|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Previous Conference Discussion
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Letters: General Discussion:
Previous Conference Discussion
Author: Tom Saupe
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 09:19 pm |        | | One can of worms you may want to open is the one letter, the Lusk letter, which is still considered to be possibly written by the murderer. The sides are pretty evenly split and the debate rages on. Start a good arguement on the net! |
Author: Wolvie
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 09:19 pm | | | At this late date it would be impossible to determine if ANY of the letters atributed to the ripper are real. However if I had to pick the most likely to be genuine, it would be the "From Hell" letter. |
Author: Martin Wolverton
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 09:19 pm | | At this distance from the time of the murders it is impossible to say which of the letters were written by the Ripper, but we can speculate on the validity of them all we want. To start with, the "Dear Boss" letter and the "Saucy Jacky" postcard are obviously written by the same hand and have internal evidence that confirms that the same person wrote both. But as has been pointed out by several of the writers on the case, there is absolutely no evidence that either was written by the Ripper. If I had to pick a "Ripper" letter that might have been written by the real killer it would be the "From Hell:" letter. This is owing to the fact that part of a human kidney was enclosed. On the other hand, the kidney might have been a medical students prank, but I don't think so.
One other point that should be brought up is that in a 1988 TV documentry an FBI agent involved in profiling modern serial killers stated that the ripper's pofile was not one consistant with writing letters to the police. |
Author: Stephanie Richey
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 09:20 pm | | I place the highest amount of credence on the "From Hell" letter as being from the Ripper simply because of the kidney that came with it. It seems likely, if Dr. Openshaw is to be believed, that it was Catherine Eddowes's kidney. I'm sure everyone is familiar with the renal artery evidence
. I'd really like to believe the "Dear Boss" and the "Saucy Jackie" postcard. It's obvious they came from the same person since the handwriting is the same. The person had inside knowledge of the murders, but not nessisarily first-hand knowledge of them. There is evidence suggesting the author was the murderer, but it's circumstancial.
The letter to Dr. Openshaw is probably a fake, and probably so is the Ripper poem "Eight Little Whores." |
Author: Michael Rogers
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 09:20 pm | | | Let's face it, the letters are fun. They're one of the things that drew a lot of us to the case. Unfortunately, they're probably all fakes, although several subsequent serial killers have been compelled to seek publicity by writing letters. I think it's pretty much a given that the Dear Boss epistle is a fraud. If any of them are real, the From Hell letter with the kidney gets my vote. It that too was a joke, it was a pip. I was always curious as to why it was sent to Lusk. What do you all think? |
Author: Paul Lee
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 09:21 pm | | (reply to Martin Wolverton, response #3)
Yes, but the 'Dear Boss' letter and postcard was addressed to the Central News Agency....although the writer must've known that the police would pick up on it.... |
Author: A. Dylan Gable
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 09:22 pm | | | I was on the Ripper Casebook today, and saw something I never noticed before that bothered me. In one of the Ripper's letters (I believe it might be "Old Boss," but I'm not sure: the one with the part where he says O HAVE YOU SEEN THE DEVEL WITH HIS MIKERSCOPE...), he refers to police as "coppers." Police were never referred to as "coppers" in England, were they? I thought that was strictly American... (what's that about an American suspect?) |
Author: Dan L. Hollifield
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 09:22 pm | | | Has any attempt been recorded of anyone trying to match handwriting samples of the ripper letters to determine which, if any, were written by the same hand? |
Author: Tom and Raphael
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 09:23 pm | | From Hell letter is very attracting, of course. Let's have a look on it. If it was not the Ripper which wrote it, then it must be somebody who was able to get in possession of a human kidney; joking students were mentioned by others. But why should they frighten poor Mr. Lusk? (Well, students can be responsable for almost everything, through the centuries, can't they?)
Dr. Openshaw, who stated that the part of the kidney sent to Lusk belonged to the remains of Eddowes, had only the autopsy report for comparsion; Eddowes was already buried eleven days before and no exhumation took place.
The letter appears written by a person of continental language, german for example. If somebody of german language (german, swiss or austrian) should write "Sir" phonetically, he or she would write "Sör". The lack of the two accent points above the "o" can be explained that even trained writers sometimes forget them. We are not familiar to the english language enough (or to local british idioms as well), but the final sentence looks like it should be written correctly: "Catch me IF you can". In german it is common to use "if" and "when" identically, and "catch me if you can" in german is always "Fang mich, WENN du kannst". But all that does not prove anything. Much more, it's discharged by the simple matter of fact that if somebody is able to write readable sentences including terms like "fried" or "signed", he should know how to write "Sir". It can be taken for sure that the author of the From Hell letter had more knowledge about orthography than he showed in his screed. There is a good chance that the letter sent to Dr. Openshaw was written by the same hand. Obviously it's of the same pseudo-helpless style like the From Hell letter, to which it refers. That would mean, the students were continuing their joke!
And for those who are fond of anagrams: "hoperate" can not be explained by confusion between phonetic and orthography...
And at least, if the From Hell letter is genuine, it does not rule out the Dear Boss letters, if one believes that JTR had an accomplice. |
Author: James Coats
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 09:24 pm | | | I think it would have been very easy to identify a kidney because beef kidneys were a popular food. A human kidney looks a lot like a beef kidney. I think beef kidneys were cheap and therefore could easily be identified by anyone. If one was to cut up another human,the kidney could be found with ease. |
Author: Koji
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 09:24 pm | | I think possibly a few letters sent to the police were genuine.
Its obvious now that whenever there is a major murder case on, police etc. are deluged with letters purporting to be the killer when really they are lunatics.
However, the dear boss letter and the letter to Mr Lusk along with the kidney were written by the same hand and I believe this was the hand of the ripper. The diary also refers to them as genuine and I support this.
I also believe that a couple more less-famous letters were genuine also. One person was sent a threatening letter beginning "you thought yourself very clever" and also the one saying "Ill be at work in the Minories".
The last two examples above are my personal beliefs because of the diary, but the first two have alot of evidence and a strong following in their favour. |
Author: A. Dylan Gable
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 09:24 pm | | | Colin Wilson's CASEBOOK OF MURDER does an analysis of the "Ripper's" handwriting in his letters to do a psych-profile of him. Of course, we don't know if HE wrote the letters, but what this psychologist says they show strengthens the idea that it was him. It's said the writing betrays an angry, perturbed individual or someone with a violent temper - I'd certainly expect that Jack had one!! By the way, they only analyze the FROM HELL letter, the one that's most likely to be his, anyway |
Author: Tracey H. Stearns
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 09:24 pm | | | There are clear differences between the letters. Two of them are clearly written by someone who is educated and able to convey thoughts on paper very well. The other notes were written by a person or persons who do not have a grasp of the language. The police have made many errors back then, as the police are not careful with collecting clues today. I believe that the letters should have been kept a secret and not made access to the public. The Ripper wanted to be caught, either he knew he was going mad and wanted to be stopped, or that he felt that he would not be famous otherwise. |
Author: John Berger
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 09:25 pm | | In 1986, I read a newspaper feature on the mystery of the Whitechapel murders. When I saw the accompanying letter signed "Jack the Ripper" in its distinctive handwriting, I wondered if some sense of writer's identity or vocation could be garnered from the script. I decided to try it and so took a mail-order course in graphology and studied criminal investigation books at the library of the Medical Examiner's office. I put word out on Inter Nexus, a Mensa service, and received photographs of some letters related to the case from a man in Los Angeles who wishes to remain anonymous. (He copied them from a client without permission) As well, I read every Ripper book at the local library.
I felt two of the letters, the one to Mr. Lusk, head of the citizens' vigilante group, and the one sent to the newspaper office, were likely authentic because they contained intimate knowledge of the crimes. All other letters were likely hoaxes written by people with nothing better to do than fantacize about the murders.
The first clues started coming when I transcribed the messages letter-for-letter. There were spelling errors, as expected, but they seemed discordant. For example, "knife" was entered as "knif" on one letter and "nife" on the other. The choice of terms and grammar suggested the writer had some higher level of education; for examples, the discussion of blood, the mention of a "mikerscop", and planning the next victim.
I next placed the handwriting samples on an overhead projector and was astonished to see how carefully the spelling errors were made. That is, the writer slowed to make the misspellings. When a person writes naturally, spelling errors are written at the same speed as the properly spelt words. When someone pauses to think, the pen slows and the lettering changes form slightly.
One letter was interesting because it had apparently been mailed the day before the double murder. When I enquired at a philatelist's shop about the accuracy of postage dates in 1888, the proprietor laughed and said the postal workers were often too lazy to changed the cancellation dates on time. Therefore, the author could have been at the scene of the crime, and had time to run home and pen a letter based on what he saw or overheard at the police station, then deposit the letter into a mailbox Sunday where after Saturday's date would be affixed before delivery. |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 09:25 pm | | | "What fools the police are..." Apparently the source of this letter is a book by J. Hall Richardson "From City to Fleet Street." It's usually linked with another letter starting: "Beware, I shall be at work..." and is datelined Liverpool. Prince William Street is in Liverpool but some of your readers may not be aware that Aigburth is a Liverpool subburb. Has anyone ever suggested that Maybrick might have sent this? |
Author: Colin Heaton
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 09:25 pm | | I took a copy of the dear boss letter blanked out the words that would give away what the letter was about and I took it to a person I know who studies hand- writing analysis below is what he came up with.
The way the letters are formed and by looking at the stucture of the words, not the sentances I find the following personality traits to be likely.
he or she is : Secretive probably dishonest and hipocritical in some way. There are signs of being egotistical and a bluffer. He is inarticulate , rtisent and preoccupied with the past , this person is meticulous in some things cautious and probably secretive with a dislike of attention. The person appears to be emotionally repressed but having a strong sex drive although probaly due to a lack of sexual experiance does not perform well. He enjoys simple things but is repressed and inhibited in some way and can be prone to meglamainia. He is materialistic in his out look strong willed but with fits of depression , he can be awkward and fussy at times. He can be defensive in nature resenting authority he is socialy dissatisfied and vane. He possesses artistic and creative ability but is argumentative and emotionally jealous. He would like to be in control of situations but has a limited range for this he does have the ability to contol things to a certain extent. He would be hard working but resentful with a desire to undermine others confidence.
After reading the above I asked why certain things were repeated and I was told they came up time and time again so they were included again and again. Bearing in mind this is one persons opinion I asked a shrink student I know what he thought of the above described person his reply was....Is it Peter Sutcliffe cause if it isnt it soon will be. |
Author: Don Graves
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 09:26 pm | | I am new to this study; so, please forgive my ignorance if this is an old question. Why is the 'Dear Boss" letter given such credence? There is, of course, no real way to prove that ANY of the letters were really written by 'Jack'. My query stems from noticing the terrible spelling and grammar most of the other letters, and evidence gathered from crime scenes.
Notice the spelling of the word 'jews' (juwes) found at the Eddowes murder scene. The same poor spelling can be found in the 'From Hell' letter, which was accompanied by a human kidney that COULD have belonged to Ms. Eddowes. This letter also displays unrefined grammar and diction. It seems there is more circumstantial evidence surrounding the 'From Hell' letter than there is for the 'Dear Boss' letter.
Notice the spelling and grammar of the 'Dear Boss' letter. I find it difficult to believe that the same person could have written the 'Dear Boss' letter AND the 'From Hell' letter. It seems even harder to believe that Jack would be able to write the poetry attributed to his hand.
Was Jack a proficient writer, or was he not? The evidence here seems contradictory. If Jack was NOT a proficient writer, this would seem to imply that the 'Dear Boss' and 'From Hell' letters were written by different people. Or, perhaps Jack had help writing the 'Dear Boss' letter. I find outside assistance to be unlikely, as the best way to keep a secret is to NOT tell anyone. |
Author: The Etch
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 09:27 pm | | | It would appear that there are two Different people sending these letters, or perhaps a split personality. The evidence of this is clear. In some of the scriptures he spells good and talks of what he will do to the next "whore". In the other distinct kind he has horrid spelling not even spelling Knife right. These letters seem to be more threatening the others are playful. In the first type he has a Post Script, But the Second he just writes what he wants with no "P.S.". These are just some observations I made. |
Author: J. Janovich
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 09:28 pm | | | Dear Readers: The letter to Lusk is most certainly genuine. It was written with the intention of discouraging the apparent zeal that Lusk was evidencing in his ( the Ripper's) capture. It had the desired effect; combined with 38 days of inactivity and the security of an enclosed murder site, probability for success was very high. Major Smith's seeming boast about being minutes behind him was not far from the truth. Contrary to popular belief and currently accepted opinion, the Ripper DID NOT wish to be apprehended. During the crimes, he was absolutely without emotion, therefore, absolutely without fear. Later however...... The police and citizenry of Whitechapel certainly had the odds. Sooner or later someone would see something, one would get away, he might be followed, etc. They would never FIGURE him out - everything about him was too obtuse, too paradoxical However, sooner or later, someone would FIND him out. Except, there was one more, the last one, to euthanize. |
Author: Timothy D. Reynolds
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 09:28 pm | | | There is absolutely no way any Ripper letters are real. The Ripper was way to smart during his killings to sound the way he did in those letters. |
Author: Jackmaybri
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 09:29 pm | | The Ripper letters have a number of "Americanisms", but that doesn't mean that Jack has to be an American, just someone familiar with American slang.
<< I also believe that a couple more less-famous letters were genuine also. One person was sent a threatening letter beginning "you thought yourself very clever" and also the one saying "Ill be at work in the Minories".>>
Ripperologists are fond of saying that in examining the case, we must respect "oral and written tradition".
Well, if that is the case, then the first "Ripper" communiques (the "Dear Boss" letter and the "Saucy Jack" postcard) and must be regarded as genuine because that is where we got the term "Jack the Ripper". If these weren't written by the Whitechapel killer, then the Whitechapel killer wasn't "Jack the Ripper". It's that simple.
And it's interesting that while there are people who would disparage all of the letters (often because their candidates are unlikely to have written them), those people still use the name "Jack the Ripper" to sell books; they refer to the Stride and Eddowes murders as the "double event" (as described in the postcard) and they identify themselves as "Ripperologists". I guess they respect "written tradition".
I'm only half-joking, and I also am glad that someone mentioned the "you thought yourself very clever letter" because I think that it is the key to understanding all of the disputed letters.
The "you thought yourself very clever letter" was a letter written to threaten a witness. It was written either to Joseph Lawende, who observed a man talking to Catherine Eddowes just before her murder or to Israel Schwartz who had observed an assault on Elizabeth Stride.
I have little doubt that the "you thought yourself very clever letter" was written in the same hand as the "Dear Boss" letter and the "Saucy Jack" postcard, and the "Minories" letter. And that is crucial because while a hoaxter or an "enterprising journalist" might well think it fun to tweak the nose of the police and the press and the public at large, I find it much more difficult to envision a hoaxter terrorizing a witness.
Terrorizing a witness would be a lot more serious matter than writing hoax letters to the press, both morally and in terms of criminal ramifications.
And that postscript at the end of the "you thought yourself very clever letter" reminds the addressee "You see I know your address" -- that speaks to any witness's or citizen's most primal fear -- that the monsters out there might actually invade the sanctity of his home.
Yes, there are people with a wicked sense of humor and there are journalists who would do virtually anything to sell papers, but to write directly to a witness that you might come and visit him in order to ensure his silence simply it isn't consistent with something a hoaxter might do or even think of.
Only the killer would have had the motivation to threaten a witness. And if the threatening letter was written by the killer then so too was the "Dear Boss" letter, the "Saucy Jack" postcard, and the "Minories" letter because these all appear to have been written in the same hand.
For the same reason, I also don't know why anyone but the killer would try to intimidate the head of the Vigilance Committee, Mr. Lusk. The "from hell" missive that accompanied the kidney sent to Mr. Lusk and the letter to Dr. Openshaw ("O have you seen the devle with his mikerscope...") are problematic in that they differ from these other letters; they are in not as firm a hand and they do not have the same clarity of meaning, but I believe that they could have been written while in a state of intoxication (arsenic perhaps?) by the same person who wrote those other letters and postcard. |
Author: A. Dylan Gable
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 09:30 pm | | Today, I was in my library at school looking through a book on English folktales for information totally unrelated to JTR, but ended up finding something that might be of possible relevance.
At the end of the second Old Boss letter, the one that begins "Old boss you was rite it was the left kidny...", there's a brief verse.
O HAVE YOU SEEN THE DEVLE
WITH HIS MIKERSCOPE AND SCALPUL
A LOOKIN AT A KIDNEY
WITH A SLIDE COCKED UP
There is an English folktale called "Duffy and the Devil." The story is a familiar one of the Rumpelstiltskin type, one in which a demon appears. The demon's name must be guessed before it is dispelled. Now in that folktale (I'm not certain, but I think it's from Cornwall) there appears the following song:
HERE'S TO THE DEVIL
WITH HIS WOODEN PICK AND SHOVEL
DIGGING TIN BY THE BUSHEL
WITH HIS TAIL COCKED UP
A little bit of similarity, isn't there? |
Author: Iain Houston
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 09:31 pm | | | At the beginning of this letter everyone seems to transcribe the word 'Sor'. I found this a very strange start to a letter. It was only when I saw the letter itself (in your casebook) that I decided that everyone needed a calligraphy lesson. It looks just like an S, an I, and an R to me. Sir. Much more logical. Being a graphic designer I come across many typefaces and styles of writing and these three letters are written in what I believe to be a fairly standard copperplate. Now I could be wrong, and if I am, would someone please over a sensible explaination of the word 'Sor'. Personally I can't put it down to illiteracy (real or put on) because it doesn't make sense as a spelling mistake in the same way that 'kidne' (Kidney sounds like it ends in an E) or 'nise' (nice has a 'sss' sound) do. I know it's only a small point and won't help us find the identity of Jack it just puzzled me. Any comments? |
Author: Egorenkov Dimitry
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 09:31 pm | | | I found reading the original letters from Jack The Ripper very interesting. By reading them it is clear that he was a very clever man and I am not suprised that he was never caught. I think that he was mocking the whole police force by killing all those women and sending the letters, which didn't benefit the police much in investigating the crimes. By reading the letters it is clear that he was one of those mureders who is capable of waving his arms in the air to be noticed by the police, but still gets missed and gets away.That's what made him successful. |
Author: Carole Shieber
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 09:31 pm | | I have always thought the "From Hell" letter might be real, if any of the letters are, in part because there is a psychological resemblance to letters written by actual serial killers in recent times. However, if Kosminski is the killer, then all the letters are likely to be fakes as both his mental state and his background mitigate against his writing any letters at all, much less in English.
Has anyone read the book that postualtes Joseph Barnett as the killer, and uses the "Dear Boss" letters as part of the proof? I find his conclusions unlikely, as Barnett seems to have lived 38 more years and not killed anyone, which certainly mitigates against him being the Ripper if our modern knowledge of serial killers is applied. |
Author: Chris Walker
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 09:32 pm | | This may be a bit of a stretch, I know, but I think there are a few curiosities concenerning two of the Ripper's letters that have yet to be discussed. They are highlighted in Rumbelow's book, and are previously mentioned in Dan Farson's "Jack the Ripper". They are, specifically:
The Liverpool letter of 29 September:
Beware, I shall be at work on the 1st and 2nd Inst. in Minories at twelve midnight...
and
What fools the police are. I even give them the name of the street where I am living.
Now, without having the actual letters in front of me to examine, two points come to mind with the reprinted version I have read in Rumbelow's book. Line one of the first letter containies 40 characters (not including punctuation marks) so... 1 + 40 or 140. This is followed by Minories. Combined the point to 140 Minories, the suggested address of Dr. Lionell Druit, M.J.'s cousin.
And so the second letter, the writer states that he gave the address in the first letter. perhaps he actually did.
Subpoints to this theory are that the 1st and 2nd mentioned in the first letter might refer to the first and second lines of the letter (with the first line containing these numerals - thereby underscoring the significance of a street number being in the first line); also interesting is the abbreviation of Inst. this word, whatever it may be, was perhaps shortened to ensure the correct number of characters to precede the word Minories. |
Author: Peter Birchwood
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 09:32 pm | | | Regarding Chris Walker's recent posting, I nearly started on a long and tedious explanation about how his theory was, as we say in this sceptred isle, "a dog's breakfast" when I noticed it was sent on the first April! Congratulations Chris! |
Author: Mike Desmond
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 09:32 pm | | | One point on the 'from hell' letter. The writing suggest to me that the author (Jack or otherwise), is trying to convey that he is from the north of England. The word 'tother' is frequently substituted there for 'the other', which would explain why the letter starts with 'Sor' instead of sir. The accent up north makes sir sound like 'Sor'. This ties in very neatly with the word 'tother'. Has anyone ever compared the handwriting on the letters with that of any of the suspects? |
Author: David Cairns
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 09:33 pm | | | Just thought I'd give my opinion on the letters debate. Some strange communications have appeared on this site from people (Jjanovich, Timothy D Reynolds, Tracy H Stearns stand up and be counted) who seem to have very clear ideas on the Ripper's motivation, state of mind and nature. Yet they don't explain WHY they believe these things (that the ripper was "too clever" to write to the police, or that he "wanted to be caught". It seems we are to believe that these writers just KNOW. Well, as far as the budding science of forensic psychology is concerned, you're all wrong. So if you're going to produce these dazzling insights and trump them as solid fact, at least explain where they come from, why you believe them, and why we should listen. My own view, and I'm just repeating what the FBI and others have argued from long experience, is that the Ripper was not interetsed in press and police reaction to his crimes, did not want to be caught, and was not a genius taunting the world with his skill in remaining uncaptured. So he had no reason to write ANY letters. The only letter with any evidence attached to take it seriously is the Lusk letter. We have to ask, could anyone else have obtained a human kidney. The answer is yes. The evidence used to "prove" the kidney Eddowes' is all spurious and misleading. So the kidney is not solid evidence. Incidentally, this is an unsubstantiated press report (from The Times), but I read that Lusk had received a previous threatening letter in the same hand. It began "Dear Boss". So, given that the letters are written in different hands (yes they are!), would the real Ripper crib from a hoaxer? No he would not. If anyone can confirm the existence of this previous Lusk letter it would disprove the kidney once and for all, unless we are willing to accept multiple Rippers writing letters in collusion. I am not. One more thing. The Lusk writer offers to send the "bloody knif". Did he? No. Sounds like a bullshitter to me. As far as other letters go, the "mikerscope" letter, is not, as far as I know, taken seriously by ANY researcher, so can we give it a rest? I was interested to hear A Dylan Gable's explanation for the source of the rhyme, though, good work. Any Cornish Ripper suspects? (only joking) |
Author: Scott A. Munro
Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 09:33 pm | | In response to post 22 from A. Dylan Gable:
You have unquestionably found the source for that little rhyme. If anyone wants to read the story, it can be found online as part of the University of Pittsburgh's Folklore and Mythology Electronic Texts (edited and/or translated by D. L. Ashliman):
http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/type0500.html#duffy |
Author: Bob_C
Tuesday, 17 November 1998 - 03:36 am | | About the 'Sor' in the letter, Joe Barnett is supposed to be part Irish (his mother was Dutch, I believe). If a letter were written by a partly illiterate Irishman, he could write the 'Sir' as an Irishman from some parts of Irland would pronounce it, 'Sor'.
The letter does indeed show a number of styles of expression that could be irish based. I don't mean here that Joe has to be the writer, however. |
Author: Shawna Howard
Monday, 14 December 1998 - 10:22 am | | | Having been interested in JTR for quite some time I am still new to the chat group....maybe someone has theorized this before but I would love to hear others' theories on this...what if "Jack" wasn't insane? What if it was all a game played by a fairly rational man, to see if he could get away with murder? Maybe he saw it simply as a challenge? That might explain why he went after prostitutes, since they weren't considered "real people" and, perhaps, wouldn't trouble his conscience afterward? By "ripping" them up he could be sure to keep the police after him instead of simply writing the murders off to general lackeys. Mutilating would have set him apart from other killers. Perhaps he wanted to see just how far he could possibly take it (thus the increasing mutilations with each new victim). How much further can you take mutilization after what he did to the last known victim? He didn't mutilate any of the victims beyond recognition, perhaps he wanted their families to know what had happened to them--or by giving the police a chance to place names with each victim it would make them strive that much harder to find the killer. Of course, this reasoning could either support the letters supposidly written or not...since it could have been "part of the fun". Of course this would make it just that much harder to pin a finger at the true killer. I would love to know if others think this is total bunk or what. |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 14 December 1998 - 11:23 am | | Hey, Shawna,
For me personally, no theory is total bunk (though I harbor considerable doubts on the "Diary"). Stick with your idea and see how far it can take you without resorting to too many speculations or "bending" the evidence. Keep posting too. Others can help with info, lead you further, or steer you away from culs-de-sac. (My pretense to knowing French is pitiful, ain't it?)
Are you a believer in the genuineness of the letters? I hope so...we need all the people and ideas we can get. It's a cold, cruel, lonely world for us letter-believers!
Welcome!
Yaz |
Author: Bob_c
Monday, 14 December 1998 - 12:56 pm | | Hi Shawna,
Poor old Yaz needs all the support he can get with those letters! I neither believe nor disbelieve, although I agree with Yaz otherwise on many things.
The theory about Jack maybe having played a 'game' of catch-me-if-you-can does not imply he had to be sane. Indeed Jack could not be sane and do what he did. I do believe he really was partly playing such a game of catch, but at the same time exercising his terrible lust in deadly seriousness. The letters do indicate this game in part, if you accept their validity, but also his bloody intentions.
The main point of what I am trying to say is that if any person does what Jack did, then he/she is insane by definition. (Sorry, all. That isn't meant to be a Clinton) That means even if the killer's object is to taunt those trying to catch him by repeatedly killing and escaping capture, to kill in this way means he can only be insane.
Bob |
Author: Jeff D
Tuesday, 15 December 1998 - 05:43 am | | Hello All,
I have been toying with the idea, and wondering if Jack could have started his murderous crusade by being a copy-cat killer.
If we believe that Martha Tabram, was not a victim of Jack The Ripper, as seems to be the general consensus, then look at the statistics where there were no such violent murders in the area in the previous year, the chain of events starts to unfold in 1888, with the Tabram murder being quite heavily covered in the press.
Tabram was reported as being severely mutilated, and the murderer got away with the crime. If the killer took his cue from this murder, and tried to copy the Tabram mutilations on Nichols, this could have been the start of his violent campaign against the lowly unfortunates.
Tabram could have been, and very likely was the victim of some angry soldier. This could have stirred the imagination of our budding killer, to go out and see if he could also get away with such a crime, and satisfy his own lusts. The press then report the Nichols murder as the 3rd. in the series, and viola,we have a crazed serial killer on the loose, in Whitechapel. Maybe the killer really only wanted to kill Nichols, but then with the press reporting, this encouraged him to continue, and he killed again within a week.
Just a thought really, where I am trying to implicate that the Tabram murder, really could have started the chain of events, and have been the catalyst that produced Jack the Ripper. The Ripper may have been someone who was ridiculed in some way by a prostitute, maybe he had contracted syphilis, or was just verging on insanity. Seeing the way someone had taken their own action against such an evil women as in the George Yard murder, really made him think and believe that he could take his own revenge, satisfy his own blood lust, and get away with it.
Just a thought !
(Sorry if I posted this on a non-relevant thread)
As Ever,
Jeff |
Author: Bob_c
Tuesday, 15 December 1998 - 06:35 am | | Hi Jeff,
The position of Martha Tabram's body as it was found suggested to witnesses that sexual intercourse had taken place. She lay on her back, legs apart, with her dress pulled up over her abdomen and the area of the thighs exposed. That is as good a ground as any to exclude Jack as killer, adding the fact that she was repeatably stabbed, possibly with a bayonet, which again is not Jack's MO.
If we take it that Jack wasn't Tabram's killer, the copy-cat idea could then be valid. Jack must, however, have already been mentally deranged to have come to the idea of doing the same. I have until now not been able to find any evidence that Jack had sexual intercourse with any of the Ladies before dispatching them to their maker. Indeed the evidence available points to the contrary.
The conclusive assumption that he had repressive sexual problems which e.g. caused a prostitute to treat him derisively could certainly have value. For example, there you have a man, already beset by previous sexual problems and an unstable mental condition, being laughed at by the lowest, vilest, most defiled person possible, a destitute street whore. Jack rages and swears revenge.
He hears about Tabram, understands that it is possible to get away with murder, gets himself a sharp knife and Nichols is doomed. Chapman comes next, then Eddowes, (I don't believe Stride was Jack's work) then Kelly. The ripping increases with his insanity from time to time until he snaps. Then............
Bob |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 15 December 1998 - 09:08 am | | Hey, Jeff and Bob,
We should move to the Tabram topic after this, but I'll give a brief reply here as a transition.
As Bob's feelings about Stride demonstrate, it's hard to talk about Tabram when the traditional five are cast into doubt...but here goes.
Question 1: How likely is a single murder (the torso killings don't count, either as MO, area, or even definite victim selection -- that is, they may not have been prostitutes or from Whitechapel) to have spawned a series of five murders, no two of which are exactly alike in detail, but show major areas of overlap in use of a knife, types of wounds made, cause of death, choice of victim, area, time of murder, areas of body attacked/mutilated, organs removed?
Question 2: If we use modern studies of serial killers/signature killers, how closely does Tabram match the proven evolutionary steps that a serial killer makes -- i.e., use of a knife, choice of victim, area, time of murder, areas of body attacked, stabbing as a preliminary (perhaps unsatisfactory to the killer) step to the cutting and mutilations later in the traditional series?
Observation 1: The absence of sexual congress in the record is not evidence of actual lack of sexual congress at the time of the murders. Also, the women were all engaged in prostitution, so who could tell if sperm was present that it was definitely the killer's...remember, in 1888 they could not type or cross-match blood, only tell if it was human or not. Forget about finding biochemical matches in other body secretions.
Observation 2: The way Tabram's body was found does not necessarily indicate sexual intercourse took place. The killer is more likely to have arranged the victim so she is found in a humiliating, degrading position, showing the killer's hostility toward his victim and women in general...Nichols, Chapman, and certainly Kelly all match this same "displaying" of the corpse.
Meet you at the Tabram topic if you want to continue.
Yaz |
Author: Geoff Mortimore
Saturday, 19 December 1998 - 03:49 am | | Dear Ripper Enthusiasts,
In reference to the legitimacy of the various "Ripper" letters and the obvious lack of consistency between the few possibly authentic correspondences, I would like to put forward a following view; Jack the Ripper was probably nothing more than a moderately educated, lonely (not neccessarily alone) middle class loser on an alchoholic bender. He may or may not have been f..ked over by someone close to him (who knows) but after snapping out of his booze-induced rampage he quickly and discreetly vacated the general area to eventually fade into total obscurity.
Anyone who has experienced such a bender would know that any attempt at multiple correspodence results in inconsistent and often incoherent content both in spelling (particularly where words are not so much misspelt but have either the first or last letter left off them), grammatical style and penmanship. I should know - I'm kind of on one now!
Anyway maybe he wrote a letter(s) or maybe not - probably not important in the over-all scheme of things - my question is has anyone significantly researched the real estate or bank dealings (or any other dealing) that might indicate someone moving away from this particular area around or soon after the last slaying?
Regards,
Demort.
p.s (or maybe he was just another angry tourist - after all London is a bit of a sh-t hole!) |
Author: Annabel Carr
Saturday, 23 January 1999 - 08:50 pm | | I have many books on Jack the Ripper, and in regard to the kidney taken from Eddowes - there is much contradiction.
More than 3 books, however, report that Catherine Eddowes was an alcoholic (not at all uncommon for her time, I realise). Dr Frederick Gordon Brown, the City Police surgeon, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the body, had described the remaining kidney as "pale, bloodless, with slight congestion of the base of the pyramids." It was also said that the condition of her kidney(s) was indicative of diseases incurred by heavy Gin drinking, probably Bright's disease. The portion of Kidney sent to Mister Lusk was said also to have features which would suggest it came not only from a human, but from a heavy drinker. Dr Openshaw declared the Lusk kidney to be the
"'ginny' kidney of a 45-year old woman afflicted with Bright's disease." There you have it.
The fact that it was preserved in Wine rather than formaldehyde also suggests it was removed from a slaughtered body rather than a university lab.
Misty. |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 24 January 1999 - 07:54 am | | Hey, Misty,
I expect people who disagree with you and I and others who accept the genuineness of some of the letters and Lusk's kidney will trot out conflicting medical opinions to refute what you've said in your post.
But anyone who wants to claim that the Lusk kidney did NOT come from the murderer has to explain a very great deal more than just "oh, med students deal in body parts on a daily basis, so they MUST have sent it."
That human body parts could go whizzing about the Royal Mail and, for 111 years, generally not raise any concerns (since there are those evil little med students to explain away what is totally abnormal and irrational!) is amazing to me.
We only know FOR A FACT of one person who certainly had free access to a human kidney and the ability to do what he wanted with it -- including mailing half of it to Lusk -- without having to answer to regulatory agents or agencies (as the students would have to answer to their professors, tutors, classmates, university oversight boards, not to mention the police who were suspecting one of them of being "JtR").
That person is the murderer of Eddowes.
Like the letters in general, it seems, from 1888 onward, that if you couldn't explain the letters and/or kidney or use them to finder their sender, the better part of valor was to blame the phenomenon on a subgroup in society and then think real hard of ways to forget the existence of the things. And if you can't stop other people from thinking about these items, find conflicting contemporary or modern opinions/theories to cause sufficient doubt in the majority of observers.
If the anti-letter people ever admit that one letter might POSSIBLY have been sent, it opens the door to the possibility that others were sent as well -- and the anti-letter people can't have that, now can they?
Sorry for sounding snotty -- just frustrated that so many people try to find as commonplace an origin and reason for Lusk being mailed a human kidney as they can...minimizing the weird and unusual nature of the act, that transcends any commonplace reasoning.
I don't know what the 1888 police could have done -- or any of us now can do -- with that kidney or the letters that will help us find the killer(s). But I also don't think the appropriate response is to disregard them as genuine communication from the murderer(s).
Yaz |
Author: Anonymous
Sunday, 24 January 1999 - 10:16 am | | But, if they were not written by the murderer, what a false trail you are pursuing, and to what end? You will never know for sure either way.
It is as legitimate to 'disregard' them as being genuine communication from the killer, as it is to regard them as genuine. I'm sure that most sensible people look at both otions and decide on the one they feel the most likely.
So you follow your 'red-herrings' but don't criticise those who choose not to follow or agree with you. |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 24 January 1999 - 11:26 am | | Hello, Anonymous.
But if they were written by the murderer, perhaps I'm at last on the "right" trail.
We've had 111 years worth of "disregard." On this topic, we "regard" the letters. It is not legitmate to disregard the letters if there is no evidence, from 1888 to now, that proves we should disregard them. Regarding them may lead to nothing; as may any ideas about Motive, in general. Disregarding them certainly leads to nothing.
Most "sensible" people would conclude that they don't know if the letters are genuine -- no rational decision is possible at this point, only a preference is possible. You, obviously, have made a choice that they are not. You have NO evidence upon which to base that choice. You seem to want to stop others from considering alternatives. You have willfully blinded yourself to possibilities.
On this topic, we are trying to see if there is any way to provide "proof" that the letters are genuine. If we fail, so what? If we succeed, what then?
I think you are irrational if you believe that your arbitrary choice is based upon fact or evidence, when it is plainly based on prejudice -- even a prejudice once removed if you take your stance based on the logic of a Littlechild or the statements from other contemporary police officials about some non-investigatory "investigation" supposedly performed by the 1888 police; or twice removed if you base your stance on authors who believe Littlechild & Company.
You seem afraid again, Anonymous, of reconsidering your considerable prejudices.
Also, one can question the rationality of a person who thinks others are wasting their own time and then joins them in the wasteful activity. You are invited to go play elsewhere.
Yaz |
Author: Anonymous
Sunday, 24 January 1999 - 02:23 pm | | | Grow up |
Author: Yazoo
Sunday, 24 January 1999 - 03:41 pm | | Okay, Anonymous. I will.
Thanks ever,
Yaz |
Author: Caroline
Monday, 25 January 1999 - 04:06 am | | Hi Yaz and Anon,
I'm enjoying myself hugely over all this (knowing as I do who is right and who is wrong).
Until there is proof that none of the letters were from the real killer(s) (sometime never!), how could anyone with a grain of grey matter possibly not continue to at least consider them?
As I have already stated, I have found something extremely exciting in a couple of the missives that may ultimately blow JtR's cover.
Also, how do we know that letters do/did not exist that have never ever come to light? Any letter which hinted at something only the killer could have known would surely have been the police's most closely-guarded secret. The police made a big fuss about some of the communications, but not others. I think they knew exactly which ones to take seriously because they were in the same mould as the unreleased ones. We may even be talking farthings and empty tin match boxes here.
I am in the process of checking the cryptic evidence of my discovery, trying to trip myself up in the process to make doubly certain. But I have an uncanny feeling that the words 'anonymous', 'egg' and 'on face' may one day come together in a rather aesthetically pleasing way!
Love to all, Caroline |
Author: Anonymous
Monday, 25 January 1999 - 12:54 pm | | | We all love Yaz really, (but ssshh, don't tell him). |
|
|
|
|
