The GOGMAGOG-letter

[Pierre]

Interesting oversight by you Pierre. You did your typical "blackening" comments back on all of Steve's remarks except this last one. Afraid to admit you don't really qualify as a scientist or thinker?? Again, what exactly are your qualifications and the names and publications of your vast scientifically researched papers and such that prove you have "scientific qualifications"???

Jeff

Sorry Bridewell, I didn't notice you made the same comment. Great minds think alike - non-metaphysically or non-metaphorically that is.

Great minds, yes indeed. Was Socrates a scientist? Was Descartes a scientist? Was Sartre a scientist? Have they been peer-reviewed? Is the scientist a scientist because of his name, because of his titles or because of his education or methods?

Regards, Pierre

[Bridewell]

Sorry Bridewell, I didn't notice you made the same comment.

Not a problem, Jeff. The more people who highlight the issue, the more glaring will be any failure to explain what, if any, scientific qualifications he holds.

[Mayerling]

Pierre

By the way let's make this clear, just because you say you are a scientist it does not make you one.

What are you scientific qualifications?

Interesting oversight by you Pierre. You did your typical "blackening" comments back on all of Steve's remarks except this last one. Afraid to admit you don't really qualify as a scientist or thinker?? Again, what exactly are your qualifications and the names and publications of your vast scientifically researched papers and such that prove you have "scientific qualifications"???

Jeff

Sorry Bridewell, I didn't notice you made the same comment. Great minds think alike - non-metaphysically or non-metaphorically that is.

[Mayerling]

Hi Jeff,

Sherlock Holmes, I believe! However, I feel it is my duty, in order to avoid the possibility of distorting your own independent data analysis, to confirm the fact that I do not possess a pipe.

Absolutely John G. The great man himself would sit in contemplation for hours (according to Watson) just smoking and considering the situation. But don't feel bad. I don't smoke either.

Jeff

[Elamarna]

in response to Pierre’s post


"Unless of course you are suggesting that the paper had the writers true ID and address and a reason to suspecting it was from the killer. None of which you have offered.."

"That is only your own thinking. "

what is my thinking?

if the paper were serious in their suggestion they must have had a reason for such.
Pierre has not provided anything to back up that suggestion since he raised this letter in the thread. Therefore it is not only "my thinking"

If the Paper believed this was a communication from the killer or the letter was of any importance at all, can the poster suggest any reason why the paper would recommend in print the police contacted the writer rather than supplying the evidence directly to the police.

Pierre has presented no evidence that the torso murders are connected to the killings in Whitechapel, just his belief that they are, that is not even an hypothesis because without evidence it can not be tested. Until he presents an evidence back hypothesis it is a personal opinion no more no less!

I note that once again he does not comment on his training other than to tell the world he is a scientist.

[Bridewell]

By the way let's make this clear, just because you say you are a scientist it does not make you one.

What are your scientific qualifications?

Pierre,

Your last post didn't answer one of Elamarna's questions. Presumably an oversight but, just to clarify, what are your scientific qualifications?

[Bridewell]

HI GUT,

The writer is using the same structure in both letters.

GML = GOGMAGOG-letter. OSL = Old Subscriber letter.

1.
Addressing “SIR”, asking him to let him/allow him to speak:

GML SIR, - Let me, in the interest of “the children”,
OSL SIR, - Allow me, through your valuable paper,

2.
Giving recommendations:

GML say a few words
OSL recommend

3.
Ironically predicting future events given that they take his advice:

GML I can promise them a pleasant one
OSL and then, I think, this wholesale murderer, will be caught


Regards, Pierre

Two different late Victorian letter writers wrote letters in the same, formally structured letter-writing style that was prevalent in the Late Victorian Period.

The words 'straws' and 'clutching at' spring to mind.

[Pierre]

Pierre

This is a one off.

Hands up I miss read the report. We all do that . No need for your arrogant reply.

It is obvious then that the comment is a sarcastic comment by the paper.

Sure, it might be. That could be a hypothesis as well.

Unless of course you are suggesting that the paper had the writers true ID and address and a reason to suspecting it was from the killer. None of which you have offered..

That is only your own thinking.

And that the police in London would be reading a provincial paper 8 months after the last killing..

Was it? "8 months after the last killing"?

"On June 4, part of a female torso was fished out of the Thames at Horselydown, while at about the same time; a left leg to the body was plucked from under the Albert-bridge, Chelsea. Within the next week, numerous other parts of the same body were recovered in or near the Thames.

The London Times on June 11, reported that the remains found so far "are as follows: Tuesday, left leg and thigh off Battersea, lower part of the abdomen at Horselydown; Thursday, the liver near Nine Elms, upper part of the body in Battersea-Park, neck and shoulders off Battersea; Friday, right foot and part of leg at Wandsworth, left leg and foot at Limehouse; Saturday, left arm and hand at Bankside, buttocks and pelvis off Battersea, right thigh at Chelsea Embankment, yesterday, right arm and hand at Bankside."

By the way let's make this clear, just because you say you are a scientist it does not make you one.

What are you scientific qualificatio?

Regards Pierre

[Elamarna]

Pierre

This is a one off.

Hands up I miss read the report. We all do that and as you know when I am wrong I always accept it and aknowedge it. No need for your arrogant reply.

It is obvious then that the comment is a sarcastic comment by the paper.

Unless of course you are suggesting that the paper had the writers true ID and address and a reason to suspecting it was from the killer. None of which you have offered..
And that the police in London would be reading a provincial paper 8 months after the last killing..

By the way let's make this clear, just because you say you are a scientist it does not make you one.

What are you scientific qualifications?

[Pierre]

Once again I am somewhat confused by the posters reply.

Given that the letter appears to be a general letter asking people who may know anything about the killer to contact the police, and there appears to be nothing to suggest this is not the case.

The Papers(journalists) comment that they recommend that people follow the advice in the letter

Steve - No. They recommend the police to communicate with the writer. Why donīt you read what it says? It says:

"We should recommend the police to communicate with the writer of the above. There is no saying what may be in store for them."

seems normal and non-controversial and indeed responsible.
The last sentence obviously refers to any rewards which may have still been in place for information.

But it was not obvious to you.

I fear that once again the poster is reading far to much into what is written;

Donīt fear for that. Read the posts that "the poster" posts instead, Steve.

there is undoubtedly a tendency to treat all communications as if they were from a Colin Dexter novel,

Who is Colin Dexter? The poster doesnīt read that.

and to look for hidden messages which are not, on this occasion at least, there.

That is a genuine comment with no intent what so ever to put poster down or belittle him,

"The poster" doesnīt care about being put down. The poster only cares for science.

but an observation on his interpretation of any written matter.

regards

Elamarna

Regards, The Poster

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Yes, I agree with many of your thoughts. So why didnīt the journalist think like you?

Regards Pierre

Once again I am somewhat confused by the posters reply.

Given that the letter appears to be a general letter asking people who may know anything about the killer to contact the police, and there appears to be nothing to suggest this is not the case.
The Papers(journalists) comment that they recommend that people follow the advice in the letter seems normal and non-controversial and indeed responsible.
The last sentence obviously refers to any rewards which may have still been in place for information.

I fear that once again the poster is reading far to much into what is written; there is undoubtedly a tendency to treat all communications as if they were from a Colin Dexter novel, and to look for hidden messages which are not, on this occasion at least, there.

That is a genuine comment with no intent what so ever to put poster down or belittle him, but an observation on his interpretation of any written matter.


regards

Elamarna

[Pierre]

Given that the Poster has decided to post the same post twice, let us be polite and answer it with the respect it deserves

Point 1

A large percentage of letters to Newspapers both in 1888 and today start with either "Sir" or "Dear Sir" the sentences which follow are also a common form used in many letters, they are introducing the ideas in the letter.

There is therefore nothing out of the ordinary in such statements that would allow one to suggest that they are from the same writer.

Point 2

Most letters to a paper will make a recommendation of some sort. that is the point of writing a letter to a paper. To put across a point of view and make suggestions.


Point 3

There is nothing ironic in those lines, it is just the posters view, his opinion, a creative imagination.


There appears to be nothing connecting these two letters at all, other than they are letters to Newspapers.
The poster insists on there is, however the explanation given fails to add any substance to that view.

Hi Steve,

Yes, I agree with many of your thoughts. So why didnīt the journalist think like you?

Regards Pierre

[John G]

It was simpler in 1887 - 1927. One eminent reasoned termed it a "three pipe problem", and generally solved it.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Sherlock Holmes, I believe! However, I feel it is my duty, in order to avoid the possibility of distorting your own independent data analysis, to confirm the fact that I do not possess a pipe.

[Mayerling]

Thank you, David. I am now able to confirm that I have had the time to reflect on your latest post during a period of mystical contemplation. In fact, I hardly dare write this down, but having emerged from a deep trance my intuitive response is that there is now hardly any doubt: You must have virtually found him.

It was simpler in 1887 - 1927. One eminent reasoned termed it a "three pipe problem", and generally solved it.

Jeff

[John G]

Yes John, I confirm that I have carried out a full probability analysis and the likelihood that I am wrong is very low; in fact 4.28% to be precise. (That figure is subject to a small margin of error of plus or minus 95.72%.) In metaphorical terms, this is about as good as it is possible to get.

Thank you, David. I am now able to confirm that I have had the time to reflect on your latest post during a period of mystical contemplation. In fact, I hardly dare write this down, but having emerged from a deep trance my intuitive response is that there is now hardly any doubt: You must have virtually found him.