|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| |
Thread |
Last Poster |
Posts |
Pages |
Last Post |
  | Archive through March 17, 2003 | Brian W. Schoeneman | 25 | 1 | 3-17-03 1:43 pm |
| |
 Closed: New threads not accepted on this page |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 58
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 3:33 pm: |       |
G'day Brian and Richie,
I'll ask the question again:
What kind of hoaxer, would want to silence a witness with a threat to 'finish' him and send his ears to his wife, if he showed the letter to police? (as in the letter received on the 6th).
Everyone wanted the killer caught, (probably even the letter hoaxers)! This hoaxer wasn't after the thrill of seeing his threat in the papers, it wouldn't have sold more newspapers, in fact if the recipient didn't show it to anyone, it would have been seen by the witnesses eyes only!
Why then, did the writer copy the handwriting of 'Dear Boss', if it wasn't his own natural handwriting?
Did the recipient hand it to Scotland Yard immediately? Or keep it until the Ripper murders seemed to cease?
LEANNE PERRY
|
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 59
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 3:39 pm: | |
If 'Dear Boss' was hoaxed by Bulling, did the writer want to copy the handwriting of a hoaxer?
LEA! |
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 61
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 3:55 pm: | |
G'day,
I've just started a new thread for the letter written before 'Dear Boss'!
LEANNE
|
Brian W. Schoeneman
Sergeant
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 50
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 4:25 pm: | |
Leanne,
1.) There are plenty of hoaxers who would want to send a letter threatening a "witness". Thousands of people came forward and provided information to the Met regarding "suspicious" people. This letter could have been from someone whom the threatened witness informed on to the police. Since we don't know who the witness was, it could have been nearly anyone. If the letter was indeed sent to Schwartz or Lawende, it could have just been an anti-semite who wanted to scare them.
2.) "Why then, did the writer copy the handwriting of 'Dear Boss', if it wasn't his own natural handwriting?" - You are presuming that he did this. We don't know for sure that he did. It could merely be a coincidence that these two writers have similar handwriting. I think it's possible that this letter had nothing to do with the other two.
3.) We don't know when it was handed over, at least as far as I am aware. Which makes it all the more suspect in my mind. It's entirely possible that the witness mailed it to himself.
4.) If 'Dear Boss' was hoaxed by Bulling, did the writer want to copy the handwriting of a hoaxer? - I have no idea. As far as we know, the Dear Boss letter was one of the first received, so who knows if he even had something to copy.
The Sept. 17 letter, from all that I have read, has been dismissed as a modern-day forgery. I don't know why we keep talking about it. Its not even a contemporary hoax. It has no value at all. Is this the one you mean? Or are you talking about the one with the little drawings on it?
B |
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 64
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 - 3:33 am: | |
G'day Brian,
If the writer of the letter written on the 6th was an innocent man who that was wrongly described by a witness, he would have been stupid to send such a threatening letter to that witness signed: 'yours truly Jack the Ripper', wouldn't he? Plus he said: 'if you show this to the police or help them if you do I will finish you.' That would've been like saying: 'Yes you was right I am the killer, but let's just keep this between you and me!'
There were plenty of hoaxers who wanted a share of the sensation caused by the crimes. They got a thrill out of seeing their communication in the newspaper.
On the 4th of October, the 'Daily Telegraph' published facsimilies of the 'Dear Boss' & 'Saucy Jacky' communications. This act revealed the handwriting to the entire population, and they have been criticised for this as it started a flood of mimicers. Most used red ink and started with 'Dear Boss', but not the writer on the 6th.
In the Telegraph report, the sentence with the word 'ears' was edited out, to leave enough room for the postcard. Yet this word in the threatening letter appears identicle. The writer couldn't have copied! The barely visible 'ears' in the published 'Saucy Jacky', doesn't look like either. But you're right, we could say this was just coincidence. Like the number 39 popping up all the time. Maybe the MO being the same was just coincidence!
The writers 'echoes' of 'little game' and 'send your ears' could have been coincidence too!
Oh yes, of course the witness mailed it to himself, that's why he added the postscript: 'You see I know your address'. COME ON!!!
What's this about a September 17 letter? I am talking about the letter of September 24, that was written the day before 'Dear Boss'. Yes, the one with the 'little drawings' on it.
LEANNE
|
Brian W. Schoeneman
Detective Sergeant
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 55
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 - 11:37 am: | |
Leanne,
Use your brain - Someone rats on you to the police because he doesn't like you, not because you could be the Ripper. You decide to have some fun with him. You send him a letter from "Jack the Ripper" telling him to shut up or he'll get it. He gets scared. Ha,ha, jokes on him and there's no way to trace the letter back to you.
Plausible? Maybe. Possible? Yes.
And just because the Telegraph didn't have the word "ears" in it, doesn't mean that other press reports, and the placards that they put up in front of the police stations (see page 33)didn't have the full copies.
Haven't you ever heard of someone who sent herself flowers on Valentine's Day? You've never seen the episode of Law and Order where a woman fakes an attack on herself to get her ex-husband who she claims abused her thrown in prison? People who want attention are willing to go to extraordinary lengths to get it. There was a case recently in the US of a family who shaved their daughters head and told her and everyone else that she had cancer so they could get attention and donations. It is completely plausible that the "witness" sent this letter to himself. It's just as plausible as any of your theories, since both are based on supposition and not a shred of fact.
And take a look at the signature again on your favorite letter from the 8th of October. Notice how it is a bit shaky and the lines are much thicker and darker than much of the rest of the letter? That could be caused by someone copying the handwriting. The shakiness is hesitation marks, and the darker ink is the result of the pen lingering longer on those words than on the rest of the letter, as he slowly copied the signature. Go get a fountain tipped pen and try it yourself.
And again, I ask you the same question: What's the point? All of your useless supposition is just that: useless. We can't prove any of the letters are from the killer, so arguing about them is pointless.
The only reason I'm bothering is because I can't stand it when anyone on here starts talking like they are 100% sure of something that is unprovable, or when they start throwing out vast conspiracy theories that are so complex that even NASA engineers couldn't plan them out correctly.
This case is confusing enough without throwing in all sorts of unprovable nonsense that merely wastes time and Stephen's bandwidth.
Sorry if this note is ruder than most. I'm just getting frustrated.
B |
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 67
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 2:25 am: | |
BRIAN!
How old are you? I don't think I am waisting Stephen's time here at all! Who are you to say I am??? I am not the one who's 'spitting-my-dummy (baby pacifier)' here, because there is someone with a different belief to me!!!!! I have more to say on this post, but I'll move it to the appropriate message board! 'OTHER LETTERS'
LEANNE
|
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2660
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 8:51 am: | |
Guys,
Watch the personal remarks... debate the topic, not each other's personalities.
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Detective Sergeant
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 60
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 9:21 am: | |
Sorry Dad. I'll be good from now on.
B |
Christopher T George
Sergeant
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 48
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 10:40 am: | |
Hi, Leanne and Brian:
The sort of scenario that Brian is talking about where one person "used" the Ripper case to threaten another could have been the situation in regard to suspect William Bury. As you may recall someone scrawled the words, "Jack the Ripper is in this sellar (sic)," in chalk on the door of Bury's residence in Dundee, Scotland. Bury was ultimately hanged in Dundee in April 1889 for the murder of his wife, Ellen. While of course it is possible that a neighbor may have genuinely thought Bury was the Ripper, it is equally plausible that it was just someone who wanted to blacken Bury's name.
Best regards
Chris George |
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 69
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 2:34 pm: | |
G'day Chris,
What are the chances that Bury wrote it himself, to scare his wife into leaving him?
Pretending that you are 'Jack the Ripper' would have been scariest thing in those days!
LEANNE! |
Christopher T George
Detective Sergeant
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 52
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 3:28 pm: | |
Hi, Leanne:
Yes that might be feasible, although it could be highly dangerous to his health to pretend to be Jack... but then it appears that it was a bit of a fashion to do so, so what do I know? 
All the best
Chris |
Leanne Perry
Detective Sergeant
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 72
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2003 - 5:55 am: | |
G'day Chris,
How was he to know that? He slept with a knife under his pillow, and his wife was killed in a 'similar manner'. Maybe his fantasies caused him to killer her in a manner that was described in the newspapers! I don't believe he was the Ripper, but maybe he started to believe he was.
I have never thought much about Bury before. We should move any further discussion about him to the 'Suspects' board.
LEANNE!
|
Mark Starr
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 6:59 pm: | |
First some minor slips in my previous post to correct.
Williams is a soldier in King Henry's army, Fluellen is an officer.
Sickert's career as an actor spanned 1879-1881.
Evidently Overshaw inadvertently slipped into my spellchecker dictionary, causing some confusion with Openshaw.
The Saucy Jack postcard is "signed" Jack the Ripper, not Saucy Jack. The name Saucy Jack is in the text.
-------------------------------------------------
Now that I have established that Walter Sickert wrote the Saucy Jack postcard and sent it from London on October 1, what are the direct implications of this new fact? As I will show, it establishes that Walter Sickert also wrote the Dear Boss Letter on Sept. 25, and he mailed it while he was in London, and it was received by the Central News Service on Sept. 27. The Dear Boss Letter is the first known use of the name Jack The Ripper. The Saucy Jack postcard was the second document to be signed Jack The Ripper. Walter Sickert wrote the Dear Boss Letter, and thus it was Walter Sickert who created the name Jack The Ripper.
Here is the text of the Saucy Jack postcard:
"I was not codding dear old Boss when I gave you the tip, you'll hear about Saucy Jacky's work tomorrow double event this time number one squealed a bit couldn't finish straight off. ha not the time to get ears for police. thanks for keeping last letter back till I got to work again.
Jack the Ripper"
The text of the Saucy Jack postcard makes two references to the Dear Boss Letter: (1) "when I gave you the tip"; and (2) "not the time to get ears for the police." However, the text (but not the facsimile of the handwriting) of the Dear Boss letter was published before Oct. 1 -- thus making it theoretically possible for Sickert to have hoaxed knowledge of the Dear Boss letter.
In his excellent essay "Thomas Bulling and the Myth of the London Journalist," Thomas C Westcott effectively dismissed all of the specious arguments that journalist Thomas Bulling was the author of either the Dear Boss Letter or the Saucy Jack postcard. Westcott also summarizes the facts around the two letters thus:
"The Dear Boss letter was dated 25th September and was posted on the 27th September, but treated as a joke by Central News. The murder of Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes on the night of 28th/29th September obviously caused the Agency to reconsider and it was forwarded to Frederick 'Dolly' Williamson at Scotland Yard during the morning of Saturday 29th September. It was made known to journalists the following day, Sunday 30th September, and appeared in some newspapers, such as the morning edition of the Daily News on 1st October. The postcard was posted on 1st October and made reference to details possibly thought by some not to have been available to anyone but the murderer, although some details of the murders were published in the Sunday newspapers on 30th September. Both of the communications were reproduced on handbills and distributed in hope that someone might identify the handwriting. It is clear that the authorities - or somebody in authority - felt that the correspondence was genuine (and we should respect the opinion of those who lived at the time and based their judgement on first-hand knowledge and experience). Moreover, they continued to believe the Dear Boss letter was genuine. Indeed, it remained the hallmark by which all other correspondences claiming to be from the Ripper was judged, comparisons of handwriting being compared to that of the Dear Boss letter."
The text of the Dear Boss letter may have been printed in some newspapers on Oct. 1; but apparently, it was not until October 4 that any newspaper published a facsimile of the Dear Boss letter showing the Ripper's handwriting. Leanne Perry wrote: "On the 4th of October, the 'Daily Telegraph' published facsimilies of the 'Dear Boss' & 'Saucy Jacky' communications. This act revealed the handwriting to the entire population, and they have been criticised for this as it started a flood of mimicers."
I don't know when the facsimile handbills mentioned by Westcott were printed and distributed, but Westcott does not state they were issued prior to the facsimiles in the Telegraph on Oct. 4; and if they were distributed before Oct. 4, there would not have been any outcry about the Daily Telegraph revealing the handwriting to the entire population on Oct. 4. So I think it is safe to assume that no facsimile of The Ripper's handwriting was published either in the newspapers or in a handbill prior to Oct. 4.
That said, it is therefore impossible that Walter Sickert could have hoaxed the Ripper's handwriting of the Sept. 25 Dear Boss Letter when Sickert wrote and sent the Saucy Jack postcard on October 1. Sickert could not have seen the handwriting of the Dear Boss letter published in any facsimile until Oct. 4. The only way that Sickert could have known on Oct. 1 when he wrote the Saucy Jack postcard what the handwriting of the Dear Boss letter looked like would have been for Sickert to have written the Dear Boss letter himself on Sept. 25.
Many writers have already established that the handwriting in the Dear Boss letter and the Saucy Jack postcard are the virtually the same. There is no need to re-invent the wheel on that issue.
Thus it is clear that Walter Sickert wrote both the Saucy Jack postcard and the Dear Boss letter. And since Sickert wrote and sent the Dear Boss letter on Sept. 25, Walter Sickert was therefore in London on Sept. 25 -- and not in France.
And since Walter Sickert was in London on Sept. 25, as well as in London when he wrote the Nemo letter published in the London Times on Oct 4, then Sickert must have been in London on Sept. 30 when the Double Event was committed.
Regards,
Mark Starr |
Rico Cooper
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 01, 2004 - 10:02 pm: | |
If you look carefully at the Ripper letters and at Sickert's one thing stands out for me. He has the habit of always making a slight flattened curve in the lower right turn on his "O" and this is fairly consistent.
There is another well know artist that might be considered. That is the excellent English painter Philip Wilson Steer. He was a fellow art club member of Sickerts and they corresponded with one another. He also had contact with Whistler, Rothenstein and other artists the same as Sickert had. He was born in 1860 and died in 1942...the same as Sickert. Perhaps his letters should be examined and his DNA compared to that of the Ripper letters. I do not believe that he was cremated as was Sickert.
In her book, Cornwell states that Sickert signed some of his art with "St." I have not found any and I do know that Steer signed his with Steer...the "ST" being much larger than the "eer."
I'm not making accusations. I am just trying to open new avenues of thought. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
