|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through April 30, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Letters: General Discussion:
The Sept. 17th Letter:
Archive through April 30, 2001
Author: Tom Wescott
Thursday, 26 April 2001 - 11:00 pm |        | Here I am going to talk about the Sept. 17th letter, Paul Feldman, Melvyn Fairclough, and the obvious truth. Let's start by taking a look at the letter...
Dear Boss,
So now they say I am a Yid when will they lern Dear old Boss? You an me know the truth dont we. Lusk can look forever hell never find me but I am rite under his nose all the time I watch them looking for me an it gives me fits ha ha. I love my work an I shant stop untill I get buckled and even then watch out for your old pal Jacky
Catch me if you can
Jack the Ripper
Sorry about the blood still messy from the last one. What a pretty neklace I gave her
The letter was dated Sept. 17th, 8 days before the 'Dear Boss' letter which has ALWAYS been noted by contemporary officials as having been the FIRST correspondence signed 'Jack the Ripper'.
This letter was first published in Paul Feldman's 'Jack the Ripper: The Final Chapter' in which Feldman expresses his belief that this letter is genuine. Melvyn Fairclough, one of Feldman's researchers and author of the credibility-ruining 'The Ripper and the Royals' states even more vehemently in his essay featured in 'The Mammoth Book of JTR' that this letter is genuine. They do so because the 'Diary' hints at a correspondence sent prior to the 'Dear Boss' letter. The funny thing about this is that Feldman thinks the 'From Hell' letter sent to George Lusk was a hoax!!! And this despite the 'Diary' claiming that Maybrick did indeed eat a piece of Eddowes' kidney just as the 'From Hell' letter states (although the 'Diary' claims he ate it cold and the letter claims it was fried). I've discussed the 'From Hell' letter with Feldman in the past and he maintained his opinion that it was a hoax but that the Sept. 17th letter was most likely genuine. What's missing here is the simple point that if you believe the Sept. 17th letter is genuine then you HAVE to believe that the Lusk letter is genuine. I shouldn't have to point out why, either.
Now, as some of you might know I wrote an article published in 'Ripper Notes' in which I make a case for the 'Dear Boss' letter and 'From Hell' letter having come from the same author. When taking everything into consideration this actually seems plausible, the only real argument against it being that the handwriting in both letters differs. Now, most Ripperologists would not agree with the theory of my article, and that's cool as I'm not a 100% convinced yet, either. I am probably the only writer who would be willing to put his name on that theory. You would have thought that I would be the one person other than Feldman and Fairclough to give the Sept. 17th letter any credence. You would have thought that I'd jump at that letter as 'proof' that my theory is correct. Wrong. I took one look at that letter and it screamed 'bad hoax' to me. It's just too obvious! I do not wish to put down Paul Feldman. He's been a good guy to me and I think he's done some decent work. Melvyn Fairclough I think is a hack (although I'm sure he's a nice guy). But I've never been able to understand how someone could put faith in this letter and still claim the 'From Hell' letter was a hoax.
Anyway, there's my take on the Sept. 17 letter. Anybody else want to give their opinions/observations?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 26 April 2001 - 11:28 pm | | Hey Tom:
May I ask a few questions about this letter before I comment on your post?
1) To whom was the letter sent?
2) Does the handwriting resemble the CNA letter/card's handwriting or the Lusk letter's handwriting? Also, do you know who makes any possible claim of such similarity and what qualifications they have in analyzing handwriting?
3) Was the letter actually dated September 17; and was there a postmark or testimony of the letter's receipt to corroborate such a dating?
4) When were the contents of this letter made known to the public, if they ever were?
5) Forgive my stupidity here, but you say, "What's missing here is the simple point that if you believe the Sept. 17th letter is genuine then you HAVE to believe that the Lusk letter is genuine. I shouldn't have to point out why, either."
I'm not clear as to why we have to believe either both or neither of the letters is either "genuine" or a hoax. The point isn't obvious to me why they're so interconnected, perhaps because I haven't read Feldman or Fairclough.
Yaz |
Author: Mark List
Friday, 27 April 2001 - 12:56 am | | Tom,
I just read my copy of "The Diary of Jack The Ripper," and, sorry to be so nit-picky, but, if I may:
"I took some of it away with me. It is in front of me. I intend to fry it and eat it later ha ha. ... It has taken me three days to recover ... I ate it all, it did not taste like fresh bacon but I enjoyed it never the less. "
I don't see where he ate it cold or hot, but he does say it didn't taste like fresh bacon, which leads me to believe he fried it.
I remember Martin saying, in the VHS "DoJtR" that it would be "impossible to eat a uterus be simply frying it." But if it took him three days to recover, then I wonder if by "impossible" he (Martin) means digestion.
Anyway, I kind of went on a tangent, sorry,
but if you're not so sure on the letters yet, what else makes you feel so strongly about the connection?
I attest a lot of problems with the letters to the fact that they were, stupidly, reprinted in the paper. This, of course, spurred forgers who wanted to play games and feel good about themselves.
But I still feel that the "Lusk letter" is genuine, and "Dear boss" and the "Double event this time" letter sent to police in the early hours of September 30.
I, personally have a problem with the "eye" witnesses.
Since no one actually SAW the killings, I find it hard to believe what people say about who was who. (except the obvious "that's who I saw them with last.")
I think I'm talking about something completely different than you, but if you talking about fakes/forgeries, I'd have to say then, with the exception of the "Lusk letter" and the Sep. 30 letter (which both of, I'm sure, will have people disputing) take ALL the letters with a grain of salt.
Cheers,
Mark |
Author: Yazoo
Friday, 27 April 2001 - 01:59 am | | Hey Mark and Tom:
On the aspect of whether the letters, any of them, are "genuine," I'd have to go along with Mark (and Stewart and a whole horde of others). If by "genuine" you mean that the murderer wrote them, I think this is unprovable based on all that we know right now.
I also do not accept the explanations of Bulling/Moore and some pretty deranged (if anyone asked me!) medical students, autopsy assistants, etc. being the authors of the Dear Boss correpondence or the Lusk letter. Once again this is based on what we know at this time. There is no proof/evidence that these specific people or groups of people wrote the letters/sent the kidney piece.
What I have always argued, rather poorly judging by the amount of (i.e., lack of...) mutual understanding I've generated, is that we make an assumption that the letters might be "genuine" -- as I take you to mean by that word.
Follow George Sims' reasoning when he discusses the Dear Boss correspondence:
1) Only someone who knew the 1888 journalism trade knew enough to send a letter to the CNA
2) Therefore, it is highly probable that someone in the journalism trade wrote the card and letter
3) And since it is impossible that the murderer could work in the journalism trade...
4) The only other explanation is that the Dear Boss correspondence is a hoax
The first two statements are almost self-evidently true; the second two statements are just as self-evidently unproven and 'illogical.' The journalist who wrote to the CNA could have done so as a hoax; but where is the evidence or even the principles of Logic that make the last two statements inevitable, thus, in Logic, conclusively "true?"
What I've proposed is that we proceed on an assumption that these few letters/card/human remains were sent from the murderer. If we assume that, we would proceed to the next step: investigate the journalists working in the East End, starting from the lowest rank and work up the organization. Suppose, Stewart and Keith -- who are writing a book on the letters, I've been told -- find someone's handwriting that matches the correspondence. Proceed to the next steps...which I'll skip (you can all send me cards and letters and cash donations to express your thanks on this point).
My frustration is that I am not in a position to do anything about this assumption -- I'm thousands of miles away. What right do I have to expect or demand or even ask someone else to believe in my assumption and see if one step leads to another then another etc.?
My assumption is what I consider a "clue" -- a word that Martin, who mentioned it once, may define differently. It is not "evidence," it is not "genuine," nor is it a "fact." It is a hint, a proposition. Only by following wherever it leads can I say either: "I failed to prove anything. Don't go this way" or "Hey, look! Does this look like something important to you all?"
IMHO, the only fair way to describe these letters is that someone sent them, we do not know who, we do not know why, but what would we find if we assumed they were "genuinely" from the murderer.
I bet that doesn't help, but I'll occasionally keep trying til I succeed in explaining myself better.
Yaz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 27 April 2001 - 04:56 am | | Hi Yaz,
I understand your frustration. The authorities obviously took the JtR correspondence seriously at first, treating some of it as a very good clue. But gradually, with more information of one sort, and not enough of another, and differing opinion as to whether 'Joe Ripper the doer', could also have been 'Jack the Writer', it has kind of become the law that 'thou shall not' go back and question whether the original instincts had anything going for them. The gap you always focus on is a very real gap to me - you know, the one between 'Journo Jack the Writer' and 'Non-journo the Ripper'. The assumption that, because we have a journalist who enjoys an enterprising prank at his boss's expense (not to sell papers - couldn't he get his kicks from the prank itself, if he perhaps resents his position beneath his boss?), he couldn't possibly be the type to rip whores. We know, for instance, in the Yorkshire Ripper case, that the Geordie hoaxer was a clue taken seriously that went wrong. What we don't know, unless we find the hoaxer and get the shrinks on him, is what else this sort of nutter may be capable of, or what this type could even have done that we never knew about.
It is possible that a certain percentage of 'writers', if not caught, would progress to becoming 'doers'. Other 'writers' will never have the inclination or the capacity to put their sick words into actions. But stranger things by far must surely have happened than - shock horror gasp! - a compulsive 'writer' also being, or becoming, a compulsive 'doer'.
In conclusion, I still don't know if it is right and proper to drop all the ripper correspondence into a bin marked 'no clue'. I prefer to keep it in the JtR pending tray marked 'maybe, just maybe' - seems pretty harmless there to me. But then perhaps that wouldn't be the scholarly thing to do. (I'm happy with that.  )
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Guy Hatton
Friday, 27 April 2001 - 05:44 am | | To turn back briefly to Tom's original point:
The Sept. 17 letter very clearly incorporates elements of "Dear Boss", "Saucy Jacky" and "From Hell". It borrows phraseology freely from them all, mimics the misspellings of "From Hell" and the style of address of "Dear Boss", and so on. It seems clear then, that to give credence to the Sept. 17 letter, you must believe "Dear Boss" and "From Hell" to have originated from the same hand. I personally find this unpersuasive, but the possibility cannot, I suppose, be ruled out entirely.
The Sept. 17 letter, however, unlike the three similar items listed above, has no reliable pedigree. There is not the proof of receipt, postmark, or evidence of intended recipient asked for by Yazoo. There is no clear evidence of it being in the Home Office files prior to its alleged "discovery" in a folder which had supposedly become sealed by some unspecified means. Researchers from Don Rumbelow and Steven Knight on had apparently seen no sign of this sealed folder or any letter resembling the Sept. 17 missive. Lastly, I believe it has been suggested by a reputable authority that the ink appears very similar to that commonly used in ball-point pens.
All the above leads me to suspect that, far from being a genuine "Ripper letter" (whether from the actual murderer or not), this letter is a modern fake (where have I heard that before?) inserted into a Home Office file as a prank, or possibly the work of its "finder".
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 27 April 2001 - 05:45 am | | Hi Mark
Out on your tangent, my reference to double-processing the uterus came after I consulted a butcher and a chef. (I've since married the latter, by the way, whence my ever-increasing girth which makes me look more like an uglier version of Mr Begg every day). They both informed me that the uterus is the sort of gristly cut that has to be given two processes - one slow and softening, the other superhot and speedy, or else you just can't chump your way through it. Crejadillas are the same, I believe.
Kidney is quite different, as you'll know if you've ever cooked it. Very soft offal which is terribly easy to overdo and turn into rubbery dryness, but always easy to eat.
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 27 April 2001 - 08:03 am | | Hi, Tom:
The September 17 letter is an obvious forgery slipped into the PRO files by a prankster. The wording is stolen from the Dear Boss and Lusk letters. Don't give it serious consideration. According to Stewart Evans, it might even be written in ballpoint pen!
I believe the earliest letter received by the authorities and written by someone claiming to be the killer is one dated September 24, 1888 addressed to Sir Charles Warren and logged in by the Metropolitan Police Criminal Investigation Dept. on September 25. This letter is not signed "Jack the Ripper" but the writer claims to be "a slauterer [sic]" and signs it "yours truly" followed by a drawing of a coffin. No doubt Stewart Evans can confirm this is the first letter received from someone claiming to be the killer, or correct this impression if not.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Yazoo
Friday, 27 April 2001 - 09:37 am | | Hey All:
Two questions on rather obscure topics:
1) Does anyone know the dating of the first recorded example of anyone writing a letter to the press, claiming to be (or being in fact, I suppose) a murderer? Sims seems genuinely baffled by the idea, leading me to make a possibly incorrect assumption that the Dear Boss stuff set some kind of precedent.
2) On the preparation of kidney as food (ugh, I must admit!): People who believe the "Lusk kidney" is from medical students (or someone involved in legitimate post mortem activities) use the description of how the kidney sent to Lusk was cut as evidence in support of their idea.
Would a professional (or experienced) chef have cut the kidney in some absolutely different way than has been described? (And no, I don't believe the "Lusk kidney" sender was either a professional chef or that he ate any portion of Eddowes' kidney.)
Thanks in advance,
Yaz |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 27 April 2001 - 10:59 am | | Not exactly what you're looking for, Yaz, but related and preceding the Ripper is the case of Arnold Walder, a Paris pharmacist's assistant who robbed his employer, M. LeGrange, murdering him and the family's servant girl in 1879. He escaped by train to Le Havre, and wrote from the train to Mme LeGrange saying that he regretted having killed her husband and the servant girl, though he had to because they resisted him. He then got four more messages into bottles which he dropped into the Seine. And then he started sending messages to the police every year on the anniversary of the murders. He was never caught, and his literary efforts changed him from being the most hated man in France to being a sort of popular and semi-legendary figure, known as 'the bottle imp'.
As for the kidney, do we know how it was cut? In preparing a kidney for cooking you would normally remove the outer membrane and split it open down its length to extract the hard white core. I don't think we know what sort of 'part' Mr Lusk received. But some one may be able to correct me.
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Yazoo
Friday, 27 April 2001 - 12:25 pm | | Hey Martin:
Thanks for the information.
The first question relates to whether Sims is accurate in saying that a murderer would not write and boast to a newspaper (not the police or other 'official' agencies). Specifically, are there English precedents for the "Dear Boss" or "Lusk Kidney" correspondence; and would the precedents be easily construed as being 'common knowledge'?
The second question goes back to an old discussion somewhere on the Casebook that I had with Stewart Evans (definitely because I remember it was one of the many times I unfortunately and unintentionally strained that good man's patience behind human endurance) and a doctor/medical student (I believe), among others.
A close reading of reports and newspaper accounts of the kidney piece sent to Lusk showed (to one set of the discussion's participants) that the cut demonstrated some proof that the kidney piece came from an autopsy. I claimed that might be true if you looked at the size, shape, cut, etc. from the viewpoint of a doctor/pathologist.
But would the cut/etc. also be seen as an acceptable way to prepare a 'regular' kidney?
My ignorance comes from being adverse to eating animals' internal organs...and fish -- insects of the sea, says I!?
'Regular' would mean from whatever appropriate animal that cooks and chefs use for normal cuisine.
The Lusk letter-writer claims he ate the missing part of the kidney.
For all I know, the question was settled long ago and means nothing to anyone except me.
Yaz |
Author: Mark List
Friday, 27 April 2001 - 01:00 pm | | Yaz,
I'm not sure of THE FIRST, but I can give you a few that I know of that were 100% genuine:
The Lindberg Letter from "Cemetery Joe" (I guess) in ?1932-34? when Lindberg's son was abducted and killed.
And, of Course, the Son of Sam--David Berkowitz in ?1977? He sent letters out to the press.
Oh yeah, Not sure about "genuine yet (I got to check) The Zodiac Killer-I believe he also sent letters.
Oh Martin,
I had been meaning to ask you about the "cooking and consumption" bit, It had always confused me. I should think that if you cut something up into small bits you can still eat it.
Sorry, to all,
I know I can go on tangents--I have so many thoughts about JtR.
Next rounds on me,
Cheers,
Mark |
Author: Mark List
Friday, 27 April 2001 - 01:44 pm | | Oh, ya,
There's also Albert Fish with his grotesque letter to Gracie Budd's parents.
It's not uncommon for serial killers, or killers in gerenal, to write letters either taunting and explaining themselves. Half the time they have such a low self-esteem that they crave emotional feed back and attention.Hence the letters and (if you look at it in a certain way) the killing--they TRY to feel SOMETHING whilst killing. Odd, yes, I know, but there's not many Serial Killers, Mass Murderers, or Spree Murders that are "normal"
Mark |
Author: Tom Wescott
Friday, 27 April 2001 - 02:40 pm | | To all,
Somehow I apparently didn't make my stance clear. I believe whole-heartedly that the Sept. 17th letter is a very modern hoax and that it's intention was to unify the 'Dear Boss' letter, 'From Hell' letter, and 'I am not a Yid' poem' to the same hand. While I believe the idea that the 'Dear Boss' and 'From Hell' letter being by the same author should not be discounted, I refuse to lend this recent discovery any credence.
Mark,
It's been some time since I read the Diary, but I believe in regards to Eddowes' kidney he states 'I ate cold kidney'. Remember, it's the kidney we're talking about here, not the uterus.
Yazoo,
George Sims is wrong when he states only a journalist would know of the Central News Agency. Their name and purpose of business appeared regularly in newspapers and was even referred to as a "Well-Known News Agency' by both R. Thurston Hopkins and Sir Melville Macnaughten in their respective memoirs. It was not a well-kept secret.
And yes, by my use of the word 'genuine' I do mean penned by the Whitechapel murderer.
Chris and Yazoo,
When I stated that to believe the Sept. 17th letter was legitimate you also have to believe the Lusk letter is genuine, what I was making a point of is how weird I find it that Feldman puts credence in the Sept. 17th letter but NOT the Lusk letter which was sent almost a month later and shared similarities that are beyond coincidence. Once again I will state I believe the Sept. 17th letter to be a modern hoax, but if I DID believe it real, as Feldman does, I would have no choice but to accept the 'From Hell' letter as being genuine also.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. I had no idea this thread would get such a response. |
Author: Yazoo
Friday, 27 April 2001 - 03:22 pm | | Hey Tom and Mark:
I now understand your argument, Tom. Thanks. As to the regularity of the CNA's name appearing in the press, it's probably a small matter over which to disagree but I'd rather stick with Sims' characterization, personally. He was there in 1888 and in the journalism trade. As to memoirs, I'd like to ask the writers how "well known" the agency was to them before the Autumn of 1888.
Mark, thanks for the examples. But Sims seems to believe the card/letter were unprecedented (and I see no reason to doubt him, but I asked simply to make sure I am not assuming something without trying to test it). It may be hard to argue that JtR is the grandfather or "Adam" of all modern serial killers, but -- whether JtR wrote them or not -- the possibility of a murderer using the press for his own purposes would be another example where JtR's 'career' served as a template/inspiration/etc. for the 'careers' of those murderers who followed him.
Yaz |
Author: E Carter
Friday, 27 April 2001 - 04:18 pm | | | Tom, I do not want to get too involved here, but can I mention that at 'DER Arbierter Fraint' a number of members named themselves the 'Knights of Labour' , now re-read the dear boss letter and the Lusk letter. During the Victorain era signs into and out of buildings simply said on the door 'way in' or 'way out' Yet yet inspite of seeing these signs in places like the pubs and the council offices every day the author of the Lusk letter writes owt. The Lusk letter was written by someone very literate but with his non dominant hand. ED |
Author: Mark List
Friday, 27 April 2001 - 05:04 pm | | Tom, sorry for the misunderstanding, and yes, your right about the kidney in the diary--I haven't looked that up yet, but it sounds familiar.
Yaz, I agree with you about the "Grandfather" bit. I sincerely doubt any "serial killer" would look to Jack as a model--they have enough to motivate them.
But,Spree killers, or Mass Murderers (Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, for example [I don't know what category one would these two in, but definetely not "Serial Killer."]) use other sources as motivation, inspiration and, most importantly, EXCUSES for their deeds.
Mark |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 27 April 2001 - 09:00 pm | | Hi Ed:
I agree that there is some disguise in the Lusk letter but the word reads "out" not "owt" as you say. What you are thinking is the end stroke of the "w" is only the upstroke after the "u" leading to the "t." It you look elsewhere in the letter, say the "t" in "it" immediately preceding the "out" you will see what I mean.
Chris |
Author: Mark List
Friday, 27 April 2001 - 09:38 pm | | Here's a thought about the letters:
Perhaps whoever wrote the letters (or all of the different people who wrote the letters-depending on your personal view) intentionally made their writing look bad (or foreign) by wrong spelling and bad grammar.
I've been thinking about that possibility. It is plausible.
Cheers,
Mark |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Friday, 27 April 2001 - 11:33 pm | | From a perusal of the "Telegraph" during the timeframe of the murders, I can tell you that the name of the Central News Agency appears pretty regularly. It might be argued that the writer of the "Dear Boss" and "Saucy Jacky" letters does not necessarily have to be a journalist, but certainly someone familiar enough with newspapers to realise a letter sent there would be disseminated amongst the CNAs clients. Now, where this puts the mental processes of someone who decides to send letters to a news AGENCY rather than a news PAPER and whether such knowledge is more compatible with a poor Polish Jew or drunken ex-Garibaldi-serving magician, I leave to you. But the name of the CNA would be at least as familiar to a literate man of 1888 as Reuters would be to ourselves.
Yaz (and how lovely to cross paths with you again!) - the closest description I can find to how the Lusk Kidney was cut comes from the October 19 "Star," where FS Reed is quoted as saying the kidney was "divided longitudinally." This is certainly consistent with how a medical man might divide the thing (in order to make slides or to exhibit as a teaching aid), but I think the lack of any sort of 'amazement' (for loss of a better word) at the surgical precision of the cut implies the LK was rather rudely chopped in half lengthwise - which is, however, a rather difficult operation to perform on the wriggly, slimy, boneless piece of viscera a human kidney would be.
I will say that the amateur-night hokiness of the Sept 17 letter compared to the insouciant almost stiff-upper-lip tone of "Dear Boss" and "Saucy Jacky" with the genuinely chilling "From hell" make me think they are certainly not all from one person. But are they real? Ah, that's another matter.
Sorry for the rambling. My mental processes are rather dull today.
As ever,
CMD |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 01:38 am | | Dear Yaz,
I wish I could answer for certain what killer
was the first to write to the newspapers about
his or her crimes, but I have no real idea.
But after the newspapers supposedly got letters
from the Ripper, such writings appeared more
frequently. In 1889, John Watson Laurie sent
some letters to the newspapers, while on the
run from the authorities seeking his arrest for
the murder of Edward Rose on the Isle of Arran
in Scotland. The letters denied his guilt. That
same year there was an ironic incident when a letter was sent to a London newspaper attacking
the huge coverage of the trial of Florence Maybrick for the murder of James (or Jack, if you
believe the diary). The letter was written by
a husband and father, a chief clerk at one of the
London Docks, named James Canham Read, who attacked Mrs. Maybrick as a wicked woman, and the
story of her adulturies as disgusting. Unfortunately Read was no paragon, but a Don Juan
type. Five years later he would kill his discarted girlfriend Florence Dennis at Prittlewell, and hoped that an elaborate series of
deceptions would prevent suspicion falling on him.
They didn't, and he was hanged (his last words,
upon seeing the scaffold, being "Will it hurt?").
Doubtless there have been other killers who wrote,
but these two spring to mind.
I still would wonder about the efficacy of eating
half a human kidney (if it was done) that was
supposedly diseased - even if it was thoroughly
cooked.
Jeff |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 01:52 am | | Dear Martin, Paul, Yaz, Chris, et. al,
Before leaving this issue of letter writing, I
remembered an issue I wanted to bring up, but
never had an opportunity to do so before. Here
is that opportunity.
In his biography of Sir Edward Marshall Hall,
Edward Majoribanks mentioned a curious case
that is tangentially involved with Saucy Jack.
The third Earl of Sheffield was the recipient
of a threatening letter, signed "Jack the Ripper",
in 1888, that Marshall Hall prosecuted. The
writer threatened his lordship and a steward, who
had been nasty (in some way) towards a tenant,
and the letter is given on pate 37 of the
biography (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1930)
as the following:
"I should be much obliged to you," this amazing
document concluded, "if you would arrange for your steward to sleep under the same roof as
yourself on Monday night, October 29th, or else
I shall have to bring an assistant. My knife is
nice and sharp. O for a gentleman this time instead of a lady! I am sorry for troubling you,
but don't forget the 29th. I remain, yours truly,
Jack the Ripper."
Very few details of this matter are mentioned in
the biography (it is in part of a paragraph, in
a section dealing with the cases of Dr. Neill
Cream and Frederick Deeming - Marshall Hall was
the junior to Gerald Geoghegan in the appeal for
Deeming before the Privy Council, and attended
Cream's trial and believed that Cream had a double who was Jack the Ripper). Has anybody
ever checked into the full story of Lord Sheffield
and the threatening letters? I can't recall seeing any reference to them in any book about
the Ripper.
Jeff |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 06:36 am | | Jeff,
I can only say I haven't. Stewart has reappeared on the boards, so he will know whether he and Keith noted it, though this would probably depend on the letter's being filed with other MEPO and HO papers relating to the Ripper.
Sorry to be no more use.
Martin |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 06:50 am | | Hi, Jeff:
Thanks for sharing a fascinating little sidelight on the case of which I was personally unaware. As we have said before, there were hundreds of Jack the Ripper letters, written in a variety of hands, and received by a long list of recipients. I would assume that this letter, as Martin is indicating, is not in the MEPO or HO files at the Public Record Office and that if it still exists it is privately owned, possibly by an heir of the third Earl of Sheffield who was the recipient of the letter. Alternatively, if his lordship or his heirs donated his papers to an archive, it may be there.
As you have gathered, the Jack the Ripper letters, although interesting and discussed in virtually every book on the Whitechapel murders, have not been properly studied. A number of writers have chosen only to discuss those letters that suit their theory. Usually the discussion has centered on the original Dear Boss letters and the Lusk letter but those missives are only the tip of a very massive iceberg. The upcoming and much anticipated book by Keith Skinner and Stewart P. Evans will be the first full length discussion of the Jack the Ripper letters. It will be interesting to see what those objective and careful researchers have to say about them.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 06:58 am | | Hi, again Jeff:
If anyone has written a biography of the third Earl of Sheffield, possibly the author has discussed this JtR letter, and from that you would also know if the letter still exists and where it is. A number of doctoral dissertations do not see book publication but are nevertheless available through interlibrary loan, and Sheffield may have been the subject of such a dissertation. Just some random thoughts that may be helpful!
Chris |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 07:55 am | | Hey All:
First, hello there, CM. Nice to hear from you and thank you for that thoroughly disgusting ("wriggly, slimy, boneless piece of viscera", indeed!!! yuck!) description of kidney as foodstuff...especially so early in the morning! Grins, and I hope all is well with you. I still have fond memories of the intellectually challenging debates we had (on Stride's place in the "canonical list of victims", for one, I think?).
Jeff, if I read your post correctly it sounds as if the Sheffield letter-writer was caught and prosecuted. It's a wonder the guy didn't ask if the Lord would be so kind as to also leave his back door unlocked and put up signs in the house that might read: "Victims this way ---->" Wouldn't want to get lost inside a big house, after all!
But it is interesting seeing an example of people's opportunism in regards to "using JtR." I was going to say I regretted that the Maybrick diary turns out to be fraudulent as it would have opened a 'window' into the mind of a JtR wanna-be...but it does open the window on another aspect of "using JtR" anyway -- sort of, JtR for fun and profit.
I'll take this post to reiterate my position on the JtR Dear Boss/Lusk kidney correspondence:
1) I make no claim that any of these letters are really from JtR -- there is no proof as to who wrote them or why...
2) Or that anything in them is literally true -- as in JtR eating half of Eddowes' kidney or (since it raises the subject) that he played "The Galloping Gourmet" with any of the other tissue samples he took from his victims
Yaz |
Author: Tom Wescott
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 11:19 am | | To all,
Perhaps my memory is playing tricks on me, but I seem to remember reading about the Sheffield letter somewhere. It was obviously just a royal prank. As to the author of the more pertinent letters in question and whether or not he read the papers I personally think so, as my recent article 'An Inspiration 'From Hell' in 'Ripper Notes' makes, what I feel is, a pretty good case for the author of the 'From Hell' letter having taken his inspiration from an ad in the newspaper for a book and possibly then from the book itself. Also, as an article appearing in a paper prior to the receipt of the 'Dear Boss' letter about Leather Apron stated that his phrase of choice was something along the lines of 'I'm going to rip you up' I think the psuedonym itself may have come from the papers. Perhaps it is significant that many articles at that time referred to John Pizer as 'Jack' Pizer. Or perhaps it's not.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: alex chisholm
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 12:33 pm | | The Earl of Sheffield’s letter was reported, as follows, in the Daily Telegraph of 3 Nov. 1888. (The Star of same date carried a similar report)
“THREATENING TO MURDER AN EARL. - The following letter, bearing the Uckfield postmark of Oct. 27, has been received by the Earl of Sheffield: “England, Oct. 27, 1888. - Dear Lord Sheffield - I am sorry, but, feeling it my duty to let you know as I do not think you do or you would not have the Heart to turn an old Tennent like poor old Mrs. Grover out of her Home after such an hard struggle to maintain and bring up her family not only that but not allowing anyone to get an honest living there in the Butchering line as they have done for a great number of years, but it seems to me as though you and your faithful Steward want it all, and if you had my wish you would get more than you wanted. Remember this is a warning to you, but at the same time I should be much obliged to you if you could arrange it for your Steward to sleep under the same roof as yourself on Monday night, Oct. 29, or else I shall have to bring an assistant. My knife is nice and sharp. Oh for a gentleman this time, instead of Lady. I am sorry for troubling you, but don’t forget the 29th. - I remain, yours truely, JACK THE RIPPER.” Lord Sheffield has for some time past been so frequently annoyed by anonymous letter writers that he has resolved to make a special effort upon this occasion to capture his cowardly assailant. The above letter has therefore been reproduced in facsimile, and his Lordship has offered a reward of £250 for information leading to the arrest of the writer.”
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 01:11 pm | | Hey!!!
Alex! It's been a loooong time. I hope this post means you're gonna be willing to put up with my nonsense and share your wit and wisdom here again. If not, just wanted you to know I've often thought about you. I hope all is well with you and yours.
Yaz |
Author: alex chisholm
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 03:19 pm | | Yaz, old buddy
Thank you. It's good to see you back with all the sparkling form of old.
With my own always meagre stock of wit and wisdom long-since depleted, and my forays into message board land becoming increasingly infrequent, I doubt we’ll be locking horns too often in the future.
Still, I’m confident there are plenty of others here more than ready to ensure old Yaz is kept in check.
All the Best
alex |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 08:27 pm | | Hey Tom et al.:
Is the religious work you found advertised in The Times the same title as the following:
"Thisted, Valdemor Adolph: Letters from Hell. By M. Rowel [pseud]. ; London: Richard S. Bentley, 1866. First edition in English 2 vols, 8vo, original blind-stamped purple cloth, gilt decorations and lettering.
"An allegorical novel by the Danish author Thisted (1815-1887). Letters from Hell went through several editions in the 19th century; the next English edition (1884) included an additional preface by George MacDonald, an appropriate introduction to this fantastic religious tale."
(If it is the same author and book, a bit of JtR-related trivia: Thisted was a priest whose novel impressed literary society in Copenhagen but also Hans Christian Andersen. It seems Thisted paid Hans a visit on January 14, 1867. So, quick, somebody ask Paul or Martin what remotely possible connection does Hans Christian Andersen have with the JtR case before one of the rascals reads this message.)
Looks like 18 years between the first and second English editions, then at least another English edition in 1888, and again in 1897. It seems there was at least one American edition (put out by "NEW YORK FUNK & WAGNALLS 1886").
I'll try to find out more about how many editions were published and when. I'll also try to find this novel to read it and see what fascinated the 19th century reading public.
Did you ever hear Alex's story about how JtR might have gotten his name? I've tried to search the Casebook for it but had no luck.
If I remember correctly, there was a something in Punch magazine that connected the names 'Jack' or 'Jack in the box' with 'The Ripper.' It was a satirical poem or continuing series of poems or columns. Damn, I wish I could remember. (I'd say "Ah well" but that line's been taken on the Casebook already. Drat my luck! Everybody always gets the good lines 'cept me!)
Yaz |
Author: alex chisholm
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 10:47 pm | | Yaz
Lucky I loitered a while, and can try to prevent you getting me into hot water here. I believe the post you recollect was part of a discussion on Americanisms, and ran largely as follows:
“A small extract from "'Arry on St. Swithin." which appeared in Punch, August 4, 1888., : "My Houseboat - leastways I'd the run of it, Charlie, old pal, The Boss bein' Bagshot, the Booky, who hired it to please his new gal - Our Houseboat, the 'Margery Daw,' was as smart as they make 'em, no doubt, But the spree gave yours truly the hump; it wos jest one perpetual spout."
'Arry's letters to his 'old pal' 'Dear Charlie', with their ‘cockney slang’ and frequent references to 'yours truly' were a regular feature of Punch, penned by E. J. Milliken, who also contributed to Punch's theatre reviews under the name of 'Jack in the Box' - Any suspicion where this might be going?
Well no, I'm not going to speculate that the esteemed E. J. Milliken wrote the Dear Boss letters, but I do think that whoever did could have found their inspiration in his and other contributions to Punch.
One small example of the type of linkage that may be significant can be seen in the issue for 22 September 1888, 3 days before the date on the first Dear Boss. The same issue that included the verse and illustration 'Blind Man's Buff'. Immediately beneath a Comedy Theatre review by 'Jack in the Private Box' appears 'A Detective's Diary A La Mode' which parodies the investigation of 'the latest tragedy' and makes reference to 'Letter of anonymous correspondent to daily journal' and 'Anonymous letter received'.”
Now, I’m pretty certain I never proposed this as anything other than a very tenuous possible inspiration for Jack the Writer. Of course, if poor old John Ripper, "engineer in charge of H.M.S. Firebrand," hadn’t committed suicide in January 1888 on his way to China (Lloyds Weekly News 22 Jan. 1888), we could have had a more easily suspected author.
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 11:13 pm | | Dear Alex,
Thank you for the newspaper item. Certainly
it puts the writing of the threatening letter in
late October 1888. But the brief account of the
incident in the Marjoribanks biography never gives
the actual date for the trial.
Chris = there is no biography of the third
and last Earl of Sheffield, who died in 1909.
His biography is in the old DNB in the volume
dealing with the years 1901 - 1910. I looked it
up once, and found no references at all about
the trial. One would have thought a trial of
a person for threatening to kill a notable would
be in a biographical article for the notable, but
apparently it was not interesting enough.
The source I gave is an annoying one, for Majoribanks tended to believe everything Marshall
Hall told him without double checking it. The
section about the Sheffield "Ripper" letter is
in a part of the biography dealing with Hall's
connections with Deeming and Cream. A bit of
"stream of consciousness" here - either the
linkage is three evil serial killers in a four
year period, or the Ripper with two possible
suspects. I tend to think it is the latter.
The discussion of Cream is based on a peculiar story (again, Marjoribanks taking it on his hero's word) that Hall represented Cream in a peculiar divorce case a few years earlier, when a telegram arrived proving that Cream was in jail at the time. Cream was using a different name (WHAT NAME, one wonders?) in this trial. Hall later concluded that Cream and a double gave each other alibis. However, Hall doubted that Cream
was Jack the Ripper, but just thought he was
boasting on the scaffold. The story about Deeming
is about how a telegram arrived too late to stop
the Privy Council's rejection of Deeming's
conviction in 1892. According to it, the government of New South Wales did not wait for the
Privy Council decision. I have done some research
on this, and I can say that John S. O'Sullivan's
biography of Deeming, A MOST UNIQUE RUFFIAN,
dismissed the story. Also, the story makes Hall
the junior to Gerald Geoghegan, the eloquent
barrister presenting the appeal to the Privy
Council. In the official account of the decision,
Hall is not mentioned as the junior barrister.
It would be nice to have a name for the gentleman
who wrote to Lord Sheffield. Also, curious that
the letter was written in the period of the great
hiatus of the real Jack (October 1888). I think
it is worth a bit more detail.
By the way Yazoo, if you ever saw a film starring
Maggie Smith, Michael Palin, and Trevor Howard,
called THE MISSIONARY, Sir Michael Hordern played
the butler in the mansion owned by Howard and
Smith, and he keeps getting lost in it's cavernous
rooms.
Jeff |
Author: Tom Wescott
Saturday, 28 April 2001 - 11:52 pm | | Yaz,
Indeed the book you describe is the one the served as the subject for my recent article. Thanks for making me rack my brain on the Andersen trivia. I remember reading about that on the boards a long time ago, but I don't remember the details. I'm too lazy to try the 'keyword search' I'm afraid. Ha ha.
Alex,
Thank you for publishing that article from the Daily Telegraph. Indeed, I do now remember having read that article before. Also, your observations on the possible inspiration for the 'Dear Boss' letter is an excellent piece of research. It's good to see you back, even though if your appearances are only intermittent.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: alex chisholm
Sunday, 29 April 2001 - 12:38 am | | Hi Jeff
I’ve just found the following from the Star, 27 Nov. 1888:
“Lord Sheffield Satisfied Now.
Edward Grover was remanded at Uckfield yesterday on a charge of inciting several persons to attempt to murder Lord Sheffield. The prisoner was formerly a butcher at Fletching, living with his mother. Lord Sheffield recently gave the mother notice to quit. Grover was arrested on Thursday night at East Grinstead, but, obtaining leave to go upstairs for a coat, let himself out of a bedroom window by means of a blanket, and escaped barefooted across country to Fletching, where he was re-arrested on Sunday. The prisoner is suspected of having written the threatening letters by which Lord Sheffield has been of late so much annoyed.”
It seems poor Edward may not have been the brightest of Ripper hoaxers.
Thank you, Tom. I was suitably impressed by the research and keen-eye behind your article in Ripper Notes.
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 29 April 2001 - 12:57 am | | Hey All:
Jeff:
Interesting stuff but I can't see any connection between the methods of the different murderers or the motive behind any letter/telegram in the Creem and JtR cases. Maybe I just need some sleep but the guy who wrote to Lord Sheffield sure seems like a goof, or at least very 'stuck' on poor Mrs. Grover -- and it's a likely story, says I; this Mrs. Grover and her woes, indeed! Jack the Ripper turned Robin Hood?
Alex:
I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I wasn't suggesting you meant anything more by your suggestion than "food for thought." You always had a pretty good grasp on a lot of the 1888-era social and cultural ideas/values/mores (whatever's the right word), I thought.
Just speaking of the letters, whether someone believes any particular letters are genuinely from the murderer or not, it was a valuable lesson to me to think of the JtR crimes and their influence(s) as being a two-way street -- the murderer influenced his society; he could as easily have been influenced by his society. And I don't mean the nature vs. nurture idea; Victorian paternalism running to murder; cereal box psychology kinds of things.
Most people, when they ask where the name 'Jack the Ripper' came from, seem content with the answer about the letters and the newspapers spreading the name through constant use.
Very few people seem interested in where the letter-writer -- whether he was the murderer or not -- got the inspiration for 'Jack the Ripper;' or wondering what those three little words signified to the writer, the police, press, public, the murderer (if writer and murderer are not the same -- as they very well may not be), and society from 1888 down to us.
The possibility of some connective tissue/bond/relationship (whatever) between this murderer and his society -- did it exist; if it did, when/where/how did it work; what did each give the other; what did each take; etc. -- it's all hard to put into words, into a one-word or brief definition. But I know I learned to keep that possible connection in my mind from you and your posts and ideas.
And "a very tenuous possible inspiration" is the best definition for this hypothetical process I've heard so far.
Now I promise not to use your name anymore so you can sleep at night without worrying about the mischief I may cause you.............
.....Except on Tuesdays, I think. Yeah, yeah, Tuesdays. I reserve the right to use your name in vain on Tuesdays...let's say, oh, only between the hours of 7 pm and 10 pm. Fair enough, isn't it? What could be fairer? You won't be usin' it between them hours now, will ya? Fair's fair! I ask you! Right then! I knew we'd agree! Tuesdays it is!!
Grins,
Yaz |
Author: E Carter
Sunday, 29 April 2001 - 07:24 am | | Christopher, I am going to look at the Lusk letter in more detail in the near future.
For several reasons I believe he has wrongly spelt the word 'out' as 'owt', for example the way he has joined the letter 'o' to the letter 'u' in two words nearby. However, I see your point, and I would genuinely appriciate your reasoning on this. Best wishes ED. |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 29 April 2001 - 02:24 pm | | Hey All:
Going back to something CM wrote on Friday, April 27, 2001 - 11:33 pm:
"From a perusal of the "Telegraph" during the timeframe of the murders, I can tell you that the name of the Central News Agency appears pretty regularly. It might be argued that the writer of the "Dear Boss" and "Saucy Jacky" letters does not necessarily have to be a journalist, but certainly someone familiar enough with newspapers to realise a letter sent there would be disseminated amongst the CNAs clients."
It's a nit I'm picking, but whether the writer chose the CNA because of possible wider dissemination of his message is an interesting question.
Even if the letter had been sent to a newspaper, that would only mean that a particular newspaper (say, The Times for an example) had a brief exclusivity on the information. Journalism's priniciples, competition, and economics would force the other papers to discuss the story (including mentioning a rival as the recipient of the material) or concede their readership to The Times.
As it happened, the CNA did not "break" the story or disseminate it to anyone but the police. But one or a few papers did break the story. The story was quickly picked up by all the other papers, correct?
The fact that the recipient could be mentioned because it was not a rival to any publishing newspaper makes the choice of the CNA more palatable to all the newspapers. But why would the writer care about such an abstruse point, meaningful only to people in the newspaper business?
I don't know the answers to the following questions but here are a few that come to my mind:
1) Was the letter-writer naive in thinking the CNA would just pass along his message to all the papers, widening his publicity, so to speak?
2) Or was he sophisticated about the news business to realize that the CNA (or rather its role as the source to be eventually quoted by every newspaper -- the writer hopes) made it easier for all the papers to handle the card and letter?
I can't argue either way between a sophisticated, knowledgable (at least about the 1888 news business) letter writer and one who naively (again, regarding the 1888 news business) thought the CNA would be the best or the only way to get the most attention.
However unsatisfactory it may be, unless a better explanation is presented, I'd rather stick with Sims' conclusions, primarily on the facts that he was in a position to pass knowledgable judgement on the 1888 news business -- and what people may or may not have known about it.
Again: this is not proof or evidence; it does not mean the letter and card were written by the murderer; it does not mean that the card and letter have to be a hoax (at least not based upon Sims' reasoning).
Yaz |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Sunday, 29 April 2001 - 11:22 pm | | Dear Alex,
Thanks for naming the gentleman who was the
defendant in the case of the threats to Lord
Sheffield. It is Mr. Edward Glover, erstwhile
butcher of Fletching, and the motive seemed to
be that his mother was evicted by his Lordship.
We also have the start of a timeline here.
Lord Sheffield appears to have gotten the letters
in October 1888 (again, curiously, the month that
the actual murderer seems to have stopped his
activities for whatever reason). The date for
the threatened murders of Lord Sheffield and his
steward was October 29, 1888. Then, the letters
are traced to Glover, and he escapes the police
until the Thursday before November 27, 1888. I
suspect the trial must have been within the next
four or five months.
All in all, a most curious persecution of a Lord. Again, my thanks.
Jeff |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 30 April 2001 - 08:05 am | | Hi All,
Fairly recently, I put the following up on the General Discussion Board, under: Miscellaneous: Punch:
By Caroline Anne Morris on Friday, February 09, 2001 - 07:01 am: Edit
Hi All,
Browsing through my Punch (vols 93 - 96, covering July 1887 - June 1889) last evening, I came across the following three snippets, which I thought might be of interest.
Spookily prophetic, I can imagine that the authors of the first two, with hindsight, would have regretted their unfortunate choice of words.
The third is a darkly comic piece on clutching at [Jack] straws, which many of you will have seen before, but perhaps deserves another airing here.
Enjoy.
Love,
Caz
From "PLAY TIME." (February 18, 1888)
"All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy," - and some work, and some plays I could mention would have the same effect on JACK, for the matter of that, - and so a little play now and then, say an occasional tragedy in four or five Acts, is just the thing to enliven our poor JACK,...
(The opening lines of a review of Ariane, a drama showing at the Opera Comique)
Extract from DIARY OF A PESSIMIST (April 7, 1888)
Looked over the morning papers. Read through the "Deaths." Skipped "Births" and "Marriages." Never care to read them. Only want to know who 's dead, and what 's to pay, which I may be the worse for. No hope of a legacy.
No news. That is good news. Glanced over the debates with fear and trembling, in dread of the proposal of some new tax or privation of liberty or property. Police Reports uninteresting. Accidents and offences ditto. Sad sameness dulness, and want of originality in robberies, suicides, and murders.
A DETECTIVE'S DIARY A LA MODE (September 22, 1888)
Monday. - Papers full of the latest tragedy. One of them suggested that the assassin was a man who wore a blue coat. Arrested three blue coat-wearers on suspicion.
Tuesday. - The blue coats proved innocent. Released. Evening journal threw out a hint that deed might have been perpetrated by a soldier. Found a small drummer-boy drunk and incapable. Conveyed him to the Station-house.
Wednesday. - Drummer-boy released. Letter of anonymous correspondent to daily journal declaring that the outrage could only have been committed by a sailor. Decoyed petty officer of Penny Steamboat on shore, and suddenly arrested him.
Thursday. - Petty officer allowed to go. Hint thrown out in the Correspondence columns that the crime might be traceable to a lunatic. Noticed an old gentleman purchasing a copy of Maiwas Revenge. Seized him.
Friday. - Lunatic dispatched to an asylum. Anonymous letter received, denouncing local clergyman as the criminal. Took the reverend gentleman into custody.
Saturday. - Eminent ecclesiastic set at liberty with an apology. Ascertain in a periodical that it is thought just possible that the Police may have committed the crime themselves. At the call of duty, finished the week by arresting myself!
Back now to today, Monday, April 30th, 2001, I'm sorry I never realised that Alex had previously posted a similar piece on the subject of possible influences for Jack the Writer. I just wanted to say that I hope no one thought I was plagiarising Alex in any way when I wrote my post. 
By 'unfortunate choice of words', I was implying that the authors may later have wondered whether THE Jack - either 'writer' or 'doer' - could have read or been influenced by them.
Incidentally, I wonder what became of this butcher, Edward Grover - or Glover - who lived with his mother, and was accused of sending threatening letters in defence of her, and was arrested after the last of the canonicals...
...would not have the Heart...
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
