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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;393931]

I donīt 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.

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.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;393930]

The concerning thing here is that I'm sure you don't even appreciate the irony of your last sentence.

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

[John G]

[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.

The concerning thing here is that I'm sure you don't even appreciate the irony of your last sentence.

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;393826]

J Hall Richardson. From the City to Fleet Street, 1929.

The source is late but has high explanatory value:

"The Police and Press received many letters from the " Ripper," mostly written in red ink, and I give one:

" 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.""

You find it here:

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/rps.fleet.html?printer=true

Regards, Pierre

This is an obvious hoax, disclosed decades after the murders. In fact, it doesn't even have the status of a hoax, because no letter was produced by the author. He simply refers to a mythical letter.

And what on earth do you mean by "high explanatory value."?

I'm sorry, but you really need to be far more discerning when analysing sources. And, frankly, this total lack of discernment is why I say: You haven't found him.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;393925]

You've already mentioned this on the forum Pierre. I was well aware of what you were going to say and hilarious it indeed is.

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.