|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Police Constable
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 7
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 2:08 am: |       |
G'day Brian,
If a 'writer at the Central News Agency' was the creater of the first 'Dear Boss' communication and the police at the time knew this, why then were handwriting comparisons being made as late as 1896?
Leanne Perry,
Sub-editor of 'RIPPEROO'!
|
Brian W. Schoeneman
Sergeant
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 13
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 21, 2003 - 9:04 am: | |
Leanne,
Chief Inspector Littlechild in 1913 wrote "With regard to the term 'Jack the Ripper' it was generally believed at the Yard that Tom Bullen of the Central News was the originator, but it is probable Moore, who was his chief, was the inventor. It was a smart piece of journalistic work. No journalist of my time got such privileges from Scotland Yard as Bullen. Mr James Munro when Assistant Commissioner, and afterwards Commissioner, relied on his integrity. Poor Bullen occasionally took too much to drink, and I fail to see how he could help it knocking about so many hours and seeking favours from so many people to procure copy. One night when Bullen had taken a 'few too many' he got early information of the death of Prince Bismarck and instead of going to the office to report it sent a laconic telegram 'Bloody Bismarck is dead'. On this I believe Mr Charles Moore fired him out."
As "Jack the Ripper" was a term used in the "Dear Boss" letter and that letter was sent to the Central News Agency, Littlechild is confirming that not only he but those "at the Yard" felt that this was a hoax.
As for the handwriting comparisons? Probably because they had already invested so much time and money into tracking down who wrote the Dear Boss letter. No one gave much credence to it until after the double event on 1st of October, after which it got reprinted everyway and posterized with a poster in front of each police station. They'd have lost a lot of face by coming out later and saying "oops".
As for the Lusk letters authenticity, while George's grandson said that Lusk believed it was fake and I do recall reading that, he didn't think that immediately at the time. He was very frightened of it (joke or not) and thought the possibility of it being genuine was enough to warrant passing it and the kidney over to the police and Dr. Openshaw for testing.
Personally, the language, grammar and handwriting of the letter are what I would expect from the Ripper - semi-literate, but obviously semi-educated. The cannabilism line was the first and (correct me if I'm wrong) the only reference to it in any of the letters sent to the police. That, as well as the lack of any "Dear Boss", "Love my work", and "Yours Truly, JtR" lines adds credability in my mind because those were common attempts by people to link their hoaxes to the "Dear Boss" letter, which was the most widely publicized. Then the kidney, which was confirmed as being human (although not much else could be confirmed from it) put it over the top in my credability book.
B
|
Leanne Perry
Police Constable
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 8
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 22, 2003 - 1:38 am: | |
G'day Brian,
An article in 'Crime and Detection' in 1966 said that an ex-journalist named Best claimed that 'he and a colleague were responsible for all the 'Ripper' letters to keep the business alive...'. Best added that the pen used was a 'Waverley Nib', that was deliberately battered. The original 'Dear Boss' letter and 'Saucy Jacky' postcard are notable for their neatness and impecable spelling. Best and his colleague may have written some letters, but not the original ones.
Leanne Perry
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 11
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 22, 2003 - 7:13 am: | |
Hi Leanne, and Brian,
I think we can assume that nearly all the letters sent to the press or the police,were penned by hoaxers.
The Dear Boss letter, or the one send on the 17th sept would therefore either be the work of the central news agency, or the killer.
I am in full agreement that the letter postmarked 8th oct is extremely similar, I feel that the writer of this was responsible for the one received on the 27th sept.
It has been said that the distinctive date layout could have been copied, but as the 8th oct letter was addressed to a unknown recipient, not to the press or police with threats not to show anyone, I would say that it all points to an original.
Leanne as you know I favour Gardner, intresting a man named Best and a colleague were believed to be responsible[ not the Best and Gardner of the Bricklayers Arms incident?].
You asked if there was any other possible recipients?. Clearly if the sender of the threatening letter was worried that he was seen he obviously need not have been, for nothing appears to have happened.Therefore I believe the killer knew the witness mayby more then the witness knew the killer, thats why I finger out Gardner because if and only if[ because of no evidence] he was a shopkeeper, he may have freqented the shop on occasions, and assumed he may have been identified.
I can only think of one other possibility that the recipient was a Jew, and said nothing because the killer was of the same race that would tie in with the shouting of Lipski in Berner Street Therefore Schwartz, or the pipe man would be the obvious.
Regards Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 13
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 1:34 am: | |
G'day Richard,
What would an 'enterprising London Journalist' achieve by sending a threatening letter, (postmarked 8th October), to an unidentified witness? Especially one that threatens him not to show it! If this letter was from the real killer, then the 'Dear Boss' letter that was recieved on the 17th of September is more likely to be from the real killer.
If a hoaxer bothered to copy exactly the destinctive date layout from the newspaper, why didn't he take the time to find a red ink pen and start the letter with 'Dear Sor' or something?
The police never bothered to trace this pipe man, who may have known what the fight was all about, or at least could have verified what Schwartz said happened!
LEANNE PERRY
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 13
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 4:29 am: | |
Hi Leanne,
I am in complete agreement with you,I feel that the 17th and 27th of september letters are proberly from the killer, and as the 8th oct letter is similar to the Dear Boss one , then I certainly do not believe they are the work of a journalist.
I feel we will never know for certain who the recipient of the threatening letter was, it could be anybody who saw the killer with Stride or Eddowes, yet I still feel however Gardner or the pipe man would be the main contenders.
It would have to be someone who the killer at least knew the address of , this person obviously was unaware of the killers identity otherwise the police would have traced the culprit, yet the killer felt he was noticed.
The pipe man is also an intresting possibility, as he never as far as we know came forward, just possible he did not want to get involved, but the whitechapel reward surely would have been tempting, so once again either the killer was running scared unnessasary ,or the pipe man was scared of reprisals.however if he intervened in the Stride incident, he would not seem to be the cautious type.
Regards Richard. |
Leanne Perry
Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 15
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 4:21 pm: | |
G'day Richard,
The words that are written vertically down the left margin of the 6th Oct letter: 'You see I know your asddress, sound as if it was a challenge for the author to findout the recipients address (i.e. it wasn't published in any newspaper). Schwart's address was kept secret by police, (because they thought he may have been an important witness), he was in the process of moving when he saw the events he reported to police, and I believe he moved a few times after.
The threatening letter of the 6th Oct, might have been Schwartz's real reason for not appearing at Stride's inquest. He could have claimed to be too ill or something!
LEANNE PERRY.
|
Brian W. Schoeneman
Sergeant
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 19
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 4:53 pm: | |
Richard,
I find it hard to believe that you think that the Sept. 17 letter is legitimate. Not only do I find it hard to believe that after a hundred years all of the sudden someone realized a page was pasted together in the records and a new letter was brought to light. Second, it uses ALL of the major phrases from ALL the major letters: "Dear Boss", "Dear Old Boss", "ha ha", "I love my work", "Catch me if you can", "Shan't get buckled", "Jacky" and - of course - "Jack the Ripper".
C'mon. It's so blantantly fake I can't believe you'd put any credence in it.
As for the 6th Oct. letter, again, we don't really have that much info to go on. And I think it's a bad idea to place much credability on ANY of the letters - even Lusk, which I still think is legit - because none of them offer any information that couldn't have been gleaned from the popular media. There's no "smoking gun" to use the current popular phrase.
B |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Sergeant
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 19
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 11:40 am: | |
Hi Brian,
I was not saying that the 17th sept letter was authentic ,I just remarked that if there was a genuine letter amongst all the letters , it would most likely be one of the first two received , the most obvious one of the two would be the Dear Boss on the 27th, if only for its similaritys to the threatening letter of the 6th oct.
To be perfectly honest , I have my doubts to the authenticity of nearly all of them, I will name the few I think are worthy of consideration.
1] The Dear Boss letter dated 27th sept88
2] The threatening letter to an unnamed recipient dated 8th oct88
3]The Telegram sent to Inspector Abberline dated 21st nov88
4]the letter addressed to The chief Inspector of commercial street police station 27th sept 89 [ 1 year from the Dear Boss Letter.
5] Addressed to The Inspector Leman street police station] on 10th nov88.
A quick summary why..
1] The Dear boss letter because if authentic proberly the first.
2] The threatening letter because of its aggressive attitude.
3]this one is the only letter mentioned the number 39 [ which I feel significant to these murders]
4] This one mentions the name Gardner [ which I have an opinion on]
5] This letter is printed and shows anxious behaviour.
There you go then Brian, you have it all there, but as you say, we can not put any credence on any of them.
Regards Richard.
|
Leanne Perry
Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 16
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 4:53 pm: | |
G'day,
If we can agree that the letter postmarked the 8th Oct is authentic, that would add to the possibility that the 27th September letter is authentic, (because of the similarity of the handwriting, straightness of the lines, sameness of the date layout etc.), and put doubt on the 'Saucy Jacky' postcard, (which slopes downwards, has no date and contains the flavour of an 'enterprising London journalist'.
Then we can try to identify the recipient.
* It has to be a male, because he had a wife.
* It has to be a witness not a policeman, because he was warned not to show it to police.
* He 'informed the police' of something. He obviously wasn't an inquest witness, because informing a jury of the possible cause of death is not directly informing the police.
* The recipients address was never made public knowledge in the press, because the author brags about finding the recipients address.
Once we've worked out who the recipient most likely was, then we can look at his given information and we may end up with a correct description of 'Jack the Ripper'. Then we can start leaving messages on the 'Witnesses' board or even the 'Suspects' board.
I wonder what the recipient's 'little game' was....blackmail?
What could the author on the 6th of October have gleaned from the popular media?
LEANNE PERRY!
|
Leanne Perry
Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 17
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 24, 2003 - 5:05 pm: | |
G'day,
CONTINUED...* The fact that the 'Dear Boss' letter was written in red ink, appears in the third line of the accompanying newspaper type. The letter was published in the 'Daily Telegraph'. The author on the 6th letter (postmarked the 8th) used black ink.
* There are no spelling errors in the letter dated 27th Sept. What made the author of the letter on the 6th Oct add three mistakes?
* The author of the 6th letter (postmarked the 8th) wasn't out to 'star' in the newspapers, because he threatens the recipient not to show it.
* The author of the 6th letter could have copied the layout of the date, but look at how many other letter hoaxers didn't think of this, yet thought to start with 'Dear Boss'.
LEANNE!
|
Brian W. Schoeneman
Sergeant
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 22
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 1:42 pm: | |
Leanne,
That's a big IF. 
As for figuring out the witness from the 8th letter, I think it's pretty much impossible - there is no way to know that the witness you think is being intimidated in the 6th letter was one of the major ones, or if it was any of the myriad of regular people who provided the police with information about "suspicious" activity.
The author of the 6th letter could have gleaned nearly everything about the Dear Boss letter from the Daily Telegraph article, or all he had to do was walk past any of the police stations in the area - they all had large placards with copies of both the Dear Boss and Saucy Jacky correspondece blown up and posted with a request for anyone who recognized the handwriting to contact them.
B |
Christopher T George
Police Constable
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 8
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 2:39 pm: | |
Hi, Brian, Richard, and Leanne:
I agree with Brian that any later writers of JtR letters had an excellent model in the September 25 Dear Boss letter and the Saucy Jacky postcard which were well publicized in the newspapers and by the police themselves on the posters.
The act of putting out the broadsides shows, to my mind, that the police did think the communications could have come from the killer. Why else ask the public if they knew the handwriting? You don't go to all that effort just to catch a hoaxer! Also Leanne is correct that the fact that in 1896 the Met were still comparing letters to the original Dear Boss correspondence shows that at least some of the police officials thought the JtR letters and specifically the first Dear Boss communications could have been authentic.
Both of these incidents, the poster in 1888 and the comparison as late as 1896 of letters received by the authorities, tell the lie to the impression left by Littlechild and Macnaghten that the police did not take the Dear Boss letters seriously or that they knew those letters were written by Thomas J. Bulling of the Central News Agency and/or his boss at the CNA.
Another point about the Littlechild letter is that the facts of Bulling's alleged dismissal also need to be verified not only his possible role in the writing of the letters. Both Tom Wescott and myself have been trying to learn more about Bulling but have yet to find the facts about that story. I do know that he died, as I recall, in 1926, so did he go back to journalism, did he die a drunk... and did he leave any handwritten reminiscences that might give us the truth about all this? Well, it would be interesting to know, wouldn't it??!!!
As I see it, all we have from Macnaghten is unconfirmed wafflings from two former policemen that the Met's own actions contradict. 
Best regards
Chris George |
Christopher T George
Police Constable
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 9
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 25, 2003 - 2:46 pm: | |
P.S. In case my friend Stewart P. Evans is reading these posts, as I hope he may be, I cast no aspersions on former Scotland Yard Chief Inspector John George Littlechild's word as to Dr. Tumblety being an authentic Ripper suspect, as also expressed in Littlechild's 1913 letter to George R. Sims. That part of the letter, to me, bears believing and attention. It is the almost anecdotal part about Thomas J. Bulling (rendered as "Bullen") which I think may be mistaken or misleading.
All the best
Chris |
Leanne Perry
Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 20
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 5:25 am: | |
G'day Chris, Brian, Richard and all,
The name of the journalist supposedly responsible for all of the early Ripper correspondence, was a theory only. If police had any solid proof, the journalist would have been prosecuted. They couldn't prove anything otherwise Anderson wouldn't have feared liable: '...provided the publishers would accept all responsibility..' The theory must have been pretty weak otherwise the publishers would have.
A letter to the Editor of the 'East London Observer' from 'A Wide-Awake East-Ender' contains: '...who used his fore-knowledge to "line" the reports of the receipt of these stange missives...' ('Letters From Hell') What 'fore-knowledge' appears in the first 'Dear Boss' letter? (which I believe was from the real killer).
The 'fore-knowledge' that only a journalist could have, first appeared in the 'Saucy Jacky' postcard, (i.e. 'Number one squealed a bit couldn't finish...'and '..had no time to get ears for police.')
The 25th of September letter says: 'That joke about Leather Apron gave me real fits...', meaning: 'I'm not Leather Apron' - probably true! Then it goes on to give another clue: 'They say I'm a doctor now Ha! Ha!' Maybe the killer was a doctor and was trying to put police off the right scent!
LEANNE PERRY,
Sub-editor of 'Ripperoo'.
|
Brian W. Schoeneman
Sergeant
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 25
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 1:23 pm: | |
Leanne,
The "...provided the publishers would accept all responsibility..." line, I believe, was aimed at his not providing the actual name of a suspect, not that he didn't provide the name of the "enterprising journalist".
There really was no foreknowledge in the Dear Boss letter, as you mentioned. The foreknowledge in the Saucy Jacky postcard was, I believe, a factor of the day it was posted and the events of the day. Sugden shows pretty clearly that he could have mailed the post card on the 1st with information that he gleaned from the newspaper extras printed that day about the double event and still have it postmarked on the 1st.
As for Leather Apron, I think it's been conclusively shown that "Leather Apron" was John Pizer, and that Pizer provided a strong enough alibi for all of the crimes that he was exonerated by the Met.
Something stinks, in my mind, about the "Dear Boss" letter - it feels exactly like what I would expect to read from a struggling journalist trying to breathe a little life into a slowly fading story. By the time that letter had come out, it had been almost three weeks since the Chapman killing. The deliberate discrediting of the previous news stories, the catchy moniker, the threat to do it again, etc. all seems like the author is laying the groundwork - not for more murders, but for more stories. It doesn't smell like Jack to me.
B
|
Leanne Perry
Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 22
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 26, 2003 - 8:18 pm: | |
G'day Brian,
Look at Anderson's line after the line '..., provided that the publishers......So I will only add here that the "Jack-the-Ripper" letter which is preserved in the Police Museum at New Scotland Yard is the creation of an enterprising London journalist...' He didn't name either his suspect or the journalist.
Then when Littlechild typed: '...it was generally believed at the Yard that Tom Bullen of the Central News was...' This was probably a deliberate misspelling of Bulling's name to dodge any libel claim.
The foreknowledge in the 'Saucy Jacky' postcard could have been thought of by Bulling, because he was at the crime scene. He had a great fascination with the Ripper murders.
I know that 'Leather Apron' was John Pizer, and that Pizer was not the Ripper. But it was never proven that the Ripper couldn't have been a doctor. That's why I think the author of 'Dear Boss' may have been trying to throw police off his scent.
There were 3 weeks between the murders of Tabram and Nicholls, then there was 1 week between Nicholl's murder and Chapman's. The arrival of the 'Dear Boss' letter happened three weeks after that. I think everyone would have been expecting to hear about another murder soon! A journalist didn't need to 'lay the ground work' to write a good story. Maybe Bulling was waiting for the next murder, to attend the crime scene and get an exclusive story to boost his career!
LEANNE PERRY!
|
Christopher T George
Sergeant
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 11
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 10:38 am: | |
Hi, Brian and Leanne:
Leanne, you wrote: "Maybe Bulling was waiting for the next murder, to attend the crime scene and get an exclusive story to boost his career!"
Well, actually, this is exactly the scenario that I made the plot of the musical for which I wrote the lyrics with French composer Erik Sitbon. Our "Jack--The Musical" posits the idea that a fictional journalist committed the murders so that he could advance his career. As you note, if a journalist did do the murders he could easily have been early on the scene of each murder beating out the other journalists and so getting an exclusive.
Nevertheless, although I wrote the plot for our musical, I am skeptical if this is what occurred. I do agree with Brian that the Dear Boss letter does not have the authentic feel of a communication from a killer. The wide boy terminology used, "gave me real fits" etc. makes it sound like someone trying to sound like a character from the Cockney criminal underground rather than the murderer. Having said that, the letter from early October in Bulling's writing, in which he supposedly copied the original to send it to Mr. Williamson at Scotland Yard and in which the killer disclaims responsibility for the Whitehall (torso) mystery has a strange edginess to it that makes it seem to me as if it came from the killer.... but who knows?
All the best
Chris |
Leanne Perry
Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 23
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 12:31 am: | |
G'day Chris, Brian,
Chris I wasn't suggesting that Bulling committed the murders! What I meant was that he didn't have to. Someone else was and he just had to wait, (one was due to happen, as the letter indicated).
When it did, he rushed to the scene to look for an 'exclusive'. He heard that Elizabeth Stride wasn't mutilated like the others, and her ears weren't cut off, like the letter promised. Then he heard that another murder happened nearby, but didn't know the condition of her ears. He knew enough to write: 'Double Event this time', (which sounds like a headline), and he knew enough to write: 'number one squealed a bit couldn't finish her.' Yet he left out anything about number two, because didn't know if she had ears still or not.
How does a communication from a real killer feel? What does it need to include to give it an 'authentic feel'. Why are the words: 'gave me real fits' 'wide boy terminology' in your opinion? Look at the entire sentence: 'That joke about Leather Apron gave me real fits' Maybe the author was tyrying to make the 'Leather Apron' theory seem like a joke from a melodrama.
Then along comes 'Saucy Jacky', using words like: 'Double Event', which sounds like a headline.
LEANNE PERRY
|
Robert W. House
Police Constable
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 3
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 01, 2003 - 2:22 pm: | |
Hello All,
As far as handwriting discrepancies etc... I think it is entirely possible that apparently different styles of handwriting could have been penned by the same person. My reasoning is that a person's handwriting is different when you are sober or drunk. I have samples from my journals from college that illustrate this. And I think it is a distinct possibility that JTR was a heavy drinker.
Rob House |
Leanne Perry
Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 29
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 02, 2003 - 3:58 am: | |
G'day Chris, Brian, Robert, everyone,
CHRIS: I believe that the ''Dear Boss' letter penned on the 25th, does not have the 'authentic feel' of a communication from a journalist!
ROBERT: Stop just looking at the handwriting styles. Look closer at the content of all early communications, mate! It is possible for one person to pen a different style of handwriting when intoxicated, and it is also possible for a person to copy a particular style, as many obvious hoaxer's did. Why not Bulling with 'Saucy Jacky'? There was no need for the killer to rush home and write a postcard, beating a deadline to say: 'thanks for keeping last letter back'. If he wanted to say "Thanks", he could have sent a letter after the newspapers told of the murders.
The first 'Dear Boss' contained nothing to suggest it was penned by a journalist, except maybe the signature: 'Jack the Ripper', which sounds dramatic! The killer enjoyed the drama he was staging so it's no wonder he thought of a stagename.
A journalist had nothing to gain by starting communications from the killer. Everyone was waiting to hear about another attrocity soon. Martha Tabram was killed early in August, then Nicholls was killed 3 weeks later. Chapman was murdered 1 week after that and it was 3 weeks wait for the first 'Dear Boss' to arrived. A murder was due to happen soon.
LEANNE
|
Christopher T George
Sergeant
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 13
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 02, 2003 - 5:13 pm: | |
Hi, Leanne:
I think the September 25, 1888 Dear Boss letter has language in it to suggest that it was written by someone who is trying to sound like a member of the Cockney criminal underworld, which is why I used the term "wide boy" -- a smart guy, a wheeler dealer.
Despite your answer to Robert, and although I think the available facts are insufficient to say that a journalist, or Thomas J. Bulling specifically, penned the Dear Boss letters, I think you are wrong when you say "The first 'Dear Boss' contained nothing to suggest it was penned by a journalist" and that "A journalist had nothing to gain by starting communications from the killer." Sure they would -- keep the public interested in the murders, create a super killer, sell more newspapers.
A while back I wrote an article for Ripperologist about a short story "Conscience" by John Galsworthy. In this story, written in 1922, Galsworthy spins the tale of a journalist named Taggart who worked for "Conglomerated Journals Ltd." Taggart is asked by his chief to write an article for the magazine The Lighthouse on behalf of the celebrated clown Georgie Glebe.
Taggart asks the chief, "Did he ever write a line in his life, sir?"
"Don't suppose so--but you know the sort of thing he would write; he gets nothing for it but the Ad. The week after I've got Sir Cutman Kane--you'll want to be a bit careful there; but you can get his manner from that book of his on murder trials. He hasn't got a minute--must have it devilled; but he'll sign anything decently done. I'm going to make 'em buy The Lighthouse, Taggart. Get on with the Glebe article at once, will you?"
Taggart draws some typewritten sheets from his pocket to show the chief the signed leader for the magazine which Taggart has written on his chief's behalf, but the boss hastily says he has to run for the boat train.
So here we have the situation of a journalist "ghosting" articles for someone else--possibly the very situation that pertained if a journalist did write the Dear Boss correspondence signed "Jack the Ripper."
The subterfuge of writing the article on behalf of Georgie Glebe both charms Taggart with its cleverness and disturbs him with its rank immorality. If Bulling did compose the Dear Boss letters as a hoax, did he similarly wrestle with his conscience?
In the story, Galsworthy well portrays Taggart's dilemma:
Really, there was something very trustful about the Public! He dipped his pen in ink and sat staring at the nib. Trustful! The word had disturbed the transparency of his mental process, as a crystal of peroxide will disturb and colour a basinful of water. Trustful! The Public would pay their pennies to read what they thought were the thoughts of Georgie Glebe. But Georgie Glebe had no thoughts! Taggart bit into the pipe stem. . . . By writing his name he adopted them--didn't he? Trustful! Was the public so very trustful--when there was such evidence? . . . Bosh! This was just devilling; there was nothing fraudulent about 'devilling'--everybody did it! Fraudulent! You might as well say those signed leaders for the chief were fraudulent. Of course they weren't--they were only devilled. The public paid for the thoughts of the chief, and they were the thoughts of the chief, since he signed them. Devilled thoughts!
Taggart told himself, "With a Public so gullible--what did it matter? They lapped up anything and asked for more. Yes! But weren't the gullible the very people who oughtn't to be gulled?"
Another pressman, Jimmy, asks what is the matter and Taggart states he has been asked by the chief to write "some drivel" for The Lighthouse for Georgie Glebe to sign. "It's just struck me that it's a fraud on the public. What do you say, Jimmy?"
Jimmy replies that he is similarly writing a racing article "From the Man in the Paddock"--even though he has not been on a race course for years.
When Taggart protests that such an article is venial, Jimmy replies, "All's venial in our game. Shut your eyes and swallow. You're only devilling."
In the end, Taggart's conscience won't allow him to write the Glebe article, and he is consequently given the sack by the chief. A different scenario to the Bulling/Moore scenario if they did in fact write those letters on behalf of "Jack the Ripper"!
The implication then from this story by Galsworthy who himself knew journalists and wrote journalism, that this happened all the time, with journalists concocting articles supposedly written by people whose bylines appeared on the pieces. Is it much further to think that instead of concocting such an article, a journalist could get the idea of writing a letter supposedly from a killer?
All the best
Chris George |
Leanne Perry
Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 31
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 11:45 pm: | |
G'day Chris,
Yes! Yes! Yes! Something very similar could have happened at the Central News Agency AFTER the 25th letter was received from an unknown person. That's what gave them the idea to carry on the 'trick'!!!
Consider the time frame. How many earlier 'trick'sters were there to copy off? By 1922, Galsworthy probably had a few 'tricks up his sleeve'.
When Tom Bulling sent the 1st letter to Scotland Yard, he wrote a covering note saying: 'The enclosed was sent the Central News two days ago. It was treated as a joke.' Why would he even suggest this, if he penned it but wanted it to be accepted as real?
The following is how I think things could have went in 1888, (after reading 'Letters From Hell'.) At this time, the Whitechapel crimes where the talk of the town):
* On the 27th of September: The Agency received a letter from 'unknown', saying that he will clip the next victims ears off.
* On the 29th of September: Tom Bulling sent this letter to Scotland Yard, where no great importance is attached to it.
* On the 31st of September: Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes were killed. Bulling rushes to the Stride murder scene to get an 'exclusive'. He expected Stride's ears to be missing, and was disappointed that she wasn't mutilated and still had her ears. But then he heard that another murder occured that night. Excited, he penned a postcard, copying the handwriting of the letter which he had in his pocket. He could say that he didn't have time to cut the first ones ears off, but couldn't write a thing about the 2nd victim because he wasn't there. He could just say that he didn't have time to forefill his promise. He then posted it to beat a 'deadline'.
* On the 5th of October and back at work: Bulling wrote to Cheif Constable Williamson, about the 'Moab and Midian' letter: 'you will see it is in the same handwriting as the previous communications.' He includes the envelope, (which was easy work to forge), but chose to transcribe the letter with his covernote. This letter promised a 'treble event', which sounds like another good headline. The police requested that no details of this letter be shown to the public, but someone accidently told 'The Star' and 'The Pall Mall Gazette', who published news of it's receipt.
* The Central News Agency began selling stories to various newspapers, and raking in the money and all the sensation.
On the 6th of October: 'unknown' (who penned the first letter}, wrote a threatening letter to an unknown witness. This author didn't want the letter to go beyond the recipient's eyes. This adds 'weight' to the argument that the first letter was authentic.
HOW'S THAT?
LEANNE PERRY
|
Leanne Perry
Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 32
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 5:47 am: | |
G'day again!
The letter written on the 6th of October, (which was in a very similar format and handwriting to the letter that everyone copied from), posed absolutely no advantage if a journalist wrote it.
The author didn't want the thrill of it's exposure to the public, so it didn't have the potential to sell more newspapers. The only person it could scare into silence, was the recipient.
It would have done nothing to boost Bulling's career! But 'Saucy Jacky' could have helped the police believe that 'Dear Boss' was authentic and so boost the importance of Bulling and his news agency in the hunt for the villain.
LEANNE!
|
Christopher T George
Sergeant
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 14
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 7:46 am: | |
Hi, Leanne:
Your scenario has possibilities although why you discount Bulling or another journalist from having written the first Dear Boss letter, I don't know. Why couldn't a journalist have written the initial Dear Boss letter? As noted, I don't think it's by any means certain that a journalist did write the first Dear Boss letters (i.e., both the 25 September letter and the Saucy Jacky postcard) but there is no evidence to say they did not either.
Best regards
Chris |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
