Greetings from the past

[Pierre]

Hi,

As a historian I do believe that our only chance to find Jack the Ripper is the sources from the past. These sources must be produced by the killer himself. Otherwise they can not be connected to the murders.

What I think we have to do is to find and understand the sources produced by a murderer who is communicating with people. This is very difficult, since some sources from 1888 are lost and since our understanding is biased by post modern thinking. Nevertheless I think it is the only way forward.

The sources must not be in written form. The important thing is that they are greetings from the past.

"The overall conclusions drawn add to our current knowledge base on serial murderers. Gibson (2004) finds that a “consistent compulsion to communicate characterizes these serial killers” (p. 209). In most cases, communicating with society and law enforcement was imperative for the selected killers examined. In their communications they left clues, taunted and insulted law enforcement, re-injured victims’ loved ones, threatened to kill again, made demands and offered explanations for their behavior (see pp. 210-211). A brief comparative analysis suggests that each killer had different motives to communicate (e.g. a form of venting). In fact, “it is what they disclose about themselves that reveals a greater reality” (quoting Joel Norris (1988), p. 212)." http://www.ccja-acjp.ca/en/cjcr100/cjcr167.html

Regards, Pierre

[GUT]

And how oh great historian do we know a source was written by the ripper (if there was one) if we don't know who the ripper was, circular argument it seems to me.

[John G]

Greetings from the past?

[GUT]

Greetings from the past?

Explains a lot about Pierre.

[John G]

Explains a lot about Pierre.

He's certainly got me confused, and not for the first time I may add! Mind you, if the "sources must not be in written form" I guess that rules out the Goulston Street graffiti. Which brings me to another question: Pierre, given your latest reasoning, why did you start a thread on the aforementioned graffiti?

[GUT]

He's certainly got me confused, and not for the first time I may add!

It's not you who's confused.

[John G]

It's not you who's confused.

You know, I think you might be right! And, thinking about this further, "not in written form" obviously would not exclude telepathic communications.

[Kattrup]

The sources must not be in written form. The important thing is that they are greetings from the past.

For clarification, I assume you mean that the sources must not necessarily be in written form - they can be, but it is not necessary. Is that correct?

I suppose we do have recorded sound from the 1880s, that would be a non-written source.

But more relevant to the case might be, for instance, U-shaped cuts on a victim, interpreted as V-shaped. Would that qualify as an unwritten source, greeting us from the past?

[John G]

For clarification, I assume you mean that the sources must not necessarily be in written form - they can be, but it is not necessary. Is that correct?

I suppose we do have recorded sound from the 1880s, that would be a non-written source.

But more relevant to the case might be, for instance, U-shaped cuts on a victim, interpreted as V-shaped. Would that qualify as an unwritten source, greeting us from the past?

But he wrote "must not be in written form." That's an absolute requirement, and the statement is therefore clearly unequivocal in this respect.

[Kattrup]

But he wrote "must not be in written form." That's an absolute requirement, and the statement is therefore clearly unequivocal in this respect.

I agree, that's why I asked, since it seems unintended.

[Robert St Devil]

What time is it where you're at, Pierre? four:20 or beer:30

[Craig H]

Hi Pierre

Do you mean like the red leather cigarette case found on Catharine Eddowes and the red handkerchief given to MJK. ?

Craig

[Mayerling]

Hi Pierre

Do you mean like the red leather cigarette case found on Catharine Eddowes and the red handkerchief given to MJK. ?

Craig

Interesting Craig. But how do you know if these items were given or left by the same person with those victims?

Now if it was tea leaves....

Jeff

[Craig H]

Hi Jeff

Yes .... Good point !

I remember reading somewhere that the victims were all found or seen with something new .... Nichols with her new bonnet, Eddowes with the redcigarette case, MJK with the red handkerchief.

From memory, the article was suggesting JTR gave gifts to victims to gain their favour.

I'm wondering if Pierre is suggesting these were done deliberately to leave a message .....

Craig

[John G]

Hi Jeff

Yes .... Good point !

I remember reading somewhere that the victims were all found or seen with something new .... Nichols with her new bonnet, Eddowes with the redcigarette case, MJK with the red handkerchief.

From memory, the article was suggesting JTR gave gifts to victims to gain their favour.

I'm wondering if Pierre is suggesting these were done deliberately to leave a message .....

Craig

Well, in another thread he discussed the cachous found in the hand of Liz Stride and opined that the words "cachous" and "cautious" are almost homophones. His conclusion was that this might represent a communication from the killer, i.e. he didn't mutilate Stride because he was being cautious and therefore "avoiding risk." See:http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=367224