|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Michael Bezek
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2003 - 6:22 am: | 
|
It would seem that there are 4 written communications that have attracted the most attention in this case:Dear Boss letter;Goulston St. Graffito;Saucy Jack/Double Event Postcard;and From Hell Letter. All seem to have their proponents as well as detractors.
My question;is there an even remote possibility that all 4 of these messages were penned (or chalked)by Jack? I know that there's a difference in tone between the Dear Boss and Saucy Jack missives vs. the From Hell letter and the graffito is completely obscure in meaning, but is there even one common thread that can be found to possibly tie them all together? |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 83
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 11:11 am: |
|
Hi Michael,
My personal viewpoint on this is that I don't believe the 'Dear Boss'-missives were written by the Ripper, that it's quite probable that the Lusk letter was penned down by him and that I think there's a 50-50 chance that the graffito was done by 'Yours truly'.
However, I do see a similarity between the latter two, that is of course, if he wrote them both. So, assuming that he did one might accept that the Lusk letter was 'authenticated' by an item taken from the crime scene (the kidney), whereas the graffito was 'authenticated' by another item taken away from that same crime scene, and that is of course part of the apron.
All the best,
Frank |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 568
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 24, 2003 - 5:30 am: |
|
Hi Frank,
That’s a good observation, that the apron and kidney could have been used to authenticate the two messages, in an attempt by the writer to prove he killed Eddowes. He may well have considered her murder to be his best and most daring achievement to date. I can almost imagine him thinking during the first week of October, “The bastards went and rubbed out my message, and they’re making the streets too hot for me. Well let’s see how that interfering Lusk from the Vigilance Committee likes being on the receiving end of this kidney”.
Would a hoaxer (naturally one with access to a recently removed kidney) have thought of this association between message and apron when dreaming up his own sick prank of sending the semi-literate message to Lusk with a kidney? Or could it have been a fortuitous double event? The timing is interesting, because the kidney was sent a while after the murder, and there was that threat to send the murder weapon if only Lusk would wait a while longer – almost as if the writer suddenly had a hat trick in mind: first the apron, now the kidney, and maybe later the bloody knife as well.
But this would make it a more subtle and clever hoax than anyone suspected. And why wouldn’t such a smart hoaxer have made the association with the graffito and apron clear in his letter, if this had indeed inspired the hoax?
I still can’t decide whether we have a subtle hoaxer here, jumping on the graffito bandwagon when writing to Lusk, but not taking full advantage of it, or the killer himself, with some thoughts left unspoken - associations in mind but not reaching as far as his pen.
Love,
Caz
(Message edited by Caz on December 24, 2003) |
Rob Herrington
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 06, 2004 - 9:58 pm: |
|
Was Jack the ripper famous for the phrase "I have brought birth to the 20th century?, as shown at the beginning of From Hell? Just curious. |
John Hacker
Inspector
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 200
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 07, 2004 - 5:42 pm: |
|
Rob,
Nope. He sure wasn't. That was an invention for the film. It sure sounded great in the trailer though.
Regards,
John Hacker
P.S. Word word... |
MF
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 16, 2004 - 4:25 pm: |
|
"A hundred years ago, I was a freak. Now I'm just an amateur!" Time After Time
Certainly not in the letter writing department. We'd have to assume that the Ripper wrote at least one of the letters unless he was some insane, illiterate guy with weekends off.
And if he did, it's likely he wrote one of the early ones or the first one because no credible later one has turned up that disowns them.
If you believe From Hell is real, then why didn't he disavow Dear Boss and Saucy Jack? Did he like the name he was given? Then why didn't he use it?
I'd expect him to say I am Jack the Ripper!
|
Lucy H
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 10:21 am: |
|
I wondered if Patricia Cornwell has asked Don Foster at Vassar to analyze the Ripper letters and Sickert's letters to see if they are likely from the same writer. He does not do handwriting analysis but text analysis--frequency of word usage, style, etc.--using a computer program he developed. He has used this on a lost Shakespeare sonnet and on the JonBenet Ramsey ransom note. |
Thomas C. Wescott
Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 32
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 9:53 pm: |
|
Lucy
The idea that one man wrote all of the 'Ripper letters' is patently absurd. To suggest this is the case and go the further step of stating that the Whitechapel murderer himself wrote them all is looney tunes. Not another dollar should be spent or moment wasted trying to determine what is already known to every researcher but one.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 923
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 5:07 am: |
|
MF,
Maybe the fact that he didn't call himself Jack the Ripper in his letters was a way of trying to show that the ones signed that way weren't his, that's of course if he did write any letters at all.
Sarah
(Message edited by Sarah on March 18, 2004) |
Thomas C. Wescott
Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 33
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 18, 2004 - 9:21 pm: |
|
Sarah,
Are you referring to the 'From Hell' letter? Let's not forget that Lusk and the police determined it to have been in the same hand as the 'Box of Toys' postcard (of which, unfortunately, not even a facsimile exists)and this postcard uses the term 'Boss', thus linking it, and by association the 'From Hell' letter, to the original Jack the Ripper communications.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
MF
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 20, 2004 - 11:26 pm: |
|
Cornwell's DNA evidence stinks--only 3 markers--nowhere near inclusive. But her paper evidence and the drawing comparisons prove Sickert wrote Ripper letters.
Now he had no compunction about using the name JtR which you have to believe he didn't originate if you compare his writing to Dear Boss.
Unfortunately, Cornwell didn't use extensive text analysis. With her own understanding of writing, she should have been able to compare the known Sickert Ripper letters to the ones most likely written by Jack the Ripper and, I believe, seen the difference.
|
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 956
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 4:44 pm: |
|
Paper trails and licked stamps.
The only thing proven in this entire episode is that Cornball licked the gum on the envelope that sealed her advance.
And sealed her fate.
Now please go to bed and try and wake up with a vision of a new tomorrow.
Like just pretend that Cornball was never there.
Because she wasn't.
All she did was leave a bad smell. |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 500
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 6:03 pm: |
|
Seconded AP Well Said!
Her research has great gaps filled with wishful thinking
Natalie |
MF
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 3:17 pm: |
|
Thirded, Mr. Wolf. Well said.
My! What a good pen you have! Grand work I must say.
You Sor wouldn't need to use a blitz style of attack on a woman. You could chat her up first! Ha ha.
FYI Blitz Style, applied to the Ripper by the Mindhunter profiler, meaning he didn't chat them up. Jack was socially inadequate.
Now where did he get that cornball idea? From the Dear Boss naysayers perhaps?
Real or not, the letter was well-written, even thought to be the work of a professional writer who somehow anticipated the Ripper's antisocial activity. Why wouldn't he have foresight into his social ability? |
AP Wolf
Chief Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 961
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 1:23 pm: |
|
Thank you people.
It is rare that any post of mine is seconded let alone thirded, in fact most of my posts have buckets of muck thrown at them... so I'm touched.
I don't believe Jack could have chatted up anyone, let alone a real woman. It has always been my belief that Jack was approached by the drunken women - in the first number of killings -and then their forward and over-bearing attitude ignited his 'fight or flight' instinct and he just simply killed them in a blitz of fear and rage. One imagines that over the course of time he began to see it as some sort of game, and expanded his attitude from flight to fight. |
Tiddley boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 10:21 am: |
|
Thomas C. Wescott wrote: "The idea that one man wrote all of the 'Ripper letters' is patently absurd. To suggest this is the case and go the further step of stating that the Whitechapel murderer himself wrote them all is looney tunes. Not another dollar should be spent or moment wasted trying to determine what is already known to every researcher but one."
Make that two!
It is just this blatant and blanket dismissal of a whole source of possible evidence, (with provenance I hasten to add, unlike so much of the other 'evidence') that gets us nowhere. Of course one person didn't write all the letters, nor did the Whitechapel murderer write all of them. But there is no reason to suppose he didn't write some is there? Just because so called experts state there is nothing of use in the Ripper letters, should we all blindly ignore them? I think not, we should think for ourselves.
I believe that the Dear Boss letter (25th Sept), Saucy Jacky Postcard and Graffito are by the Ripper. The Lusk letter is a hoax. It's just finding that common thread - there is one.
Caz, would be grateful if you could e-mail me at your convenience, Cheers Tiddley.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 936
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 5:25 am: |
|
Hi Tiddley,
I emailed you last week but have had no response as yet.
The Dear Boss and Saucy Jacky missives were most certainly from Jack the Ripper - but I'm not sure the real killer was quite clever enough to think up the name for himself.
I think the WM was too busy playing two other roles around the end of September - Leather Apron frequenting his Jewish clubs and finding a couple of whores to down, shortly followed by cockney lad sauntering down Goulston Street with chalk in pocket.
One-upmanship and frustration during October may have caused our WM to part with half his precious kidney to teach Lusk and his ilk a lesson for helping to make the streets too hot for a budding Jack.
By November, our WM was champing at the bit to try out the new name thrust upon him by his waiting public, and was ready if and when George Hutchinson sidled up to him, showing him a red hankie and a key, saying, "Let me get right to the point. I can see you are a man of distinction, a real big spender. How'd you like to spend a couple of hours in the company of an attractive young woman in her own room? The lady knows I have a nose for sniffing out the kind of rare gent she can trust in these troubling times. You will be more than comfortable, sir, I can assure you."
How could he have refused if that had happened? The press - and the newspaper-reading public - had already shown their penchant for horror stories and murder mysteries that come to life.
So 'Jack the Ripper' went to town and painted it red. No need to sign the work this time, no need for writing on the wall either. The message was written all over Mary Kelly for everyone to see:
"You asked for it, you got it, now analyse it."
And everyone is still trying to do just that, and work out the special significance to the WM of the final and most anonymous of his victims, all IMHO total strangers.
This was the WM's finest hour, giving the people what they appeared to be craving - the biggest horror story he could make come true, his own 9/11 (oddly 9th November this side of the pond).
I take it all back, AP. I think you are right when you have talked in the past about influences like literature and the media being able to make monsters into even bigger monsters.
Any thoughts anyone?
Love,
Caz
(Message edited by Caz on March 29, 2004) |
Tiddley boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - 6:18 am: |
|
Hi Caz, I got your e-mail at work but could not reply for some reason. Would be grateful if you try spiderworld@glowinternet.net I'm at that address usually once a week, and will get back to you. Many thanks Tiddley |
Bob Donovan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 9:32 am: |
|
First letter was written with good grammar except "mind me" which should be "mind my" in correct grammar. If so theorized that the letter was written by a reporter as a hoax, would it not be a grammatical error such as this?
And second letter containing all misspelling and poor syntax with enclosed kidney that was possibly from Eddowes...to prove this, did the "missing kidney" information become public or kept unrevealed within the investigation? Because if kept secret, how would the public know that there was a missing kidney thus creating a hoax by sending it to confuse the authorities? So the letter must be authentic and from JTR. |
Lisa
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 8:16 pm: |
|
If all the letters where writen by the same person, how is it that in one letter theres good grammer and spelling but in other letters the grammer and spelling is not as good? |
Brittany
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 10:52 pm: |
|
What strikes me as odd is Jack The Ripper must of been an educated man! Even though his letters had many spelling errors, he must have been trained in a particular field to have known what he was doing. I was watching "From Hell" today, and I found something very parcular. They said this man found where the kidney was in pitch black, so he must have known what he was doing at the time. I personally think it was someone from the royal family at the time because he kept referring to a "boss". Either this guy is dumb, or he is trying to hide his trails. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2667
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 1:10 pm: |
|
Brittany,
Firstly, the letters attributed to the Ripper are more or less declared hoaxes -- with the possible exception of the Lusk letter -- and we have indications, not least from the officers that investigated the case that the Dear Boss letter and the Saucy Jack letter were written by a journalist (the fact that they were sent to a press agency instead of directly to the police or the papers certainly implies this).
And be careful with taking anything in the From Hell movie seriously! The film is not based on facts but on complete fairy-tales, and some of the facts are full of errors. If they haven't had good researchers to their assistants there would have been even more errors!
The royal family had nothing whatsoever to do with the murders; that is all based on stories that has been dismissed later on thanks to research. From Hell is a fictional movie based on legends, not on facts.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 416
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 5:09 pm: |
|
Hi Brittany,
In addition to Glenn's post: the fact that the Ripper found the kidney in near pitch black darkness may in fact be an indication of the opposite of what you suggest, i.e. that he wasn't really looking for the kidney but just grabbed and cut out what felt good to him at the time.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2674
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 6:05 pm: |
|
That is what I believe too, Frank.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1470
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 7:42 am: |
|
Frank, Glenn,
On the whole Guys I agree.
Just the pitch black darkness that bites.
Was it?
Monty....who is back with a sore head, so no shouting eh ?
Fear.
Fear attracts the fearful. The strong. The weak. The innocent. The corrupt.
Fear.
Fear is my ally.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2677
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 9:28 am: |
|
Monty,
Was it... what?
Now you made my head hurt...
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1575
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 9:37 am: |
|
Monty,
was it?
hehe
Jenni
ps hi Glenn!
"All You Need Is Positivity"
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2679
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 10:31 am: |
|
Aha... now I see it.
Sorry Monty.
Yes... the pitch black darkness... maybe not pitch black, but certainly dark. According to Paul Begg, one of the gas lamps didn't work properly. Furthermore it was close to a wall, in a corner and with no light from the windows.
I'd say it was quite dark. And gas light hardly light up anything anyway; we have them in my town -- in an open air museum on certain streets -- and they light up nothing, they only give a very faint slur of light around the lamp itself, not on the ground.
Yes, I know the theories about Jack might have used a lamp but I don't consider this a possibility. Would have been too risky, and it would have made it easier for anyone to see that there was something going on if there was a spot of light as well -- I think he wanted to remain as unseen as possible while at work.
ps hi Jenni
All the best
G, Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on January 04, 2005)
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1472
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 11:29 am: |
|
Glenn,
Yes dark. Possibly too dark to look for anything specific.....but not too dark as not to see.
I am currently working on something regarding this subject which has been lying dormant on my PC for up to 2 months now. This mainly due to work commitments and the festive period. I have done quite a bit of research but it has now gotten to the stage where I feel I should let it go....thats another story.
Anyway, you and Paul are correct when you say one of the lamps was not working to its full capacity. The free standing lamp outside Kearly and Tonges was deficient. That is to state that the Gas supply to it was of a poor quality and not as a result of a poorly maintained lamp.
Therefore the light given would have been of a poor quality also. Even if all was correct with the lamp I was informed by a Gas lamp expert that the light given, on average, was as good as the light in your fridge.
I gave this guy a copy of Fosters map and his 3 conclusion were
1) Jack was an expert at finding organs in the dark (he hinted at a surgeon).
2) or he had a lamp. These were very cheap to maintain, operate and conceal due to their size. The only concern was that these lamps got pretty danm hot if used for a long period of time (another reason for the removal of the apron?....maybe). An interesting sidenote....it was suggested to me that the reason for the empty tin matchbox was because he used the matches to lite a lamp. Though it pained me, I had to point out that no burnt matches were found at the scene.
3) and finally, slightly going against his earlier conclusion, that in 1888, people were used to conducting their lives in such gloom. The organs were plucked at random as mentioned in Franks earlier posts.
Personally Id go along with the latter. Yes it was dark but there would have been enough ambient light to have conducted the murder to the degree it was conducted. A duff statement I know when you consider that is exactly what happend !
Its just the use of pitch black that annoys me...it wasnt pitch black.
That said, on this subject, I think we are tasting the same chicken.
Monty
"I tell you I didnt do it cos I wasnt there, so dont blame me it just isnt fair....now pass the blame and dont blame me..."- John Pizer
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2682
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 12:16 pm: |
|
Monty,
Just a pointer (and I dont want the discussion about light take over this thread):
I may not be a gas lamp expert, but as a 19th century historian I am not completely ignorant on the subject, and based on what I personally have seen from gas street lamps so far -- no, they hardly produces any light comparable to a fridge whatsoever. Unless his own fridge needs to be thrown out.
Gas light is completely inefficient and practically useless for street purposes. But OK, I can acknowledge the point of quality of the gas -- this could of course be a valid point.
But from the numerous accounts I have from the 19th century, the uselessness of the gas light outdoor at nighttime is often referred to as a great problem, and from what I have seen myself, I am not impressed.
No, the street gas lamps don't give the same amount of light as a fridge -- not by far.
That being said, regarding your alternatives, I am inclined to agree about the third and last one as well. I think people at the time were used to the gloom and insufficient light.
It would hardly be enough in order to provide light suitable for a deliberate operation of this kind, but I agree that this further points to the fact the Ripper probably picked his organs at random. Of course he may have been especially interested in the uterus (there are some signs on that) but we have a lot of practical factors to consider; insufficient light, time problems, the risk of being spotted etc.
Monty, although I am as far from a vegetarian one can possibly get, I am afraid I don't eat chicken...
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1474
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 4:27 am: |
|
Glenn,
I tell you what, I'll give you this guys number and you can argue the toss with him.
Being completely oblivious to this subject I contacted the British Gas museum guys here in Leicester earlier this year. They inturn pointed me in the direction of a Staffordshire chap who they regard as an expert on this subject. This Person has operated Gas lamps and Im sure he has read the very same accounts you have read. I am merely relaying the information (information clarified by the Museum guys) he gives. That is, on average (and I think thats the crux here....average because each lamp, company and system varied), the Gas lamps would have given out as much light as a modern fridge light. That in itself is very little is it not?
Gas lamps were merely markers along a street. They gave little light and were at best used as guides.
At the end of the day, we will never know for certain the lighting situation in Mitre Square that night/morning.
You last paragraph....ok, were seem to be eating the same nut cutlets !
Monty
PS Sorry for hijacking this thread....no more posts from me off topic.
PPS I have also been in contact with Bob Hinton whose own experiments concure with your, nay our views.....that the lamps were not very useful to see with.
PPPS....so much for my PS !!
"I tell you I didnt do it cos I wasnt there, so dont blame me it just isnt fair....now pass the blame and dont blame me..."- John Pizer
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2689
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 5:30 am: |
|
Monty,
I still think that guy needs to get a new fridge.
Or else they just simply had much better gas power and quality in UK than they had in good old Sweden.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1475
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 7:46 am: |
|
Glenn,
And I still think you are entitled to your opinion.
However correct that may be.
Regards,
Monty
"I tell you I didnt do it cos I wasnt there, so dont blame me it just isnt fair....now pass the blame and dont blame me..."- John Pizer
|
Robert W. House
Inspector
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 160
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 9:40 am: |
|
Hello,
May I kick this dead horse one time?
On the subject of gas lamps, how exactly did they work? Is it an open flame, or is it in something like the mantle found in a coleman lantern? Here in Boston, we have some gas streetlamps in Charlestown, but I suspect these are more high-tech modern replicas, and not like the Victorian era version. In any case, I would imagine the gas streetlamps of 1888 London were stronger than, say, a candle. I would guess they were at least equivalent to 5 or 10 candles in strength. So they must have given some illumination (although dim) to the surrounding area. I am picturing something like my antique oil lamp, but stronger.
Rob |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1477
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 10:52 am: |
|
Rob,
http://www.victorianlondon.org/menu-lighting.htm#
http://www.victorianlondon.org/menu-lighting.htm#
http://www.gasmuseum.co.uk/distribution.htm
Does this help?
Monty
PS Also
http://www.victorianlondon.org/lighting/history.htm
I think this shortcut maybe the most helpful to you.
(Message edited by monty on January 05, 2005)
"I tell you I didnt do it cos I wasnt there, so dont blame me it just isnt fair....now pass the blame and dont blame me..."- John Pizer
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1478
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 11:13 am: |
|
Rob,
Cannot get the shortcut to work but check out 'distribution'.
Let me know if you cannot locate it.
Monty
"I tell you I didnt do it cos I wasnt there, so dont blame me it just isnt fair....now pass the blame and dont blame me..."- John Pizer
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 10:16 am: |
|
To me the Whitechapel murders reek of a sleazy guy killing fallen, tipsy women, in a sordid way. he came out of the dark and went backinto the dark. Personally, I doubt very much that he wrote dramatic letters - assuming he could write at all - or knew where to send them. His was a private mania.
The tapes with the Geordie accent proved a red-herring for police in the Yorkshire Ripper case IIRC, and I think the alleged JtR letters are a similar distraction in this case.
This is all MHO of course. But the one positive thing that has come out of Cornwall's expensive mistake has been to show that Sickert may have written several letters. To me this indicates: a) that writing pseudo-"Jack" letters may have been something of a "craze" for some misguided people; and b) that educated men went in for the craze.
The ONLY piece of correspondence I see as remotely likely to have come from the Ripper is the "Lusk" letter, and THAT relates only to the genuineness of the kidney. But I suspect an enterprising journalist heard of the missing kidney and filled in the gap. Our imagination has done the rest just as that journalist knew it would.
The Ripper correspondence is something we would all, I think, LIKE to be genuine. (I'm being ironic!!) How much more macabre the case becomes. How much more cunning and sophisticated the killer - how it suits his reputation.
But on closer analysis, doesn't the desire to "believe in" the letters come from the same immature side of our characters that makes us want to embrace royal conspiracies and self-confessing diaries? It is more exciting than the mundane truth...
That behind the myth of JtR probably lies a nasty, illiterate, and loathsome maniac, crying out in wordless but devillish, frustration and rage to a world from which he was utterly alientated.
Not that I have a theory, but I DO feel the letters relate more to the toff" suspects, rather than the immigrant slum-dwellers.
Phil |
sauce
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 5:22 am: |
|
SOS ALL,
I am desparate for an answer. The picture of the Saucy Jacky postcard has the post office processing stamps on it.If it was a hoaxer, he would have had to have read the paper on monday morning and posted the card the same day.Was it possible for a letter, in 1888, to be processed and delivered within the confines of a working day i.e. within the space of hours only.I live in a modern country, and even the fastest Express post can not do this in 2005.I am doubtful that this postcard could have been posted and recieved by the CNA on that monday. Can some one who knew the system in 1888 help me out here.
Also, judging by the content of the communication, the person clearly wrote it on Sunday, saying " you'll hear about my work tommorow" .This indicates that he meant the details of the 'Double event' could be read by the public in mondays paper, indicating a certain amount of pride in his hobby also.
If the post card could not be processed and delivered by the posty in a matter of hours, as I said above, and due to the content, it must have been sent on Sunday. With no details avalable to the public until monday , this is a strong factor that the postcard was actually from the killer.
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 568
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 - 6:54 pm: |
|
Hi Sauce,
I just noticed your post. Here are my two cents concerning the postcard.
According to Philip Sugden's "The Complete History of JtR", the Star of 1 October 1888 and the Times of the next day, the Central News Agency received the postcard on the morning of 1 October. There was no date on the card but it had a postmark dated 1 October, which means that it was processed on Monday morning, too. Unfortunately, it’s simply impossible to say for sure when exactly the card was mailed.
But it doesn’t really matter when exactly that was or how quickly the Post Office processed and delivered it. First of all, a hoaxer could have picked up the news anywhere in the street on Sunday (news travelled fast). Secondly, there seem to have been several Sunday newspapers that carried the news about the ‘double event’ (Lloyd’s Weekly News was one of them). It seems that pressmen swarmed around the district to gather news on the murders. So, if a hoaxer was responsible, he had all Sunday to gather news and to write & mail the postcard.
If you ask me, anyone who was in the East End on Sunday or anyone who had a little interest in the case could have written the saucy Jacky postcard.
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
pippa grover
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 3:49 pm: |
|
Does anyone seem to think that a real gentleman would never write with such bad spelling mistakes, and maybe the puiblic and the police automaticly gave the name 'Jack' to the serial killer, maybe 'Jack' knew he would never be caught because they were lokking for a man and not a woman, maybe 'Jack' was really 'Jacky' ? |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
