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

[John G]

Pierre

The problem is what YOU post.

Once again replying by attempting to move the goal posts, exposing and highlighting very serious academic failings in the posts.


Evasion is not a favourite word, however it is something you do and have done again in the post quoted above..


Despite asking a proper historical question, the response does not even attempt to answer the question posed.



The view which you posted was the letter was from the killer, and it meant he would kill two women and both murder sites were in the Minories.


You made that very clear to all that was how you interpreted the letter:



"The Ripper Letter is using a metaphorical language. It gives the information that the killer will strike on September 30th in "the Minories" were he will kill two women. The Minories was an old parish covering both the murder sites."





However research shows that statement it is not correct; but rather than discuss that issue, the forum is presented with something about hypothetically sources.


"Hypothetically we do"


An hypothetical source is not a source, it is wishfully thinking!


Are you now using the "Royal WE", if not who are the others who have the hypothetical source



I was not discussing the what the killer was thinking therefore I have no need for a source showing what this unknown person was thinking.


I was however discussing what you had claimed in your posts, My sources for that discussion are on this site for all to see.


Despite being giving several chances to explain and substantiate your claims that both murder sites were in the Holy Trinity Minories parish; it seems that you are not prepared, or is it able to do that.


It would appear from your post that you believe you know what the killer was thinking.


For that YOU do need a source.


If You, Truly have such a source, prove its existence, otherwise It does not exist from a scientific point of view.





Steve

Excellent post, Steve. And I fully agree that the approach taken here is less than academic. And frankly, just become Pierre repeatedly refers to himself as a historian (whatever that means, as he doesn't seem to have any published works to his name) doesn't alter that fact.

[John Wheat]

Excellent post, Steve. And I fully agree that the approach taken here is less than academic. And frankly, just become Pierre repeatedly refers to himself as a historian (whatever that means, as he doesn't seem to have any published works to his name) doesn't alter that fact.

If you ask me Pierre should either put or shut up. Either name his suspect or leave the forums.

Cheers John

[GUT]

If you ask me Pierre should either put or shut up. Either name his suspect or leave the forums.

Cheers John

Unfortunately I don't expect he'll do either.

[David Orsam]

Well, I myself, compared to others whom you accuse of putting forward a "wacky plot", do not put forward such things.

Oh really? Strange then you weren't able to answer my simple question in #151 in which I asked you whether you were retracting your claim that the Minories was an old parish covering both murder sites.

If both murder sites were not, in fact, in the ancient parish of the Minories, your hypothesis fails does it not?

Let me remind of what you said in this thread five days ago (#45):

"But since the letter also contained a warning, which could have saved the victims from being murdered if taken seriously, they could not publish the letter in it´s original so everyone could see that they had simply neglected the warning.

Therefore they wrote a new letter were they kept the name Jack the Ripper and changed the contents so it would have a high news value. By doing this no one would know that the Central News Agency recieved a letter with a warning and with the right time and place of the murders before the murders were committed.

If the Central News Agency had given the letter to the police and they had taken it seriously, they could have increased the police surveillance in the Minories that night and Stride and Eddowes might have been saved."

Now, tell me, how might Stride and Eddowes have been saved by police surveillance in the Minories if they were not murdered in the Minories?

Even if the letter was written on 29 September 1888 and received prior to that date (for which there is no evidence) how did that letter, which suggested that there might be murders at midnight in the Minories on "1st and 2nd inst." convey a warning "with the right time and place of the murders" when neither murder occurred at (a) 12pm (b) in the Minories and (c) on the 1st or 2nd of a month?

And if there was no warning which might have saved the victims, "they" did not need to write a new 'Jack the Ripper' letter did they?

[David Orsam]

Actually, I hypothesize that the name Jack the Ripper was chosen for a very realistic reason. Some day, soon perhaps, I hope to be able to tell you about this.

Unfortunately, Pierre, with the quality of your stated hypotheses on this forum having been so dreadfully poor, I already discard your hypothesis about the name Jack the Ripper, not even knowing anything about it. Therefore it doesn't matter if you tell me about it or not. I already know it will be nonsensical and based on "data" which you have misunderstood.

[David Orsam]

Pierre, it was only a few days ago in this thread that I put it to you that there were no killings in the Minories, i.e. no killings happened there (#95), to which you replied (#96):

"They did."

You then added by way of explanation in #99:

"So it is time that you understand what he was saying.

The Minories was not just a street. It was an ancient parish."

The killer knew this.

What fools the ripperologists are ."

Given that no murders occurred in the area covered by the ancient parish of the Minories, does that make the killer a fool or just you?

[GUT]

Pierre, it was only a few days ago in this thread that I put it to you that there were no killings in the Minories, i.e. no killings happened there (#95), to which you replied (#96):

"They did."

You then added by way of explanation in #99:

"So it is time that you understand what he was saying.

The Minories was not just a street. It was an ancient parish."

The killer knew this.

What fools the ripperologists are ."

Given that no murders occurred in the area covered by the ancient parish of the Minories, does that make the killer a fool or just you?

A rhetorical question I guess.

[David Orsam]

You are wrong, David. Peole are always in a position to say things. The question is - are they right and who can tell: you?

Have you read Simon Wood's book Pierre? If not, you are in no position to tell me I am in no position to tell Simon that he is in no position to say that it is unlikely that a journalist wrote the letter.

Now please check out Simon's post here, at #5, dated 24 December 2014:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=324391&highlight=conceived#post324391

You will see that he says: "The Ripper correspondence was not conceived by a journalist."

Now he is saying it is "unlikely" that it was conceived by a journalist. I do wonder what has happened within the last two years that has made him believe that he was wrong in December 2014 and that it might well have been a journalist who conceived it.

[Trevor Marriott]

Have you read Simon Wood's book Pierre? If not, you are in no position to tell me I am in no position to tell Simon that he is in no position to say that it is unlikely that a journalist wrote the letter.

Now please check out Simon's post here, at #5, dated 24 December 2014:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=324391&highlight=conceived#post324391

You will see that he says: "The Ripper correspondence was not conceived by a journalist."

Now he is saying it is "unlikely" that it was conceived by a journalist. I do wonder what has happened within the last two years that has made him believe that he was wrong in December 2014 and that it might well have been a journalist who conceived it.

Lets stop fannying about on this issue. Anderson believed it to have been written by a journalist. Littlechild believes the same, and names Thomas Bulling or Charles Moore his boss from the Central News Agency.

I am led to believe that handwriting samples of both were examined in more recent years and the results did not connect either.

I am also led to believe that the handwriting of another journalist Frederick Best who worked for the Star, was also examined with the result being that it was believed that he was the most likely author of the letter.

In addition there is a quote from the major shareholder of The Star in 1891 which may suggest Best was the author

“Furthermore, Mr. Best's attempt to mislead Central News during the Whitechapel Murders should have led to an earlier termination of his association with the newspaper”

We will never know the truth, other than to say the killer didn't write the letter

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

Lets stop fannying about on this issue. Anderson believed it to have been written by a journalist. Littlechild believes the same, and names Thomas Bulling or Charles Moore his boss from the Central News Agency.

I am led to believe that handwriting samples of both were examined in more recent years and the results did not connect either.

I am also led to believe that the handwriting of another journalist Frederick Best who worked for the Star, was also examined with the result being that it was believed that he was the most likely author of the letter.

In addition there is a quote from the major shareholder of The Star in 1891 which may suggest Best was the author

“Furthermore, Mr. Best's attempt to mislead Central News during the Whitechapel Murders should have led to an earlier termination of his association with the newspaper”

We will never know the truth, other than to say the killer didn't write the letter

So, without any fannying about, you are saying that you disagree with Simon because you think a journalist is likely to have written the 'Dear Boss' letter?

[John Wheat]

Unfortunately I don't expect he'll do either.

I know he won't do either.

Cheers John

[Spider]

I am also led to believe that the handwriting of another journalist Frederick Best who worked for the Star, was also examined with the result being that it was believed that he was the most likely author of the letter.

In addition there is a quote from the major shareholder of The Star in 1891 which may suggest Best was the author.

Well that's that sorted then! ;-)

[MysterySinger]

Fred Best - was he from Gloucester?

[Geddy2112]

Fred Best - was he from Gloucester?

No just a smidge west of there!

[Spider]

Lets stop fannying about on this issue. Anderson believed it to have been written by a journalist. Littlechild believes the same, and names Thomas Bulling or Charles Moore his boss from the Central News Agency.

I am led to believe that handwriting samples of both were examined in more recent years and the results did not connect either.

I am also led to believe that the handwriting of another journalist Frederick Best who worked for the Star, was also examined with the result being that it was believed that he was the most likely author of the letter.

In addition there is a quote from the major shareholder of The Star in 1891 which may suggest Best was the author

“Furthermore, Mr. Best's attempt to mislead Central News during the Whitechapel Murders should have led to an earlier termination of his association with the newspaper”

We will never know the truth, other than to say the killer didn't write the letter

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And you can not state that the killer categorically didn't write the letter, because you don't know that! ;-)