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

[David Orsam]

Of course I ignore your silly posts. The Minories - and that is the street - is a 3 minutes walk from Mitre Square.

No-one, Pierre, least of all me, is denying that Mitre Square is near to the Minories (both the street and parish) but it is not in the Minories. While Berner Street is some distance away from the Minories.

The letter in question read "I shall be at work on the 1st and 2nd inst. in the Minories".

So, on any view, the supposed "prediction" in the letter did not come true did it? That being so, you have nothing, do you?

[Elamarna]

You have your own ideas and it is not my intention to try and change them.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre

The non response to posts #164 by myself and #169 by David say so much.

Will you accept the statement you made with regards to the letter mentioning the Minories was incorrect?

Are you able to argue your position with reasoned debate and historical data?



Steve

[Pierre]

So you've ignored all the posts I've addressed to you about your hypothesis and repeated, word for word, a post you've already made about something I said to Simon Wood?

Clearly you are in no position to defend anything you've written in this thread about the Minories letter, Pierre, nor can you do so.

Of course I ignore your silly posts. The Minories - and that is the street - is a 3 minutes walk from Mitre Square.

[Elamarna]

A missing source is a source which is not available. A hypothetical source is a source hypothesized as being a relevant source, so it is an existing source connected to an hypothesis based on interpretation or related to other sources.

So it is your guesswork!

Carry on my friend, I fear you have completely lost your way and are seeing what you wish in an attempt to prove your views, not what is really there.

I see you are still not facing up to the truth that you made a claim; which not only can you not substantiate, but it is plan to anyone carrying out basic research the claim was wrong.

The attempt to shift to goal posts and say it was not your view but that of the killer was truly poor and completely unconvincing.


Steve

[David Orsam]

You are wrong, David. Peole are always in a position to say things. The question is - are they right and who can tell: you?

So you've ignored all the posts I've addressed to you about your hypothesis and repeated, word for word, a post you've already made about something I said to Simon Wood?

Clearly you are in no position to defend anything you've written in this thread about the Minories letter, Pierre, nor can you do so.

[Pierre]

Have you read Simon Wood's book Pierre? If not, you are in no position to tell me I am in no position to tell Simon that he is in no position to say that it is unlikely that a journalist wrote the letter.

Now please check out Simon's post here, at #5, dated 24 December 2014:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=324391&highlight=conceived#post324391

You will see that he says: "The Ripper correspondence was not conceived by a journalist."

Now he is saying it is "unlikely" that it was conceived by a journalist. I do wonder what has happened within the last two years that has made him believe that he was wrong in December 2014 and that it might well have been a journalist who conceived it.

You are wrong, David. Peole are always in a position to say things. The question is - are they right and who can tell: you?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;394273]

Pierre

Could you please explain how a hypothetical source is different form what was posted in the thread "Quick Kosminski Question" posted on 23rd July post #32

In both examples, missing or hypothetical, the data does not physically exist.

Hi Steve,

A missing source is a source which is not available. A hypothetical source is a source hypothesized as being a relevant source, so it is an existing source connected to an hypothesis based on interpretation or related to other sources.

With missing evidence, it is possible that there is a report referring to the missing data, but generally both examples of sources, are pure guess work.

Steve

You have your own ideas and it is not my intention to try and change them.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

The problem is not what I think was the Minories but what the killer thought, what his intention was, and the outcome of his intention.

Actually, Pierre, what the killer thought is entirely irrelevant to the hypothesis you are putting forward in this thread. The only relevant player is the recipient of the letter because your theory is that the recipient believed, after the double event, that the victims might have been saved had the letter been passed to the police (and thus went on to create a hoax 'Dear Boss' letter). So you need to explain why the recipient would have wrongly believed that Stride and Eddowes were murdered in the Minories.

Your own understanding, or rather misunderstanding, is also important because you concocted the hypothesis. Now that we know that you wrongly believed Stride and Eddowes to have been murdered in the Minories, combined with your mistaken belief that the letter was dated 29 September 1888, it would seem that your hypothesis lacks any merit whatsoever.

[Trevor Marriott]

Wrong again. The killer very well might have written the letter. It never been established conclusively either way.

Well all the above together makes a good case to tip the scales in favour of it not being written by the killer.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Great to hear that you have found a new favourite word: "evasion"!

The problem is not what I think was the Minories but what the killer thought, what his intention was, and the outcome of his intention.

Do we have a source for that?

Hypothetically we do.

Pierre

Could you please explain how a hypothetical source is different form what was posted in the thread "Quick Kosminski Question" posted on 23rd July post #32

Missing material can not be used as sources.

In both examples, missing or hypothetical, the data does not physically exist.

With missing evidence, it is possible that there is a report referring to the missing data, but generally both examples of sources, are pure guess work.

Steve

[Abby Normal]

Lets stop fannying about on this issue. Anderson believed it to have been written by a journalist. Littlechild believes the same, and names Thomas Bulling or Charles Moore his boss from the Central News Agency.

I am led to believe that handwriting samples of both were examined in more recent years and the results did not connect either.

I am also led to believe that the handwriting of another journalist Frederick Best who worked for the Star, was also examined with the result being that it was believed that he was the most likely author of the letter.

In addition there is a quote from the major shareholder of The Star in 1891 which may suggest Best was the author

“Furthermore, Mr. Best's attempt to mislead Central News during the Whitechapel Murders should have led to an earlier termination of his association with the newspaper”

We will never know the truth, other than to say the killer didn't write the letter

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Wrong again. The killer very well might have written the letter. It never been established conclusively either way.

[Spider]

Lets stop fannying about on this issue. Anderson believed it to have been written by a journalist. Littlechild believes the same, and names Thomas Bulling or Charles Moore his boss from the Central News Agency.

I am led to believe that handwriting samples of both were examined in more recent years and the results did not connect either.

I am also led to believe that the handwriting of another journalist Frederick Best who worked for the Star, was also examined with the result being that it was believed that he was the most likely author of the letter.

In addition there is a quote from the major shareholder of The Star in 1891 which may suggest Best was the author

“Furthermore, Mr. Best's attempt to mislead Central News during the Whitechapel Murders should have led to an earlier termination of his association with the newspaper”

We will never know the truth, other than to say the killer didn't write the letter

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And you can not state that the killer categorically didn't write the letter, because you don't know that! ;-)

[Geddy2112]

Fred Best - was he from Gloucester?

No just a smidge west of there!

[MysterySinger]

Fred Best - was he from Gloucester?

[Spider]

I am also led to believe that the handwriting of another journalist Frederick Best who worked for the Star, was also examined with the result being that it was believed that he was the most likely author of the letter.

In addition there is a quote from the major shareholder of The Star in 1891 which may suggest Best was the author.

Well that's that sorted then! ;-)