A New Theory as to the Killer's Identity

[David Orsam]

So the metaphorical language is something else you prefer to misintepret. You can obviously not accept the difference between a metaphorical expression and a literal expression.

Sorry Pierre but you are the one who seems to think they are the same. A literal expression is, by definition, one that is not, or should not be, capable of being misunderstood whereas a metaphorical expression can have many different possible meanings, resulting in a lack of certainty. In other words, you cannot, in good faith, say that the exact address of 13 Miller's Court is contained within the letter if it is possible that it is not due to your interpretation being wrong. Yet you did say that the exact address was in the letter which means that you falsely represented the contents of the letter.

[Pierre]

Here on planet earth Pierre, there is only one interpretation of the phrase "exact address". If someone says that the exact address of 13 Miller's Court is contained in a letter then I, and everyone else in the world who speaks English, would expect to find the words "13 Miller's Court" in that letter. That is because it is the exact address. If the words "13 Miller's Court" do not appear in the letter then, by having said it contains the exact address, you have falsely misrepresented the contents of that letter in circumstances where you have refused to reproduce the text of that letter without providing any good reason for this refusal.

And now you are doing it again:

" If the words "13 Miller's Court" do not appear in the letter...".

Yes David, it does "appear in the letter" in metaphorical wording.

How come the word "metaphorical" is to complex for you?

[David Orsam]

I have told you about the name Mary and the adress 13 Millerīs Court in the source and I have interpreted that as an exact adress for the murder: it wasnīt 30 Whitechapel Road, was it?

I have no idea if 30 Whitechapel Road is contained in the letter or not Pierre because you have refused to reproduce the contents of that letter. For all I know, you have completely misinterpreted the 'metaphorical language' and, in fact, the letter does contain the address of 30 Whitechapel Road. You are asking me, and the rest of the board, to trust you that you have somehow extracted the address of "13 Miller's Court" from this letter but due to your shifting explanations of what is in the letter, as I have clearly set out in my previous post which you refused to read in its entirety, I do not trust you to have faithfully described to the board the letter's contents.

[David Orsam]

You are using your own interpretation of "exact adress" to indicate that I should be a liar. You use another interpretation than mine.

Here on planet earth Pierre, there is only one interpretation of the phrase "exact address". If someone says that the exact address of 13 Miller's Court is contained in a letter then I, and everyone else in the world who speaks English, would expect to find the words "13 Miller's Court" in that letter. That is because it is the exact address. If the words "13 Miller's Court" do not appear in the letter then, by having said it contains the exact address, you have falsely misrepresented the contents of that letter in circumstances where you have refused to reproduce the text of that letter without providing any good reason for this refusal.

[Michael W Richards]

Great stuff! This is the kind of augmentation I was hoping for from members of this forum. So now we have a candidate who is proven to have committed a serious sexual offence. How many others can that be said about?

What fools the police are, he even gave them his name.

Well, You also have Vasiliev who committed knife attacks/murder of Prostitutes in Paris and who was in London at the time of the murders. The first 2 books written on this subject were on Vasiliev as the primamry suspect, one was self published by the author in 1888.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;360493]No I didn't. I said that I understood you want to now say it. But you have said different things at different times.

On 18 September, you listed the letter as one of 9 elements of your theory, under the heading of things you 'know' about the murderer. You said, 'He wrote a letter to the editor in a paper not signing it “Jack the Ripper” where he gave the exact address to one of the murder sites.' We now know this is not true, that you falsely represented the nature of the letter and that the author did not give the exact address to one of the murder sites.

You are using your own interpretation of "exact adress" to indicate that I should be a liar. You use another interpretation than mine. So it is obvious that you must be the "liar". Normally I donīt use such Words, but I think it is the only language you understand, David. It is your own language.

I have told you about the name Mary and the adress 13 Millerīs Court in the source and I have interpreted that as an exact adress for the murder: it wasnīt 30 Whitechapel Road, was it? So you have falsely, to use the language you love so much, represented my interpretation of the letter here.

As you said to me on 14 November, 'What do yo think, David? Do you think the Whitechapel murderer wrote the exact adress to the police?' and 'If he had written the actual names, the police would have been there waiting for him.' There is also no reason to suppose your suspect even wrote the letter.

So the metaphorical language is something else you prefer to misintepret. You can obviously not accept the difference between a metaphorical expression and a literal expression. And you pretend to not understand the difference between giving the exact adress of a murder in a metaphorical language and giving the exact adress of a murder in an exact language, that is in a literal language. Naturally, you will go on with your crusade against me and you will continue to lie about what I say. I must be "doomed" (your word, David), together with my theory about the ID of the Whitechapel killer, of which you know nothing

Despite this, you elaborated on the content of the letter in a post dated 13 November, adding new elements to it:

'I have found such a letter (unknown by ripperology) in the press. He uses a metaphorical language and gives the adress to Millerīs Court, the name of Mary Jane Kelly, her room number and the date of the murder.'

Yes, David. Mary was her name as we know it. "The name OF Mary Jane Kelly" is not the same as "The name Mary Jane Kelly". But you of course choose to pretend you donīt know the difference.

We know now that this is not true and that the author of the letter gives neither the address nor the name of Mary Jane Kelly in the letter. So you falsely represented the nature of the letter once again.

Same as above. You do it again. I wont even bother to read the rest. I know you method now. And I would have liked to debate with you if you were honest. But you are not.

[QUOTE]

[David Orsam]

One of the most interesting things from the documentation is that if all we knew is that Ripper was convicted on 28 April 1879 and released from prison on 1 June 1891 AND that he was convicted at Lambeth Police Court for being Drunk & Disorderly on 12 June 1888, we would be really scratching our heads as to how this could have been possible.

[MysterySinger]

No I doubt he was JTR. However, if it was him - and the Police knew about it he was locked away again - I doubt they'd want to publicise the fact. How would it look? Name of Ripper, deliberately released on licence, all that terror and those women needlessly killed. Not a good day for the Justice system.

[curious4]

Well he was convicted on 12 June of being drunk & disorderly and the Home Office were requesting a report on 17 August as to his conduct and character since his release from prison, so that doesn't look to be what has happened here.

No, there's no getting away from that "since", although I'd like to. Wanting to know what his behaviour was like during the period he was out of prison. But no, will have to admit defeat on this one. Don't think he was the killer though, if they had their eyes on him in august, surely he would have been carefully watched. Especially with a name like Ripper!

[MysterySinger]

And another for you...

[MysterySinger]

Re William Ripper - here's some evidence for you...more to follow

[David Orsam]

Wouldn't his license have been revoked if he was caught commiting a crime, however small? I can't see him being able to pay his fine, so he would presumably have been locked up and then made to serve the rest of his sentence.

Well he was convicted on 12 June of being drunk & disorderly and the Home Office were requesting a report on 17 August as to his conduct and character since his release from prison, so that doesn't look to be what has happened here.

[curious4]

I believe he would have been commonly known as 'a ticket of leave man'.

Wouldn't his license have been revoked if he was caught commiting a crime, however small? I can't see him being able to pay his fine, so he would presumably have been locked up and then made to serve the rest of his sentence.

Best wishes
C4

[David Orsam]

I have told you several times that the source I have is not a source on which I have built the theory of who the killer is.

You said you understood that.

No I didn't. I said that I understood you want to now say it. But you have said different things at different times.

On 18 September, you listed the letter as one of 9 elements of your theory, under the heading of things you 'know' about the murderer. You said, 'He wrote a letter to the editor in a paper not signing it “Jack the Ripper” where he gave the exact address to one of the murder sites.' We now know this is not true, that you falsely represented the nature of the letter and that the author did not give the exact address to one of the murder sites. As you said to me on 14 November, 'What do yo think, David? Do you think the Whitechapel murderer wrote the exact adress to the police?' and 'If he had written the actual names, the police would have been there waiting for him.' There is also no reason to suppose your suspect even wrote the letter.

Despite this, you elaborated on the content of the letter in a post dated 13 November, adding new elements to it:

'I have found such a letter (unknown by ripperology) in the press. He uses a metaphorical language and gives the adress to Millerīs Court, the name of Mary Jane Kelly, her room number and the date of the murder.'

We know now that this is not true and that the author of the letter gives neither the address nor the name of Mary Jane Kelly in the letter. So you falsely represented the nature of the letter once again.

As we see in your post of 14 November, where now Mary Jane Kelly has vanished and we are left only with a 'Mary'. Thus:

"I have also told you about a letter I think he wrote in the press, giving the adress to Millerīs Court and the name of the victim: Mary."

Yet, it would seem - you never say anything clearly - that even the name Mary is not mentioned in the letter but it merely makes some sort of allusion to Tennyson (presumably not mentioning Tennyson either) – 'a hint at Tennyson' - and one of Tennyson's plays was called 'Queen Mary'. That is how you tease the name Mary Jane Kelly from the letter!

You also said on 14 November:

'I believe that is why I think I have found him. I found his trail.' - So you were explicitly linking the letter, i.e. his trail, to a reason why you thought you have found the killer.

Furthermore, in the same post, you said that the letter was not 'the starting point for the theory' and not one of the 'corner stones'. But it clearly forms part of your theory otherwise you would not have mentioned it. In your own words:'I can only allow myself to think that letters predicting the murders could have been written by the murderer'. I mean, if you have a letter in which your suspect reveals, in coded form, the location and names of his next victims before killing them, it simply must be part of your theory. Anything else would not make sense other than an appreciation that the letter is not from your suspect and does not reveal the location and names of his next victims.

[jerryd]

Great stuff! This is the kind of augmentation I was hoping for from members of this forum. So now we have a candidate who is proven to have committed a serious sexual offence. How many others can that be said about?

What fools the police are, he even gave them his name.

David,

You also have one (Brodie) that admitted to killing all the Whitechapel victims including Alice McKenzie. He made that admission once in July of 1889 and also in South Africa shortly before arriving in Whitechapel before the McKenzie murder. Brodie is not available for all the murders, granted, but I have a feeling he may have known something. He happened to live at 2, Harvey's Buildings at the time of the McKenzie murder in 1889. Also residing at 2, Harvey's Buildings at the same time was our friend John Arnold of Pinchin Torso fame. In the same block was the office of Charles LeGrand on Agar Street. A strange set of coincidences in my opinion.