "suspect", a "contender" or "accepted/rejected" and so on and so forth.

Learn English, they are a suspect since you believe they did it

That sort of thinking is exactly the reason why no one has managed to find Jack the Ripper until now, if I have happened to find him.

So I will not give you his name without knowing if he was the killer or not.

You see, Steve, this is not a game. This is reality.

You are right these murders were no game, but the game you are playing is nearly up

But I do understand that you are enjoying yourself. So please do go ahead with it. And I like our discussions. They are interesting.

I am not enjoying myself at all. there is no fun in trying to discuss with a "Brick Wall" A truly Pointless exercise

Kind Regards, Pierre

regards

[John G]

Thanks John. I am just uncomfortable that Dr Biggs perhaps 'casual' comments based on scant material I provided in the four torso cases is being referenced as some sort of academic research just because it happens to have been published in a rushed, and in places inaccurate, after-thought chapter in Trevor Marriott's book. I wasn't aware this material would be published and I wonder if Dr Biggs did.

Recently Dr Biggs (via Marriott) mentioned that he had worked on a 'handful' of cases involving dismemberment in his short career and that two cases can look very similar in terms of how someone would go about reducing a body for disposal. That's very interesting but Dr Biggs list of the usual commonalities included 'splitting torsos in half' whereas; two of the four cases under discussion had their torso divided into 3 sections, one into 2 and one not divided, so Dr Biggs was obviously not addressing specifics of the four cases in his conclusions, just making general comments.

I might also guess that Dr Biggs 'handful' of cases weren't all cases of a similar victim type- gender, age, displaying similar wounds and organs removed at a time when a post mortem mutilator was at work in the same city.

I will leave it there also.

Thanks once again, Debra. As always you make some excellent points, maybe you should write a definitive book on the subject with Trevor. Of course, considering the Torsos appeared to have been dismembered differently, or applying different techniques, the question arises as to whether this is indicative of multiple perpetrators. Of course, I have argued myself that most of the victims may have been murdered by a single perpetrator, but I'm conscious of the fact that it's easy to ignore important or relevant facts of they don't fit with a particularly theory, and that's clearly not bring objective!