A New Theory as to the Killer's Identity

[David Orsam]

So that was your sociological experiment David: To demonstrate to the posters on the forum here "How anyone can extract a theory from the slimmest material".

I think you need to find out what a sociological experiment actually is Pierre. This wasn't one. It was a demonstration of the absurdity of the type of arguments you have been peddling on this forum so far. I can see that it has not registered with you – although your attempts to distance yourself from the letter perhaps suggest that it has.

[David Orsam]

The Monro letter of August 1888 indicated that William Ripper was out on licence.

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

[David Orsam]

Do we have info on the communication referred to in Monro's second letter from an anonymous source?

No, the file doesn't contain any enclosures to letters.

[David Orsam]

He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment in 1879 having been convicted of rape.

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.

[curious4]

Thank you both !

C4

[MysterySinger]

Hallo Mysterysinger

Could you point me in the direction of said letter?

Cheers
C4

Yes it's post #34 on this thread.

[jerryd]

Just wondering. Were prisoners really let out on license in Victorian times? I'm not sure they were.

Best wishes
C4

Hi C4,

William Wallace Brodie was in London on license in late August of 1888, after being released early from a 14 year year sentence for larceny.

[curious4]

There you are! Learn something new every day :-)

C4

Hallo Mysterysinger

Could you point me in the direction of said letter?

Cheers
C4

[curious4]

The Monro letter of August 1888 indicated that William Ripper was out on licence.

There you are! Learn something new every day :-)

C4

[MysterySinger]

The Monro letter of August 1888 indicated that William Ripper was out on licence.

[curious4]

I'm functioning as per usual so there'll be no startling revelations here - just some suppositions sorry.

However, trying to understand Mr Ripper Jr. and how he might or might not be a candidate from the limited info I've seen so far leads me to the following.

He married in December 1875 a lady called Caroline (Carrie) Elizabeth Foster - that name is of interest if it's the same Elizabeth Foster known by MJK. William was a chimney sweep.

He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment in 1879 having been convicted of rape.

He was in prison on both the 1881 and 1891 census returns (and maybe died in prison in 1903 (?)) but I've not located a 1901 entry as yet.

So he was also out on license at the time of (some of) the Ripper murders it seems. He may have been disturbed if his wife was seeing other men or living as an unfortunate. What's more the victims were probably all known to Elizabeth.

He must have had a striking appearance given his scars and his pock-face (blotchy??). There again, I could just have the wrong person entirely.

Do we have info on the communication referred to in Monro's second letter from an anonymous source?

Just wondering. Were prisoners really let out on license in Victorian times? I'm not sure they were.

Best wishes
C4

[Abby Normal]

I see both sides of the argument on this one-having now held both of them LOL!

At first I was annoyed by Pierres posts and was wondering if Admin should intervene and stop posters and posts like this, but they ruled on it and so I just stayed away.

But over time and curiosity I started looking again (like a bad car accident) and now I find the whole thing amusing and at times interesting and dare I say-educational!?!

one of the things that has intrigued me is Pierre believes the victims are the C5, Tabram, McKenzie and the 3 torsos, which I also believe is possible. And some of the tidbits he releases are intriguing IMHO.

Like the ripper case Pierres posts are another mystery, which is I guess why a lot of people keep coming back.

I truly hope he is sincere, and I also wish he would share his sources and who the suspect is sooner rather than later, and I can also see why people are annoyed. If Admin ever came out and intervened and put the cabosh on the whole thing I could see that too as being fine.

Either way, I would be remiss if I didn't say I find this latest back and forth between David O. and Piere very interesting and don't have a problem with it at all and don't think anyones said or done anything wrong.

I would just end by asking pierre:
1. how long he thinks he is NOW about revealing all .
2.and also, would he admit to the suspect if anyone names him?

[MysterySinger]

I'm functioning as per usual so there'll be no startling revelations here - just some suppositions sorry.

However, trying to understand Mr Ripper Jr. and how he might or might not be a candidate from the limited info I've seen so far leads me to the following.

He married in December 1875 a lady called Caroline (Carrie) Elizabeth Foster - that name is of interest if it's the same Elizabeth Foster known by MJK. William was a chimney sweep.

He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment in 1879 having been convicted of rape.

He was in prison on both the 1881 and 1891 census returns (and maybe died in prison in 1903 (?)) but I've not located a 1901 entry as yet.

So he was also out on license at the time of (some of) the Ripper murders it seems. He may have been disturbed if his wife was seeing other men or living as an unfortunate. What's more the victims were probably all known to Elizabeth.

He must have had a striking appearance given his scars and his pock-face (blotchy??). There again, I could just have the wrong person entirely.

Do we have info on the communication referred to in Monro's second letter from an anonymous source?

[Pierre]

it's a practical demonstration for Pierre of how you anyone can extract a theory from the slimmest material.

So that was your sociological experiment David: To demonstrate to the posters on the forum here "How anyone can extract a theory from the slimmest material".

That is, how someone can construct Y from X. X > Y. Data source > theory.

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.

But you did not, David. Your social bias led you to test and demonstrate something that every scientist within the field of social studies, history etc already know about.

Your bias is to defend your own ideas against others and to destroy the ideas of others.

My bias is to destroy my own data sources and not wanting to accept them.

But I canīt do that. That would be a crime against science. And if I am right, which I hope I am not, it would be a crime against history.

Another thing, David. You are thinking in functionalistic terms. Your thinking implies that you can take any source and misinterpret it and that this should be the function of the concept I have gone by.

But you do not have my source yet, so you do not know what my interpretations are based on or what the content of the source is. You just functionally assume that:

Any source > Pierre > misinterpretation of source.

That is now a function in your brain but it is not a function in history.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

I'm sorry to break it to you Pierre, but I think you might not have found him.

I hope you are right.

Regards Pierre