If the 'Dear Boss' letter is a hoax...

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Robert St Devil;393977]

Hi Pierre.

Your interpretation of the 2nd ,,inst.,, does reveal something. The letter wouldnt make sense if it read...

29th [of September]
BEWARE! I shall be at work on the 1st and 2nd [of September]

...unless the writer possessed a time machine (nix). So i can accept a separation of ideas, or short-hand in phrasing, between ,,1st and 2nd,, and ,,inst.,,. Only...
- Elizabeth and Catherine aren,t the 1st and 2nd. Polly and Annie or Martha are.

Hi Robert,

They are the first and second on this particular date.

If it,s not written in September 88, then it,s useless. Any of the other months would make less sense.

I can wonder if the journalist actually saw those letters. He did know that they were written in red ink, and there is an excessive usage of quotation marks, which would require a keen memory if that is where the journalist is pulling his source. Even Minories receives single quotation marks.

That is a good observation.

It reads to me like two letters, which means there may have been more. Unless JACK THE RIPPER is the name of the street where he lived, I didn,t see any street mentioned in the top ,letter,.

This is just initial thoughts, all ideas that miss the point. Point being, if they were trying to cover up the fact that they received a letter before the murders, why create a letter claiming to be written before the murders?

Because it was a sensation to them that the murders came true. That is the reason why they reproduced the name used by the killer.

I am presuming this letter went to the press since it refers to the police.

And the press had very little time to publish it and had no reason to publish it quickly, since they did not care much about it. Until the next day.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

And the press had very little time to publish it and had no reason to publish it quickly, since they did not care much about it. Until the next day.

You seem to know a lot about this letter Pierre bearing in mind there is no surviving letter, envelope or postmark. Hall Richardson's reproduction of the text shows that it bore the date 29th September but, if it was actually written on that day, when was it posted? The same day as it was written or the next day? If the same day, was it posted in the morning, afternoon or evening?

If in the evening, and we go along with your fantasy of it being written on Saturday 29 September 1888, with the next day being a Sunday, it wouldn't have been received by its intended recipient until Monday 1st October would it?

How do you know it wasn't received on the Monday?

[John G]

Is there the slightest evidence that this letter was written at anytime in the 19th century? As its a reproduction, is there any evidence it was written at all? Why is it not referred to by a single contemporary source? And then there's Steve's excellent comment about the provenance, which is none existent.

No one recognized as a serious historian would take this drivel remotely seriously. To quote David Hume, "Commit it then to the flames. For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion "

[David Orsam]

Is there the slightest evidence that this letter was written at anytime in the 19th century? Why is as it not referred to by a single contemporary source? And then there's Steve's excellent comment about the provenance, which is none existent.

I'm not sure one can say the provenance is non-existent because Hall Richardson was the crime correspondent for the Daily Telegraph during the period of the Ripper murders so he might have kept one of the many letters written to the press. But there is no reason to think this letter was written on 29 September 1888. It was probably written on 29 September 1889, by which time the press were probably not bothering to pass them all onto the police.

[John G]

I'm not sure one can say the provenance is non-existent because Hall Richardson was the crime correspondent for the Daily Telegraph during the period of the Ripper murders so he might have kept one of the many letters written to the press. But there is no reason to think this letter was written on 29 September 1888. It was probably written on 29 September 1889, by which time the press were probably not bothering to pass them all onto the police.

But isn't it the case that the "original" letter was never produced? Can there be provenance when no one, apart from Hall Richardson, can even confirm the existence of the supposed communication?

[David Orsam]

But isn't it the case that the "original" letter was never produced? Can there be provenance when no one, apart from Hall Richardson, can even confirm the existence of the supposed communication?

Yes, but how could Hall Richardson have "produced" an original letter in a book?

I think one can say there is provenance, just not particularly good. Would Hall Richardson have completely invented this letter? I rather doubt it. The problem is that later writers took "29th Sept" to be 29th September 1888 which it obviously isn't. This has confused many people, including Pierre.

[John G]

Yes, but how could Hall Richardson have "produced" an original letter in a book?

I think one can say there is provenance, just not particularly good. Would Hall Richardson have completely invented this letter? I rather doubt it. The problem is that later writers took "29th Sept" to be 29th September 1888 which it obviously isn't. This has confused many people, including Pierre.

Thanks David. However if, say,the letter was sent to the Telegraph in 1889 why was it never published? After all, a number of very dubious letters were published. And if it was contemporary, assuming it existed at all, why did it take decades for Hall Richardson to reveal its existence?

[David Orsam]

Thanks David. However if, say,the letter was sent to the Telegraph in 1889 why was it never published? After all, a number of very dubious letters were published.

Well there was certainly a lot of press interest in Ripper letters during September and October 1888 but I think by September 1889 the excitement had rather worn off. Consulting Evans and Skinner's 'Letters from Hell' I see the following letter was addressed to the Press Association:

E 28. Sep.
Dear Editor,
I hope to resume operations about next Tuesday or Wednesday night. Don't let the coppers know.
Jack the Ripper

This was 28 September 1889. I don't know for sure but I somehow doubt any newspapers bothered to publish this one.

Then we have one dated 30 September 1889 sent to the Met Police:

I am Jack the Ripper I am at present living At the Neighbourhood of Islington I have got my eyes on the beauties I guess I will make Islington ring before I ave done do you think I am mad What of mistake you make so Prepare for Another Mutilation Case before this day week

Just another one of the hundreds put in loony file and forgotten.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;393948][QUOTE=Pierre;393924]

Pierre

This will be very simple.


1. What data source do you have that suggests this letter could be genuine, given it first publication date and lack of a real date on it?

Hi Steve,

Good, I will make it simple too.

Not data source but sources. It is a set of sources, known and unknown, giving a very high historical coherence for established hypothetical facts. There are sources for a clear and distinct motive and they have very high explanatory power.

2. What data source do you have or are you using to say this letter was written by your suspect?

A set of sources. There is an explanation for the name Jack the Ripper. There is an explanation for the choice of the date 30 September and it is connected to sources giving a clear and distinctive motive.

3. What data source do you have that backs up your view that the writer is referring to an ancient parish, and not a street?

Do you think that a well educated killer would tell the press and police that he was going to kill two persons in a specific street on a specific date? Do you not think that such a thing would be very unlikely?

If no such data is produced, it is safe to assume, none exists.
I will assume that this idea is a work of imagination.

Why do you think I would care about what you "assume"? I do my research in the interest of history, not in the interest of people whoīs only interest is to destroy the interest of history.

Of course you refuse to discuss the provenance of the letter.

That is the really hilarious thing.

It is so very sad that you cannot argue and defend your corner, or your views

Steve

I donīt do defense. I do research. If you want to argue with people who have spent years and years defending their own ideas, you will find many others here to debate with.

Actually Steve, I donīt care what you or others think about me. I serve history. And if I am wrong, you will have a wonderful time.

And I do not care about that either. I just hope I am wrong.

[David Orsam]

Do you think that a well educated killer would tell the press and police that he was going to kill two persons in a specific street on a specific date? Do you not think that such a thing would be very unlikely?

You said exactly the same thing about the Gogmagog letter, Pierre. Doesn't that suggest to you that you putting forward absurd arguments?

[Pierre]

You said exactly the same thing about the Gogmagog letter, Pierre. Doesn't that suggest to you that you putting forward absurd arguments?

Absurd arguments =

A serial killer gives official information about the exact street where he is going to commit the next murder.


A clear example =

Beware. I am going to kill again on Friday night. The address is:

13 Millerīs Court.

Jack the Ripper

[David Orsam]

Absurd arguments =

A serial killer gives official information about the exact street where he is going to commit the next murder.


A clear example =

Beware. I am going to kill again on Friday night. The address is:

13 Millerīs Court.

Jack the Ripper

But that's the point Pierre. Killers don't normally tell the police anything about where they are going to commit their next murder, either in plain English, in code or in metaphorical language. They just don't do it.

But that's not even the point you are making in this thread. You are claiming that when the murders happened the Central News Agency was so embarrassed that it had withheld crucial information from the police that it forged its own JTR letter to try and cover this up in some incomprehensible fashion. But the information in the letter, even if it was written on 29 September 1888, was not crucial information, it was wholly inaccurate. It gave the wrong date for the murders and the wrong location. It was useless as an advance clue so that there was no need for the Central News Agency to cover up its receipt of that letter.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;394060]

But that's the point Pierre. Killers don't normally tell the police anything about where they are going to commit their next murder, either in plain English, in code or in metaphorical language. They just don't do it.

That was not at all your point, David. So do not pretend that it was.

And what do you mean by "normally"?

Jack the Ripper was not normal and he was not a "normal" serial killer.

But that's not even the point you are making in this thread. You are claiming that when the murders happened the Central News Agency was so embarrassed that it had withheld crucial information from the police that it forged its own JTR letter to try and cover this up in some incomprehensible fashion. But the information in the letter, even if it was written on 29 September 1888, was not crucial information, it was wholly inaccurate.

It gave the wrong date for the murders and the wrong location. It was useless as an advance clue so that there was no need for the Central News Agency to cover up its receipt of that letter.

You do not understand. "Inst". It was just one day left, David. And that day was not the 1st September and not the 2nd September. It was the 30th September.

Therefore the first and second were not dates but they were Stride and Eddowes.

[David Orsam]

That was not at all your point, David. So do not pretend that it was.

And what do you mean by "normally"?

Jack the Ripper was not normal and he was not a "normal" serial killer.

It certainly was my point Pierre. You said the same nonsense about the Gogmagog letter to justify why the killer did not include the location of his next murder even though you claimed he did.

If Jack the Ripper was not normal then why didn't he just say to the police:

Beware. I am going to kill again on Friday night. The address is:

13 Millerīs Court.

Jack the Ripper

?????

You can't have it both ways Pierre.

[Pierre]

It certainly was my point Pierre. You said the same nonsense about the Gogmagog letter to justify why the killer did not include the location of his next murder even though you claimed he did.

If Jack the Ripper was not normal then why didn't he just say to the police:

Beware. I am going to kill again on Friday night. The address is:

13 Millerīs Court.

Jack the Ripper

?????

You can't have it both ways Pierre.

You are terribly bad at trying to operationalize "normal", David. It does not work at all.

There is no binary variable here.