|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Non-Jack Letters
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Letters: General Discussion:
Non-Jack Letters
Author: Matthew Delahunty (Dela)
Tuesday, 02 March 1999 - 08:17 am |        | All of the topics on this board seem to deal with letters/rhymes/graffiti which have been attributed to Jack the Ripper. All the letters which everyone has looked at are signed "Jack the Ripper". Recently I was looking at the only series of letter which my University library has and most of these are letters written to the police by members of the public. (Unfortunately no library in my vicinity has copies of the more famous and non-famous "Jack the Ripper" letters). I was looking through these letters trying to follow a lead from a letter not signed "Jack the Ripper" which I believe may be genuine. The following thought crossed my mind:
Are we all being too narrow-minded just to consider letters signed "Jack the Ripper"? Whether the Ripper letters are hoaxes or not, could the real Jack have written to the press or police not using an assumed name?
Food for thought
Dela |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 02 March 1999 - 11:21 am | | Hey, Dela!
The Lusk letter and package was NOT signed "Jack the Ripper," so technically yes, other letters have been looked at. The Lusk letter writer wrote after the the publicity of naming JtR...but he avoids its use. That's one reason (the most important being the accompanying kidney) why some people think the Lusk letter MAY be genuine.
I'm probably wrong but I think the Maybrick people (Harrison et al.) have looked at other letters
But what I guess is your real point is one that Chris George and others have raised before...printing all the letters that are still in existence, from whatever source, to whomever. Chris and others (myself included) don't feel this would be a commercially viable product for a publisher. But it would be interesting to read...some of it anyway.
The other problem is that almost no one believes in the genuine nature of the letters that were given some credibility either through the police poster that was printed or because of the package (the half of a human kidney) sent to Lusk. The chances are that much greater against any new letters finding a receptive audience.
I'm with you but, realistically, I think water will run uphill before very many people even consider the letters as a viable line of inquiry.
If I remember, you live in Australia, correct? Are these university-held letters written by Australians to the Autralian police or press? Or are they acquisitions from England? Can you give a summary or flavor of the contents -- such as, are they confessions? are they tips on how to catch JtR? are they from people informing on someone else?
Yaz |
Author: Matthew Delahunty (Dela)
Wednesday, 03 March 1999 - 07:39 am | | Hi Yaz,
The letters at Melbourne Uni are on microfiche so I'm sure they're readily available elsewhere (I'd love to be able to find more but a trip too England at this point in time is beyond my affordability). They're letters to the Metropolitan Police, mostly from law-abiding citizens offering tips on how to catch the Rippers or saying they've spotted a suspect. Some are anonymous, some are just out to create trouble. Most are from England but there are some from all different parts of the globe. In all there are around 400 so I haven't read through them all. But some are interestingly initialled by Swanson, which Feldman stated in his book that this meant that Swanson regarded them as important, yet they are not signed Jack the Ripper, although usually these letters were signed with an alias. There are a couple of very interesting ones which I have looked at and want to research further, so if anyone knows how I can get my hands on copies of many of the "Ripper"-signed letters I would be interested
As for the suggestion about publishing all the letters - I don't know if publishing them all would make particularly great reading. However, a selection of 50 or 60 of the more interesting/intriguing ones might not be a bad idea. At this stage I'd just like to see a CD ROM or microfilm or something which would allow me to have a look at a few for my own humble research. (Paul Begg - any chance of providing me with those ones I emailed you about - even just the text?)
I'd recommend that if people have a few hours to spend one weekend they find out where they can look at the letters and actually read some of them - it does make good reading if you're prepared to do some sifting out of the rubbish.
Dela. |
Author: Paul Begg
Wednesday, 03 March 1999 - 11:23 am | | ARRRRGGGHHHHH! I'd forgotten your email amid all the various pressures I've been under lately. Sorry. I'll dig it out and see what I can do.
As I understand it, the letters are copyright, in that they are not in the public domain but the property of the Metropolitan Police or the Public Record Office. And it sounds to me as if you have the lot.
Could you just clarify what you have there. You are certain that they are letters to the Met and not to the City Police? And are all the Ripper files available to you? If not, why does he library just have the letters and nothing else? And when was the microfiche created?
Thanks
Paul
Is other material available |
Author: Matthew Delahunty (Dela)
Thursday, 04 March 1999 - 09:00 am | | I bow down to the expert. Yes, Paul, you're right, the letters are actually the City Police ones. Sorry to everyone for misleading them.
The exact title is "Letters to City Police on the Whitechapel murders, c.1888-1889 [microform] / Corporation of London Records Office."
The content isn't just letters to the City Police though - I'd say it's more the letters they had on file. There are even newspaper clippings in there. As far as any other Ripper letters I know of nothing available elsewhere in my State.
Just on the point about copyright, (I'm not familiar with UK Copyright law but I would think that it'd be similar to Australian and elsewhere for that matter) I find it hard to believe that the letters are subject to copyright. After all it wasn't the Met Police or City Police or PRO who wrote them. The authors hold the copyright in the letters, and since they are likely to have been dead for some time it is unlikely that copyright still subsists (in Australia it last for the life of the author plus 50 years). The PRO or Police may have copyright in the collection, say if all the letters had been arranged onto a CDROM) but I don't see how these organisations would otherwise have IP rights in the actual letters. Of course, they have property rights - and they may place conditions on usage of their property when they give access.
And, by the way, Paul, I don't want to be a nuisance so don't go out of your way to for me if something I request isn't readily achievable. It can go on the backburner. Jack has eluded us for 111 years - I'm sure I can wait for a few weeks.
Dela |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 04 March 1999 - 09:53 am | | Hi Dela
Well, I think ownership is claimed and that the owner can pretty much dictate how their property is used. Certainly the PRO (who don't have the City files - they're held by the Corporation of London Records Office) do claim copyright of the Ripper papers and do resrict the amount of what you can freely quote from them.
The City Ripper files were all destroyed in the War, with the exception of the letter files you have. They haven't been subjected to the same kind of scrutiny as the Met files, mainly because at one time the Corporation only released a few of the letters at a time, and they may repay more detailed examination.
I'll get on with the other stuff as soon as I can. |
Author: Caroline
Friday, 05 March 1999 - 03:44 am | | Hi all,
This is interesting in the light of the recent trouble over letters from Diana to James Hewitt. The law here said that the ownership was Diana's, since she wrote them, but I think the judgement nevertheless went to Hewitt to get the letters returned to him. Hope he does the decent thing this time and doesn't end up selling to the highest overseas bidder.
Looks like the law isn't always crystal clear.
Love,
Caroline |
Author: Matthew Delahunty (Dela)
Saturday, 06 March 1999 - 08:16 am | | Hi Caroline,
I am no expert on what went on with the letters, being half a world away and all (and it wasn't really given that much attention by the Australian media) but I think I can shed a little light from a legal point of view. What you have to remember is that there is a distinction between intellectual property and just plain property. The copyright in the letters belongs to Diana, but the ownership of / property in the letters belongs to James because the letters were given to him. He was able to get them back because they were effectively stolen from him. However, if he wants to sell off the content in them then he'll be infringing Diana's copyright and her estate can sue. So for James, he can't really "sell" them to the media for the purpose of publication. I suspect he only took action because he wished to keep the contents private, but then I'm only guessing.
In the same way the PRO might have property in the files but I'm not sure about copyright. In any event copyright can be breached in certain circumstances, eg for research purposes (although not for commercial gain). However, I'm not that familiar with UK law and it's possible there may be legislation in place which gives the PRO protection in relation to their records.
Dela |
Author: Caroline
Saturday, 06 March 1999 - 10:22 am | | Thanks for that Dela. Sounds like, hopefully, Diana's letters will remain as secret as she intended.
Interesting about the ripper letters, I'll be careful about quoting bits from any of them, anyway. Glad you are on hand legal-wise. With the likes of you and Paul here we can't go far wrong.
Love,
Caroline |
Author: adam wood
Monday, 15 March 1999 - 07:56 am | | Further to Dela's posting on 4th March, a microfiche entitled "The Whitechapel Murders Papers - Letters relating to the Jack the Ripper Killings". This is a set of some 396 letters received from writers such as "F. Winslow", "E K Larkins" and one "Major R D O Stephenson". THere are dozens of anonymous ones, of course, my favourite being "Scrotus".
As of Janaury 1997 the fiche was available from World Microfilms, Microworld House, 2-6 Foscote Mews, London W9 2HH. Tel 0171 266 2202, Fax 0171 266 2314. Cost then was £100.
Regards, Adam |
Author: Caroline
Tuesday, 16 March 1999 - 11:06 am | | Hi Adam,
D'ya think someone was larkin' about with names again? I'd love to take a deco at the contents when I have a spare nano-second! Whoever wrote under your favourite name should have got the sac.
He may have finally made an utter balls-up of everthing.
Am I still welcome at the C & D?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Julian
Tuesday, 16 March 1999 - 09:23 pm | | G'day Caz, Adam, Dela, everyone.
I was just wondering about the comparison being made with Di's letters and those of Jack. I think in the context of general decency, Di's letters should be destroyed. They were her personal thoughts and feelings from her to her lover. But what if that's what happened to any fair dinkum letters or diaries written by Jack? A certain something would tell you to hang onto them, just in case. I know I would. I can't throw away a paper clip just in case I'll need it later.
I cling to this hope that someone, somewhere has an attic full of stuff that will point directly to who who Jack was.
Julian |
Author: Ashling
Tuesday, 16 March 1999 - 09:49 pm | | Hi Adam, Jules, Dela, et al!
ADAM: Thanks for info on "The Whitechapel Murders Papers - Letters relating to the Jack the Ripper Killings." Hope you don't mind a few Techie Illiterate questions. Not having a microfiche reader in my left shoe, I must ask - How could I put this to practical at home use?
Will public libraries let you view your own microfiche on their readers & make photocopies of any especially interesting pages? Is a scanner of any use with microfiche? Haven't set my new scanner up yet. Thanks.
JULES: Glad to see someone besides me is still up ... It's only 9pm in my neck of the woods.
Take care,
Ashling |
Author: adam
Wednesday, 17 March 1999 - 04:50 am | | Hi all
Caz, you ought to see some of the other nom-de-plumes - I was surprised to see only a handful written by "Jack the Ripper". I haven't bought the fiche; simply made the enquiry and received a contents list.
Of course you're welcome at the C&D (as is everyone) - where are you coming in from? If you want to meet up first email me. The Committee meeting is at 2pm, and everyone else starts turning up from 3pm. Curry starts at 5pm.
Ashling, I don't see any problem with libraries allowing you to use their readers. Most make a small charge for printing anyway, whatever the fiche. You could certainly scan a fiche, in the same way as you can scan a negative, but it would be very time consuming scanning over 400 pages (some of the letters are more than one sheet).
The library is the best bet.
Adam |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Wednesday, 17 March 1999 - 01:20 pm | | Adam,
I have the fiche, and I have printed off many of the pages, there is nothing really relevant to learn of the murders, though it does contain the Eddowes' inquest papers and letters from D'Onston, Benelius,Moore of the Central News and Mrs Forbes Winslow.
Best, Stewart |
Author: Caroline
Wednesday, 17 March 1999 - 01:30 pm | | Hi all,
I think I'm buying up someone's 'attic full of stuff' at the moment actually. Lots of books dated from the 1870s up to 1913 or so, at £2 a piece, plenty with illustrations and comical nom-de-plumes too numerous to list here.
Other finds have included original Cicely May Barker flower fairy prints (she died recently), a couple of original Louis Wain cat prints, all at silly prices. Cicely was born in 1895, in West Croydon, and was sponsored at Croydon Art College until 1919. I am wondering if she had an anonymous benefactor who recognised her considerable talents from a discrete distance, and maybe even left her a few mementos of his own in his will.
Adam, thanks re the C & D. I'll bear it in mind about emailing you nearer the time.
Love,
Caroline |
Author: Ashling
Thursday, 18 March 1999 - 06:56 am | | Hi y'all!
STEWART: Glad to see you posting fairly often again. Regarding your WM Papers fiche - Did you make copies of letter(s) from E. K. Larkin? If so, would you please sell me a copy of them? Feel free to email me direct with details. Thanks.
Take care,
Ashling |
Author: RED DEMON
Tuesday, 18 May 1999 - 02:59 pm | | Hello Stewart, Leanne, and all!
STEWART: If it's at all possible, I would like to inquire about the Larkin letters, also. Please feel free to email me direct. Also, what did you think of the John Smithkey book, for which you did the foreward?
I look forward to your reply. Until then...
Yours truly,
RED DEMON |
Author: Bob Hinton
Wednesday, 23 May 2001 - 02:45 pm | | Dear Everyone
I wonder if in the cause of comparison a letter written by a genuine murderer of Irish extraction would be of interest to compare spelling, syntax etc. It was written in 1876 and was found on the body of the killer after he shot himself.
I, Henry Smith do hear authorise the Rev Charles James To take up my Money that is now in the Nationel Provential Bank and to pay the said Money quarterly at the reat of from £30 to £40 per year to my Dauter Elizabeth for the mintanins of hur selfe and hur Sisters and Brothers Namely, Susan, Charles, Alice, John, Frances.
I will leave all the Mony that I can in a little Box, and the Bank Receipt also, the key of which I will inclose to you that you will be able to judge how long that Money will last before you draw on the Bank.
Sir I hope you will excuse me taking this liberty as I have no Friends in this Country or do I know any one that would be likeley to take any interest in thy child except you as a Christian Clergey Man. Hopeing at some future time that you will be found amongst the Good Shepards is the ernest wish of your obedient servent
Henry Smith
Points of Interest.
Capitalisation is generally shaky, they are scattered like chaff, with the exception of the pronoun 'I' which is always written correctly
Spelling is erratic. 'Quarterly' is spelled correctly and yet simple words like 'hur' 'selfe' and 'reat' are wrong.
All in all the letter is well constructed, conveying the writers wishes fairly clearly.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 24 May 2001 - 06:40 am | | Top of the mornin' to yer, Mishter Bob, Sor,
Nice to see you here again, and an interesting post.
I guess, on the subject of spelling, there are a million and one different influences which can affect which words get enough attention paid them so they come out spelled correctly. I think it must depend on what makes up the daily diet of a person's reading. If, for example, a word like 'quarterly' gets attention, while far simpler words like 'self' or 'her' get mangled, that would suggest to me a poor or infrequent reader, who may be unable to store even simple spellings away in the brain for future use, who guesses at the simple stuff but acknowledges that help is needed for anything more tricky. So, I would guess that he may either have seen and remembered the word 'quarterly' almost immediately before putting pen to paper himself, or it was actually there in front of him to copy from, or else he asked someone how to spell it, not thinking he needed help with the rest of the letter. Sometimes a long word can be learned and stored well because it is seen very frequently in a person's every day life. (My daughter, at four years old, could spell 'Sainsbury's' perfectly, including the apostrophe, but she might have had trouble with 'cat' if she didn't have enough access to story books etc.  ) We may look in a dictionary to check out words we know we have difficulty with, but we often make the same mistake over and over with words we assume we already know how to spell.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 24 May 2001 - 06:47 am | | Sorry, I meant to add my opinion that the spelling errors in the Lusk letter don't by themselves tell us much about whether they were intentional or not.
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
