If the 'Dear Boss' letter is a hoax...

[David Orsam]

[You do not understand. "Inst". It was just one day left, David. And that day was not the 1st September and not the 2nd September. It was the 30th September.

Therefore the first and second were not dates but they were Stride and Eddowes.

I do understand what you are saying Pierre but it's a somewhat crazy interpretation.

"I shall be at work on the 1st and 2nd inst." means: I shall be at work on the 1st and 2nd of the present month. It's a date. It does not mean anything else in plain English.

Now, if the letter was written on 29th September, it should have said "prox." to mean 1st and 2nd October. But here's one possibility. It was written on 1st October and backdated to 29th September and the writer got confused as a result. Or Hall Richardson made an error in reproducing the letter. Or his printer did. That's the problem with relying on a secondary source without seeing the original.

One thing the letter does not say is that any murders will be committed on 30 September 1888.

[David Orsam]

You are terribly bad at trying to operationalize "normal", David. It does not work at all.

There is no binary variable here.

I would have thought the binary variables were obvious to you Pierre.

Forgive me for a moment, please, because I have to go off and operationalize some normal.

[John G]

Absurd arguments =

A serial killer gives official information about the exact street where he is going to commit the next murder.


A clear example =

Beware. I am going to kill again on Friday night. The address is:

13 Miller´s Court.

Jack the Ripper

When did a serial killer impart this information? Please don't tell me it's based upon your hilarious metaphysical interpretation of the gogmagog letter, because if you do, I'm concerned I won't be able to stop myself from laughing, and I'm sure you wouldn't want that on your conscience.

And what do you mean by "official information"? How is this to be differentiated from unofficial or semi official information?

[Elamarna]

Not data source but sources. It is a set of sources, known and unknown, giving a very high historical coherence for established hypothetical facts. There are sources for a clear and distinct motive and they have very high explanatory power.



A set of sources. There is an explanation for the name Jack the Ripper. There is an explanation for the choice of the date 30 September and it is connected to sources giving a clear and distinctive motive.

Again no answer, just evasion, NAME the sources, that is what academics do!

Do you think that a well educated killer would tell the press and police that he was going to kill two persons in a specific street on a specific date? Do you not think that such a thing would be very unlikely?

You have not established the killer was educated, that is a personal view, so the question you pose is pointless.

Why do you think I would care about what you "assume"? I do my research in the interest of history, not in the interest of people who´s only interest is to destroy the interest of history.

Oh dear, struck a raw nerve?

Why do YOU think I care, if you care about what I think of the posts you make?

My comment is that without evidence of a source, I cannot accept such a source exists.

I really am not bothered how you feel about that!

If you refuse to give sources, there can be no debate.

I am most sorry, but nothing you do is in the interest of history, nothing posted in the last year backs that claim up.

The self serving claim, of its a burden is so very tedious and disingenuous.


No one is interested in destroying history; after all it is not possible to destroy what is not produced nor evidence of its existence given.

I don´t do defense. I do research. If you want to argue with people who have spent years and years defending their own ideas, you will find many others here to debate with.

You obviously do not wish to have a serious academic debate.

Evasion yet again!

Actually Steve, I don´t care what you or others think about me. I serve history. And if I am wrong, you will have a wonderful time.

The self serving claim of burden yet again, so hilarious!

Why would I not want to know who the killer was, I have no books or theories to push.

And I do not care about that either. I just hope I am wrong.

Again I ask why do you hope you are wrong?


Steve

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;394057][QUOTE=Elamarna;393948]

Hi Steve,

Good, I will make it simple too.

Not data source but sources. It is a set of sources, known and unknown, giving a very high historical coherence for established hypothetical facts. There are sources for a clear and distinct motive and they have very high explanatory power.



A set of sources. There is an explanation for the name Jack the Ripper. There is an explanation for the choice of the date 30 September and it is connected to sources giving a clear and distinctive motive.


Do you think that a well educated killer would tell the press and police that he was going to kill two persons in a specific street on a specific date? Do you not think that such a thing would be very unlikely?



Why do you think I would care about what you "assume"? I do my research in the interest of history, not in the interest of people who´s only interest is to destroy the interest of history.



I don´t do defense. I do research. If you want to argue with people who have spent years and years defending their own ideas, you will find many others here to debate with.

Actually Steve, I don´t care what you or others think about me. I serve history. And if I am wrong, you will have a wonderful time.

And I do not care about that either. I just hope I am wrong.

Hyperthetical facts? How on earth can something that is merely hypothetical be a fact? Oh, I see, your relying on Ryle, although you probably don't realize it. However, for Ryle a "hypothetical fact" isn't actually a fact at all, just a belief that hasn't been proven to be true or false, i.e. such as a quirky/bizarre metaphysical interpretation of a letter.

How do you know the killer was educated?

[Elamarna]

Location of Berner Street and Mitre Sq in relation to the parish holy trinty Minories

Pierre

Academic research question for you?

Please name the historic source you have used to place Berner Street and Mitre Sq in the parish of Holy Trinity Minories?

Research would suggest this claim is inaccurate.



Steve

[kjab3112]

Hi Steve

A bit more research shows that Holy Trinity Minories was merged with St Botolph Aldgate (located to the North of the Aldgate) both within the Tower's jurisdiction. This though did not happen until the 1890s. It is reasonable with both being in the Tower Liberties for a non-local to consider Mitre Square part of the Minories, but again I agree and ask Pierre, how is Berners Street, clearly a part of Whitechapel (or potentially Wapping) and outside of the London Wall considered the same.

Pierre, how is Berners Street, historically part of Middlesex, associated with a City of London parish? Especially as it is part of St George in the East Parish from the 1700s?

Best wishes

Paul

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve

A bit more research shows that Holy Trinity Minories was merged with St Botolph Aldgate (located to the North of the Aldgate) both within the Tower's jurisdiction. This though did not happen until the 1890s. It is reasonable with both being in the Tower Liberties for a non-local to consider Mitre Square part of the Minories, but again I agree and ask Pierre, how is Berners Street, clearly a part of Whitechapel (or potentially Wapping) and outside of the London Wall considered the same.

Pierre, how is Berners Street, historically part of Middlesex, associated with a City of London parish? Especially as it is part of St George in the East Parish from the 1700s?

Best wishes

Paul

Paul

There are sources, which include census records, which suggest Mitre Square was not in the parish Pierre suggests, be it merged or not.



Steve

[Michael W Richards]

Catherine Eddowes' killer didn't "clip the lady's ears off." The writer of the postcard (same pen) apologizes for not doing so and gives the excuse that there wasn't enough time. There was time to take a uterus and kidney, however. Making good on a threat that was bound to go public seemed to not be so important. So, what's the point of the letter? Probably what the "certain high officials" at the Yard came to suspect.

Bingo. It drove paper sales through the roof.

The same cannot be said for The Lusk Letter though...to my eye far more likely to have been written by a killer.

[Geddy2112]

I doubt the letter said specific times dates and locations. If he had been so precise to have given such info pre murder then surely he would not have made such a balls of the murder in Berner St. His planning and preparation would not have allowed for nearly being caught red handed. Too many variables out of his control to even fairly accurately predict such things as date time and place.

[Pierre]

Hi Steve

A bit more research shows that Holy Trinity Minories was merged with St Botolph Aldgate (located to the North of the Aldgate) both within the Tower's jurisdiction. This though did not happen until the 1890s. It is reasonable with both being in the Tower Liberties for a non-local to consider Mitre Square part of the Minories, but again I agree and ask Pierre, how is Berners Street, clearly a part of Whitechapel (or potentially Wapping) and outside of the London Wall considered the same.

Pierre, how is Berners Street, historically part of Middlesex, associated with a City of London parish? Especially as it is part of St George in the East Parish from the 1700s?

Best wishes

Paul

Hi Paul,

Yes, he was at work in the Minories this night.

If the police took the letter seriously, the Minories was expected by the killer to be swarmed by police.

Therefore he started with Berner Street.

Regards, Pierre

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

“Dear Boss” having been conceived by a journalist is unlikely.

No journalist taking a unilateral decision to write “Dear Boss” in order to whip up a circulation-boosting panic could ever have hoped to score such a resounding bullseye, especially as the letter’s ultimate fate rested with someone in authority at Scotland Yard taking it seriously, and bestowing upon it the official imprimatur of the Metropolitan Police by reproducing it on posters outside every police station. No journalist could have been certain of such an eventuality, for in the wake of the Leather Apron lone maniac fiasco there was every chance that Sir Charles Warren might simply dismiss the letter as a time-wasting hoax and toss it into his wastepaper basket.

Regards,

Simon

[Scott Nelson]

Hi Simon,

That makes sense. The question is where did it originate and why was it sent to the Central News Agency?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Scott,

An excellent question. I'm sorry that I do not have a ready answer.

I do, however, have my suspicions; and they must remain suspicions until I can firm them up.

I trust you're well.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi All,

“Dear Boss” having been conceived by a journalist is unlikely.

No journalist taking a unilateral decision to write “Dear Boss” in order to whip up a circulation-boosting panic could ever have hoped to score such a resounding bullseye, especially as the letter’s ultimate fate rested with someone in authority at Scotland Yard taking it seriously, and bestowing upon it the official imprimatur of the Metropolitan Police by reproducing it on posters outside every police station. No journalist could have been certain of such an eventuality, for in the wake of the Leather Apron lone maniac fiasco there was every chance that Sir Charles Warren might simply dismiss the letter as a time-wasting hoax and toss it into his wastepaper basket.

Why does everything have to have been planned to the last minute detail? Why did the author have to be "certain" of any eventualities?

Why can't things just have happened out of the control of the author?

Perhaps he hoped it would cause a sensation without knowing exactly how.

I mean, just look at the Yorkshire Ripper correspondence and tape. Did John Humble know that ACC George Oldfield would take it seriously and base his investigation on it?

You really are not in a position, Simon, to say whether it was likely to unlikely to have been conceived by as journalist.