I think I have found him.

[Pierre]

And whose fault is it that we can't debate your idea, because you won't tell us what it is????

Hi,

But I have given you some important aspects of my theory, and these aspects could very well be discussed.

I even think that if we do so, you might perhaps be able to find him too. It isnīt that difficult.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

I tried that information and found a Wikipedia page on an Irish surgeon named Philip CRAMPTON who died in 1858. Are you sure it was GRAMPTON?

I found that fellow too. But there are some Gramptons, George and William for instance, when you go to Familysearch.

But I am not going to engage in this Grampton stuff. I have my own research.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

Uh yeah. That was kind of the point I think.

On the other hand he was local, available and had a violent criminal record including a sex crime. And his name WAS ripper-and since i beleive theres a slightly better than 50/50 chance that the killer wrote the dear boss letter , its not insignificant imho. Plus he was described as pocked mark face which tallys with one of my least weak suspects, blotchy.

Hi,

I think the chance that the killer wrote that letter is 0.

Concearning "Blotchy" - there is no evidence that this man has committed any of the murders. He is just seen by a witness, like so many others.

If I were you I would start thinking about things no one has thought about earlier.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

{psst. Abby. Im trying to follow wtf is going on. All i got so far is 'new theory' and 'conference'. Im guessing that some or all the British researchers, Pierre included, may have gone to the Nottingham conference at the end of August. Maybe this is tbe conference Amanda alluded too. Im guessing there is no love lost between Amanda and Pierre since he never sends his 'regards'. Anyways. Three weeks after the conference, Pierre starts this thread "I think I found him", but the theory is incomplete. Tom Wescott says he is missing pieces.

I been wondering why Pierre has been letting David Orsan bait him these past few days. I guess he wrote something about Tumblety that made Pinkmoon bold it and quote it, as well as the insinuation that Pierre makes about "questioning other new and established researchers (Pinkmoon. Wescott, Panderoona) who have a theory but no suspect".

So makes me think that there are two theories built off similar research, Pierre's and Gotham, resulting in two conclusions. If April is the annoUnce date, it should make the Baltimore conference on April 9th a must-see. }

Hi,

Sorry to disappoint you Robert. I have never attended any conference like this and probably never will. I do not know the researchers you are speaking about and do not know Tom Wescott.

I will not be in Baltimore either.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

Hello again Pierre,

Hi Mayerling

There seem to be too many cross currents involved. You are upset

No, but a bit resigned since there is a lack of meaningful discussions.

because you feel you never gave sufficient information (nor ever intended to at this time, if ever) about the work you were on, and yet you feel that people like David are trying to break down what they are not in any position to understand.

Yes, I think that is what he is doing.

I can follow that, but at the same time you have a little responsibility in setting up this situation, because (aside from little thngs you drop in your messages about the Lord Mayor and "Jack" or about a kind of "Tennyson" influence (sorry if that is not the exact terminology) referring indirectly to that awful play of his about Mary I, and the business of the position of Mary Kelly's hand resembling the portrait of Mary, Queen of Scots) and expect us to show huge interest

Well, I do not expect huge interest but perhaps some interesting hypotheses about it or some good serious criticism.

when it causes a bit of growing frustration.

Feelings should not be drawn into discussions of the case, it is pointless and destroys progress.

Under that set of circumstances, David and others (including myself occasionally - sorry about that Pierre) hit back with some comments that may seem unfair.

No offense taken but actually, when that happens we get meaningless discussions where there could be really interesting ones. We must get over over our own feelings and our own frustration if we want good discussions.

But the situation has just mushroomed this way as the parameters of your discussion are limited to begin with to whatever you feel is necessary.

I think if you read what I have written very carefully you might find a lot of interesting aspects of it.

I suspect you are seeking responses to these "minor points" to see if they fill in the aspects of the theory (sorry again to use that word) so that you are closer to certainty.

I can only get closer to certainty (of this person being or not being the killer) from analyzing the sources.

The problem about that as an approach is that since none of us (only you) know what you aim for any responses given (even if they seemingly fit your ideas) are actually quite questionable. They may fit well, but turn out to have been unwittingly forced into the position you needed, and when looked at more closely turn out to be wrong.

The responses can not prove the theory right. Only the sources can. I am only interested in how you think and in trying to refute my own theory.

I really don't know what to advise you - if you were seeking my advise. I keep hoping it all works out well enough for you to produce a final result that you are satisfied with.

I am most grateful for that.

Out of that I can't say anything.

Best wishes,

Jeff

Regards Pierre

[Chris2307uk]

[/QUO
Not happy I've had lots of pms over this from fellow members could you please refrain from mentioning grampton on here and save it for the grampton facebook page.[/QUOTE]

May I ask what Facebook page please?

[Panderoona]

It's a secret group. It's not searchable.

[Chris2307uk]

Typical! I find things are only secretive if someone's looking to make a quick buck out of it!

[Phil Carter]

Actually..The grampton jtr casebook isn't a secret..but it is hard to find out about.
All roads lead to the manor house apparently.
It used to be a home for the bewildered in 1888 and there are notes pertaining to the visitors. Written in ink.


That's about as far as I know.


Phil

[Patrick S]

I found that fellow too. But there are some Gramptons, George and William for instance, when you go to Familysearch.

But I am not going to engage in this Grampton stuff. I have my own research.

Regards Pierre

I haven't engaged much on this research of yours, Pierre. Frankly, I hope it's credible, interesting, and leads to much debate.

However, I'll join the chorus and echo the thoughts of those who've speculated that all of this will lead to nothing whatsoever. As has been observed, we've seen this many times before. It's not new. Yet here you are, repeatedly attempting to bait the hook, offering nothing, defending yourself even as you've given no detail. In the end, it's all very odd.

Your approach reminds me very much of experiences I've had over the years on a few other boards where members of another - very different - subculture gather to share information. A few years ago I was active and competing in Olympic style weightlifting. I posted on a few boards. Lifters shared training experiences, injury recovery tips, all that. We had debates with respect to technique, form, how best to prep for a meet, all that. Many of us knew one another, hanging out at meets around the country/world. Like Ripperology, Olympic lifting is not a mainstream pursuit (at least hear in the states).

Invariably, a newcomer would pop up and claim to be a guru, training some new phenomenon who was going to take the world by storm and win the Olympics for the next 12 years. Someone - always under an alias - would begin posting that they'd made huge lifts in training and were going to unleash themselves on we pitiful also-rans and the next big meet. Yet, it never happened. There was always some injury, or tragedy that kept them from showing up. These posters were easy to identify. Grand pronouncements and claims ("I snatched 200kg in training yesterday!") coming from someone no one knew and who refused to be identified, sharing information that was unverifiable.

Thus, I began offering a reward to those who made such claims. $500 to anyone who could make 75% of a claimed lift in the training hall a few days before a meet (that percentage is less than what a lifter will take in training in the days leading up to competition). Not only did no one claim the money, no one ever even showed-up to make an attempt, even though the task was quite simple. For example. A fellow 105kg (230lbs) lifter once claimed that he was planning to clean and jerk 190kg (418lbs) for his OPENER at a meet in FABULOUS Las Vegas. That's not an outlandish claim, but it was plain to me that this fellow was full of something other than protein and steroids. So, I made my offer. $500 if he made 142.5kg (313.5lbs) at the training hall on Wednesday (meet day was Saturday). If he's making anywhere near 190kg in training, 142.5 would be - to put it mildly - a joke, literally his third or fourth warm-up on a moderate training day. EASY MONEY.

As expected, our man was a no-show. He made a few posts about an injury but soon was gone, never to be heard from again. Sadly, I expect something similar here, once you get bored. I hope to be proven wrong. It will be the first time.

[Elamarna]

Ah.

I wondered if it was a place?
Now where is it I wonder?

[Panderoona]

a secret no more that's for sure!

[pinkmoon]

Actually..The grampton jtr casebook isn't a secret..but it is hard to find out about.
All roads lead to the manor house apparently.
It used to be a home for the bewildered in 1888 and there are notes pertaining to the visitors. Written in ink.


That's about as far as I know.


Phil

I'm going to have to seriously consider your involvement in the grampton project like tom you seem to have forgotten to keep your mouth shut .

[Chris2307uk]

Any idea which Manor House?

[Abby Normal]

I'm going to have to seriously consider your involvement in the grampton project like tom you seem to have forgotten to keep your mouth shut .

ummm. that's rather hypocritical as seeing you were the one who first brought it up!

You have no one to blame but yourself.

cats out of the bag. its a sabertooth and it aint going back in.