Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

An important discovery

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    "So there was only one single letter from someone claiming to have done the killings before the hoax letter "Dear Boss" and it was sent to Warren. And the source we have between these two is the one I think is authentic. I will from now on call this letter[B] The Ripper Letter or TRL."

    No the one you think is authentic( I assume you mean from the killer) was the last.
    you keeping saying it was before Dear Boss, is not evidence.

    THE ONLY EVIDENCE, DATES SAYS YOU ARE WRONG



    "A short analysis of this letter implies that this could not be the killer since he writes:

    " I am the man who committed all these murders in the last six months".

    This would mean that he murdered Emma Smith - but she was attacked by three or four youths. [U]So this can not be an authentic letter."


    while that agrees with the general view, what does it have to do with the value of of this letter.

    ALL THE LETTERS ARE PROBABLY HOAXES!


    The "Dear Boss" letter was a hoax letter so this can not be an authentic letter either.


    YES IT IS NOT WRITTEN BY THE KILLER, HOWEVER THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN JUST SAY IT WAS WRITTEN AT A DATE LATER THAN ON THE POST MARK, ON THE LETTER OR IN POLICE RECORDS.

    "The Ripper Letter is using a metaphorical language. It gives the information that the killer will strike on September 30th in "the Minories" were he will kill two women. The Minories was an old parish covering both the murder sites."

    it does not say that, it is wishful thinking on your part.


    So this can be an authentic letter.

    What evidence, do you have to support this, other than your view?

    ALL THE LETTERS ARE PROBABLY HOAXES!

    "Steve, you say that this source was somehow officially published decades later? Do you know where and by whom?"


    You have been told several times so why play silly games

    not only officially published, but published for the first time, do you have any evidence to the different.

    published in 1927 I believe, in J Hall Richardson's book"from the city to fleet street",

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Pierre View Post
      Hi Steve,

      Sure I can. I just thought that you might know the answer. Thanks, Steve.

      So there was only one single letter from someone claiming to have done the killings before the hoax letter "Dear Boss" and it was sent to Warren. And the source we have between these two is the one I think is authentic. I will from now on call this letter The Ripper Letter or TRL.

      Now, one must argue that there are problems with these three letters. The first one goes:

      "Dear sir

      I do wish to give myself up I am in misery with nightmare I am the man who committed all these murders in the last six months my name is so [drawing of coffin] and so I am horse slauterer and work at Name [blacked out] address [blacked out]

      I have found the woman I wanted that is chapman and I done what I called slautered her but if any one comes I will surrender but I am not going to walk to the station by myself so I am yours truly
      [drawing of coffin]

      Keep the Boro road clear or I might take a trip up there

      Photo

      [drawing of knife]

      of knife

      this is the knife that I done these murders with it is a small handle with a large long blade sharpe both sides"

      http://wiki.casebook.org/index.php/24_September_Letter

      A short analysis of this letter implies that this could not be the killer since he writes:

      " I am the man who committed all these murders in the last six months".

      This would mean that he murdered Emma Smith - but she was attacked by three or four youths. So this can not be an authentic letter.

      The "Dear Boss" letter was a hoax letter so this can not be an authentic letter either.


      The Ripper Letter is using a metaphorical language. It gives the information that the killer will strike on September 30th in "the Minories" were he will kill two women. The Minories was an old parish covering both the murder sites.

      So this can be an authentic letter.

      Steve, you say that this source was somehow officially published decades later? Do you know where and by whom?


      Kind regards, Pierre
      Hello Pierre,

      Why do you discount Emma Smith? After all, Walter Dew, and I believe Inspector Reid, considered the possibility that she'd been attacked by one man. And, even if she was attacked by a gang, how do you know that JtR was not a member of the gang?
      Last edited by John G; 01-02-2016, 07:55 AM.

      Comment


      • #48
        The interesting thing with Pierre, is how often he says the same thing over and over again without presenting any evidence to back himself.
        Its almost like the child who says something time and time again, louder and louder and thinks that makes what they say true.

        There is no ability to understand evidence from sources other than his chosen ones shown.

        This can all be annoying, but we are adults and can deal with it.

        However, you will tell him a something, give the source to back what you say up.

        He then will ask time and time again, what is the source for this. dispite it having already been given.

        From what I can see
        All of us give him the answer EVERYTIME he asks.

        If I am wrong i will happily say so.

        Yet he will ask again, its almost like he thinks our answer will change.

        In general if I make a mistake, I will say so and put my hands up and apologise..

        so different from Pierre himself, who rarely answers questions, obviously he considers answering below him.

        now that is ANNOYING.

        Steve

        steve

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
          The interesting thing with Pierre, is how often he says the same thing over and over again without presenting any evidence to back himself.
          Its almost like the child who says something time and time again, louder and louder and thinks that makes what they say true.

          There is no ability to understand evidence from sources other than his chosen ones shown.

          This can all be annoying, but we are adults and can deal with it.

          However, you will tell him a something, give the source to back what you say up.

          He then will ask time and time again, what is the source for this. dispite it having already been given.

          From what I can see
          All of us give him the answer EVERYTIME he asks.

          If I am wrong i will happily say so.

          Yet he will ask again, its almost like he thinks our answer will change.

          In general if I make a mistake, I will say so and put my hands up and apologise..

          so different from Pierre himself, who rarely answers questions, obviously he considers answering below him.

          now that is ANNOYING.

          Steve

          steve
          Hi Steve,

          Yes, that's the problem. Pierre asserts that he's a crimonologist/ sociologist/ historian but he refuses to reveal any of his research or cite any sources.

          And isn't strange that an academic historian would wish to debate an incomplete theory that has yet to be published?

          By the way, I'm still waiting for him to respond to my request to supply academic texts that he has published. Strangely enough, I'm not very hopeful of getting a satisfactory response any time soon!

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by John G View Post
            Hi Steve,

            Yes, that's the problem. Pierre asserts that he's a crimonologist/ sociologist/ historian but he refuses to reveal any of his research or cite any sources.

            And isn't strange that an academic historian would wish to debate an incomplete theory that has yet to be published?

            By the way, I'm still waiting for him to respond to my request to supply academic texts that he has published. Strangely enough, I'm not very hopeful of getting a satisfactory response any time soon!

            John


            Well he has still not apologised for actually calling me a liar, which should have been easy, one word only needed, so don't hold your breath.

            Steve

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by John G View Post
              Hello Pierre,

              Why do you discount Emma Smith? After all, Walter Dew, and I believe Inspector Reid, considered the possibility that she'd been attacked by one man. And, even if she was attacked by a gang, how do you know that JtR was not a member of the gang?
              The person I think was the killer was not a member of a gang.

              Regards Pierre

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                The person I think was the killer was not a member of a gang.

                Regards Pierre
                How do you know?

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                  The person I think was the killer was not a member of a gang.

                  Regards Pierre
                  Pierre

                  this is the problem all the time:
                  You discount evidence, in this case the letter of the 24th because it does not fit your theory.

                  you accept the 29th inst. letter because it does.

                  you are Cherry picking the available evidence to fit your theory, you do it all the time.
                  You dismiss anything which does not fit your opinion.
                  That is not a scientific approach .

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by John G View Post
                    How do you know?
                    A wild guess.
                    “If I cannot bend heaven, I will raise hell.”

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Forensic history, anyone?

                      I've just gone from the profusion of the possible profession(s) of JTR thread to the MJK shell/coffin/bucket to an important discovery. I have deductive reasoning whiplash. I feel as if I'm in the middle of a Paul Simon song:

                      "...All along along
                      There were incidents and accidents
                      There were hints and allegations.
                      ...A man walks down the street
                      It's a street in a strange world...
                      Maybe it's his first time around
                      He doesn't speak the language
                      He holds no currency
                      He is a foreign man
                      He is surrounded by the sound
                      The sound..
                      ...He looks around around
                      He sees angels in the architecture
                      Spinning in infinity."

                      Just for the record: I hold 2 degrees, a BA in anthropology & an MA in history. I did an MA thesis with distinction that's in the Library of Congress. On the ??? Of the non-existent field of forensic history, perhaps Pierre was thinking of the attempts of deconstructionists like Foucault or Derrida to bring that aspect of critical analysis to history. Then I thought of applying the Annales school to this vast body of work, that encompasses so many fields, requiring a multi-disciplinary approach. Would 'la longue durée' work? No, I haven't the background in Engliah social history. Perhaps the 'mentalités' the psychology of the times? No, I lack the psychology expertise. Maybe a view from below, Marxist theory approach?

                      Then I got a bottle of Pol Roger's Churchill in hand, got my head banged, & I'm partying-off some down-home Blues. "Every other record or two." Happy New Year to all. I know nothing, just like Jon Snow.
                      Last edited by Rosemary; 01-02-2016, 02:26 PM.
                      From Voltaire writing in Diderot's Encyclopédie:
                      "One demands of modern historians more details, better ascertained facts, precise dates, , more attention to customs, laws, commerce, agriculture, population."

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        "Hello Pierre our old "friend"
                        You've come to confound us again!
                        Words that have no reasoning!!
                        Vague ideas without real seasoning!!
                        And the words of the Goulston Street graffiti's on the walls,
                        near Mary's halls
                        - behind the stairs, of silence." -

                        with apologies to Paul Simon and Art Garfunkle.

                        Jeff

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Merci

                          Mayerling, I just choked on my last bit of champers . Have to open another bottle.
                          From Voltaire writing in Diderot's Encyclopédie:
                          "One demands of modern historians more details, better ascertained facts, precise dates, , more attention to customs, laws, commerce, agriculture, population."

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Rosemary View Post
                            Mayerling, I just choked on my last bit of champers . Have to open another bottle.
                            Hope you enjoy it Rosemary.

                            Jeff

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Rosemary View Post
                              I've just gone from the profusion of the possible profession(s) of JTR thread to the MJK shell/coffin/bucket to an important discovery. I have deductive reasoning whiplash. I feel as if I'm in the middle of a Paul Simon song:

                              "...All along along
                              There were incidents and accidents
                              There were hints and allegations.
                              ...A man walks down the street
                              It's a street in a strange world...
                              Maybe it's his first time around
                              He doesn't speak the language
                              He holds no currency
                              He is a foreign man
                              He is surrounded by the sound
                              The sound..
                              ...He looks around around
                              He sees angels in the architecture
                              Spinning in infinity."

                              Just for the record: I hold 2 degrees, a BA in anthropology & an MA in history. I did an MA thesis with distinction that's in the Library of Congress. On the ??? Of the non-existent field of forensic history, perhaps Pierre was thinking of the attempts of deconstructionists like Foucault or Derrida to bring that aspect of critical analysis to history. Then I thought of applying the Annales school to this vast body of work, that encompasses so many fields, requiring a multi-disciplinary approach. Would 'la longue durée' work? No, I haven't the background in Engliah social history. Perhaps the 'mentalités' the psychology of the times? No, I lack the psychology expertise. Maybe a view from below, Marxist theory approach?

                              Then I got a bottle of Pol Roger's Churchill in hand, got my head banged, & I'm partying-off some down-home Blues. "Every other record or two." Happy New Year to all. I know nothing, just like Jon Snow.
                              Yes, Pierre's posts do seem to assume a surreal quality after a while. As he has declared himself to be an historian, sociologist, criminologist, climatologist (okay not the last one!), I have repeatedly asked him to provide a selection of his published academic works, however, sadly I have yet to receive a response. Mind you, no doubt the lofty world of academia makes many demands on his time- ditto the monumental numbers of threads he's started on the boards.

                              Happy New Year, and thanks for the Game of Thrones reference!
                              Last edited by John G; 01-02-2016, 02:53 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Rosemary View Post
                                Mayerling, I just choked on my last bit of champers . Have to open another bottle.
                                This happens when you don't share with us!
                                “If I cannot bend heaven, I will raise hell.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X