|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 2:36 am: |       |
G'day,
The book: 'Jack the Ripper, Letters From Hell' by Stewart P. Evans and Keith Skinner, contains correspondences held in the 'Public Record Office' & 'The City of London Record Office'. Stewart P. Evans told me on these message boards that one purpose of the book was to give readers the chance to debate the authenticity of the letters within.
During the month of October 1888 no murders occured, but many letters claiming to be the work of the Whitechapel Murderer were sent to newspapers, police and individuals. One letter in particular,which was penned on the 6th of October and sent to an unidentified witness, caught my attention and has also caught the attention of handwriting experts because it is in a similar handwriting to the original 'Dear Boss', as many hoax letters were. An envelope to this letter was never preserved:
6 Oct 1888,
You though yourself very clever I reckon
when you informed the police But you
made a mistake if you though I dident
see you now I know you know me and
I see your little game, and I mean
to finish you and send your ears to
your wife if you show this to the police
or help them if you do I will finish
you. It no use your trying to get out
of my way Because I have you when
you don't expect it and keep my
word as you soon see and rip you
up Yours Truly
Jack the Ripper.
Written vertically down the left margin was:
You see I know your
address.
Other letter hoaxers who saw the original in the newspaper, used red ink and began with 'Dear Boss' or 'Dear Sir'. This author didn't bother, but did bother to copy the format of the date at the top. Hoaxers that included the date wrote: 'Friday Oct 5 88', 'Oct 9th '88' or '8/11/88'. This author wrote the day (single digit) the month (abbreviated) & the year in full (1888) just like the original 'Dear Boss'. Then he/she placed it in exactly the same position. I can't see any other dated hoax letter that does this, except the original.
If a hoaxer wanted to acheive the maximum impact, he/she would have sent the letter to the press or police, instead of threatening the recipient not to show it. Who was this recipient and did he run straight to the police, so they could file it away in the right place? If we can work out the recipient, then check his evidence, we may have a good description of the killer to work with! My money is on Israel Schwartz, who's new address was kept secret by police, which is why no envelope was filed.
Did the police even see this letter, or was it just popped into the 'hoax' pile with the other letters that mimicked the 'Dear Boss' handwriting? When was it added to the files? I can't find evidence that police even gave it a second thought!!!
LEANNE PERRY,
Sub-editor of 'RIPPEROO'. |
Brian W. Schoeneman
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 4:42 pm: | |
Leanne,
I saw this in "Letters from Hell" as well, but I don't think much of it. First, it's signed "Yours truly, Jack the Ripper", which is something that in my mind is a clear 'hoax' symbol.
Second, while the date idea is interesting, you said it yourself - the "Dear Boss" letter was reproduced in newspapers and in placards pasted up across London. He may have dropped the "Dear Boss" line, but that probably was a function of the fact that he wasn't writing to "the boss", but to an unidentified eye-witness.
With the number of people who spoke to the police, the letter could've been sent to anyone, not just Israel Schwartz. I could completely see a neighbor getting this letter after informing the police of the "odd" behavior of the next door neighbor.
Just my thoughts on the letter.
B |
Leanne Perry
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 19, 2003 - 9:27 pm: | |
G'day Brian,
OK everyones entitled to their own opinion!
The fact that it's signed 'Jack the Ripper': OK, I'm thinking that the 'Saucy Jacky' postcard could have been the creation of the journalist, using knowledge before it hit the papers. But the 'Dear Boss' letter that was received before it, could have been genuine. That was signed 'Yours Truly, Jack the Ripper'.
Why didn't he/she start with 'Dear nosey' or something?
If the author was an innocent neighbour, why would he try to copy the supposedly genuine handwriting, and threaten to rip the recipient up?
The reason I think it was sent to an important witness is because it was filed. All other letters begin with: 'Dear Boss', 'Dear Sir', 'Sir','Mr Lusk Sor' etc.
LEANNE PERRY,
Sub-editor of 'RIPPEROO'. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Police Constable
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 5
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 9:51 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
First of all welcome back.
I dont know if you had a chance to read my reply to you regarding this letter before the messages were erased, if not heres a repeat.
This letter is a bit of a mystery, it is written on the 6th yet has a postmark 8th, the reason for this is proberly that this letter was actually found in the street by someone, somewhere between Princess road ,and Selhurst railway station.
The person who found it, must have either posted it on , handed it to the police who posted it on, or delivered it to the address himself.
The most logical act would be for the finder of the letter to simply post it on, therefore question?.
Why would the simple posting of a letter found in the street get in the medias knowledge.
The other point you raised is who was this letter intended for.
If this letter is not a hoax i would plump for one of two men J Best, or J Gardner the men who were entering the Bricklayers Arms when stride and her companion were leaving, one or both of the men teased the couple . which would make strides date angry.
Intrestingly there is a letter sent one year exactly after the Dear boss letter, which states the next job will be near Gardners shop.Could this be the same Gardner who saw Stride?. could this be the man that the Ripper had a grudge against.
Best regards, Richard. |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Sergeant
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 11
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 11:31 am: | |
Leanne,
I have serious doubts about the Dear Boss letter, and so did the police of the time period.
Littlechild viewed it as the creation of a writer at the Central News Agency, and other high ranking police administrators agreed.
Personally, I have always considered the Dear Boss letter a hoax. I could go into details, but I think Stewart and Philip Sugden have done a much better job of attacking the letter than I did.
If you consider it to be real, it would make your letter from October 6 more interesting, but I believe that the only legitimate correspondence from the killer was the Lusk letter.
B |
Leanne Perry
Police Constable
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 4
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 1:47 am: | |
G'day Richard,
There was another letter that was penned on the 5th of October, that was found by someone between Princess Road and Selhurst Railway Station. This fact was written on the police backing sheet, but the letter penned on the 6th has no such label. It was however postmarked on the 8th of October, which means that it was posted - to the recipient, it was not necessarily viewed by the police on this date.
The letter you found that warns of the next 'turn out' close to Gardner's shop, was addressed to an Inspector at a police station for quick response. The author of the letter of the 6th, warns the recipient not to show it! There were many hoax letters that gave police clues of where to catch the killer in the act, and that one even tells them to look for a 'clerk in holy orders' - like it' was a game!
If the recipient was either Best or Gardner, then the line: 'But you made a mistake if you though I didn't see you..' doesn't make sense. They both tried to get the man who was with Stride to come in for a drink!
Leanne Perry
|
Leanne Perry
Police Constable
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 5
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 1:51 am: | |
G'day Brian,
I've popped my response to your message on the Lusk Letter board!
Leanne Perry.
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Police Constable
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 8
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 6:45 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
Deserved 4 star, I stand corrected on the letter issue.
Regarding Best and Gardner I am still not convinced that Gardner can be discounted as a possible recipient for the 8th letter.
You use the phrase.But You made a mistake if you thought I didnt see you; as a case for suggesting it proberly was not gardner.
It could also mean, If you thought I took no notice of you that night you would be wrong..also the fact that the letter mentioning Chandler was one year later,the Ripper could have simply then not been concerned ,anyway there was not a threat to Chandler in this letter just a location.
Regards Richard. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Police Constable
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 9
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 6:49 am: | |
Leanne.
Chandler of course should mean Gardner Sorry
Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Police Constable
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 9
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 22, 2003 - 1:57 am: | |
G'day Richard,
On the 'Dear Boss' message Board, Brian and I are discussing the claim that an 'enterprising London journalist' and his colleague are reponsible for most of the 'Dear Boss' letters, 'to keep the business alive'.
What would an 'enterprising London journalist' achieve from sending this threatening letter to an unidentified witness, that warns him not to show it? That wouldn't sell newspapers!
Ok, so you think GARDNER is another possible recipient! Any others?
LEANNE PERRY
|
Leanne Perry
Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 36
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 07, 2003 - 3:27 pm: | |
G'DAY,
Once we can agree on who this recipient was most likely to have been, then we can look at his given description again, and move on from here!
I think it was SCHWARTZ, and Richard thinks it could have been GARDNER!
Richard, can you say why you think it was GARDNER? Keep referring back to the text of the letter penned on the 6th.
LEANNE PERRY
|
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 68
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 2:50 am: | |
BRIAN!
If a person wrongfully ratted on me to the police in something as serious as this, I wouldn't feel like having fun. I'd be angry and want to prove the witness wrong, before sending everyone on a wild-goose chase!
Of course the witness could've identified the author: 'I know you know me and I see your little game.'
Have a look at 'October 1888' in the Casebook 'Timelines'. The 'Daily News' printed the TEXT of 'Dear Boss' on the 1st of October. The 'Star' printed the TEXT of 'Saucy Jacky' in the evening of the same day. The TEXT, not the HANDWRITING! When the 'Daily Telegraph' published the handwriting two days before the threatening letter was written, the word 'ears' wasn't visible! I don't think a hoaxer would bother to carry a pen and paper around, to copy that word from a placard in front of a police station, where he might get caught!
Bringing up examples of people today who go to extraordinary lengths to get attension, does nothing to help your argument. You can't liken a threatening letter to flowers on Valentines Day! Some people probably did fake disabilities in those days, to get sympathy and donations.
No, we can't prove anything about this case, because we haven't got a time-machine, so why are we all waisting our time on 'Casebook'? Who's throwing out a 'vast conspiracy theory'??? GROW-UP!
LEANNE PERRY
|
Brian W. Schoeneman
Detective Sergeant
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 59
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 9:21 am: | |
Leanne,
It really doesn't matter what you would have felt. I was merely trying to give you another plausible scenario that would fit the facts regarding this letter.
And let me make this clear: are you saying that the Daily Telegraph was the only newspaper that printed a facsimile of the handwriting? Is this proven or stated anywhere? Because from what I have read, the handwriting was widely dissiminated in an effort to enlist the public's aid in determining who wrote it. The same was done with the Saucy Jacky card because the police believed them both to be written by the same person.
My supposition that the letter writer could have sent the letter to himself is, again, merely another scenario that could explain the Oct. 8th letter. If you think this doesn't happen, here's more proof: NY Daily News, September 2002
Now, I am not arguing that any of the things I have stated as possible reasons for the letter on the 8th are the actual reasons. I was merely trying to open your mind up to the possibility that this letter was - like all the rest of them - a hoax, and not some overlooked treasure map to a description of the killer. (You wrote: If we can work out the recipient, then check his evidence, we may have a good description of the killer to work with! My money is on Israel Schwartz, who's new address was kept secret by police, which is why no envelope was filed.)
In other posts, you have stated the following things:
1. It was the real Whitechapel Murderer who thought of the name 'Jack the Ripper', not the journalist who hoaxed the postcard.
2. This one was sent to an 'unidentified witness', and threatens to 'finish' him if he shows it to the police or helps them. Therefore the 'hoaxer' wasn't after the thrill of it's exposure, like so many hoaxers were.
3. How could the average person have known about the killers promise to: 'clip the lady's ears off'.??? Only the writer and someone who had seen/read 'Dear Boss' before the 3rd, could have known.
There is one thing in common with all of these things - you can't prove any of them.
As I have stated in previous posts, I have been responding to you mainly because you are the most prolific writer on the Casebook right now, and as a result many people are reading what you are writing, and if they don't have as firm a grasp on the case as some of us, they may take your "supposition" as fact. And that's dangerous, because 90% of what you are saying is merely your opinion. And the other 10% is you asking questions that have no answers. There has been enough supposition and misinformation injected into this case that none of us need to add to it. I'm just asking that you please be careful about what you write.
The other reason for my frustration - and this isn't directed at you - is because of the proliferation of the "conspiracy" theorists on here. My 'vast conspiracy theory' point wasn't directed at you, but at other people on here who like to weave elaborate theories but have nothing to back up these theories besides their own "belief" in them. I feel that this is even more irresponsible than accidentally stating something is fact when it hasn't been proven.
My comment about "waisting our time" was because you and I have been going back and forth arguing about things that are basically unimportant. We are arguing about whether or not letters which have a 95% probability of being hoaxes are written by the same hoaxer, etc. It's really useless because 1.) They're hoaxes - they don't matter and 2.) We'll never be able to prove any of what we are saying anyway.
The questions about my age, etc. were unnecessary, but I don't take offense, as I've got a pretty thick skin and I was egging you on. In case you missed the last line of my previous posting, I said "Sorry if this note is ruder than most. I'm just getting frustrated."
I'll post more on this to another thread.
B |
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 70
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 3:42 pm: | |
G'day Brian,
By asking your age, I was throwing back a mild 'insult', that wouldn't get me banned from these boards! -Sorry! By the way, I'm 38!
From what I've read the 'Daily Telegraph' was the first newspaper to publish the actual letters, and following that, other newspapers did likewise. The 'Timeline' here says that the 'Star' also published facsimiles! This act, started a flood of hoaxers who copied the handwriting. I read this somewhere, and I'll search for which book!
I'll try to remember to type 'In my humble opinion' from now on. In my humble opinion, a person doesn't reach the 'Casebook, Message Boards' until they know quite a bit about the case.
I am the most 'prolific writer' here, only because I have so much time to check the comments and read books. I open 'Casebook', before I go to bed, then as soon as I get up! There are times when I disappear all together, then come back!
My money is on 'Israel Schwartz' as the recipient, (whether the letter was a hoax or not), because police considered him an important witness and wanted to keep his address a secret and that could be why his name and address weren't recorded. He was in the process of moving the night that he saw two suspects and I believe he changed his address several times after 1888. 'You see I know your address', It was a challenge for the writer to know it!
Your belief that 95% of the letters were hoaxes is correct, ('That's why many of them were dismissed), but what about the other 5%?
I know how frustrating it can be when a person can't open their mind: About 12 months ago, a newcomer came here and kept arguing that the killer/killers drove around in a carriage. He ignored the fact that no carriage marks were found near the victims, and just kept going on and on! I don't want to be put in the same category!
LEANNE
|
Alexander Chisholm
Police Constable
Username: Alex
Post Number: 8
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 8:19 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
Just to clarify a small point, while you are correct that the Daily Telegraph printed facsimiles of a portion of the letter and postcard on 4 Oct. 1888, I don’t think the Star published any such facsimiles.
Indeed, on 4 Oct. 1888, the Star had the following to say about the Daily Telegraph’s actions:
BY the way, why does our friend, the D.T., print facsimiles of the ghastly but very silly letters from “Jack the Ripper?” We were offered them by the “Central News,” and declined to print them. They were clearly written in red pencil, not in blood, the obvious reason being that the writer was one of those foolish but bad people who delight in an unholy notoriety. Now, the murderer is not a man of this kind. His own love of publicity is tempered by a very peculiar and remarkable desire for privacy and by a singular ability to secure what he wants. Nor is there any proof of any pre-knowledge of the Mitre-square crimes, beyond the prediction that they were going to happen, which anybody might have made. The reference to ear-clipping may be a curious coincidence, but there is nothing in the posting of the letter on Sunday. Thousand of Londoners had details of the crimes supplied in the Sunday papers.
Best wishes
alex
|
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 71
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 9:34 pm: | |
G'day Alex,
Sorry, I should have checked.
It says under 'October 4 1888:' that 'facsimiles of 'Dear Boss' and 'Saucy Jacky' letters were first published in the 'Evening Standard'.
Were they the first to publish facsimiles Stephen, or did they follow the daring action of the 'Telegraph' morning papers, in the evening of the same day?
LEANNE PERRY
|
Robert Clack
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 6:51 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
Do you think the recipent of the letter maybe Joesph Hyam Levy?
I am not 100% convinced that the letter is genuine, but I keep an open mind.
I don't think Schwartz was the recipient as the letter writer said "but you made a mistake if you though I dident see you" which Scwartz obviously was and was verbally insulted.
I suggest Joesph Hyam Levy because at Catharine Eddowes inquest he gave the impression he knew more than what he let on, I think he may have recognised the man Catharine Eddowes was talking to. The fact that Joesph Levy was acting strangely was picked up by Paul Begg in His book (The uncensored Facts) and the A to Z as well.
It might explain how the letter writer knew the recipents address. Mind you with no telephone directories, how would you get hold of someones address?
Hope this has been helpful.
Rob |
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 73
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 7:22 am: | |
G'day Rob,
Ok, whether or not the letter was genuine, someone sent it and someone received it.
Let's look at Joseph Levy: Levy spoke at the Eddowes inquest on Thursday October 11. The newspaper would have printed his statement on Friday October 12. The writer wouldn't have known about his statement, until the 12th, yet the threatening letter was written on the 6th.
At Catharine's inquest he only gave the the man's height as: "about 3 inches taller than the woman.." and then he added: "I cannot give any description of either of them." But this doesn't mean he never informed the police of anything before the inquest and before the letter was written!
A report in the Home Office files of Inspector Donald Swanson, dated 6 November 1888, (the day that the letter was penned), says that: 'Three Jews...saw a man and a woman...The other two...' (Lawende excluded) '...took but little notice and state they could not identify the man...' So it looks as though Levy never informed the police of anything before the inquest that he was too frightened to repeat at the inquest.
Let's continue this search!
LEANNE PERRY
|
Christopher T George
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 55
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 12:37 pm: | |
Hi Rob:
Even before the advent of telephone directories, city directories were readily available in the United States and Great Britain, giving the names of householders by street address.
Best regards
Chris George |
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 74
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 4:43 pm: | |
G'day Chris, Rob, Alex, Brian,
Israel Schwartz was changing his street address at the time he strolled down Berner Street.
ROB: You discount Schwart, because you believe the insult "Lipski" may have been directed at Schwartz by either the attacker or the 2nd man. Let's look closer at this!
LEANNE
|
Robert Clack
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 4:51 pm: | |
Hi Leanne, Chris
Chris, thank you for the information, It was really appreciated.
Leanne, It's a shame that the City Police records haven't survived as they may help in this matter.
What I am trying to say is that Joseph Levy behavior is very suspicion. From what I can gather, the Police found him from there house to house inquires. The first time I hear mention of his name is at the inquest on October 4th by Inspector Collard, although his name doesn't appear to have been published in the newspapers. So it doesn't seem to unreasonable to assume that Joseph Levy made a statement and that the Police thought it was important enough to call him as a witness.
According to a report in the EVENING NEWS 9 October
"Mr Joesph Levy is absolutely obstinate and refuses to give the slightest information. He leaves one to infer that he knows something, but that he is afraid to be called on the inquest"
(That report is printed in the Jack the Ripper A -Z). So some members of the press tracked him down.
Also at the inquest he said: when I came out of the club to Mr Harris, "I don't like going home by myself when I see these sort of characters about. I'm off."
So he may have got more than just a cursory glance, otherwise why would he be so alarmed?
Yours faithfully
Rob |
Robert Clack
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 5:22 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
My impression of the letter is that the person who received it, thought the person who sent it didn't see him at the incident he is being threatened over. Which is why I discounted Scwartz, who was seen by the two men. I think it is fair to assume that the alleged incident occured on the night of the double murder. Which is why I think it relates to Catharine Eddowes murder. Of course it could have been sent to Joseph Lawende, but I think Joesph Levy is hiding something.
While we don't know if the letter is genuine or not, I think it is worthwhile to try and find out all we can before we dismiss it completely.
Rob |
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 75
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 10:57 pm: | |
G'day Rob,
OK, if Joseph Levy didn't receive this particular letter, he may have received a similar threatening letter that was never handed in or it may have been filed in the lost City Police records. We can't dismiss that possibility!
So we have two possibly frightened witnesses. Joseph Levy and Israel Schwartz, who never even appeared at the Stride Inquest. He may have been called, but came up with an excuse not to attend!
LEANNE
|
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 76
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2003 - 3:44 pm: | |
G'day Rob, everyone,
Reading the letter again: 'You though yourself very clever I reckon when you informed the police But you made a mistake if you though I dident see you'. Dident see you when? On the morning that I stuck or when you went to inform the police? 'now I know you know me and I see your little game'. What little game? Perhaps the writer thought that the witness was after the reward, or was going to try to blackmail him!
On page 148 of 'Letters From Hell' - Evans, Skinner there is a whole chapter titled: 'The City Letters'. It says that the second largest collection of letters associated with the case is held at the Corporation of London Records Office at the Guildhall. This collection contains 363 communications, the majority from individuals offering suggestions and suspicions to the police. There are 70 letters from anonymous senders. 8 purporting to come from the killer and 1 from an accessory. Many were undated.
LEANNE PERRY
|
Robert Clack
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 21, 2003 - 4:47 pm: | |
Hi Leanne
My reading of the line 'You though yourself very clever I reckon when you informed the police but you made a mistake if you though I dident see you'. is that it's a reference to witness seeing him at the murder scene with the victim. If it was when the witness went to inform the police we have to presume that the letter writer was possibly following him or to have been moving in the same circle of acquaintences. Your first suggestion that the witness was after the reward, is very likely, as I don't think he would have tried to blackmail the writer, he would probably get more reward money.
If the above is true the it would appear that the letter writer and the recipent knew each other, maybe only casually though.
As for 'your little game' it is very similar to the Dear Boss letter refering to 'my funny little games' I wonder if it is 19th century slang term?
A reporter for the "Star" tracked him down to his home in Backchurch Lane, I believe the newspaper account gave the name of the road Schartz was living in, so all the letter writer had to do would be to make inquiries in Backchurch Lane.
Rob
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
