Suggestion

[GUT]

Hi Robert,

He got acquainted with people living in Spitalfields and used the information he got from them to commit the murders. This was part of his plan.

Regards Pierre

I've said it before Pierre unless your full of BS put up or shut up.

[FrankO]

It’s one thing for the police not to want to share important evidence with the public, but quite another to completely leave it out of their own internal documents. Yet, according to someone, this is what must have happened.

All the best,
Frank

[Jon Guy]

It’s one thing for the police not to want to share important evidence with the public, but quite another to completely leave it out of their own internal documents. Yet, according to someone, this is what must have happened.

All the best,
Frank

It must have been so big Frank, they didn`t even want us to know in 1988.

[Pierre]

It’s one thing for the police not to want to share important evidence with the public, but quite another to completely leave it out of their own internal documents.

All the best,
Frank

And to leave it out of the inquest.

Regards Pierre

[FrankO]

The returned photo is only one piece of evidence, Jon, which by itself doesn't tell us much, let alone anything conclusive regarding what's being discussed here.

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

What was the purpose of the inquest, Pierre?

[Jon Guy]

The returned photo is only one piece of evidence, Jon, which by itself doesn't tell us much, let alone anything conclusive regarding what's being discussed here.

All the best,
Frank

I was referring to the Police`s Jack the Ripper files, released to the public in 1988, Frank.
As you said, no mention in internal documents.

[FrankO]

Ah, OK Jon, thanks for clearing that up. That's exactly what I mean, no mention in internal documents.

All the best,
Frank

[Brenda]

.

Did you now? Oh dear.

What if you were wrong? Perhaps Pierre knows nothing.

That would certainly be the best for everyone. Then we could all continue as usual, making some more money on some murdered prostitutes.

Pierre

Pierre, you are the one that's been crowing "I think I have found him." Do you think you have found the Whitechapel killer or do you just think you have found the murderer of MJK? Yes, I don't think I would be wrong to think that anyone claiming "I think I have found him" to have a full-blown theory with evidence to support he killed others besides MJK. Why haven't you started one of of your many threads about anything to do with any of the other murders?

I would say "why haven't you presented evidence" but that's not what you are about. It seems the biggest threat you bring to this case is running this site bankrupt by causing bandwidth issues.

[Pierre]

Pierre, you are the one that's been crowing "I think I have found him." Do you think you have found the Whitechapel killer or do you just think you have found the murderer of MJK?

Yes, I don't think I would be wrong to think that anyone claiming "I think I have found him" to have a full-blown theory with evidence to support he killed others besides MJK. Why haven't you started one of of your many threads about anything to do with any of the other murders?

I would say "why haven't you presented evidence" but that's not what you are about. It seems the biggest threat you bring to this case is running this site bankrupt by causing bandwidth issues.

Hi Brenda,

thanks for a very good question.

My reason for writing a lot about Kelly is that I think so many histories have been written about this murder that aren´t reliable. I often find that unethical and I want to put the history about Kelly right. For instance, I do not believe that Kelly herself let the killer in, or that she sang to the killer.

I believe that he made his own way in since he had planned this murder for Lord Mayor´s Day. So she had nothing to do with this.

So what about the other murders? I have an important data source for the murder on Annie Chapman.

I would say it is much more important than my own theory about how the murderer made his way in to, and escaped from, 13 Miller´s Court.

The theory about the murder on Kelly only gives information about how he worked at the crime scene but it gives no information about his ID.

The data source for the Chapman murder does.

There is also an important data source from the night of the double event. This source is also connected to his ID.

For the murder on McKenzie and for the findings of body parts in June and September 1889, there is some sparse data connected to him.

Other sources are external and gives his ability to do the murders, his motives and triggers. These also explain the period of his killing spree and choice of dates.

I would also like to point out that my theory is not outlandish or far-fetched. It is simple and down to earth. It has nothing to do with free masons or politics.

I have been working with this case to establish facts from sources known and unknown. I have a perspective of understanding that I use for analyzing and interpreting the data sources.

I believe that I now have an understanding of why he became a serial killer, why he chose Spitalfields, why he used certain methods, why he chose certain dates, what his resources was and how he communicated with the police.

I know his background, where he came from, how he lived and where he lived.

I think that my theory solves some known problems of ripperology. There are some problems that just makes no sense. But from the perspective of this man, they do.

Regards Pierre

[Brenda]

.

Pierre, It sounds great! Now JUST TELL US!

[David Orsam]

Okay, it's great to know there is more to come, Pierre, because I think we all understand this part of the theory now. The murderer entered Kelly's room through the wall during the middle of the night and killed her while she slept – but not before she briefly awoke to cry out – then he barricaded the door which would eventually prevent the police from entering for two hours, before leaving the way he came, through the wall. He then walked up the stairs to Elizabeth Prater's room in order to fulfill his prophecy of murdering two historical queens, Mary and Elizabeth, in one night but was, ironically, foiled by the fact that Prater had barricaded her own door. The medical men, the coroner, the police and certain members of the public who viewed the body of Kelly through the window were then all part of a conspiracy to cover up the fact that the murderer effected entry to Kelly's room through the wall. The windows to the front of 26 Dorset Street were barricaded so no-one could see what had really happened.

May I say that this has all been very clearly presented, based on a superb new interpretation of the data sources, and is all very convincing.

So, what's next?

[Abby Normal]

hi Pierre
why do you think that the police, doctors, witnesses etc. conspired to cover up the fact that the killer barricaded the door and/or came through the wall partition/door?

[Michael W Richards]

Okay, it's great to know there is more to come, Pierre, because I think we all understand this part of the theory now. 1. The murderer entered Kelly's room through the wall during the middle of the night and killed her while she slept – but not before she briefly awoke to cry out – 2. then he barricaded the door which would eventually prevent the police from entering for two hours, before leaving the way he came, through the wall. 3. He then walked up the stairs to Elizabeth Prater's room in order to fulfill his prophecy of murdering two historical queens, Mary and Elizabeth, in one night but was, ironically, foiled by the fact that Prater had barricaded her own door. 4. The medical men, the coroner, the police and certain members of the public who viewed the body of Kelly through the window were then all part of a conspiracy to cover up the fact that the murderer effected entry to Kelly's room through the wall. The windows to the front of 26 Dorset Street were barricaded so no-one could see what had really happened.

May I say that this has all been very clearly presented, based on a superb new interpretation of the data sources, and is all very convincing.

So, what's next?

All sounds great....except of course that the partition wall did not offer access into Marys room, and the fact that the room was found with both windows locked and the door locked, and there is no evidence that supports a contention that the killer went inside #26 at all, and again, there is no evidence that supports a portion of Marys wall opened at all, and in fact there is plenty of evidence to suggest that it was a fixed partition wall which effectively segregated room 13 in Millers Court from #26 Dorset.

I really like when people use known, accepted evidence to base a theory upon. That said, its annoying when people create illusions and then base their theories using that smoke and mirror start point.

If Pierre's entire theory depends on Mary Kellys killer coming through a fixed wall without an ingress point, then we can be done with it now. It cannot be as he has suggested.

So...you either take a different approach Pierre...or you provide 1 acceptable and specific reference which validates your theorys details.

This isnt Creative Writing 101 here.....its historical investigation.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Michael W Richards;362487

If Pierre's entire theory depends on Mary Kellys killer coming through a fixed wall without an ingress point, then we can be done with itnow[/QUOTE]

No. It doesn't.

Pierre