Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Joshua Rogan 34 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Abby Normal 52 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Abby Normal 1 hour and 2 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by c.d. 1 hour and 6 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Joshua Rogan 1 hour and 17 minutes ago.
General Discussion: Help me find the source of this story - by Abby Normal 1 hour and 21 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (21 posts)
General Discussion: Help me find the source of this story - (3 posts)
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (3 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Kosminski/Kaminsky - please debunk - (1 posts)
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Motive, Method and Madness

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-04-2016, 01:37 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default Greetings from the past

Hi,

As a historian I do believe that our only chance to find Jack the Ripper is the sources from the past. These sources must be produced by the killer himself. Otherwise they can not be connected to the murders.

What I think we have to do is to find and understand the sources produced by a murderer who is communicating with people. This is very difficult, since some sources from 1888 are lost and since our understanding is biased by post modern thinking. Nevertheless I think it is the only way forward.

The sources must not be in written form. The important thing is that they are greetings from the past.

"The overall conclusions drawn add to our current knowledge base on serial murderers. Gibson (2004) finds that a “consistent compulsion to communicate characterizes these serial killers” (p. 209). In most cases, communicating with society and law enforcement was imperative for the selected killers examined. In their communications they left clues, taunted and insulted law enforcement, re-injured victims’ loved ones, threatened to kill again, made demands and offered explanations for their behavior (see pp. 210-211). A brief comparative analysis suggests that each killer had different motives to communicate (e.g. a form of venting). In fact, “it is what they disclose about themselves that reveals a greater reality” (quoting Joel Norris (1988), p. 212)." http://www.ccja-acjp.ca/en/cjcr100/cjcr167.html

Regards, Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-04-2016, 01:58 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,173
Default

And how oh great historian do we know a source was written by the ripper (if there was one) if we don't know who the ripper was, circular argument it seems to me.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-04-2016, 02:03 PM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,110
Default

Greetings from the past?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-04-2016, 02:08 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,173
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Greetings from the past?
Explains a lot about Pierre.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-04-2016, 02:10 PM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,110
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUT View Post
Explains a lot about Pierre.
He's certainly got me confused, and not for the first time I may add! Mind you, if the "sources must not be in written form" I guess that rules out the Goulston Street graffiti. Which brings me to another question: Pierre, given your latest reasoning, why did you start a thread on the aforementioned graffiti?

Last edited by John G : 05-04-2016 at 02:24 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-04-2016, 02:11 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,173
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
He's certainly got me confused, and not for the first time I may add!
It's not you who's confused.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-04-2016, 02:17 PM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,110
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUT View Post
It's not you who's confused.
You know, I think you might be right! And, thinking about this further, "not in written form" obviously would not exclude telepathic communications.

Last edited by John G : 05-04-2016 at 02:23 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-04-2016, 02:18 PM
Kattrup Kattrup is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Denmark
Posts: 143
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
The sources must not be in written form. The important thing is that they are greetings from the past.
For clarification, I assume you mean that the sources must not necessarily be in written form - they can be, but it is not necessary. Is that correct?

I suppose we do have recorded sound from the 1880s, that would be a non-written source.

But more relevant to the case might be, for instance, U-shaped cuts on a victim, interpreted as V-shaped. Would that qualify as an unwritten source, greeting us from the past?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-04-2016, 02:30 PM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,110
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kattrup View Post
For clarification, I assume you mean that the sources must not necessarily be in written form - they can be, but it is not necessary. Is that correct?

I suppose we do have recorded sound from the 1880s, that would be a non-written source.

But more relevant to the case might be, for instance, U-shaped cuts on a victim, interpreted as V-shaped. Would that qualify as an unwritten source, greeting us from the past?
But he wrote "must not be in written form." That's an absolute requirement, and the statement is therefore clearly unequivocal in this respect.

Last edited by John G : 05-04-2016 at 02:34 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-04-2016, 02:41 PM
Kattrup Kattrup is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Denmark
Posts: 143
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
But he wrote "must not be in written form." That's an absolute requirement, and the statement is therefore clearly unequivocal in this respect.
I agree, that's why I asked, since it seems unintended.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.