An important discovery

[David Orsam]

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?

As I've said, the only date on the letter itself when it was first published by J. Hall Richardson in 1927 was "29th inst". No month, no year. Just "29th inst". No reason to think that it was 29th September let alone 29th September 1888.

It was not until over 70 years after the murders, in 1959, that Donald McCormack claimed that the letter was dated "29th September [1888]", but his source appears to have been J. Hall Richardson's book so he was in no position to know this.

I'm guessing that Pierre, having read an article saying that the letter was dated 29 September 1888, is now programmed on a course from which nothing will ever divert him. He will simply be unable to accept any other possible date for this letter.

[Elamarna]

Pierre

you have not answered, continuing to say it is a hoax is not proof that the other letter is authentic!

Many could give you a name for the writer of "dear boss", but few apart from you would argue that envelope and letter were produced after another letter of even less provenance.



"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".

please listen carefully, that is not evidence it is a circular argument, do you understand what that means.



You say that the letter of the 29 is genuine and from the killer.

What evidence do you offer to support this?

You argue that journalist could not have come up with "Jack the Ripper" since the name was already in existence.

What evidence,other than your opinion can you offer for this view?
you cannot argue they copied it from 29th , that is a circular argument.
you have no proof of when that letter arrived, if it arrived or where it arrived.


You claim "Dear Boss" was written after 29th September letter!



However this originally said 29th inst and was altered by McCormick to read 29th September.

What actually proof do you have of this that it was written before "Dear Boss"?


"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?"


Pierre you are always saying we must use science to evaluate data, however now you want to question science when you cannot make it say what you want.

You sarcastically said "Havenīt you read my post at all? " funny really given you have not really read mine.

1.There is no documentary proof for a letter dated 29th September 1888, it originally said 29th inst

2. 29th is the supposed date of writing, not posting or of receipt

3. There is no envelope for the letter known, therefore it does not have a postmark.

"Dear Boss" both letter and envelope still exist! unlike 29th September letter.


4. There is no reference of the 29th Letter until 39 years later.



if you can refute those 4 points, then we can debate.

otherwise it is just PERSONAL OPINION if not a flight of fancy.

[Pierre]

Pierre

you have not answered, continuing to say it is a hoax is not proof that the other letter is authentic!

Well, then I have a question for you, Steve: Has anyone proved that the other letter is not authentic?

Many could give you a name for the writer of "dear boss", but few apart from you would argue that envelope and letter were produced after another letter of even less provenance.

And as you would say: Those who do not argue this only have their own personal opinion.

"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".

please listen carefully, that is not evidence it is a circular argument, do you understand what that means.

Please listen carefully Steve. There are only two possibilities: either the letter dated the 29th 1888 is written before the Dear Boss letter or it is not. This is the basis for the chance of this letter preceding the Dear Boss letter, so a circle is not the basis, but two categories: YES / NO.

And it canīt very well be both - or can it?


You say that the letter of the 29 is genuine and from the killer.
What evidence do you offer to support this?

The author of this letter is using a metaphorical language and claims to know that two women will be killed in the Minories the day after the letter was written. And he is warning the police.

You argue that journalist could not have come up with "Jack the Ripper" since the name was already in existence.

What evidence,other than your opinion can you offer for this view?
you cannot argue they copied it from 29th , that is a circular argument.

No, you are arguing in circles, Steve. You just said the same thing above. And I answered it.

you have no proof of when that letter arrived, if it arrived or where it arrived.

The provenance is often a problem. But this doesnīt mean that the source is worthless, Steve. You have to consider different sources together with others.

You claim "Dear Boss" was written after 29th September letter!

Sure. It must have been, given that it is a hoax.

However this originally said 29th inst and was altered by McCormick to read 29th September.

Was it? How do you know this? Or is it only a personal opinion?

What actually proof do you have of this that it was written before "Dear Boss"?


Now you are being circular again. So: What actual proof do you have that the Dear Boss letter was written before the other letter?

"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?"

Pierre you are always saying we must use science to evaluate data, however now you want to question science when you cannot make it say what you want.

Naturally. And I donīt build my knowledge of the killerīs ID on this letter as you understand. But taken together with other sources I think it is very interesting.

You sarcastically said "Havenīt you read my post at all? " funny really given you have not really read mine.

1.There is no documentary proof for a letter dated 29th September 1888, it originally said 29th inst

Well, have you got proof or is this just a personal opinion?

2. 29th is the supposed date of writing, not posting or of receipt

3. There is no envelope for the letter known, therefore it does not have a postmark.

"Dear Boss" both letter and envelope still exist! unlike 29th September letter.

An existing hoax. With false contents. With false dates! How very valuable!

4. There is no reference of the 29th Letter until 39 years later.

Here one could draw a circle...

if you can refute those 4 points, then we can debate.

If you can refute my answers, then we can debate.

otherwise it is just PERSONAL OPINION if not a flight of fancy.

Or otherwise it is just PERSONAL OPINION if not an eternal circle.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Has Pierre now taken to writing his posts in metaphorical language? I can't understand a word of it.

[Pierre]

A question for Steve

Hi again,

Steve, do you know if there was any other letter(s) from the killer sent to the police or the newspapers before the double event?

Any letter at all?

I am asking you since I know you have a lot of knowledge about the murders.

If you donīt know, maybe there is someone else who does.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

Another one

Sorry, Steve, but this one also:

Who the xxxx is "the Boss"?

Charles Warren?

Regards Pierre

[David Orsam]

Steve, do you know if there was any other letter(s) from the killer sent to the police or the newspapers before the double event?

If the question is: were there any other letters supposedly or purportedly from the killer sent to the police before the double event - and as a purported scientist Pierre should know how to use those words - then, yes, there was one dated 24 September 1888, according to "Letters from Hell" by Evans & Skinner.

[GUT]

Has Pierre now taken to writing his posts in metaphorical language? I can't understand a word of it.

That's how I feel about pretty much anything Trollierre writes.

[drstrange169]

First letter, readily accesable these days, claiming to be from the killer is dated and post marked 24 Sept 1888.


EDIT

Sorry for the duplication,just saw David's post.

[GUT]

First letter, readily accesable these days, claiming to be from the killer is dated and post marked 24 Sept 1888.


EDIT

Sorry for the duplication,just saw David's post.

Maybe you've got him on ignore like Trollierre has.

[GUT]

Just had a thunk Pierre said he needed one more bit of data before the huge reveal.

Maybe this is it.

We should all be super mega excited.

[Elamarna]

"Well, then I have a question for you, Steve: Has anyone proved that the other letter is not authentic?"

Sorry that is not the question, you sound like a song from "Lost Horizon"
However there is no record of this letter until 39 years after the murders, the provenance is very poor! therefore the onus is on you to prove it is authentic, not on me to prove it is not.


"And as you would say: Those who do not argue this only have their own personal opinion".

yes they are opinions,most do not claim it to be the truth. only a possibility,
there are however some like yourself who believe their view is always correct .


"Please listen carefully Steve. There are only two possibilities: either the letter dated the 29th 1888 is written before the Dear Boss letter or it is not. This is the basis for the chance of this letter preceding the Dear Boss letter, so a circle is not the basis, but two categories: YES / NO.

And it canīt very well be both - or can it?"

No your argument is that Dear Boss cannot be first, because you believe the other letter is first.
your support for this is the 29th letter is first because dear Boss was a hoax written after the 29th letter,
THAT IS A CIRCULAR ARGUMENT


"The author of this letter is using a metaphorical language and claims to know that two women will be killed in the Minories the day after the letter was written. And he is warning the police."


you obviously do not know what a metaphor is!

A metaphor says one thing is another, there is however a link between the two

example: the radiant globe in the sky. Meaning the sun

or better still, a train on the London underground about 1978 when they were silver in colour. - "a silver ghost of the line"

You take messages and say they have hidden meanings, however rarely are there connections, you call them metaphors at best they could be described as coded messages, which you think you have the key to.

However what you say is misleading, it does not say that 2 women will be killed the day after. it says:

"Beware. I shall be at work on the 1st and 2nd inst. in minories at twelve midnight"


To say Minories, which is near to Mitre Square is not a metaphor, the murders did not take place at midnight, not sure how that could be a metaphor. In your view anytime could be used?.

Given it was written 29th apparently although no month given, 1st and 2nd should be the days of the month, it is not metaphorical at all.



my view on that is as legitimate as yours!

"No, you are arguing in circles, Steve. You just said the same thing above. And I answered it."

No its not circular,, its repeated do you not understand the the difference.
You did not answer, I asked for evidence, you either chose not to or you cannot answer!



"The provenance is often a problem. But this doesnīt mean that the source is worthless, Steve. You have to consider different sources together with others."


That is not an answer,
again you fail to provide any evidence, i assume because you cannot ?

what different sources are you using to prove this?


"Sure. It must have been, given that it is a hoax."

No that is not proof, it is your view.

"Was it? How do you know this? Or is it only a personal opinion?"

Pierre do some reading:
this letter first appeared in J Hall Richardson's book"from the city to fleet street", it was then quoted by McCormick.
There is no trace of the original letter and no mention of it after Richardson's book until McCormick used it.

Richardson's version just says "29th inst" when McCormick mentioned this in his book, 1959 I think, it became 29th September.
In addition in Richardson's original it is given as one letter, McCormick splits into two.


"Now you are being circular again. So: What actual proof do you have that the Dear Boss letter was written before the other letter?"

No its asking you a question you don't want to answer,

evidence for Dear Boss Letter written first:
Date on letter
Postmark on envelope
Date passed to chief constable Williamson.

Where is your evidence it was written second, other than to say hoax?
produce evidence?



"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?"

yes there is:

The original did not say September.
There is no trace of the letter, to allow its authenticity to be checked
There is no month or year given, you are assuming September 1888 with out proof of such
There is no evidence of its existence until 39 years after the Murders



"Naturally. And I donīt build my knowledge of the killerīs ID on this letter as you understand. But taken together with other sources I think it is very interesting."


Well of course not, you had not seen it until today. Why had you not seen it?
Could it be because your background on the murders is poor!


"Well, have you got proof or is this just a personal opinion?"


2nd time you asked, yes see above.
Not my opinion.just the facts


"An existing hoax. With false contents. With false dates! How very valuable!"

While it may not have been written by the killer the provenance for these documents is sound and well documented.
What evidence do you have to say the dates are wrong, again see above.
It appears you base this on YOUR PERSONAL OPINION

"4. There is no reference of the 29th Letter until 39 years later."

I notice no comment on this point from me.


It is not my opinion, these are the recorded facts,
If you think these are wrong, discuss with evidence and prove your point.

The views you express in this post are neither scientific or based evidence of any sort.

[Elamarna]

Hi again,

Steve, do you know if there was any other letter(s) from the killer sent to the police or the newspapers before the double event?

Any letter at all?

I am asking you since I know you have a lot of knowledge about the murders.

If you donīt know, maybe there is someone else who does.

Regards Pierre

pierre

without looking too hard I point out one, written 24th September, delivered to CID of the Met on the 25th.

why can't you do your own research?

[Elamarna]

Sorry, Steve, but this one also:

Who the xxxx is "the Boss"?

Charles Warren?

Regards Pierre

Given it was sent to the Central News Agency i doubt it?

and your point is?

[David Orsam]

Given it was sent to the Central News Agency i doubt it?

and your point is?

If the killer was a police officer of the Metropolitan Police Force then Sir Charles Warren was (presumably) the killer's boss.

Do you think he might be heading in that direction?