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

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;394303]

Pierre

Changing the "goal Posts" again

You claimed Mitre Square and Berner street were both in the parish of Holy Trinity Minories, that is not true!

I claimed that The Minories was not just a street. It was an ancient parish.

You claimed that the letter meant that two women would be killed in the Minories, starting at midnight, again that is untrue.

He will be at work on them. What does this mean? Does it mean the isolated act of cutting them? Or does it mean the modus operandi including finding them?

it seems that basic research, checking of data had not been done before posting an hypothesis, Not very professional for an academic historian.

Bla bla bla.

Now it seems you are saying the sites are nearby and that is what was meant, that is different from the claim you made.

It is a fact.

NO one is fooled by any of this.

My intention is not, like the intentions of many others, who are fools themselves, to fool people.

[David Orsam]

The 1st and 2nd are not dates, David. They are murder victims.

Read: inst.

There was just one single day left to perform the murders. That day was 30 September.

What you mean to say is that you speculate that 1st and 2nd inst. are not murder dates. Normally, "1st and 2nd inst." would be understood as a reference to dates. It's no more than a guess on your part that they refer to murder victims.

But all this is moot considering that the year the letter was written is not stated in Hall Richardson's book. How do you know the letter wasn't written in 1889?

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;394302]

Do you think he flew from Berner Street to Mitre Square? Was he not in the Minories?



The 1st and 2nd are not dates, David. They are murder victims.

Read: inst.

There was just one single day left to perform the murders. That day was 30 September.

And he had to be in the Minories to get from Stride to Eddowes.

Or maybe the resson Eddowes was killed was because he failed to mutilate Stride. Or maybe Stride was killed by someone else. Methinks an historian would consider all possibilities before jumping to outlandish and far fetched conclusions.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;394304]

He might have walked through the Minories, Pierre (we don't know the route he took), but what does that matter?

It included his MO. That is why it matters.

The letter stated that he would be "at work" in the Minories. How does walking through the Minories equate to being "at work" in the Minories?

He was searching for his victims. That is what serial killers often do before they kill their victims. But letīs not bother about other serial killers. That was what HE DID.

You are not seriously suggesting are you that police surveillance in the Minories would have prevented anyone from walking from Berner Street to Mitre Square are you?

Have I used the word "prevent"?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;394307]

Or maybe the resson Eddowes was killed was because he failed to mutilate Stride. Or maybe Stride was killed by someone else. Methinks an historian would consider all possibilities before jumping to outlandish and far fetched conclusions.

The double event was connected to a double problem in the life of the killer.

[David Orsam]

And he had to be in the Minories to get from Stride to Eddowes.

Until today you've said repeatedly that Stride and Eddowes were murdered in the Minories. Now you've changed your position to say no more than that the killer walked through the Minories. If he did so, it must have been well after midnight mustn't it?

Letter said: "I shall be at work...in Minories at twelve midnight."

Even if you are right and the killer had to walk through the Minories (which is not, in fact, true) and even if you are right that the letter was written on 29 September 1888 rather than 1889 (about which you cannot establish), how could the murders possibly have been prevented by knowing that the killer might walk through the Minories at midnight?

[Pierre]

What you mean to say is that you speculate that 1st and 2nd inst. are not murder dates. Normally, "1st and 2nd inst." would be understood as a reference to dates. It's no more than a guess on your part that they refer to murder victims.

But all this is moot considering that the year the letter was written is not stated in Hall Richardson's book. How do you know the letter wasn't written in 1889?

It is no guess. There is an external source also.

[Pierre]

Until today you've said repeatedly that Stride and Eddowes were murdered in the Minories. Now you've changed your position to say no more than that the killer walked through the Minories. If he did so, it must have been well after midnight mustn't it?

Letter said: "I shall be at work...in Minories at twelve midnight."

Even if you are right and the killer had to walk through the Minories (which is not, in fact, true) and even if you are right that the letter was written on 29 September 1888 rather than 1889 (about which you cannot establish), how could the murders possibly have been prevented by knowing that the killer might walk through the Minories at midnight?

The letter is normative. And the crime is close to the norm.

[John G]

It is no guess. There is an external source also.

External source?

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve

As long as I can not present the relevant sources to you I can not discuss them with you. And I am not interested in arguing "my position" since I have no position. I do research and have sources. The sources demand that I go on with this until it is finished.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre


Of course you can present the sources, it is your choice not to.

It is a choice not to discuss, not something you have no control over.



In this example the position was that the letter should be seen to mean:

"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."


That was your viewpoint, it is the position you take on the letter

I therefore find the claim you have no position to be highly disingenuous.


Pierre, lets just stop this repeating that the "sources demand", at other times it is that you "owe it to history" to complete this.

Lets be clear, nothing makes you do this:

You claim you are not a ripperologist,
You claim you have no personal/family connection to the crimes or the data sources.

You are doing this because YOU WANT TO.

Steve

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;394310]

The double event was connected to a double problem in the life of the killer.

Source?

[David Orsam]

Have I used the word "prevent"?

I'm happy to quote your exact words Pierre:

"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 itīs 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."

If you are denying the word "prevent", please explain how Stride and Eddowes could have been "saved" without the murders having been prevented.

[David Orsam]

It included his MO. That is why it matters.

You seem to have forgotten what this thread is about Pierre. It's not about whether the killer wrote the Minories letter or what the MO of the killer was. It's about whether the Minories letter led to the recipient of that letter to create the 'Dear Boss" letter.

If there were no murders in the Minories nothing you have said in this thread makes sense does it?

[David Orsam]

The letter is normative. And the crime is close to the norm.

You seem have resorted to your old trick of posting gibberish when you have nothing sensible to say.

It doesn't matter whether the crime is "close to the norm". What matters for this thread is whether the victims could have been saved if the letter had been taken seriously.

Given that the date of any proposed murders is not stated in the letter (even if that letter was written in 1888), the time of the murders is wrong, the location of the murders is wrong, how could either of the victims possibly have been saved if the letter had been taken seriously?

[Elamarna]

I claimed that The Minories was not just a street. It was an ancient parish.

you posted:

" The Minories was an old parish covering both the murder sites."


That however is not true, and you are still failing to address the issue.

He will be at work on them. What does this mean? Does it mean the isolated act of cutting them? Or does it mean the modus operandi including finding them?

Pierre,

That is not what was posted, you are trying to change the debate again.

The post said:


"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."


I assume "were" is typo for "where" you said he would kill two women in the minories, NOT True obviously.

Bla bla bla.

But it is true Pierre, you obviously did not bother to check.

Actually a childish response

It is a fact.

What is?

That the sites are nearby?

Of course they are, it is a very small geographical area.

Just as a matter of interest it is possible to get from Berner Street to Mitre Square without going near to the Minories, be that road or parish.




However you claimed:

"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."





You were very specific in your post, however that is not what happened.

The FACT is that you statement was wrong on just about every point.


Steve