A New Theory as to the Killer's Identity

[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.

[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]

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[David Orsam]

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

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

In which case the words "13 Miller's Court" do not appear in the letter and you are misrepresenting the contents of the letter.

[David Orsam]

Naturally, you will go on with your crusade against me and you will continue to lie about what I say

There is no crusade against you Pierre. Perhaps I should remind you that you have made quite a lot of posts in this forum in many different threads telling us that you think you have found the killer. I have been trying to establish why you think you have done so. In other words, I am trying to get at the truth.

But it is not helped by the fact that a large number of my questions (as well as the questions of others) have gone unanswered by you and the answers to the questions you do choose to answer are usually opaque and impossible to understand.

I also haven't lied about what you said. That is perfectly clear from the fact that I have quoted your own words so that everyone can read them. The fact that you claimed that you didn't even read the post in which I quoted your own words is telling.

[David Orsam]

I must be "doomed" (your word, David), together with my theory about the ID of the Whitechapel killer, of which you know nothing

I said your theory is doomed Pierre not you. It's not true to say that I know 'nothing' about your theory because you have told us some of it but of course you have not told us very much. I can only read what you post and your arguments in support of your claim about the letter written in advance of the MJK murder have been weak and frankly downright silly, along the lines of my William Ripper/Alexander Pope theory, which is one reason why I don't hold up much hope for any other part of your theory.

[David Orsam]

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.

There is no difference at all there Pierre. You are trying to claim that there is a difference between saying the letter contains "the name of Mary Jane Kelly" and saying it contains "the name Mary Jane Kelly"? Seriously? I'm afraid there is no way out of this for you. You told us that Mary Jane Kelly was named in the letter and she was not. It was a false representation and should never have been made.

[Pierre]

I said your theory is doomed Pierre not you. It's not true to say that I know 'nothing' about your theory because you have told us some of it but of course you have not told us very much. I can only read what you post and your arguments in support of your claim about the letter written in advance of the MJK murder have been weak and frankly downright silly, along the lines of my William Ripper/Alexander Pope theory, which is one reason why I don't hold up much hope for any other part of your theory.

It is true since you do not know anything about my theory of his ID.

But when I write about sources that are only confirming this theory, you destroy the statements by giving the impression that you donīt understand them and you use strong words like "doomed" and "lies".

Of course you think the letter Iīm talking about is silly. You donīt understand it, thatīs why. And as I said, this is my fault, since I canīt publish it yet. But that is no reason for being dishonest and use the expressions you use.

[Pierre]

There is no difference at all there Pierre. You are trying to claim that there is a difference between saying the letter contains "the name of Mary Jane Kelly" and saying it contains "the name Mary Jane Kelly"? Seriously? I'm afraid there is no way out of this for you. You told us that Mary Jane Kelly was named in the letter and she was not. It was a false representation and should never have been made.

OK David. It doesnīt matter what I write. Your only interest is to destroy anything I say.

So this is my last post directed to you. The next time I find that you are writing lies about me, I will direct myself to other people.

[David Orsam]

But when I write about sources that are only confirming this theory, you destroy the statements by giving the impression that you donīt understand them and you use strong words like "doomed" and "lies".

There you go again, falsely misrepresenting my own posts. I have not used the word "lies" at all.

Language is important and you need to express yourself accurately.

[David Orsam]

And as I said, this is my fault, since I canīt publish it yet.

But why not? Why can you not reproduce the text of the letter, with certain words redacted if necessary?

After all, you have told us it isn't even part of your theory!!!!