I think I have found him.

[Gene Lewis]

Absolutely right, John G.
And the "indoor" and "more time" status probably explains the peak of this "continuum of escalating violence". I suppose Kate Eddowes would have experienced a similar fate if the killer had more time between two police beats.

But Pierre mysterious theory still doesn't help much.
Regards

[Pierre]

Well I accept that "once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". However, there are a multitude of plausible explanations to explain the different mutations on Kelly: Different killer; killer was highly intoxicated; declining mental state of killer; victim killed indoors, so killer had more time to indulge himself; killer was "progressing along a continuum of escalating violence" (Keppel), starting with Tabram and culminating in Kelly...

Hi,

No, it was the same killer. He was not "highly intoxicated". He didn´t need to be and had no reason to be and there is nothing in the primary sources pointing to that.

The "declining mental state" is just another hypothesis of "lunacy" or "insanity" and this has never been confirmed. It has no explanatory value since he had a clear motive. Therefore the motive is the frame of understanding, not mental illness.

"He killed indoors and therefore had more time" is only partly correct. Don´t forget that the room was on the ground floor and that there was a lot of people who was awake around the place. So I would say the risk he took with Kelly was very high.

The "escalating violence"-hypothesis could seem to be correct from the point of view of the mutilations on Kelly but that is not an explanatory hypothesis, that is, it does not explain why Kelly was more mutilated than the others. It is merely a description.

A very serious problem with this description is the dismemberment case in september 1888. I would say that if there was a culmination phase it started already in september.

Regards Pierre

[evertonmarc]

Hi Pierre,

So with the evidence you've found so far, do you agree with the "canonical five", and does the evidence cover any other murders that may or may not have been mentioned previously?
And does the evidence explain why he stopped?

I'm not fishing for his name, as you've already stated you won't till you have all the data you need. Just interested in any observations you can make!

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre,

So with the evidence you've found so far, do you agree with the "canonical five", and does the evidence cover any other murders that may or may not have been mentioned previously?
And does the evidence explain why he stopped?

I'm not fishing for his name, as you've already stated you won't till you have all the data you need. Just interested in any observations you can make!

Hi,

according to my theory he starts with the victim of the "Thames mystery" in 1887 and stops with the Pinchin Street victim. So it includes the three Thames mystery cases, the canonical five, MacKenzie and the Pinchin Street case. The evidence explains why he stopped. He stopped for personal reasons.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

Thanks to Fisherman

I might just have taken a small and significant step forward in my research.

And if I have, one could argue that ripperologists like Fisherman are extremely important and do a very good job.

Thank you Fisherman.

(Not that I wanted to take any step forward. I want to be wrong. But still, whatever the outcome of all this, perhaps I will be able to let go of it some day and get back to normality.)

Regards Pierre

[MysterySinger]

Pierre - do any of your leads point to the identity or origins of Mary Jane Kelly?

[belinda]

I might just have taken a small and significant step forward in my research.

And if I have, one could argue that ripperologists like Fisherman are extremely important and do a very good job.

Thank you Fisherman.

(Not that I wanted to take any step forward. I want to be wrong. But still, whatever the outcome of all this, perhaps I will be able to let go of it some day and get back to normality.)

Regards Pierre

If you do not ,as you claim want to take steps forward why don't you stop researching now?

[claire]

Excellent. Two years away and it's great to see that we're still up for spending a few months attempting to communicate with…some of our more interesting members. Ah, it's like I never left. Go on, Pierre--who is it that you hope it isn't and want to move on from? Relieve your burden Marvellous.

[Pierre]

If you do not ,as you claim want to take steps forward why don't you stop researching now?

Because I have a duty to go through with this, given that a lot of people have sacrificed many years trying to solve the case for a long time.

[Pierre]

Pierre - do any of your leads point to the identity or origins of Mary Jane Kelly?

No, and I don´t think the background of any of the victims is relevant.

From the perspective of my theory and data, he picked them for other reasons and didn´t care about who they were, just as long as he could kill them and degrade them.

From the perspective of the killer, they were women and they could be killed and degraded in high risk situations and this was primarily what he wanted.

Regards Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Pierre


Reading this and all your other threads, i come to several possible conclusions:
1. you are just playing games
2. you are someone very well versed in JTR and not the Amateur on the subject you claim.
3. You Actually have a real suspect but for some reason don't wish to say yourself.

If i read all your threads correctly you are hinting at:
1. The suspect was not mad, but doing this for personal reasons.

2.That the Suspect had somehow "lost Face".

3. Your Data includes you say Data from Suspect, therefore he must have either written a diary, been a writer or someone whose ideas were published or printed.

4. There is other Data sources(plural) linking him to murders, he must therefore have been someone about whom things were written and reported, he is therefore not a completely unknown person.

people who would fit this, given that you have said they are not Royalty would be a Writer, A military Hero or a Politician.

5. Your claim that disclosing the id will, not could upset people, you hint at British here.
One must therefore assume either a well known and loved public figure: the obvious one in Victorian Britain would be Dr W G Grace, i assume that this is not your suspect. there are very few others who would fit the role.

One could therefore assume that your suspect is not a loved figure in their own right but maybe a close relative of a loved figure, maybe a father ?

any comments would be welcome

[EmaEm]

Pierre

Hi, in my opinion, (for what it's worth), he is playing games, and should just be ignored.

Regards.

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre

Hi Elamarna,

Reading this and all your other threads, i come to several possible conclusions:
1. you are just playing games

No, but I am gratefully letting some of what I think I have found off my chest.

2. you are someone very well versed in JTR and not the Amateur on the subject you claim.

I´m afraid I am a total novice on the subject. People around here know a lot more than I do.

3. You Actually have a real suspect but for some reason don't wish to say yourself.

I am afraid so.

If i read all your threads correctly you are hinting at:
1. The suspect was not mad, but doing this for personal reasons.

Quite right. But I still believe that he must have had som psychological problems. But that is not the reason he comitted the murders. A lot of people have such problems without beeing killers.

2.That the Suspect had somehow "lost Face".

That is very obvious when one looks at the sources. Still, that doesn´t make people killers. So it is just one aspect of it. I have other data as well, connecting him to the murders.

3. Your Data includes you say Data from Suspect, therefore he must have either written a diary, been a writer or someone whose ideas were published or printed.

There are a few small pieces of evidential writings, yes.

4. There is other Data sources(plural) linking him to murders, he must therefore have been someone about whom things were written and reported, he is therefore not a completely unknown person.

No, but there are independent sources giving him the motive for murders and methods. It also gives him motive for doing specific things on a micro level.

people who would fit this, given that you have said they are not Royalty would be a Writer, A military Hero or a Politician.

He does not fall into those categories.

5. Your claim that disclosing the id will, not could upset people, you hint at British here.

Probably. If I have not overestimated this part. But I don´t think so.
One must therefore assume either a well known and loved public figure: the obvious one in Victorian Britain would be Dr W G Grace, i assume that this is not your suspect. there are very few others who would fit the role.

Mr Grace is innocent.

One could therefore assume that your suspect is not a loved figure in their own right but maybe a close relative of a loved figure, maybe a father ?

No. He is not a relative to a known and loved figure.

any comments would be welcome.

Thanks a lot for your questions.

Regards Pierre

[Elamarna]

Thank you for your replies

Let me confirm:

There are some "small" bits of written evidence. I do hope you don't mean handwriting comparisons.

He is not the relative of a loved figure. And yet the disclosure of his I'd will upset Some British people if I have followed you correctly.

The suspect his not a royal, writer, military hero or politician.

You seemed to say in reply to question 4 that there is no written evidence naming him ; you refer to as independent data; what does this mean? Specifically does this data actually refer to your suspect or is it just general reports.
Indeed in what way is it independent.? Is this data in the public domain?

Now please bare with me; people; particularly British people will be upset.
The suspects id must be such that it would somehow upset those persons.
It therefore follows that this suspect must hold some degree of respect admiration from the said British people or else they would not be upset.
Being before celebrity for the sake of it we are left with the following:

1. Given the groups excluded we are left with Artists, scientists, philanthropists, religious leaders or entertainers of whom few were held any long lasting affection.
I can think of no other groups or professions which would have left someone whose I'd would upset people.

Do you follow my reasoning?

2. If the suspect does not fit into these groups it is highly unlikely that people would be upset. And to be fair your comments about hoping you are wrong suggest that if you are correct the revalation would cause a great deal of upset. upset
If the suspect is not famous or we'll known why would this be?
People do not get upset about Mr Smith or Mr Jones, unless of course they are family members; this does not appear to be what you suggest.


One must therefore come to the conclusion that you are either going well over the top or there is no suspect.

It would seem that the later viewpoint is currently holding sway here.
If this is true, please stop. It is not funny. Just sad.

[David Orsam]

2. If the suspect does not fit into these groups it is highly unlikely that people would be upset. And to be fair your comments about hoping you are wrong suggest that if you are correct the revalation would cause a great deal of upset. upset
If the suspect is not famous or we'll known why would this be?

His actual words to me were:

'Well, that is what I still hope for because then I wouldn´t have to tell everybody of a killer nobody will be happy hearing about. So I hope I am wrong.'

He then agreed with you that people will "probably" be upset.