Decorating Kelly´s room with Kelly

[Henry Flower]

Is the Miller's Court crime scene a pre-enactment of the dinner or a reenactment of the portrait? Do tell.

[Pierre]

Is the Miller's Court crime scene a pre-enactment of the dinner or a reenactment of the portrait? Do tell.

The Miller´s Court crime scene was a murder scene. When we discuss pictures, we make and discuss interpretations. So we do not suffer from ontological determinism.

[Henry Flower]

The Miller´s Court crime scene was a murder scene. When we discuss pictures, we make and discuss interpretations. So we do not suffer from ontological determinism.

Not worth my time, sorry. A fraud with a crappy theory.

[John Wheat]

Frankly Pierre you may as well just let the cat out of the bag now, because the hints and sneak-peaks are so hilarious that we already know the theory is far-fetched garbage. Where does your Mary Queen of Scots portrait pose fit in with the Lord Mayor's nosh-up? And I wanted to ask, do you have any sources explaining the existence of the sources that illuminate the motive?

Please just give us the name. Withholding the punchline to this joke is not fair!

Historian my ass!

Pierre is going to have to go some to have the most far fetched theory on these boards. We have the Van Gough theory, the Sickert Theory and posters trying to convince everyone Lechmere was the Ripper on bugger all.

[Henry Flower]

Pierre is going to have to go some to have the most far fetched theory on these boards. We have the Van Gough theory, the Sickert Theory and posters trying to convince everyone Lechmere was the Ripper on bugger all.

Maybe so John, and let's not forget the glorious theory that the murders were committed by a friend of Toulouse-Lautrec to avenge his syphilis; in that instance the theorist claimed that clues to the murders were to be found in certain of Lautrec's paintings, and then promptly claimed also that Lautrec was unaware that his friend was committing the crimes. Genius. That particular theorist claimed to have begun his quest after having a kind of psychic episode in the National Gallery.

And now Pierre.... following in these inglorious footsteps with his absurd theory of a huge official cover-up, a centuries-old portrait, and a motive stemming from a personal or professional vendetta. And he has spent an entire year preparing the ground for this utter garbage by pretending to be a historian and lecturing others on the correct approach to historical sources. Ok, it may not be quite as far-gone as Van Gogh depositing dead dogs in MJK's room, but to be frank I have far more respect for the honest crackpots than I do for this boorish ass who pretends to be better than them (he isn't - unless he's been lying about the details of his theory) but never dares reveal his suspect.

For me he really does represent a new low for these boards.

[Pierre]

Pierre is going to have to go some to have the most far fetched theory on these boards. We have the Van Gough theory, the Sickert Theory and posters trying to convince everyone Lechmere was the Ripper on bugger all.

Hi John,

I will explain my position in a simple way to make it clear.

Firstly, I do not subscribe to ripperology of the type mentioned above.

Secondly, what I do subscribe to are the items on the list I have published.

Thirdly, I allow myself to hypothesize freely about sources that I do not base history on.

So, the first part of the third point is what ripperologists do. They allow themselves to hypothesize freely. I do so too.

But the second part of the third point is what they do but I do not do. They base, what is percieved of as "history" by others (and it is no history), on sources which should not be used for history about Jack the Ripper.

A painting, for example, should not be used for this history. A very doubtful letter should not be used for this history. But one can allow oneself to hypothesize about it.

The reason for hypothezising is that you can create Verstehen for other issues. So the method is a small tool on the way to writing history.

But, and this is very important, the result you get can be wrong. So you have to discard the hypotheses constructed this way, if you can. And very often, you can.

Regards, Pierre

[John Wheat]

Hi John,

I will explain my position in a simple way to make it clear.

Firstly, I do not subscribe to ripperology of the type mentioned above.

Secondly, what I do subscribe to are the items on the list I have published.

Thirdly, I allow myself to hypothesize freely about sources that I do not base history on.

So, the first part of the third point is what ripperologists do. They allow themselves to hypothesize freely. I do so too.

But the second part of the third point is what they do but I do not do. They base, what is percieved of as "history" by others (and it is no history), on sources which should not be used for history about Jack the Ripper.

A painting, for example, should not be used for this history. A very doubtful letter should not be used for this history. But one can allow oneself to hypothesize about it.

The reason for hypothezising is that you can create Verstehen for other issues. So the method is a small tool on the way to writing history.

But, and this is very important, the result you get can be wrong. So you have to discard the hypotheses constructed this way, if you can. And very often, you can.

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre

I was merely remarking that whatever you're theory is it would have to be particularly outlandish to surpass the stupidity of the Van Gough Theory, The Sicket Theory and the bizarre way some posters try to convince all and sundry that a random witness was JTR on a false name which could very easily be traced back to him.

Cheers John

[Henry Flower]

Pierre, every word of this is meaningless self-indulgence unless and until you post something that can be verified or disproved.

You've been telling us for a year what a great method you have, without ever sharing any of the results of that great method.

Until you grow the balls to reach that point, nobody has the slightest interest in your telling us AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN how bloody marvellous your methods are.

I'll happily say it: you're a fraud and a liar.