Was The Ripper A Police Official?

[Elamarna]

Ah, an academic subject on Casebook?
Just a brief query, have you read The Mystery of the Copper Scroll of Qumran by Robert Feather?
The fact he is a metallurgist just added to the intrigue of his theory for me.

Not read the book, but saw the tv documentary.

his interpretation I found seriously wanting, but his actual science was very interesting.

of course it may be better in the book.

[Wickerman]

Dear Pierre,

I wish to ask you something as a matter general historical interest.
it is therefore, slightly off topic, but i hope you will be able to help me.
Given that my real passion in life is Egyptology, the history of neighbouring states does hold an interest for me.

Regarding the dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls. could you point me in the direction of the source for the above statement, has I was always under the Impression that the scrolls were from a later period.

Ah, an academic subject on Casebook?
Just a brief query, have you read The Mystery of the Copper Scroll of Qumran by Robert Feather?
The fact he is a metallurgist just added to the intrigue of his theory for me.

[Monty]

Hi Monty,

I really hate to do this, but actually there was a case of a uniformed constable, George Cooke, who in 1893 murdered his ex-girl friend (whom he tried to reform), a prostitute who would not take his final rejection of her and determined to make him rue it. Cooke beat her to death with his truncheon while on his beat near Wormwood Scrubs prison, and subsequently finished his rounds, and then went home. Eventually he was tried, convicted, and hanged for the murder (the only P.C. to suffer that fate in England, although in 1875 Superintendent Thomas Montgomery was hanged after three trials for the "Omagh" murder of a bank employee during a robbery in that town in Ireland). As I say, I hate to mention this because it may give a false sense of triumph to Pierre, but it is true.

Due to the severe provocation Cooke suffered from his vicious ex-girlfriend, there was a serious attempt by the trial jury and the public to get his sentence commuted. It was opposed by the trial judge, Sir Henry "'Anging" Hawkins, Baron Brampton, who felt it would give the law abiding public the wrong idea.

Jeff

I'm very aware of the Cooke case Jeff, as I've just written about him for the new book and visited the SOC last summer. .

I should have included " and get away with it" at the end. Cooke was bought to justice via his vigilant landlady, as he tried to bury his truncheon.

It would have only been a matter of time for Cooke to have been bought to justice. As his appointment was unaccounted for, and suspicion was already being drawn before the landlady reported what she saw.

The fact the Whitechapel murders covers 3 jurisdictions, does not support an on duty constable as Jack. The double event especially draws its own issues with such a theory as even reserves were drawn upon.

And a singular murder is not comparable to a series.

Pierres theory needs to address these issues, and many more. Time will tell if he/she can. So far, based on what has been presented, I say Pierre cannot. It flounders on three points already. And one serious one.

That being, and as shown by David and Steve, Pierre is ignorant of Police procedure of the period.

Monty

[DJA]

Academic historians and sociologists are critical thinkers. We start by criticizing our own thinking.

And by the way. I think you should read the Dead Sea Scrolls. Most of its material date back to the exile in Babylon. And there they had a "teacher of righteousness". Do you know who he was? He was the opposite to Ezra. And his life story is the later greek construction of Jesus. So as you can see, the old testament and the new are only social political texts. And social political texts can not be found in stones.

Absolute garbage.

Less than a quarter of the Dead Sea Scrolls relate to the Exile and are mainly copies.

The Teacher of Righteousness pre dated Jesus,although some scholars suspect he was James the brother of Jesus/James the Just/Bar Abbas.

Your ever changing data and sources are just the latest thing you find and fantasise about.

Little foundation in reality.

[Elamarna]

one final thought on the scrolls Pierre:

"since most of that material is generated during the Babylonian exile it dates back to the exile in Babylon."

surly that statement is inaccurate. it certainly refers back to Babylon, but since the scrolls are all written after that period, we cannot know if there are any changes to the texts. to say they can be dated to the exile in Babylon is an over simplification is it not?
would it not be better to say that they are the oldest records available, which may be copies of documents written during the exile.

my interest was sparked because i was assuming some new dating had been made from your statement, a little disappointed its just interpretation. but i have found it stimulating.

all the best

[Pierre]

You mean that the scrolls written later, contain information which apparently comes from the exile. They are then not the primary sources I mistakenly believed they were. Thank you for that .
I did actually ask for source details to back up your statement, it appears from what you say the Scrolls only refer to the exile they do not date from it.

Ps i should correct part of the above:"They are then not the primary sources I mistakenly believed they were."


to read: "Not all of the scrolls are the the primary sources I mistakenly believed they were., However they obviously are important documents and do give an insight of how the wordings and the structure of the texts have changed ."


Thank you Pierre for that discussion.

Thanks Steve.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Since the Dead Sea Scrolls refer to a lot of material from the old testament and since most of that material is generated during the Babylonian exile it dates back to the exile in Babylon. And as you can notice if you read the scrolls, most of the newest material also refers to that older material.

Regards, Pierre

You mean that the scrolls written later, contain information which apparently comes from the exile. They are then not the primary sources I mistakenly believed they were. Thank you for that .
I did actually ask for source details to back up your statement, it appears from what you say the Scrolls only refer to the exile they do not date from it.

Ps i should correct part of the above:"They are then not the primary sources I mistakenly believed they were."


to read: "Not all of the scrolls are the the primary sources I mistakenly believed they were., However they obviously are important documents and do give an insight of how the wordings and the structure of the texts have changed ."


Thank you Pierre for that discussion.

[Pierre]

my question as you must be aware was you stated:

"I think you should read the Dead Sea Scrolls. Most of its material date back to the exile in Babylon."

I was asking if this statement was correct?

The general view I have found is that while the period from before and during the exile are covered by the scrolls, mostly they cover the period after this?

regards

Hi Steve,

Since the Dead Sea Scrolls refer to a lot of material from the old testament and since most of that material is generated during the Babylonian exile it dates back to the exile in Babylon. And as you can notice if you read the scrolls, most of the newest material also refers to that older material.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Oh, I am "Dear Pierre" now. Previously, I was "the poster" and "he, Pierre".

That my dear Pierre is because this was a personal off topic slightly post, but you raised it so i wondered if you would reply for my personal education.

However in the other posts I am commenting on your posts to others, and therefore refer to you in the 3rd person.

regards

[Elamarna]

my question as you must be aware was you stated:

"I think you should read the Dead Sea Scrolls. Most of its material date back to the exile in Babylon."

I was asking if this statement was correct?

The general view I have found is that while the period from before and during the exile are covered by the scrolls, mostly they cover the period after this?

regards

[Mayerling]

Regards, Pierre

I hate to say it because I don't like making you feel (in any way) triumphant, Pierre. Quite frankly I did it more to correct what might have been a false idea by Monty, not to assist you in any way.

"Social bias". If you stretch "Social bias" to include a self-satisfied little man who thinks he's better than anyone else (and I mean you), yes I'll accept "Social bias". I wouldn't be feeling this way except you invite it so well.

Jeff

[Pierre]

Dear Pierre,

Oh, I am "Dear Pierre" now. Previously, I was "the poster" and "he, Pierre".

I wish to ask you something as a matter general historical interest.
it is therefore, slightly off topic, but i hope you will be able to help me.

Sure.

Given that my real passion in life is Egyptology, the history of neighbouring states does hold an interest for me.

OK. I appreciate your interest in Egyptology although I have failed (my own fault entirely) to understand the fascination of it.

Regarding the dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls. could you point me in the direction of the source for the above statement, has I was always under the Impression that the scrolls were from a later period.

Of course they were, most of the scrolls were written in 200-100 BCE.

"The Chaldeans, following standard Mesopotamian practice, deported the Jews after they had conquered Jerusalem in 597 BC. The deportations were large, but certainly didn't involve the entire nation. Somewhere around 10,000 people were forced to relocate to the city of Babylon, the capital of the Chaldean empire. In 586 BC, Judah itself ceased to be an independent kingdom, and the earlier deportees found themselves without a homeland, without a state, and without a nation. This period, which actually begins in 597 but is traditionally dated at 586, is called the Exile in Jewish history; it ends with an accident in 538 when the Persians overthrow the Chaldeans."

source http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...ory/Exile.html

The scrolls themselves appear to cover the history of the Second Temple period (520 B.C.E.-70 C.E.)

Wikipedia quotes:

"Parchment from a number of the Dead Sea Scrolls has been carbon dated. The initial test performed in 1950 was on a piece of linen from one of the caves. This test gave an indicative dating of 33 CE plus or minus 200 years, eliminating early hypotheses relating the scrolls to the medieval period.[48] Since then two large series of tests have been performed on the scrolls themselves. The results were summarized by VanderKam and Flint, who said the tests give "strong reason for thinking that most of the Qumran manuscripts belong to the last two centuries BCE and the first century CE."[49]"

"Paleographic dating

Analysis of letter forms, or palaeography, was applied to the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls by a variety of scholars in the field. Major linguistic analysis by Cross and Avigad dates fragments from 225 BCE to 50 CE.[50] These dates were determined by examining the size, variability, and style of the text.[51] The same fragments were later analyzed using radiocarbon dating and were dated to an estimated range of 385 BCE to 82 CE with a 68% accuracy rate.[50]"


and from work by Ayala Sussman, Ruth Peled

"Today scholarly opinion regarding the time span and background of the Dead Sea Scrolls is anchored in historical, paleographic, and linguistic evidence, corroborated firmly by carbon 14-datings. Some manuscripts were written and copied in the third century B.C.E., but the bulk of the material, particularly the texts that reflect on a sectarian community, are originals or copies from the first century B.C.E.; a number of texts date from as late as the years preceding the destruction of the site in 68 C.E. at the hands of the Roman legions."

You have said several times that this is an area of interest for you, I would be grateful for any enlightenment you could provide me with.

What is your question, Steve?

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

Hi Monty,

I really hate to do this, but actually there was a case of a uniformed constable, George Cooke, who in 1893 murdered his ex-girl friend (whom he tried to reform), a prostitute who would not take his final rejection of her and determined to make him rue it. Cooke beat her to death with his truncheon while on his beat near Wormwood Scrubs prison, and subsequently finished his rounds, and then went home. Eventually he was tried, convicted, and hanged for the murder (the only P.C. to suffer that fate in England, although in 1875 Superintendent Thomas Montgomery was hanged after three trials for the "Omagh" murder of a bank employee during a robbery in that town in Ireland).

As I say, I hate to mention this because it may give a false sense of triumph to Pierre, but it is true.

It is actually incredible. "A false sense of triumph"? Because of history?

Who cares if x policemen have been killers? I couldnīt care less.

I donīt generalize from previous cases. You can only compare them. But not generalize.

Havenīt you read my post about Jack the Ripper being an extremely rare serial killer?

And why do you "hate to say this" to Monty? Why wouldnīt Monty be wrong? We are all wrong sometimes.

You "hate to say this" because of social bias. Social bias is making Jack the Ripper.


Due to the severe provocation Cooke suffered from his vicious ex-girlfriend, there was a serious attempt by the trial jury and the public to get his sentence commuted. It was opposed by the trial judge, Sir Henry "'Anging" Hawkins, Baron Brampton, who felt it would give the law abiding public the wrong idea.

Jeff

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

,

And by the way. I think you should read the Dead Sea Scrolls. Most of its material date back to the exile in Babylon.

Dear Pierre,

I wish to ask you something as a matter general historical interest.
it is therefore, slightly off topic, but i hope you will be able to help me.
Given that my real passion in life is Egyptology, the history of neighbouring states does hold an interest for me.

Regarding the dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls. could you point me in the direction of the source for the above statement, has I was always under the Impression that the scrolls were from a later period.


"The Chaldeans, following standard Mesopotamian practice, deported the Jews after they had conquered Jerusalem in 597 BC. The deportations were large, but certainly didn't involve the entire nation. Somewhere around 10,000 people were forced to relocate to the city of Babylon, the capital of the Chaldean empire. In 586 BC, Judah itself ceased to be an independent kingdom, and the earlier deportees found themselves without a homeland, without a state, and without a nation. This period, which actually begins in 597 but is traditionally dated at 586, is called the Exile in Jewish history; it ends with an accident in 538 when the Persians overthrow the Chaldeans."

source http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...ory/Exile.html


The scrolls themselves appear to cover the history of the Second Temple period (520 B.C.E.-70 C.E.)

Wikipedia quotes:

"Parchment from a number of the Dead Sea Scrolls has been carbon dated. The initial test performed in 1950 was on a piece of linen from one of the caves. This test gave an indicative dating of 33 CE plus or minus 200 years, eliminating early hypotheses relating the scrolls to the medieval period.[48] Since then two large series of tests have been performed on the scrolls themselves. The results were summarized by VanderKam and Flint, who said the tests give "strong reason for thinking that most of the Qumran manuscripts belong to the last two centuries BCE and the first century CE."[49]"

"Paleographic dating

Analysis of letter forms, or palaeography, was applied to the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls by a variety of scholars in the field. Major linguistic analysis by Cross and Avigad dates fragments from 225 BCE to 50 CE.[50] These dates were determined by examining the size, variability, and style of the text.[51] The same fragments were later analyzed using radiocarbon dating and were dated to an estimated range of 385 BCE to 82 CE with a 68% accuracy rate.[50]"


and from work by Ayala Sussman, Ruth Peled

"Today scholarly opinion regarding the time span and background of the Dead Sea Scrolls is anchored in historical, paleographic, and linguistic evidence, corroborated firmly by carbon 14-datings. Some manuscripts were written and copied in the third century B.C.E., but the bulk of the material, particularly the texts that reflect on a sectarian community, are originals or copies from the first century B.C.E.; a number of texts date from as late as the years preceding the destruction of the site in 68 C.E. at the hands of the Roman legions."

You have said several times that this is an area of interest for you, I would be grateful for any enlightenment you could provide me with.

[Pierre]

Pierre,

You need a doze of my first book, Searching for Truth with a Broken Flashlight. http://www.searchingfortruthwithabro...t_the_Book.php

I have a background in paleontology and I demonstrate why using circular reasoning with fossils is a fallacy, and I do it even if one wants to embrace a literal interpretation.

Sincerely,

Mike

Hi Mike,

and thanks.

But just because you find fossils that "match" the stories in Genesis does not mean there is a god.

And just because I find sources "matching" other sources in a persons life doesnīt mean he was Jack the Ripper.

Academic historians and sociologists are critical thinkers. We start by criticizing our own thinking.

And by the way. I think you should read the Dead Sea Scrolls. Most of its material date back to the exile in Babylon. And there they had a "teacher of righteousness". Do you know who he was? He was the opposite to Ezra. And his life story is the later greek construction of Jesus. So as you can see, the old testament and the new are only social political texts. And social political texts can not be found in stones.

Kind regards, Pierre