|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Bullen, Moore, and the Littlechild Letter (Beware: long post)
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Letters: General Discussion:
Bullen, Moore, and the Littlechild Letter (Beware: long post)
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 07 April 2001 - 11:26 pm |        | In looking through the new (to me) layout and content of the Casebook, I decided to look at the Littlechild letter again. (Eyes roll in heads; deep sighs are heard across the land; yea and verily, mayhap even the heavens rumble!)
Let me scan this justly famous and important letter with a two-fold purpose: 1) what does it say about the quality of Littlechild's information; 2) what does my assessment of said qualities have to do with certain of the JtR letters?
1) L is writing in 1913, almost 25 years after the last canonical murder (1888). This is a very long lapse in time. Such a lapse raises questions about the freshness of the information provided. Did L have all the case files in front of him when he wrote? Was he relying solely or partially on memory? How reliable and objective is anyone's memory after a 25 year lapse? People so inclined could take L's statement about Anderson ("...He {Major Griffiths} probably got his information from Anderson who only 'thought he knew.') -- who provided his version of JtR's identity in quips spanning 1907 to 1920 (Anderson died in 1918; where the 1920 Police Encyclopedia reference was drawn is irrelevant to my topic) -- and turn it around on L.
2) L is writing to one of the most prominent London journalists of the time (including circa 1888).
3) Why was this letter ever written? Did Sims request it, or solicit Littlechild's every opinion? L says this: "Knowing the great interest you take in all matters criminal, and abnormal, I am just going to inflict one more letter on you on the 'Ripper' subject. Letters as a rule are only a nuisance when they call for a reply but this does not need one. I will try and be brief."
Is the infliction-reference L's humility or a bald statement of fact, that Sims either has heard enough from L or never asked to hear from L on these matter in the first place? The first sentence provides a partial answer: "I was pleased to receive your letter which I shall put away in 'good company' to read again, perhaps some day when old age overtakes me and when to revive memories of the past may be a solace."
So Sims wrote to L, right? When? Requesting what? How many answers did L provide to how many requests from Sims? From the letter, we can only tell that Sims seems to have asked specifically about two things: a "Dr. D." The Druitts and D'Onstons can tussle, if they wish, over the identity of 'Dr. D.'
The fourth paragraph provides another clear indication of the second part of Sims' request: "With regard to the term 'Jack the Ripper'..." Sims, a contemporary of Bullen and Moore, perhaps friendly (or not so friendly) professional rivals, whose paper probably used the CNA's services from time to time seems not to know the origin of "Jack the Ripper." He also would seem to be unaware of what is later claimed to have been common knowledge or gossip among the journalists of the time...that Bullen and/or Moore perpetrated the letter hoax and invented the name JtR.
I think this is an extraordinary situation given the general dismissal by many people of some the so-called JtR letters as being known for a hoax rather quickly after the first two missives were made public in 1888. Is Sims so dense he forgot what people who disregard certain of the letters is claimed to be common knowledge? Sims is also unaware of what is also claimed to have been a known fact among the journalists of the time, especially following Bullen's fall from grace?
I think the inferences drawn from Sims asking this particular question cast considerable doubt on the claimed pervasive (nay, near univeral) knowledge/agreement/consensus(?) of the accusation against Bullen/Moore for forging the letters by everyone in the journalist trade.
Please also note L's connection of the 'criminal' with the 'abnormal.' What L thinks is 'abnormal' becomes clear later, and is pertinent to assessing the quality of the information L provides.
4) How convinced is L in his accusations against Dr. Tumblety? He musters these facts(?) as evidence(?):
a) "He was an American quack named Tumblety and was at one time a frequent visitor to London and on these occasions constantly brought under the notice of police, there being a large dossier concerning him at Scotland Yard." What did this large dossier contain? We don't know from this letter. Were the contents related to charges that were brought against Dr. T. time and again? Or was the file at least partially filled with reports, allegations, accusations, etc. that never led to prosecution?
b) The fourth sentence in this paragraph tells us a little something about what the dossier may have been focused on: "Tumblety was arrested at the time of the murders in connection with unnatural offences and charged at Marlborough Street, remanded on bail, jumped his bail, and got away to Boulogne." Unnatural offences (never you mind what a "natural" offence might be, smarties!) refer to engaging in homosexuality. Oscar Wilde was charged with this exact same "offence." Wilde is the link between L's views on the 'abnormal,' the 'criminal,' and -- in a paradox -- the identity of JtR.
c) L offers this opinion on JtR's state of mind (one wonders where a copper got this psychological/medical terminology if not from the nearly equally discredited Dr. Bond): "Although a 'Sycopathia Sexualis' subject he was not known as a 'Sadist' (which the murderer unquestionably was) but his feelings toward women were remarkable and bitter in the extreme, a fact on record."
Hmmm, JtR was definitely a 'sadist' but Dr. T. wasn't. One disqualification for Dr. T's being JtR. Dr. T.'s qualifications for being "'Sycopathia Sexualis'" appear to be solely his homosexuality. Has history borne out L's belief that homosexuality and criminality -- including, presumably, serial murder -- are inevitably interwined; a sort of cause and effect? No rational 21st century being could hold such an extreme view and be taken seriously.
Let us also not forget Dr. T's misogyny. Again, is misogyny ipso facto evidence of criminality? The answer would be the same as it was regarding links between homosexuality and criminality.
Does the combination of homosexuality and misogyny provide any clearer proof that Dr. T. was JtR? Hardly. Anecdotal 'proofs' of any particular criminal displaying one or both of these traits does not mean that everyone who possesses these characteristics is therefore also a criminal or capable of crime. Take any other two traits (such as a bad driving record and a dislike for children)...do these traits predispose or even condemn a person to being a criminal if you find that some child killers also possess bad driving records and dislike kids?
By any modern standard, L's arguments for Dr. T being JtR are foundationally unsound.
d) Just how knowledgable is L about his personal suspect? He says: "He {Dr. T.} shortly left Boulogne and was never heard of afterwards. It was believed he committed suicide but certain it is that from this time the 'Ripper' murders came to an end." Never heard of again yet believed he committed suicide...if he was never heard of again who said he committed suicide and who, besides L, could believe this? There is no mention of the searches made for Dr. T. No mention of inquiries to the American authorities to keep a look-out for Dr. T. (who was known to the police in the U.S., even being rounded-up with many others in the aftermath of the Lincoln assassination, if this info is still accurate). Curious lapses in specificity, no? Opens the door to many doubts about the reliability of L's sources of info for this letter's content...especially if he (as it seems) is relying more on memory than any case files before him.
5) Now we come to a matter close to my heart: Bullen and Moore's supposed perpetration of the JtR/Saucy Jack letter and card. Simply note L's word choice as he describes what he believes and ask yourself is this a man certain of his assertion: "With regard to the term 'Jack the Ripper' it was generally believed at the Yard that Tom Bullen of the Central News was the originator, but it is probable Moore, who was his chief, was the inventor. It was a smart piece of journalistic work."
"Generally believed" L asserts again. Who said it and who believed it, I ask again? And, as with the fate of Dr. T, what proof is offered? What inquiries were made?
L isn't even certain of his ground as to who coined the term 'JtR' (an alternate reading would also be valid that the authorship of the missives cannot definitively be attributed between Bullen or Moore).
So what in the way of ANY evidence or corroboration does L offer in this case? The same quality, I'm afraid, as what he offered for Dr. T's pyscho-sexual criminality: "Poor Bullen occasionally took too much to drink, and I fail to see how he could help it knocking about so many hours and seeking favours from so many people to procure copy. One night when Bullen had taken a 'few too many' he got early information of the death of Prince Bismarck and instead of going to the office to report it sent a laconic telegram 'Bloody Bismarck is dead'. On this I believe Mr Charles Moore fired him out."
He singles out Bullen, against whom he has some unsavory stories that certainly must have been known to Sims, Bullen's peer, his contemporary, his fellow journalist. In L's view -- note that we can't corroborate these accusations about Bullen during the 1888 period -- Bullen drank too much. Oh, and he was "laconic" about the Kaiser dee-mise! That's it, folks, except that Moore, supposedly his partner in the letter swindle, fires Bullen for his terseness.
The letters, the allegations of excessive drinking, and the disrespect over the Kaiser's lapse in health are all interconnected in L's mind. Bullen supposedly ended up drinking too much which resulted in his Kaier declaration (never meant for publication, I suppose), and the inferred objective corroboration -- from an alleged co-conspirator in the swindle at that! -- in Moore firing Bullen. What Bullen did or became AFTER 1888 becomes ipso facto evidence of his 'guilt' in the supposed 1888 JtR letter hoax!
Two last snippets from the letter, one contradictory to L's portrayal of Bullen circa 1888, and one regarding the proclivities of those known felons, homosexuals, a la Wilde:
The contradiction: "No journalist of my time got such privileges from Scotland Yard as Bullen. Mr James Munro when Assistant Commissioner, and afterwards Commissioner, relied on his integrity." Okay, so I ask again, who made the allegation against Bullen in 1888 and who really believed it? Obviously not Munro, for one.
Further questionable use of anecdotal material as 'evidence': "It is very strange how those given to 'Contrary sexual instinct' and 'degenerates' are given to cruelty, even Wilde used to like to be punched about. It may interest you if I give you an example of this cruelty in the case of the man Harry Thaw and this is authentic as I have the boy's statement...."
I have never found a single reference to Wilde's liking to be punched about. Richard Ellman's biography of Wilde makes no mention of this supposed proclivity. The closest we get to an 'abused' Wilde is the attempts of male prostitutes to blackmail which Wilde treated with humor.
I included the bit about the one actual case L does cite as a warning for how anecdotes, too generally applied, are dangerous. Even if this Thaw liked to whip boys in his hotel room, what does that have to do with Wilde, or with homosexuality?
If I haven't treated the Littlechild Letter as exhaustively as it deserves it is only because I've become exhausted writing what I have about it.
The L letter is important, but the light it shines on the JtR case is neither as bright or of the same color as its defenders would have us believe.
I won't speak for Dr. Tumblety but I think this letter does great injustice to Tom Bullen. It certainly also allows those as inclined as Littlechild to dismiss the JtR/Dear Boss missives to use his dubious conclusions/arguments and dismiss what are, arguably, important if difficult to understand 'facts' about the JtR case.
That's all.
Yaz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Sunday, 08 April 2001 - 08:11 am | | Yazoo--Hello. An intriguing post. I tried to resurrect a similar thread sometime back by innocently asking whether or not 'the enterprising journalist' claims/theories laid out by Anderson & Macnaghten & Littlechild (and let's not forget R. Thurston Hopkins mentioned by Stewart Evans & Paul Gainey) didn't put an absolute end to matter. Since I received little or no response, I gathered that this subject was a real groaner to many. I'm happy to see it receive some discussion, though I am also somewhat drearily suspecting that Paul Feldman & Shirley Harrison would rub their hands with glee at the thought of the 'Dear Boss' writer being given a new lease on life(!) But that can't be helped, I suppose.
Anyway, a general comment. The 'ipso facto' point about Bullen's alleged dissent into drunkeness is a valid point, of course, and the same sort of thing might be said about, say, Spicer's story and his subsequent sack for being drunk on duty a year or so later. (Indeed, one might even argue that Spicer went on a drunk because he was not taken seriously by his superiors). So one must be aware of such tricky logical puzzles. In general, though, --not to undermine your arguement or lessen the validity of your point--I can see how it would be difficult for historians to avoid the 'ipso facto' fallacy, especially if the information about the historical figure in question is somewhat limited & 'sketchy'. At some point, one might have to decide to make a general character assessment based on the information to which we do have access. But here your objection is rock-solid, it seems to me, and perhaps we have to acknowledge that logicians and historians will forever be butting heads.
But I have a question for you: What do you make, if anything, about Keith Skinner's discovery that Bulling & Moore visited the Black Museum together? It would be interesting to know the date of this visit, particularly in relationship to the story that Bulling got sacked by Moore.
Another thing I've wondered about is Macnaghten's very clearly qualified comment 'I have always thought that I could discern the stained forefinger of the journalist' being immediately followed-up by the more intriguing statement:'a year later, I had shrewd suspicions as to the actual author...'. Why a 'year later'? Is there any meaning we can wring out of this? Is there anything in the historic record that might indicate that the 'Dear Boss' letters were more likely to be a hoax a year after the fact, or was this more along the lines of Macnaghten's 'private information'? A futile question, perhaps. By the way --something I've wondered about-- did the 'Ripper Letter' fad become at all resurrected by any of the later killings? Did the sad ends of Alice McKenzie or Francis Coles inspire any missives to 'Dear Old Boss'?
Finally, I throw out my own private theory (though no doubt some of these comments might have been made before) against Mr. Bulling, and you can examine or demolish it at your leisure.
First off, I concede that the 'Dear Boss' letter is a rather impressive piece, and that the post card is particularly appealing. (Though I do have to wonder if the bit about 'I had not time to get the ears' in anyway agrees with Eddowes post mortum and the rather time-consuming mutilations that merely mention 'two abrasions of epithelium under the left ear.')
But to my point. Juxtapose these two impressive communications with the 5 October letter sent to Williamson by Bulling, containing the third 'Dear Boss' letter. It seems to me that Jack's tone has now changed completely. He is no longer a happy-go-lucky gamester with impressive details of a 'double-event' ("Double event" is, by the way --and I didn't come across this until recently--a bit of British gambling jargon, which might give some clue to the sort of bloke the letter writer was) but is, rather, now a hard-to-take-seriously religious nut rambling about 'Moab & Midian' and promising a 'tripe event' which....and this is important...he doesn't deliver. If Williamson does inded 'keep this back' he will have to come to the eventual conclusion that the letters are not from Jack. And that, precisely, is what I think that Bulling is trying to tell Williamson(!) Assuming that Bulling did write the letters, is it possible that his practical joke went completely over-board when the police printed up the letters and circulated them? And now, somewhat rattled by the whole thing, he decided to clue-in Williamson to this fact?? For clearly, this third letter is harder to take seriously than the first two.
And note the way that Bulling ends his communication to Williamson. He ends his quoting of the Jack the Ripper letter and then --strangely its seems to me--signs his own name under the letter in the same fashion as Jack:
"The police now reckon my work a practical joke (my italics) well well Jacky's a very practical joker ha ha ha Keep this back till three are wiped out and you can show the cold meat
Your truly
Jack the Ripper
Yours truly
T. J. Bulling"
Now wouldn't it be possible to argue at this point that Bulling is making an 'indirect confession', and hinting to Williamson that this was really written by him, T. J. Bulling, and it was all meant as a practical joke and that the police should not to take this too seriously? (But perhaps Williamson missed this point?) Just a guess, but I think a fairly decent one, considering the lay-out of Bulling's letter, the reference to "practical joke" (I think Chris George or someone made a similar point?) and the fact that the non-appearance of a 'triple event' would soon undermine the impressive prediction of a 'double event' in the previous post card. At least this is what I tend to think. But poke away at it, if you like.
Yours truly,
RJ Palmer |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 08 April 2001 - 09:23 am | | Hey R.J.:
Shows you how long I've been away from this subject when I can't get Bulling's name straight!
As to others, especially among the police, making references to journalists being behind the hoax -- therefore providing inferential "proof" of Bulling/Moore's guilt:
1) It seems clear (throughout this JtR case) that certain information became 'fact' simply through repetition of the assertion. 'A journalist was behind the hoax,' is a prime example. No evidence is ever offered. It is an archetypal police officer's suspicions, vocalized, that become truth and fact as the story makes the rounds. No one else offers evidence for this theory; they just hint darkly the way police do sometimes. It nevers makes their suspicions right, factual, or admissible evidence. Police work is full of hunches, intuitions, insights that, in themselves, do not constitute evidence. Prosecutors might say "Okay, IF what you think is true, give me the evidence to prove it." No one that we know of ever seems to ask for this proof back circa 1888. I attribute this to the story being understood as gossip by one agency (police) who often were in conflict with another agency (journalists). How seriously this gossip/accusation was taken in and around 1888 is anybody's guess. But the gossip grew into satisfactory proof against Bullings or at least pro journalist-hoax over time.
2) The book that Stewart cited to me long ago (in a far off galaxy, it seems now) shows how this rumor, now specifically charging Bulling with the hoax, became 'fact' in the eyes of journalists as well. Once again, Bulling's current fall/state of grace(lessness) is cited as ipso facto 'evidence' of his guilt. That's why it is VERY curious that Littlechild's letter implies that Sims did NOT know (or coyly pretended he didn't know) the source of the name JtR. Sims should also know of any stories against Bulling or a press hoax in general. Why is he going over this 'old' ground with L? Why does L make his letter seem both a response to a request from Sims and also apologizing for seemingly writing another letter (is it L's second, third, fourth, etc. response to Sims' inquiry? Who knows right now?) when he feels and expects Sims to likewise feel no other letter from L was asked for or needed? Curiouser and cursiouser.
3) The reference to the 'Black Museum' was the second spur for my post (reference to L being another; a third being no one would believe it was me writing on the Casebook again if I didn't have something to say on the letters). I agree with the question: what can we make of Moore and Bulling visiting the museum -- especially being allowed to do so if they were almost universally known amongst the police, at least, as being the originators of a pretty bad hoax?
There can be no definitive answer unless somewhere in Bulling or Moore's surviving papers they state a reason. Anybody can attribute whatever motives they will exactly because we lack prime, first hand evidence. As a supporter of the letters as being valid pieces of the JtR puzzle, I would throw out this spin: Moore and Bulling are well aware of the allegations against them as authors of the hoax. L mentions Bulling's integrity and the gossip of the hoax's origins would be a damaging personal blow to both men's integrity. The letters are now a very personal part of both men's lives. Are we surprised they would want to see these letters again?
4) Bulling's signing his name after citing the third letter has been addressed previously by myself and others. The consensus reached, or at least firmly held by myself, is that Bulling is making a challenge for the police to compare his own writing with that of the letter-writer. The comparison should either damn him or exonerate him. Unfortunately, the challenge was not accepted and he continued to be damaged by the gossip anyway. So, no, I don't see Bulling signing his own confession; rather the opposite.
5) All of the letters that others have identified as 'being from the same hand' as the first letter have been examined in previous posts -- most of these posts very old (circa 98-99). It would be a disservice if I tried to distill all the arguments in a single post here. If you care to, try searching back through this thread and follow the give and take discussions many people had around this very topic. I think enough theories, based on the internal evidence of the letters themselves, would satisfy you -- one way or another -- as to the place of all these letters in relations to the first letter and to JtR.
6) It's important to remember regarding this theory of a hoax (as in all hoaxes associated with this case) "What was the (alleged) perpetrator hoping to gain?' Especially in this case, one would expect the CNA via Moore/Bulling to have made a bit of money circulating the letter to their customers amongst the newspapers who used their service. They did no such thing. They sent the letter to the police instead -- (as if?) they believed the letter(s) to be genuine too. If it was a hoax, Bulling and Moore and the CNA fell for it too. A change in motive for the hoax is required then, no? And it is easily forthcoming through the invetiveness of the hoax-theorist: Maybe Moore and Bulling wanted to make the police look foolish? (Did the police need any help in this during the JtR case?) Being a drunk and a laconic one at that, Bulling couldn't resist pulling the legs of the police and his fellow journalists? (Never mind the obvious threat to his integrity and the risk to his own career if the hoax is discovered.) I cannot answer all the possible motives the letter-detractors might deduce or invent. It just seems sad and curious that these inexplicable letters cannot be simply and truly what they are -- letters either from JtR or from an unknown hoaxer who displays some very curious personality traits we MIGHT associate with JtR.
Hope that answers your questions and concerns, R.J.
Yaz |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Sunday, 08 April 2001 - 05:11 pm | | Dear Roger and Yaz,
I am not well versed with the Littlefield letter,
but while reading what you were writing I became
aware of some degree of ill - feeling between
Scotland Yard and the press of 1888.
Are either of you aware of the McNeill Case of
December 1887? It had some prominence in early
1888, but has sort of drifted into the forgotten
crimes of yesteryear. Briefly, in December 1887,
a newspaper reporter named Archibald McNeill was
sent to France to cover a sporting event (a boxing
match, I believe) in Paris. A number of reporters
had gone with him, but on the return trip, when
they had reached Boulogne McNeill was seen spending a great deal of time in the company of
a small, sinister looking man. Both were in a
number of bars together, and McNeill was certainly
drinking. He was supposed to leave for England,
when he disappeared, and was found drowned the
following day. There was some suspicion (by his
fellow reporters) that he was robbed and murdered.
The investigation became a turf fight between the
French and English police, and like many other
murder cases involving English victims in France
in the next century, it was unsolved. The French
police did investigate the small, sinister man,
and questioned him, but found nothing to hold him
on.
I bring this up, because it would have been in the
minds of reporters in London (and in England) in
1888. They would have a low opinion about the
abilities of Scotland Yard and the police in general. Such a point of view would lead to a
reporter setting up a possible hoax to discredit
or sneer at the police.
Jeff |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 08 April 2001 - 09:50 pm | | Hey Jeff:
If I remember correctly, the social climate regarding the English police, public, and press was even more troubled than this particular discussion has suggested.
I believe there was a demonstration (political?) in 87 or 88 put down by the police that upset the public and press. The reorganization of the police along military lines seems to have upset everybody. On and on.
In the climate that surrounds a series of unsolved crimes, especially brutal murders, a great deal of pressure and criticism is generated towards the police who our viewed as are protectors and instruments of justice. I think (IMHO) such criticism of the 1888 police regarding the handling of JtR was unwarranted, but it was there. This impatience, frustration, and ultimately criticism and maybe contempt/ridicule was reflected by all levels of society.
My point is that no reporter needed to have done anything to make the police's bad situation even worse. BUT, understandably, the police were equally frustrated and were seeking their own scapegoats -- to use a non-letter example, Anderson believed some elements of society, or at least family members, were sheltering JtR.
I think the saddest thing of all is that the only person who was truly sneering at the police, the press, and all of English/London society was JtR. He was the common enemy: one man/two men/one woman/what-have-you against the world. That is why I've tried to keep the letters (and the Goulston street message and apron-piece, and the Lusk letter and kidney) in front of the Casebook -- to the annoyance of not a few, I bet.
While the meaning behind his message does not matter in the least, there seems to me a strong pattern (an internal logic, if you will) to all of this letter/message business -- introduced solely by JtR, kept going solely by JtR, but undoubtedly obscured by loonies and tricksters who falsely wrote letters and messages for their own twisted reasons.
For whatever reasons, JtR seems to have (obviously) wanted his anonymity but also some recognition. He wasn't just a shadow drifting across a lone woman's path and left the horrible ruin that the 1888 public and police (we can include ourselves here too) saw.
His purposes for leaving messages (most if not all of these instances are hotly disputed -- many authorities on the subject just dismiss them all completely) remain obscure; his methods of leaving messages was open to misinterpretation and abuse by hoaxsters -- except for that apron piece and kidney.
With no clear meaning behind his messages, and little or no iron-clad methodology to say some one thing originated with JtR and no one else, I'm not surprised at the 1888 police's hostility to the idea...or modern hostility to it!
I'd be satisfied if I could convince people that there IS a pattern here, and that this pattern betrays a will or a mind, and that the mind belongs to JtR and to him alone. What JtR was trying to say or why is not important, perhaps even irrelevant, compared to the recognition that leaving messages (even in the white heat of his brutality and mutilations) was one of his defining traits.
Oh well. Thanks, Jeff and R.J. and anybody else reading, for allowing me to ramble about such a disputed, disreputable aspect of JtR's milieu.
Yaz |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 08 April 2001 - 10:07 pm | | Hi, Yaz:
Nice to see you here again. I have to agree with you. It has struck me as very curious that a police official was telling a journalist that a journalist wrote the JtR letters and telling anecdotes about the career of the said newspaperman which Sims, as a journalist, surely should have known. One of the problems that I have with British reminiscences, also encountered in the military field where I do much of my work, on the War of 1812, is that so much is told in this sort of anecdotal style.
As for whether Bulling wrote the JtR letters, while I should not pre-guess the upcoming book on the letters by Evans and Skinner, I believe their point of view may be that if Moore or Bulling did not actually themselves write the letters they may have got a clerk to write them. The third Dear Boss letter copied out in Bulling's hand does not seem to me too close to the handwriting exhibited in the original Dear Boss communications. Neither is the handwriting like the hand in Bulling's will which I post here courtesy of Peter Birchwood.
So, yes, Yaz, I agree that a number of questions might be asked about the Littlechild letter sent so many years later. I believe that Tumblety was a genuine suspect and that Littlechild's letter has great value in pointing us to Francis Tumblely as a suspect. However, there are a number of aspects of the value of the other information contained in the letter and of the circumstances under which the letter was written that might be questioned and that you have highlighted.
Best regards
Chris George
 |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 12:09 am | | Hey hey:
Chris! Good to hear from you, my friend. It was nice to see Paul on the boards when I popped back here too.
I'm no handwriting expert so I leave it to others to decide which letters were 'from the same hand as' business. I think, if I was intent on proving a hoax, I would focus on that. I'd have a hard time arguing against a handwriting expert.
No doubt I would still have the same trouble with Stewart's new book...actually to all critiques of the letters that proport to 'identify' the responsible party -- whether it be a Maybrick, an amorphous JtR, Bulling, etc. Here's why:
There are two distinct issues that must first be addressed when considering the letters:
1) Are they a hoax?
2) Do we know who wrote them?
I've always acknowledged the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of forever proving the letters are not a hoax. The only way to ever really know is if (when?) we agree we've caught JtR and can compare handwriting. It's not my failure alone that we haven't cotched JtR yet, so the jury (my internal jury) is still deliberating on the authenticity question.
Real problems begin for me when people start claiming they can prove somebody (anybody) wrote the letters. So far, the arguments for any particular person have been (to me, mind you) riddled with assumptions, prejudices, and speculations. I know nothing about the Maybrick authorship mentioned by R. J. (and frankly don't care to know), but the Bulling/Moore thesis has been beaten into the ground without either side conceding an inch.
Maybe I should take it as a sign that some of our arguments in favor of witholding judgement on authenticity, or at worst using it as a working hypothesis leading toward another, greater point about JtR, have worked if Bulling/Moore now require a third accomplice in their supposed hoax.
Such a thesis will have hard sledding with me since the proponents use L's letter as 'proof' of authorship and L makes no mention of another hoax conspirator. It's either Bulling alone, or Bulling with a tip from Moore. What's next, a book that theorizes (short of a confession and handwriting corroboration, that's all anybody can do with these letters) Bulling's grandma wrote them dotingly for her favorite grandchild?
The topic of these letters (the real issue for me is JtR sending messages from mid to late in his 'career'...but never mind; gotta start somewhere) seems so threatening to many people. They can't simply dismiss the topic using a standard reply such as is used against the Prince Albert/Masonic conspiracy theory. Or failing that, just leave the poor dolt to wallow in his own stupidity (though I admit many seem to do so from the relative lack of interest in this topic). Now we need a book introducing "The Third Man?" I wonder why these letters produce such strong negative reactions.
I'll state now I'm prepared to give up on the letters IF someone, anyone, can offer proof...not theories...that they are a hoax. I do not need the letters to continue believing JtR sent the police and 'his' public messages other than the newspaper letters...though I acknowledge having them helps my thesis. And I certainly find it discouraging not to be able to move beyond this issue. Be glad when it's resolved, one way or another. I also do NOT want to get into a pissin' match again with Stewart (if he's the Evans in Evans and Skinner). I have too much respect for the man and his accomplishments.
I wonder: Would my opponents agree to temporarily withold the fire and brimstone of their negative judgement if they fail to convince any reasonable person that...beyond doubt...the letters are a hoax? Would they give me or anyone else the slack that the letters MAY be genuine and then see what is made of that postulate, then they can bash the (mis?)use of the letters rather than waste time on what can never be proven until or unless we catch JtR?
Yaz
P.S., Was it Skinner who postulated a four-legged mammal depositing the piece of Eddowes' apron on a Goulston Street doorstep? |
Author: Tom Wescott
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 01:27 am | | Yaz,
Welcome back! I've been wondering where you went to. You probably don't remember me, but it's all good. Wonderful post you started here. When you're not getting all democratic on us you can really spit some good stuff out. Keep it coming!
To all,
I wrote an article called 'Tom Bulling & The Myth of the London Journalist' that will be published in an upcoming issue of 'Ripperologist', so this subject is of much interest to me. However, I think I'll just sit back for now and read what others have to say. I love it when people point out something I'd never thought of before. Good stuff!
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 06:34 am | | Hi All,
Good for you Yaz. I always think that the very best indication that a question on the ripper case is worth asking is the amount of time, energy and raw emotion I see put into negative reactions to the question and towards those who would upset the apple-cart by asking it.
In other words, ignore the truly daft or unreasonable and it will tend to recognise its own daftness and unreasonable nature and go away. Feed any question with ridicule, contempt or threats, and it will grow stronger, and perfectly content to stick around out of its own natural curiosity, to find out why it's getting so much attention.
So do carry on questioning, Yaz, Tom et al - the more they make others squirm with discomfort, the more you can guess your questions have merit.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 06:49 am | | Yaz - an excellent post and follow-up discussion all round, properly examining and detailing things that have always been among my own reservations about the Littlechild letter. Going further, too, in the excellent Sims points among others that had never occurred to me.
You ask two factual questions, to which the responses are:
Bulling and Moore visited the Black Museum in 1892.
The suggestion that a dog could have picked up the piece of apron and transported it, say, 100 yards in any direction for deposit in Goulston Street was proposed by Scotland Yard detectives on a training exercise, and unanimously approved as a correct possibility to be born in mind by their high-ranking and experienced superiors.
I think that 1892 is a part of the period (terminating in 1897) when Dr Anderson took pesonal charge of the Black Museum and himself conducted visitors round. Keith will know for sure. But if this is the case, it must cast doubt on Anderson's having believed in 1892 that Bulling, let alone Bulling and Moore were responsible for a mischievous obstruction of justice.
Personally, I have felt since it was first discovered that the Littlechild letter represents a warning to all of us (myself definitely included) who place a high premium on contemporary police evidence. We have to acknowledge that so far the known named police suspects all seem pretty improbable figures, and while the old view that the police were incompetents and at sixes and sevens with each other has been rightly discredited, still we need to be very cautious about giving their views too much respect.
And above all, I want to know more - much more - about Littlechild's character. His memoirs give me nothing to get my teeth into for assessing the quality of his evidence. (Unlike, interestingly, Anderson's, Macnaghten's, Smith's, Dew's, and even Monro's unpublished grumbling).
Martin F |
Author: Joseph
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 08:25 am | | Hi Yaz,
Welcome home.
I'm running out the door as I write this, but I wanted to say HI, and I'll talk with you real soon.
Hi Caz, I hope all is well.
I gotta run
Ciao |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 09:07 am | | Hey...(deja vu all over again!):
Tom: Forgive my squandered gray cells but I only vaguely recall your name. We must not have butted heads or the scars would remind me more. I thought I saw the title of your paper here on the Casebook. I'll be sure to read it. I take it you're responding to any definitive identification of the letter writer(s) and not addressing the 'authenticity' of the said same?
Caz: Hey, simply Hey, from one unwitting agent provocateur to another.
Martin: Again my thanks. Interesting about the dog theory. Possible? Yes. Probably. I think not. As I've said long ago, why steal a scrap of cloth with (pardon the phrase, given from the dog's eye view) so much blood and meat around? Regarding the Black Museum visit...I personally see little significance for either side in Bullings/Munro visit to said museum. Too many questions could be asked before we even tangle with the dreaded 'Why?' issues. I have high regard for the 1888 police. They may have lost every battle with JtR, but they won the war...first driving him from his usual (preffered?) public spaces to the private spaces of Kelly's room; then away from the scene entirely. The month of October, 1888, is the most interesting for me because of all the changes and rearrangements on both the police's and JtR's parts...and we know so little of what when on 'behind the scenes.'
Joseph: Hey! I hope I have more stamina this go-round than the last. Good to see another Knight of the Grail (even if we be of the Monty Python version) skulkin' about with me.
Yaz |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 10:04 am | | Another big "Ooops"
I said Bullings/Munro when I meant Bulling/Moore. I need a dang scorecard/dancecard to keep everybody straight.
Being guilty of relying on a poor memory and psuedo-Mavis Beacon typing skills, I have greater sympathy with the police reminiscences and other, after-the-fact (even looong after the fact) memoir writers -- despite my often cutting remarks on this score.
Like Chris and Martin, I too wish to emphasize the dangers inherent in memory. I just have to learn to do it without offending my contemporaries who possess records and memories beyond my own meager possessions.
-----------------
Onward...
I don't own any books by/about Sims so can anybody who knows more about Sims offer reasonable suggestions/proofs as to what he may have been trying to do when he asked L about the origin of JtR name? I hope (but would surely commiserate if...) he wasn't yet another victim of failing memory.
Yaz |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 02:07 pm | | Hi, Yaz:
George R. Sims wrote extensively and knowledgeably on the Ripper case, under the name of "Dagonet" in the Sunday Referee and in other publications. His articles on the Whitechapel murders are available here on the Casebook if you go to the main page and click on the Press Reports section. It is noticable that he was still evidently fascinated about the murders as late as 1917, so we can hypothesize that he may have written to Littlechild to clarify some point, which provoked Littlechild's letter in reply. In the piece from 1917, he states that the police had suspected as being the murderer a man who drowned himself, apparently meaning Druitt, and that "there were circumstances which left very little doubt in the official mind as to the Ripper's identity." Thus, Sims apparently took Macnaghten's 1894 word on who was the Ripper, possibly backed up by the opinion of other police officers, and not Littlechild's 1913 advice that Tumblety was a likely suspect.
All the best
Chris George |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 02:31 pm | | Hey Chris:
Thanks for the info.
I'm curious though about the question of the JtR name thing. I have a (unfounded) suspicion it may have been some coy little test, or 'feeler,' on Sims' part. To what purpose, I have no clue. I was hoping some inferential reading of Sims' articles and books (I assume he wrote some, no?) might provide a clue as to what he was about on this issue.
Searches on used book sites bring up a ton and a half of George Simses. Do you know if he wrote books under Dagonet, or had Dagonet in the title?
How's the war of 1812 going? Let me know when somebody's declared the winner!
Yaz |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 01:16 am | | Hi Yaz,
by now you have probably taken Christopher George's advice and have read the section on Sims, here in the casebook so this post is perhaps useless but, I'll post this anyway.
Sims himself felt that the "Jack the Ripper" letters (he actually only mentions the post card) were a hoax and offered a rather convincing argument in favour of a journalist as the perpetrator. I have often wondered whether this argument had also convinced the powers that be at Scotland Yard. Here is the relevant paragraph,
"...Of course the whole business is a farce. The postcard is an elaborately-prepared hoax. To imagine a man deliberately murdering and mutilating women, and then confessing the deed on a postcard, is to turn Mr. W. S. Gilbert loose upon the Whitechapel murders at once....
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 occurred 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 world which is certainly surprising. 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."
From, The Referee, 7 October 1888.
Wolf. |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 11:59 am | | Hey Wolf:
The quote doesn't address why Sims would question L about what he already knew.
As to Sims' theories, well...where is the proof that the conclusions he draws are either absolutely correct or even probable?
1) I'm extremely glad Sims feels that the "hoax" involved someone who knew the workings of the press. Problem is: if the letter wasn't a hoax, it would mean the murderer was in some way connected to the press. I think Sims has strong personal (he was of that tribe of scribes!) as well as professional reasons therefore to discount/disqualify the letter as a hoax.
2) In arguing for the letter's dismissal as a hoax he uses very prejudicial reasoning. "Imitation blood besmeared" does not address the letter's emphasis on the color of his ink...the letter makes no pretense of 'fooling' anyone he was writing in blood, an inference about deception (in so small a detail as to the color/compostion of the red ink) that might be drawn from Sims description.
3) "Elaborately-prepared..." Where is the evidence, even if it is a hoax, of the need for ANY preparation, elaborate or otherwise? Sims says it, therefore it must be so. And if Chris is correct, we're somebody going to get a book on how this elaboration might have, probably...mutating in many minds to dead certainty...took place.
4) "Of course the whole business is a farce..." It must be; it has to be; the ramifications of it being genuine would lead us down paths Sims (and many others) do not WANT to go (i.e., "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 [practicing?] journalist - perhaps by a real live editor! Which is absurd, and at that I think I will leave it." Well, I certainly feel put in MY place by this irrefutable bit of logic!
3) A murderer communicating his deeds or his contempt after commiting murder may have been surprising in 1888, but we know all too well now that doing such a thing is far from unimaginable. It's a fact, Jack (pardon the grisly pun). There are more things in this world than have been dreamt of in Sims' philosophy, no?
4) Sims offers no motive, no gain for a journalist or news agency who may have perpetrated the hoax. Remember, Moore and Bulling sent the letter directly to the police, they did not peddle it to their press customers. The story was broken independently.
5) Sims makes no mention of the incalcuable risk to not just the personal integrity and livelihood of the perpetrators, but the damage that would be done to the entire organization (in this case, the CNA) they work for if the hoax could be laid at their doorstep. Again, balancing the risks with Sims' unarticulated gains/motives, it runs counter-intuitive that someone would decide on taking the risk.
And after all, Sims' argument is totally intuitive, unfounded by any substantiation, precedents...nothing but his outraged feelings as a journalist. He realizes the ramifications of the letter being genuine and simply refuses to consider it at all. Why? For him, it's because it simply cannot be true that somehow journalists (down to the anonymous stringers working the streets of London, Whitechapel, the East End, etc.) or -- back, ye hordes of Hell -- an EDITOR(!!!!) are not immune from having criminals and even murderers among their ranks.
Sims declares exactly what is at stake in my defending the letters and other messages (down to the Lusk letter/kidney) as being POSSIBLY exactly what Sims fears they are.
We're currently twisting terms and philosophy regarding the Goulston Street message. In that instance, I see no reason to introduce other possiblities for how a piece of cloth got from place A to place B simply because we don't like the ramifications we find at place B.
Goulston is 'simpler' in a way because the message and its meaning are unintelligible, almost pointless. The CNA letters and the Lusk letter are more direct, there is more at stake (see Sims again); therefore the need to make them 'vanish' via hoax theories becomes all the more urgent, necessary even, and the means more strident by those who are unwilling to face the POSSIBILITIES involved in either outright or tentative/qualified acceptance that the letters may be genuine.
The stakes are very high for what are, after all, really collateral events compared to the actual murders themselves.
Yaz
P.S., I remember addressing this Sims point long ago. I don't think my opinions regarding his arguments or the ramifications have changed. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 01:23 pm | | Hi Yaz:
When Sims said "imitation blood besmeared" I believe he was talking about the smudge on the postcard not the red ink used for the original Dear Boss letter dated September 25, 1888. In fact for some reason Sims seems to think the postcard was the original communication and seems not to refer to the letter. Look at the context: Sims says the writer "confessed" on a postcard and then says, "The fact that the self-postcard-proclaimed assassin sent his imitation blood-besmeared communication to the Central News people. . ." A number of writers have spoken of this smudge as being in blood but when I mentioned it to Stewart Evans he was of the opinion that it was an ink smudge. Unfortunately, the original postcard is missing from the files so it is impossible to know for sure.
As for whether Jack could have been a journalist, well, yes, why not? Sims does not admit to the possibility but nevertheless a journalist could have been a serial killer as well as anyone else. D'Onston, for example, was a journalist, and, if he was not Jack, he was up to his elbows in the case.
I can tell you that despite my previous resistance to the idea that Thomas J. Bulling wrote the Dear Boss letters, the plot of the JtR musical that I have written with Erik Sitbon features a journalist, Tom Dolan, as the Ripper--and, yes, he does write the letters. I am going to offer on the board for Jack--The Musical to send the PDF file of the color book that accompanies the CD we are selling to anyone who is interested in seeing it. It is a large file so be forewarned. If you or anyone else would like to receive the file, e-mail me at chrisdonna@erols.com.
All the best
Chris |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 02:26 pm | | Hey Chris:
As you might remember, if my back was absolutely pushed to the wall as to why I keep harping on these letters, my reason would be that I think journalists have been and continue to be the only segment of 1888 society somehow immune from investigation.
I am looking to expand the target population for suspects, not arbitrarily, but because there is not and probably will never be any consensus about the current lot of suspects. For many reasons, not all or always the fault of the researcher/writer, these suspects fall short of the threshold of "beyond reasonable doubt."
Also, it is suspicious to me that this sense of immunity was alive, and universal, in 1888. I imagine there would or could have been a nasty public battle if the police thought a journalist or someone in the trade was JtR.
(One of the real mysteries of the JtR case is how any murderer could have walked the increasingly patrolled streets and not been stopped and caught, especially with him carrying body parts. How convenient for some lowly little news stringer, constantly grubbing for news of the Ripper, annoying every cop he meets, always around, always on the move, to also have done the deed. If he annoyed ME often enough, I'd avoid him like the plague -- murders or no; high noon or dead 3 am. And if I did accost him, how easily he could have turned me around with his snotty questions "Haven't you caught him yet? Any murders tonight? What are YOU doing to solve this case?" It is the perfect cover to be at the scene of the crimes and to also be 'invisible' -- shunned might better describe it.)
What really stands in our way from looking at this group? Sims' reasoning? Our own sense of comfort?
Sims is being hyperbolic in defending his trade. How could he even know, let alone vouch for the moral character of, every member involved in writing/publishing/selling the news? Do we know the positions and the status of the men and women -- all anonymous; meaning no attribution, ever, unless they rise to Sims' level -- who ran down JtR news in Whitechapel? Do we know their level of education or any other job requirements? Are we assuming they were all highly-educated, cultured, civilized beings that they deserve our moral and investigatory blindness?
Would I start at the top, looking at the Simses and the Sneads? No. I'd start at the bottom, and I'd start with the CNA, and if necessary work up the CNA chain and then on to other agencies and papers.
This is only a working hypothesis. Who knows if all the work involved would amount to anything?
Was it A. C. Doyle who wrote that when you've ruled out everything that what remains, no matter how impossible, must be the truth? I'd balk at the "must be" insistence, but the philosophy holds true when looking at the lack of investigation into all levels of newsgathering in 1888 and the lack of consensus about known JtR suspects.
Witch-hunting for Bulling or Moore and the currently unknown third man who 'fooled' everyone with the letters and the card saddens me greatly in light of the general and absolute immunity, in both contemporary and modern minds, that the entire contemporary press has regarding the commission of JtR's crimes.
Off my soapbox now. I'd like to read your libretto so I'll be in touch soon.
Yaz |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 02:50 pm | | Hi, Yaz:
I should clarify that the illustrated book accompanying the CD of our musical is not the full libretto but does provide a synopsis, bios of the cast and creative team, and a rather neat introduction by Paul Begg who remarks that our musical is unique because it does highlight a theme in the murders that does not get much attention: the role of journalism in the Whitechapel murders.
Chris |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 04:36 pm | | Hey Chris:
When is the CD itself going to be available? Will it include the libretto (a minor point)? After I pay my dues to Jules, you'll be next on my list.
Yaz |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 07:31 pm | | Hi Yaz:
Thanks for your interest in and support of our project! The Book and CD of Jack--the Musical by Erik Sitbon and myself, featuring the journalist as Jack, should be available for purchase within a month. The mixing is finished in the Paris studio, but final printing of the CD label and accompanying book has still to be completed. I have just received a copy of the final CD, without label and book, and c'est incredible!
I will be confirming release of the CD and announcing prices for persons interested in the United States and Europe shortly. No, the book will not include the libretto but a website we are setting up will feature the lyrics of the songs featured on the CD. This is a demo CD but believe me it and the book are comparable with what you would get from Broadway. In the next few weeks, we are meeting with a number of producers in the U.S. and Europe.
All the best
Chris |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 11 April 2001 - 12:11 pm | | Hey All:
Here's something worth pursuing for those who think Bulling 'done it.' Probably has long been thought of but...
Is Littlechild our only source for the reason Moore fired Bulling? Realizing L's mistakes or lapses of memory in some areas of his letter, could this not be another?
Could Moore have come to believe that Bulling 'done it' and fired him...the 'bloody Kaiser' being Bulling's self-justification for the firing?
-----------
On the other hand, if the Kaiser telegram is really the reason for Moore's firing Bulling, how widely was Moore's reason known -- from the date of Bulling's dismissal on to where gossip is immortalized in 1935 by Thurston Collins?
Is it possible that this 'real' or 'true' reason was lost, replaced by old rumors/gossips/theories about Bulling and the JtR letters?
Was it mistakenly and foolishly corroborated for some people -- foolishly and mistakenly because these later aspects of Bulling's character cannot fairly be used as evidence or support for speculation on his earlier character or behavior -- by Bulling's alleged degeneration into what sounds like alcoholism and an alleged fixation on JtR?
Yaz |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 12 April 2001 - 09:52 am | | Hi, Yaz:
It is actually the story of Moore firing Bulling that strikes me as the strangest aspect of Littlechild's letter. I can accept that Littlechild and other police officials might have had some idea who had written the Dear Boss missives and have suspected Bulling and his boss, so that part of the letter is reasonable. However, the story of Bulling and his firing, alcoholism, etc., must have been widely known in the fairly narrow world of London journalism, and yet here is Littlechild, a policeman, telling newspaperman Sims about it as if Sims would not have known all about it! It would be akin to Sims telling Scotland Yard man Littlechild about another Scotland Yard detective who acted oddly and was sacked.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 12 April 2001 - 01:26 pm | | Hey Chris:
I agree completely. That's why my evil mind thinks Sims might have been up to something...what exactly (or approximately), who knows?
Yaz |
Author: David M. Radka
Thursday, 12 April 2001 - 02:58 pm | | Yaz,
Please come to a point. Its just so diffuse, its killing me. I'm very anal-retentive, a CPA, for chrissakes. I've just got to see it add up and come to a conclusion. I'm clamping down real hard.
David |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 12 April 2001 - 04:43 pm | | Hey David:
I assure you I am not being coy. My point? Ask as many relevant questions about these letters til either the very electrons forming my words scream at me "STOP IT!" or until at least I can't think of anything else to ask of these documents.
You should know I'm notoriously short of answers but muchly and great-utious(?)-ly long-winded in my befuddlement
Sorry. I'm honestly trying to be a good scout this time.
Yaz |
Author: Yazoo
Friday, 13 April 2001 - 02:25 am | | This whole Sims/Littlechild bothers me the more I look at it ("Yeah? So what, you loonie?" I imagine you all saying...which reminds me of the rest of Sims' text for the October 7th, 1888 article Wolf quoted).
In 1888, what exactly upset Sims so much about the JtR missives (even though he valiantly attempts interspersions of what I suppose passed for humor or whimsy at that time)?
The answer is more, much much more, than the quote we've all read would lead you to think. I'll cull the relevant sections from the article in case you don't want to read it in its entirety or flip back and forth between my post and the article.
1) "JACK THE RIPPER is the hero of the hour. A gruesome wag, a grim practical joker, has succeeded in getting an enormous amount of fun out of a postcard which he sent to the Central News. The fun is all his own, and nobody shares in it, but he must be gloating demonically at the present moment at the state of perturbation in which he has flung the public mind. Grave journals have reproduced the sorry jest, and have attempted to seriously argue that the awful Whitechapel fiend is the idle and mischievous idiot who sends blood-stained postcards to the news agency. Of course the whole business is a farce. The postcard is an elaborately-prepared hoax. To imagine a man deliberately murdering and mutilating women, and then confessing the deed on a postcard, is to turn Mr. W. S. Gilbert loose upon the Whitechapel murders at once."
Already stated and undisputed (so far), that we know murderers confess their deeds to newspapers.
But Sims is upset that "Jack the Ripper" has become the "hero of the hour." It's a grim and sorry jest, shared only by himself (no mention yet of Sims' theory provided in the later quote...but the Hero-reference has another corrolation to another passage further on in the piece). He's upset that "grave" newspapers have published the missives. The thing is, after all, a hoax.
2) You expect Sims' next sentence to explain why the missives are a hoax. He doesn't do so; in fact, the ellipsis Wolf provides {properly, I add, I'm not criticizing Wolf or implying he's misleading anyone here} covers SIX paragraphs until Sims' states his case for the hoax.
What matters of importance occupy Sims until he proffers the authorship of the "grim jest?" I'll quote what's relevant to JtR and summarize Sims' whimsy/humor(?).
a) "Everybody has a private theory of his own with regard to these crimes, and naturally I have mine. In all probability mine is as idiotic as the coroner's. But this is such an unpleasant subject - it is becoming such a dangerous subject - that I will spare the public my private views upon the matter, and try and get to something more cheerful as speedily as possible. Bloodshed always has an immense fascination for ordinary mortals. Murders and battles are the things to hurl the circulation of a newspaper sky high, and the Whitechapel lady-killer's essays in lightning surgery have become as a boon and a blessing to men of the Press, who were weary of concocting in the office letters on various subjects of domestic interest, and trying to make them look like genuine outside contributions."
The subject of these JtR murders is becoming both unpleasant and dangerous. Sims' will explain why so later.
He offers a glimpse into the newspaper world as he knew it and practiced it -- his own article is as incriminating a piece of evidence of what he 'indites.' Again, no surprises at first...bloody wars and murders increase newspaper circulation.
Next he tells you what perhaps many of you did not know: it was a notorious practice of Victorian newspapers and journals to 'forge' letters to themselves to fake reader interest (I'd add my own view here that they also encouraged genuine readers to write genuine letters). Ominous note here regarding the JtR card, but note that the letters he mentions are internally-produced -- an important distinction since the CNA, as Sims' will explain, publishes nothing so it has no newspaper/journal to 'fake' letters from its readers.
b) 2nd intervening pargraph: "I have said that this series of murders is a dangerous subject to discuss, and I honestly think so. The enormous publicity and the sensational turn given to these atrocities are bound to effect the public mind, and give ill-balanced brains an inclination towards bloodshed. There will be for some time an epidemic of savage butchery, and the unfortunate women who have furnished the lightning anatomist with his subjects will be especially liable to murderous attack."
Here is some evidence that the murders were already publicized and sensational enough to 'effect' {sic} copy-cats to appear. I don't think Sims' is exaggerating his fears, and certainly is not reaching for a comical or farcical effect. Women need fear the most. (We do live in a world that is partially JtR's legacy, don't we? And the most common victims are indeed women, no?)
The question here is if Sims is describing the results generated by the publicity of the JtR missives or the general influence of all publicity of the murders. I personally can't tell from the context.
c) 3rd intevening paragraph:
Sims' mixes JtR thouoghts with an extensive play (not quoted here) on his metaphor of berries and September vs. October:
"Jack the Ripper - now that Leather Apron has retired Jack is the hero of the situation - has already fired the imagination of a vast number of idiots and ruffians. Men with knives in their hands, threatening to "rip" a lady, are to be heard of all over the country already. In the police reports such cases, especially in the provinces, are as thick as blackberries on a September hedgerow...."
Is Sims' serious? Is this a real description of the current criminal trend in English society? If he is serious, his abrupt switch in mid-paragraph to the states of berries and what food/drinks you can make from them is (pardon if I use a pun to punish Mr. Sims) tasteless. You decide, but I think he's at least half-serious...whether 'the lads' mean it or not, ladies are being threatened with brandished knives with the fate of being 'ripped.'
Also, he introduces the name JtR, further confusing whether it's the deeds, the new name, or both are accountable for this behavior.
"...I have kept Jack the Ripper waiting for a long time now, and that is not polite. I like to be polite to everyone, even to Jack." This compleyes the paragraph.
d) 4th intevening paragraph:
"Not only has Ripperism been put extensively into practice, but vast numbers have yielded to its fascinations in theory. The newspapers, ever ready to take occasion by the hand and make the bounds of fooldom wider yet, have allowed Colney Hatch, Hanwell, and Earlswood to empty the vials of idiocy upon the head of the general reader. Every crackpot in the kingdom who has a whim, a fad, a monomania, a crotchet, or a bee in his bonnet is allowed to inflict it upon the public under the heading of "The East-end Horrors." It is impossible to read the puerile twaddle, the utterly inconsequent nonsense which is served up in a mixed heap for our breakfast every morning in the D.T. without feeling that England is indeed in danger. Any country inhabited by a race which could write such letters and make such suggestions as those which appear in the Telegraph would be in danger...." Sims goes on to end the paragraph with rants about education and an argument that says, in essence, that these idiot pens are mightier than a revolver or JtR's knife!
I take this quote to mean that readers are offering advice/theories/etc. on the subject of the murders...definitely NOT that people have yet begun to pose as the murderer in their letters. If such 'first-person-murderer' letters have appeared already Sims is unaware of them.
I also take him to mean that these 'idiotic' letters are NOT the letters internally generated by most or all newspapers/journals (I doubt Sims would lay idiocy on the doorsteps of his colleagues, any more than he will murder later on.)
This letter-writing is further proof that the JtR murder story has 'legs' of its own -- the press need do nothing to drum up interest thereby increasing circulation; they simply report what's happening and what people are doing and saying regarding the murders.
e) 5th intevening paragraph: A long paragraph that contains Sims' observations that this story has reached an audience outside the borders of England. He combines some anecdotes of where and what focus this interest takes using his own stories that he notes are being used verbatim...with no remuneration to Sims. The focus of the 'East End Poor" is mentioned specifically....no mention of JtR's name. This I take as substantiation that the murder story is causing great interest at home and abroad WITHOUT the new name of 'Jack the Ripper' fueling it.
f) "More "personal journalism," I hear the carping critic cry - more self-advertisement. To tell the honest truth, the hero of the hour is such a remarkably unpleasant person that I feel inclined to think that I myself "Moi-meme," may be a relief. It is possible that there may be human beings so depraved in their tastes that they would rather read about Jack the Ripper than DAGONET; but, even if such there be, I do not think that I am bound to cater specially for them." Humor, sarcasm...but JtR is indisputably a bigger sell, a better read, a more famous name now than George (DAGONET) Sims. And Sims isn't happy about that...explicitly for his own vanity, but implicitly rebuking his readers for its unseemly attention to a murderer, no?
The next paragraph is as Wolf quoted. Note that Sims does not lay responsibility on the CNA's doorstep for the 'hoax.' He believes a non-CNA journalist is responsible. But he has to be troubled, doesn't he? The piece introduces us to the common practice of newspapers/journals forging comparatively innocuous letters to themselves. But this isn't a case of a newspaper drumming up sales/interest/point-of-view of their own publication. The CNA is obscure to the non-journalist. The motive behind the hoax should be the same as in his previous examples: a publication's own gain (whether it be in real letters, higher circulation, or -- worst of all -- a false sense that 'the public' agrees with their editorial viewpoint).
So not only is it unprecedented that a murderer publically confesses and jokes about his crimes, the motive for the 'hoax' is completely missing. If The Daily Telegraph (the D.T. from above) had claimed receipt of the letter and published it, this would make sense to Sims. He'd be troubled, but probably no more so than he is for all the other forged letters publications manufacture and publish. Something is terribly wrong in the logic of all this, and behind the facade of humorous asides, Sims is very troubled indeed.
The piece finishes with small, comic vignettes of how the murders AND the name have creeped into the most ordinary conversations.
"...and at that I think I will leave it."
But even 25 years later, Sims cannot "leave it" and writes again to Littlechild for the origin of the Jack the Ripper name. He knows the answer...and he cannot accept it, no matter how hard he tries. Something is wrong about this instance fitting so neatly in with the usual 'hoax' letter practices of Victorian journalism.
He cannot leave it.
More than a century after these events, can we just "leave it?"
Thanks for reading this far.
Yaz |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 13 April 2001 - 09:28 am | | Hi, Yaz:
I received the following e-mail from Stewart Evans which might give you another view of Sims as being a writer for newspapers but not a journalist as such. The following is an excerpt from his letter because he does touch on some other matters unrelated to the Littlechild/Sims/Bulling question under discussion.
Best regards
Chris
************
Hi Chris,
I noticed on the boards that you had made some comment on Sims and Bulling. Sims was not a journalist in the sense of being a reporter or even making a living out of it. He was a wealthy author, playwright and amateur criminologist who had a column in the 'Sunday Referee' by way of being a sort of hobby. As such he would not be au fait with the gossip of reporters and jobbing journalists who worked at it for a living. He may, of course, have already known the story of Bulling's sacking for all we know, before Littlechild told him. There is no indication either way and Littlechild was telling an unsolicited story. Also, the 'Bismarck story' sacking would probably have been the 'straw that broke the camel's back' after a catalogue of problems presented by Bulling in his deteriorating condition. We don't know, but it seems a fair assumption to make.
Regarding the 'Jack the Ripper' letter story it is also important to remember that Littlechild didn't say that Bulling actually wrote it, but merely that "it was generally believed at the Yard" that he originated it, with probable involvement of Moore also. We know that both Anderson and Macnaghten claimed a journalist was responsible and Littlechild merely identifies the subject of that belief. A not unreasonable thing to do. Of course the only person who made the claim to positively KNOW the journalist who was responsible, without naming him, was our old friend Anderson.
Best regards
Stewart |
Author: Yazoo
Friday, 13 April 2001 - 10:13 am | | Hey Chris:
Thank you and Stewart for the update.
However I feel compelled to note that we are still discussing the hoax and its authorship in conjectural terms. But the 'probablies' become objectionable when, again using gossip related to Bulling's alleged future mental/physical state, it is reasoned backwards that he was in 1888 beginning or well-along to being the alleged irresponsible drunk. We are being asked once again the make the unsubstatiated, alleged criminal fit into an equally unsubstatiated 'crime.' Remember, Littlechild cites Munro as a character witness for Bulling as a man of integrity. The two sets of charcterizations are mutually exclusive. Whose view of Bulling in 1888 has more weight: Munro's or the second/third/fourth-hand gossip definitely promulgated 25 to 50 years later (it is only speculated that the identical gossip existed circa 1888)?
Also, a columnist -- wealthy or otherwise; author of plays etc. or solely dependent upon his columns for his 'fame' -- in no way should imply that there would be an invisible wall between the columnist and the every day 'practical' journalist. Columnists are students of both their society but also their own milieu, i.e., the insular news-gathering world. In the 5th intervening paragraph Sims states that he subscribes to a news-clipping service. Earlier he tells us of the 'ordinary' practice of letter forgery perpetrated regularly by newspapers/journals. It is not a fair assumption to make that Sims was in any way an isolated diletante regarding the inner workings and knowledge shared by the rest of the 1888 journalists.
----
On another note, I now think that the view of Littlechild mixing Druitt and Tumblety regarding the issue of suicide is incorrect.
In the Littlechild letter, L dismisses whoever Dr. D is (we all assume Druitt) with thse words "I never heard of a Dr D. in connection with the Whitechapel murders but amongst the suspects..."
Druitt's suicide was no secret. He may be Sims' own favorite candidate based on the rest of the articles Sims wrote that are posted on the Casebook because Sims denigrates all future Ripper scares and theories based on his conclusions that the murderer is already dead, a suicide.
When L postulates the suicide of Tumblety it is very clear he knows he's stating general and unverifiable belief. No one heard of Tumblety again after jumping bail, or possibly the Boulogne visit. Therefore, knowledge of his death would be unverifiable.
Not so with Druitt. His body was discovered, investigated, and buried. His suicide is not general belief, it is fact.
So L either knows nothing at all about Druitt, or nothing of his alleged connections to the Whitechapel murders (which is the closest to what he actually writes). Even if L's memory was playing him false, it is hard to argue that one fact (Druitt's suicide) could be mixed with an explicitly acknowledged speculation on a similar fate for Tumblety.
But if Druitt is the suicide-who-was-JtR, and thus Sims' likely candidate mentioned down the years in JtR-related articles, we have another problem along the lines of the origins of JtR's name.
If Sims became and remained as privately convinced that JtR is the long-dead suicide, Druitt, as he seems to be in his public statements...why is he asking Littlechild's opinion (or requesting whatever from L -- info, further background, etc.) on what he already believes to be true...Druitt is JtR and he committed suicide long ago?
Yaz |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 13 April 2001 - 06:54 pm | | Dear Yaz,
Pissed tho' I may be- I think I have a discerning mind...lets give Sim's the benefit of the doubt?
Maybe they are playing some mindgame, here? Its just possible, is it not? I think Littlechild... (what a name) is playing this nosey-parker, Sims,
along in some obscure game.I think L knows a lot.
What say you Yaz?
Rosemary |
Author: Yazoo
Friday, 13 April 2001 - 11:45 pm | | Hey Rosemary:
I don't know about Sims and Littlechild but my mind is certainly playing games with me.
No, I don't think they're playing games. It's just (sometimes) very hard for us to figure out the meaning and the context behind what was no doubt perfectly straightforward to the people involved. We are, after all, reading someone else's mail.
Yaz |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 10:11 am | | Dear Yaz,
We agree that, in the words "M", reading another's mail is not the same as reading anothers
mind. :-)
Rosemary |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 10:37 am | | Hey Rosemary:
Agreed...I think.
Yaz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 12:01 pm | | Yazoo--Hello. You wrote:
"Here's something worth pursuing for those who think Bulling 'done it.' Probably has long been thought of but... * * * *
Could Moore have come to believe that Bulling 'done it' and fired him...the 'bloody Kaiser' being Bulling's self-justification for the
firing?"
Actually, this is pretty close what I've been theorizing. The reason? It fits in rather nicely with Macnaghten's statement:
"In this ghastly production I have always thought I could discern the stained forefinger of the journalist, indeed, a year later, I had a shrewd suspicions as to the actual author!"
(Macnaghten, Days of My Years)
Now if 'Bloody Bismarck' died in summer of 1890, then Bulling got the sack roughly a year-and-a-half after the 'Dear Boss' letters. With Macnaghten writing years later, this certainly puts Bulling's firing in the ball-park with Macnaghten's "shrewd suspicions" a year later...
The curious thing is that if Bulling & Moore visited the Black museum in 1892, then we must assume that they reconciled after the Bismarck sacking. Was visiting the museum to see the letter part of that reconciliation? To laugh over the hoax? Or for Bulling to convince Moore that he didn't pen the thing? All idle speculations of course....
Best wishes,
RP
P.S.> In regards to Jon's objections about Tumblety. It still strikes me odd that Littlechild seems ignorant of Tumblety's whereabouts after Boulogne. From this I infer that Littlechild was ignorant of the American newspaper reports. If this is the case, don't we have two independent entities (Littlechild & the American press) both speculating about Tumblety's involvement in the Whitechapel crimes? Isn't this coincidence a little too much, and suggests that Tumblety was a contemporary police suspect as JtR? |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 12:32 pm | | Hey R.J.:
No wonder nobody takes me seriously when I make goofs like saying 'Kaiser' for 'Bismarck,' and 'Bullen' for Bulling.' Thank you for quietly correcting me.
Bismarck died in 1898 though. So the telegram and the firing would be approximately ten years after the murders and the JtR missives. Bulling and Moore would still be 'reconciled' in 1892 when they visited the Black Museum.
Yaz
P.S., Tumblety isn't really any of my business, but I thought it odd (perhaps a case of 'over-thinking') to speculate that Druitt's demise is mistakenly assigned to Tumblety when L's statement says he knew nothing of Dr.T after Boulogne, and neither did anyone else; and that Dr. T's death is speculation, not the fact Druitt's death would be. Of course, all the other stories of the American connection/search might be food for non-Tumbletyites to question how much Littlechild knew about anything, especially Dr. T. But I suspect Stewart Evans has all of that covered. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 01:22 pm | | Yaz--My gawd, I see a note I've got scrawled in the margin of Stewart's book. I've had this mentally botched this all time? Somehow I was assuming Bismarck's demise (and Bulling's telegram) coincided with Wilhelm II taking over in 1890. I guess it's back to the drawing board for me.... A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
RP |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 01:53 pm | | Hey R.J.:
No problem. Bismarck seems to have retired in 1890, hence the confusion about the dates?
Yaz |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 02:08 pm | | | Yaz--Yup. Evidently that's where I went wrong. But your posts have brought up so many interesting speculations and ideas that I think I'll have to start over from square one with Mr. Bulling & rethink my thinking. That's the good thing about these boards. One is always encouraged to shred back the layers and re-examine the old standard thinking and possible misconceptions. So I've guess you have admirably succeeding in doing that! Best wishe, RJP |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 14 April 2001 - 02:45 pm | | Thank you, R.J. One down and only the rest of the world to go!
Grins,
Yaz |
|
|
|
|
