|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
One Last "Dear Boss" Letter
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Letters: General Discussion:
One Last "Dear Boss" Letter
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 29 November 1998 - 01:47 am |        | The date on the letter that Stewart Evans kindly provided (BUY HIS BOOK...letter fans -- both of us, me and whoever's reading this --owe this man) bothered me. There is supposedly another "Dear Boss" letter found by Robert Smith, the publisher of Shirley Harrison's The Diary of Jack the Ripper. (Another word from my sponsors...don't drag them negative "diary" waves into this post...now back to my little show.)
I know nothing about handwriting analysis and couldn't tell you if any or all these letters/card came from the same person. Some people say they do. I'll assume they are correct. And God knows there may be 400 letters in "the same hand"...making my little exercise even more stupid than it already is.
I want to direct your attention to the posting date of this "fourth(?)" letter. October 6. Stewart's letter was posted October 5.
The first letter and the follow-up postcard were posted several days apart -- not as close as the third and fourth, but still not weeks/months apart (first=9-27-88; second=10-1-98). Here, if all belong to the same hand, the third and fourth are a day apart. Whether a press hoax, a nut case, or the actual murderer...the follow-up posts make a pattern. The writer is never quite finished with what he wants to say. And in the case of the fourth letter, the tension and agitation underlying the letter Stewart provided us breaks out openly and violently. There is no salutation at all on the fourth letter. It contains the same empty threats, the same overt obsessive reference to "little game(s)" (jokes, in the third letter). He even claims again he'll keep his word when he never has so far in this series. The violent contents (he's much more serious about mayhem in this letter) and the shortening of the interval between postings of these two letters suggests a sense of urgency/agitation in the writer.
Harrison speculates the letter is addressing one of the witnesses from the night of Sept. 30/Oct. 1. How convenient for me. Who is he talking to and why so violently and urgently? I have no idea.
What does all this prove? Nothing...just a lament that -- in the absence of a real, bona fide police investigation into the "press hoax" to establish these letters as in fact a hoax rather than conjecturally a hoax -- an opportunity may have been missed to get just a little closer to the murderer/sender. The letters may be bogus or worthless for a thousand reasons. We'll never know because we picked one reason 110 years ago and few have varied from it since. The wicked press did it! In fairness to the 1888 police, they did publish facsimiles of the first letter and card. They tried; they simply lacked our "experience" with even basic psychology and certainly profiling. Freud was still putzing with cocaine in 1888!
I'll ask the same question in closing as I asked when a few of us were talking about the first letter/card: Knowing what we know today about the desire/need of some serial killers to communicate with the press, police, or public; in the absence of any evidence that a genuine investigation was conducted to establish the letters as a "press hoax" (or any other kind of hoax); as others have already established, the press and public were focused on all the killings -- making a tempting audience for a communicative killer; would we so easily dismiss these letters as a hoax rather than POTENTIAL clues to the mind (no, not the identity...sorry) of the murderer?
There's no point in discussing the letters any further. The point is already moot...the opportunity is 110 years past. Time to move on.
Yaz |
Author: Chris George
Thursday, 03 December 1998 - 09:17 am | | Hello, Yaz:
Because I am developing a paper on the Jack the Ripper letters for presentation hopefully at our planned Ripper convention in the year 2000, I am very keen to keep the dialog going on this topic.
The third [October 5] "Dear Boss" letter was evidently transcribed by T. J. Bulling of the Central News Agency and sent to Chief Constable Williamson. As Evans and Gainey noted in "Jack the Ripper: First American Serial Killer" (p. 99), "In many ways it devalues the earlier letter [September 25] and postcard [undated but postmarked October 1] and indicates that the author was not the murderer."
Stewart and Gainey's conclusion in regard to the third letter is reasonable. After all, this October 5 writer predicts a "treble event" the next day which did not occur. Nor did he send "a bit of face by post" as promised. Even after the Mary Jane Kelly murder on November 9, in which the killer sliced off the face of the victim, the "bit of face by post" did not arrive. Because of these unfulfilled promises, Evans and Gainey discount the series of letters. The "double event" the writer had predicted in the postcard may have been either a lucky guess coinciding with the murders of Elizabeth Stride and Catharine Eddowes or the postcard was written by someone other than the killer who had heard of the two murders and wrote the postcard after the double event but before it was widely known.
The threats in the letter of October 6 to dispose of the witness, which Shirley Harrison believes to have been "Joseph Lawende, Israel Schwartz or another equally annoying witness" [The Diary of Jack the Ripper, p. 91] also did not occur. But what we can say based on the reproduction of this letter side by side with the original September 25 "Dear Boss" communication in Harrison's book, is that the writing appears to be identical.
If not the killer, the writer of the October 6 letter seems to betray a disturbed personality, and the letter shows us a writer who appears less in control than when he wrote the first neatly written communication. It contains a number of spelling errors and ink blots not evident in the first neater letter as well as missing words as if the writer was scribbling it in anger. It is also not as well punctuated as the first communication.
The writer remains boastful and again seems to make predictions that did not come about, so this letter again appears to cast doubt on whether the communications came from the killer. On the other hand, the existence of this letter appears to weigh against the theory that a journalist was responsible for these communications despite the claims of the police officials.
The letter lacks the salutation "Dear Boss" but the handwriting establishes it as part of the same series:
6 October 1888
You though[t] your self very clever I reckon when you informed the police[.] But you made a mistake if you though[t] 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 [is] no use your trying to get out of my way[.] Because I have you when you dont expect it and I keep my word as you [will] soon see and rip you up.
Yours truly
Jack the Ripper
You see I know your address. |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 03 December 1998 - 10:25 am | | Hey, Chris.
It is evil of you to draw me back into troubled waters but you, more than the others here, know how close these letters are to my withered little stone of a heart.
Remember, I don't argue for the validity of these letters from any predictive content or any special knowledge that only the murderer would know. The "Dear Boss" writer is obviously insecure (why write a letter and then fairly quickly follow-up with another post?). He obviously wants to make an impression but he constantly fails if you check his threats/promises/warnings with what actually happened. The writer is obviously not in control of events...though he wants the recipient to think he is. This may be conclusive evidence to most (if not all) researchers that these letters were a hoax (from the press or a nut case).
But, if it can be shown or accepted that all four letters came from the same source, the letters do show a persistence, even an obsession, with themes consistently his own: braggadocio, empty threats, taunts, jeers, "sauciness." There are circumstantial correspondences between the letters and the murders. (See my postings on the "fourth" letter -- both in the religious conversion and the possibility of extremely sick and disgusting "playfulness" or "jokes" at the Kelly murder scene. Also, if you attempt to match what what going on in the public press with the contents (especially the dates) you find other circumstantial correspondence.
I don't think we discussed this before -- and here comes some MIGHTY speculation and controversy -- but all the letters and the Goulston St. graffito, and the "Lusk" letter may be tied to a speculative scenario: (Here comes a whole lotta speculation...)
The murderer we call "JtR" was two men. They grew up together, or at least known each other for a sufficient period of time to have (pardon the pun) "bonded." Whether just the two of them or in concert with a gang, they may have found violence obsessively appealing...especially against women, or women prostitutes. The dynamic in these crimes is not really centered on the victim at all, rather on the comraderie, the male-bonding, the energy between these two men.
These two eventually jetison the others (if they ever were in a gang), and their violence begins to escalate...further speculation on what kind of violence and against whom isn't important at the moment. They eventually commit the Nichols, then the Chapman murders. They are extremely successful in this method, being neither conclusively seen before/during/after the crime. The press and populace begins or escalates dramatically a cycle of hysteria over these and other murders. Our boys read the papers. Since the dynamic of their crimes is not centered on "sex" or "women" or "prostitutes" -- though these items are very much associated in what and why they do what they did -- but between each other and their society, an idea forms after Chapman's murder. Why not manipulate, strike at, and scare the public even more? But how? By a direct message from the "murderer" to the public and press.
The brighter, more talkative "Dear Boss" letter writer might think his letter and either coining or accepting the appellation "Jack the Ripper" is the message. The duller, more pragmatic (and more frightening -- perhaps the hand that actually performed the killing, though not necessarily all the mutilations) -- writer of the "Lusk" letter thinks that the message should be given at the scene of the murder.
The "Dear Boss" writer has larger concerns, he's playing to a larger audience via the CNA, so off goes his first letter. Then we have both the fiasco and the sickening "triumph" of the double event. The "Lusk" letter writer has a narrower audience in mind -- the residents, specifically the leaders, of the Whitechapel community. The Stride murder is committed in proximity to a Jewish/Socialist club. It is a botched attempt, uncompleted. Both men flee that scene. They next find Eddowes. That murder is more successful but, as with the site of Stride's murder, it leaves no time or safety for the "Lusk" writer to write what he thinks is the message they agreed on. It is the "Lusk" writer who carries the chalk that night and whose concerns center around anti-semitism and a message literally scrawled over a victim's body. The "Dear Boss" writer either knows nothing of this or thinks he's dismissed it from his partner's mind.
They flee Mitre Square. Perhaps it is their method to walk separately through Whitechapel, coming to one another's assistance if the other is accosted. Or they walk together. The "Lusk" letter writer's business for that night is still not finished. They were supposed to send Whitechapel a message with their next murder. He stops in the doorway in Goulston St. Either the "Dear Boss" writer doesn't know (which is more likely) or can't stop his partner from scrawling the idiotic message and positioning it as close as he can to the piece of Eddowes' apron -- he's made the connection between his murder and his "message." The night ends.
The other letters from the "Dear Boss" writer are futile attempts to "correct" or "contextualize" the idiotic Goulston St. message and the botched, witnessed murder of Stride. Both his sense of superiority and invincibility are threatened by both...hence, his "religious" mania, which is quickly dropped, and then his hysteria over eyewitnesses.
Since this is all speculation anyway, it could also be that the dynamic between the two men is severely strained by the miscommunication between themselves over who was to write a message and what it contained. The "Lusk" writer does not use "Jack the Ripper" on the graffitto or the "Lusk" letter -- another point of potential disagreement. Could this strain also be causing the hysteria in the "Dear Boss" letter writer?
The "Lusk" letter and package is the counterpoint to the series of "Dear Boss" letters. It is simple, direct, only dully humorous, and it comes with the authoritative package of half a human kidney...a fact that "Dear Boss" only keeps promising and never delivers.
October is a month spent in arguing and planning...against eyewitnesses, against separation and miscommunication. This time they'll kill in private and stay closely together. Kelly is found, not for who she was as a person, but because she possessed a "private" room. What happens after that is described in my posts on the fourth letter. But the ultimate end is that "Jack the Ripper" may have lost that comraderie, that male bonding dynamic, and argued. They separated. They never "worked" together again. Perhaps some of the later murders with some similarity to "JtR" methods (knife, cut to throat, cause of death) may be due to -- I heap speculation atop speculation -- the less efficient, less ominous "Dear Boss" writer trying to continue the "work," recapture the immediate thrill of headlines/fame as "JtR" slips into legend.
Sorry for the length and all the speculation. Maybe some of these ideas might start some others for you when you write your paper. (And try not to laugh too loud at all this...I'm sens-i-tive!)
Good luck on the paper,
Yaz |
Author: Bob_c
Thursday, 03 December 1998 - 11:14 am | | Hi Yaz,
Do I hear a sensitive soul speaking of thoughts concerning Jacks the rippers, my pet 'apprentice' theory?
The ideas about a parting at some time after Kelly was murdered causing an apparent change in MO and signature answers one of the problems I had with my theme.... why did Jack stop? It also answers another point. The apparent difference between Jack and his violent actions compared to e.g. the boastful tones of the letters he is supposed to have written.
Incidently, the excellent information from Stewart concerning the Lusk letter episode with the supposed Eddowes kidney does not include a physicians remark anywhere concerning Brights Disease. Does anyone know the source of this information? Did the kidney definitely show this disease?
Bob |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 03 December 1998 - 11:54 am | | Hey, Bob
Mine is a speculation based solely on another series of speculations regarding the genuineness of both the "Dear Boss" correspondence and the "Lusk" letter/package. It's what some people in the corporate world I flounder in call a "Straw Man." A straw man is simply a position paper, subject to major and minor revisions, deletions, additions, or a total rewrite. I confess I never thought of the "second" man as an apprentice, and still don't. They were equals...it's one of the dynamics of their existence, of what they did, and one of the dynamics of their going out of existence.
The details of the kidney are offered by several doctors of the time. Stewart added the detail that the renal artery appeared to have been shaven down...I think he says comletely, but I don't know if all the contemporary sources agree.
The kidney evokes the so-called "Medical Student" hoax. Similar to the "Press Hoax" theory behind the "Dear Boss" letters little or no fruitful investigation seems to corroborate this theory -- it's just accepted as 'proven.' It seems human body parts could fly back and forth in the British mails of 1888 with scarcely a second thought as to a single portion of one human kidney's uniqueness.
Yaz |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 03 December 1998 - 12:09 pm | | Profile Enthusiasts, take note.
Somewhere buried in the Casebook somebody raised an important issue about the lack of "profiling" taking into consideration time period/culture/other factors. I think here too we need to be careful of anachronism. Profiling is relatively new and is based on interviews with modern serial killers. We take for granted a society that is highly mobile, more private -- anonymous even, fewer communication and entertainment options, no instantaneous news-sharing (via just TV and radio, for example), and other modern factors.
With JtR we need to understand as much as we can about the society he lived in, the world around that society. It would appear that, in opposition to the society of a modern "profiled" serial killer, JtR's world was much less mobile, much more public, less anonymous, more "social" (as opposed to us sitting alone with our keyboards, nattering on the Internet, for one example). There are many more: including literacy, the expansion of affordable newspapers/magazines...J. Barnett's homely little scene reading the papers to Mary Kelly may not be so anomolous as it may seem. Much more of life was lived and seen in the public eye than today. That's one reason why modern serial killers are much more successful and numerous.
Without writing a thesis on the subject, my little speculations try to take into account my understanding of JtR's social, political, economic milieu. It's one reason why I think the killings were much more of a public act rather than the more narrower concerns of a modern serial killer...though I do not believe these private concerns/manias/obsessions were completely lacking in JtR's crimes.
Yaz |
Author: Christopher T. George
Thursday, 03 December 1998 - 01:04 pm | | Hello Yaz:
Yes saucy Chrissy is at work bringing up the question yet again of Saucy Jacky's letters.
In all, according to Shirley Harrison's "The Diary of Jack the Ripper" (Hyperion first U.S. edition), p. 86, the JtR letters comprised "a flood of 2,000 copycat communications, which have never been fully investigated." Lucky us, eh, Yaz?
"I love my work on the Jack the Ripper letters, and I will not stop until I do get buckled."
(Or carted away in a white van, eh, Yaz?)
So at the moment we are concerned with this small series starting with the "Dear Boss" letter of September 25 not the copycats that followed. I appreciate your in-depth theorizing that there might have been a two-man team at work who wrote the Dear Boss letters and Lusk letter between them and may even have conceived the Goulston Street graffito.
It is interesting to think that IF the Goulston Street graffito was written by the killer (or, by your theory, one of a two man killing team) immediately after the murder of Elizabeth Stride, the fact that Stride was murdered outside a Jewish socialist club may be reflected in the wording "The Jewes are not the men that will not be blamed for nothing." The wording may have been a direct attempt to lay blame on the Jews for the killing.
I also think the theory that the Dear Boss letters were the work of an "enterprising London journalist" [Sir Robert Anderson's words], as bandied about by the police in a rather self-satisfied manner, is knocked on the head by the third and fourth Dear Boss communications rather than confirmed by them. The initial letter and postcard are clear-cut and seem written to heighten the scare consistent with what we would conceive to be the aim of a journalist to increase newspaper sales, but the third and then the fourth bring in ingredients inconsistent with such an objective. Moreover, our writer in the fourth letter is evidently much disturbed to know he was seen and it is difficult to see how the journalist 1) could have so successfully conjured up the distress and 2) how it would aid newspaper sales. No, we either have here another letter from Jack or someone else other than a journalist who is very disturbed and thinks they are Jack. Curiouser and curiouser. Let us carry on with our hunt down these mean East End Streets, Yaz.
Chris George |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 03 December 1998 - 01:22 pm | | Chris, this is getting back to basics, huh? For us at least.
Further suppositions that lead AWAY from a journalist hoax is that the letters so frequently mention things that are never delivered. It was a much safer hoax to play up the scare factors (including that pesky missing -- this one's for you, Bob -- (yuletide) insanity clause). From the first broken promise, the hoax would have -- I suppose our opponents would say, DID -- fall apart.
I still don't think we'll ever "prove" anything. The opportunity existed in 1888, and even then it was probably beyond the current means of detection the police had at their disposal. All we can do is theorize, carefully, from our modern "knowledge" of serial killer antics to what the evidence/artifacts show.
If anybody else knows of letters "proven" or "believed by contemporaries" to have come from either of these (hypothetically) two writers, please let us know.
Yaz |
Author: Christopher T. George
Thursday, 03 December 1998 - 03:14 pm | | Hi, Yaz:
Yes the Dear Boss writer is a braggard who keeps promising further murders and pieces of flesh but does not deliver. As you noted, our opponents, those who believe the letters were not from the murderer, take this non-delivery as proof that the letters were hoaxes. However, what if the writer was Jack? He had nothing to prove. He had already killed, so the proof was out there for all to see that he was a killer. So non-delivery of the threats in these letters is not as such proof that the letters were not from the murderer. The person might have been a braggard by nature who always promised more than he could deliver. The very act of writing the letters and scaring those who read them may have been sufficient satisfaction. He may have been the type of person --and we all know them--who promises something and maybe means it at the time but does not come through. The promise itself might be meaningless to a man who had done the deeds of murdering prostitutes in the previous weeks. Again, he had nothing to prove if he was the murderer. He had done it.
And now also if we are as you theorize, Yaz, dealing with two killers and two letter writers, note something else about the Dear Boss and Lusk letter writers. Unfortunately we only have one of the Lusk variety to discuss but on a general basis the Dear Boss writer is largely concerned with talking about facial/head mutilation and the Lusk writer concerns himself with innards--the famed kidney that accompanied the Lusk letter.
So our Dear Boss writer says, "The next job I do I shall clip the ladys ears off and send to the police officers. . ." (Sept. 25); "number one squealed a bit couldnt finish straight off, had no time to get ears for police" (undated postcard postmarked Oct. 1); "will send you a bit of face by post I promise. . . you can show the cold meat" (Oct. 5); and "I mean to finish you and send your ears to your wife. . ." (October 6).
Since the "Dear Boss" writer is obviously concerned with image just by addressing the addressee as "Boss," what does all this facial imagery tell us? Facade writing indeed!
Chris George |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Thursday, 03 December 1998 - 05:30 pm | | Just a quick response to Bob about "Bright's Disease."
As far as I am aware, the first use of this term in conjunction with the Lusk kidney is in Major Smith's memoirs, where he says"The kidney left in the corpse was in an advanced state of Bright's Disease. . ." (pp. 154-55).
Dr Openshaw, who examined the kidney, was quoted in a Press Association report of October 19, 1888 as saying that the kidney was "a portion of a human kidney - a 'ginny' kidney. . ." However, in the "Star" of the same day, Dr. Openshaw averred that it was "half of a left human kidney." No mention of 'ginny kidney' and no mention of Bright's Disease.
It might be assumed that the 'ginny kidney' term grew from Joseph Aarons or F.S. Reed; whether one of them used the term or it was somehow added along the way as expert medical opinion was sought on the kidney, it is difficult to say. When "Bright's Disease" entered the equation, I don't know, but I wonder if it was a term that Major Smith would know. Might he not have heard it in the intervening years and added it to the story when he came to write his memoirs?
Christopher-Michael
N.B.: Yaz and Chris - interesting stuff on the "Dear Boss" letters; you might almost get me to change my mind on them!
CMD |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 03 December 1998 - 05:39 pm | | Hey, Chris. Good read on the "facade" business.
CM, where have I heard this before about you "almost" changing your mind? I'm not fooled! I'm certain your next post will try to prove Rudyard Kipling actually wrote all the letters! AND half the police reports!!
Yaz |
Author: Bob_c
Friday, 04 December 1998 - 04:34 am | | Thanks, CM.
In this case (of the half-kidney not being specified as having Brights disease), it does seem probable that the Lusk kidney was a hoax, which puts all other letters with the same handwriting at risk.
I would like to seek further on this matter, if someone could give me a tip where best to start looking.
Bob |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 18 July 2000 - 03:41 pm | | | Speaking of Ripper letters, I'm somewhat confused that the well-read Ripperologists above and elsewhere still argue that the Dear Boss letters might be genuine. Considering the Littlechild letter, the statements by Anderson, the third Dear Boss letter signed by T.J.Bulling & A.F. Williamson, and Keith Skinner's discovery in the Black Museum's guest book, isn't it pretty much open and closed that the letters were the product of the Central News Agency? Am I missing some finer points? |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 18 July 2000 - 03:44 pm | | | Speaking of Ripper letters, I'm somewhat confused that the well-read Ripperologists above and elsewhere still argue that the Dear Boss letters might be genuine. Considering the Littlechild letter, the statements by Anderson, the third Dear Boss letter signed by T.J.Bulling & A.F. Williamson, and Keith Skinner's discovery in the Black Museum's guest book, isn't it pretty much open and closed that the letters were the product of the Central News Agency? Am I missing some finer points? |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 18 July 2000 - 01:47 am | | | it didn't bear repeating! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 06:43 am | | 6 October 1888
You though your self 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 dont expect it and I keep my word as you soon see and rip you up.
Yours Truly Jack the Ripper
You see I know your address.
The recipient of the above letter is unknown. The handwriting is almost identicle to the 'Dear Boss'letter, but not 100%, so researchers think it's another hoax. All other hoax letter began with 'Dear Boss', 'Sir' or 'Dear Sir'. All other hoax letters were sent to the press or police for quick impact, this wasn't. It was written in black ink, not red.
Shirley Harrison, (page 91 of 'The Diary of Jack the Ripper'), believes that the recipient of this letter was either 'Joseph Lawende, Israel Schwartz or another equally annoying witness'.
I don't believe it could've been Joseph Lawende, because he didn't give his description to the Eddowes inquest until the 11th of October, (which was well after the threatening letter was written.) I believe the recipient could only have been Israel Schwartz!
What are everyone elses comments on this?
Leanne Perry. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 11:55 am | | Hi Leanne,
I often wonder about a double act - folie a deux - a clerkly young man and his possibly bi-sexual partner-in-crime, writing letters like Dear Boss and Lusk between them to milk their funny little games to the max. A pair of murderous hoaxers? Or hoaxing murderers?
I know it looks like trying to encompass fact, myth, changes in MO etc, and making two and two equal five, but the concept has always appealed to me and would make a great film IMHO.
Love,
Caz |
Author: richard nunweek
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 12:45 pm | | Hi CAZ.
I for one think the double act is very likely, there is a lot of evidence which would suggest just that.
Infact I would say making two and two equal five is what us Ripper folk have been doing for countless years, and we havent advanced much.
The only trouble will be in finding this pair of maniacs, but I will dare say some names will be put foreward.
As for a film , I would love to see an attempt to make a realistic account of these murders,shot in black and white, and featuring actors that were made to look at least like the victims , but my idea would never pass censorship.
Regards Richard. |
Author: chris scott
Friday, 07 February 2003 - 07:51 pm | | Hi Leanne
Interested in your notes about the 6th October letter and the sinature certainly bears a close resemblance to the original "Dear Boss" letter. The signature from the letter you are talking about is below so people can compare.
However, there was an envelope associated with the letter and this was addressed to "Dear Old Boss" but the signature on the envelope, intriguingly, has substantial differences from that in the letter. It is certain that the two (the letter and the envelope) are associated as they both bear identical half moon indentations on all four side. The address on the envelope is below.
Hope this helps
Chris S |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 08 February 2003 - 02:37 am | | G'day Chris,
Where did you find it written that there was an envelope associated with this letter? There is no mention in my books of an envelope. It just says: 'The letter is contained in the MEPO 3/142 files as folio 139 with no other comment.'
Is the recipients name, street number and street name on this envelope? If so then why has it been so hard to identify the recipient? Why would the author call an unidentified witness 'Dear old Boss', and not even start the actual letter with 'Dear Boss,....'
It may have been put back into the wrong envelope by someone because of the similar half-moon indentations you mention. It was obviously written using a different pen.
Leanne. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 08 February 2003 - 03:02 am | | G'day Caz, Rick,
I take it that you two believe that the recipient may have been one bi-sexual partner and the author his friend? What about the lines: 'Now I know you know me...' and 'You see I know your address'? It was obviously a challenge for the author to find out the recipient's address, i.e. the pair weren't well known to each other.
If the author of this one was a hoaxer, why wasn't this letter sent to the press or the police for maximum impact? Instead the author threatens the recipient not to show it to police.
If the author of the original 'Dear Boss' was just a journalist who wanted to give the impression that the author was a mad, uneducated lunatic, why was there just one spelling error in the postcard: 'Codding'?
Isn't there "slight differences" between the handwriting of the 25th of September 'Dear Boss' letter and the 'I wasn't codding' postcard?
Leanne. |
Author: chris scott
Saturday, 08 February 2003 - 06:49 am | | Hi Leanne
Go to the website of Heritage Image Partnership at http://www.heritage-images.com/default.asp
This is an official partnership between various institutions to make available (it has to be said at a cost) of historic images online. The institutions mentioned include
" The British Library, The British Museum, The Museum of London, The Science Museum, The National Monuments Record of English Heritage, The Royal Photographic Society, The National Railway Museum, The Corporation of London, The National Motor Museum and The National Museum of Photography, Film and Television,and the Public record Office."
If you go from the homepage to Search and choose Advanced Search, use the keyword Ripper. This should filter 21 images of which numbers 9 and 10 are the letter and envelope. Both are associated together and lised as being received by the Metropolitan Police on the same date - 6 October. Although you have to pay to use an image from this site commercially, it is possible to get a lower res image but this will be watermarked with the HIP logo.
Hope this is of use
Chris S |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 08 February 2003 - 03:42 pm | | G'day Chris,
Where does it say that the envelope and letter are related?
In 'Letters From Hell' I see that there was a letter that began: 'Dear old Boss....' (note the word 'old')that was received on the 7th of October 1888. (there is no picture of the handwritting to compare). Across the top left corner is written: 'Hoax'
A reader is told: 'the original letters and the police backing sheets, carrying postmark, date and location details, have apparently been mixed up before placement in the protective folders by the archive section'.
Leanne! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 08 February 2003 - 04:38 pm | | G'day Chris,
It's not an envelope anyway.
The 'identical half-moon indentations' you mention, appear to have been added later to make the correspondences fit into the protective folders. Who, amoung the population of the East End at the time, would have been able to afford 'half-moon indentation' makers anyway?
Leanne! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 08 February 2003 - 04:49 pm | | G'day all,
If this letter is found to be from the real killer to an unidentified witness (I'm leaning towards Schwartz}, then we should look at his reported descriptions of suspects.
I'm leaning towards the second man he describes, who may have went back to Berner Street to 'rescue' Stride from her obvious attacker!
Leanne! |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 02:12 am | | There is no envelope 'associated with' the 6th October 1888 letter [folio 139] discussed here. The 'envelope' illustrated above is not an envelope but is another letter [folio 40] dated 21 November 1888 and with a small press cutting stuck on it. The two are not related.
The 'half moon indentations' should always be ignored as these appear on many of the letters illustrated and are as a result of the mounting method applied to the letters in the Public Record Office files.
As for the Heritage Image site illustrations of Ripper letters, several of these bear incorrect captions and the one cited above [folio 40] is one of them. I hope this clears up the confusion. They are all listed in Jack the Ripper Letters From Hell. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 05:13 am | | G'day Stewart,
Thankyou!!!
What are your thoughts on the 6th of October letter? I can't find much info about it in any book, including 'The Ultimate Companion' one.
Could it have been added to the files at a later date? I am researching it for a story to appear in 'Ripperoo'!
LEANNE! |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 06:42 am | | Hi Leanne,
I don't really know any more about this letter than what you have read. The writing is similar to that of the famous 'Dear Boss' letter dated 25 September 1888, but not the same. It is ripe for all sorts of theorising as we have seen in Paul Feldman's book.
Unfortunately there is no envelope with the letter and the addressee is unknown. There were many people 'informing the police' about various people they suspected and many letters were sent to private individuals and then passed on to the police.
It could have been merely been from a person who had been questioned by the police as the result of someone 'informing' on them and who had then threatened the 'informer' as 'Jack the Ripper' to frighten them. It was almost certainly not received by a witness in the case as this would have singled the letter out for further police investigation and report, and this patently did not happen, it was filed with the routine hoax letters.
A receipt slip with the letter indicates it was posted 'London N.W.' and is dated 8th October 1888. So make of it what you will.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: chris scott
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 09:00 am | | Stewart
Many thanks for clearing up my misreading of the two letters!!!
All the best
Chris S |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 09:40 am | | Chris,
Thanks for that, there's so much to take in on this subject, it becomes mind boggling!
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: chris scott
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 01:38 pm | | Stewart - never was a truer word spoken:-)
To help on this particular issue I've ordered the book (Letters from Hell) from Amazon today!!
If I can just pick your brains one more time, any idea what those strange indentations are on the four sides of the "Dear old Boss" letter and the one Leanne mentioned? Are they something that could have been done after they were received by the police?
Many thanks again for the help
Chris S |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 03:00 pm | | G'day Chris, Stewart, everyone,
CHRIS:
You'll like 'Letters From Hell', I found it well worth the price! In Stewart's Sunday post 2:12am, he says that the half-moon indentations should always be ignored as they appear on many letters.
STEWART:
If this was sent by an innocent hoaxer who was described by the recipient to the police, why would he try to copy the handwriting of the 'Dear Boss' letter, if it was just meant for the recipient's eyes?
Because it was never 'singled out' for further investigation, that's why I think it could have been added to the files at a later date,(like after the recipient passed away or something). Remember it warns the recipient not to show police.
LEANNE |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 09 February 2003 - 03:28 pm | | Chris,
Many thanks for the interest in my work, greatly appreciated.
Leanne,
Thank you for the kind words. I was never one for these complex threads of reasoning in the absence of hard evidence, I guess I'm just dull and boring.
What makes you say the writer copied the writing of the 'Dear Boss' letter? There are several examples of a similar hand, and you never know, it might have been for that very reason that the informant suspected the writer of being 'Jack the Ripper'. Having seen the 'Dear Boss' letter reproductions that appeared in the press and at Police Stations, he may have made that connection. Other 'suspects' were reported because of the similarity of their handwriting, and the police poster stated: "Any person recognising the handwriting is requested to communicate with the nearest Police Station."
Don't forget, also, that there is little doubt that the 'Dear Boss' letter was also a hoax. There is nothing to indicate that the 6 October letter was added to the file at a later date but don't let me stop you building a theory.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 10 February 2003 - 01:23 am | | G'day Stewart,
What would you consider 'Hard evidence' here? Fingerprints?
In 'Letters From Hell' it states: 'Similarities between the writing and signature of this letter and the 'Dear Boss' one have been noted.' The police distributed posters of the handwriting of 'Dear Boss' on the 3rd of October. Newspapers printed it on the 4th. Hoaxers had examples to mimic. That's why these letters were thrown into the 'Hoax' pile without a second consideration. Handwriting experts of today say that it's similar but not 100% identicle, but this letter was written in great anger!
You say that it may have been because of the author's similarity in handwriting that the recipient thought the letter was from JtR. But the author warns the recipient not to show it to police. Hoaxers who copied 'Dear Boss' would have wanted their letters to be shown to the police and press straight away, for maximum, immediate impact!
LEANNE! |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 10 February 2003 - 01:55 am | | Hi Leanne,
As I said, don't let me spoil the theory. The writing of that letter is in a similar style to that of the original 'Dear Boss' letter, and you can make of that what you will.
But don't forget, at the time the police still considered that original letter to be a probable hoax. Such letter writers were taken to court if the police were in a position to prove who had written them. And mere similarity of writing, although an indicator, could not hold up on its own in court. I would consider a surviving police document showing that the police did have special interest in this letter as 'hard evidence' to support such a contention. But they did have a special interest in the original 'Dear Boss' correspondence and the 'from Hell' letter, and that still did not make them definitely genuine.
Hoaxers have many reasons for the things they do, some do it for gain, some for notoriety, some to threaten and frighten people and others merely because they delight in doing such things. To speculate on the motives for writing such a letter, at this remove in time, must remain just that - speculation. This letter certainly appears to have been written by someone who had a grudge against someone else and wanted to frighten them. The reason for it must remain unknown. And whether the writer was angry, just malicious and out to frighten the recipient or writing with some other motive, we will never know.
However, the intention of the book was to bring all the correspondence to a wider audience and for readers to make their own comparisons. With over 200 letters this certainly provides grist for the 'Ripper' mill. There was, of course, also the 'Moab and Midian' 'Dear Boss' letter of 5 October 1888, received at the Central News Agency, also allegedly from the original 'Dear Boss' correspondent.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 10 February 2003 - 03:11 am | | G'day Stewart,
Don't you ever sleep man? You answer my posts just after I make em.
Yeah the author of this one certainly had a grudge against ____? For informing the police of something.......(that a second man saw Stride being assaulted?)
The 'Moab and Midian' letter that you mention, is that the one begining: 'Dear Friend, In the name of God hear me I did not kill the female whose body was found at Whitehall...'? That one was sent straight to the Central News Agency. The author wanted the public to know the contents straight away! This letter threatened to rip three in a 'treble event', which did not happen.
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 10 February 2003 - 06:40 am | | G'day Stewart,
I just sat down and read everything your book says about this 'Moab and Midian' communication:
Now I realize that it was merely transcribed by T.J. Bulling to Scotland Yard, from an original that Bulling claims was received by The Central News Agency. Bulling merely enclosed the envelope. I agree that it's odd that he didn't send the original letter. Perhaps he was the actual author of this one and merely forged the envelope.
Back to the 6th letter:
One similarity I just found between this one and the original 'Dear Boss' letter, (which may or may not have already been detected), Involves the date written at the top.
Other obvious hoax letters that have the date included, appear: 'Month/Day/Year' (all in digits), 'Sunday 7/8/88', 'Oct 10/10', 'Friday Oct 8 88', '2 October', 'Sept 24 1888', etc. But on this one the date is written: '6 Oct 1888' ie day, month(abbreviated), then the year in full. This is exactly like the first 'Dear Boss' one, placed in the exact same position above the first line.......Yes, the same individual penned both!
The 'Lusk Letter' was received 8 days after this one was received by the recipient, with a very gruesome inclusion. It's no wonder that all attention was directed away from it, (that is if they even knew of it's existence at the time).
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 11 February 2003 - 04:53 pm | | G'day,
Stewart must have went to Bed!!!!
LEANNE! |
|
|
|
|
