|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 June 17, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Letters: General Discussion:
Analysis of "Dear Boss" and "Lusk" letters:
Archive through June 17, 2001
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 08 February 2000 - 02:08 pm |        | Hi CMD and All,
I am looking forward to hearing more about the ins and outs of the student prank theory. It has been stated that our twisted joker could have filched a kidney quite easily. But I have not read anywhere exactly how and at what point in the body's journey to the grave this could have been achieved with no questions asked.
The matter of the preserving process is still a closed book to me. Would the doctors have been able to tell if the whole body from which the kidney was taken had been injected with preserving fluid? And would such a kidney need to be further preserved in spirits of wine once extracted? And how much more difficult would it have been to take a kidney unnoticed from an unpreserved body?
I'm also trying to understand if the thinking is that the prankster could have extracted the kidney himself while alone with the body, or stolen it from a pile of dissection 'leftovers'. Ugh.
Sorry for meandering off into offal again, perhaps this should go on the nep....nephr....kidney table board :-)
Caz |
Author: David M. Radka
Tuesday, 08 February 2000 - 09:32 pm | | I'm sorry I can't comment on this. I do have a reading, but it's too close to my general epistemological condition, so you'll have to wait. Don't mind me.
David |
Author: Thomas Ind
Wednesday, 09 February 2000 - 02:26 pm | | Caz
It would be very easy for a student to take a kidney as a prank.
When I went to medical school in the early eighties a new law had just been past resulting in the practice being stopped. Prior to this it was common practice amoungst medical students to remove human organs for jokes.
You must have heard the medical student joke of his flatmate shouting up to him to help him move some furiture up the stair. When asked if he could lend him a hand the student through a hand out of the window. There are many other stories all of which are unrepeatable on this site.
Fortunately, nowadays a student would be expelled and liable to four years in prison. Therefore, it doesn't happen anymore.
Bodies that are used for dissection are infused with formalin. They have a very sharp smell that gets up your nose and stays there. It would certainly be easy to say if a kidney was infused with formalin. Yes, bodies in dissecting rooms are rapped in formalin cloth between sessions and if it had been infused with formalin it would have required further preservative if removed(another pot of formalin is the usual). However, it was not preserved in formalin nor perfused with it. This is the only thing about the LK that I am 100% sure of because it would have been so obvious by the awful sharp smell that sticks to your nose.
An organ preserved in 'spirits of wine' )I presume brandy or something like that) could have been taken from a post-mortem or following a resection at operation. I was at a PM today, I'm afraid it is still not a pretty sight. Organs are laid out on the table for the clinicians (like me) who requested the PM to see. Once it is over, they are put (rather than placed) back into the abdomen but not necessarily into the correct place and the abdomen sewn up. Anyone could just remove a kidney.
However, I suspect that the kidney was not a human one and Openshaw, Brown, & Reed were wrong (also Sutton and the other mistery experts if you believe Smith's memories).
Don't forget that there has been a scandal this year of a doctor steeling organs from PMs for research. Most specimens in medical school museums have just been taken without consent but as they are mainly a centuary old it is difficult to judge by modern day standards. |
Author: Thomas Ind
Wednesday, 09 February 2000 - 02:31 pm | | | God! is my spelling that bad? Hope the above message makes sense. |
Author: Diana Louise Comer
Wednesday, 09 February 2000 - 07:59 pm | | | With regard to the misspelling of knif, the use of the silent e to render the vowel in the middle long is one of the first and most common rules taught in almost any phonetically based reading system. It is critical to reading the English language because the use of this device is so pervasive. The silent k in words like knife, know, kneel, etc., while important, does not reach the level of priority that the other rule has. However the silent e rule is somewhat more difficult to understand for a young child and requires more explanation, drill and review. I just went through Dr. Ind's rather long post above and counted 20 instances of the silent e rule and not one of the kn rule. |
Author: David M. Radka
Thursday, 10 February 2000 - 12:42 am | | Diana,
So what you're saying, I take it, is the Lusk letter was written by a literate person attempting to sound like an illiterate one? If so, I concur.
David |
Author: Bob Hinton
Thursday, 10 February 2000 - 04:06 am | | Dear Everyone,
The question I would like to ask regarding whether the letter was written by someone trying to hide his literacy, or lack of it, is 'To what end?'
Let us suppose that the letter was written by someone who was literate (as the author of Dear Boss) most certainly was. What would be the point of trying to appear illiterate? Surely it would be much more fun to proclaim your literacy, and hence your social standing, rather than appear one of the faceless masses?
There is very little point in trying to disguise your handwriting as there is nothing to compare it to.
I believe that the Lusk letter was written as is, and if any of the letters are genuine then it is this one, that doesn't neccessarily mean that the kidney that came with it came from Catharine Eddowes! We are left with several possibilities.
1. That the kidney is fake and the letter is real.
2. The letter and the kidney are fake.
3. The letter and the kidney are real.
you pays your money and takes your choice!
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 10 February 2000 - 06:51 am | | Hi All,
Tom,
Thanks ever so for the informative post as usual.
If you can show that the doctors who examined the kidney were unqualified to make the assumption that it was human, it does rather take us back even beyond square one. It would mean anyone could have bought the bloody thing, knowing enough to pop it in brandy while deciding who to send it to, finding Lusk's address and composing the message. Oh well.
Bob,
Surely a hoaxer would have good reason to disguise his/her handwriting. The Dear Boss letter was facsimiled and posted everywhere for the very purpose of having someone recognise the hand. The hoaxer doesn't want to be caught hoaxing, any more than JtR wants to be caught killing.
The more people who knew the hoaxer's normal handwriting the greater the risk.
A hoaxer is, by very nature, playing games with the ones he is trying to fool. Why wouldn't he imagine he was the killer as he wrote, either using his own idea of the ripper's literacy and style, or taking from one of the more popular perceptions of the day?
The Dear Boss stuff helped provide one perception that 'Jack' was an educated English-speaker, while the Lusk letter writer's intention could have been to hype up another perception that the ripper was a non-English (Irish?) and lowly illiterate, indeed one of the faceless masses.
Even if the Lusk letter is genuine, again, I believe the writer was perfectly literate and principally poking fun at the stereotyping of the murderer, rather than trying to ridicule illiterates.
A bit like uncaught killers of modern times who must have a secret chuckle to themselves when the profilers get them totally wrong.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Leanne Perry
Thursday, 10 February 2000 - 07:15 am | | G'day All,
If the letter was written by a literate person, pretending to be illiterate, who's to say it wasn't 'Jack' trying to add effect, or cover his identity. ie: "It couldn't have been me because, as everyone knows, I know how to spell 'knife'" ?
This is why I think the answer lies in the actual kidney!
LEANNE! |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Thursday, 10 February 2000 - 10:23 am | | Excellent post Caz, just what I was thinking. I have always thought that the Lusk letter is far more creepy and effective than the Dear Boss letter and thus one of the reasons that many believe it to be genuine (along with the kidney, of course). For some reason, many here on the boards are quick to attack the value of profiling as a valid tool in the hunt for the Ripper but for what it's worth, the FBI felt that the Ripper was not the type of killer to send any letters or notes to the authorities.
Wolf. |
Author: Thomas Ind
Thursday, 10 February 2000 - 12:56 pm | | Diana
It is interesting reading my spelling mistakes compared to the Dear boss author. However, I feel that there is a difference. Mine are cause by a 2 finger typer staring at a keyboard and not checking my spelling. I can see my errors once I have read my posts but they only exist because I always post them without checking. If you take that scenario, then as my spelling is worse than Dear Boss it could have been written by a doctor!!
I feel that from your analysis, the idea that they were spelt wrong on purpose is more plausible.
I think the kidney goes with the letter. Bob, are you suggesting otherwise.
Caroline
You may have read my other posts under Thomas Horrocks Openshaw. Not only do I think that the technology nor development in forensic medicine was present to ascertain the difference I now have good evidence that Thomas Horrocks Openshaw was inexperienced and unqualified (although I know he wasn't the only one to examine the kidney).
From my more recent research I know that he obtained his MB BS (primary medical degree) from Durham in 1883 so he was only five years post qualification so he wouldn't be allowed to sign a cremation form today due to his inexperience. He was training to be a surgeon and only obtained his MS in 1987 and didn't gain his fellowship to the Royal College of Surgeons until the next decade. He was primarily an orthopaedic surgeon and in fact was instrumental in the development of orthopaedics as a separate specialty. At the time he was only 32 years only and for those of you who like a good conspiracy theory he was master of the masonic lodge at London at some point. When I have finished my research I will obviously publicise it. |
Author: Michael B. Bruneio
Thursday, 10 February 2000 - 01:08 pm | | While I agree in general with Caz and Wolf, it must be said that F.B.I. "profiling" is certainly not an exact science. One thing the F.B.I. doesn't admit too often is that for all their esteem, the Bureau has never apprehended a single serial killer. Usually the murderer screws up somehow, and the local boys nab him, or the state cops pull him over for expired tags and BINGO!
In the 1988 documentary hosted by Peter Ustinov, the F.B.I. agent seemed to ignore the facts and relied solely on JTR's psychological profile. The result of his obtuseness was naming Kosminsky as the Whitechapel Murderer. Hmmmm .... |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Thursday, 10 February 2000 - 04:15 pm | | While I would never like to be in the position of disagreeing with our resident medico, I feel that in fairness I must point out that I find it highly unlikely Dr Gordon Brown would be the City Police surgeon and yet unable to tell whether a kidney was human or not. Additionally, the Met and City both noted that the determination the kidney was human was a "general consensus;" which, to me, speaks of more than one person making the determination, though we know only of Brown's official role.
I am leaving aside the otherwise unmentioned Mr Sutton!
It is possible that Dr Saunders was part of the general consensus (he did assist at the Eddowes post-mortem, after all), but we don't know that. Still, bear in mind I am speaking from a lay point of view, despite the limited medical knowledge I have picked up over the years. Brown could have been a gibbering quack, for all I know!
Additionally, I was speaking to a patholgist yesterday, who believes that if we can trust the LK description as being "trimmed up," or even a longitudinally-cut section, it would have been almost impossible for anyone to tell whether it was a right or left kidney (though that particular seems to have come from the mouth of Mr Reed!).
Bob - an interesting point about the kidney being fake but the letter real. But why wait so long after Eddowes' death? Why not send it right away and say "here I am?" Perhaps it was difficult for the writer to get a kidney at all, human or otherwise?
Apologies for any incoherence or misstatements above. My computer has crashed, and I am accessing a friend's terminal.
As ever,
CMD |
Author: Christopher T. George
Thursday, 10 February 2000 - 07:29 pm | | Hi, Bob:
I don't see the point of sending a piece of kidney that is not genuine if you are the killer. The only scenarios that make sense are if the letter is real and the kidney real or the letter fake and the kidney fake. "Whoops, sorry, Mishter Lusk, I ate ALL the kidne not half of it, so as a substitute I have to enclosed another half a kidne. I hope you will excuse the substitution." :-) No, sorry, Bob, that doesn't wash, in spirits of whine or otherwise. I also can't conceive that Dr. Ind can be correct that the half a kidney received by Lusk could be anything other than human, and am surprised that he would suggest that it was not human. Another thought is that after "prasarving" the "kidne" in spirits of wine it is surprising that our miscreant (killer or letter hoaxer) would send the piece of meat through the Royal Mail "unprasarved"--he must have known the time in the mail would lead to deterioration of the organ. What does this say about the argument that the culprit (killer or hoaxer) was a medical man?
Chris George |
Author: Diana Louise Comer
Thursday, 10 February 2000 - 09:29 pm | | | Another phonetic side light. The spelling of kidne is interesting because there are a number of small words which end in long e. Examples are: be, we, me, he, ye. If using a phonetically based reading program these words are taught as a family with a covering rule. An imperfect understanding of spelling might lead a person to apply that rule to the word kidney. As to the believability of an illiterate person trying to sound literate vs. a literate person trying to sound illiterate, I believe the former would be very difficult to do. Remember the musical, "My Fair Lady"? |
Author: Bob Hinton
Friday, 11 February 2000 - 03:56 am | | Dear Chris,
I'm not saying that it was a fake kidney and a real letter, I'm just pointing out that is one of the options.
However to answer your question why would the killer send a fake kidney there could be many reasons.
1. The killer never removed the kidney from the murder scene. It was stepped on and missed by the myriad of boots clumping around after the discovery of the body. A squashed kidney looks like a lumpy smear.
2. It could have been snaffled by various forms of animal life, rat, cat or dog.
3. He could have taken the kidney away but dropped it in flight.
4. He could have taken the kidney but failed to preserve it properly and it deterioated.
All these are plausible reasons as to why the original kidney was not available for the post. I am not saying that one of these things happened, I am merely pointing out that they are all possible. I'm sure people can come up with several more reasons.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Thomas Ind
Friday, 11 February 2000 - 01:50 pm | | Chris & CMD
I know that this is not the thread for the LK but we seem to be discussing it here along with graphology. I have no evidence to suggest that it wasn't human. However, I think that even this basic and assumed fact needs to be challenged. I agree with your statement about Brown but only 2 weeks ago I would have said the same about Openshaw. I will be looking into Brown's medical career next.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that the best evidence currently available suggests that it was human. However, I think that it is possible that it was not. Again, I am looking at possibilities not probabilities.
We also have to realise that until Nick Warren's opinions were aired that there seemed to be a general consensus amongst historians that it could not have been Eddowes.
So the next question is this. Other than reports in the press (which we know were originally grossly inaccurate) do we know from a primary source if Brown saw the kidney. Do we know if Saunders, Sutton or Sequiera actually saw it? It is the latter that interests me and the comment as to why they just can't say 'they don't know'.
Perhaps we should go back to the LK thread with this one. |
Author: Thomas Ind
Friday, 11 February 2000 - 02:11 pm | | Well I've distinctly failed to post a message on the LK thread so one more question for CMD.
When you spoke to your pathologist, did he say what he(or she) thought was mean't by the word 'longitudinal'. Was it cut longitudinally so that it would form 2 separate front and back pieces or so that the cut would form 2 separate middle and lateral pieces. All pathologists who I have spoken to have not been able to answer this.
It is important for the following reason. At postmortem kidneys are cut routinely leaving a front and back piece. They are also tidied up removing perinephric fat. If so, then one does wonder if a prankster just removed half of a kidney at the end of a PM. If it was cut in half leaving a middle and side then we assume from the renal vessel comments that the middle half was left. This would make the kidne (i mean kidney) easily recognisable if it were to be found. |
Author: Daniel Clark
Tuesday, 23 May 2000 - 06:46 am | | To all,
How many of the letters currently held within the Scotland Yard archives by the Police do you believe have any truth in them?
I have never taken much notice of "Jack the Ripper", and I must admit, my knowledge of him (or her) is sketchy at best, however, if one of you could entertain my curiosity with an answer, I would be very greatful.
I live in New Zealand, certainly a long way from London's noutorious East End, and EastEnders, but my curiosity about "Jack the Ripper" remains.
Please do not refer me to any books with regards the subject, as I am not interested (or obsessed enough) to follow through, simply your impressions of the validity of the letters will suffice.
I thank the creators for the site, especially the visual elements incorperated with the letters-it brilliant to be able to see them, or reproductions of them-you have all done a fantastic job.
Your response cannot come soon enough,
Most sincerely
Curious. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Tuesday, 23 May 2000 - 07:47 am | | Hello Daniel:
First of all, the letters are not, as you say, "held within the Scotland Yard archives by the Police" but are in the Metropolitan Police (MEPO) files at the Public Record Office (Kew) and the City Police files of the City of London Record Office. There were upwards of 2,000 letters sent to the authorities. There can be no doubt that the majority of these, if not all of them, are hoaxes. There is a good case to be made that the Dear Boss letters which introduced the name "Jack the Ripper" were concocted by a journalist, although not necessarily by Thomas J. Bulling of the Central News Agency, who was named by Chief Inspector John George Littlechild as the probable culprit. After the Dear Boss correspondence became public, hundreds of letters signed "Jack the Ripper" were received, all in different handwriting. It says something about the human psyche that so many people sent these letters, to get a rise out of the authorities, and get a few minutes of fame.
Although some authors identify certain letters with their suspects, there is no special credence given to the letters by most authorities. It is generally acknowledged that if any letter has a chance of being genuine, it is the Lusk letter addressed "From Hell"--but that may depend on whether the half a kidney sent with the letter was really from victim Catherine Eddowes.
Chris George |
Author: Daniel Clark
Tuesday, 23 May 2000 - 07:17 pm | | Chris,
Many thanks for your prompt reply. You have obviously some vested interest in the case. If it is not too much hassle, would you mind giving me your ideas on "Jack the Ripper", i.e: suspects etc.
I must admitt that your response has made me even more curious than I was before!
Many thanks again,
Daniel |
Author: Christopher T. George
Tuesday, 23 May 2000 - 09:25 pm | | Hi, Daniel:
I did a presentation on the JtR letters at our recent convention in Park Ridge, New Jersey, so I have made a study of them. I think they are an interesting "side issue" in the study of the Whitechapel murders. Even if Jack did not write any of them, I feel provide a fascinating study in human psychology. However, sometimes I think the only message Jack left was in the murders themselves.
As for suspects, I don't have a particular suspect, although at Park Ridge I made the case that suspect Roslyn D'Onston may have written the Lusk and Openshaw letters due to certain similarites between those letters and a letter that he wrote to the City Police under his own name on October 16, 1888. D'Onston had medical training and was a patient in the London Hospital, Whitechapel, for 134 days in 1888, encompassing the whole time of the Whitechapel murders. I think that medical knowledge is important because in the case of the murder of Catherine Eddowes the killer removed her kidney in around ten minutes which almost indicates the killer must have had surgical training.
If it was not D'Onston or some other a man with medical knowledge, my inclination is to think that it was a local man, and possibly a working class man. I interviewed both Paul Begg and Stewart Evans for "Ripper Notes" and they both said they that the case may not be solvable. Possibly, as Paul said, the Ripper has yet to be named.
Chris George |
Author: Daniel Clark
Wednesday, 24 May 2000 - 08:37 pm | | Chris,
If the kidney was as you say, removed in ten minutes, would that not indicate, like you said, someone with some medical knowledge.
I would have thought that anyone with any medical knowledge around that time would have been a respectable, upper to middle class person, possibly, as others have suggested trying to cover up their literacy to avoid detection.
In saying that, could it also have been a butcher, trained (albeit briefly!) in the art of quicky dissecting a body?
I can now see just how addictive the case can become. If only this man/woman walked around London's Ease End today!, We may have had a better chance of catching him/her.
Thanks again,
Daniel. |
Author: Daniel Clark
Wednesday, 24 May 2000 - 08:43 pm | | Chris,
Also, you mentioned in your first response to me that the letter were held in MEPO in the Public Record Office. Does this mean with an appointment, one could walk in and view them, or merely reproductions of them.
Living in New Zealand would make this difficult for me, but I am planning a trip to London (England) later this year, early next year, and this may make a valuable point to stop at-rather than the normal "more acceptable" tourist attractions.
If you do need an appointment, is there any "waiting period", and if so, do you know how long it is?
Thanks again in advance,
Daniel |
Author: Diana
Wednesday, 24 May 2000 - 10:01 pm | | | Daniel, Look out! It starts with idle curiousity and moves in a downward spiral from there. In no time you are helplessly enmeshed obsessively visiting the website every day, reading every new book, calling relatives with cable to tape the latest TV show and subscribing to Ripperana. Don't wind up like the rest of us helpless addicts. Escape while you can! |
Author: Glenn Baron
Thursday, 25 May 2000 - 04:07 am | | Daniel , check the PRO website at:
http://www.pro.gov.uk/about/default.htm
I believe you need a permit to use the files, so it would make sense to apply in advance.
Have fun!
Glenn |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Thursday, 25 May 2000 - 04:55 am | | Oh, Diana I know from my own experience he's already hooked, no escaping anymore.  |
Author: Glenn Baron
Thursday, 25 May 2000 - 05:36 am | | Just had a closer look at the PRO site, and you can get a "reader's ticket" on arrival. Must get down there myself!
Have fun,
Glenn |
Author: Michael J.Fanelli
Saturday, 16 June 2001 - 10:56 am | | | Hi,first time on. I was wondering about the underlined words in the Dear boss letter.What do you think the significance of the underlined word "right",as in right track? Perhaps to signify the person came from the wrong side of the tracks and the theory that the ripper was a person of status was wrong. |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 16 June 2001 - 06:55 pm | | Hi, Michael:
Welcome to the boards. I hope you find them an informative and fulfilling experience. I do.
As for the underlined items in the 25 September 1888 Dear Boss letter, I am not sure I see any special significance in them. However, let's look at them.
The words that are underlined in the letter are:
1) As you noted, "right" in the sentence, "I have laughed when they look so clever and talk about being on the right track." Of course, the police were desperately trying to find out who the Ripper was. I believe "right" is only underlined by the writer to taunt the authorities, because they were on the "wrong" track.
2) The second word to be underlined is "red" in the sentence, "I saved some of the proper red stuff in a ginger beer bottle over the last job to write with but it went thick like glue and I cant use it." I think this underlining is only for effect, to emphasize that he is talking about blood and to heighten the air of menace.
3) The other items that are underlined are the words "ha ha" which occur in two places. The first underlined "ha ha" occurs in the sentence immediately following the one we just discussed where the writer says, "Red ink is fit enough I hope ha ha." The next and last underlined "ha ha" is in the postscript, the last words of the missive, "They say I'm a doctor now ha ha." Again, I think this is only done for effect, to heighten the melodrama, although note that the taunting about the authorities (or the public) thinking the Ripper may be a doctor also refers back to the first underlined word "right"--i.e., they are still on the wrong track if they think he is a doctor.
I hope these musings have helped, Michael. Incidentally, if you don't know about it, you may want to check out the Casebook Productions site at http://www.casebook-productions.org/. You might also be interested to know that I am writing an article on the Jack the Ripper letters for the July issue of Ripper Notes. You can find information about subscribing on the CP site.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Robert Maloney
Saturday, 16 June 2001 - 11:04 pm | | Michael,
By underlining 'right' he was telling them that he was an associate of the underworld. In other words, that he was a gangster.
When attempting to cast a spell, or summon an entity, red ink is usually fit enough. However, for Black Magic purposes, the proper red stuff should be used. So to prevent ink made from blood from coagulating, Citric acid, which is found in GINGER BEER, is mixed with sour salt.
Furthermore, where you read 'job' think spell,
and where you read 'work', think craftwork.
Red is also highly symbolic in both folk magic
and black magic. It is possible that red was
underlined to act as a type of 'calling card'
or 'signature' for future murders.
'ha-ha' was probably symbolism for Swallow Gardens; a site they were probably going to use for the next killing but couldn't when the spell they were attempting to cast had failed.
However, since they were the last words written, it is possible they intended Swallow Gardens to be
the site of the last murder. Which it was, I
might add.
The 'Dear Boss' letter was a Black Magic spell written by an extortionist gang member who was
an apprentice to a hex-master doctor.
(They say I'm a doctor now ha-ha)
(Grand work the last job was)
It is of course possible that the hex-master doctor helped to write the letter as well.
The killings were ritual and were committed by a gang that probably had very close ties to some Vigilance Committee members.
(Bachert, Aarons, and Isaacs are my best guesses)
When he writes (curse it No luck yet) he
is referring to the refusal of the British
Government to offer a substantial reward.
If a reward had been offered the killings would
have stopped because the killers would have
'solved the case' and claimed the reward.
(Keep this letter back till I do a bit more
work, then give it out straight)
However, red ink "wasnt good enough" so
he wrote the remainder in "crayon".
Needless to say, I don't think that was crayon.
Most experts consider the letter to be a hoax. Obviously, I disagree.
I will try to make this more understandable
in my next post. I should point out to you that very few people, if any, share my point of view regarding this letter.
Rob |
Author: Robert Maloney
Saturday, 16 June 2001 - 11:45 pm | | Michael,
I forgot to add that ha-ha has candle symbolism
as well. And that could be the reason they were taking the body parts. Actually, only a certain part of a kidney is used for making tallow.
The other half was sent to Lusk. Ha-ha.
Rob |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 17 June 2001 - 04:59 am | | Robert - have you thought of offering Rosey your hand in marriage?
Martin F |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 17 June 2001 - 06:11 am | | Hi Rob:
Albert Bachert was not a member of the Vigilance Committee as early as the first Dear Boss letter of September 25, 1888.
Chris |
Author: Robert Maloney
Sunday, 17 June 2001 - 06:20 am | | Martin,
I don't know - What does Rosey look like?
I picture him or her to look like a huge Celtic Chieftain or Druid.
Anyway, thanks for the "ring"ing endorsement.
Martin, might you concede one point?
When he says "right", he means "right guy".
This is gangster slang similar to what
"good fella" would mean today. In other words,
to think the killings were the work of one
lone man, like Leather Apron, is a joke.
Rob |
Author: Robert Maloney
Sunday, 17 June 2001 - 06:42 am | | Thanks Chris,
I'am aware of that. I simply meant the killers
and those individuals were probably linked
in some way, probably through the Public House
criminal networks. (Queens Head etc.)
When Bachert became a member is not relevant
to that particular point.
Rob |
Author: Michael J.Fanelli
Sunday, 17 June 2001 - 09:04 am | | | Thanks for answering.Quite fascinating! |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 17 June 2001 - 10:22 am | | Robert
Where on earth did you come up with all that? |
Author: Robert Maloney
Sunday, 17 June 2001 - 11:35 am | | Jon,
You have to understand the importance of symbolism
to those who practice folk magic or black magic.
Saving some of the proper red stuff in a ginger
beer (Citric acid) bottle is highly significant
when you know why someone would do such a thing.
Saying it went thick like glue proves he was trying to make an ink from human blood.
There is a considerable amount of symbolism
to be found in this case as one should expect
when there is evidence of hex-craft.
Do you really think deerstalker hats were just
a coincidence?
And if this letter was written by a journalist,
then that journalist was a murderer.
Rob |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 17 June 2001 - 01:10 pm | | Robert
I'm not unfamiliar with such practices, I grew up on Dennis Wheatley books and anything to do with the Black Arts kept my attention as a teenager, though I've forgotten most of it, but I never saw such an association as you have pointed out.
To be honest most of what you wrote was completely new to me and I wasn't sure if you were making it up, guessing or just plain wrong.
Would I be correct in assuming you seriously believe all that?
Regards, Jon |
|
|
|
|
