Ripper Facts

[Debra A]

Debra,

someone else said much the same some time back, would the book be a kindle edition priced at £2.86?

i have the title but obviously don't want to post it

steve

Apologies, Steve. I missed your post. Now you obviously know it is that one I had in mind and Jerry already mentioned.
No point posting the title if Pierre did write it under another name and doesn't want to publicise it herself.

[MysterySinger]

Pierre's a she? Oo-eck.

[Elamarna]

Apologies, Steve. I missed your post. Now you obviously know it is that one I had in mind and Jerry already mentioned.
No point posting the title if Pierre did write it under another name and doesn't want to publicise it herself.

Reading the book now, i can see similarities in theory. however have looked at posts over on JTRforums and don't see the match myself in style, but if you are posting under different persona’s i guess that might happen.

steve

[Robert St Devil]

And that was the most clever way you could come up with to bring up thst subject, debra? That was pm material, shame on you.

[Debra A]

And that was the most clever way you could come up with to bring up thst subject, debra? That was pm material, shame on you.

What on earth are you blithering on about.

[wigngown]

Hi Craig,

I tend to agree but don't forget Peter Sutcliffe was married and still managed to clean up, at home, following the murders.

Best regards,

[wigngown]

I'm intrigued Debra A. Can you PM me the books name please? I'd very much like to read it.

Best regards,

[Debra A]

delete

[Elamarna]

hi Debra and Jerry

having now read the book I will make the following comments:


1. There are major similarities between the theory in the book and what Pierre has said.

2. There are major differences between the book and what Pierre has said- mainly too many victims and social background to name but 2.

3. I am inclined to believe the Pierre is not the author.

regards

steve

[Pierre]

hi Debra and Jerry

having now read the book I will make the following comments:


1. There are major similarities between the theory in the book and what Pierre has said.

2. There are major differences between the book and what Pierre has said- mainly too many victims and social background to name but 2.

3. I am inclined to believe the Pierre is not the author.

regards

steve

Hi Steve,

Of course I am not the author - of what ripperologic book? - since I told you this research area is new to me. So I suggest you use your time for better things. I am an honest person, Steve.

And about Tabram. Things have not changed at all, but I have no reason to think she was a victim of Jack the Ripper - she might have been - but merely placing her in a time period is not enough. There must be sources for every victim. So I have, as an hypothesis, excluded her.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Of course I am not the author - of what ripperologic book? - since I told you this research area is new to me. So I suggest you use your time for better things. I am an honest person, Steve.

And about Tabram. Things have not changed at all, but I have no reason to think she was a victim of Jack the Ripper - she might have been - but merely placing her in a time period is not enough. There must be sources for every victim. So I have, as an hypothesis, excluded her.

Regards, Pierre

pierre

Has you can see, i did not think you were, however to be fair to others there are similarities. it only took 2 hours to know it was not you.

Have I mentioned Tabram? I believe people were asking about the 87 torso? if I have mentioned Tabram recently have forgotten.

s

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;381801]

Pierre

Were honour killings known in the uk at this time?
Do you have any evidence of any having taken place in 1888 or prior to it that can be specifically said were honour killings?

Are you not taking the idea of honour killings/mutilations from Eastern cultures and applying it to a completely different culture which may not understand it.

Hi Steve,

What do you mean by "in the UK"? In 1888 your country was an Empire and had been so for hundreds of years. The extension of it was vast. It contained Africa, America, Australia, Burma, Canada, Egypt, India and the West Indies.

And what do you mean by "a completely different culture"? All the men who lived and worked in the British Empire knew the cultures where they were living and working and raising families.

For hundreds of years the men in the British Empire learned about what you call "completely different culture". They were everywhere in the British Empire.

They were also in Whitechapel.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;381878]

Hi Steve,

What do you mean by "in the UK"? In 1888 your country was an Empire and had been so for hundreds of years. The extension of it was vast. It contained Africa, America, Australia, Burma, Canada, Egypt, India and the West Indies.

And what do you mean by "a completely different culture"? All the men who lived and worked in the British Empire knew the cultures where they were living. For hundreds of years the men in the British Empire learned about what you call "completely different culture". They were everywhere in the British Empire. They were also in Whitechapel.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre

the empire you describe is a fantasy, the early empire, often said to be before 1780 was mainly Western orientated, only after the formation of the USA did the expansion in the East really take off.



you statement starting "All the men who lived and worked in the British Empire" is fundamentally wrong and seriously flawed, once again you make sweeping generalisations.
The vast majority of person in 19th Century Britian were illiterate or semi literate at best, most never never travelled overseas unless to emigrate of serve in the navy or army.

You show a complete lack of understanding of 19th century Britain, the average person in the street knew nothing of the cultures of the other parts of the empire.
Indeed the same was still true in my youth, this has now fortunately changed greatly.

Certainly the ruling classes had a different view to this, but they were a minority.

you obviously will not agree with this, but such is your way when you try to promote an idea to fit your theory.


Despite all the thousands of words posted publicly and privately, not one single piece of checkable data has been provided, just an continuing number of assertions are given, that we are all then told to accept.

There is little point in continuing this debate at any level at all.

Steven

[Elamarna]

As a follow up to my last post.

There were of course populations of immigrants from Empire countries in Britain in the 19th century, the majority of these would have been in or near the major docks such as London, Liverpool, Bristol and Cardiff.

In the case of Indians for instance it is estimated that there may have been some 40000 employed as: seamen, diplomats, scholars, soldiers and officials,
in addition the richer classes would have come as students to both universities and Public schools.

The vast majority would have been working as sailors, and yes given proximity of the docks to Whitechapel they would certainly have been known of in the area, that does not mean people understood their cultures.
To suggest that Britain was a multicultural society in 1888 is a great exaggeration.

The communities were extremely small and under developed compare to say Jewish immigrants, the first mosque built in Britain was 1889, in Woking by a convert. Surprisingly the first official Hindu temple was only constructed in the 1980's , however one was opened in London in the late 1920's.

To suggest that the general population would have understood the concept of honour killings is unproven, and I would suggest unprovable.

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;381884][QUOTE=Pierre;381878]

Pierre

the empire you describe is a fantasy, the early empire, often said to be before 1780 was mainly Western orientated, only after the formation of the USA did the expansion in the East really take off.

you statement starting "All the men who lived and worked in the British Empire" is fundamentally wrong and seriously flawed, once again you make sweeping generalisations.

Hi Steve,

Sorry to note that you do not know the history of the British Empire. But that is certainly not your fault. Your are a natural scientist and not a social scientist or historian. You have other, and very important, qualifications.

During the centuries of British rule in the world, economical institutions, social institutions, armies, organisations, schools, exploration and culture were strongly merged when the British met with other cultures and learned about them. The British organized huge administrations in the areas where they dominated and they created entirely new societies by including the men living in their territories in the British organisations, armies and systems of administration.

All this meant that they constructed new ways of living and that they founded common organisations, where the natives were educated and put to work in the British Empire and where the "British" were born outside of the motherland. It is a very fascinating history, Steve, and actually, I do not think you would believe it if you read about it. I think it is one of the most fascinating pieces of history in the world.

I strongly recommend The Oxford History of the British Empire. Volume III: The Nineteenth Century. (Ed. Porter & Louis).

The vast majority of person in 19th Century Britian were illiterate or semi literate at best, most never never travelled overseas unless to emigrate of serve in the navy or army.

Steve, we are not talkning about the majority. We are talkning about those who created the Empire. And the Victorians were a very important part of all this.

You show a complete lack of understanding of 19th century Britain, the average person in the street knew nothing of the cultures of the other parts of the empire.
Indeed the same was still true in my youth, this has now fortunately changed greatly.

Oh, dear me. Steve, we are not talking about the "average person in the street" now. We are talking about the nation builders! I am sorry to note that the average person very seldom has any idea about who created the world he lives in. I do not say that imperialism is something good - but your economical systems, social systems, medical systems, everything you have, is a consequence of the politics of the nation builders during the centuries of the British Empire!

The Victorians would not have existed were it only for a queen - they lived on money from the colonies and from the positions they got in the administrations of the British Empire!

But they also lived on the money from the money and land they took from natives, the money they earned in the banks they founded and from the food that should have been eaten by poor people around the world, but was brought to the wealthy British in the Empire and the motherland instead.

Of course the "average man" does not know this. It is a terrible history. And Jack the Ripper is created within these settings and is a part of this terrible history.

Certainly the ruling classes had a different view to this, but they were a minority.

Haha! But they were the RULERS, Steve!

you obviously will not agree with this, but such is your way when you try to promote an idea to fit your theory.

Sorry, Steve. The British Empire is no hypothesis. It was reality.

Despite all the thousands of words posted publicly and privately, not one single piece of checkable data has been provided, just an continuing number of assertions are given, that we are all then told to accept.

There is little point in continuing this debate at any level at all.

128 years have passed, Steve. Why the hurry. We do not need another bad hypothesis.

Best wishes, Pierre