Archive through 29 June 2001

** 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 29 June 2001

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Letters: General Discussion: Which Letters are Authentic?: Archive through 29 June 2001

Author: Stephen P. Ryder Friday, 20 November 1998 - 12:43 pm
(previous reader discussion) 1. Date: Tue, 09 Jul 96 06:34:46 -0700 From: Stephanie Richey I place the highest amount of credence on the "From Hell" letter as being from the Ripper simply because of the kidney that came with it. It seems likely, if Dr. Openshaw is to be believed, that it was Catherine Eddowes's kidney. I'm sure everyone is familiar with the renal artery evidence . I'd really like to believe the "Dear Boss" and the "Saucy Jackie" postcard. It's obvious they came from the same person since the handwriting is the same. The person had inside knowledge of the murders, but not nessisarily first-hand knowledge of them. There is evidence suggesting the author was the murderer, but it's circumstancial. The letter to Dr. Openshaw is probably a fake, and probably so is the Ripper poem "Eight Little Whores." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 18:19:17 -0000 From: Martin Wolverton At this distance from the time of the murders it is impossible to say which of the letters were written by the Ripper, but we can speculate on the validity of them all we want. To start with, the "Dear Boss" letter and the "Saucy Jacky" postcard are obviously written by the same hand and have internal evidence that confirms that the same person wrote both. But as has been pointed out by several of the writers on the case, there is absolutely no evidence that either was written by the Ripper. If I had to pick a "Ripper" letter that might have been written by the real killer it would be the "From Hell:" letter. This is owing to the fact that part of a human kidney was enclosed. On the other hand, the kidney might have been a medical students prank, but I don't think so. One other point that should be brought up is that in a 1988 TV documentry an FBI agent involved in profiling modern serial killers stated that the ripper's pofile was not one consistant with writing letters to the police. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 15:47:37 -0400 From: Michael Rogers Let's face it, the letters are fun. They're one of the things that drew a lot of us to the case. Unfortunately, they're probably all fakes, although several subsequent serial killers have been compelled to seek publicity by writing letters. I think it's pretty much a given that the Dear Boss epistle is a fraud. If any of them are real, the From Hell letter with the kidney gets my vote. It that too was a joke, it was a pip. I was always curious as to why it was sent to Lusk. What do you all think? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 15:58:52 +0100 From: Paul Lee (reply to Martin Wolverton, response #2) Yes, but the 'Dear Boss' letter and postcard was addressed to the Central News Agency....although the writer must've known that the police would pick up on it.... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 19:46:04 -0400 From: Dan L. Hollifield Has any attempt been recorded of anyone trying to match handwriting samples of the ripper letters to determine which, if any, were written by the same hand? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Date: Tue, 23 Jul 96 20:43:56 -0700 From: Tom & Raphael From Hell letter is very attracting, of course. Let's have a look on it. If it was not the Ripper which wrote it, then it must be somebody who was able to get in possession of a human kidney; joking students were mentioned by others. But why should they frighten poor Mr. Lusk? (Well, students can be responsable for almost everything, through the centuries, can't they?) Dr. Openshaw, who stated that the part of the kidney sent to Lusk belonged to the remains of Eddowes, had only the autopsy report for comparsion; Eddowes was already buried eleven days before and no exhumation took place. The letter appears written by a person of continental language, german for example. If somebody of german language (german, swiss or austrian) should write "Sir" phonetically, he or she would write "S�r". The lack of the two accent points above the "o" can be explained that even trained writers sometimes forget them. We are not familiar to the english language enough (or to local british idioms as well), but the final sentence looks like it should be written correctly: "Catch me IF you can". In german it is common to use "if" and "when" identically, and "catch me if you can" in german is always "Fang mich, WENN du kannst". But all that does not prove anything. Much more, it's discharged by the simple matter of fact that if somebody is able to write readable sentences including terms like "fried" or "signed", he should know how to write "Sir". It can be taken for sure that the author of the From Hell letter had more knowledge about orthography than he showed in his screed. There is a good chance that the letter sent to Dr. Openshaw was written by the same hand. Obviously it's of the same pseudo-helpless style like the From Hell letter, to which it refers. That would mean, the students were continuing their joke! And for those who are fond of anagrams: "hoperate" can not be explained by confusion between phonetic and orthography... And at least, if the From Hell letter is genuine, it does not rule out the Dear Boss letters, if one believes that JTR had an accomplice. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. Date: Fri, 26 Jul 96 05:18:38 0000 From: James Coats I think it would have been very easy to identify a kidney because beef kidneys were a popular food. A human kidney looks a lot like a beef kidney. I think beef kidneys were cheap and therefore could easily be identified by anyone. If one was to cut up another human,the kidney could be found with ease. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 22:00:34 +0100 From: Koji I think possibly a few letters sent to the police were genuine. Its obvious now that whenever there is a major murder case on, police etc. are deluged with letters purporting to be the killer when really they are lunatics. However, the dear boss letter and the letter to Mr Lusk along with the kidney were written by the same hand and I believe this was the hand of the ripper. The diary also refers to them as genuine and I support this. I also believe that a couple more less-famous letters were genuine also. One person was sent a threatening letter beginning "you thought yourself very clever" and also the one saying "Ill be at work in the Minories". The last two examples above are my personal beliefs because of the diary, but the first two have alot of evidence and a strong following in their favour.
Author: Anonymous Sunday, 17 January 1999 - 11:22 pm
I'm not a butcher, I'm not a child, Nor a foreign sailor, I'm you're one true friend. Jack is Back!!
Author: Rotter Friday, 12 February 1999 - 05:42 am
I've read that the police were receiving Ripper letters until 1964. How much of this was published ? I think they are all valuable in a sense, because they tell us how the Ripper legend has penetrated the public consciousness. We can see how certain people were attracted to the case and what in particular matched popular obsessions and interests.
Author: Christopher T. George Friday, 12 February 1999 - 11:22 am
Hello, Rotter: We have discussed before that a worthy project might be to publish all the known Ripper letters because even if all or most of them are not genuine, they at least offer a unique look into the human psyche as to why someone would write such a letter, just as why someone would commit the crimes such as those committed by Jack. The problem would be to find a publisher for such a project. Almost undoubtedly no commercial publisher would want to undertake such a publishing venture, so it almost calls for private money to fund it. Chris George
Author: Robert Friday, 12 February 1999 - 06:52 pm
The majority of the extant letters appear in MEPO 3/142. I have copies of them all and pretty repetitive, boring stuff much of it is. Many are very childish and there are dozens of them. The 'Lusk' letter is not known to exist, nor is the 'saucy Jacy' postcard. The original 'Dear Boss' letter is held in MEPO 3/3153. I agree with Mr George, no commercial publisher would want to undertake such a publishing venture.
Author: Rotter Friday, 12 February 1999 - 07:19 pm
Thanks for the answer. The first few are certainly vivid-perhaps because the work of professional writers (journalists)? And the remainder are just the scrawlings of various miscontents and cranky loners, hence, boring and repetitive. Who else would be writing Ripper letters 40 or 50 years after the crime!
Author: Robert Friday, 12 February 1999 - 07:26 pm
The letters in MEPO 3/142 are mainly 1888/1889 and go as far as one in 1896.
Author: Rotter Friday, 12 February 1999 - 07:40 pm
Thanks,Robert. I've heard of the letters going on for quite a while and numbering about 2000 (probably read it here someplace!) but I don't know how reliable that is, interesting if true but merely interesting.
Author: Mike Reed Wednesday, 24 February 1999 - 07:30 pm
Something I've always thought about is this: Among the suspects a VERY likely one is Chapman. Now supposing he WAS Jack himself, the letters must be bogus. I say this because somone who grew up in Poland and was educated in the Polish languague would propably use more broken English and not as much slang. Does this make sense or am I all wet? What do you experts think? Mike
Author: D. Radka Thursday, 25 February 1999 - 12:19 am
Mike, The "Dear Boss" and related letters are sometimes thought of as being written by a foreigner BECAUSE they contain slang Americanisms and overly quaint Cockneyisms. A foreigner trying to disguise his foreigness might appropriate expressions from outside his background, might get ones from different cultures mixed up, and so on. "Boss" was a distinctly American term in 1888, for example, and "'ospittle" a bit too British to be thought of as being written by a real Briton. But it could work both ways--it would also I think depend on how smart and educated the Ripper was, whoever he was, and how well he would be able to prevent his madness from interfering with what he wrote. With respect to Chapman, the big bugaboo is that there is absolutely not one scrap of evidence connecting him to the case. He is a purely theoretical suspect as far as I have ever read, pending, of course Mr. Gordon's upcoming book. You show me a time and a place where Chapman is somewhere near a Ripper crime scene, and I will come right out of my shoes to swing at that pitch! But as far as I've ever seen, Mike, it's just not there--not yet, anyway. Good question! David
Author: The Viper Thursday, 25 February 1999 - 02:05 am
Hello Mike, David The style of George Chapman's final letters, which were written from prison in 1903, is very much one of broken English and at odds with the style of all the best-known Ripper letters. Regards, V
Author: Caroline Thursday, 25 February 1999 - 04:09 am
Where I come from, David, we pronounce it 'orspittal' when we put on cockney accents. And a well-travelled, 'ow you say, 'clevaire Eenglishman' would be very 'queeck on ze uptake' of accents 'tres amusants', be they Oirish, Scortish, Mairicn, Fransh, or from Livverpooal chook. I always have trouble with Birmingham for some reason. Any ideas, anyone? (Birmingham, UK, not Alabama - did I get that right?) Love, Caroline
Author: Rotter Thursday, 25 February 1999 - 05:30 am
Has anybody ever read this story about a "Ripper letter?" JACK THE RIPPER, who butchered five prostitutes in Victorian London, is a suspect in the unsolved murder of a child more than 100 years ago, according to new research. Until now, the Ripper was believed to have restricted his activities to the foggy streets of Whitechapel, in the East End. A retired police officer has uncovered documents which connect the Ripper to the killing of Percy Knight Searle, nine, who was found stabbed to death in Havant, Hampshire in 1888 - the year of the Whitechapel killings - while on an errand for his mother. Gavin Maidment, senior assistant at Havant Museum, has discovered archives which mention that a magistrate received a letter bearing a Portsmouth postmark, days before Percy's killing, signed "Yours, Jack the Ripper." The letter told police not to bother looking for him in London because "I'm not there", suggesting he had moved his activities to the south coast. During the Ripper's reign of terror, the police received many letters claiming to be from him. Most were disregarded as having been sent by cranks. The Portsmouth letter was taken seriously at the time. Robert Husband, 11, the only witness to the killing, said in a statement that he saw a man stab Percy. Husband himself was eventually charged with the murder after a pocket knife found at the scene, believed to be the murder weapon, was found to belongto his brother. He was acquitted at Winchester assizes and the case remained unsolved. Mr Maidment, a policeman for 30 years, is now trying to trace descendants of the two boys and of members of the jury. He intends to write a book about the case. "It was the newspaper reports of the time which got me hooked," he said."The case throws up fascinating facts about society at the time. I'm amazed that this case has not received more publicity over the years and so little is known about it. Sophie Goodchild, Did Jack the Ripper kill a Hampshire schoolboy?., Independent on Sunday, 01-31-1999, pp 10.
Author: Caroline Thursday, 25 February 1999 - 05:43 am
God, I'm beginning to feel sick again. Do we have an actual date for the murder, Rotter? Love, Caroline
Author: Christopher T. George Thursday, 25 February 1999 - 08:43 am
Hi, Rotter and Caroline: The Havant murder occurred November 26, 1888. Discussion of this murder is not new. It was discussed by Donald Bell in an article titled "'Jack the Ripper'--The Final Solution," in "The Criminologist," Summer 1974, 9, 33, 40-61. In this article, not to be confused with Stephen Knight's similarly titled book promoting the Royal conspiracy theory, Bell, a Canadian journalist, proposed the theory that Dr. Neill Cream committed this murder after he did the Whitechapel murders. Melvin Harris in his book "Jack the Ripper: The Bloody Truth" (1987) also covers the murder and makes the very valid point that Cream was in jail in Joliet, Illinois, at the time and that none of the elaborate theorizing by Bell could free Cream to enable him to commit the Ripper crimes, let alone the Havant murder. More than likely, the murder of Percy Searle was committed by Robert Husband, 11, who was charged with the murder but later acquitted. As the recent "Independent on Sunday" article stated, the pocket knife found at the scene, was found to belong to Robert Husband's brother. Although Husband alleged that he saw Searle in the company of a man wearing a top hat and carrying a black bag, he was probably trying to throw the blame on Jack but had done the murder himself. Chris George
Author: leonard Tuesday, 04 May 1999 - 01:20 pm
Ripper letters: According to A-Z, Best{journalist} claims that he and a provincial colleague were responsible for all the "Ripper" letters, to keep the business alive...In those days it was far easier to get details, and facts from the police, than today. Page 41-42.
Author: Christopher T. George Tuesday, 04 May 1999 - 10:55 pm
Hello, Leonard: According to A to Z and Stewart Evans and Paul Gainey in their book in which they base their theory on Dr. Tumbley on the Littlechild letter, that letter says that "Bullen" meaning Thomas J. Bulling of the Central News Agency was the journalist the police officials thought responsible for the original Dear Boss letters. Chris George
Author: RLeen Wednesday, 05 May 1999 - 02:25 pm
So what letters are indeed genuine ? Personally, I think that they were all written by misguided individuals and thus none of them are genuine. This sweeping assumption is based upon the misery and damage caused by one man who successfully diverted the attention of, both, the police and the public from the identity of another Ripper; The Yorkshire Ripper. What happened, in late 1970's England, was that the police were trying to apprehend the vicious killer of several prostitutes. They had in actual fact interviewed Peter Sutcliffe, the murderer, on several occasions but he was eliminated from the enquiry because of the receipt of an audio recording which was apparently the voice of the killer. I remember hearing this tape, as it was widely broadcast at the time, and like everyone else was struck by the distinctive accent of the man. The police had no doubts that it was a genuine message from the killer, after all, the man posessed details which only the killer would know. Unfortunately, as history remembers only too well, the tape was a cruel and sick hoax, recorded by some unknown for some morally vacuous reason. Now in conclusion, there are obvious parallels between what happened twenty years ago and one hundred and eleven years ago. The foremost aspect being that the police were fooled by a man who made the opening statement "I'm Jack" and proceded to detail aspects of the crime which "only the genuine killer would know". The sad fact is, he was not the killer and the killings continued whilst the police looked elsewhere. The fact that all this happened only twenty years ago, and fooled a modern police organisation, must show that all the letters in the JTR case should be viewed with an element of suspicion, even the ones that possess some detail which "only the killer would know." Regards Rabbi Leen
Author: Christopher T. George Thursday, 06 May 1999 - 12:30 am
Good evening, Rabbi Leen: We do not know which if any of the Jack the Ripper letters may have been genuine. If we knew any were genuine, indeed, we might be some way along to knowing who might be Jack! The Yorkshire Ripper case provides a good model to look at the the Ripper letters that were sent to the authorities from September 25, 1888 onward. As with the tape sent to the authorities during the Yorkshire Ripper series of murders, evidently the police in 1888 thought that the initial Dear Boss letter and postcard were genuine, because they printed them up on broadsides. A more modern view is provided by author Stewart P. Evans, who remarked to me that he thought the printing of the broadsides was "an act of desperation" on the part of the police. As you may know, police officials later wrote that the Dear Boss letters were the work of "an enterprising London journalist" in the words of Sir Robert Anderson, and it is evident from the Littlechild letter of 1913 that journalist Thomas J. Bulling of the Central News Agency was the pressman so suspected. It could be that the press invented the letters "to keep the pot boiling" as it were. On the other hand, the third Dear Boss letter, in which the author disavows responsibility for the Whitehall murder, a limbless, headless torso found in the building site of New Scotland Yard, reveals yet another side of the writer. As discussed earlier here by Yazoo and myself, the writer in this third Dear Boss seems greatly disturbed. I would venture to say that the thrust of the letter is such that it does not justify the theory that a journalist was responsible, although Mr. Evans still thinks it is consistent with the journalist having been responsible. Your choice -- The Lusk letter is another situation entirely, and in contrast to the educated penmanship and wording of Dear Boss, the letter seems earthier, lacks the copperplate of Dear Boss, and is written in a spiky, almost violent manner. The mispellings and evident assumption of an ethnic, presumably Irish, working class mannerism, is probably an attempt to mislead. The Lusk letter of course is not signed "Jack the Ripper"--and it has the advantage of having come with half a kidney which may or may not have belonged to the Catherine Eddowes. Chris George
Author: Leonard Thursday, 06 May 1999 - 06:46 pm
To Chris George: Yeah, you're right about that. Just got to the part about Bulling last night. Seems like quite a few people in the press like to take credit for the letters. page 303 {Charles Moore} was listed by Littlechild as a possible author also. From what I have read, the newspapers didn't seem to have a high reguard for the Metropolitian Police because of "Bloody Sunday" as I believe it was called. Could be the reason for the letters in the first place. Later: Leonard
Author: Christopher T. George Thursday, 06 May 1999 - 08:30 pm
Hello, Leonard: I really think as we have discussed in here before, that some of the later pronouncements by the police officials were what we would call here in the United States "Monday morning quarterbacking." It was convenient to lay the blame on Bulling or Moore -- the bloomin' press! and not have to think any more about the mystery of who wrote the letters. But were they right? I think there is room for doubt. For one thing, if it was known for certain that newspapermen Bulling or Moore was responsible for the Dear Boss letters, why were the police in the 1896 busily checking a new letter against the Dear Boss letters as if they thought comparison with the original letters may give them a clue to the murderer? It was Chief Inspector Moore who did the comparison for the Chief Constable, Melvin Macnaghton. Moore wrote in a memo of October 18, 1896 to Macnaghton, "I am of the opinion that the present writer is not the original correspondent who prepared the letters [sent] to the Central News [Agency]. . ." (Moore's report is quoted in Sugden, "The Complete History of Jack the Ripper," pp. 271-72.) Not the slightest suspicion is aired in this interdepartmental report that a newsman was the culprit. Chris George
Author: Stewart P Evans Friday, 07 May 1999 - 05:23 pm
Chris, There is always room for doubt. No one has said that it was known for certain that the 'Dear Boss' correspondence originated from Bulling and Moore. The words of Littlechild were that "it was generally believed at the Yard..." that they were responsible. And there is every reason to believe that they were right. For a start, the probability is that the Police formed their opinion after receipt of the 5th October 1888 communication regarding a further 'Dear Boss' letter from Bulling. This, of course, was after the issue of the poster asking if anyone recognised the writing. It is the 5th October communication which really does show the correspondence to be dubious, and also the later reference to a press forger by R. Thurston Hopkins in his 1935 confirms that he also felt a pressman, whose description fitted Bulling, was responsible. Your reference to Chief Inspector Moore and the 1896 letter should also, I feel, be clarified for those who are not aware of this incident. This communication was received by the police on October 14th, 1896, [Ref- MEPO 3/142 ff 234-235], and ran as follows:- Dear Boss, You will be surprised to find that this comes from yours as of old Jack-the-Ripper. Ha. Ha If my old friend Mr Warren is dead you can read it. you might remember me if you try and think a little Ha Ha. The last job was a bad one and no mistake nearly buckled, and meant it to be best of the lot curse it, Ha Ha Im alive yet and you'll soon find it out. I mean to go on again when I get the chance wont it be nice dear old Boss to have the good old times once again. you never caught me and you never will. Ha Ha You police are a smart lot, the lot of you could nt catch one man Where have I been Dear Boss you d like to know. abroad, if you would like to know, and just come back. ready to go on with my work and stop when you catch me. Well good bye Boss wish me luck. Winters coming "The Jewes are people that are blamed for nothing" Ha Ha have you heard this before Yours truly Jack the Ripper It was obvious it would be compared with the earlier correspondence as it is so obviously imitating it, especially as it was not proven who had written the earlier letters, and despite the fact that certain senior officers believed they knew Bulling responsible. What is odd is the fact that Moore stated that the Goulston Street message was "...written in chalk, undoubtedly by the murderer..." when the indications are that, at the time, the Met police thought the opposite. However, policemen, the same as anyone else, do not always agree with each other as we often see in this case, and the may merely be an example of that. Both Moore and Swanson agreed that the writing was not the same as that of 1888.
Author: thom bratt Friday, 21 May 1999 - 06:04 pm
Dear Steven: How do we know the Gouster Street message was actually written on that wall by the Ripper while being persued by the police? It just may have been graffiti written there weeks before the police happened to find that knife. It could be coincidence that the Ripper droped his knife "near" the message; after all it was very dark in those narrow East-End alleys and passage ways.
Author: D. Radka Friday, 21 May 1999 - 09:10 pm
Thom, Welcome to the Boards, recently renamed The House of Pain. The reason many Ripperologists grant plausibility to the graffito is because of its anti-semetic content, and its location in a Jewish neighborhood. It is generally believed the Jews living there would remove it on sight, thus it must have been recently written before PC Long discovered it. This is also the reasoning behind why Sir Charles Warren ordered it washed off immediately--he feared a possible riot. Additionally, Long stated he'd been by the same entrance earlier on his beat, and hadn't noticed it. David
Author: Julian Sunday, 23 May 1999 - 09:48 pm
G'day Thom, David. Welcome Thom. We've also gotta remember that on the night of the double event, an anti-semetic word was shouted at Lawande too. This would seem to indicate that Jack was trying to stir up racial unrest in the area. (some things never change hey). And I think it's just too much of a coincidence that Catherine's apron was found at exactly that spot. Jules
Author: Christopher George Monday, 24 May 1999 - 01:35 am
Hi, Jules: The anti-semitic remark was shouted at Schwartz not Lawende. We do not know if Jack shouted it, or the man with the pipe coming out of the pub. The latter seems more likely. Also, as you know, there is some debate over whether Elizabeth Stride was indeed a Ripper victim. Chris George
Author: D. RAdka Monday, 24 May 1999 - 04:38 pm
Chris, Do you feel the Pipeman shouted "Lipski!"? I took it the Tipsy Young Man did. What is your basis in saying the Pipeman shouted it? David
Author: Christopher George Tuesday, 25 May 1999 - 10:20 am
Greetings, David: My mistake. Schwartz's statement to the police was that it was the man whom Schwartz saw assaulting Stride who shouted "Lipski!" The press reports, however, stated that it was the second man, the man coming out of the pub, who shouted "Lipski!" A to Z puts the weight of probability on the former having occurred. There is also though the uncertainty on whether "Lipski!" was shouted to Schwartz or by the one man to the other. The press reports have the pipeman shouting it to Stride's assailant. Chris George
Author: D. radka Tuesday, 25 May 1999 - 09:05 pm
Thanks, Chris. I owe you some e-mail, also. David
Author: sickboy Wednesday, 04 August 1999 - 04:39 pm
i have one question about the letter that says he is always under the nose of the authorities, could this imply him in any way to possibly be a police officer? and is there also a possiblity that there could have been two killers? thanks all
Author: Yazoo Monday, 16 August 1999 - 07:32 pm
For those of you who are dissatisfied with the "usual suspects." For those of you looking for a new avenue of research. For those of you who would like to be thorough, investigating every possible lead. I recommend the letters to the CNA that caught the attention of 1888-era authorities in the police and in journalism (witness G. Sims' comments). No one has proven them to be from the killer; no one has proven them to be from any journalist perpetrating a hoax. Both the police and Sims (if he is representative of the 1888 London press -- and I think he is, as this tragical history has shown) think the CNA letters were an "inside" job. But they think it unthinkable that the murderer actually wrote them or that the murderer could have been a member of the press. We don't know that either statement is true. We don't even know if either statement is beyond testing. We simply add more statements to bolster or attack someone else's statements about someone else's statements..etc etc etc. This is just a reminder to people. There's been some hints lately of completely dismissing the letters (mainly due to ties with the "Maybrick" diary...the ghastly beast!). As far as I know, no one ever caught "Jack the Ripper." As far as I know, no one has come up with a strongly convincing case against anyone. Points to remember: 1) There was something unusual enough in those first letters to bring them to the notice of the press, the police, and the public. And I am not referring solely to the content or the use of the name "Jack" and its derivatives. 2) Not everyone who worked for the newspapers was a reporter in the modern sense of the word -- or like a Stead, a Sims, or even a poor old Bulling. There were "stringers" (unaccredited press investigators, who still work in the modern press agencies and for weekly news periodicals) who fed local information to their respective employers...faceless, nameless men whose business was to know, to be everywhere, to look for "news." 3) Shouldn't every lead be taken seriously and followed-up? The 1888 police put up posters. The results dissatisfied them. Is that all that could have been done? Couldn't they have questioned every member of the CNA who covered the East End in 1888 about their whereabouts on the evenings of the murders? Couldn't the police have kept an eye out for reporters and "stringers" roaming about the East End late at night? It's over a century too late now, but if the police and press and public could stand for a house-to-house search, why didn't they ask for a closer scrutiny of the employees of a news agency -- other than to look for a practical joker? And who was and is always under the nose of the authorities, "sickboy," if not the press? 4) What can we do now, over a century later, to test whether the letters were hoaxes generated by the press, or that the letters may have been written by a murderer who happened to work in "journalism"? Yaz
Author: Caz Tuesday, 17 August 1999 - 03:28 am
Hi Yaz, You make so much sense to me. I have thought for a long time about the so-called 'enterprising' journalist who may have opened the flood-gates with his original 'practical joke'. What sort of man could live with that on his conscience, realising as he must have done eventually, even if not at the time in the throes of youthful mischief, how much police time and effort he had caused to be wasted? He was certainly a great friend to our killer if publicity and exposure was what he craved. At the very least he gave him an identity all his own. The very nature of the crime scenes, particularly those of Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly, scream out 'Look at my work. See what a clever clogs I am'. But lo and behold, his very own PR agent has already intimated that the worst is yet to come, by popping up out of the fog, after Chapman but BEFORE Eddowes and Kelly, to supply him FOC with the necessary added ingredients to make him immortal. Surely he could not have dreamed for such an instant launch to media stardom? What about the timing of the 'Dear Boss' letter, dated the 25th September, but not delivered to the CNA until 27th September? The last murder had been committed back on the 8th, and the more gruesome details of Chapman's mutilations may or may not yet have been in the public domain. The writer must have kept his fingers crossed that there would be more action from the same killer before long, and sure enough his 'Jack' invention did not disappoint. By the 30th, the killer had rewarded our 'journo' big time. So who was helping who? Seems like too good a symbiotic relationship for coincidence. We have been discussing the torso murders on another board over the last few days. How did the press coverage compare? Was there a spate of letters about the headless and limbless victims, apart from Jack's letter denying involvement? And if not, why not? Was there a journalistic hand at work, playing up one set of murders from sheer devilry, or to achieve a more sinister purpose? Love, Caz
Author: Diana Comer Tuesday, 17 August 1999 - 04:18 am
I think when people want money they frequently toss conscience out the window. A journalist who thought he could pump up interest in the case and sell more papers would do so by any means fair or foul. Just look at the role of the papparazzi in the death of Princess Diana.
Author: Yazoo Tuesday, 17 August 1999 - 08:47 am
Hey Caz and Diana! I wish I knew more on the torso murders but I don't. Don't know of any in-depth, book-length treatment of it. JtR seems to have ultimately stolen the ghastly limelight. There are three things that mitigate against an enterprising journalist out for money. 1) There was no lack of interest in the murders almost from the start. No need to drum up publicity. The argument that "you can never have enough ______ (publicity, in this case)" comes with the terrible risk of exposure for your fraud. No one could prove a thing about Bulling and look what happened to his reputation over the years. 2) Sending the missives to which I'm referring to the CNA is odd, very odd. The CNA did not sell papers. They sold information, like Reuters or the AP or UPI. And I understand that the "story" of the CNA letters was not sold at all; it was picked up by other newspapers as a curious story -- the CNA became part of the story, probably unwillingly (lost revenues for selling a story). If 1888 newspaper circulation figures are available on a daily basis, this thesis could be strengthened or weakened by those numbers -- however, it would neither prove or disprove anything (the genuine could sell -- or not -- just as easily as the false). 3) After both the police and press seem to have abandoned the idea of the letters being genuinely from the murderer, at least two more -- purportedly from the infamous "same hand" -- were sent to the CNA. A joke is a joke...or a publicity stunt is a publicity stunt. But both lose their value and meaning if people cease to believe in them. Therefore, why send at least two more letters? I'll repeat my caution -- some blood pressures have probably already soared, if they've read these last notes -- that I am not claiming any certainty, one way or the other, as to a hoax vs. genuine letters. I am saying that they were and remain a lead -- a lead that you may think already goes no where (if you believe contemporary police and subsequent second-hand -- or worse -- gossip-mongers). It may also lead to the hoaxter. But it may also lead -- however indirectly -- to the murderer. If the murders were taking place right now, how many of you would be satisfied with the explanations we've heard to disregard the letters as a possible clue? How many of you would think they'd be worth thinking what Sims terms "the unthinkable" -- that the murderer may have been a man working in the journalist trade? Just me opinion, mind. Yaz
Author: Caz Tuesday, 17 August 1999 - 10:10 am
Hi All, Old Weedon Grossmith claims to have been a personal friend of Sims. AND to have a portrait of himself hanging in MacNaghten's office. Perhaps he was the hoaxer with inside knowledge of the workings of the press (through his brother and father's jobs as police reporters at Bow Street Court for The Times and other papers), who was right under their noses all along. After all, he WAS known to like practical jokes and plays on words.... Love, Caz
Author: bOOGieMan666 Tuesday, 11 January 2000 - 03:25 pm
Oh come on people the letters that are fake are the ones that are not spelled right. Obviously he was a smart guy. Look for anagrams. Look for crypts. even if you have you are looking too hard on not hard enough. He was a genius if not above that. This is my first time ever looking at the files, and even I know that. I guess we have something in common he and I. This is so pityful. You have to think like him why would he do it, Why is it so exciting, Is it for the pleasur or is it for his pain there are so many clues and they are being ignored. Don't be human go to his level in the building, the top floor, be a god and retrive information. Where were the prostitutes, were they in the same district? mabey he saw them every day, mabey he worked near them. mabey he worked near the police. you never know. look for the anwsers. Sincerly, Mischa
Author: D. Radka Tuesday, 11 January 2000 - 11:03 pm
Mischa, Keep spilling your guts, man! David
Author: Bob Hinton Wednesday, 12 January 2000 - 04:00 am
Dear Mischa I see you have introduced a new suspect. Just who is this chap Mabey? Or is this a cryptoanagram of Maybrick. Do let us know. Bob Hinton
Author: Boris Wednesday, 12 January 2000 - 03:05 pm
Don't mind Bob Hinton, Mischa. He's just a frustrated author whose book has been read by no one. He vents this frustration by blowing his wad in other people's faces.
Author: Carl Dodd Friday, 29 June 2001 - 02:04 am
Do the records of the 1888 London police agencies show ANY officers who were retired or forced from the rolls because of mental problems? The retirement or assignment to a mental health facility would have been done in December of 1888.