|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
The 'Dear Boss' Letter
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Letters: General Discussion:
The 'Dear Boss' Letter
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 29 June 1999 - 04:21 am |        | The most important of the 'Jack the Ripper' letters was the 'Dear Boss' letter dated 25 September, 1888, (posted on the 28th), and I thought that readers may like to see the original envelope it came in. (Please note that this photograph is my copyright, and is credited to Stewart P Evans/Metropolitan Police, Crown copyright/Her Majesty's Stationery Office. It may not be commercially reproduced without permission).
 |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 29 June 1999 - 04:25 am | | | Sorry about that, again, this is a long learning curve for me! |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 29 June 1999 - 04:58 am | | I think that I have done it this time! Please remember that I took this photograph, I do not mind anyone copying it down for their own files, but it is not for publication without due authority.
 |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 29 June 1999 - 05:09 am | | Here is a picture of the 'saucy Jacky' postcard of 1 October 1888. The original document is in my possession, and I took this photograph, so please do not use it without prior permission.
 |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 29 June 1999 - 12:38 pm | | Hi Stewart,
Wonderful stuff. Thanks.
Is it true that the original 25th September letter was missing for decades, until it was returned to Scotland Yard anonymously in 1987, in a manilla envelope postmarked Croydon, in South London?
And if so, can anyone shed any more light on this mystery?
Thanks.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 29 June 1999 - 01:11 pm | | The original 25th September, 1888, letter was missing for many years (However, Scotland Yard always had an 1888 colour facsimile of it, and many people mistook this for the real thing).
The original letter, together with other material, was returned anonymously to New Scotland Yard in November, 1987. The envelope containing this material (see below, photograph is the copyright of the Metropolitan Police) was postmarked Croydon. The sender was never identified, but was thought to be a family member of a deceased, retired, senior police officer.
 |
Author: Rotter
Tuesday, 29 June 1999 - 04:05 pm | | | Mr. Evans, am I to understand that you own the actual saucy jack postcard? How did that come about? |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 29 June 1999 - 06:21 pm | | Thanks very much again, Stewart. You've had a busy old day. Goodonya.
Hmmmm. Pretty shocking stuff, eh? You just can't trust these senior police officers, can you? ;-)
I like to think that Jack was so under everyone's noses that he nicked back his own letter, then left it with someone when he died, with instructions to have it returned to the 'tecs' just before the 100th anniversary of the start of his series.
Off-the-wall thought maybe, but at least all policemen would be cleared of taking the thing as a retirement pressy :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Wednesday, 30 June 1999 - 12:14 am | | Sorry, no, I don't own the original 'saucy Jacky' postcard, I wish I did. That was bad wording on my part. What I meant was that I own the original of what is in the photograph, and in that sense it is an original document. Indeed it is as old as the original postcard as it is a colour police facsimile of 1888. This I obtained at the same time as the Littlechild letter, it had been part of the collection of George R. Sims and was no doubt given to him by his friend Macnaghten. The original postcard has been missing for many years and probably no longer exists, so this facsimile is all we are left with.
Again thanks for the interest and kind words.
Stewart |
Author: Scott Nelson
Thursday, 01 July 1999 - 12:38 am | | Ever wonder why significant Ripper material was returned to New Scotland Yard anonymously in 1987?
What (or where) was the source? Could a policeman's surviving family be involved in the holding of the original file material?
Could we look to the families of Walter Dew? How about Henry Moore or Joseph Helson, or even Thomas Arnold? What about the JtR diary implications? Could a descendent be drawing from family recollections? Jealousy over a rival MET officer of an ancestor? |
Author: Caz
Thursday, 01 July 1999 - 07:38 am | | Er, my own suspect, Weedon Grossmith, personally gave George R. Sims some stuff for his collection, and a portrait of Weedy as the housebreaker, Jack Sheppard, was hanging in Macnaghten's office (at least it was in 1912 according to WWG's autobiography).
Looks like old Weedon could have had access to practically anything....
And I've got some very interesting books and stuff I picked up recently from a now defunct antique shop in Croydon, some of which were apparently kicking around in Croydon Library for some ten years before being sold off to the antique dealer. One item is The Strand Magazine from August 1894.
No saucy postcards though. Damn it! :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Scott Nelson
Thursday, 01 July 1999 - 08:14 pm | | Hello Caz.
I would be very interested in what you have discovered in these old books, any miscellany, familar personalities, etc. Also, are you suggesting a link between Weedon Grossmith and Jack Sheppard? (maybe there is, but my knowledge of Late Victorian History is virtually nil).
Scott |
Author: Caz
Thursday, 01 July 1999 - 09:17 pm | | Hi Scott,
My last post before I hit the sack. I'm bushed.
Weedon produced a play about Jack Sheppard and put it on at the Pavilion Theatre in Whitechapel. He played Jack himself. See the Maybrick Diary Board: Spring Heeled Jack, for more info.
Among the books I bought were several old novels written around the turn of the century by unfamiliar authors (to me anyway), some with very comical-sounding names (probably just my weird sense of humour).
There were also a couple of wonderful arty books, showing stuff that was exhibited in the Royal Academy and so forth in late Victorian times.
I also picked up a book on the Croydon Parish Church dated 1871, four years after the church was all but destroyed in a mysterious fire.
Another curious item was a photograph album dated 1898 with hand-written copperplate captions in red ink, the words "ha ha" appearing on the last page. Someone evidently having a laugh....
The other item of particular interest to me was a pack of Victorian Happy Families playing cards, which includes such characters as flower-girls, the scissor-grinder, the sweep, the milkman, the muffin man, the omnibus conductor holding a baton (like an orchestra conductor?) with caption reading "1 penny all the way", and the cat's meat man, whose picture is reproduced on the board of the same name under General Discussions.
Hope these snippets are of interest.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Scott Nelson
Friday, 02 July 1999 - 01:59 am | | Caz, I would be terribly interested in the contents of the photograph album,, i.e., what is (are) the subject of the photographs? The "ha ha" may have a significant provenance, if it dates back to 1898. Also, you implied (in a previous post) that Grossmith left some sort of inference that one of the JTR victims was known to him(?). Correct me if I'm wrong.
Best Wishes,
Scott |
Author: Caz
Friday, 02 July 1999 - 05:06 am | | Hi Scott,
The handwriting in the photo album does not appear to match that of the 'Dear Boss' letter, if that's what you mean. The capital letters show a different style, but there again, ten years down the line, who knows? Maybe the caption writer was deliberately lampooning Jack as the case was so famous?
The photos are quite a weird little collection really. In one of them, the snapper is hell-bent on getting a pic of some female. He says he lay in wait for 3 hours then 'caught' her as she fled past. There are also snaps of a female servant enigmatically named Daniel, and one of a couple of men doing a John Cleese funny walk, with an amusing caption about going off to the pub to drown their sorrows.
The 'victim' which Weedon writes six pages about COULD be the real-life 'Fairy Fay' according to what he says.
That's all I'm saying ;-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Thursday, 08 July 1999 - 04:10 am | | Hi all --
Just a quick notice that we've now got full page color scans, perfectly crisp and clear for study, of the Dear Boss and From Hell letters available on the Casebook under "Ripper Letters." All are courtesy Mr. Stewart P. Evans / M.E.P.O., and may not be reproduced in any manner.
(Thanks Stewart!)
-- Stephen |
Author: Peter S.
Monday, 15 November 1999 - 12:45 am | | This guy was a freakin genius!
I am a fan of his work....ha ha.
Mike |
Author: Peter S.
Monday, 15 November 1999 - 12:48 am | | Mr. Evans, just wondering, how exactly did you come to possess the objects shown above?
Mike ha ha. |
Author: Anthony Green
Thursday, 27 September 2001 - 06:33 pm | | Hi all.
I have just been reading Kevin O´Donnell´s book on the researches of Andy and Sue Parlour, and wanted to record my thoughts on one comment in it. According to their idea (The Jack the Ripper Whitechapel Murders, St Osyth 1997, p. 40), the name "Jack the Ripper" may not have been invented by the author of the "Dear Boss" letter and "Saucy Jack" postcard, but was likely to have been "one of the names used for the killer on the streets of Whitechapel, along with ´Leather Apron´, before the letters were ever sent!". This idea immediately strikes me as unlikely, since the press, with their ear very much to the ground in the Whitechapel area, would surely have picked up such a dramatic name had it been in local use, and it would have appeared earlier in the newspapers.
The specific evidence adduced for this suggestion, however, is an entry in the diary of the Swedish Church by the pastor Johannis Palmer for 30th September 1888, which reads (in Swedish): "In the morning at 1 am Elisabeth Gustafsdotter Stride was murdered in Berner St. She had often received assistance from the Church. (Murdered by Jack the Ripper?)".
According to the Parlours, "The point is that the name ´Jack the Ripper´ is usually thought to have appeared with the first letters to the press ... Extracts from these were published on 1 October, but the full reproduction only came on 4 October. The name ´Jack the Ripper´ was mentioned in some newspapers on 1 October and 2 October along with extracts. We have a diary entry using the name a full day before anyone had printed it". This has been hailed as one of the "significant discoveries" of the Parlours´ book by, for example, the book review on this website.
"It is, of course, possible", admit the authors, "that the Ripper reference was written in the September 30th entry a day later, after reading the newspaper". However, "Given that Pastor Johannis Palmer was noted for his pedantic efficiency on organisational issues and matters of record, it is unlikely. Also, the entry goes on after the reference to the Ripper. It was a long entry, and the name ´Jack the Ripper´ was thus not entered later".
It seems to me, however, that it is impossible that this entry could have been written on 30th September, and must, in fact, have been written some days later. Most likely the pastor would not have known about the murder until he read about it in the newspaper on 1st October, but even if he had heard rumours on the day of the murder - for example from one or more of the members of the congregation at his church (30th September was a Sunday) - he could not possibly have known that the victim was Elizabeth Stride. It is unclear exactly when and how Stride was identified, but the identification was not immediate and must have been a couple of days after the murder, because at the sitting of the inquest on the afternoon of 2nd October the victim was wrongly identified as Elizabeth Watts or Stokes. Although the Coroner seems never to have accepted this identification, he did take testimony concerning it, and it is clear that at the day´s adjournment the true identity of the victim was still not established (cf. Evans/Skinner, Jack the Ripper Sourcebook, pp. 146-149; the identification as Elizabeth Stride is first mentioned at the inquest on the next day, ibid. p. 154).
It therefore seems beyond doubt that the name "Jack the Ripper" first appeared in the "Dear Boss" letter and was the brain-child of the person, be he murderer, journalist or hoaxer, who composed that text.
Tony |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 27 September 2001 - 09:37 pm | | Hey Tony:
Good points. I can find no fault in your arguments. Well done.
Yaz |
Author: Tom Wescott
Friday, 28 September 2001 - 12:08 am | | Tony,
Your angle of looking at the Parlour's evidence by way of Liz Stride's identification shows real ingenuity. However, you must remember that the Rev. put a question mark at the end of his statement...'murdered by Jack the Ripper?' Also, it should be noted that while the trade name wasn't made public until Oct. 1st, it had become known to the police, certain members of the press, and anyone they knew, on Sept. 27th. So, it's highly possible the Rev could have heard the name from any number of people, and when he found out that Stride's body may have been Strides on the 30th, but didn't know if it was definite or not, he could have left that message. In the end, I also must reject the theory that 'Jack the Ripper' was the killer's 'street' name for the simple fact that it would most certainly have reached the ears of the press and police long before that of a preacher, and they seemed totally ignorant of it until the 'Dear Boss' letter.
You're making some good observations. Keep up it!
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
|
|
|
|
