Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

An authorship analysis of the Jack the Ripper letters (Andrea Nini, 2018)

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    Trevor
    A journalist wouldn’t have made the mistake of addressing to central news OFFICE, instead of the correct central news AGENCY.

    Getting to work soon-soon to me would be in this context within a day or two. The writer nailed it.

    Cutting the ear. Eddowes ear was cut off. Maybe by accident. Maybe not.

    Number two squealed a bit. Stride, according to Schwartz yelled out but not too loudly.
    Again, the writer nailed it.
    As usual you are making it up as you go along !

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
      As usual you are making it up as you go along !

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      And just when I thought to take you seriously again Trevor.

      I won’t make that mistake again.

      Comment


      • #63
        "I don't intend to argue. I will let the facts from 1888 and the results of Andrew Cooks expert speak for themselves on this matter and let people draw their own conclusions. If you think the killer wrote the letter then it is up to you to prove that, when their is evidence which flies in the face of that belief."

        But now you are trying to turn 'thoughts' and 'general beliefs' of the time into FACT.
        It may be a fact that they may have thought or believed something at the time, but what they thought or believed is not a FACT.

        And there is no ACTUAL evidence flying in the face of belief, just thoughts, beliefs and an opinion of an 'expert'.

        The points made by Abby are contemporaneous documented facts.
        ‘There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact’ Sherlock Holmes

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Spider View Post
          "I don't intend to argue. I will let the facts from 1888 and the results of Andrew Cooks expert speak for themselves on this matter and let people draw their own conclusions. If you think the killer wrote the letter then it is up to you to prove that, when their is evidence which flies in the face of that belief."

          But now you are trying to turn 'thoughts' and 'general beliefs' of the time into FACT.
          It may be a fact that they may have thought or believed something at the time, but what they thought or believed is not a FACT.

          Now you are arguing against yourself

          And there is no ACTUAL evidence flying in the face of belief, just thoughts, beliefs and an opinion of an 'expert'.

          And that is a lot more than you and others wanting to accept without question the fact that the killer wrote the letter

          The points made by Abby are contemporaneous documented facts.
          yes but with flaws in them !

          Did any of the victims scream ? if they did we have no evidence to that effect

          Was an ear cut off by design. No a piece of Eddowes ear fell off when the body was being stripped, if the killer had done what he said in the letter he would have done a better job, and may have then taken it away as a trophy. The piece was most likely cut in the process of the throat being cut, and was not noted as missing at the crime scene, so it must have only been a small portion of the ear

          More murders to follow as previously stated a subjective statement that may or may not have resulted in what was written


          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Spider View Post
            [I]
            The points made by Abby are contemporaneous documented facts.
            Agreed !!

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              [B]Did any of the victims scream ? if they did we have no evidence to that effect -
              SEE ISRAEL SCHWARTZ STATEMENT

              Was an ear cut off by design. No a piece of Eddowes ear fell off when the body was being stripped
              - A PIECE OF EAR WAS FOUND AMONGST HER CLOTHING WHEN SHE WAS STRIPPED AT THE MORTUARY.

              ,
              if the killer had done what he said in the letter he would have done a better job, and may have then taken it away as a trophy. -
              HE STATES IN THE LETTER HE DIDN`T HAVE TIME TO GET THE EARS FOR THE POLICE AS PROMISED.

              and was not noted as missing at the crime scene,
              NEITHER WAS HER KIDNEY

              so it must have only been a small portion of the ear
              -SEE FOSTERS DIAGRAM OF EDDOWES HEAD.

              One has to wonder why, if a journalistic invention, that a journalist who seems one step ahead of the pack, didn`t just write a journalistic piece for his newspaper, instead of pretending to be the killer, sending it to a central news agency and asking for it to be held back.
              Attached Files
              Last edited by Jon Guy; 02-07-2018, 02:50 AM.

              Comment


              • #67
                Of course, "Saucy Jack" only refers to his not being able to cut off Stride's ears (plural), but makes no claim to have (partially) succeeded in cutting off Eddowes' ear (singular). This indicates that he had no knowledge of the latter when he wrote the postcard. In neither murder did he clip off both ears and send them to the police, when he had ample opportunity to do so in Mitre Square.
                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                  Of course, "Saucy Jack" only refers to his not being able to cut off Stride's ears (plural),
                  He actually wrote that he didn`t have time to get ears for police.
                  Which could mean he cut one off, dropped it and couldn`t find it when he heard Watkins.

                  when he had ample opportunity to do so in Mitre Square.
                  Ample opportunity. Really ?

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Ample opportunity? Yes, really. He had time enough to remove a uterus, a kidney and a section of colon; cutting off both ears (plural) would have taken mere seconds, and taking them away so he could subsequently send them to the police (which he did not do) would have taken no time at all.
                    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
                      SEE ISRAEL SCHWARTZ STATEMENT

                      However can you or Abby suggest that pushing a woman over in the street and her shouting back at the person equates to the term she squealed. You are both deluded another example of square pegs in a round hole.

                      - A PIECE OF EAR WAS FOUND AMONGST HER CLOTHING WHEN SHE WAS STRIPPED AT THE MORTUARY.

                      yes, and so if he had time to take a piece he would have had time to take both ears in any event he took neither/

                      , HE STATES IN THE LETTER HE DIDN`T HAVE TIME TO GET THE EARS FOR THE POLICE AS PROMISED.

                      But he had time to cut a piece off according to your belief in the letter

                      NEITHER WAS HER KIDNEY

                      You are correct but he never said in any letter he was going to take other body parts did he ?

                      -SEE FOSTERS DIAGRAM OF EDDOWES HEAD.

                      [B] And if you read Brown report the deep wounds to the throat were on the right side consistent with Fosters drawing

                      One has to wonder why, if a journalistic invention, that a journalist who seems one step ahead of the pack, didn`t just write a journalistic piece for his newspaper, instead of pretending to be the killer, sending it to a central news agency and asking for it to be held back.
                      Perhaps by asking to hold it back it would give the Star newspaper an advantage over their rivals because the journalistic piece would already have been written when the news of the letter finally broke


                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Spider View Post
                        "Anyway, I don’t think anyone from the cna hoaxed any of the letters. Why hoax a letter and then hold it back before sending to police? The whole reason was supposedly to drum up business, and if you held back the letter, you could get scooped by someone else or the killer himself! Nope you’d want to send it off as soon as you were done with it."

                        And address it to Central News OFFICE rather than Agency as well!
                        Doesn't this just mean that it was directed to the office of the Central News (i.e. where their business was carried out) rather than misnaming the company?

                        The official notepaper with which the "Dear Boss" letter was forwarded by Bulling to the police was headed The Central News Limited, and he writes that the letter "was sent the Central News two days ago". No mention of Agency.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          The envelope was addressed to "Central News Office"
                          ‘There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact’ Sherlock Holmes

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Morning all, just passing this along from Keith Skinner:

                            Spider’s post #56 brought to mind a point about the “Dear Boss” letter of which I’ve never been quite clear. The letter, dated September 25th 1888, was received at The Central News on September 27th 1888. Two days letter, on September 29th 1888, the original letter and envelope were forwarded to Mr. Williamson (who I’m assuming to be the Chief Constable) with a covering note from the Editor of the Central News, or by somebody on his behalf. What I am curious about is what prompted them to send it on September 29th, what time on that Saturday was it forwarded to Mr Williamson, when was it received and who, at Scotland Yard, upon receipt, knew of its existence? The letter could be read as a response to the murders in Whitechapel and the City but standing against that interpretation is the fact that Stride’s body was found at 1.00AM on Sunday October 30th and Eddowes' body was discovered at 1.45AM on Sunday October 30th. I have often wondered whether Warren and Arnold were aware of this letter when the decision to expunge the writing on the wall at Goulston Street, without photographing the handwriting for comparison against the letter of September 25th, was taken at 5.30AM on Sunday October 30th 1888. I can’t remember ever having seen the point directly addressed in any of the surviving contemporary documentation?

                            Best Wishes, Keith Skinner

                            Now you're looking for the secret, but you won't find it, because of course, you're not really looking. You want to be fooled.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by James_J View Post
                              Morning all, just passing this along from Keith Skinner:

                              Spider’s post #56 brought to mind a point about the “Dear Boss” letter of which I’ve never been quite clear. The letter, dated September 25th 1888, was received at The Central News on September 27th 1888. Two days letter, on September 29th 1888, the original letter and envelope were forwarded to Mr. Williamson (who I’m assuming to be the Chief Constable) with a covering note from the Editor of the Central News, or by somebody on his behalf. What I am curious about is what prompted them to send it on September 29th, what time on that Saturday was it forwarded to Mr Williamson, when was it received and who, at Scotland Yard, upon receipt, knew of its existence? The letter could be read as a response to the murders in Whitechapel and the City but standing against that interpretation is the fact that Stride’s body was found at 1.00AM on Sunday October 30th and Eddowes' body was discovered at 1.45AM on Sunday October 30th. I have often wondered whether Warren and Arnold were aware of this letter when the decision to expunge the writing on the wall at Goulston Street, without photographing the handwriting for comparison against the letter of September 25th, was taken at 5.30AM on Sunday October 30th 1888. I can’t remember ever having seen the point directly addressed in any of the surviving contemporary documentation?

                              Best Wishes, Keith Skinner
                              Stride and Eddowes Sept 30th not October as you have put

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Spider View Post
                                The envelope was addressed to "Central News Office"
                                Well, it was addressed;

                                The Boss
                                ____Central News
                                __________Office
                                ____London City
                                Last edited by Joshua Rogan; 02-07-2018, 05:16 AM. Reason: Apologies for underscores, spaces disappeared

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X