|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through April 12, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Letters: General Discussion:
"From Hell" - What Might It Mean?:
Archive through April 12, 1999
Author: D. Radka
Monday, 01 March 1999 - 11:50 pm |        | Hello All,
It seems to this aging, bald, pointed, and freckled head that not addressed in the foregoing is the counterfeit perspective, or caricature of consciousness implicit in the letters. You can feel great talking of science, facts, and tangible evidence if you wish--but I still think philosophy solves this case. I remember what the college campus was like--the future programmers, executives, teachers and scientists all thought they knew something--but the phiolosophy majors knew how to think in ways the rest didn't.
It is not unimportant to consider what the letters subjectively sound like, and to analyze the modes of our consciousness as we read them. They sound to me like a description of somebody having a high old time running around Whitechapel killing and mutilating people. Because this description corresponds to what Heckle would tell Jeckle the murderer would be feeling and doing, the letters hold little interest for me. Surely they were written by people who wanted to sound like the murderer in the ears of other people.
Now the Graffito and the Lusk Letter, that's different. They are short, terse, not floridly descriptive, possibly singly purposeful. Nobody is thinking about how Jack the Ripper would be dreaming up the wording as these are being written. Plus each comes equipped with a piece of physical evidence; the Graffito Eddowes' apron, the Lusk Letter a kidney.
"Just my opinion" you say? The philosopher versus the scientist.
David |
Author: Caroline
Tuesday, 02 March 1999 - 11:49 am | | Hi David,
Physical appearance is unimportant to me so long as the brain and sense of humour is alive and well. Good to see you old chap.
Now then, you talk of physical evidence. The apron and the kidney and all the letters (yes all 50,000 or however many there were) are all 'evidence' by nature of their very existence. What we have to do is make sense of the evidence, and only eliminate the bits which we can, not by opinion or speculation as to 'likelihood' of being irrelevant to JtR etc, but by matching everything up with the 'real' facts of the case.
There aren't an awful lot of these to go on, so elimination becomes subjective and a perilous business. I would only apply philosophy to the science (including the 'written' evidence) afterwards in order to add a dash of je ne sais quoi to an otherwise rather plain little script.
Do I take it that the letters and the English suspect are not dreamt of in your philosophy?
I'm beginning to think there are more things in heaven and earth etc....
Love,
Caroline |
Author: Caroline
Tuesday, 02 March 1999 - 11:51 am | | David,
You are not Mr Burns from the Simpsons are you?
Please don't take offence, none is intended.
Love,
The sweat-oozing Amazon |
Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 02 March 1999 - 11:56 am | | Hi David,
Indeed the bit about Eddowes's apron bit and the graffiti strikes a bit of a chord with me. Well could it be that the graffito was there before Jack, but this is the one case where Jack left an obvious clue.
He had taken a bit of apron, presumably to clean knife and/or hands. If he had chalk and could write in the darkness, the bit of apron was then intentionally thrown there to substantiate the message, even if it subsequently wasn't understood. Why could this be?
Stride's murder was different in many ways to the other four cans. Alone the type of cut to the throat was markedly different. Although I don't hold Stride as a direct victim of Jack himself, I do feel there is some connection between Stride's and Eddowes's killings. The same night, even within a few hours. If Jack, being irritated in some way by the non-Jack killing of Stride or even planning it that way, wanted to show the world that this is Jack's work, he could have taken chalk with him and deliberately left the apron bit with the message.
Why such a message? Would Jack have any profit from shoving blame on the Jews? Could he have written so plainly in what must have been complete darkness, or did he have a lantern with him? No one can look inside Jack's head, but I would have expected a different message from Jack himself, claiming the responsibility, not shoving it on others.
Of course such points to the above as hiding one's tracks, setting false trails etc. are all quite valid, but they just don't match to the MO of the crimes themselves. Jack is cheeky, audacious, maybe even reckless. Why then try to put the blame elsewhere like some nasty schoolboy?
Often I have read about persons and wide-awake hats. Liz Stride's pipeman. The man who ask for Lusk's address before the parcel arrived. A number of other cases. If the bit about Jack intentionally leaving a clue because of Stride is correct, then he knew about Stride, had prepared himself with chalk, found and cut Eddowes, wrote the message and all within a short period of time. How? Pipeman.... was Jack. One explanation, anyway.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 02 March 1999 - 12:04 pm | | Hi Caroline,
We're online together. How's the lead dustbins?
Love,
Bob |
Author: Caroline
Wednesday, 03 March 1999 - 04:43 am | | Bob,
Refresh my old brain cells, what were the lead dustbins?
Nasty schoolboy sounds good to me. My suspect for JtR1 was a daredevil child, whose proclivities for fireworks and suchlike nearly blew up his childhood home! My JtR2 was anti-Semitic and not a very accomplished writer, so maybe JtR1 was covering his arse again. I think Pipeman (and Schwartz too possibly) were heavily in the mire, and Eddowes was not an afterthought at all.
JtR1 sounds much too 'fly for a white guy' but we shall have to see.
Yesterday I found a whole lot more things he got up to under our noses, so I'm really very excited about it all.
Love,
Caroline |
Author: Bob_c
Wednesday, 03 March 1999 - 06:53 am | | Hi Caroline,
Late today, I've been running all round the town trying to find someone who can make abberation-corrected low reflective surface coated gold-base front surfaced infra-red cylinder mirrors, but no luck. (Honest!)
Lead dustbins are the feet of sweat-oozing amazons.
Love,
Bob |
Author: Caroline
Wednesday, 03 March 1999 - 11:10 am | | Thanks Bob, had a feeling they would be.
My lead dustbins are size 4, so you wouldn't fit much rubbish in my shoes. Ugggh, I've just taken a look at them and they are no pretty sight. Still traces of electric blue nail polish applied last summer, and it brings us nicely back to the cheese shop again.
Between my last post and this, I've found some more 'evidence' which will knock everyone's socks off, it did mine, hence the bare feet! I just stopped myself from throwing up (nothing to do with smelly feet though).
Love,
Caroline |
Author: Calogridis
Sunday, 21 March 1999 - 01:30 am | | Yaz and the Gang,
Many good ideas on the Lusk letter! Yaz, with regards to your initial note on this topic (what is the meaning of "From Hell"?), I prefer the second choice- the writer is hopelessly tormented. But I can see the other perspective, as the Ripper would be evil incarnate. I've always thought this letter had the best chance to be genuine, with the Ripper dismissing his public nom de guerre.
If genuine and honest, the letter would imply that the Ripper was a Victorian Dahmer, frying up half the kidney for dinner. I always wondered what he would say to the police if they caught him in the streets with those body parts. It's my lucky kidney, guvnor. I always carry it with me! ... Best wishes, Mike |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 21 March 1999 - 08:22 am | | Hey, Mike!
Thanks. I think the writer, if he was the murderer and not a joker, meant to explain his own emotional state, but also to draw his reader(s) into the same place...to scare them and to make them feel what he thinks he's feeling.
Yaz |
Author: D. Radka
Sunday, 21 March 1999 - 08:43 pm | | I've got a different view from the Yazoolian one on this point (although I appreciate where he's coming from.)
I think the murderer wanted exactly the opposite of letting people know how he felt about anything. He was personally secretive and exhibitionistically deceptive. What he gave you to look at was entirely different from what you would have seen if you met him personally. That's why they didn't catch him.
David |
Author: Calogridis
Monday, 22 March 1999 - 01:06 am | | Hi Yaz, David!
Bloody good word David- exhibitionistically! Yaz, I agree that the writer wants to take the reader into the murky labyrinth of his own mind. David, I concur that the letter is very likely to have been written by the Ripper. You're also on the money with the deceptive qualities of the writer. I sense a sneering and comic attitude as well. I find it hard to glean any meaningful clues from the letter. Thanks for the input.....Mike |
Author: Calogridis
Thursday, 01 April 1999 - 11:31 pm | | Howdy All!
Phil Sugden mentions an interesting story in relation to the Lusk letter. On Monday, 15 October, a day before the letter and kidney were delivered to Lusk, Miss Emily Marsh of Mile End was minding her father's store when a curious gent came in to get Lusk's address, having spotted a Vigilance Committee reward bill in the window. He was described as about forty-five, six feet tall, slender, with a sallow complexion. He kept his face down while he was writing the address that she read to him, and he had a furtive appearance. Although he was very different from supposed eye-witness sightings, he seems a curious egg?! How many letters did Lusk get per day? Could it have just been coincidence that he and the Ripper mailed their letters on the same day. Food for thought, though I realize with the hysteria of the East End it might not be anything meaningful.
Cheers.........Mike |
Author: Walter
Friday, 09 April 1999 - 03:44 pm | | Pardon me for not being quite the expert in this matter, for my ignorance will also show soon enough, but I do have a question. Everyone seems to presuppose that Jack the Ripper was a physician evident by the skill associated with the extraction of the kidney. However, could the same level of expertise not also have been displayed by someone of the butcher profession? Their intimate knowledge of anatomy, very likely not human, but with their already established skill, easily learned and applied, would seem to facilitate such a position. This position would also lend credence to the Lusk letter, which was obviously written by someone of less education and refers to the consumption of the item.
Yet, to counter my own argument, writing letters, to me, almost seems premeditated in the fact that you must consciously think about what you are doing (i.e. be acting with complete control) to perform the act of murder and remember to write about it later. If any of these letters are in fact genuine 'Jack the Ripper,' for an uneducated citizen to write them would surely have been a task. Would not they have allowed their 'work' to stand alone? This makes me surmise that someone of education obviously wrote the letters, either (from some of the letters) letting their obvious intelligence show, or consciously concealing their academic prowess (evident by other letters). One could argue that serial killers of today are not always the best educated, but I contend that even so, they do receive a mandatory minimum level of education in the public school system and are exposed to literature in today's societal plethora to pick it up. I may be wrong, but I do not believe that that level of exposure was prevalent in 1888.
So what have I done? Created a paradox. Any thoughts? |
Author: Caroline
Saturday, 10 April 1999 - 03:55 am | | I have another paradox.
If it were not for the letters, I wonder if the police would have simply rounded up each of the victim's known partners, as in the case of William Bury, and convicted them, instead of thinking our Jack was at work. The likes of Michael Kidney, John Kelly and Joe Barnett would possibly have been dead and buried by the legal system before anyone decided to look into the similarities, mutilations etc. among the women. I may be wrong, but I also get the impression that the five canonical victims got far greater press coverage right from the discovery of Nichol's body, than would other East End murders that looked 'domestic' (I loathe that term, it sounds so dismissive of the victim somehow). So was our Jack in on the reporting side of things to ensure saturation coverage of his 'derring do'?
Yet another oddity is that, if our Jack was really intelligent, and he did pen a Yours Truly letter or two, he should have thought twice, and just let the 'usual suspects' carry the can (as they probably would today, cynical me talking!) The paradox here seems to be that he just could not resist getting the attention he thought he deserved, along with a tad more than the 15 minutes of infamy!
Just my Saturday morning thoughts.
Love,
Caroline |
Author: Calogridis
Saturday, 10 April 1999 - 06:24 pm | | Howdy Caroline, Walter!
Walter, good point about the butchers. One of the most logical theories has always been that the Ripper was a butcher, slaughterman, or shochet. This would account for his apparent dexterity in mutilation.
Though I am inclined to believe the "From Hell" letter is the only authentic one, there is that belief by the FBI's John Douglas and other detectives that none of the letters are real. Most criminals like the Ripper, they feel, would avoid calling attention to themselves.
Cheers.......Mike |
Author: Caroline
Sunday, 11 April 1999 - 05:53 am | | Howdy Mike and Walt,
The butcher subject brings me back to the bit about getting away with wearing a bloody apron and being able to hide the gory evidence, maybe in a tray of cat's meat (everybody groans when THAT subject is broached!), as Jack slopes off into that offally good night for a Kate and Sydney pie....all right, I'm going to lunch!
Love,
Caroline |
Author: D. Radka
Sunday, 11 April 1999 - 12:46 pm | | I went fishing today, and caught some trout. I put the entrails into a pot as I cleaned the fish, and brought it to the back yard to bury them in the garden. As I did, I thought of the post above.
David |
Author: Caz
Monday, 12 April 1999 - 06:26 am | | Hi David,
Butcher? fisherman? Same sort of difference really. Question: if you fished at night, with little light, could you gut your catch with equal precision as in daylight? (Can you guess where this is leading?)
One more question: what sort of fish would you recommend to tickle the tastebuds of a serious fish and seafood addict? I like a nice John Dory with melon balls and melon liqueur sauce (also Carly's fave dish currently).
Can't partake tonight, though. I'm off to Wembley to see UB40 in concert, but there will be plenty of Red Red Wine I expect....
Love,
Caz |
Author: Walter
Monday, 12 April 1999 - 11:13 am | | Okay, another odd question from the novice... what was the cost of post in 1888? Would the average citizen have wasted precious coinage for a letter or postcard? My intent is to take a reinvigorated look at the situation and determine who legistically would have the resources to carry this foley.
However, that is to say that I believe at least some of the letters to be authentic. I remain skeptical on that point. I failing on evidence as of now, so I will wait until I have formulated my thoughts further.
Thanks for the tolerance.
Walter |
|
|
|
|
