Author: Plevoets J-Carlos
Thursday, 03 June 1999 - 03:12 pm |        |
Dear Sir,
A few months after the edition of Mrs Harrison's
book, I discovered a clue that James Maybrick
was Jack the ripper. This clue can be found
on the envelop of a letter sent to Dr Sedgwick
Saunders on December 5th 1888. A copy of this letter can be found in Mrs Harrison's book " The diary of Jack the ripper" on page 238 (paperback version)
As you can notice Maybrick fused his given
name James with the word Thames what
rendered: " t Jhames Police Court".
The same way of amalgamating words can be found in the diary where he fused Jim and Maybrick what produced: " Jimay "
I wrote about this to Mrs Harrison. However nothing of this has been published.
Yours sincerely,
Plevoets J-Carlos
Grumstraat 80
3400 Landen
Belgium |
Author: Joseph
Friday, 04 June 1999 - 01:14 pm | |
Hello M.Plevoets,
You've made an interesting point.
Have you done any research into any of
the "ripper" letters, looking for fusions of
a similar nature. I would be interested in hearing of any progress you may make.
Best of luck
Joseph |
Author: Plevoets J-Carlos
Saturday, 05 June 1999 - 01:40 pm | |
Dear Joseph,
Indeed, after my little discovery I pursued my
search for more clues in the ripper missives.
My opinion is that the "Dear Boss" and the
"From Hell" letter are not from the same hand.
This was also the Stephen Knight's conclusion who
explained that the "From Hell" letter was not
written by an illiterate for reasons that can be found in his book.
My feeling is that the "From Hell" letter and the graffito in Goulston street was written by Roslyn D'Onston, Melvyn Harris' ripper-suspect.
A similarity can be found in the "From Hell" letter, the Goulston street graffito and the letter he sent from the hospital to
WT Stead on October 16th i.e. capital letters.
And since he was staying in the London hospital adding a kidney to the "From Hell" letter was not difficult.
I also think he saw Jack the ripper on the night of the double event.
But this is for a next time.
Carlos |
Author: Christopher George
Saturday, 05 June 1999 - 08:46 pm | |
Greetings Plevoets J-Carlos:
I actually think it is a mistake to think that D'Onston wrote with capital letters in inappropriate places. For convenience I will repeat what I wrote on May 25 on the Goulston Street Graffito board:
In regard to the capitalization of the letter "T" in the middle of sentences in D'Onston's letter of October 16, this is certainly how this letter is transcribed in Melvin Harris's "The True Face of Jack the Ripper" (pp. 111-12) and in "The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper" (pp. 447-48). I happen to have a copy of the manuscript letter (Corporation of London Records Office (CRO) Police Box 3.23, no. 390), sent to me by the kind offices of Stewart P. Evans, and I do think this transcription is actually faulty. These are lower case "t's" as shown by reference to D'Onston's "t's" elsewhere where they occur in the middle of the word: he forms a lower case "t" so that the horizontal line sits on top of the upstroke rather than making a cross. The capitalized "T" as written by D'Onston in beginning the sentences, "The murderer unconsciously reverted. . . to his native language." and "The man was a Frenchman.", is a far grander, curvier, and spikier affair. . .
You should also be aware that in his December 1 Pall Mall Gazette article, D'Onston stated that he thought the graffito was written in Mitre Square over the body of the dead woman. This mistake might indicate he either was not Jack or did not write the graffito. |
Author: Plevoets J-Carlos
Monday, 07 June 1999 - 06:52 am | |
Dear Christopher George,
Thank you for your clarification of the 6 October
letter.
Nevertheless I don't think that the ripper wrote
the graffito in Goulston street. Nor did the
diarist. After all he wrote: "Curse my bad luck had no time to write a funny little rhyme". And the graffito is hardly a rhyme, is it ?
What was then the funny Jewish joke the diarist is referring to ? "Lipski" ? |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Monday, 07 June 1999 - 08:51 am | |
Greetings Plevoets J-Carlos:
Having now looked at the JtR letter in question that is reproduced in Shirley Harrison's book, I must challenge the reading of it that you stated in your message of Thursday, June 3, 1999. In regard to this letter received by Dr. William Sedgwick Saunders, the City of London's Public Analyst, on December 5, 1888, you say that on the envelope reproduced in the photo section of Harrison's book "Maybrick fused his given name James with the word Thames" so making it read "t Jhames Police Court." You further say, "The same way of amalgamating words can be found in the diary where he fused Jim and Maybrick what produced: 'Jimay.'"
This is an interesting theory, but I really think what you are looking at on this envelope is someone other than the letter writer adding additional information to redirect the letter. The letter writer inadequately addressed the envelope to read:
"Saunders Esq
Police Magistrate
London"
Someone in a different and larger hand has written in between "Police Magistrate" and "London" the words
"( Thames Police Court
E"
That these words are written in another hand to that of whomever wrote this Dear Boss letter can be seen by reference to the word "Police" which is written in a plainer though larger hand than the floridly written "Police" in the originally written "Police Magistrate." I believe what you mistake for a "t" before "Thames" is actually a parenthesis with a stroke on it that makes it appear like a "t." Whomever added these words, possibly a clerk in the Post Office, or someone in the court system, forgot to add the ending parenthesis. In short, I do not believe it is a "J" in "Thames" but "Thames" plain and simple. I also have no reason to think that this letter was from the non-contemporary suspect James Maybrick and would class it among the hundreds of hoax letters received by the police and others during the Ripper scare.
Chris George |
Author: Plevoets J-Carlos
Monday, 07 June 1999 - 01:12 pm | |
Dear Mr Christopher George,
You state that the letter "P" on the envelop in "Thames Police Court" is different from the P in "Police Magistrate
London" , but so is the P in "Police Magistrate" in the letter different from the P in
"Police Magistrate" on the envelop.
Even the letter "S" in Saunders in the letter is different from the letter "S" on the envelop.
Nevertheless they are from the same hand.
I believe that the ripper was afraid to get caught by his handwriting and therefore constantly altered his handwriting.
As to the parenthesis , it is set to high in the phrase and as to the capital "T" in the word "Thames" you can observe an open downstroke so that it can hardly be a letter T.
Carlos |
Author: Christopher George
Monday, 07 June 1999 - 02:36 pm | |
Hi, Carlos:
The "P" in "Police" and the "S" in "Saunders" are written both in the "letter" written on a page of newsprint and on the envelope in the same manner, with a pen with a narrow nib in a hand using flourishes and whorls. They are obviously by the same hand. By contrast, the inserted words on the envelope,
"( Thames Police Court
E"
are written with a thicker nib with less flourish, including no flourish or whorl on the "P" which is written in a plain, spartan manner. I stand by my previous contention that these words were added by someone else other than the letter writer, to ensure that the communication reached its intended recipient, Dr. William Sedgwick Saunders. Incidentally, isn't it interesting that this letter, received by the City of London's Public Analyst on December 5, 1888, as with many of the Jack the Ripper letters, bears no stamp on the envelope?
Chris George |
Author: Caz
Monday, 07 June 1999 - 06:52 pm | |
Hi Chris!
That is quite interesting.
No stamp eh? Sounds like anonymous letter-writers could be tight with their postage money! I suppose it also depends how many letters each hoaxer is churning out, and if they live close enough to deliver their missives by hand.
Perhaps one prolific hoaxer was under the recipients' noses much of the time, so his letters didn't have to see the inside of a pillar box? and he may have wanted to ensure their safe delivery at an exact time of day? Or else the local post-mistress may have gotten nosy if a man was seen to be buying an excessive number of stamps at the time of all the JtR letters.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 08 June 1999 - 03:35 am | |
Caz -
I think you need to clarify exactly which hoaxes your man is delivering here. Certainly the most famous ones - Dear Boss, Saucy Jacky et al. had demonstrably seen the inside of a pillar box and postal sorting office, as evidenced by the postmarks they bear! |
Author: Christopher George
Tuesday, 08 June 1999 - 08:03 am | |
Hi, Guy:
All of the posted envelopes that I have seen have postmarks on them. But not all of the envelopes have stamps. Sometimes there are more than one postmark, with or without the stamp, as the communication traveled between postal districts. Neither the initial Dear Boss letter of September 25, 1888 nor the Saucy Jacky postcard received by the Central News Agency on October 1 bear stamps, but they have postmarks on them. The Dear Boss letter of December 1888 that we have been discussing has no stamp but three postmarks on the front of the envelope, one for December 4 and two for December 5. This is an additional indication that the December missive was bouncing around between postal jurisdictions before someone added more information to the address to direct it to its intended recipient, Dr. William Sedgwick Saunders.
Chris George |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 08 June 1999 - 08:24 am | |
Chris -
Thanks for expanding on that point. I think, though, that Caz was suggesting that someone (presumably she is thinking of Grossmith) was communicating with the police and press from such close quarters that he prefered to deliver his letters by hand - hence they would bear neither stamp nor postmark. Is there any evidence of such hand-delivered correspondence in the files, or was it all delivered by the Royal Mail?
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Christopher George
Tuesday, 08 June 1999 - 08:52 am | |
Hi, Guy:
I have read somewhere that a number of the letters were left in various places and handed over to the authorities. They were not all sent through the mail. I am not sure where I read this, but will continue to look.
Chris George |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 08 June 1999 - 12:53 pm | |
Hi Guy, Chris and all,
Actually my post was pure musing on possible reasons for some of the letters being 'stampless'. For once I hadn't related any particular letters to Weedon for this post! :-)
Mind you, this angle could be very relevant in future with regard to my WWG. Any letters posted in Liverpool would be of special interest to me initially.
Thank you both so much for your input.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Plevoets J-Carlos
Tuesday, 08 June 1999 - 01:10 pm | |
Dear Chris George,
Now that we have made up our own mind , I
would like to discuss with you whether the 5 December letter is a hoax or not.
My opinion is that it is not. The reason: Drs
Sequiera and Saunders told that they did not think that the killer had designs on any particular organ and that he did not seem to possess 'great anatomical skill'.
The ripper certainly was offended by this declaration (a characteristic of many serial killers). The rippers' reply to the doctors statement also proves that he scoured newspapers
in order to stay aware of police progressions.
(another characteristic)
Carlos |
Author: Christopher George
Tuesday, 08 June 1999 - 02:57 pm | |
Hi, Carlos:
I appreciate your interpretation of the December 5, 1888 Jack the Ripper letter to Dr. William Sedgwick Saunders. You say that "Drs. Sequiera and Saunders told that they did not think that the killer had designs on any particular organ and that he did not seem to possess 'great anatomical skill'. The ripper certainly was offended by this declaration. . . ."
I do not believe the writer of this letter betrays upset, at least not in the same way that the writer of the October 5, 1888 Dear Boss letter displays upset at being thought to be the murderer of the woman whose torso was found in Whitehall, where the writer protests "In the name of God hear me I swear I did not kill the female whose body was found at Whitehall. . . ." (quoted in Gainey and Evans, "Jack the Ripper: First American Serial Killer," Kodansha, New York, 1998, pp. 98-99).
The following is how the letter received by Dr. Saunders on December 5 reads:
"Dear Boss
Look out for 7th inst. Am trying my hand at disjointing, and if can manage it will send you a finger.
Yours
Jack the Ripper"
Rather than being upset, in comparison to the writer of the letter quoted earlier, our writer of the letter received December 5 seems calmly smug about his work of killing and mutilation.
Chris George |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 08 June 1999 - 04:33 pm | |
Hi All!
Hmmmmm. My Weedon had an uncle (William R Grossmith) who was heavily into this sort of stuff. He had a book published in 1857 called Amputations and Artificial Limbs, which is only available to read in situ at the British Library at St Pancras, and I haven't got round to taking a butchers at it yet.
I think 'smug' does indeed sum up the Saunders letter of 5th Dec. But it's still hard to tell what the 'smugness' tells us about that and other letters possibly by the same hand. There are at least four possibilities as I see it.
1 A smug killer taunting his reader on this occasion.
2 A killer (smug or otherwise) disguising his real character to suit every occasion and every letter he sends.
3 A smug hoaxer.
4 A hoaxer pretending to be a smug killer.
Only subtle differences, I grant you, but it would help to get some idea if we could eliminate each letter on the basis of such analysis. Or is this going round in circles? :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher George
Tuesday, 08 June 1999 - 07:18 pm | |
Hi, Caz:
I think the December 5, 1888 letter to Dr. Saunders is a combination of scenarios 3 and 4 in the list you gave, i.e.,
3 A smug hoaxer.
4 A hoaxer pretending to be a smug killer.
I cannot of course definitively prove that this particular letter is a hoax, but my hunch is that it is. I think it is one of a long series of letters meant to shock the public and to taunt and mislead the police. A large number of people in late Victorian England, numbering in the hundreds probably, must have been getting their jollies off sending these letters to the authorities.
Chris George |
Author: Caz
Wednesday, 09 June 1999 - 03:10 am | |
Hi Chris!
What you say does make sense.
Now, what I would like to know is this: In the modern Yorkshire Ripper case we know there was a hoax tape sent to the police by a nutter with a Geordie accent. But were there hundreds of other tapes or letters sent? If so, I apologise for my next bit.
What I can't quite get to grips with is the fact that I would have expected this sort of phenomenon, of multitudinous hoaxers adding to the nonsense, to INCREASE over time rather than DECREASE, particularly after Peter Sutcliffe got his Jack-related monicker from presumably an over-enthusiastic journo type.
And we now have the added dubious benefit of even more hyena-like media, together with an ever-increasing number of potential psychos in society. Maybe the public imagination was more fired up then by the new phenomenon of a killer on a mission?
Any thoughts?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Guy Hatton
Wednesday, 09 June 1999 - 03:46 am | |
Caz -
A little side issue that just occured to me while reading your last post. Didn't the tape hoaxer in the "Yorkshire Ripper" case introduce himself by saying "I am Jack"? Just as a certain watch allegedly establishes the identity of its owner? Make of it what you will! |
Author: Plevoets J-Carlos
Wednesday, 09 June 1999 - 09:06 am | |
Dear Chris,
There's something puzzling in your statement about the 5 december letter in your mail of june 7th.
You state that the "P" in Police and the "S" in
Saunders on a page of newsprint and on the envelop are written with a pen with a narrow nib in a hand using flourishes an whorls. With that I agree.
But why is the text i.e. "Dear Boss, Look out for 7th inst. Am trying ... ." written with a pen with a thicker nib ? What I mean is that on the newsprint we can distinguish to different types of pen i.e. a pen with a narrow nib and a broad nib.
Was the ripper using two kinds of pen? It looks like it.
To me Maybrick did it on purpose. Here again he was taunting the police and trying to prove what fools they were. After all he was self-confident that he would not be caught.
Carlos |
Author: Caz
Wednesday, 09 June 1999 - 05:30 pm | |
Hi Guy!
Yep, I think the Geordie fella did say that. And the 'certain watch' does smack of jumping on bandwagons. But what makes these people tick?? :-)
Perhaps we should try to find out?
Love,
Caz |
