Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 5 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Robert St Devil 6 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 7 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Paddy 8 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 9 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 9 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (12 posts)
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (2 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - (2 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (1 posts)
General Police Discussion: Police Orders 1st October 1888 - (1 posts)
General Police Discussion: J Division Fixed Point Whitechapel Station? - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Letters and Communications

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-13-2014, 05:57 AM
Ghost Ghost is offline
Cadet
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 31
Default

DC snipers made phone calls that were either lost in the shuffle or ignored.

The "How Strange Is This" thread is discussing a Ripper letter to neighboring police that was taken as a hoax. It had a return address across the street from Miller's Court and was sent about a week before the Kelly murder. That address was the address of the witness who said she spoke to Kelly after the time when the murder supposedly occurred. It may be a coincidence, but it's a fascinating thread.

Last edited by Ghost : 11-13-2014 at 06:01 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-13-2014, 11:34 AM
Defective Detective Defective Detective is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SirJohnFalstaff View Post
I find the one sent to Leman Police station on November 10th, to be the most interesting.
"Well you see I've kept my word, and done for the one I said I would.

I suppose you took notice of what I said.


These other letters were not written by me at all and has some one been kind enough to give me the name of "Jack The Ripper". I'll accept it and act up to it. Look out for the next.

P.S. You can't trace me by this writing so its no use on the police stations"


Okay, here's a question: if this letter writer had never before written a letter, when did he say he'd do "for the one"? What did he say that we were to take notice of?

This letter obliquely suggests another communication of some kind in its first lines, or so it reads to me, and yet denies having made any previous communication just a few sentences later.

Last edited by Defective Detective : 11-13-2014 at 11:38 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-13-2014, 12:09 PM
Caligo Umbrator Caligo Umbrator is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Dallas, previously London.
Posts: 142
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Defective Detective View Post
"Well you see I've kept my word, and done for the one I said I would.

I suppose you took notice of what I said.


These other letters were not written by me at all and has some one been kind enough to give me the name of "Jack The Ripper". I'll accept it and act up to it. Look out for the next.

P.S. You can't trace me by this writing so its no use on the police stations"


Okay, here's a question: if this letter writer had never before written a letter, when did he say he'd do "for the one"? What did he say that we were to take notice of?

This letter obliquely suggests another communication of some kind in its first lines, or so it reads to me, and yet denies having made any previous communication just a few sentences later.
Hi, Defective.

This communication you reference does initially appear to have some internal contradiction.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-13-2014, 01:18 PM
Caligo Umbrator Caligo Umbrator is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Dallas, previously London.
Posts: 142
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Defective Detective View Post
"Well you see I've kept my word, and done for the one I said I would.

I suppose you took notice of what I said.


These other letters were not written by me at all and has some one been kind enough to give me the name of "Jack The Ripper". I'll accept it and act up to it. Look out for the next.

P.S. You can't trace me by this writing so its no use on the police stations"


Okay, here's a question: if this letter writer had never before written a letter, when did he say he'd do "for the one"? What did he say that we were to take notice of?

This letter obliquely suggests another communication of some kind in its first lines, or so it reads to me, and yet denies having made any previous communication just a few sentences later.

Hi, Defective.

The communication you reference does initially appear to have some internal contradictions.
In stating that " These other letters were not written by me. . ." it does seem that the writer is disavowing authourship of any previous missives.

It could be argued, however, that the writer of this letter may have previously sent one or more letters to the authorities, describing his intentions or motivations and that that particular communication has been lost (This letter was addressed to "The Inspector, Leman St. Police").
So that this letter could be, from the authours point of view, a continuation of his 'dialogue' with those connected to the investigation and also a confirmation that at least one previous letter had been offered to them by him.
When he says " These other letters . . ." should we not consider that he might be referring to just those letters that had been made public at the time and published in newspapers and on handbills, rather than all the letters the police had received?

It should also be noted that this particular letter is unusual, when compared to the majority of other 'Ripper" letters, as it is written all in capitals, reasonably neat, correctly spelled throughout and missing just a punctuation point. The writer keeps each sentence on a straight line.
The writing slopes between 12 and 18 degrees rightward from the upright and the sheet it is written upon is almost perfectly square as opposed to the usual short and wide postcard or the tall and thin letter paper of the time.
Capital or block letters, while acceptable for general communication, were not used in most professions, unless clarity was absolutely essential.
One such profession was printing.

I'm sure there are other reasons for using block capitals and perhaps others on here can expand on this matter.

If you have Evans and Skinner's 'Letters from Hell', a facsimile of the letter is reproduced on p.114 and the transcript on p.248-9.

Yours, Caligo.

P.S. apologies for my previous post on this thread (unlucky for some #13), my browser reset as I was writing - sorry for any confusion.

Last edited by Caligo Umbrator : 11-13-2014 at 01:41 PM. Reason: include reference to pictorial evidence.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-13-2014, 04:31 PM
gnote gnote is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 195
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Defective Detective View Post
"Well you see I've kept my word, and done for the one I said I would.

I suppose you took notice of what I said.


These other letters were not written by me at all and has some one been kind enough to give me the name of "Jack The Ripper". I'll accept it and act up to it. Look out for the next.

P.S. You can't trace me by this writing so its no use on the police stations"


Okay, here's a question: if this letter writer had never before written a letter, when did he say he'd do "for the one"? What did he say that we were to take notice of?

This letter obliquely suggests another communication of some kind in its first lines, or so it reads to me, and yet denies having made any previous communication just a few sentences later.
Other than the clear contradiction (which Caligo provided a reasonable explanation for) the thing that stands out most to me is the writer's admission they did not come up with the nickname. Not that it's really evidence of anything, but i suspect a lot of the hoax letters were either signed or included "Jack The Ripper" explicitly. That said it's probably just a person who was a bit more clever than the average hoax writer at the time.

There's no reason I've seen yet to suggest that any of the letters were genuine but it would be quite something if any of them were ever proven to be. It would be the only piece of evidence that would be certain to have been in the Ripper's possession and of course more importantly provide a sample of his hand writing.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-13-2014, 08:04 PM
Premium Member
SirJohnFalstaff SirJohnFalstaff is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Abzurdistan or Canada, depends
Posts: 564
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Defective Detective View Post
"Well you see I've kept my word, and done for the one I said I would.

I suppose you took notice of what I said.


These other letters were not written by me at all and has some one been kind enough to give me the name of "Jack The Ripper". I'll accept it and act up to it. Look out for the next.

P.S. You can't trace me by this writing so its no use on the police stations"


Okay, here's a question: if this letter writer had never before written a letter, when did he say he'd do "for the one"? What did he say that we were to take notice of?

This letter obliquely suggests another communication of some kind in its first lines, or so it reads to me, and yet denies having made any previous communication just a few sentences later.
I think the letters says
"I suppose you took no notice of what I said"
Meaning he did write but the letter was not published/taken seriously, because he's saying "the other letters were not written by me(...) "
__________________
Is it progress when a cannibal uses a fork?
- Stanislaw Jerzy Lee
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-13-2014, 09:43 PM
J6123 J6123 is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 90
Default

Hello MayBea,

Yes I am pretty sure that was it, because I remember it was a behavioural profiler who told police to rule it out.

Thanks for that.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-15-2014, 01:59 PM
Michael W Richards Michael W Richards is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,148
Default

Im not sure that any correspondence that came in claiming to be from the killer at large was "ignored", but I think 1 of them in particular could have done a lot to quell a single killer theory, as this "Ripper" speculation is.

I think the clue that was sent to Lusk should have been taken as a sign that the killer of Kate Eddowes had some kind of a bone to pick with Lusk, and not necessarily with his role within the vigilance committee. I think that's why Lusk stuffed it in his drawer for a day before telling anyone about it, and why he didn't go directly to the police with it when he finally admitted receiving it. I think its at least possible that the package came from the Irish man who asked for Lusks address earlier that week from the lady shopkeeper......the one who didn't want to remove his gloves to touch her or the paper.. a Ms. Marsh If I recall correctly. The package was addressed just like it appeared in that paper...again, I believe it was missing the street number.

I think its entirely possible that Kates killer cut himself that night while killing Kate, and that's why he needed to extra cloth....because he likely had something for the organs he took...I doubt by the speed that he used while taking the organs that it was a spontaneous act. But he did also take time to cut her colon, her face, and the cloth....so one might wonder whether those acts were also part of the plan for the night. Or was it the result of his nicking his hand while severing the colon, punishing her face for the outrage, then cutting the cloth to stem any bleeding.

If the cloth was used with pressure on a cut, it could explain why he may have kept holding on to it for that trot off to Goulston, and why there wasn't a huge amount of blood on the cloth. But it could also explain why the cloth wasn't seen at 2:20, it was found over an hour after the murder had taken place and long after a killer fleeing continuously from Mitre would have been through there.

I think he needed to clean and patch his hand first, before intentionally placing that cloth right where they found it.

You see why I think that package might be an interesting lead...to a well dressed Irishman perhaps with a grudge of some kind with Lusk. He obviously wouldnt know Lusk well, or perhaps at all, because he needed the address from the paper. Which makes me wonder what might have motivated him to send the parcel to Lusk. Intimidation?
__________________
Michael Richards

Last edited by Michael W Richards : 11-15-2014 at 02:02 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-15-2014, 04:02 PM
RockySullivan RockySullivan is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,721
Default

I think the Lusk kidney is one of the biggest clues to the rippers identity. What was Lusks connection to the London Hospital?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-15-2014, 06:59 PM
Rosella Rosella is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,542
Default

The London Hospital was, and is, on the Whitechapel Rd, so it was convenient and nearby for Lusk to take it there.

Mrs Marsh's description was of a 6 foot man with dark hair and beard and an Irish accent. He refused to go to the Crown Hotel to leave a message, the Crown being the HQ of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee. Perhaps he was a Temperance advocate!

Strangely enough, Lusk complained to the police in October that his house was being watched by a 'sinister' bearded man. He requested police protection.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.