New piece of evidence found

[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

No, facts are not facts. They are social an historical constructions.

You establish so called facts by researching archives and different types of data. Facts have to be established using source criticism.

After doing that, you may compare your so called facts to eachother. If they seem to be correlated you can start to create hypotheses. Then you go back to the sources and try to find other sources to test your hypotheses.

Regards Pierre

[curious4]

Probabilty

Yours Jef

Hello Jeff

I'll stretch to possibility. But I don't believe it.

Best wishes
C4

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Pierre

, facts are facts.

C4

Agreed...known to the heads of CID

PS Tom.. Was this theory raised at the Wolvergrampton conference?

[Jeff Leahy]

Proof? Best wishes
C4

Probabilty

Yours Jef

[Pierre]

I've always said this was a real possibility.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

Yes. I believe the killer wanted to taunt the police by making sure he got both the Metropolitan police and the City police to come after him that night. High risk behaviour is a part of his MO. You see this in everything he does.

Regards Pierre

[curious4]

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

[Simon Wood]

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

[Pierre]

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

[curious4]

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

[Pierre]

[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

[Pierre]

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

[Jeff Leahy]

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

[Jeff Leahy]

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

[curious4]

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

[Tom_Wescott]

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