The GOGMAGOG-letter

[GUT]

I do not agree with this.

Pierre

But what about the initial junk you posted, do you agree with that?????

Orrealised you were making stuff up?

[David Orsam]

I happened to see David´s post before I logged in and shall answer it.

The first part of my answer concerns David. The second part of it concerns the GOGMAGOG-letter.

I have no problems with David´s own writings but he has been trying to destroy everything I write here. It has been done systematically and therefore his answers to me have not been correct. When I first discussed the contents of the GOGMAGOG-letter with him he was asking me repeatedly if the actual address of Miller´s Court and the actual name of the victim was in it. I told him I thought they were written in a metaphorical language.
David refused to accept this and started saying that I was lying about the wordings in the letter, although I pointed out to him several times that the exact wordings of the address and name was not in the letter, since they were metaphorical. So he based his accusation of me being a liar on his own false interpretation of what I was writing. Anyone who reads that thread can see it if they read it honestly.

Now, this is what David writes about what he has been up to and how he wishes to describe that:

Pierre stopped speaking to me on 16 November when, in my thread "A New Theory as to the Killer's Identity", I accused him of falsely representing the contents of this very letter to the forum by stating that it contained Mary Kelly's name and "exact address" written in "metaphorical language".
“As you can see, he is still trying to make everyone believe that I have lied since he pretends to not understand what I mean when I say “exact address”. Of course 13 20 Miller´s Court is and exact address, two actually, but it could have been written in a metaphorical language in the letter to the editor.“

In many posts I have emphasized that I hope I am wrong about who I think Jack the Ripper was. The GOGMAGOG-letter is a source where I could easily be proven wrong about the hypothesis that it was written by the killer. But it can certainly not be used to prove my theory of the killer wrong since it is not a part of the data sources giving the identity of the killer.

David also writes:

“We can now see why Pierre was so worried and indeed why he did not post the contents of the letter until someone else found it (well done Craig!).”

Actually, I am very worried. But not about the GOGMAGOG-letter. I am worried about being right about the killer. So David has once again twisted reality to fit his purpose to destroy everything I write here.

And I can assure you David, that Craig could not have found the letter without my help. If I had not wanted Craig to find it, he would not have found it. Ask Craig about our correspondence. I could also post the whole correspondence here for you if you like, given that Craig would allow that if I were to ask him about that first.

My conclusion is that David will go on telling lies about what I write and what I say. So it really doesn´t matter what I write, he will try to destroy it anyway. And it is time consuming to write back over and over again to answer his accusations. Naturally it is a part of his strategy, so knowing this, I have chosen to ignore him.

Now, the GOGMAGOG-letter. I have stated many times that I am not certain about this letter. I have also written that it is not a part of my theory about the killer´s identity. I found the letter long after I had found who I think was the killer. There can be one detail in the letter pointing to him, but that is all. For me, this letter has a very low validity and reliability.

David writes:

“The first thing to note about the letter is that, even by Pierre's reading, it is not written in any form of "metaphorical language". There are no metaphors in there.”

My simple answer to that is that you can´t know that, David. Have you been reading the Greek church fathers? Are you familiar with gnostic texts or even the Dead Sea Scrolls? I am. Have you been reading modern greek language, even political texts? They are full of metaphors. Are you also familiar with the use of metaphors in letters from other serial killers? I think you would enjoy reading them.

And then David is writing:

“And of course Pierre can't quite tease the number 13 on its own out of 1320 feet so he has to imagine that the killer was after Elizabeth Prater too, but was prevented by her barricading her door, even though she never so much as heard her door rattle that night.”

David can not know if Prater heard any noise at her door that night. And using that as an example to destroy my post about GOGMAGOG is not very intelligent. David seems to think that the killer would make noises trying to force Prater´s door if he wanted to kill her.

David then gives the background to the letter, which is good. That year (1888) the Lord Mayor´s Show was changed and reorganized and people had opinions about the show.

But this background can exist even if the letter is written by the killer.
David also says that I have omitted two quotation marks. I didn´t omit them. I published Craig´s transcript and did not see they were omitted. I have the letter in my inbox and can post it to you David, with Craig´s permission of course. Ask him, and I will do it.

David also writes what he thinks the author of the letter is doing: responding to criticism. And then he writes:

“So when Pierre says of GOGMAGOG's letter, other than the passages underlined by him, "The rest is just nonsense talk to get the message through to the smart police", he is talking nonsense himself because the letter is accurately describing what was going to be in the parade.”

Well, if I was the killer, I would use the common ideas in my time about Lord Mayor´s Show to hide my own message. So the context should be what people in that time thought about the show and what the killer would want to say in the letter. That is the specific context which I have postulated for the letter, not saying that that context is a fact but an hypothesis.

About the letter from Tennyson now. We don´t know if this letter was published earlier. Lord Tennyson had a lot of letters published in the press over many years. But we do know that his drama Queen Mary was played in the theatre in the 1880´s. So people knew about this play.

David also writes about the 1320 feet. Well, David, your playing with numbers is just another way of refuting everything I write at any price. And this is your usual strategy. That is why you are usually ignored.

Pierre

I do not agree with this.

[David Orsam]

Pierre stopped speaking to me on 16 November when, in my thread "A New Theory as to the Killer's Identity", I accused him of falsely representing the contents of this very letter to the forum by stating that it contained Mary Kelly's name and "exact address" written in "metaphorical language".

We can now see why Pierre was so worried and indeed why he did not post the contents of the letter until someone else found it (well done Craig!).

The first thing to note about the letter is that, even by Pierre's reading, it is not written in any form of "metaphorical language". There are no metaphors in there. It is, supposedly, written in a coded language. But there is no key to enable anyone to decipher it. Pierre cherry picks and chooses certain words or phrases which he says have special meaning, but why those particular words or phrases and not others in the letter?

Pierre is evidently looking for a certain meaning in the letter which is why "nearly quarter of a mile" somehow means 13 Miller's Court and "grand old gilt coach" means Mary Jane Kelly. And of course Pierre can't quite tease the number 13 on its own out of 1320 feet so he has to imagine that the killer was after Elizabeth Prater too, but was prevented by her barricading her door, even though she never so much as heard her door rattle that night.

The Background to the Letter

Let us first look at the reason for the letter by "GOGMAGOG" because it wasn't written in a vacuum. A quick search of the context in the newspapers in the few days prior to 5 November (which is the date the letter was written) reveals that the Lord Mayor's Parade was coming in for some strong criticism in the press.

On Saturday 3 November, the London Daily News, on publishing details of the Lord Mayor's procession, stated that:

"It will be seen from the statement which we publish elsewhere that the Lord Mayor's procession will be unusually short, and that it will contain no novel features".

(This is why GOGMAGOG makes the point that it will be nearly a quarter of a mile long. He is emphasising that it will NOT be unusually short.)

Then on Sunday 4 November, some fierce criticism of the Lord Mayor and Corporation of the City of London was published in Reynolds's Newspaper in an open letter to the Lord Mayor elect (Alderman James Whitehead) by someone signing himself as "W.M.T". This letter stated:

"Once more London is to be afflicted with that dreary exhibition of civic dullness known as the Lord Mayor's Show. Has the time not come when this disgusting tomfoolery should cease?...A number of bands, a number of soldiers, a number of flag-bearers, the fat and greasy citizens called aldermen staring stupidly from their vehicles on the mob, the whole brought up by that thing of wonder and of horror, the state coach of the Lord Mayor".

The letter also referred to "The committees of the Corporation which sanction the misappropriation to the children of the middle well-to-do classes of the charitable and educational endowments intended for the poor".

I quote this statement because GOGMAGOG's letter commences by saying "Let me in the interests of "the children", say a few words". Pierre has omitted the quotation marks around "the children" in his reproduction and it is possible that GOGMAGOG had W.M.T.'s reference to "the children" in mind here (although it is possible that such a phrase was referred to in another critical article or letter which I haven't found).

The key criticism, however, to which GOGMAGOG was responding appeared in a long article on the London Evening Standard of 5 November 1888. This stated:

"While we commend the motives which have induced Alderman Whitehead to modify the arrangements for the Lord Mayor's Show, we are afraid that the course he has actually taken will not tend to render him popular with the mass of Londoners. It is clear, indeed, from the official programme, that we are not to have a show at all, for we can hardly dignify with that appellation the scanty and unimpressive Procession announced for Friday next....the journey will be conducted with a most unwonted absence of parade and display. The street traffic is to stopped for several hours, to allow unimpeded passage to the LORD MAYOR and his coach, attended by the City Magnates in their carriages, a detachment of cavalry, with three bands and certain "groups of banners". Such a scanty exhibition will be a sore disappointment to the thousands of people who usually line the thoroughfares to see the "Show". To many of these spectators three brass bands and a few flags will be a poor substitute for the old glories of Lord Mayor's-day".

We can see that GOGMAGOG was responding directly to this criticism. Where the Standard referred to a simple "detachment of cavalry", GOGMAGOG referred to "cavalry of the smartest". Where the Standard referred to "three brass bands", GOGMAGOG said "three of the finest mounted bands in the British Army" and where the Standard referred to "a few flags", GOGMAGOG emphasised "banners galore".

Certainly, in respect of the bands, we may note that there were indeed three British Army bands in the procession: the Mounted Band of the Royal Artillery, the Band of the Life Guards and the Mounted Band of the 19th Hussars (Times, 10 November 1888). There was also cavalry, namely a detachment of the 19th Hussars. And there were banners galore. The Times of 10 November 1888 described Cheapside as being "gaily decorated with flags, banners and floral streamers suspended across the street".

So when Pierre says of GOGMAGOG's letter, other than the passages underlined by him, "The rest is just nonsense talk to get the message through to the smart police", he is talking nonsense himself because the letter is accurately describing what was going to be in the parade.

The Grand Old Gilt Coach

The splendid gilt coach was an obvious attraction for GOGMAGOG to include in his letter. If we look at the 1947 book "Homeland Guide to London" we see it refers to the Lord Mayor's Show and "the Lord Mayor in his richly ornamented gilt coach preceded by a cavalry escort and bands of the Guards and other regiments".

It's very similar to what GOGMAGOG said and there is nothing out of the ordinary about it.

But Pierre twists this to an extraordinary degree. Firstly he has to abandon the exact wording of GOGMAGOG's letter because it refers to "the grand old gilt coach" whereas Tennyson's letter, to which Pierre draws our attention, actually says, "very grand the gilt coach of the mayor was". Had GOGMAGOG been quoting Tennyson directly he would surely have referred to the "very grand gilt coach" but GOGMAGOG for some reason ditches the word "very" and inserts "old".

Well perhaps the killer wanted to make the clue even harder than it actually was. Because it was really very hard. Tennyson wrote a lot of poems and a lot of plays so how was one possibly supposed to be able to work out that a reference to a line in one of his letters takes us to the particular play called "Queen Mary"?

But it gets worse than this for Pierre. The letter by Tennyson to which Pierre refers was written by Tennyson to his wife on 9 November 1861. It said:

"Tell Hallam I have just come in from seeing the Lord Mayor's show, and very grand the gilt coach of the Mayor was."

(Hallam was his friend Arthur Hallam).

Tennyson did not die until 1892. While his letters were published after his death, how was it possible for the killer to have known what Tennyson said to his wife in a private letter some 27 years prior to 5 November 1888?

Even if the killer turns out to be someone who knew Tennyson personally, or Tennyson himself, how could that killer possibly have expected any reader of his letter to have understood a reference to the "old gilt coach" to have been a "hint" to Tennyson?

It was a clue, therefore, that was almost impossible for the killer to have known about and - unless Pierre can demonstrate publication of Tennyson's letter before 6 November 1888 - certainly impossible for anyone else to have understood.

1320 Feet

As already pointed out by Elamarna, the killer did not refer to the procession being quarter of a mile but only "nearly" quarter of a mile thus rendering his "clue" worthless. Pierre somehow takes the figure of one thousand three hundred and twenty to turns it into two numbers of 13 and 20.

If we were so minded we could make 1320 become numbers 1, 3 and 20 Miller's Court. Or we could say 1 +3 = 4 and 2 + 0 - 2 to make it 4 and 2 Miller's Court. Or we could add all the numbers up 1 + 3 + 2 to get 6 Miller's Court. Or 20 minus 13 is 7 Miller's Court.

Playing with numbers in this way can allow us to arrive at many outcomes.

A quarter of a mile is also 440 yards. So we can have numbers 4 and 40 or add the 4 and 4 to get 8 or 4 + 40 to get 48.

A quarter of a mile is also 267 metres. So immediately we have number 26 Dorset Street and 7 Miller's Court if we so desire.

GOGMAGOG

As already stated in this thread, there are carved wooden statues of Gog and Magog in the Guildhall. The Guildhall was not only the administrative centre of the City of London Corporation but it was where the Lord Mayor's Procession began and ended so there was a direct link in that name to the Lord Mayor's Show and everyone reading the letter at the time would have understood that. Clearly the letter was written by an official from the City of London Corporation or someone connected with it, possibly by the Lord Mayor elect himself, in response to the public criticism of the show.

Conclusion

As others have noted, GOGMAGOG's letter is nothing other than a letter about how good the Lord Mayor's Show will be. It is not a letter in which the address of Mary Kelly is stated, nor a letter which reveals any intention by the author to murder anyone, either in metaphorical or coded or any other language.

I agree with this.

[Elamarna]

I do not agree with this.

Pierre

Good to see that.


Steve

[Pierre]

Hi,

Craig has done a great job searching for the metaphorical letter which I have previously discussed here. This letter could have been written by the killer. It can be interpreted as giving the date of the murder on Kelly, the adress to the murder site and the names Mary and Elizabeth. I think Elizabeth survived because she barricaded her door with two tables.

Craig has found this letter. It was published in two newspapers, The Daily News and The Standard, on the 6th of November.

I publish the GOGMAGOG-letter here.

"Sir,

Let me in the interest of the children, say a few words as the result of inquiries I have made, advice I have consequently given, and intentions I have personally formed.

It will be a procession (I am told by the head of the police) nearly a quarter of a mile long – cavalry of the smartest, three of the finest mounted bands in the British Army, banners galore, and above all the grand old gilt coach.

Let Paterfamilias or Uncle Peter provide the time honoured lunch and bring up the young folks to spend their usual holiday. I can promise them a pleasant one – yours very faithfully,

GOGMAGOG”

And here is my letter to Craig.

Hi Craig,

I will give you the interpretation. The underlined phrases are the metaphorical phrases which can be interpreted. The rest is just nonsense talk to get the message through to the smart police.

"Sir,

Let me in the interest of the children, say a few words as the result of inquiries I have made, advice I have consequently given, and intentions I have personally formed.


Interpretation: He has formed some unknown intentions. What are they?

It will be a procession (I am told by the head of the police)

Interpretation: He is talking about Lord Mayor´s Show. He wants to get the reader´s attention to the fact that he is aware of the police and is adressing them.

nearly a quarter of a mile long –

Interpretation: A quarter of a mile = 1320 ft.

Mile means “Mille”. Quart (er) is phonetically similar to Court.

Result: 13 20 Miller´s Court.

cavalry of the smartest,

Interpretation: the smart constables. (The word comes from the latin Comes Stabuli: a constable was responsible for keeping the horses of a lord.)

three of the finest mounted bands in the British Army, banners galore, and above all the grand old gilt coach.

Interpretation: Lord Tennyson wrote in a known letter about the grand gilt coach. And he wrote a drama called Queen Mary. In this drama there is Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth and the Lord Mayor.

Let Paterfamilias or Uncle Peter provide the time honoured lunch and bring up the young folks to spend their usual holiday.

Interpretation: A latin word indicating an interest in latin saying that you should look for latin words in this text.

I can promise them a pleasant one –

Interpretation: He can promise them a terrible one (using ironical language).

yours very faithfully,

GOGMAGOG”

Craig, I appreciate your interest in the GOGMAGOG-letter.

As I have said, I think this letter might have been written by him. But it is not any part of my research about the killer´s identity.

But I can tell you that I believe that he did write to the police and there are a few sources indicating this.

The GOGMAGOG-letter may or may not be one of his letters. One thing that supports such an hypothesis is that he knew latin.

Many serial killers write in code or metaphorical language to the police.

If the police understand the meaning of the texts, it can help them catch the killer. But the killer must write in a difficult language, otherwise he might get caught.

And especially if he gives the address to the next murder site, the date of the murders and the names of the victims.

Regards Pierre

I do not agree with this.

Pierre

[GUT]

AND HE WILL STAND IN THE CORNER, HOLD HIS BREATH, AND TURN BLUE, UNLESS WE ALL BOW DOWN TO "GENERAL PIERRE ZOD" AND WORSHIP HIM!!!

Jeff

We can but hope.

[Mayerling]

Thank you for your insults and lies, Steve. I will remember them.

Pierre

AND HE WILL STAND IN THE CORNER, HOLD HIS BREATH, AND TURN BLUE, UNLESS WE ALL BOW DOWN TO "GENERAL PIERRE ZOD" AND WORSHIP HIM!!!

Jeff

[GUT]

Crikey!

If he was an Awestralian,we'd report him to the Department of De Fence!

I took of fence, but left the gate (auto correct again).

[DJA]

That's an insult to all the genuine crack pots out there and I take of fence on their behalf.

Crikey!

If he was an Awestralian,we'd report him to the Department of De Fence!

[JadenCollins]

Don't worry Steve based on past contradictions in what he says I doubt Pierre manages to remember much at all.

Watch it, he might snap soon.

[GUT]

Thank you for your insults and lies, Steve. I will remember them.

Pierre

I Take it the last four words of your post, before your name, are not meant as a threat of any type, is that correct ?

Elamarna

Don't worry Steve based on past contradictions in what he says I doubt Pierre manages to remember much at all.

[GUT]

Hi Steve
from the hints he has already given I can assure you there is no validity in his suspect. As serious consideration for a viable candidate-its already a moot point. Its just another crack pot.

That's an insult to all the genuine crack pots out there and I take of fence on their behalf.

[Elamarna]

Thank you for your insults and lies, Steve. I will remember them.

Pierre

Which lies Pierre, please tell me where I have lied in the previous post? If I have I will unreservedly apologise to you.

I do not see any insults actually either, so could you tell me where I have insulted in the previous post?

Every comment is based on your own posts

The only comment which could, in a different context, be seen as remotely insulting was :

"There can be only a few reasons for that.

Either the poster has none, or to reveal such would expose his true identity!"


I say there are a few possible reasons, I list just two options.

I Take it the last four words of your post, before your name, are not meant as a threat of any type, is that correct ?

Elamarna

[Pierre]

John he won't tell us, how many times has he been asked?
Ignore his ramblings and pseudo scientific comments and games. (He will get upset now saying he is the only one not playing games, and how we should all be ashamed of ourselves, well Pierre, PROVE IT! )


There is no point in discussing any points he raises without any evidence, which he will not provide, his interpretation of metaphorical, as he calls them, writings are not evidence.

He changes his mind all the time, he provides false information, be it on the profession of the killer, or the history of historical documents, he has demonstrated NO scientific credibility or competence.

He claims to be a researcher, but says credibility is meaningless to him. Must be the first scientific researcher in history to believe such.

He denigrates writers whom he claims have no academic qualification, yet he refuses to say what his own are or mention any work he has been involved with, as the researcher he claims to be.

There can be only a few reasons for that.

Either the poster has none, or to reveal such would expose his true identity!

If and when, and its a big if, he tells the World who is his "suspect" and no more of this nonsense "he is not a suspect", then the World can review and consider his theory.

The World will then decide if it has an validity.

Steve


because

Steve

Thank you for your insults and lies, Steve. I will remember them.

Pierre

[Abby Normal]

Dear Abby Normal,

While i take on board your comment about viable candidates, It could be that there may be some validity (by this I mean the candidate is not someone who is at least plausible on the surface and cannot be ruled out in a 60 minute internet search,) towards the suspect, however I seriously doubt any to the theory which he supplies with it.
In other words he could name somebody who is not ridiculous by per chance.

Steve

true. the person could be a viable candidate despite pierres crackpot theory.
I see what your saying.