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

[David Orsam]

He was in the ancient parish of the Minories during this night.

What evidence do you have to support this statement?

And have you now abandoned your hypothesis that Stride and Eddowes could have been "saved" by the information that the killer would be at work in the Minories at midnight on an unspecified date?

[David Orsam]

The letter was dated 29 September.

No it wasn't!

September isn't mentioned in the letter.

[David Orsam]

You ignore "29th inst.".

No, you are the one ignoring "29th inst."

You don't even know the letter was written in a September of any year let alone September 1888.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;394411]

It does none of those things Pierre, you are indulging in pure unrestrained invention.

How do you know the intention of the killer?

No source disclosure means no source full stop.

Not true Pierre, No date is given for the proposed attacks in the letter.

Yes, it is. The date is 30 September. Inst = this month. The letter was dated 29 September.
Inst therefore = 30 September.

Indeed a year for the letter is not even present, if there is any hint at a date it is the 1st and 2nd; which YOU however seem to think means two victims, the letter does not say such.

It happened.

It happened on 30 September.

It was the last day for September after the date of the letter: 29th.

He wrote "inst": = this month.

This month was September. It had only 1 day left = 30 September.

A year is not present because there was no reason to put the year in the letter. It was at the hight of his killing spree.

To put 1888 would have seemed stupid.

Any suggestion that it means what you propose is based on a person belief, a deep seated bias which is out of control.

As you can see above, I base the hypothesis about this letter on the facts from the letter itself.

Wrong again, the time given in the letter is midnight; the time of the murders is between 45 minutes to an hour and 40 minutes later.

It took time to find the victims. I do not presume that he believed he would come flying from above right down on them at 24.00 - or that he would walk straight on and get his victims - both! - at exactly 24.00.

He "was at work" = searched for the 1st victim, killed the 1st victim, searched for the 2nd victim, killed the 2nd victim.

And again untrue; Berner street and Mitre square are not in the street of the Minories, nor in the parish of Holy Trinity.

There is no known alternative source which say the killer was searching for victims in the Minories.

Mitre Square is just a 3 minutes walk from the street called The Minories. He was in the ancient parish of the Minories during this night. There is no problem with it. It is a normative source showing his intentions.

In addition, despite the claims to the difference, the killer had no need to go into either the street or parish you claim to travel between the two murder sites.

"Need" with what theory? Maslow? You have no sources showing what "need" the killer had.

Lets just pause and look at the source you are using

People have paused for 128 years. And I am rather lazy. But I will not give this case a lot more time.

" Liverpool,
" 29th inst.
" BEWARE I shall be at work on the 1st and 2nd inst. in `Minories' at 12 midnight and I give the authorities a good chance but there is never a Policeman near when I am at work.
Yours,
" JACK THE RIPPER."
" Prince William St., L'pool.
" What fools the police are I even give them the name of the street where I am living.
" Yours,
" JACK THE RIPPER."

What is obvious is that no date for the attacks proposed is given other than

"I shall be at work on the 1st and 2nd inst. in `Minories' at 12 midnight "

You ignore "29th inst.".

To most native speakers of English this would mean the 1st and 2nd of the next month, the point that you see this different, is ENTIRELY a Personal view.

Thatīs right. And the killer knew that. You are thinking just like him. Bravo.

What fools the police (native speakers of English) are!

Very good, Steve. Now you are getting back in the saddle!

The only reason one can see for saying such is that it fits the view/position held about the unnamed person.

Good! Thanks for bringing it up. And hear what I say now:

There is an explanation for the date 30 September.

And it has nothing to do with that letter. Nothing.

In addition as previously pointed out on this thread, when actually looked at the letter reads like two short messages which have at some unknown date been joined together to read as one.

We can not know the disposition of the letter. So it is a meaningless issue. It was written on the back and front of a paper or on a paper and envelope. Or on the same paper where the killer got the idea of adding a sentence or two. We do not know how the disposition looked.

And in the rest of your post you are just repeating what you already said above.

Best wishes, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Pierre, one of the main issues with your hypothesis is that it is founded on a mistake.

You posted in the thread "An important discovery", #1, on 1 January 2016 as follows:

"Craig has posted an article by Bernard Brown. In the article the author has published a letter I havenīt seen before. The letter is dated September 29th 1888. Brown writes:

“Yet further clues were contained in another letter received by police bearing a Liverpool postmark dated 29th September 1888, but these were not identified as such."

Unfortunately, the secondary source you cited, which was itself based on a misinterpretation of another secondary source, was wrong. There was no postmark on the Liverpool letter and it was not dated 29 September 1888.

As I said in the same thread, later that same day, #16:

"I'm guessing that Pierre, having read an article saying that the letter was dated 29 September 1888, is now programmed on a course from which nothing will ever divert him. He will simply be unable to accept any other possible date for this letter."

And, hey, I was right!

[David Orsam]

No, David. The letter was written on 29 September. Not on the 25 September. That date is the date of the author of the Dear Boss letter. That letter is a construction based on the letter dated 29 September. Otherwise they would not have bothered about printing the name Jack the Ripper. The letter from 29 September came true. That is why they reacted. Do you understand?

I knew you didn't understand what was going on Pierre. Try reading the previous posts carefully and you might be able to work out why your response to my post to Bridewell made no sense.

As for your statement that "The letter from 29 September came true", well no it didn't, as has been clearly established in this thread.

[Joshua Rogan]

Yes, Joshua, we are making the same interpretation.

I think you're reading a lot more into it than I am.

[Pierre]

That may be so, but having written a letter to a news agency on 25 September, he would have had no idea on 29 September whether or not that letter had been passed on to the police. So, even if the letter of 25 September contained the name of the street in which he was living (which, as far as I can see, it doesn't), it wouldn't make any sense to say that he gave the police the name of the street in which he was living, even less so to call the police fools for that reason.

I'm assuming, Pierre, that you didn't understand the point Bridewell was making nor my response but that's par for the course.

No, David. The letter was written on 29 September. Not on the 25 September. That date is the date of the author of the Dear Boss letter. That letter is a construction based on the letter dated 29 September. Otherwise they would not have bothered about printing the name Jack the Ripper. The letter from 29 September came true. That is why they reacted. Do you understand?

[Pierre]

Hi, Pierre.

I wonder if you believe the murderer / culprit / Ripper, was in some way involved in the Salvation Army organisation?

Yours, Caligo

Hi Caligo,

Thanks for your question. It is a good question, since one could hypothesize a religious motive. But I have found no such evidence. On the contrary, the moral that is connected to the murders is based on the strong conviction of having been personally blamed without having done anything wrong.

Best wishes, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Yes, Joshua, we are making the same interpretation.

Just as thought, you are actually agreeing with me but didn't understand.

[David Orsam]

He used the Central News Agency to get his message through to everyone. They appreciated sensational stories.

That may be so, but having written a letter to a news agency on 25 September, he would have had no idea on 29 September whether or not that letter had been passed on to the police. So, even if the letter of 25 September contained the name of the street in which he was living (which, as far as I can see, it doesn't), it wouldn't make any sense to say that he gave the police the name of the street in which he was living, even less so to call the police fools for that reason.

I'm assuming, Pierre, that you didn't understand the point Bridewell was making nor my response but that's par for the course.

[Pierre]

I think he's calling the police fools because he doesn't believe they'll find him, even though he has just written his address. "I even give them the name....". Present tense. Hence in this letter.
That's how I read it anyway.

Yes, Joshua, we are making the same interpretation.

[Pierre]

But the 'Dear Boss' letter was addressed to the Central News, not the police, so how could he have given the police the name of a street in that letter?

He used the Central News Agency to get his message through to everyone. They appreciated sensational stories.

[Pierre]

The writer calls the police 'fools' the police for not finding him, even though he has given them his address. Clearly, for reasons I would have thought were obvious, he can't be speaking of a failure to react to an address given within the same letter.

It is an example of his expectations. He is in a perfect position to know exactly what to expect from the police.

[Elamarna]

I think it came in two parts, that is why" yours, JACK THE RIPPER" is written twice.

I tend to agree that is not one original message, further if it is two messages rather than one are they from the same source/written.


Steve