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

[David Orsam]

And it is even more hilarious that you can never admit that you have failed.

I think the failure is yours Pierre. While I can barely bring myself to repeat your nonsense, your theory appears to be that the Central News Agency received a warning in advance of 30 September 1888 that there was going to be a murder or two in the Minories on 30 September and that, had they informed the police of this, the murders of Eddowes and Stride could have been prevented. Their failure to do so caused them to create the fake "Dear Boss" communication.

But the problem with this crazy notion is that it assumes that the Central News Agency and the police would understand that the author of the letter was referring to the Minories as being an "ancient parish" whereas it's self-evident that, had they ever received such a letter in advance of the murders, they would have understood it as referring to, well, the Minories, as stated in the letter. If they had added patrols to the Minories they would still not have prevented any murders because the murderer had the entire "ancient parish" in which to kill women.

So your entire theory to explain the faking of the Dear Boss letter is revealed as complete and utter gibberish.

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;393931]

I don´t care if you call me a "ripperologist". The only thing that matters to me is history.

A hoax letter from the past is history, as is a historical reference to a none existent letter. So I can't contradict you there.

[David Orsam]

And it is even more hilarious that you can never admit that you have failed. In this case you try to defend your poor knowledge with "I was well aware". It is embarrassing for you, David.

Er, but I posted within 2 minutes of your post that I was aware of your "parish" theory and then 4 minutes later I reproduced your post in which you told us about it earlier in the year. So I was clearly aware of it. And I have now explained why it is nonsense.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;393932]

But the problem...is that it assumes that the Central News Agency and the police would understand that the author of the letter was referring to the Minories as being an "ancient parish"

The problem for you?

It was a problem for the killer. Not for you or anyone else.

whereas it's self-evident that, had they ever received such a letter in advance of the murders, they would have understood it as referring to, well, the Minories, as stated in the letter.

"What fools the police are".

How come he knew that they would not understand his communication?

You, David, in 2016 write "they would have understood". So the problem for you is that you are not working in the police force in 1888, nor do you have any theoretical or empirical knowledge about what the killer expected from the police.

If they had added patrols to the Minories they would still not have prevented any murders because the murderer had the entire "ancient parish" in which to kill women.

But he gave them a good chance. How come he said it was a chance - and a good chance?

By the way, have you been studying any articles on the Minories as parish in the newspapers for a relevant time period, i.e. the 1880s?

[David Orsam]

The problem for you?

It was a problem for the killer. Not for you or anyone else.
"What fools the police are".

How come he knew that they would not understand his communication?

You, David, in 2016 write "they would have understood". So the problem for you is that you are not working in the police force in 1888, nor do you have any theoretical or empirical knowledge about what the killer expected from the police.
But he gave them a good chance. How come he said it was a chance - and a good chance?

By the way, have you been studying any articles on the Minories as parish in the newspapers for a relevant time period, i.e. the 1880s?

Let me put it this way Pierre. If we agreed to meet tomorrow in the Minories at 12pm, I would expect to meet you in the Minories at 12pm. If you were actually waiting for me at 12pm in Henriques Street (formerly Berner Street) on the basis that you believed that this street was once in the ancient parish of Minories that would be more than weird.

Exactly the same would have been true in 1888. If someone predicted a murder in the Minories, they would have been understood to be talking about the Minories which existed in 1888. As a result, if someone predicted a murder in the Minories yet there was no murder in the Minories, but a murder near the Minories (or, if you prefer, in the "ancient parish" which used to be called the Minories) the conclusion would have been that this murder could not have been prevented by patrolling the Minories.

The result of that would be that no-one would have apportioned blame on the Central News Agency for failing to prevent the murder so that the Central News Agency would not have needed to create a fake JTR letter to cover this up (although how creating a fake JTR letter would do this is baffling).

But we don't even get to any of this madness because the letter in question (if it ever existed) was clearly not written on 29 September 1888.

So obviously I have not been studying any articles on the Minories but if you have something to tell us that you think is important no doubt you will go ahead and post it.

[David Orsam]

You, David, in 2016 write "they would have understood". So the problem for you is that you are not working in the police force in 1888

No Pierre, I'm not working in the police force in 1888 funnily enough but I do have a source as to what someone in 1888 would have understood by the Minories. It is below.

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;393924]

The hilarious thing is that you and Steve do not understand what the killer meant.

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.

Pierre

This will be very simple.


1. What data source do you have that suggests this letter could be genuine, given it first publication date and lack of a real date on it?


2. What data source do you have or are you using to say this letter was written by your suspect?


3. What data source do you have that backs up your view that the writer is referring to an ancient parish, and not a street?

If no such data is produced, it is safe to assume, none exists.
I will assume that this idea is a work of imagination.


Of course you refuse to discuss the provenance of the letter.

That is the really hilarious thing.


It is so very sad that you cannot argue and defend your corner, or your views

Steve

[Elamarna]

an open question

Pierre,

I wish to openly and honestly ask you why this charade continues

That includes the I am doing stuff because I owe history nonsense,
and this view that the killer was involved in a murder plot more intricate than Agatha Christy could have written.

No Data ever supplied, it all Your Interpretation, which you claim is historical analysis.

Some days I am not sure if I should laugh or cry. mainly I laugh.

In this case the letter is a probable hoax, the provenance alone should RED FLAG it.

Yet you want to accept it because it FITS YOUR THEORY, that much is obvious.

You do not wish to consider the many very serious issues with the letter, ignoring them is not good science.

You may well have answers for the issues; OK then discuss them like a scientist.

Its the refusal to consider awkward issues that is characteristic of your posts.


Steve

[David Orsam]

In this case the letter is a probable hoax, the provenance alone should RED FLAG it.

Talking of which, is Pierre actually aware that J. Hall Richardson was a journalist for the Daily Telegraph?

He normally doesn't give journalists the time of day but for some reason the text of this supposed letter, which bears no proper date, and which was first published nearly 40 years after the Ripper murders, is treated as gospel.

[Elamarna]

You, David, in 2016 write "they would have understood". So the problem for you is that you are not working in the police force in 1888, nor do you have any theoretical or empirical knowledge about what the killer expected from the police.

Pierre, I have two questions for you with regards to your reply to David.

1. How do you know the following is true of David?

"nor do you have any theoretical or empirical knowledge about what the killer expected from the police. "




2. What "theoretical or empirical knowledge about what the killer expected from the police. " do you posses and where does this come from, after all like David, you were not working for the police in 1888?



I am afraid just saying you have such information, and "its not xmas" will not suffice.

Science requires data to back up theories.

You have not provided evidence that you have such data nor the source said data would come from!

By the way don't bother with the normal response to questions containing the word "evidence", where you say that this is not a court of law.

Its really pointless and of course is the standard evasion tactic, along with "what does this mean" used in the posts.

But he gave them a good chance. How come he said it was a chance - and a good chance?

Why do you believe this is from the killer?

Give some data to back this view up, come on for once be brave!


Steve

[kjab3112]

London Geography

Dear Pierre

As a London resident (or as you would describe a citizen of the ancient cathedral city of Southwark), I take serious umbridge with your cavalier attitude to London Geography. The Minories, I will agree, could reasonably include Mitre Square (just the other side of Aldgate High Road from Tower Bridge northern approach as now is), being unarguably within the City of London. This however is the border of the City. Berner's Street is either Whitechapel or arguably Wapping, neither of which were ancient parts of the City, but Eastward suburban slum sprawl. As for King William Street being near the Strand, please look again at the map. Central London has three Cathedral cities: London (St Paul's), Westminster (St Peter's) and Southwark (the old Abbeys associated with the Virgin and Saviour and closely tied to the Chaucerian St Thomas Pilgrimage). The road Strand links London to Westminster along the original Saxon landing point, King William Street is in the heart of the City of London and was in fact terminus to the original tube underground railway - the City and Southern, which opened in 1890 (and closed 1900). London's compact geography can be confusing but please do not assume an estate agent-esque spread to the regional names, they were, and still very much are, effectively individual villages and towns merging into one great metropolis

Sincerely

Paul

[Robert St Devil]

Hi Pierre.

Your interpretation of the 2nd ,,inst.,, does reveal something. The letter wouldnt make sense if it read...

29th [of September]
BEWARE! I shall be at work on the 1st and 2nd [of September]

...unless the writer possessed a time machine (nix). So i can accept a separation of ideas, or short-hand in phrasing, between ,,1st and 2nd,, and ,,inst.,,. Only...
- Elizabeth and Catherine aren,t the 1st and 2nd. Polly and Annie or Martha are.

If it,s not written in September 88, then it,s useless. Any of the other months would make less sense.

I can wonder if the journalist actually saw those letters. He did know that they were written in red ink, and there is an excessive usage of quotation marks, which would require a keen memory if that is where the journalist is pulling his source. Even Minories receives single quotation marks.

It reads to me like two letters, which means there may have been more. Unless JACK THE RIPPER is the name of the street where he lived, I didn,t see any street mentioned in the top ,letter,.

This is just initial thoughts, all ideas that miss the point. Point being, if they were trying to cover up the fact that they received a letter before the murders, why create a letter claiming to be written before the murders?



I am presuming this letter went to the press since it refers to the police.

[Spider]

The “Dear Boss” letter (25th September 1888) gave rise to all subsequent “Jack the Ripper” communications in which the common purpose of their various authors was to taunt the recipients. It is reasonable to suppose that the inclination to write such letters would be accompanied by an urge to drop them into the nearest pillar box at the earliest opportunity. So, why did the originator of the name “Jack the Ripper” apparently wait two days before posting his now notorious missive? And why did he use two different writing implements?
If the letter was written by Sir R. Anderson’s “enterprising young journalist” in order to boost newspaper sales (as was one theory), he partly defeated his own objective in having missed the opportunity (by late posting) of an extra 48 hours increased newspaper vending.
There are only two reasonable explanations which logically agree with both the two day time lapse in posting and the two different writing implements.

The first explanation is that the entire letter, including the second postscript, was written in one location only by the following means: 
The author employed a pen dipped in red ink with which to write the main text and first postscript. Without apparently having run out of red ink he then put down his pen, rotated the letter sheet through ninety degrees of arc, and then picking up a red crayon pencil, added the second postscript at right angles to the main text. He then waited for two days before posting his letter.
Notice that, in this particular scenario, there is an obvious urge to write the letter which, when fulfilled, immediately gives way to a lack of urgency in posting it.

The second explanation is that the letter in its entirety, complete with second postscript, was written in two locations.

In the first location, its author wrote only the main text and first postscript using the available red ink. Being satisfied that his work was then complete, he decided to avoid posting it in his local vicinity because the franking mark on the envelope would reveal his approximate location. Instead, he decided to post his letter in another location (in this case London E.C.).
Either at the second location or in transit to that place, he had an afterthought which resulted in the second postscript being written, using the only portable writing implement he had upon his person (ie: a red crayon pencil). By that time, the letter sheet may have already been folded, leaving a blank area exposed on which it’s writer added the second postscript without noticing that it was at right angles to the main text.

In the first explanation, the lack of urgency in posting the letter contradicts the urgent desire to write it.
In the second explanation it could be argued that the first location was also in London, the only objection being that it doesn’t take two days to cross from one location in London to another. In any case, a hoaxer would be far less likely to be concerned about giving away his local postal area than would the murderer.

[Abby Normal]

The “Dear Boss” letter (25th September 1888) gave rise to all subsequent “Jack the Ripper” communications in which the common purpose of their various authors was to taunt the recipients. It is reasonable to suppose that the inclination to write such letters would be accompanied by an urge to drop them into the nearest pillar box at the earliest opportunity. So, why did the originator of the name “Jack the Ripper” apparently wait two days before posting his now notorious missive? And why did he use two different writing implements?
If the letter was written by Sir R. Anderson’s “enterprising young journalist” in order to boost newspaper sales (as was one theory), he partly defeated his own objective in having missed the opportunity (by late posting) of an extra 48 hours increased newspaper vending.
There are only two reasonable explanations which logically agree with both the two day time lapse in posting and the two different writing implements.

The first explanation is that the entire letter, including the second postscript, was written in one location only by the following means: 
The author employed a pen dipped in red ink with which to write the main text and first postscript. Without apparently having run out of red ink he then put down his pen, rotated the letter sheet through ninety degrees of arc, and then picking up a red crayon pencil, added the second postscript at right angles to the main text. He then waited for two days before posting his letter.
Notice that, in this particular scenario, there is an obvious urge to write the letter which, when fulfilled, immediately gives way to a lack of urgency in posting it.

The second explanation is that the letter in its entirety, complete with second postscript, was written in two locations.

In the first location, its author wrote only the main text and first postscript using the available red ink. Being satisfied that his work was then complete, he decided to avoid posting it in his local vicinity because the franking mark on the envelope would reveal his approximate location. Instead, he decided to post his letter in another location (in this case London E.C.).
Either at the second location or in transit to that place, he had an afterthought which resulted in the second postscript being written, using the only portable writing implement he had upon his person (ie: a red crayon pencil). By that time, the letter sheet may have already been folded, leaving a blank area exposed on which it’s writer added the second postscript without noticing that it was at right angles to the main text.

In the first explanation, the lack of urgency in posting the letter contradicts the urgent desire to write it.
In the second explanation it could be argued that the first location was also in London, the only objection being that it doesn’t take two days to cross from one location in London to another. In any case, a hoaxer would be far less likely to be concerned about giving away his local postal area than would the murderer.

Hi Spider
nice assessment.
Ive often said the same thing-if the letter is a hoax from someone from CNA-why wait two days before sending? it gives the killer and or othr journalists a chance to scoop you. They would send as soon as they completed writng it.

also, why write if its a hoax, hold back before I get to work again then send out? seems to me too subtly a point for a hoaxer to come up with, but the real killer might want them to do it, so as not to stir things up so he has an easier time of doing his work.

I like your ideas on the postscript too.

[Elamarna]

As a London resident (or as you would describe a citizen of the ancient cathedral city of Southwark), I take serious umbridge with your cavalier attitude to London Geography. The Minories, I will agree, could reasonably include Mitre Square (just the other side of Aldgate High Road from Tower Bridge northern approach as now is), being unarguably within the City of London. This however is the border of the City. Berner's Street is either Whitechapel or arguably Wapping, neither of which were ancient parts of the City, but Eastward suburban slum sprawl. As for King William Street being near the Strand, please look again at the map. Central London has three Cathedral cities: London (St Paul's), Westminster (St Peter's) and Southwark (the old Abbeys associated with the Virgin and Saviour and closely tied to the Chaucerian St Thomas Pilgrimage). The road Strand links London to Westminster along the original Saxon landing point, King William Street is in the heart of the City of London and was in fact terminus to the original tube underground railway - the City and Southern, which opened in 1890 (and closed 1900). London's compact geography can be confusing but please do not assume an estate agent-esque spread to the regional names, they were, and still very much are, effectively individual villages and towns merging into one great metropolis

Sincerely

Paul

Dear Kjab3112

I am another person born and bred in London.

I would however have to contest your view that Mitre square could be referred to as being in the minorities,

That’s like saying Northumberland Avenue and the Strand could be seen as the same thing, or Reagent street and Piccadilly. my point is that the roads
are separated from each other by a major road or junction and are not a natural extension of the same road under another name, as could be the case say with Edgware Road, Madia Vale and Kilburn High street.

Having said that it is clear from your post you do know London well, unlike some who post.

The king William street Pierre refers to was close to the Strand/Charing Cross, the name has changed over the years it is now William iv street.


The rest of your post is very informative, the history of the underground is very interesting and i have seen some great pics of the original tunnel in King William street a few years ago.

Agree with you that many do not seem to understand that the London of today was a group of settlements which merged.


All the best

Steve