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:
Motive, Method and Madness: Was Annie Chapman a rotund woman? - by DJA 2 hours ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - by DJA 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by RockySullivan 3 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: How about the "Bad Cop" ??? - by jerryd 3 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - by John Wheat 3 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: How about the "Bad Cop" ??? - by j.r-ahde 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Shades of Whitechapel: Caught!? Long Island Serial Killer suspect - (16 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (7 posts)
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - (5 posts)
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - (5 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: How about the "Bad Cop" ??? - (4 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (3 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 > Letters and Communications

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41  
Old 01-02-2016, 03:55 AM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,173
Default

Pierre you mention "Primary Source" as a historian please explain the difference to me between primary and secondary sources in an Historical sense.
__________________
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
  #42  
Old 01-02-2016, 05:48 AM
JadenCollins JadenCollins is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Stuck in the 19th century
Posts: 213
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUT View Post
Pierre you mention "Primary Source" as a historian please explain the difference to me between primary and secondary sources in an Historical sense.
Primary source: the original source/evidence, provide first-hand accounts of documents. For instance, the Dear Boss letter.
Secondary source: documents( analyses of the primary source ) they're written after an event has occurred, provide second-hand accounts of that document, event whatsoever.

As far as I know, Pierre has no primary sources, because someone has already written them down, meaning > all secondary sources! I mean we "hobbyists" all have secondary sources, books/documents/pictures that have been written, analyzed by a Primiary researcher. And good old Pierre's definitely not a primary researcher. His so called theory is actually based on someone else's study.

Sorry GUT, as a history student, I had too.
__________________
“If I cannot bend heaven, I will raise hell.”
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-02-2016, 06:14 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
2. It gives the information that the killer will strike around midnight on September 30th in "the Minories" were he will kill two women.
No, it doesn't. The letter says nothing at all about "September". That month is not mentioned in the letter. It follows that the letter does not give the information that the killer will strike around midnight on September 30th in the Minories. (I leave aside the fact that the 30th of any month isn't mentioned because it talks about being at work on the 1st or 2nd).

Even if you were somehow to imagine that the word "September" was in the letter this could simply be a reference to September 1889.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-02-2016, 06:57 AM
Mirandola Mirandola is offline
Cadet
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 36
Default A unique discovery!

I'm intrigued by the nonsensical comment that the letter is using a 'metaphorical language', since all language is metaphorical by definition (ie a sound or pattern of signs 'stands for' an object, a thought, a concept in a relation of d/replacement); it seems to me that the discovery of language which does not use metaphor is a much more academically astounding thing than the mere identification of a long dead serial killer could ever be.
It should be added - once and for all - that, in the exhaustive definitions developed over many years by the Behavioural Analysis Unit of the FBI and published, for example, in their manual 'Serial Murder: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives for Investigators' (2006), the 'Ripper' belongs very firmly in the category of 'Disorganized Serial Killers', of which key elements are that there are no coherent elements of ritual, no 'replaying or extending' of the actual crimes (by, for example, taunting investigators), and no communications with the authorities - this doesn't play any part in the obscure gratification they get from their acts. Thus, the letters have to be looked at in another light (my own is that they play a part in the communal construction of the 'Ripper' narrative by his audience, but that's another story).
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-02-2016, 07:08 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,888
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirandola View Post
.... Thus, the letters have to be looked at in another light (my own is that they play a part in the communal construction of the 'Ripper' narrative by his audience, but that's another story).
Agreed, not written by the killer.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-02-2016, 07:25 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,714
Default

"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",
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-02-2016, 07:41 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,092
Default

Quote:
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 at 07:55 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-02-2016, 07:58 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,714
Default

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
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-02-2016, 08:15 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,092
Default

Quote:
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!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-02-2016, 08:28 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,714
Default

Quote:
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
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 02:59 AM.


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