Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Queen Mary and Lord Mayor

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Pierre View Post
    Even though this letter is not part of my theory.
    I understand that you now want to say that the letter is not part your theory, you don't need to keep repeating it. But a letter to the press from the killer is the only form of 'data' that you have mentioned on this forum so it's really all I can ask you about. I'm just trying to work out what this letter is supposed to say because your posts are less than clear on the subject.

    Comment


    • #32
      With regard to the thought that Elizabeth Prater was supposed to be another victim on the same night as MJK I just have a few comments. In order to arrive at that there have to be a number of assumptions (versus evidence). It has to be more than the co-incidence of names of Queens (Mary and Elizabeth).

      Mrs Prater did indeed live at number 20 and it was on the first floor - presumably covering a larger area than simply above Kelly's room because she could make out whether or not there was a light on in the Lodging House (across the road at the front?).

      She said that she had been waiting for some time outside for a man who lived with her (but didn't show up). If a man lived with her, how could JTR know that he wouldn't have been there on that night?

      Mrs Prater went to bed having put 2 tables behind the door. We do not know which door. The entrance to the stairs to her room was first on the right down the court as I understand it. Did she put 2 tables there or was it possible to lock that door once entered?

      Would there then have been another door to her room at the top of the stairs - and that one had the two table placed against it? I've assumed that that was the scenario. So JTR would have had to try 2 points of entry to get to Mrs Prater.

      How did JTR know the names of either MJK or EP? Is there evidence that he did - and was he actually known to all the victims?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by MysterySinger View Post
        With regard to the thought that Elizabeth Prater was supposed to be another victim on the same night as MJK I just have a few comments. In order to arrive at that there have to be a number of assumptions (versus evidence). It has to be more than the co-incidence of names of Queens (Mary and Elizabeth).

        Mrs Prater did indeed live at number 20 and it was on the first floor - presumably covering a larger area than simply above Kelly's room because she could make out whether or not there was a light on in the Lodging House (across the road at the front?).

        She said that she had been waiting for some time outside for a man who lived with her (but didn't show up). If a man lived with her, how could JTR know that he wouldn't have been there on that night?

        Mrs Prater went to bed having put 2 tables behind the door. We do not know which door. The entrance to the stairs to her room was first on the right down the court as I understand it. Did she put 2 tables there or was it possible to lock that door once entered?

        Would there then have been another door to her room at the top of the stairs - and that one had the two table placed against it? I've assumed that that was the scenario. So JTR would have had to try 2 points of entry to get to Mrs Prater.

        How did JTR know the names of either MJK or EP? Is there evidence that he did - and was he actually known to all the victims?
        Hi,

        and thanks for good questions.

        When I answer historical questions I try to put away my own knowledge and try different hypotheses. Letīs try this on your first question:

        She (Prater) said that she had been waiting for some time outside for a man who lived with her (but didn't show up). If a man lived with her, how could JTR know that he wouldn't have been there on that night?

        Hypotheses for this:

        1. Prater was scared after the murder of Kelly and wanted everybody to believe she had a man there to protect her if the murder would aim at her or come back.

        2. Prater was actually waiting for a client but didnīt want to say that.

        3. The man didnīt show up so he wasnīt interested in her (anymore).

        4. The source isnīt reliable.

        Perhaps you can come to think of more hypotheses.

        About the barricading of the door: if there had been any other serious obstacles on the way to her room she wouldnīt have needed to barricade the door.

        Regards Pierre
        Last edited by Pierre; 11-16-2015, 01:50 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          As you already know I believe that Jack the Ripper planned the murder of Mary Kelly to spoil Lord Mayor's Day.
          Pierre, we know a great deal about what you believe but very little about why you believe it - which makes sensible discussion all but impossible. The Kelly murder did not disrupt the Lord Mayor's Show, nor was it likely to. There are many much more effective ways of ruining a parade without resorting to the dismembering of a prostitute. Do you actually have any evidence in support of the suspect you refuse to name, or is it just speculation about purported oblique references in written correspondence? If the latter can I suggest you read all the rubbish posted about Vincent Van Gogh and Toulouse Lautrec, both of whose names were punted on this forum as suspects only to disappear without trace?
          Last edited by Bridewell; 11-16-2015, 02:56 PM.
          "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
            Do you actually have any evidence in support of the suspect you refuse to name, or is it just speculation about purported oblique references in written correspondence?
            Hi Bridewell,

            and thanks for your question. I will try to answer your question as clearly as possible.

            The evidence in support of the suspect consist of 3 data sources which I define as weak, 6 data sources defined as medium strong, and 6 data sources defined as strong. 4 of these strong ones 6 contains his name, 1 of the weak ones does so too.

            I have also found a handwriting match lately but this one I consider weak at the moment since we are not sure about the provenience of the source which I compare his handwriting with.

            I understand that this probably means nothing to you. So I will try to describe the contents a bit.

            They contain:

            A confession
            A strong motive for the murders
            A strong motive for taunting the police
            A strong motive for spoiling Lord Mayorīs Day*
            A personal motive for the choice of the 9th November*

            *(these assumptions are not drawn from the metaphorical source I have discussed with you.)

            An explanation to the mutilations
            An explanation to the Goulston Street Graffito
            An explanation to Monroīs thinking
            An explanation to why he stopped after McKenzie

            Indications that he was also the Torso killer

            I donīt think we should over estimate the case. He was just a serial killer. And since he was interested in getting his message through to the police, he left clues.

            Regards Pierre

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Pierre View Post
              provenience of the source which I compare his handwriting with.

              I understand that this probably means nothing to you.
              Canadian who crossed into USA the other month.

              Quite FRANKly,if he posted under his original handle Ally would have a match on his ISP.
              My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                A confession
                Right, so you have a confession from your (long dead) suspect yet you don't want to name him in case he is innocent.

                How does that make any sense?

                Or do you harbour doubts as to the authenticity of the confession?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                  Hi Bridewell,

                  and thanks for your question. I will try to answer your question as clearly as possible.

                  The evidence in support of the suspect consist of 3 data sources which I define as weak, 6 data sources defined as medium strong, and 6 data sources defined as strong. 4 of these strong ones 6 contains his name, 1 of the weak ones does so too.

                  I have also found a handwriting match lately but this one I consider weak at the moment since we are not sure about the provenience of the source which I compare his handwriting with.

                  I understand that this probably means nothing to you. So I will try to describe the contents a bit.

                  They contain:

                  A confession
                  A strong motive for the murders
                  A strong motive for taunting the police
                  A strong motive for spoiling Lord Mayorīs Day*
                  A personal motive for the choice of the 9th November*

                  *(these assumptions are not drawn from the metaphorical source I have discussed with you.)

                  An explanation to the mutilations
                  An explanation to the Goulston Street Graffito
                  An explanation to Monroīs thinking
                  An explanation to why he stopped after McKenzie

                  Indications that he was also the Torso killer

                  I donīt think we should over estimate the case. He was just a serial killer. And since he was interested in getting his message through to the police, he left clues.

                  Regards Pierre
                  So the confession, motive for the murders and motive for taunting the Police are metaphorical.

                  What I don't fully understand is "he was just a serial killer" because you have intimated that the revelation of his name would be kind of sensational and if that's all he was why would you rather it not be the person you think?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                    David - you are missing the important information here.

                    And please reconsider your own hypothesis of a killer writing the actual adress of his next crime to the police.

                    Iīll get back to you when you have given that some thought.

                    Regards Pierre
                    a little bit condescending, isn't it?
                    Is it progress when a cannibal uses a fork?
                    - Stanislaw Jerzy Lee

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by MysterySinger View Post
                      So the confession, motive for the murders and motive for taunting the Police are metaphorical.

                      No. There are plain simple realistic sources for these assumptions.

                      What I don't fully understand is "he was just a serial killer" because you have intimated that the revelation of his name would be kind of sensational and if that's all he was why would you rather it not be the person you think?

                      I mean that the reason people havenīt found him is that he hides behind a lot of mythological tales. But if we get rid of that, he is just a serial killer.
                      Regards Pierre

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Pierre - to develop your hypotheses further with regard to Prater...

                        "Hypotheses for this:

                        1. Prater was scared after the murder of Kelly and wanted everybody to believe she had a man there to protect her if the murder would aim at her or come back."

                        Likelihood - quite high I would have thought. She might not know this but if JTR knew her name and location then he knew her circumstances and would not have been put off by the statement.

                        "2. Prater was actually waiting for a client but didn't want to say that."

                        Likelihood - again quite high. Further possibility - the client/visitor was actually JTR but he arrived too late.


                        "3. The man didnīt show up so he wasnīt interested in her (anymore)."

                        See 2

                        "4. The source isn't reliable."

                        Prater stated this under oath at the inquest. She may have lied (and she did not say this in her statement to Police apparently).

                        "Perhaps you can come to think of more hypotheses."

                        a) JTR was put off for a time by the presence of Hutchinson.
                        b) JTR was in the lodging house and didn't want to pass Hutch.
                        c) Prater wasn't an intended victim.


                        About the barricading of the door: if there had been any other serious obstacles on the way to her room she wouldnīt have needed to barricade the door.

                        Response - I'm not so sure - in her position I would have made doubly sure no one could gain entry.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          I think what MysterySinger is getting at Pierre is that you posted:

                          They contain:

                          A confession
                          A strong motive for the murders
                          A strong motive for taunting the police
                          A strong motive for spoiling Lord Mayorīs Day*
                          A personal motive for the choice of the 9th November*

                          *(these assumptions are not drawn from the metaphorical source I have discussed with you.)


                          One possible interpretation of this is that the three assumptions not starred with an asterisk ARE drawn from the metaphorical source you have discussed with us.

                          I don't think you actually meant to say that but perhaps you might like to confirm.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Yeah that's where I was coming from David. The assumption I made was that the first 3 in the list were from metaphorical sources. Whether that was what Pierre meant to indicate I can't say.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              I might be wrong but I think what he was trying to do was make clear that the last two assumptions, which we might have thought came from the (metaphorical) letter, were not from the letter.

                              Whether the confession is in plain English or in code or in some other form of metaphorical language, however, is currently uncertain.

                              Perhaps he will confirm for us.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                I'm wondering Pierre, what prevents you from posting the full text of the purported 'confession' on this forum, redacting any real names or places as appropriate.

                                If you are here in good faith and not fabricating the existence of this 'confession' I would expect nothing less than for the text of it to be revealed without any further ado.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X