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

[Elamarna]

Well let's ask him shall we....

Pierre, when you say "personal sources" are you referring to letters, diaries or memoirs that you have found in "the archives"?

David

this would back what Pierre claimed that he found his great discovery while researching something else: possibly a family history or biography of a person he was researching.

Of course this does not mean anything has been interpreted correctly.

Incidentally does carrying out genealogy make one an Academic Historian?


Steve

[GUT]

And, of course, these "sources" are all undisclosed, therefore may well be completely fanciful. This is irrefutable logic.

Unbelievable!

Other than the Gog and Magog letter and the foolishness that flowed and the 28th inst (or whatever) letter, he hasn't produced a single source.

Wonder if that's because they're non existent

[David Orsam]

Well let's ask him shall we....

Pierre, when you say "personal sources" are you referring to letters, diaries or memoirs that you have found in "the archives"?

[Pcdunn]

A librarian's viewpoint...

But without persons there are no sources at all. So doesn't that mean that all sources are "personal sources"? So why not just say "sources from the archives"? What did the word "personal" add to distinguish your sources from any others?

As a librarian with a lot of cataloging experience, I may be able to point out that "personal sources" may include such items as letters, diaries, or memoirs-- and would be catalogued under the terms, respectively, "Personal correspondence", "Personal writings", or "Personal recollections."

An archive could collect any of the above sources.

[David Orsam]

As usual you understand nothing.

As usual you explain nothing.

[Pierre]

But without persons there are no sources at all. So doesn't that mean that all sources are "personal sources"? So why not just say "sources from the archives"? What did the word "personal" add to distinguish your sources from any others?

As usual you understand nothing.

[David Orsam]

No, surely not David. Without persons, no personal sources. Without archives to collect personal sources, no personal sources collected in archives.

But without persons there are no sources at all. So doesn't that mean that all sources are "personal sources"? So why not just say "sources from the archives"? What did the word "personal" add to distinguish your sources from any others?

[Pierre]

Isn't the phrase "Personal sources from the archives" a contradiction in terms?

Either they are personal to you or they belong to these "archives", surely.

No, surely not David. Without persons, no personal sources. Without archives to collect personal sources, no personal sources collected in archives.

[David Orsam]

Personal sources from the archives

Isn't the phrase "Personal sources from the archives" a contradiction in terms?

Either they are personal to you or they belong to these "archives", surely.

[Geddy2112]

Personal sources from the archives as well as known sources from the case. But also other published sources in very different collections.

...and they are what?

I wish I had never seen them.

You probably didn't...

[John G]

Personal sources from the archives as well as known sources from the case. But also other published sources in very different collections.

What specific sources?

[John G]

Everything that happend can be explained. The time periods, why the murders started and stopped, started again and stopped. There are sources for this. The specific dates can be explained. There are reasons for the choice of dates for Stride, Eddowes and Kelly. Those dates were active choices. There are also reasons for the doctorīs having some problems with understanding the methods of the murders. And there are sources indicating that they sent away the killer after Kelly. But he came back in 1889.

And, of course, these "sources" are all undisclosed, therefore may well be completely fanciful. This is irrefutable logic.

Unbelievable!

[Pierre]

What sources?

Personal sources from the archives as well as known sources from the case. But also other published sources in very different collections.

I wish I had never seen them.

[Pierre]

Hi Bridewell,

The motive was a violation of the killerīs personal dignity.

There are sources for this.

That is why he cut their noses, took out the intestines and left them lying on display.

Regards, Pierre

Everything that happend can be explained. The time periods, why the murders started and stopped, started again and stopped. There are sources for this. The specific dates can be explained. There are reasons for the choice of dates for Stride, Eddowes and Kelly. Those dates were active choices. There are also reasons for the doctors having some problems with understanding the methods of the murders. And there are sources indicating that they sent away the killer after Kelly. But he came back in 1889.

[John G]

Hi Bridewell,

The motive was a violation of the killerīs personal dignity.

There are sources for this.

That is why he cut their noses, took out the intestines and left them lying on display.

Regards, Pierre

What sources?