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

[David Orsam]

This (for me) is the only line of interest in the Liverpool letter. It suggests that the writer (purporting to be the killer) has already given the police the name of the street, but that they haven't picked up on it. There is the name of a Whitechapel street* within the text of the Dear Boss letter itself. In my idler moments I have wondered if the use of the first Americanism (Dear Boss) was simply to make that of the second a little less incongruous.

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?

[Joshua Rogan]

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.

[sleekviper]

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

[Bridewell]

That would be intriguing, Bridewell, if the letter writer hadn't given his address on the previous line;

"Prince William St, L'pool"

Too obvious? Or should I say, not metaphorical enough?

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.

[Joshua Rogan]

That would be intriguing, Bridewell, if the letter writer hadn't given his address on the previous line;

"Prince William St, L'pool"

Too obvious? Or should I say, not metaphorical enough?

[Bridewell]

"What fools the police are. I even give them the name of the street where I am living."

This (for me) is the only line of interest in the Liverpool letter. It suggests that the writer (purporting to be the killer) has already given the police the name of the street, but that they haven't picked up on it. There is the name of a Whitechapel street* within the text of the Dear Boss letter itself. In my idler moments I have wondered if the use of the first Americanism (Dear Boss) was simply to make that of the second a little less incongruous.

*Really!

[Bridewell]

For DEAR BOSS, Bridewell? That one arrived a few days before, right?

You're right - Was thinking of the Saucy Jack postcard. Apologies.

[Elamarna]

My Dear Pierre,

I see you have not yet responded to ANY of the points in post # 205.

Maybe you missed it.

Just in case I repost below

Steve

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

[Elamarna]

Steve,

Wholly agreed

I do wonder whether the Burns-Ludwig event might have triggered this letter though (and the subsequent murders thereby clearing another East End "oddball" in the same way as the Leather Apron arrest), not as a conspiracy but pure coincidence

Regards

Paul

Paul

That is indeed possible, personally I think the letter could be of a later date, but there we have the same problem that Pierre ignores, we have no date.


What is clear however is the hypothesis proposed by Pierre, and lets be fair it is proposed as fact rather than possible fact, is very deeply flawed and APPEARS to be back by nothing of scientific/historic value.

The shame is that if Pierre does have information, and it is a big if I feel, he will not discuss it. Hiding behind a moral mask about not divulging the name.


Steve

[kjab3112]

Steve,

Wholly agreed

I do wonder whether the Burns-Ludwig event might have triggered this letter though (and the subsequent murders thereby clearing another East End "oddball" in the same way as the Leather Apron arrest), not as a conspiracy but pure coincidence

Regards

Paul

[Elamarna]

The letter is normative as to the crimes on the 30th September. It gives the intended date, time and area for the murders.

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

And the crimes were close to the norm, i.e. the intentions of the murderer.

How do you know the intention of the killer?

No source disclosure means no source full stop.

The murders were committed at the intended date,

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

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.

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

the murderer was committing the crimes at the intended time

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.

and he was working in the intended area. He "was at work" there, meaning he searched for two victims in that area and also killed the two he found.

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.

Therefore your statement :

"he searched for two victims in that area"



Is not substantiated and is a personal, not a scientific viewpoint.


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.





Lets just pause and look at the source you are using

" 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 "



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.

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


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.



Having looked at the "primary source" for your hypothesis and I use that term very loosely given we have no idea of the provenance of the letter, let us now look at the source for much of this debate.

Posted by Pierre, in the thread "An important discovery."


"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."



Basically you appear wrong on all points of that post.

While this has been pointed out, you have refused to enter into meaningful debate of the subject, and continue to ignore the historic data which says:


1. The killings did not take place in the Minories, which ever definition of such you use, be it street or parish.

2. The time of the killings does not match that in the letter.

3. The letter is undated, and of unknown provenance, it could have been written at any date from 1888,until it is published by J. Hall Richardson in 1927.



What is being posted is highly disingenuous, you must be aware of such.



Steve

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi, Pierre.

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

Yours, Caligo

[David Orsam]

The murders were committed at the intended date, the murderer was committing the crimes at the intended time and he was working in the intended area. He "was at work" there, meaning he searched for two victims in that area and also killed the two he found.

You seem to have abandoned the theory about the 'Dear Boss' letter which was the reason you started posting in this 'Dear Boss' thread. You don't even mention the 'Dear Boss' letter now.

There is no evidence, incidentally, that the killer was ever in the Minories that night and he might well have avoided the area entirely.

[David Orsam]

The letter is normative as to the crimes on the 30th September. It gives the intended date, time and area for the murders.

Yet the letter does not mention the date of 30th September for the murders.

The time is given in the letter as midnight, when no murders occurred.

The "area" is given as Minories, where no murders took place.

Even if the killer intended to kill two women in the Minories at midnight on 30 September, do you accept that those women could not possibly have been saved if the letter had been received prior to the murders and taken seriously?

[Pierre]

In what context?

The letter is normative as to the crimes on the 30th September. It gives the intended date, time and area for the murders.

And the crimes were close to the norm, i.e. the intentions of the murderer.

The murders were committed at the intended date, the murderer was committing the crimes at the intended time and he was working in the intended area. He "was at work" there, meaning he searched for two victims in that area and also killed the two he found.