About the Letters. How they were written.

** 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 **

About the Letters. How they were written.

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Letters: General Discussion: About the Letters. How they were written.

Author: Anonymous Saturday, 27 February 1999 - 11:21 pm
I don't know if anyone else noticed or not, but from what I read, JTR's speech is half British and half American. You will notice in the first 'Dear Boss' letter: "Dear Boss" Doesnt sound British to me, more like American. "I keep on hearing the police have caught me but 'they wont fix me just yet.' In the single quotes, is an American quote. Something American gangsters would use. In another letter "October 29, 1888" there is another American quote: "'Old boss you was rite' it was the left kidny i was goin to hoperate agin close to you ospitle just as i was going to dror mi nife 'along of er bloomin throte them cusses of coppers 'spoilt the game but i guess i wil be on the jobn soon and will send you another bit of innerds." Again the American slang. Strange how he would put American slang and British language together. Don't you think so?
Author: D. Radka Sunday, 28 February 1999 - 12:01 am
Dear Anon., The Dear Boss letters are frequently regarded as fakes, written by a Mr. Bulling, a young newspaper reporter, under coercive demand by a Mr. Moore, his editor or "Boss" at the newspaper. Their purpose apparently was both to sell a lot of newspapers and to humiliate Mr. Bulling under the power of his Supervisor. What Bulling and Moore had in mind in mixing British and American speech patterns is anybody's guess. My guess is that Bulling started out writing "Boss" simply in thinking about his immediate situation at work (and also in virtue of the fact that the letters were to be sent to a central news clearing bureau which had a "boss"--type editor in charge), and then simply continued off on this metaphorical tear with other Americanisms mixed in with the British expressions he normally used. All it amounts to, IMHO, is cheap, pulpy, sensationalism--although I'd be interested to hear any other opinions. I feel sorry for Mr. Bulling in his situation when I think of this. David
Author: Matthew Delahunty (Dela) Sunday, 28 February 1999 - 07:46 am
I don't necessarily dismiss the original Dear Boss letters as quickly as David might but as far as the 29 October letter then the odds are that it is a fake. By this time the police were receiving hundreds of hoax letters from Jack the Rippers all over the UK. But I do wonder why the 29 Oct letter has been highlighted amongst all the others which were sent in. Dela
Author: Christopher T. George Sunday, 28 February 1999 - 02:10 pm
Hello, Anonymous: I agree with Dela and others on these boards, including Yaz, that we should not dismiss the letters out of hand, although the sheer number of them agues that most are hoaxes. Along with Dela, I also do not dismiss the original Dear Boss letters as David Radka appears to do. The view that the letters were the work of "an enterprising London journalist" as Sir Robert Anderson put it seems to be the prevailing one among Ripperologists today, except for writers who choose certain letters to support the candidacy of their particular suspect. Tom Bulling may or may not have had a hand in writing the Dear Boss letters. I think the rush to judgement on his guilt is too easy a solution. As much as the police writing about the Ripper case in subsequent years got facts wrong, I think they could have been mistaken about this too. Anderson's pat answer that a journalist did it seems very much akin to his assertion that he knew who Jack the Ripper was, even though his own memoranda of 1888 and the writings of other policemen prove that they were uncertain which of the suspects was Jack. As for the Americanisms in the Dear Boss letters, this is an interesting aspect but such expressions may have been put in by the hoaxer or Jack to lay a false trail, just as the writer of the Lusk letter puts in Irishisms to probably distract from their own personality and national origin. Chris George
Author: Jon Smyth Sunday, 28 February 1999 - 04:46 pm
Hitting the nail on the head. I quote from an article by George Sims, of Oct 7, 1888. The fact that the self-postcard-proclaimed assassin sent his imitation blood-besmeared communication to the Central News people opens up a wide field for theory. How many among you, my dear readers, would have hit upon the idea of "the Central News" as a receptacle for your confidence? You might have sent your joke to the Telegraph, the Times, any morning or any evening paper, but I will lay long odds that it would never have occured to communicate with a press agency. Curious is it not, that this maniac makes his communication to an agency which serves the entire press? It is an idea which might occur to a pressman perhaps; and even then it would probably only occur to someone connected with the editorial department of a newspaper, someone who knew what the Central News was, and the place it filled in the business of news supply. This proceeding on Jack's part betrays an inner knowledge of the newspaper worldwhich is certainly surprising. Everything therefore points to the fact that the jokist is professionally connected with the press............... I leave this little gem for your absorbtion :-) Jon
Author: Yazoo Monday, 01 March 1999 - 03:06 pm
Hey, Jon! Okay. I'll take the plunge on this one... I always maintain we cannot prove the letters are from the killer; but that we also cannot prove that they are not. So, standard warning out of the way... The Sims quote is interesting because you've provided a contemporary account of what a newpaper man thought about the source of the CNA communications from "JtR." Paley, I believe, has written that everyone in London knew of the CNA, explaining how Barnett chose that source to post "his" messages so he could read them to frighten Kelly. Sims says: ...and even then it would probably only occur to someone connected with the editorial department of a newspaper, someone who knew what the Central News was, and the place it filled in the business of news supply. Is he being coy or avoiding libel by not stating that the source might have originated within the CNA itself, as the 1888 police already did or would come to believe? I would agree strongly with his comment: This proceeding on Jack's part betrays an inner knowledge of the newspaper world which is certainly surprising. But what exactly is so surprising? If the communications were a joke, Sims leaves it open as to whether the CNA was in on the "joke." Bulling and Moore certainly didn't think it a joke. But various policemen (in those wonderful memoirs and belles lettres) certainly all thought the CNA was the "joke's" source. If Sims is correct that, 1) only a professional pressman would think of the CNA as the place to send their cards and letters, and 2) it was all a joke...why would the CNA, or even just two of its members, play a joke on itself...and continue to play it long after anyone paid attention? It stands to reason then, IF it was all a joke, someone outside the editorial offices of the CNA pulled it. No? So why do we contnue to believe in the rumors and gossip surrounding Bulling and Moore as the jokers? My first intuition has always been that at least one (maybe the only one) of our murderers worked in the CNA or for another newspaper. Probably not in the editorial department or even as a by-lined reporter. Sims says: Everything therefore points to the fact that the jokist is professionally connected with the press............... I think he's right, up to a point. But how can he or we be so absolutely certain it was all a joke? Yaz
Author: Jon Smyth Monday, 01 March 1999 - 06:55 pm
Ok, Yaz, I was not intending to point the finger at the CNA or any of it's employee's, but as the subject has been brought up, I will finish the Sims quote..... ....Everything therefore points to the fact that the jokist is professionally connected with the press. And if he is telling the truth and not fooling us, then we are brought face to face with the fact that the Whitechapel murders have been committed by a practical journalist - perhaps by a real live editor! Which is absurd, and at that I think I will leave it. Jon.
Author: Yazoo Monday, 01 March 1999 - 07:53 pm
Hey, Jon! My man Sims! He's still leaving the field open...not narrowing it to the CNA. Interesting. What's that line from Sherlock Holmes? Something about excluding every possibility until you are left with the impossible which is nevertheless true, despite its absurdity. Or is that from Poe's detective stories? Still...no proof, I know. Thanks, Yaz
Author: Jon Smyth Monday, 01 March 1999 - 08:24 pm
the text to which you refer: From Sherlock Holmes, Adventure of the Beryl Coronet. "It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
Author: Caroline Tuesday, 02 March 1999 - 11:57 am
Just call me Sherl. Old Maxim was never mine though. I think his soul belonged to Rebecca. Love, Caz
Author: Yazoo Tuesday, 02 March 1999 - 01:30 pm
Hey, Sherl! Is a certain young novelist holding a meerschaum pipe whilst chronicling the adventures of Sherlock Caz and Dr. LC Watson? I hope your suspect's trial makes use of the letters...it's a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it! And who's Rebecca? Is she the "woman who got away" in the SH story about an upcoming marriage, blackmail and some letters? Or is she -- and "Maxim" -- another insidious "Sooty" type reference? Get behind me, Sooty and Barney the Purple Dinosaur! If Dante or Milton were alive today, I'm sure both those two would end in brimstone up to their beady, little button-eyes! And clowns...clowns would be doing the backstroke in pools of liquid...ummm, err....but I digress! Yaz
Author: Caroline Wednesday, 03 March 1999 - 04:58 am
Yaz! Welcome back to the wonderful world of comedy. The sun's just come out. I was alluding to Daffers duMaurier's Rebecca, but I probably got me facts wrong as per. I think Maxim was the name of the poor demented husband, torn apart by Rebecca's cynical faithlessness and treachery. Very dark novel, like My Cousin Rachel. Clowns? I've been trying to send them up, 'cause they are already here. (I always hated that song Send In The Clowns, was it by Judy Collins? Free's All Right Now is playing at present, so I'm finding it hard to concentrate, I once had a smoochy dance with Andy Fraser's brother, at least that's what he told me!) Love, Caz
Author: Macbeth Saturday, 08 January 2000 - 09:42 pm
Recently I came across this excellent web site and happened to read the "Dear Boss" letter. I'm sure what I'm going to write about has been observed before, but as I said I'm new here so please bear with me. The letter of course was written by somoene who had been trained in calligraphy or had a teacher who trained in this manner. Obviously the writer was large boned, had a formal education, had large or very long fingers, had a non-medical background but did have a business background coupled with experience in bookkeeping though he had been out of that field for some time at the time of the murders. It is possible he was involved in the brokerage or other some business related to writing orders frequently. Obviously he wrote his message on a hard surface that had a raised defect in it. He used a fountain pen which he held oddly, nearly vertical with his fingers almost surrounding the point. He was a person set in his ways and was a familiar figure in Whitechappel during the daytime. We know this person was native English and also was a local resident of London. He planned his murders and stalked his victims in advance. Of course it is obvious he was a highly controlled individual. He did not drink alcohol. He had powerful, well developed hands and owned a large knife. I know based on the obvious fact this is Jack the Ripper that such a statement is laughable until one realizes it had to have been composed of the finest steel available, was between eight and twelve inches in length not counting handle and had a guard of some type. Most likely it was a Bowie knife or similiar type weapon. His height was between 5'll and 6'1 inches tall. We know he wore gloves when committing his murders. He was soft spoken adverse to swearing. He followed newspaper reports and most likely purchased the papers. This means he had to have a source of income which probably means he was employed, most likely in a common task such as an assistant or more likely some sort of clerk in an accounting firm. He considered his murders a job as opposed to the usual view of such murders as a mission and was very business minded in his approach to life. He was quite familiar with Whitechappel and its streets, alleys and so forth together with the surrounding neighborhoods. In school he was average but had trouble with grammar and most especially punctuation. He judged himself superior though most people meeting him would have judged him ordinary, sullen and very quiet. He was a loner, never married. My question is if anyone could help me with the suspects involved. I'd like to study the ones more closely who fit this profile. Appreciate the help.
Author: david livesay Monday, 21 February 2000 - 07:42 pm
dont know if my other message posted or not ,so here i go again.........i'd forget the hand writing.....and look at the grammer in the letters..i believe you can discount the crude letters,and concentrate on the others...regardless of the kindey sent with one.the grammer appears to be that of a professional man.....but not a doctor.Someonesaid it seemed he had a knowledge of the newspaper world........which leads me to two other suspects........a policeman,or a newspaperman.?
Author: frankie morgan Thursday, 18 May 2000 - 12:56 am
i tend to believe that jack was,in some way,affiliated with the law profession. i also dont believe he ever tried to contact anyone. he wanted as much privacy as he could get,and seems to have had some knowledge of the police rounds in that particular area of town. it is even possible that he was a constable,although slightly unlikely. it occurs to me that whomever was responsible,thought himself above ordinary people,and thus was justified in his actions. whomever it was wouldnt have felt it relevant to contact anyone,because he felt he was right. the sheer arrogance of the crimes suggests that he was beyond reproach,or untouchable. for my money the best suspect is prince albert,he would have possessed all of those traits.
Author: Sarah R. Jacobs Thursday, 07 December 2000 - 07:27 pm
The man who composed the letters... are we certain it was a "man"? I was reading, in the "Dr. Francis Tumblety" section of "Contemporary Suspects," that reformers were REALLY PUSHING the "White Slavery" issue. They insisted that everyone in the world simply accept, with no investigation, the idea that the virginity of thousands of little British girls below the age of majority was being sold to the highest bidders by their demonic, Marquis-de-Sade-like abductors. (For more on this phenomenon, visit the Francis Tumblety section. The poster, whose name I was callous enough to skip as I read the superb scholarly piece she wrote, does an excellent job of reporting, and then of questioning what she reports.) Would it have been too much to put past some sensationalistic cause-mongerer, to write the Dear Boss letters and have her well-connected husband give them to her friend in the CNA? I am just remembering how most of the feminist activists I know reacted so horrendously differently to two different sex scandals here in the United States: _________ Scandal One was the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill Affair. I apologize to fellow Yanks for the backstory, but I am almost positive that there was some scandal involving an MP named Ashdown at the time of the Thomas/Hill Hearings which blocked the story from British newspapers, so I think it's probably necessary backstory: Clarence Thomas, now a Supreme Court Justice, was perhaps the only politically-conservative African-American judge that then-President George Bush could have found who was at all qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. So he was naturally selected to fill the office by the Pres. In America, the Supreme Court is in for life once appointed by the Pres. and confirmed in a Senate Confirmation Hearing. Sometimes the appointee slips in like soap (or a greased pig, take your pick). Sometimes, though, there's a problem. Justice Thomas's problem was allegedly that he had a habit of asking out the women who worked for him. And then asking again. And again. And again. This, in the US, is called Sexual Harrassment, and one may be sued in Civil (rather than Criminal) Court for this, and if a jury of one's peers finds that one has committed said offense, it's "Please pay to the Plaintiff..." etc. Also falling under the rubric of the offense are sexually offensive comments, gestures, etc. The Plaintiff (person alleging the crime took place) may be of either gender, as may the Defendant (the other side), in any mixture you like. Naturally, one would not want a Supreme Court Justice who called his actionable offenses "socializing," so the Senate Hearing took longer than it generally does. Clarence Thomas was raked over the coals about his porn-buying and watching and renting and using habits. He was grilled about everything he ever did that was putatively sex-related. Most African-American women resented his marrying a white woman, so many of that "most" put on the exceedingly-popular "I Believe Anita" buttons and marched with white and other races of feminists against his being confirmed. There was no question in their minds that he had done everything Anita Hill had siad and more. And there was no question in their minds that even though she didn't come forth with her allegations until YEARS after her employ under Thomas had ended, when it would be convenient beyond the wildest wet dreams of the politically-liberal Democratic party (the opposition party. Pres. Bush was a Republican) for Dr. Anita Hill, Juris Doctor and professor of Law, to make these allegations, there was NO QUESTION in these feminists' minds that their party, the Democratic Party, would triumph over what Clarence Thomas had "obviously done." ________ Scandal Two was the Clinton-Jones Affair. This time, a woman who had worked under President Bill Clinton (really William Jefferson Clinton, III) when he was Governor of the State of Arkansas alleged that she had been sexually harrassed by Clinton, and that, at one time, he had called her up to his office "to discuss business," and, when she arrived, dropped his pants and ordered "Kiss it!" This time, the same feminists who had "Believe[d] Anita" were "highly skeptical about the claims of Ms. Jones." __________ Which brings me to the reformers: Is it possible that the reformers were just as terribly caught up in their cause, that they displayed a similar disregard for the facts of the case, that their own agenda as reformers of prostitution law got in the way of their seeing that there was a real killer out there? Is it possible that one of the "women's cause"-oriented society ladies with influential husbands decided to get free publicity for the "horrors created by the White Slave Trade" via the NPA? I mean, this would explain the beautiful handwriting, and the pathetically obvious and unconvincing attempt to seem lower-class. It would also explain why, after so much violence against women and minors in the East End, there was suddenly a forum for discussion: It might even explain why *this particular set* of serial murders became the cause celebre: "Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde" was playing, and some lady thought, "Oh! How ghastly that that horrible little man was able to pay the father of that poor child for her misery! Rather like what I'm hearing about the East End through my husband, the publisher. Let's see..." says the Mrs. Murdoch of her time "...'Dear' -- Oh! What's that word my crude American friend throws about? Ah! 'Boss,' But let's see. What shall I call the fiend? .... How about 'Jack!' 'Jack' what though? Well, I've heard that the Tabram woman was, how shall I think this, erm, 'ripped'? 'Jack the Ripper,'! a saucy fellow, the maid would say. I have very little idea what she means by saucy, but 'Saucy Jacky' does sound like a crude villain...! Oh! What a lovely writing project! I am so cunning! I must sharpen my...pen!" Sarah P.S. THis is not meant to be a classist theory. It is meant to suggest that a certain type of woman, given the money and influence, might "do-bad" when she meant to "do-good." You might call it the "Road 'From Hell' Theory" of the JtR letters.

Add a Message