|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Jack the Ripper Letters
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Letters: General Discussion:
Jack the Ripper Letters
Author: Jack the Ripper
Sunday, 25 April 1999 - 12:24 pm |        | Chatham, Saturday, December 8th, 1888.
Dear Boss,
I am still at liberty the
last job was not bad in
(Whitechapel) but I guess the next
will be a (dam) sight
worse the police about here
are fine looking fellows I had
the pleasure of drinking with
one this morning and
asked him what he thought
about my glorious work
I guess I will make a
double shuffle of it this time
me and my pal (you bet)
I have got one or two set
and soon shall have more
(Ha-Ha-Ha) I can see better
specimens in garrison towns
look out in a day or two
your's (not yet) jack the
Ripper
(Ha-Ha) |
Author: Bob Hinton
Saturday, 08 May 1999 - 05:56 am | | Dear Everyone,
During my periodic trawls through the papers I came across the following:
Jan 13 1889
Dear sir i have took the pleasure of writing those few lines to you I mean to D.o a murder in William street llanelly on monday or saturday next about 10.30 to 4 o'clock about the half moon Please reported it to the Papers
yours truly singned by
JACK THE RIPPER
the heart
of (picture of black heart) a
woman
I have reproduced the spelling and punctuation of the original.
This story appeared in the Llanelli and County Guardian Jan 17th 1889
The interesting thing about this is there is a local legend that Mary Kelly came from Llanelli, and MJK's heart was supposed to have been taken away by the killer.
Bob Hinton |
Author: Joseph
Saturday, 08 May 1999 - 07:40 pm | | Hello Mr. Hinton,
This may be off the subject, but I just gotta
know, did you and that square and sharp guy,
David Conan Doyle Radka, ever hook up re: that
whiz bang theory he's got?
Best Regards
Joseph |
Author: Christopher T. George
Friday, 14 May 1999 - 10:25 am | | Hi, all, glad to see we are up and running again!
RED DEMON wrote on another board:
"I, personally, don't believe there's any reason to think [journalist] T. J. Bulling [of the Central News Agency] was the letter writer. It's obvious that Macnaughten, Littlechild, and others only suspected him because of his rebelious nature. Even Littlechild disagreed with Macnaughten in the way of thinking that it was probably Bulling's boss, Charles Moore who was the hoaxer. In my opinion, the discovery of the Littlechild letter weakened the case for a journalist having penned the letters, which has
always been the only 'logical' alternative to them having come from the Ripper himself. It showed that they had no concrete reason for believing Bulling to be their man. It strengthened, in
my opinion, the case for the letters having been genuine. And as for the 'I love my work'...I would imagine that if a journalist were to write a hoaxed letter from a killer, he would make every attempt to put his own mind on hold and try to put
himself into the mind of what he envisioned to be a killer (isn't this what you would do?). In this respect, it's most likely that he would have been more gruesome in his letters, and would probably not have opted for referring to the letters as 'my
work'. However, I must admit that I wouldn't think he would have referred to these 'whores' as ladies either, but he did. I rest my case for the letters having come from the Ripper based on all the other circumstantial evidence, which, by the way, far
outweighs the slim contemporary suspicion of the letters having come from a journalist. Let's face it, the reason a journalist is suggested is because the letters were sent to the CNA and not
to the police or an individual newspaper, and because of the information contained in the letters. I've already shown in another post, as others have done before me, why the CNA part of the theory is irrelevent. It's name was frequently posted in the papers, but not often, it's address. The envelope was posted to the CNA, but with no address. A journalist would have included the address to gaurentee delivery. Also, as the author R. Thurston Hopkins states in his book from the early part of this century, the CNA was 'a well known news agency', not the unknown entity it is often thought to have been. Also, a hoaxer would not have asked them to hold the letter back until the next murder. He had no idea when or if there would be another murder!!! If there wasn't one soon, the letter would be invalid. It just so happens that two more women died that week, and the hoaxer had a postcard ready to go first thing the next morning. The letters are real, and until someone comes up with an argument for them being hoaxes that's at least HALF as substantial and convincing as the argument for them being real, then I'll continue to be convinced of their validity. Please let me know what you think of these points, and don't hold back any other ideas. Until then..."
Hi, Red:
While I too think that one or several of the letters may be real, perhaps the Lusk letter and at a pinch Dear Boss, we cannot logically accept them wholesale as real because there are literally hundreds of them all in different hands. I think Dear Boss is less likely for the reason that the writer seems more distanced from the bloodiness of the crimes with the wording "my work" and "the red stuff" but that could also have been a reflection of the writer's personality. Food for thought. The Lusk letter writer has the benefit of being darker in tone and in enclosing the kidney that may or may not have come from Catherine Eddowes.
I do not know why the idea that a journalist wrote the letters would be the only "logical" alternative to the writer of the letters having been the Ripper. The October 21, 1888 charging of Maria Coroner of Bradford for sending a "Jack the Ripper" letter shows that there possibly and most probably were people from many walks of life who got a charge from sending such hoax letters to the authorities. In discussing the letters we need a healthy amount of skepticism and recognition that most of the letters were most probably hoaxes with the possible exception of the ones I have cited.
Chris George |
Author: Christopher T. George
Friday, 14 May 1999 - 11:38 am | | Hi, RED DEMON:
Also in your post just quoted you stated, "...as the author R. Thurston Hopkins states in his book from the early part of this century, the CNA was 'a well known news agency', not the unknown entity it is often thought to have been." Could you provide the reference to the book by R. Thurston Hopkins? Thank you so much.
Chris George |
Author: RED DEMON
Saturday, 15 May 1999 - 12:24 am | | Dear Chris,
I'd be glad to provide the reference for the R. Thurston Hopkins book. It was published in 1935 and was titled 'Life and Death at the Old Bailey'. The chapter on the Ripper was called 'Shadowing the Shadow of a Murderer'.
First of all, allow me to apologize for having been so vague. By using the term 'letters', I assumed that everyone would be aware that I wasn't referring to ALL the letters received by the police, press, and public citizens regarding the Ripper crimes. Even an idiot wouldn't believe that all or even most of the letters were authentic. However, I do believe that more than just the Lusk letter and Dear Boss/Saucy Jacky missives were real. What about the postcard sent to Lusk prior to the From Hell letter which they believed, at the time, to have come from the same hand? Those letters also resemble the letter received by Doctor Openshaw that was quite probably from the same hand. As the Openshaw letter begins 'Dear old Boss' it connects directly to the Dear Boss letter. For those wanting a link between the Dear Boss and Lusk letter, there's one for you.
Maria Coroner wrote her letters and was soon discovered. She can hardly be compared to the writer of the Dear Boss letter who asked that his letter be kept back until the next murder. It can and has been said that he was making a logical deduction based on the regularity of Whitechapel Murders up to that point. But if a person really wanted to see their letter in print and create a stir, the last thing they would do would be to include a demand that could very well have destroyed the letter's validity if in fact there WEREN'T any murders soon after. A hoaxer would have most certainly thought of this. Especially a journalist with papers to sell.
I'll leave these ideas here for everyone to tear apart. And, by the way Chris, I agree that to be a believer you must first be a skeptic. I was a skeptic of the letters, I did my homework, and I no longer am. I'd appreciate everyone's opinions. Until then...
Yours truly,
RED DEMON
P.S. I still haven't seen an argument for the letters(you know which ones)being fake that was HALF as convincing as my argument for the letters having been genuine. If you can oblige, please do so...I'm always open-minded. |
Author: Caz
Saturday, 15 May 1999 - 04:50 am | | I have a strong conviction, based on his character, that my own suspect wrote at least one 'saucy' postcard to his own brother as a practical joke, in a hand that was not recognised by said sibling. While I appreciate all the scepticism about multiple personality and multiple handwriting, I still think this ought to tell us something.
I'm with you, Red. I start out sceptical with some things, and end up a believer. I too believe some of the letters came from Yours Truly Jack the Ripper.
(And you have not 'pissed me off' dear, grin).
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher George
Saturday, 15 May 1999 - 05:44 am | | Hi, RED DEMON:
Thanks for your reply. I think you are taking too much for granted in regard to Dear Boss. As Yaz and I discussed here some time ago, the writer of these letters promises a lot and does not deliver, with the possible exception of the double event, which yes did occur, but which might have been pure coincidence, i.e., he (I am presuming a hoaxer, but stand to be corrected) got lucky, or he wrote the Saucy Jack postcard promising the "double event" right after he heard about the double murders of September 30, and the card arrived soon enough after to make it seem it was sent before the murders).
You say that the letters are real because the "promise" of a double murder was fulfilled by the occurrence of the double event of September 30. However, he had also made the vow in the September 25 letter to "clip the ladys ears off and send to the police officers"--a promise echoed in the Saucy Jack postcard, something that does not happen. Then in the third letter of October 5, he says "I must get to work tomorrow treble event this time yes yes three must be ripped. Will send a bit of face by post I promise dear Old Boss. . . . Keep this back till three are wiped out and you can show the cold meat." All of these "promises" are unfulfilled. So is this the killer, or merely a hoaxer full of hot air?
By the way, Red, thanks for providing the reference to the R. Thurston Hopkins book. I will look it up.
Chris George |
Author: Caz
Saturday, 15 May 1999 - 05:52 am | | Hi Chris,
As I think I've said before, why could not the killer also have been 'a hoaxer full of hot air' on the odd occasion? (very odd occasion!). Why does it have to be one OR the other? Or do we think that a hoaxer does not a killer make, or vice versa?
Cheers,
Love,
Caz |
Author: Leonard
Saturday, 15 May 1999 - 08:21 pm | | Hi all! Seems greatest credence given {by what I've read} go to the Lusk letter. If Someone could just make a creditable/genuine case for the kidney, then we would at least have a sample of the Rippers writing. But, alas, no such luck so far. Sudgen says that a young lady [Sue Iremonger, a member of the World Association of Document Examiners] is at present engaged in a fresh study of the Ripper letters. She thinks that a communication of 6th October to be the same hand as the "Dear boss " letter and does not think either of them could have been produced by Best's Waverley nib.
Let us all wish her well in this study. |
Author: D. Radka
Saturday, 15 May 1999 - 11:53 pm | | A note from an hermeneut,
In my hermeneutical opinion (IMHO), the Dear Boss series of letters is not genuine, for no other reason than the author's perspective would likely not have been the murderer's. Sexual serial murderers seldom conceive of what they're doing as a series of murders. WE see it as that, but we're on the outside looking in, we're not them. THEY see it differently. The person who killed Mary Jane Kelly would likely view the person who killed Annie Chapman only darkly, from a distance, even though it was he himself. For example, Ted Bundy spent the last two years of his life lending his jailers insights into what the person who killed various of his victims "would have done" or "would have been thinking," completely in the third person. And that I think is likely how the WM saw his murders, also.
"I love my work, and can't wait to get started again." "I'm down on whores, and won't quit ripping them until I do get buckled." "Next time I'll cut the ladys ears off." This is bunk, written by someone who took the same perspective the general public did. The notion of a continuing series is clearly implied.
Most real serial murderers, Bundy, Gacy, the WM, etc., see every next kill as the final kill, the same way that a drug addict sees every next dose of heroin as the one last hit just to dull the senses for the purpose of quitting. The serial murderer does not exult in the series, rather he sees himself as a failure in it, and thus he wants to stop, and so be the success he feels he was meant to be.
Since the Lusk Letter does not imply exultation in the series, it deviates from the contemporary mainstream perspective on this count; this may be an indication of its genuiness.
Copyright 1999 David M. Radka |
Author: Steven F
Sunday, 16 May 1999 - 12:30 am | | You a hermeneut? (if there is such a thing), sounds Greek to me. Why not just say my interpretation is?
When's the book out David? We look forward to reading it. |
Author: Joseph
Sunday, 16 May 1999 - 09:18 am | | Mr. Radka,
Excellent post, different, yet insightful, and very logical.
This is what I was waiting for. **1/2
Thanks
Joseph |
Author: RED DEMON
Sunday, 16 May 1999 - 03:27 pm | | Dear D. Radka,
I love to hunt. Prowling the streets looking for fair game-tasty meat. The wemon (sic) of Queens are prettyist of all. I must be the water they drink. I live for the hunt-my life. Blood for papa.
To the people of Queens, I love you. And i want to wish all of you a happy Easter. May God bless you in this life and in the next. And for now I say goodbye and goodnight.
POLICE: Let me haunt you with these words:
"I'll be back!
"I'll be back!
To be interrpreted as-bang, bang, bang, bank, bang-ugh!!
"Yours in murder
"Mr. Monster."
Mr. Radka, this is an excerpt from a letter written by David 'Son of Sam' Berkowitz. He's plainly alluding to murders he plans to commit in the future. He obviously didn't think the last one or even the next one would be his last. I'd have to say you were not 100% accurate with your assesment. Another example...
A post script to another of his letters reads:
PS: J.B. Please inform all the detectives working the slayings to remain.
What do you think this means? He's not wanting to stop. If he is wanting to stop, then he's not planning to. We KNOW that Berkowitz wrote these letters, that he was the Son of Sam killer.
I can produce other examples like this from the Zodiac Killer of San Fransisco if you'd like. All in all, they're very similar in tone to the Dear Boss letter.
And need I remind you, as I posted on another board, Berkowitz, in one letter, used the phrase 'I love my work' in reference to his killings. He had not read and was not aware of the Jack the Ripper letters. Yet, above you refer to this line as 'bunk'. Obviously, in the case of Berkowitz, it was not. Therefore, why should it be in the Ripper case?
I would love your opinions on this, Mr. Radka, as you are obviously a knowledgable man. Am I right in understanding that you are writing a book? I, too, am working on a little something. I'd love to know more of what you are doing.
I look forward to reading everyones responses. Until then...
Yours truly,
RED DEMON |
Author: Leonard
Sunday, 16 May 1999 - 04:12 pm | | Very good Red Demon.
Berkowitz did enjoy his "work" and had every intention of continuing. Zodiac left a message in code that some of the great code breakers of the day tried to break [un-successfully , I might add]
but the man who finally cracked the coded letter was just a plain citizen, working on the code in his spare time. Zodiac left a message carved on a wooden desk that said "Just wait until next time"!
His coded message was unique but simple and that is what fooled the experts.
He wrote without a break in words: Example below;
Ilovekillingpeoplebecauseitissomuchfunwhenidieallthatihavekilledwillbecomemyslaves.
This was a portion of the Zodiac letter.
When broken down, it read: I love killing people because it is so much fun. When I die, all that I have killed will become my slaves...etc.
In the Zodiac case, this letter was believed to be written by Zodiac and compares to the Ripper , in spirit, as to his enjoyment of killing.
The Zodiac wrote in code. Could the Goulston Graffitti also be a form of code?
You're correct, Red Demon, about the similarities of tone in these letters. |
Author: RED DEMON
Sunday, 16 May 1999 - 10:16 pm | | Hello Leonard,
Thank you for the support. It's very rare these days. I suppose that's fine with me, though. Yes, I've often thought the same thing, but I don't believe that the graffito was code. I believe that it was referring to the Jews in the building where he killed Stride. As I've said before, he was trying to make sure that he got the credit for the killings, not a jew. He used the plural 'men' to relate to the gathering of Jews at the Stride crime scene. Our Ripper was into codes, but he didn't like to spell things out either. He was being intentionally vague, not to mention that at the time of it's writing, the pressure was on. Good point, though. Let's see what the others think. Until then...
Yours truly,
RED DEMON |
Author: Christopher George
Monday, 17 May 1999 - 12:17 am | | Hi, Red:
You say that Jack left the graffito to lay claim to the murder of Elizabeth Stride. In other words, it says in effect, "I did it, not the Jews." But, as Jon Smyth said, the graffito is a double negative, a common pattern of speech among the Cockneys. That is the wording read "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." In other words, this means, "The Jews are the men who will be blamed for something." So how is he laying claim to the murder of Stride if he is blaming the Jews?
Chris George |
Author: D. Radka
Monday, 17 May 1999 - 01:28 am | | Red,
Berkowitz lives in a time when everyone knows about serial murderers, so at his worst he had the opportunity to dimly dope out that was what he was. He therefore simply may have spun out a rationale for himself to live in. I think that after the phenomena of the serial murderer have become popularized, mass-marketed and institutionalized, the terms of the popularization can in turn become part of the phenomena. Berkowitz may have been more interested in deriving an identity from this than sincerely evaluating his inner promptings one way or the other. Same thing with Zodiac. And please note that not all serial murderers follow this plan--Gacy comes to mind as an example of one who wanted to quit, thought he would be finishing up with his next crime, but then just had to go out to scratch his itch once again. Gacy would be more similar to the WM as I conceive of him.
Do we have evidence of any serial murderers acknowledging to themselves that they were in a series before the WM? I don't believe so--people for the most part didn't know that "serial murderers" existed yet. So we would then be maintaining that the WM either (1) had the consciousness to use himself as a guinea pig to approximate an understanding of Brittain's Syndrome, absent clinical studies, in 1888, or (2) so totally projected himself into the contemporaneous public reactions to his crimes that he spun out an identity for himself to live in from just that. It doesn't seem likely to me he would do either (although I admit it could be possible,) but rather that in the Dear Boss letters his motivations are being grossly interpreted from the outside, by someone else.
David |
Author: Caz
Monday, 17 May 1999 - 05:56 am | | Hi All,
It's a case, then, of which of you clever clogs out there has the correct 'interpretation' and can see into Jack's psyche the clearest.
Both David and Red put forward convincing arguments, although contradictory, so which one is right, if either?
I'll go along with Chris and the double negative, whether or not you include the extra 'not'.
This Londoner thinks the 'chalker-upper' is being intentionally racially provocotive by implying that, if the Jews DO get the blame for something bad (the murders, or whatever else is wrong with the world), then they probably deserve it. In other words they won't be blamed for 'no reason' ('nothing'), they will be blamed for 'good reason' ('something').
If this is the case, and the graffito artist WAS Jack, then it can be argued that JtR was not Jewish, and also intended to whip up political trouble to muddy the waters. Alternatively, he could have been using an accomplice's anti-Semitism to make it look like JtR2's work instead.
Or, of course, it could simply be a trouble-maker who liked stirring up the shi*, for those who don't believe it was Jack's work.
And, incidentally, I don't believe Jack felt Stride's murder WAS interrupted, in the way we tend to see it. I think the double event was planned down to the last detail, and executed (sorry) almost perfectly to plan. Just IMHO you understand.
Love,
Caz |
Author: RED DEMON
Monday, 17 May 1999 - 11:54 pm | | Hello All!
Chris and Caz: It's just a theory about the graffito. I can't say, of course, that he wasn't trying to lay blame on the jews. But, the 'double negative' argument is weak. Here in America, psuedo-cowboys wear hats that read 'If you ain't redneck, you ain't shi*". Now, what the hat says is that if you are not redneck, you are not shi*, in effect, if you are redneck you are shi*. But, obviously, their intention is not to call themselves shi*. It's slang. Pure and simple. I believe that is how the graffito was intended. Also Caz, do you seriously believe in this 'accomplice' business?
Mr. Radka: I see we're in agreement that Berkowitz and Zodiac were trying to carve a reputation, an identity, through the letters they wrote. Why then, wasn't Jack? The crimes were similar, why not the needs of the killers?
As always, let me know what you think. Until then...
Yours truly,
RED DEMON |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 18 May 1999 - 02:40 pm | | Hi Red,
Are you sure you got it the right way round with that redneck logo? Sounds to me like it means "If you are not a redneck you are nothing". ("You ain't even shi*") No double negative slang there, IMHO, just one negative inferring another. Perhaps another American could clarify this? London double negative slang, on the other hand, tends to sound like the opposite of what it really means. "I ain't got no body", as the Ghost of Christmas Future said :-)
And I'm deadly serious about the accomplice business. I think JtR1 may have got JtR2 to kill Stride, send the Lusk letter, and possibly kill Kelly too. I'm still working on it all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: RED DEMON
Tuesday, 18 May 1999 - 03:49 pm | | Hello Caz,
Yes, I'm pretty sure about the word 'ain't'. It is slang for 'are not'. In other words 'If you are not redneck, you are not ••••'. Think about it. When will we know who your suspects are? I'm dying to find out. Until then...
Yours truly,
RED DEMON |
Author: Christopher George
Wednesday, 19 May 1999 - 02:06 am | | Hello again Red:
Although I am, like you, making a study of the letters on the chance that one or more may be genuine, I seriously wonder whether the murders themselves constituted Jack's only message, particularly the way he displayed his victims. Did he feel the need to leave any additional messages? Possibly not. What he did to his victims may have been all he wanted to convey. This may be particularly so if he was a foreigner or was illiterate. When we read the Dear Boss letters, we see a person who writes in a clerkly hand, with a good command of the English language. Was this Jack? Our view of Jack is partly conditioned by our familiarity with those letters. They are part of the legend of Jack. However, do the letters hoodwink us into thinking we know more about Jack than we really do? Possibly so.
Chris George |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Wednesday, 19 May 1999 - 12:19 pm | | Ah, a discussion on language! Lovely. It would seem that Red Demon is spot on with his (or her) interpretation of the "redneck" quote.
In the eighteenth century, English speakers were able to use a larger number of contractions than we today; among these was "an't" for "are not" and "am not." "An't" was first recorded in print in America in 1723, though it was doubtless of older use than that. From this beginning, it evolved in two ways: when pronounced to rhyme with "taunt," it became "aren't." Rhymed with "taint," it took on the spelling of "ain't."
Neither of these contractions was particularly superior to the other, both emerging from a common ancestor, but evantually critics began to show a disdain for "ain't;" it soon became regarded as the mark of the unlettered barbarian, where it stays today.
Christopher-Michael |
Author: RED DEMON
Thursday, 20 May 1999 - 02:06 am | | TO PAUL BEGG,
Please e-mail me if you have time. There's a question I'd like to ask you. Thank you so much.
Yours truly,
RED DEMON |
Author: Christopher George
Monday, 26 July 1999 - 08:10 pm | | Hi, all:
Stephen Ryder invited me to post here on the so-called "Lees" letter received by the Metropolitan Police on July 25, 1889, since my prior post on this topic was apparently written on one of the "personal" boards and has timed out. Again, I must credit Stewart P. Evans for coming up with this new interpretation of the letter.
This letter is cited in a number of Ripper books, including "The Jack the Ripper A to Z," because thus far it has been thought to be unique in mentioning the medium Robert James Lees and his supposed work for the police. The authors of "A to Z" quote much but not all of the letter under their entry for Lees. The pertinent passage that is said to mention Lees is interpreted to read as follows: "You have not caught me yet you see, with all your cunning, with all your 'Lees' with all your blue bottles."
The true reading of this passage, though, shown by referring to the original manuscript of the letter, sent to me courtesy of Stewart Evans, is that the word in question is not "Lees" but "tecs" or detectives. In other words, the writer is talking about detectives and plainclothes policemen.
Following I give the full wording of this interesting letter. Note that there are slight variances from the transcription in "A to Z" not only in regard to the new interpretation of "tecs" instead of "Lees" and the addition of the taunting ending words not quoted in "A to Z."
London N. [W.?]
Dear Boss
You have not caught me yet you see, with all your cunning, with all your "tecs" & with all your blue bottles.
I have made two narrow squeaks this week, but still though disturbed I got clear before I could get to work--I will give the foreigners a turn now I think--for a change--Germans especially if I can-- I was conversing with two or three of your men last night--their eyes of course were shut [underline under "of course were shut"] & thus they did not see my bag.
Ask any of your men who were on duty last night in Piccadilly (Circus End) last night [sic] if they saw a gentleman put 2 dragoon guard sergeants into a hansom. I was close by & heard him talk about shedding blood in Egypt[.] I will soon shed more in England[.]
I hope you read mark and learn all that you can if you do so that you may & may not catch
Jack the Ripper
If you want to know where Jack the Ripper is,
Ask a policeman
So long old boys au revoir somday [sic] I will meet you again ha ha ha
Your old friend (the enemy)
Jack |
Author: Christopher George
Tuesday, 27 July 1999 - 05:25 am | | Hi, all:
I should clarify, of course, that it was a copy of the manuscript of the letter received July 25, 1889 by the Metropolitan police that Stewart Evans sent me. The original letter resides in the MEPO files at the Public Record Office in London.
Chris George |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 16 April 2002 - 03:01 pm | | Hello All,
I would be interested if anyone can cite examples of a serial killer who mutilated his victims writing jeering letters to officials.
I am aware of thrill killers (Zodiac, Son of Sam etc) writing letters to the police. These killers tend to use guns or poison. They enjoy the power of snuffing out a life.
The sadist killer who enjoys mutilation and/or torture, as far as I know, does not write the police. Their compulsion has nothing to do with how they are perceived.
This leads me to believe that none of the letters to the police are genuinely from the killer. |
Author: Tee Vee
Wednesday, 17 April 2002 - 10:47 am | | Hi Richard,
Have you heard of Peter Sutcliff ? The Yorkshire Ripper ? He also (allegedly) sent letters and audio tapes to the police/press offices. But even then they were classed as fakes. But this is just the thing isnt it. We are so surrounded with this facade, that makes all or anything to do with this type of psychology we go back to the original Ripper case and wonder, is it real ???? until these letters are answered for we just dont know. |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 17 April 2002 - 12:42 pm | | Hi, TeeVee:
In the case of the Yorkshire Ripper, the tapes and I think some of the letters were sent by a man with a Wearside accent quite different to Peter Sutcliffe's Yorkshire accent. In the book by Lavalle, Wearside Jack there is some discussion of the notion that this hoaxer might though have murdered one of the women credited to Sutcliffe.
All the best
Chris George |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 17 April 2002 - 01:31 pm | | The important thing to note here is that Jack the Ripper was not a man who took pleasure in mutilation and torture of his victims whilst they were alive.
All mutilations took place post mortem. I don't think you can classify Jack as you have done.
Peter. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 17 April 2002 - 03:58 pm | | Peter,
I would not suggest Jack the Ripper was a sadist. However, Jack the Ripper did have an obsession and/or compulsion to mutilate. As far as I know, letter writing from these kinds of killers are extremely rare.
JTR goal was to mutilate. The murderer who writes letters tends to be the kind of killer who does so for ego. These murderers tend to kill more impersonally (with a gun, poison, etc). Their interest is not in desecrating remains.
Rich |
|
|
|
|
