Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New piece of evidence found

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Boggles View Post
    Is that because he was pissed off with Jewish men who interrupted his murder of Stride (Lipski!). - He said they should not be blamed for nothing. If they didnt interrupt him he wouldnt have had to kill Eddows. Or at least thats what his warped mind told him, always trying to blame someone else.
    Hi Boggles,

    I donīt think he was interrupted. I think the double event was planned to be performed exactly the way it was.

    Regards Pierre

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Pierre View Post
      Hi Abby,

      I do not think he wrote the "Dear Boss letter" or the "From Hell letter".

      A reason as to why I donīt think so is that I can only allow myself to think he wrote letters before the murders containing facts only the killer could have known about.

      And by the way, none of these letters matches the handwriting of the person I think was the killer.

      Regards Pierre
      We know the letters were written by an enterprising journalist as Anderson and Swanson tells us so 'Known to CID' Marginalia

      Yours Jeff

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
        We know the letters were written by an enterprising journalist as Anderson and Swanson tells us so 'Known to CID' Marginalia

        Yours Jeff
        no we don't. we only know that they thought they were written by a journalist. and given there track record I would surmise it was only a long after the fact opinion.
        "Is all that we see or seem
        but a dream within a dream?"

        -Edgar Allan Poe


        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

        -Frederick G. Abberline

        Comment


        • #34
          Books

          Most of us have read some books written on the subject of JTR, and find the background information in them, which cannot always be found on this site, very valuable, even if we don't agree with the conclusions drawn.

          I find it odd that Pierre chooses to completely ignore this source of information which could help support whatever it is he claims to have stumbled across. After all, in every paper and book on any subject, a list of books consulted is always given.

          I wonder whether Pierre is in a situation where his access to books is limited somehow?

          Best wishes
          C4

          Comment


          • #35
            Enough of the games. Put up or shut up

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Pierre View Post
              Hi Boggles,

              I donīt think he was interrupted. I think the double event was planned to be performed exactly the way it was.

              Regards Pierre
              I've always said this was a real possibility.

              Yours truly,

              Tom Wescott

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
                We know the letters were written by an enterprising journalist as Anderson and Swanson tells us so 'Known to CID' Marginalia

                Yours Jeff
                Hello Jeff

                We don't know. This was just their opinion.

                Best wishes
                C4

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                  no we don't. we only know that they thought they were written by a journalist. and given there track record I would surmise it was only a long after the fact opinion.
                  Actually I think the quote was 'Known to heads of CID'

                  Which seems fairly unequivocal to me

                  Yours Jeff

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by curious4 View Post
                    Hello Jeff

                    We don't know. This was just their opinion.

                    Best wishes
                    C4
                    It wasn't there opinion it was their job. Swanson was incharge of the investigation and not known for wild boasting, besides it was written to himself in the margin, you don't tend to lie to yourself?

                    So the letters being written by a journalist is the most probable solution.

                    I don't think they are talking about the Lusk letter however

                    Yours Jeff

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
                      We know the letters were written by an enterprising journalist as Anderson and Swanson tells us so 'Known to CID' Marginalia

                      Yours Jeff
                      Hi Jeff,

                      that is what I think might be the case too.

                      Regards Pierre

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        [QUOTE=Boggles;360760][QUOTE]It is a writing but not the GSG
                        Did you match the Lusk letter with anyones handwriting? anyone we know??
                        Hi Boggles,

                        I compared it to the handwriting of the person I think was the killer. It has no resemblance with the Lusk letter.

                        I have found a match with another source though.

                        Regards Pierre

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
                          Actually I think the quote was 'Known to heads of CID'

                          Which seems fairly unequivocal to me

                          Yours Jeff
                          Hello Jeff

                          Proof?

                          Best wishes
                          C4

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by curious4 View Post
                            Most of us have read some books written on the subject of JTR, and find the background information in them, which cannot always be found on this site, very valuable, even if we don't agree with the conclusions drawn.

                            I find it odd that Pierre chooses to completely ignore this source of information which could help support whatever it is he claims to have stumbled across. After all, in every paper and book on any subject, a list of books consulted is always given.

                            I wonder whether Pierre is in a situation where his access to books is limited somehow?

                            Best wishes
                            C4
                            Hi C4,

                            Of course I look into some of the literature about the case now and then but only to see what authors write about the sources from 1888-1889.

                            I find this field is full of bias and mythological ideas and I want to go back to the sources and let the sources speak.

                            Secondary sources can be valuable when they are giving the correct information about primary sources.

                            But too often the secondary sources in field of study have bias since the authors claim they have solved the case. So you canīt trust them.

                            Regards Pierre

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Hi All,

                              Just out of interest, there was a Grampton Convalescent Home in 1888.

                              Don't know if it has been conflated with the Seaside Home.

                              Regards,

                              Simon
                              Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                                Hi C4,

                                Of course I look into some of the literature about the case now and then but only to see what authors write about the sources from 1888-1889.

                                I find this field is full of bias and mythological ideas and I want to go back to the sources and let the sources speak.

                                Secondary sources can be valuable when they are giving the correct information about primary sources.

                                But too often the secondary sources in field of study have bias since the authors claim they have solved the case. So you canīt trust them.

                                Regards Pierre
                                Hello Pierre

                                Could have sworn you stated definitely that you did not read any books and advised others to stay away as well.

                                And I don't see any bias in background information, facts are facts.

                                C4
                                Last edited by curious4; 11-19-2015, 09:52 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X