An experiment

[Pierre]

OK

1. Check.

2. N/A

3.Jack is linking 1. and Nothing/Eddowes.

4. The police were covering for Jack,GSG was just a reminder.

Warren had to erase it without photographing it.

Really? Was the police covering for Jack? How do you know this?

Kind regards, Pierre

[DJA]

How interesting. So the prostitutes blackmailed the doctor - had he bought their services?

Was Stride a prostitute?

And was this phenomenon common in England at the time? Is there any research about it?

Kind regards, Pierre

Fair while since Stride's status as a prostitute in Sweden had been revoked.

Which prostitutes are you referring to?

Patients,not prostitutes.

Quite Frankly,I don't feed trolls.

[DJA]

Really? Was the police covering for Jack? How do you know this?

Kind regards, Pierre

Self evident.

Feeding time has ceased.

[Pierre]

Self evident.

Feeding time has ceased.

Hi,

I am not interested in being fed. But thank you anyway.

Still, I am very interested in the methods of everyone who claims that he has solved the case.

Methods usually start with making use of some sources. So the question as to whether there are sources for your claim, or not, is an important methodological question. The quality of these sources is also a highly relevant matter.

So do you use historical sources and what would you say is the quality of those sources?

As you can see, I am not the slightest interested in wild speculations, if it is not done just for fun. But I believe that is not your aim here.

I myself have at some point, like many here, been enjoying myself in discussions about sources which have a low validity. And I have been pointing out the low validity.

So it is a complete different thing to have valid and reliable sources that you do not want to discuss here, or to have some other sources used in discussions just for fun.

Since I take it that you, as I said, do use valid sources, I am very interested in your methodology.

So what do you think: do your sources have high or low validity and reliability?

And how have you been working with this problem?

What method(s) of analysis have you preferably been using?

Kind regards, Pierre

[Abby Normal]

Fair while since Stride's status as a prostitute in Sweden had been revoked.

Which prostitutes are you referring to?

Patients,not prostitutes.

Quite Frankly,I don't feed trolls.

so we have one poster with a crack pot theory who wont name there suspect calling another poster with a crack pot theory who wont name there suspect a hypocrite and a troll.

this just keeps getting better and better (sarcasm).

why don't you just both name your suspects so there can be some serious discussion? and not all this nonsense.

[Pierre]

so we have one poster with a crack pot theory who wont name there suspect calling another poster with a crack pot theory who wont name there suspect a hypocrite and a troll.

this just keeps getting better and better (sarcasm).

why don't you just both name your suspects so there can be some serious discussion? and not all this nonsense.

Hi,

If the purpose here is naming different persons as suspected of being Jack the Ripper, I could produce a long list and publish it here. Just so you get something to discuss.

If I was a person who wanted to lie to other people, I could also give them some name(s) to discuss.

But sadly enough, I just stick to the small, boring and utterly sparse sources of history.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

so we have one poster with a crack pot theory who wont name there suspect calling another poster with a crack pot theory who wont name there suspect a hypocrite and a troll.

this just keeps getting better and better (sarcasm).

why don't you just both name your suspects so there can be some serious discussion? and not all this nonsense.

Abby my friend,

it is not often i disagree with you(accept on the GSG) but this time I will.

DJA, has never posted a thread on his suspect as far as I can see.
He has given plenty of hard hints: age, family, links to at least 2 victims and he say he was both a Doctor and Lecturer and a good deal more scattered information.
Admittedly he has given this away piecemeal, often at the end of a post. However it is searchable if anyone wants to search.
If we were to search hard enough I am sure we would find his suspect.

Pierre, has started many posts, some directly linked to his suspect, some not. What Pierre has hinted about his suspect is very sketchy, no hard details at all, even the age is in a range, that is not before a certain date.
Given that, searching for his suspect is not practical, has we do not have enough data to start with.

Pierre also appears to have two problems:

Firstly Admin has informed him, that unless he is prepared to name his suspect he cannot discuss him. if that is inaccurate I withdraw the statement, but that appears to be what happened in January

Secondly he thinks it is wrong to name someone unless you can prove it.


Now Abby where I disagree with you is saying they both have "crackpot" theories.

Whilst I understand your feelings, and indeed share them to a great extent

To call the theories "crackpot" is just untrue, because we don't know enough about their theories do we, to describe them as such?

regards

Steve

[Abby Normal]

Abby my friend,

it is not often i disagree with you(accept on the GSG) but this time I will.

DJA, has never posted a thread on his suspect as far as I can see.
He has given plenty of hard hints: age, family, links to at least 2 victims and he say he was both a Doctor and Lecturer and a good deal more scattered information.
Admittedly he has given this away piecemeal, often at the end of a post. However it is searchable if anyone wants to search.
If we were to search hard enough I am sure we would find his suspect.

Pierre, has started many posts, some directly linked to his suspect, some not. What Pierre has hinted about his suspect is very sketchy, no hard details at all, even the age is in a range, that is not before a certain date.
Given that, searching for his suspect is not practical, has we do not have enough data to start with.

Pierre also appears to have two problems:

Firstly Admin has informed him, that unless he is prepared to name his suspect he cannot discuss him. if that is inaccurate I withdraw the statement, but that appears to be what happened in January

Secondly he thinks it is wrong to name someone unless you can prove it.


Now Abby where I disagree with you is saying they both have "crackpot" theories.

Whilst I understand your feelings, and indeed share them to a great extent

To call the theories "crackpot" is just untrue, because we don't know enough about their theories do we, to describe them as such?

regards

Steve

Hi El

Ive seen enough of there "hints". but of course I should have prefaced the statement with a "IMHO".



but again, since they wont name them-there cant be any real serious discussion, nor give there theories/suspects any real validity.

My post was also mainly because DJA got personal toward pierre-which I thought was pretty ironic.

if either wants to layout who there suspect is and the theory behind it, I will gladly apologize to either or both, if I then find that its not ridiculously far fetched and/or there is any real evidence to back up their claims.

[Elamarna]

Hi El

Ive seen enough of there "hints". but of course I should have prefaced the statement with a "IMHO".



but again, since they wont name them-there cant be any real serious discussion, nor give there theories/suspects any real validity.

My post was also mainly because DJA got personal toward pierre-which I thought was pretty ironic.

if either wants to layout who there suspect is and the theory behind it, I will gladly apologize to either or both, if I then find that its not ridiculously far fetched and/or there is any real evidence to back up their claims.

i think it was just as ironic that pierre says it is wrong to name someone, then asks DJA to do just that.

all very funny.


steve

[Abby Normal]

i think it was just as ironic that pierre says it is wrong to name someone, then asks DJA to do just that.

all very funny.


steve

Thanks EL
that too!

Yes, I find it all rather amusing. But at times I also find it annoying and frustrating, because honestly I'm hoping there is a modicum of validity to their ideas and or a possibility that we could learn something new from them.

[Pierre]

i think it was just as ironic that pierre says it is wrong to name someone, then asks DJA to do just that.

all very funny.

steve

How nice to hear that you are having a good time, Steve. But I thought that DJA had named his suspect to the rest of you.

Regards, Steve

[Elamarna]

How nice to hear that you are having a good time, Steve. But I thought that DJA had named his suspect to the rest of you.

Regards, Steve

Pierre

No not that I am aware.

He has said he was a doctor, given some hints about family and background and age, but no name.



My post was actually aimed at defending the theories of both Yourself and DJA, because in my view you cannot rubbish a theory you have not heard or read.

all the best

Steve

[IchabodCrane]

To come back to the original premise of the thread:

To summarize: The idea of the word "juwes" as referring to jews is a problem.

The fact that the Synagogue was located next to Mitre Square is really giving away the intention of the killer.
And it also leaves very little possibility for the Berner Street murder having been committed by another hand.

The intention was to direct police suspicion towards a Jewish suspect.
After he was interrupted in Dutfield’s yard, Jack must have panicked for a moment and then quickly made a decision how to continue. What is the nearest landmark that would unmistakably connect the mutilation murders to the Jews? Of course, the Great Synagogue! Off to Duke Street!

I am convinced that piece of chalk was already in Jack’s pocket when he entered Dutfield’s yard with Elizabeth Stride. Otherwise, there would have been just one coincidence too many on that night.

[Mayerling]

Hi IcabodCrane

Except the East End had a large dollop of the London Jewish population in it, I hardly consider the nearness of the murder sites to Jewish institutions and clubs really worthwhile. Had each murder been INSIDE a Jewish synagogue or business or Jewish Socialist/Anarchist club, that would a different thing.

Minor consideration point for me. I belonged to the Free Synagogue of Flushing for many years. It is on the corner of Kissena Blvd., and Sanford Avenue in Flushing. In the early 1980s two men (a bank robber and a bank guard) had a shoot out when the robber was fleeing the bank, and killed each other only fwo and a half blocks away just off Kissena Blvd., where it meets Main Street in Flushing, on a side street near the Long Island Railroad trestle station stop. Jews are considered (by anti-Semites usually) as controlling the banks. Is their a connection to this? Not that I can think was ever shown. To me the individual locations of the victims (as of this time - maybe more data would have to be found) were chance locations used for their isolation, and not because of the Jews. Anyway I have no doubts there was plenty anti-Semitism in the East End, or London, or Britain in 1888, and possibly even now. It just has not been clearly linked to the killings to merit more than speculation.

Anyway that is how I see it.

By the way, the worst mass murder in the Flushing area in recent years (or at all for that matter) was about a dozen or so years ago when a "Wendy's" fast food hamburger shop was robbed late at night on Main Street, and the two robbers (after tying up the five employees) shot them all to death. The robber - murderers were eventually caught.

Jeff

[Pierre]

To come back to the original premise of the thread:

The fact that the Synagogue was located next to Mitre Square is really giving away the intention of the killer.

Eh, no. It doesnīt. As does not the fact that Dorset Street was close to a church.

And it also leaves very little possibility for the Berner Street murder having been committed by another hand.

The intention was to direct police suspicion towards a Jewish suspect.

"Intention". So why did he not write the word "Jews" on the wall instead of another very strange word?

After he was interrupted in Dutfield’s yard, Jack must have panicked for a moment and then quickly made a decision how to continue. What is the nearest landmark that would unmistakably connect the mutilation murders to the Jews?

Of course, the Great Synagogue! Off to Duke Street!

Yes! Of course! And why not kill her precisely in front of the Synagogue? That would have made his "intention" clear!

I am convinced

Yes, I see that.

that piece of chalk was already in Jack’s pocket when he entered Dutfield’s yard with Elizabeth Stride.

Otherwise, there would have been just one coincidence too many on that night.

They add up, donīt they. So what do they mean?

Kind regards, Pierre