| Author |
Message |
    
Andy Spallek
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 10:59 am: |       |
This letter is of interest primarily because it seems to be the source of the name "Jack the Ripper."
My question is, what is meant by "Trade Name?" It seems to me that this is mainly a British expression (though one does hear it in America) equivalent to the more American "Brand Name," i.e. the name under which a product is sold.
Why would the author say that he is giving the Trade Name, rather than simply saying "the name?" What is it about "Jack the Ripper" that makes this a Trade Name rather than an ordinary name or nickname?
Andy |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 176
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 29, 2003 - 2:18 pm: | |
Andy,
If you were a tradesman, your trade name could be Andy the Butcher, Andy the Baker, Brian the Lobbyist, Stephen the Webdesigner, etc. That'd be your "trade name".
As Jacky's trade was "ripping", Jack the Ripper was his trade name.
Just an interesting, playful way of giving himself his moniker. And since the Dear Boss letter probably isn't legit, it doesn't have too much bearing on the case.
B |
Andy Spallek
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 12:03 pm: | |
Thanks. That's interesting. This must be either a British use of the expression "Trade Name" or simply an old, somewhat obsolete, use. Today, I associate the term "Trade Name" with a brand name such as "Norelco," "Sunbeam," etc. However, what you say makes sense.
Andy
|
el diablo
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 11:56 pm: | |
if you notice in the dear boss letter at the end when he says ".... trade nam" he leaves of the e as to intentionaly leave it off he had plenty of room to move "the trade" to the left to complete the sentence. i also beleive that the post script was writen by another person because the "h"s in "ha ha" are the same to each other but not to the other "ha ha" on the first page also the handwriting on the post script is extremly sloppy compared to the rest of the letter also the rest of the letter seems to have had more care taken in the forming of the individual letters such as the "h"s and the "t"s. is the missing "e" suposed to stand for what? is it a teaser for the police to look for is it that he had a guilty concience and sub-conciously wanted to be caught. whitch happens most offten in modern times in deranged people or the mentaly unstable. please send me your thoughts on my post at bigrebel7701@hotmail.com i would appreciate your thoughts and oppinons. thank you,
el diablo |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 370
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 1:19 pm: | |
Hello el diablo
I may be wrong about this, but I think the missing "e" on "trade name" is an artifact of the way the letter was photographed as shown here on the Casebook not that the writer left it off in writing the term. In other words, the photographer did not get the "e" into the shot.
Chris |
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 638
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 18, 2003 - 9:21 am: | |
Hi Andy
Much along the lines of your reasoning, I have seen a contemporary letter which says in effect that Jack's use of language points to his trade as being that of a tailor. I can't lay my hand to it at the moment but will post when I can. as far as I remember, the correspondent quotes the words "ripper", "buckled" and "fits" as applying to tailoring.
Regards
Chris |
Merrideth Sykes
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 18, 2003 - 6:14 pm: | |
I am still under the belief that the letters were written by different people. I don't think that Jack was trying to explain himself with any notes to the invetigators. He was proud of his work and was just seeing how far he could lead them and confuse them.
Just my opinion and I could be wrong.
Thanks,
Merrideth |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 205
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 1:31 am: | |
Merrideth, if any of the letters is actually genuine, the best candidate would be the "Lusk" letter sent to George Lusk of the Whitechapel Vigilence committee in mid October. Oddly enough, it was hand delivered at night and not sent through the RMS, and it was not signed "Jack the Ripper."
Shannon |
Neil K. MacMillan
Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 33
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 4:55 pm: | |
Isn't there debate about any of the letters being genuine? I personally believe that the Lusk letter may have been and possibly the first one but the others may have been hoaxed by journalists looking to pump up sales. Like to hear opinions on that too. Neil |
Sarah Long
Sergeant
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 29
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 12:22 pm: | |
If any were genuine then it had to be the Lusk letter although, apparently it was fairly easy to get a hold of a kidney back then. However, the kidney's owner had Bright's Disease so if the kidney had come from someone else how did they know that Kate had this disease unless it was a coincidence. I think it would have been too big of a coincidence for it not to have come from the killer. But why would he want to send that to Luck anyway?
The "Dear Boss" letter, I believe to be a fake made up by some jounalist and the others, well, made up by god knows who. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 265
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 1:32 pm: | |
Sarah,
I think it's possible that the Lusk letter could have been sent by the killer, though perhaps not probable. Many people had Bright's Disease in those days as it can be caused by excessive drinking. The most compelling evidence in my opinion is that the length of the renal artery remaining inside Eddowes matches up with the length of renal artery left on the kidney accompanying the Lusk letter to equal the total length of a human renal artery. Although I have heard this disputed.
Andy S.
|
adampharr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 5:50 pm: | |
Was the Lusk letter sent in time to possibly be from the killer? Or was it sent well after press reports of the missing kidney were circulated?
Adam |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 653
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 10:11 am: | |
Hi, Adam
The package containing the letter and piece of kidney was received by George A. Lusk on 16 October 1888 over two weeks after the murder of Catherine Eddowes, which occurred early on the morning of 30 September. Thus there would have been sufficient time for news of the missing kidney to have been reported in the press and learned by a large number of people.
Best regards
Chris George
(Message edited by ChrisG on March 05, 2004) |
Adampharr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 05, 2004 - 7:47 pm: | |
Thanks a lot Chris? I was also wondering if cannibalism is mentioned in any other Ripper letters? If not that would make the Lusk letter all the more unique.
Adam |
James Eric Carter
Sergeant
Username: Archangel261973
Post Number: 28
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 3:02 pm: | |
The Lusk letter was sent by an unknown person with a personal problem with Lusk. He used the Ripper scare as cover. Lusk more than likely knew of the person for the following reason: 1) about a week before the letter arrived he was trying to get protection from the police. 2) he held onto the letter for several days before taking it to the police.
Now it can be argued that the person after him was in fact the Ripper but if so why? It seems to me that Jack didn't fear the police so why would he worry over some "neighborhood watch" leader.
And if he thought it was from Jack why not give it to the police right away?
Eric |
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 69
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 7:33 pm: | |
Eric,
You failed to address how this person acquired a human kidney. According to Lusk's grandson, Lusk himself later suspected someone from the London Hospital had played a joke on him. As Stewart Evans points out, however, that could have been just wishful thinking on Lusk's part. Whoever sent the letter either worked or lived at the London Hospital (such as a porter, doctor, student, or Roslyn D'Onston), or was the killer of Eddowes. It could go either way, given what we truly know, though the scale of evidence appears to tip in favor of it not having come from Eddowes. Just out of curiosity, do you believe the author of the 'Openshaw' letter was also the author of 'From Hell'?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
James Eric Carter
Sergeant
Username: Archangel261973
Post Number: 34
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 27, 2004 - 11:55 pm: | |
It's possible that the sender paid someone from the hospital to get it for him, just as it is probable that the person that asked for Lusk's address is the sender. I think Jack would have known where he lived without asking. It just seems more his style.
As to the 'Openshaw' letter, after looking at it again I think it was a hoax of a hoax ie someone tried to copy the 'Lusk' letter. The reason I say this is, if the first was a "love" letter for Lusk from just some guy, then after it went public some moron wanted in on the hype and sent the 'Openshaw' letter.
The letters that I really feel were from Jack are the 'Dear Boss', 'Saucy Jack', and the 'witness' letter of Oct. 6. They all seem to be in the same hand and have the same boldness to them. Like he had big brass ones. There may be others but I'm not ready to commit to any more at this point.
Eric |
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 78
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 3:33 pm: | |
Eric,
Why is it probably that the man who asked Ms Marsh for his address was the sender? At that time, MANY men were inquiring his address so that they could sign up for the Vigilance Committee and take advantage of the amenities that came along with participating. I'm at work now and can't check, but on what date did this incidence with Ms. Marsh occur? And you've got someone paying someone else to risk their job/scholarship to steal a kidney so someone else can mail it as a joke? Stretching.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 868
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 3:51 pm: | |
There does seem to me to be a connection of some kind with the London Hospital.If you stand looking at the Board School at the end of what was once called Bucks Row on your right looming over everything [its that near-just a few hundred yards from where Polly Nichols was killed]is The Royal London Hospital.
Given then its proximity to the site of the first of the series[unless you include Martha Tabram] one cant help wondering whether there was a doctor or student or mortuary attendant involved
who worked at the hospital or had dealings with the mortuary there.
But I agree the man who went into the shop asking for Lusk"s address could simply have been wanting to offer his services to Lusk,like many people were doing.
Natalie |
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 83
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 12:20 am: | |
Natalie,
And let's not forget that a certain contemporary suspect was living at the London Hospital during the time of the murders and, on the very day that the Lusk letter was sent, Sir Charles Warren received a letter from this suspect regarding the Whitechapel murders.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 871
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 3:36 pm: | |
Hi Tom,you refer to Stephenson?Yes I think he is a serious suspect,living in Whitechapel at the London Hospital between July1888 and December1888.
Being "fascinated" by the murders and being found to have bloodstained neckties!Also the interest in black magic and the like.The only thing is he was a bit tall at 5ft 10ins and a bit old at 47 to tally with any of the sightings!
But I think I"ll read up on him tonight!
Best Natalie |
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 91
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2004 - 5:07 pm: | |
Natalie,
The Pipeman from Schwartz's story (the preferred witness, it would appear) was 5'11. As D'Onston, at that time, wore his hair brown, he would have appeared younger than his years. In any case, we don't know for sure that the Ripper was ever seen.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
James Eric Carter
Sergeant
Username: Archangel261973
Post Number: 41
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2004 - 12:07 am: | |
Tom and Natalie,
As far as someone from the hospital being involed its possible, for the canonical five the hospital would be centralized, which fit the serial killer model. And I can even see the black magic angle, but I still do not by the occultic ritual.
With the decriptions even if someone saw Jack its possible that they got it all wrong. I was in the U.S. Marines and in secruity forces durring school for it we were be shown slides and told to watch them carfully, there were a series of thugs with guns most could tell something about it. then there was one of a blonde in a hot pink bikini and white high heels with an uzi or MAC10 behind her back (which was toward us), I saw the gun first and the girl second. Not one other person saw anything but the girl and that she was blonde and that was up for debate. Point is even those trained to look for things can get stuff wrong. And as Tom said we don't know for sure that Jack was ever seen.
Latters,
Eric |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 879
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 3:59 pm: | |
Hi Eric,that story is very to the point.I wonder not just what people thought they saw but also what they thought they "heard"[particularly Shwartz who couldnt understand English and had to have an interpreter.
Thanks for that Eric
Natalie |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 880
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 4:03 pm: | |
Hi Tom,but its strange too that the police never seriously suspected him.I still think he deserves further study.[I"m off for a few days holiday so wont be able to pursue this till I get back on Saturday,but I"d like to read up whats on here for a start!
Natalie |
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 102
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 4:22 pm: | |
Natalie,
I agree. They didn't actively pursue him. The reason for this was the predominant belief that the Ripper was a Jew, as The Pipeman, clearly was not.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 884
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 6:25 pm: | |
On the other hand Tom they did have Druitt down as a prime suspect according to Machnaghten.At least he wasnt Jewish that we know of[or maybe just maybe he was discovered to have been a descendent of someone Jewish and thats why Machnaghten thought he was the ripper!This maybe the "evidence"he refused to reveal and in fact destroyed in case it was ever discovered!
Natalie |
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 106
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 31, 2004 - 9:38 pm: | |
Natalie,
Yes, but you have to understand the reasoning behind the Macnaughten memoranda...it's intention was purely to absolve Cutbush of any guilt, therefore he put up three suspects. Well, they would have to be three suspects who were beyond the law at that point, so he chose two people in institutions and a dead man (Druitt). Not because they were the best suspects, but so questions of 'if these guys look so good, why haven't you arrested them?', etc., wouldn't come down from higher officials.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
