An important discovery

[Pierre]

Hi,

and happy new year.

Craig has posted an article by Bernard Brown. In the article the author has published a letter I havenīt seen before. The letter is dated September 29th 1888. Brown writes:

“Yet further clues were contained in another letter received by police bearing a Liverpool postmark dated 29th September 1888, but these were not identified as such.

It read:

Beware I shall be at work on the first and second in the Minories at 12 midnight and I give the authorities a good chance, but there is never a policeman near when I am at work.

What the Ripper was referring to in his last remark was the fact that all the murders had been committed in the vicinity of a fixed point where a PC would normally be stationed up to 1 a.m. he was indirectly telling Commissioner WARREN that if only the points had been manned then he would have stood some chance of being caught.”


http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9347&page=29

Brown believes that Jack the Ripper was a policeman and I am not sure about his interpretation of the last remark in the letter. But when I read this letter I discovered some very important things:

1. It is written on the day preceeding the murders of the “double event”. This means it could be authentic.

2. It is written in a metaphorical language and it says: Beware I shall be at work on the first and second in the Minories at 12 midnight…”.

The first and second must mean the first and second victim, that is Stride and Eddowes.

3. I searched for the letter on the internet and found it. It is longer than in Browns article and it says:

Beware I shall be at work on the 1st and 2nd inst. in the Minories at 12 midnight and I give the authorities a good chance but there is never a policeman near when I am at work. Yours Jack the Ripper.

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_letters/

4. The letter was written on the day preceeding the murders. But the expression the first and second should make the police believe that he was going to strike in October and that “inst” meant October although it must have meant September.

5. It is signed ”Jack the Ripper”. This means that the name is an invention of the killer.

I want to thank Craig who published the article by Bernard Brown. I find it very important. It has the metaphorical language, it gives the day and the locations of the murder on Stride and Eddowes and it gives us a strong hypothesis for the killer choosing to call himself Jack the Ripper.

Thanks Craig!

Kind Regards, Pierre

[Monty]

Odd,

Cos fixed point duty ran a 3.00pm till 7.00am slot in H Division Whitechapel, not 1.00am as in most other divisions.

Monty

[David Orsam]

Cos fixed point duty ran a 3.00pm till 7.00am slot in H Division Whitechapel, not 1.00am as in most other divisions.

Not such an important discovery then.

[Elamarna]

Pierre

several points

You again are making statements of certainty, I have underlined the parts in the following two statements, which have no backup other than your opinion.


"2. It is written in a metaphorical language and it says: Beware I shall be at work on the first and second in the Minories at 12 midnight…”.

The first and second must mean the first and second victim, that is Stride and Eddowes."

"4. The letter was written on the day preceeding the murders. But the expression the first and second should make the police believe that he was going to strike in October and that “inst” meant October although it must have meant September."

You are not in a postion to say must, you could say "could" "could possibly" or "probably"

you tell us that we cannot go on gut feelings or opinion. That is what this is YOUR opinion.

Now let me get this right you are claiming:

"5. It is signed ”Jack the Ripper”. This means that the name is an invention of the killer."

you state :
The letter is dated September 29th 1888

The Dear Boss letter is dated 25th. it came first.

your suggestion is lacking

[David Orsam]

The other problem with this theory is that the purported letter was not "postmarked" 29 September 1888.

This existence of the letter was first mentioned (and transcribed) in a 1927 book by J. Hall Richardson entitled "From City to Fleet Street". There is no contemporary report of it at all. No-one has seen the original (or the envelope) and no known copy of it exists.

The date of the letter has been deduced from the fact that the author supposedly headed it "Liverpool. 29th inst". That could easily mean 29th October or any other month frankly. It could even be from 1889 or a later year.

The letter was supposedly from Jack the Ripper of "Prince William Street Liverpool" and is rounded off with the comment "What fools the police are I even give them the name of the street where I am living".

[Elamarna]

David and others,

It would help us all I think if Pierre would bother to do some background study on the subject before he posts new threads, obviously Pierre had not seen the letter before, and instead of looking at opinions of it has just given his interpretation, with an exclamation of joy about an important discovery.

This same letter was used during the Maybrick diary theory.

The Dear Boss letter was received by the Central News Agency on 27th September, that is in the only book Pierre says he has. Sugden chapter 13 paragraph 2.


"It is now well known that the name "Jack the Ripper" was coined by the author of a pseudonymous letter received by the Central News Agency on 27 September"

it obviously pre-dates this letter, and therefore the killer did not give himself the name.

Like the Mitre Square post recently assumptions are made from reading only one source, in this case a letter, and from getting basic facts wrong

[David Orsam]

As I've said many times, Steve, Pierre has an inherent propensity to leap to conclusions based on documents (or "data") which he has not properly understood. He does it time and again and this is just one more example of it.

The name "Jack the Ripper", incidentally, did not enter the public domain until 1 October 1888 so we can be fairly certain that, if this letter even existed in the first place, it was not written on, or dated, 29 September 1888.

[Pierre]

Pierre

you state :
The letter is dated September 29th 1888

The Dear Boss letter is dated 25th. it came first.

your suggestion is lacking

The Dear Boss letter is a fraud. And thinking about the Dear Boss letter, the author must have gotten the concept "Jack the Ripper" from the letter dated the 29th.

So the suggestion is better than I first thought. It even explains the Dear Boss letter. And since the Dear Boss letter was first published in October, after the double event, the author(s) of it must have read the letter dated the 29th and understood that it was written by the killer since it preceded the double event.

Thanks Steve for helping me developing this.

Regards Pierre

[Elamarna]

David, agreed they did not publish until 1 October, as I understand it because they at first considered it no different to the many other hundreds of letters received.
it was probably known about within parts of the news industry, and indeed is believed by many to have been produced by a journalist in the first place.

So even if the other letter was written 29th September 1888, which as you say is open to debate, there is no reason why the name used in the Dear Boss letter would not be known by quite a few persons.

steve

[David Orsam]

it was probably known about within parts of the news industry

Bit speculative and I rather doubt it. Especially if the purpose was to create a scoop.

And Pierre's letter was supposedly written from Liverpool not Fleet Street.

For me, the obvious answer is that it was written after 1 October 1888, assuming it ever actually existed. If Pierre wants to say it was before he needs to provide some evidence of that.

[Pierre]

David, agreed they did not publish until 1 October, as I understand it because they at first considered it no different to the many other hundreds of letters received.
it was probably known about within parts of the news industry, and indeed is believed by many to have been produced by a journalist in the first place.

It adds upp well. The journalists got the authentic letter on the 29th. The murders were performed on the 30th just as he said. After the murders the journalists understood that the letter was authentic and published the Dear Boss letter, giving it a false date, on the 1st (if that is a fact). Why should we think that a hoax letter could have a "correct date"? The whole letter including the date is false, Steve.

So even if the other letter was written 29th September 1888, which as you say is open to debate, there is no reason why the name used in the Dear Boss letter would not be known by quite a few persons.

Naturally the name became known when they read the letter from the 29th. And the whole nation got the name soon after.

So why didnīt they publish the real letter? I would say because it would make the police look incredibly stupid.

It was a warning, giving the right day, location and time. "Beware" he says! And they did not understand it. And therefore they could not print this in the papers!

Yes, this son of a x was really outsmarting the police!

But are we not able to outsmart the killer after 127 years? That is the question.

steve

Regards Pierre

[David Orsam]

So why didnīt they publish the real letter?

Why didn't who publish it? Who was it addressed to?

Should be easy for Pierre to establish. The address will be right beneath the postmark.

[Elamarna]

Pierre

you really make me laugh at time with the refusal to accept any logic other than your own


"The Dear Boss letter is a fraud. And thinking about the Dear Boss letter, the author must have gotten the concept "Jack the Ripper" from the letter dated the 29th."


While many would agree that the Dear boss letter was not written by the killer, this is not what you mean is it?

you are suggesting that it was faked at a later are you not?

I
If so what evidence do you have to support your statement?

The letter is dated 25th
The envelope was postmarked 27th, it was passed to Chief Constable Williamson at Scotland Yard 2 days later.

What evidence do you have to suggest this is wrong?

"So the suggestion is better than I first thought. It even explains the Dear Boss letter. And since the Dear Boss letter was first published in October, after the double event, the author(s) of it must have read the letter dated the 29th and understood that it was written by the killer since it preceded the double event."

Now given that you say we must look at the evidence:

There is no proof of posting for the letter you mention,
There is no record of publication before the date of the Dear boss letter.
is it not true that there no physical evidence for the existence of this letter other than it being mention in a book 39 years later?


Therefore where do you get the evidence to make this rather novel suggestion?

[Elamarna]

Pierre


"It adds upp well. The journalists got the authentic letter on the 29th. The murders were performed on the 30th just as he said. After the murders the journalists understood that the letter was authentic and published the Dear Boss letter, giving it a false date, on the 1st (if that is a fact). Why should we think that a hoax letter could have a "correct date"? The whole letter including the date is false, Steve. "


Proof of any of this please?

Name of journalist it was sent to?

Postmark of letter?


Your statement looks like a personal opinion, where is the scientific proof?
I ask you again do you have ANY evidence to back up this suggestion?

"So why didnīt they publish the real letter? I would say because it would make the police look incredibly stupid."

Your view it is real and the dear boss letter is fake are the very thing you say we all do.
Quoting you own view is not proof of anything?


you really are not very well equipped for serious debate are you, if this is all you can offer.

opinions must be backed by evidence!

[Pierre]

Pierre

you really make me laugh at time with the refusal to accept any logic other than your own


"The Dear Boss letter is a fraud. And thinking about the Dear Boss letter, the author must have gotten the concept "Jack the Ripper" from the letter dated the 29th."

While many would agree that the Dear boss letter was not written by the killer, this is not what you mean is it?

Havenīt you read my post at all? The Dear Boss letter is a hoax.

you are suggesting that it was faked at a later are you not?


The letter from the 29th is authentic. The journalists wrote the Dear Boss letter after that letter.

1
If so what evidence do you have to support your statement?

The evidence is this: There is no chance that the journalists could have invented the name "Jack the Ripper" since there was a letter with this name before the Dear Boss letter.

The letter is dated 25th
The envelope was postmarked 27th, it was passed to Chief Constable Williamson at Scotland Yard 2 days later.

You are now talking about "the letter" - I presume you mean the Dear Boss letter? It was a hoax. So the dates are also false.

What evidence do you have to suggest this is wrong?

That WHAT is wrong? That the Dear Boss letter is a hoax?

"So the suggestion is better than I first thought. It even explains the Dear Boss letter. And since the Dear Boss letter was first published in October, after the double event, the author(s) of it must have read the letter dated the 29th and understood that it was written by the killer since it preceded the double event."

Now given that you say we must look at the evidence:

There is no proof of posting for the letter you mention,
There is no record of publication before the date of the Dear boss letter.

Naturally. The letter from the killer was written on the 29th. The police only had ONE day to read it, interpret it correctly and take action. And they couldnīt. And therefore they did not understand the meaning of the letter until after the double event. But then it was too late.

is it not true that there no physical evidence for the existence of this letter other than it being mention in a book 39 years later?

Steve, you can always discuss the provenance of historical sources. But is there any explicit reason to believe that the date of 29th September 1888 is wrong given the fact that the Dear Boss letter, which was published in the newspapers, had the name Jack the Ripper just two days after the date of the first letter?

Therefore where do you get the evidence to make this rather novel suggestion?

As stated above.

Regards, Pierre