A present for Scotland Yard

[Mister Whitechapel]

Good Afternoon

I see OP takes 13 lines to say he is not a certain ex poster, and PC Harvey was not the killer. Well I knew the first already! and the 2nd was not really a starter I think.

We then get a little group of harmless lines, which repeat the word silent or Silence 12 times in 6 lines of writing.- got it the the killer was THE DOCTOR*

I would say this was a post which said little

but it said lots.

*( if you don't get it, don't worry tv Dr WHO)

"Ssssilence will faaaall...."

[Elamarna]

Good Afternoon

I see OP takes 13 lines to say he is not a certain ex poster, and PC Harvey was not the killer. Well I knew the first already! and the 2nd was not really a starter I think.

We then get a little group of harmless lines, which repeat the word silent or Silence 12 times in 6 lines of writing.- got it the the killer was THE DOCTOR*

I would say this was a post which said little

but it said lots.

*( if you don't get it, don't worry tv Dr WHO)

[Mister Whitechapel]

I seem to find references to a letter to Sir Charles Warren about the results of the trialling of silent boots for Police Officers, but I can't find any that I can read nor who the correspondent was.

(There were also, apparently, six suggestions from the public regarding the same as suggestions as to how to catch the 'Ripper'.)

Can't quite believe I'm entertaining the idea based on such minimal and 'clickbait' snippets from the OP, but could this be part of the 'evidence', if 'silence' is an aspect important to the identity of the suspect?

Of course, it's more likely I've been suckered-in like I promised I wouldn't be and have been manipulated into developing apophenia...!

Yours,
Mister Whitechapel

[GUT]

Silence or hang.

Pierre or Jacky Boy?.?.?

[Varqm]

Silence or hang.

[Pierre]

Did Pierre just admit to being misleading and contradictory?

Before the crash on this site there was a poster going by the name John Drake. He did almost the exact same thing Pierre is doing now. Strangely, his imaginary suspect was also a police officer, PC James Harvey.

Maybe this is the re-birth of our friend, Mr. Drake. I can't remember his real name, but he was into firewalking.

Hi,

Well, I am not John Drake either. Or maybe I am? Who knows, misleading as I am. But one thing is certain. The person I think was Jack the Ripper was not PC James Harvey. So what could Harvey possibly tell us about Jack the Ripper, if anything?

"HARVEY, P.C. James...

Testified to having heard nothing on the night of Catherine Eddowes' murder, although his beat took him throughout the area of Mitre Square that morning."

He could tell us that the murderer was very silent.

And how could we possibly interpret this?

We could interpret this as the murderer being able to be silent when he wanted to be silent and that he understood the value of silence. Silence was a useful tool for the murderer, giving him the possibility to murder and mutilate his victim. This silence must have been his companion throughout the whole murder process, from when he was walking in silent shoes to when he chose his victim, when he murdered and mutilated her, and when he walked away from the crime scene. Silence must have been his best friend. And he must have known how to perform a silent murder, since he managed to be absolutely silent. But in this silence - could it be that he spoke? Could it be that he communicated with the police? Did he want to say anything to them? And can we distinguish the silence in Mitre Square from his message on the face of Eddowes? Or will we believe that everything he did was ruled by silence?

And by the way, I am not into firewalking. I am into putting out fires.

Regards Pierre

[GUT]

Because then he would immediately have revealed everything here on the forum and he would immediately have made a new TV documentary. He would never have been able to wait if he had my data sources.

He revealed his suspect having very little evidence. I donīt reveal the person who I think is the killer although I have a lot.

Regards, Pierre

You haven't so why must he?

[GUT]

GUT

thanks

nothing to hide, 56 and proud of it

Steve

Hey same.

[Elamarna]

Jerrrd,
there was at least one more. who had a different suspect'

he thinks he is being witty when he says those things

[JadenCollins]

Cuilibet fatuo placet sua calva

So accurate!

[jerryd]

Hi "Pierre",

Now you're actually starting to make logical sense!

Did Pierre just admit to being misleading and contradictory?

Before the crash on this site there was a poster going by the name John Drake. He did almost the exact same thing Pierre is doing now. Strangely, his imaginary suspect was also a police officer, PC James Harvey.

Maybe this is the re-birth of our friend, Mr. Drake. I can't remember his real name, but he was into firewalking.

[John G]

Hi "John G",

how nice. No, I am not Bruce Robinson. But who knows? Being so misleading and contradictory, maybe I am?

Regards, "Pierre"

Hi "Pierre",

Now you're actually starting to make logical sense!

[Pierre]

Hi "Pierre",

You know I'm starting to quite like you. At least you're an antidote to those who sometimes take things a little too seriously- oh, wait a minute, that might include me!

Anyway, regarding the latest irrational gem: apparently you don't regard your "suspect" as a mere suspect. However, logically even from your own perspective he, or she, is just that and no more, i.e. because by your own admission you haven't completed your research yet and what you currently have is therefore merely a "theory", and you only "think" the person his the killer.

By the way, you're not Bruce Robinson are you?

Hi "John G",

how nice. No, I am not Bruce Robinson. But who knows? Being so misleading and contradictory, maybe I am?

Regards, "Pierre"

[Pierre]

so how can you be sure someone else does not have the same data?

you said:

"Fisherman can not have the same data sources."

how can you know that?

Because then he would immediately have revealed everything here on the forum and he would immediately have made a new TV documentary. He would never have been able to wait if he had my data sources.

He revealed his suspect having very little evidence. I donīt reveal the person who I think is the killer although I have a lot.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

Well, it is easy for you to criticize both me and what you believe is my data and my theory, since you do not know the data sources. You can just assume they have a low validity and reliability. And you are hoping that this strategy will get me to start defending the sources, thereby revealing them and the person I think was the killer. But 127 years have passed and people have been wondering who he was during all this time. Generations have passed by. So I am in no hurry. But that doesnīt mean I will wait longer than necessary with presenting the results as soon as the last bit is done.

Regards, Pierre

Hi "Pierre",

You know I'm starting to quite like you. At least you're an antidote to those who sometimes take themselves a little too seriously- oh, wait a minute, that might include me! Scratch that last comment!

Anyway, regarding the latest irrational gem: apparently you don't regard your "suspect" as a mere suspect. However, logically even from your own perspective he, or she, is just that and no more, i.e. because by your own admission you haven't completed your research yet and what you currently have is therefore merely a "theory", and you only "think" the person is the killer.

By the way, you're not Bruce Robinson are you?