|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 December 7, 1998
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Letters: General Discussion:
Etymology of "Boss" in the "Dear Boss" Letters:
Archive through December 7, 1998
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 05 December 1998 - 07:08 pm |        | While the British are away, the Americans can play...Scrabble!
Arthur Conan Doyle is the most well-known example of the British suggesting the word "boss" in the "Dear Boss" correspondence is an Americanism. Well, he's sort of got it right. However the Oxford English Dictionary (1981, micrograph edition) lists several alternative sources of the word, all originating or used in the British Isles. I quote from the OED:
1) Old Boss: noun, a term of contempt applied to persons (origin: Scotch -- OED notes that the 'boss' in this term may be a distinct word on it's own, for what that's worth!). Dates of examples given: 1566, Knox; and 1846, Jamieson (who may be quoting Knox...the OED is unclear to me...imagine!) The first shows over 300 years of Scotch usage; and it's just about that long before the OED cites the first American use of the term in the sense of 'master' or 'employer.' I forget, wasn't America once a colony of Great Britain?
2) Boss: verb, (noted as in use as previously explained in America) the OED adds that the word is "in English use only humorous." One of the examples cited is "1882, Sala, Illustrated London News, 25 Feb" Now we have the word used as a verb in a London newspaper 6 years before the "Dear Boss" correspondence.
3) Bossing: verb, meaning to act as a boss in the American sense. Interstingly, the only examples cited in the OED are English newspapers...1864, Sala, Daily Telegraph 23 December; 1884, Manchester Examiner, 13 August (I quote this example in full: "The 'bossing' of railways is a practice not exclusively confined to the United States.") If the "practice" ain't, maybe the word ain't either, eh?
From a less reputable source (than the OED, that is!), Marie Belloc Lowndes has her fictional young Scotland Yard detective from The Lodger, Joe Chandler, frequently refer to his superiors as 'the boss' or 'bosses.' The short story was written in 1911, the novel in 1913. Laura Marcus, who wrote the Introduction, claims Lowndes used the contemporary press accounts (Lowndes worked for W. T. Stead of the Pall Mall Gazette in the "winter of 1888, when the Ripper terror was still at its height," says Marcus). Is her use of 'Boss" and 'Bosses' an anachronism? Or a term more common to the contemporary (read: 1888) police than we thought? Or a term more common to the contemporary press than we thought? Or is it just plain common usage in London and environs circa 1888? It would be interesting to get as close to an answer as we can, letter fans!
So is Conan Doyle right after all; is 'Boss' an exclusively American term? And in the context of the letters, with the writer's dismissive and jocular attitude to just about everyone and everything, which definition fits the letter: the staid American employer/master? or the object of contempt and ridicule as in the Scots/English?
Since the British are across the Atlantic, savoring multiple glasses of their favorite beverages at the Cloak and Dagger Club soiree...I say we Americans get to decide!
Hurry and decide before they notice what's we be doin'!
Yaz |
Author: Alex Chisholm
Saturday, 05 December 1998 - 10:24 pm | | Yaz
Rapturous rejoicing. For once we appear to be in possibly agreement.
I have long been dubious that the use of 'Boss' in Ripper correspondence signified some American influence.
To your most useful notes I would add a small extract from " 'Arry on St. Swithin." which appeared in Punch, August 4, 1888., : "My Houseboat - leastways I'd the run of it, Charlie, old pal, The Boss bein' Bagshot, the Booky, who hired it to please his new gal - Our Houseboat, the 'Margery Daw,' was as smart as they make 'em, no doubt, But the spree gave yours truly the hump; it wos jest one perpetual spout."
'Arry's letters to his 'old pal' 'Dear Charlie', with their misspelled cockney-eese and frequent references to 'yours truly' were a regular feature of Punch, and were penned by E. J. Milliken, who also contributed to Punch's theatre reviews under the heading 'Jack in the Box' - Any suspicion where this might be going?
Well no, I'm not going to speculate that the esteemed E. J. Milliken wrote the Dear Boss letters, but I do think that whoever did could have found their inspiration in his and other contributions to Punch.
While the British are away, the Scots are still here
All the best
Alex |
Author: Yazoo
Saturday, 05 December 1998 - 10:58 pm | | Hooray for the Scots!
Alex, if our boy wrote those letters (and miserable drivel it is, all of it), he did indeed need inspiration and where better than popular culture...though he might disagree with us. I feel that your thoughts on the media shaping the Ripper legend and my feeling that the Ripper fed off the public and the press show a little fruit here. Or have we diverged again with that one simple declarative sentence?
Have you followed our arguments here at all? If you have, I wonder if you might agree that while we still may have a hoax with these letters...the hoax does not not seem to have come from a journalist. A nut case certainly, but not a journalist; a loony without the intellect to even use the "Whore of Babylon" or Rahab from Joshua in his biblical references, more commonly known "prostitution" images than the non-prostitution Moabs and Midians. A journalist may be a poor prognosticator of the murderer's future actions, but he could at least have gotten that part right!
Yaz |
Author: Christopher T. George
Sunday, 06 December 1998 - 11:32 am | | Hello Alex and Yaz:
I also have to wonder if "Boss" implies an American connection. As you have discussed, the word "boss" does seem to have currency in Victorian England. Possibly, though, the use of "Yours truly" is more British than American.
"Boss" appears to be derived from the Dutch "baas" and has a teutonic origin. Certainly the term "Boss" had widespread usage in the United States in the late nineteenth century to mean a professional politician who controlled a large block of votes, e.g., Boss Tweed. But it was evidently not exclusively American in this period.
Interestingly, in several of the dictionaries I have referred to the term "boss printer" is used, so again we come back to the printing trade and those carets. . . .
I have been thinking about our letter writers again. The Dear Boss writer and the Lusk letter writer seem almost to be in an Upstairs/Dowstairs dichotomy. The Dear Boss correspondent seems, as I noted previously, obsessed with cutting off ears and face defacement, while with the Lusk writer you have the kidney (or should I say "kidne"???), something much lower down in the anatomy.
Dear Boss is humorous and light while Lusk is totally dark. Dear Boss seems almost prim, and writes in a careful copper plate in his first missive of September 25, while Lusk is growling and threatening and spiky.
The historical connection is nonexistent of course but the Dear Boss writer and his emulator in the Maybrick diary hoax seem similar in that they never really get to grips with the horror of the crimes the way the Lusk writer does. Dear Boss is always going to remove the ears. But never does. The would-be Maybrick diarist is always going to remove the head. But never does. They talk about the "red stuff" rather than blood and how they enjoyed themselves, and have fun with their little games, etc., etc. The Lusk writer by contrast is all business and humorless. To him it is not a game.
Chris George |
Author: Alex Chisholm
Sunday, 06 December 1998 - 08:18 pm | | Hi Yaz & Chris
No Yaz, I don't think your declarative statement need scupper any new-found agreement, for, whether or not one accepts a single Jack to be responsible for the canonical five, some degree of cumulative press influence could be identified.
As far as Punch is concerned, however, I don't really think this publication would have had any mass circulation. I believe it would have been more the preserve of the intellectual, pseudo intellectual, literati, professionals and politicians, even perchance the odd journalist. As you will no doubt gather from this, although I've not followed all the arguments on this board, I do tend to favour the 'enterprising journalist' angle, with Bulling seeming a likely candidate.
I also feel the interesting observations offered by Chris on the distinction between Dear Boss and Lusk tend to support the view of Dear Boss being the work of some misguided practical joker.
Sorry we couldn't go all the way with this agreement thing Yaz, but then, I suppose, nothing lasts forever.
All the best
Alex |
Author: Bob_c
Monday, 07 December 1998 - 04:44 am | | Hi all
The Brits are there again.
The word Boss is certainly just as much Limey as Ami, I have written elsewhere that it also was and is used extensively in Irland (Eire), together with other words like 'buckled'. The Irish 'Boss' tends to have an ironic, sarcastic, almost amused tilt in it, but still means generally 'Boss' as in company chief or leader.
Naturly, you'll be thinking I'm thinking of Joe, supposing anyone feels like reading my missives, but I'm not directly. I don't feel that these words in the letters can be any proof at all that an American was involved. My part-Irish background (my dear daddy was a Mick) lets me feel that the words COULD have been written by an Irishman, or someone that either tried to copy or had regular Irish contacts.
I know quite a few persons, not only Brits or Amis, who pretend to be Irish or from Irish stock. I don't know why, perhaps the soft accent is atractive. I do know that as I was young, the light accent I had then (not any more) was often copied by others.
It could be that the writer just wanted to disguise himself a bit and this was a method of doing it, or the writer was not Jack and just tried to project himself into how he thought Jack was.
Bob |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 07 December 1998 - 06:04 am | | Hey, All!
Chris, you know you're singing to the choir with me.
Alex, I'll let Chris tackle the misguided practical joker part. Also, from Paul Begg et al's JtR A -Z, he plugs Stewart's book which suggested that Bulling was the model for an eccentric, ex-journalist who was obsessed by the Ripper in a book written by R. Thurston Collins, c. 1935 -- how's that for multiple book plugs? I wonder just what was Bulling's fate? If he was obsessed with JtR -- in what way? The same as we are? If he was, I would think it shows him less likely to be the "Dear Boss" letter writer. Anybody know more on Bulling's fate or his immediate...pardon...boss? (Besides the 'bloody Bismark' business.)
Bob, most Americans today and at least within this century held the dual working definition of "Boss." To some it means simply an employer or supervisor...it can also have all the connotations of the Scots/British/Irish definition, and then some. If someone calls you 'boss,' you can never be sure if you're hearing a plain statement, a derogatory inference, or both at once. We Americans tend to be cultural "mutts."
Yaz |
Author: Bob_c
Monday, 07 December 1998 - 06:25 am | | Hi Yaz,
Don't disparage your American culture! Relatively modern, maybe, but non-the-less a very valuable and real contribution to world culture.
On the 'Boss' matter, What I wrote was just a very complicated way of saying the the word 'Boss' in the letter probably didn't mean a thing.
Bob |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 07 December 1998 - 08:03 am | | Bob,
But using the salutation/title "Boss" obviously meant something, the questions are what does it mean, and to whom. If we want to accept the 1888 police version, the "Boss" was literally a salutation from Bulling to his editor. If you accept the other variants, "Boss" was in the vein of mocking, disrespectful, goading. The 'to whom' part is debatable...at least under this topic!
And I do love my culture, mutts and all...but it's still a mongrel.
Yaz |
Author: Bob_c
Monday, 07 December 1998 - 08:58 am | | Hi Yaz,
Hmm.. I must think of what I really meant with my last post.
Let me set myself in the place of Jack, or someone wanting to impersonate him. I want to say that I am this vicious killer Jack the ripper, writing to a news agency lead by someone I don't know (or pretend u.s.w).
How do I address him? I am educated but not a scholar. I don't respect the man I'm writing to and want to keep a distance to him while not stifling my own personality.
'Dear Sir', too much respect. 'Dear Boss'.. a mixture, as you say, of goading, mocking, a little indication that the recipient has a elevated position. The word 'Dear' to start, which every child and every adult would use for almost every letter and note, except for a letter like this...
Or this word 'Boss' because nothing else comes to mind, and I don't want to call him 'Sir'?
Bob |
Author: Edana
Monday, 07 December 1998 - 09:43 am | | Chris George...you made the chills go up my spine with your summation of the letter writers. "To him it's not a game" Ack! How true. I can imagine Jack sitting there at his table, pen in hand, paper at the ready, thinking what he is going to write, then slapping those words down in a strangely controlled frenzy, like that which he experiences on his murderous rampage....a microcosm of his rage.
Edana (Oh, dear, now I sound like a second-rate Victorian novelist...call me Ouida!) |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 07 December 1998 - 11:09 am | | Or Dear "Sor", Bob? (Just kidding.)
Edana, who is/was Ouida...sounds maddeningly familiar.
Yaz |
Author: Christopher T. George
Monday, 07 December 1998 - 11:14 am | | Hi, Edena, Bob-c, Yaz, and all--
Edena, I did not mean to make the hairs stand up on the back of your neck. Well, yes, I did. Oh, what the heck. . . .
I am trying to explore the psychology of whomever wrote these missives, whether they were really from Jack or not.
Certainly, whomever wrote the "Dear Boss" letters seems psychologically disturbed if we consider all four of the letters from this individual, rather than just the initial two famous ones. I am not convinced that "an enterprising London journalist" wrote these letters as Sir Robert Anderson asserted in his memoirs "The Lighter Side of My Official Life" published in 1910. Moreover, the existing copy of the third letter, a copy of which was kindly sent to me by Stewart Evans, is evidently a transcription of the third letter done by the suspected journalist, Tom Bulling, who signs "Yours truly T. J. Bulling" directly under "Yours truly Jack the Ripper." The writing does not match the prior letters from the Dear Boss author. For some reason, the Central News Agency kept the original third letter in their files and only sent this copy to the police. Stewart might correct me on this perception of Bulling's innocence or that this is Bulling's own writing, but to my mind this is further proof that Bulling did not write these letters as has been claimed.
Chris George |
Author: Bob_c
Monday, 07 December 1998 - 11:44 am | | Hi all,
Why did Bulling make a transcript for the police and keep the original at the CNA? More, why didn't the police kick the hell out of CNA's butt for doing it? They knew what they had become was a transcript, and at that transcribed by a man strongly suspected of having written the letters himself.
I cannot and do not believe that this was ignored unless the belief on the letters being a hoax were so strong, it was decided there were much more important things to do. Even then, why wasn't Bulling called to answer for it?
If the original handwriting from Bulling is available as well as original 'Jack', why isn't Bulling "eliminated from enquiries"?
Bob |
Author: Christopher T. George
Monday, 07 December 1998 - 12:33 pm | | Hello, Bob:
To answer your question, "why isn't Bulling 'eliminated from enquiries'?", the answer is that no serious enquiries (I don't think) were ever undertaken. My presumption is that the police at the time or later (vide Anderson writing in 1910) decided that Bulling or some other "enterprising London journalist" was responsible and that there was no need to look further into the origin of the letters. This is our loss. But it goes along with my earlier complaints about the sloppy thinking in the police jottings, so we have Littlechild calling Tom Bulling "Bullen" as well as renaming the Commissioner of Scotland Yard James Monro "Munro" and Macnaghtan calling M. J. Druitt "a doctor" instead of a barrister. As I have said before, the police ephemera related to the Ripper case contain so many errors, why should we trust them? The pat assertion that Bulling or some other journalist wrote the Ripper letters should be viewed within the overall lack of quality in these notes left by police officials.
Chris George |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 07 December 1998 - 01:53 pm | | Chris, Chris, Chris!!
Th'o down, buddy. You are the Man on the Case. (non-Americans must excuse the americano idiomatic gris gris lingua...reading too much William Burroughs lately)
One word of caution to the unwary (and correct me, Chris, if I speak out of turn). Neither Chris nor any of we few, brave, lonely letter-promoters think EVERYTHING or even most of what the police did was wrong/stupid/whatever. We do think they made some questionable statements and assertions, few if any backed-up by any investigatory evidence. This letter business is one of the examples. So don't go saying we're bashing the 1888 police in general, please.
I wish Judith and June would come back. I think they'd be surprised at how far we've come...but not how far we still have to go.
Yaz
And where is that Avala character skulking, eh? |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 07 December 1998 - 02:48 pm | | Hi Guys,
As always another involved, convoluted, obtuse, obfuscated, tangental, discussion shrouded in a fog thicker than a London 'pea-souper.'
I will tackle a point at a time for the sake of giving clear, concise, and relevant commentary. :-)
1. The book mentioned by Yaz is 'Life and Death at the Old Bailey,' by R. Thurston Hopkins, published by Herbert Jenkins, 1935. In this book is a whole chapter about 'Jack the Ripper' entitled 'Shadowing the Shadow of a Murderer.' The passage relevant to this discussion reads -
"But, first of all, who christened the phantom killer with the terrible soubriquet of Jack the Ripper? That is a small mystery in itself. Possibly Scotland Yard gave the name to the press and public. At that time the police post-bag bulged with hundreds of anonymous letters from all kinds of cranks and half-witted persons, who sought to criticise or hoax the officers engaged in following up the murders...it was in a letter, received by a well-known News Agency and forwarded to the Yard, that the name first appeared. The Criminal Investigation Department looked upon this letter as a 'clue' and possibly a message from the actual murderer...It was perhaps a fortunate thing that the handwriting of this famous letter was perhaps not identified, for it would have led to the arrest of a harmless Fleet Street journalist. This poor fellow had a breakdown and became a whimsical figure in Fleet Street, only befriended by the staff of newspapers and printing works. He would creep about the dark courts waving his hands furiously in the air, would utter stentorian "Ha, ha, ha's," and then, meeting some pal, would button-hole him and pour into his ear all the inner-story of the East End murders. Many old Fleet Streeters had very shrewd suspicions that this irresponsible fellow wrote the famous Jack the Ripper letter, and Sir Melville L. Macnaghten, Chief of the Criminal Investigation Department, had his eye on him."
Unfortunately Hopkins does not name his man, but the description he gives fits Bulling well. So, not only did the Police believe him responsible for the letters, so did his press colleagues. (Hopkins was a journalist as well as author).
I feel I should also point out a few facts about why the police apparently did not take action against him. First, the offence involved in writing such letters was a minor breach of the peace offence. Secondly, handwriting analysis is an inexact science, and simply could not be used, alone, to prove the offence. Thirdly, obviously Bulling would never admit it anyway, and from what Littlechild says they had no 'hard' evidence, as witness his words "generally" believed that he was responsible, either in league with or having the asssistance of his boss, Moore.
Bulling would have been stupid if he had not disguised his handwriting, using a 'clerkly' and neater hand than his normal writing (if, in fact, it was actually his writing and not one of his colleagues). However, Melvin Harris has studied both the 'Dear Boss' correspondence and the Bulling letter and notes many similarities in word and letter structure.
For Scotland Yard to have tried to prove it was Bulling would have involved a lengthy investigation (they were busy with the murder hunt), costly (they were running out of cash for the murder hunt), and they were very short on manpower also. A veritable sledge hammer in an attempt to crack a nut. Wasting time on such a very minor offence would make no sense to them. They obviously came to believe Bulling responsible, who knows? They may have had a quiet word in his ear, warning him they believed it wa him, thus preventing the letter writer trying it again.
Yours truly,
Stewart |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 07 December 1998 - 03:30 pm | | A brief interlude for a short story (relevant to this issue of course) -
Around about 1958/59 my parents took me to Madame Tussaud's waxworks in London. (I was born in 1949 if you are trying to work out my age). And, how different it was then, from what it is now. My main interest was getting into the Chamber of Horrors (certain of the fact I would get out again!). It really was a gloomy, claustrophobic, vaulted, stone cellar in those days. It seemed pretty horrifying to me, especially the guy suspended from the ceiling by a large iron hook through his belly. On one of the stone pillars I saw a framed poster, I would guess about two feet by three feet. On it I read, in large letters at the top, "METROPOLITAN POLICE." Yes, it was an original poster of the 'Dear Boss' letter and 'saucy Jacky' post-card. It asked if anyone recognised the handwriting.
There were the two missives reproduced, dull red in colour. I read them. Yes, I had heard of 'Jack the Ripper,' but only as a killer of women, in London, in olden days (it was only 68 years before, then). As I read the letter I saw the words 'Dear Boss,' and my idea of 'Jack the Ripper' was then that he must have worked for a 'Boss' who employed him to do the dastardly deeds. A sort of gangster, I imagined him!
Stewart
(Sorry to bore you) |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 07 December 1998 - 03:32 pm | | Edana,
'Ouida' was the pen-name of Louisa de la Ramee, the authoress of 'Under Two Flags.'
Stewart
(A mine of useless information) |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 07 December 1998 - 03:58 pm | | I better watch out, as an ex-police officer I think Chris George may have a go at me. In fact I guess I'm just another rambling has-been.
Sorry Chris, just a joke, honest.
From my previous postings you will obviously see that I DO think that Bulling was responsible for the letters. It was excellent copy for a News Agency for the story to stay 'on the boil.' And so much points to him. I would also refer you to the pages of the Casebook where Stephen has reproduced the contemporary writings of the great author/journalist, George R. Sims. Sims immediately saw the letter as the work of a fellow journalist. The popular press name, 'Leather Apron' had just become defunct, and hey presto, a new one 'Jack the Ripper' appears, to continue the press sensationalism. Chris, do read Sims account of this, it gives an excellent insight by a journalist there and writing at the time.
I also think, Chris, that you are a bit harsh on Littlechild over two spelling errors of names, of people he hadn't seen for many years. As I have previously said, and you will know, it is common for Londoners to drop the 'g' at the end of words ending in 'ing', thus saying 'talkin' instead of talking, 'pullin' instead of pulling, etc. So Bulling would have been heard as 'Bullin' or 'Bullen' when spoken of. Presumably this is how Littlechild remembered it. As for spelling Monro as 'Munro,' well I had many colleagues in the job who constantly spelt their senior officers name wrong, and I wouldn't call a 'u' instead of an 'o' in Monro a big error. And if you look at a recent post you'll see that my mate Paul Begg is spelling Stewart as 'Stuart,' need I say more?
All the best to Kris Jeorge,
Stewart |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 07 December 1998 - 04:20 pm | | | I've just noticed all my typos - better not get so excited in future |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 07 December 1998 - 05:45 pm | | Hey, Stewart!
I've read and heard so much about the next person's faulty thinking, fictioneering, and speculations that I've become sensitized to it when I see it. I see it time and again in regard to these letters and the card. People who don't want to believe or just consider the possibility they might be genuine throw names, letters, books, and then conspiracy theories at them...and when they've piled enough suggestive, prejudicial, circumstantial "evidence" on top of them...voila, their case is proved. No. No, I'm afraid not.
First, Hopkins.
What are his credentials in this matter? What does he know first-hand? What are his sources? Does Hopkins ever claim he knew the man he's describing -- it doesn't sound like it from the quoted text? And since all we know of Bulling's career after 1898 comes from policemen who suspected him but -- though they had every opportunity to do so -- could prove nothing against him, how do we know this fits Bulling so well?
Let's assume -- since it's become fashionable -- that it is Bulling described by Mr. Hopkins.
Hopkins writes: "It was perhaps a fortunate thing that the handwriting of this famous letter was perhaps not identified, for it would have led to the arrest of a harmless Fleet Street journalist." (Note Hopkins' double "perhaps"...insinuating what? -- Hopkins couldn't write very well or that perhaps the writing was identified, somehow, some way? Insinuation becomes fact!) The handwriting was not identified. Bulling was there, so were his handwriting examples, so were the first letter and card -- all subject to tests, questions, analysis. I'll dun this into consciousness...the handwritng was NOT identified! Nobody had ANY evidence it was a hoax or that it was Bulling. Hopkins wants to assume a fact never verified! How then does Hopkins find it correct and accurate to say IF it was identified it would have led to the journalist's arrest? Is that "fact" or Hopkins' "fiction?" Whatever it is, it is very inaccurate, very prejudicial, and self-refuting. At this point, the writing being poor, the accuracy doubtful, the facts merely presumed not proven...I'd stop and let Mr. Hopkins rest in peace. Can't do that though.
Hopkins, not settling for claiming something as factual when it is self-evidently shown otherwise, uses more prejudicial, possibly slanderous innuendo: "This poor fellow had a breakdown and became a whimsical figure in Fleet Street, only befriended by the staff of newspapers and printing works." Even if this is an accurate picture, what does his future breakdown and fate have to do with the facts of 1888? I could just as easily say that the innuendo and suspicion promulgated by the likes of Littlechild, the police, and people like Hopkins helped cause his breakdown. The only purpose in bringing this up -- can it even be substantiated outside of the police who suspected him and Hopkins? -- is to discredit him after the fact. In 1888, Bulling was an accredited journalist, NOT the whimsical figure Hopkins wants us to have in our minds.
Our man Hopkins continues: "He would creep about the dark courts waving his hands furiously in the air, would utter stentorian "Ha, ha, ha's," and then, meeting some pal, would button-hole him and pour into his ear all the inner-story of the East End murders." More of the same as the previous paragraph. His supposed style of laughing ("ha, ha, ha") is made to seem identical to the "Dear Boss" letters' "ha, ha, ha." And note, the man is shown as rather fixed on these old murders, as if that were further proof of his guilt in the "hoax" rather than the same obsession shared by more respected police officials in their memoirs and scribblings and interviews.
Hopkins goes wearily on: "Many old Fleet Streeters had very shrewd suspicions that this irresponsible fellow wrote the famous Jack the Ripper letter, and Sir Melville L. Macnaghten, Chief of the Criminal Investigation Department, had his eye on him." Names, please, Mr. Hopkins? If they were so shrewd, once again after the fact, why were they so stupid in 1888? Why should I believe them in 1935 or 1998? The "irresponsible fellow" grows more unreliable as this passage goes on while Hopkins, the police, and "shrewd" old Fleet Streeters grow wiser! But notice that Hopkins previously stated: "This poor fellow had a breakdown and became a whimsical figure in Fleet Street, only befriended by the staff of newspapers and printing works." Some friends, eh? Or just how shrewd were those "old Fleet Streeters" pretending to be?
I can't stomach anymore of dear Mr. Hopkins. Has he given us fact or fiction? You decide.
I'll go over some of the other points, briefly.
"A word in his ear thus preventing him from trying it again"...two more letters later he then got the point?
The police gave up when -- after the second piece of mail; the postcard? After they posted the handwriting for all to see and try to recognize? Handwriting the police were leaving people to believe was the handwriting of the murderer? And Bulling's fellow journalists recognized the writing, "knew" he was a harmless "practical joker," and said nothing...potentially letting the murderer go free?
Handwriting analysis is admissible in a court of law. Whether a layman thinks it inexact or not, it holds its weight in court. Handwriting analysis was known in 1888? The posters were used to try to find someone who recognized it. Littlechild is quoted as saying: "they had no 'hard' evidence." Reasonable to assume they looked for 'hard' evidence. They DID NOT FIND ANY...but that doesn't matter, huh?
Finally, since it's already been "proven" that Bulling did the "Dear Boss" writing, we have to further confound and confuse by having two stand-by conspiracy theories...I guess just in case someone persists in questioning the validity of accusing Bulling.
1) a colleague wrote the letter to fool the police; Bulling knowing they'd suspect him because he obviously wrote the letter, right?
2) his boss, Moore, was in league or provided assistance.
If there's no evidence against Bulling, where's the evidence for either of these theories? Which scenario happened: Bulling alone; Bulling and a colleague; Bulling and Moore?
I'm tired. Somebody else's turn. Sorry for the length.
Yaz |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 07 December 1998 - 06:16 pm | | ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
Stewart |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 07 December 1998 - 07:03 pm | | Sorry Yaz,
Not being rude, just a policeman's bent sense of humour.
You seem to have a difficulty in seeing the difference between what someone believes, and what is proven fact. I nowhere claim it is a proven fact that the letters were not genuine, it is what I believe. I do feel qualified to give my opinion on that point, but obviously you disagree.
What do you mean by, "People who don't want to believe or just consider the possibility they might be genuine..." I DID actually believe that possibility, 33 years ago! In fact, I believed that for about 10 years, but as I learned more, gained more experience, my views changed and I decided that they were most likely a journalistic invention. And that was 18 years before I found the Littlechild letter, discovered Hopkins' reference and Sims' reference. Funny how things kept turning up to bolster this belief. So, if that comment of yours is aimed at me Yaz I am rather surprised at your words.
What Hopkins knew or didn't know is beyond our ken I'm afraid. That is apart from what he claims in his writings, and much of that we cannot assess at this remove in time. It is oh so easy to criticise. What Hopkins speaks of is not the identification of handwriting, but rather the journalistic gossip of his day, and Bulling lived until the 1930's. So, no doubt, Hopkins' source for his information was a mix of personal knowledge and information gleaned from others. But as a press source (like Sims), it's amazing how on this point they agree, for a change, with the belief of the police!
I cannot presume to know more than people who were there at the time, so, yes I do lend weight to their words. NOT blindly accepting them, but assessing them and weighing them against information from other sources in an effort to find some form of corroboration. True, Hopkins may have indulged in some 'author's licence,' many did in those days, but the basic premise still remains.
I won't recommend any of Mr Hopkins' many other books to you, it sounds as if you would soon run out of vomit bags! I also cannot agree with you that they 'potentially let the murderer go free.' The fact or belief that he may have been responsible for the letters probably didn't emerge until long after the murders ceased. Either way I don't think it would have made any difference to the capture of the criminal.
Handwriting analysis IS admissable in court, and it was then, there were professional handwriting analysts. This sort of evidence is expert opinion, and whatever weight is attached to such evidence has to be assessed alongside all the other evidence. The judge and jury (if applicable) have to decide just how much strength to attach to it. For every expert you bring along to give such evidence, another expert will be found by the opposing side to dispute it. I have a modern confidential Home Office evaluation, some 30 odd pages long, on handwriting analysis and experts' evidence in relation to such analysis. It is most interesting.
Your circular arguments are not without interest, and provide insight in many instances. But please, Yaz, don't expect me to agree with you on this one.
Yours as ever,
Stewart
(Seriously considering retirement from these boards). |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 07 December 1998 - 07:10 pm | | Hey, Stewart,
Okay, I'll give you the Reader's Digest version of the above:
1) Littlechild, policemen, researchers, and investigators (then AND now) have no evidence -- "hard" or otherwise -- against Bulling, Moore, or anybody in the CNA, or the rest of the press. Period. End of story.
2) They had ample opportunity in 1888 to find such evidence if it existed, and Littlechild implies they looked (because they did not find any!). Period. End of story.
3) We've asked ourselves in this topic these questions and addressed the continuous "statements of fact" about the press hoax. Still no evidence. Period. End of story.
4) Why do we keep having to go over the same old points and arguments just because somebody comes along and repeats them...again and again and again? Suspicion, gossip, rumor, innuendo, fiction are NOT evidence, let alone proof! No court in the world, except a police state, would admit a policeman's suspicions as credible evidence of guilt, let alone proof!
5) Oh yeah, and still no evidence! Period. End of story.
You can go back to sleep now. End of story.
Yaz |
|
|
|
|
