Belief

[corey123]

Hello Rob,

I couldn't agree more.

[bolo]

Hello Corey,

I do believe "Jack the Ripper" as a literary sence is fictional but not the inspiration behind the name. Yes the letter was ahoax, but was the hoax not set upon the story of truth?

In my opinion, we should stop narrowing down our our view by keeping the name Jack the Ripper alive that most probably was just a figment of an "enterprising journalist's" imagination, created to boost newspaper sales.

It's right the inspiration behind the name that I'm concerned about. I have a feeling that it not only makes finding answers difficult, it also lets us ask the wrong questions.

As Phil Carter mentioned, the question should be what, not who, was Jack the Ripper.

Regards,

Boris

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

Your interpretation of my implication is correct.

Warren had his 'Dear Boss as hoax' epiphany on 10th October, a mere week after he had authorised the expense of plastering facsimile posters across London.

Whoops!

Regards,

Simon

[corey123]

Hello Boris,

I don't believe a name would narrow someones veiw point. Shall we not call Ted Bundy Ted Bundy?

I know what he was, a serial killer, I also know what he could also be, a killer. There is no point in coming back to this point with no evidence helping either.

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

Why would Scotland Yard promote a single killer if that was not the case?

Your excellent question is the one we should all be attempting to answer, for it is the solution to the Whitechapel murders.

Jack the Ripper was hokum, pure and simple, designed to take people's eyes off the ball.

Regards,

Simon

Simon,

You had better have an article coming soon, because there is more about this you are not telling Rumbelow had made mention in one of his books that it was common practice for Scotland Yard to keep the newspapers in the dark. Joe Chetcuti had the hardest time collecting information from a prominent West End social club for the year 1888 (they claimed it was missing and then changed their story). As you have noted in another thread, Scotland Yard is still keeping info from the public.

Thanks Corey. I have not read the essay yet, but I will be.

Sincerely,

Mike

[corey123]

Hello Mike,

However, how do we know this has any relation to the murders? They may just be old SB files sitting around. Why would anybody care now about who the murder(s) were? Why would they want to keep it a secret this day? They wouldn't.

I don't think they are hinding anything of importance.

[robhouse]

I preume you mean this statement:

"At present I think the whole thing a hoax but of course we are bound to try & ascertain the writer in any case."

This is a fairly clear explanation of what I was talking about. Obviously the police would have wanted to follow up on tracing the writer of the letter even if they suspected it was a fraud. Indeed, whatever they may have suspected, they could not be sure about it. It may have been authentic, it may have been a fake. It would be standard procedure to follow up on any lead, especially one so obvious as this, and especially as they had so little to go on. As more, obviously fraudulent letters were to follow the original Dear Boss and Saucy Jack ones, presumably the Police would have cared less and less to follow them up, and would have assumed (rightly in my opinion) that they were simply copycat letters following on the first ones... copying them in style etc.

In short, I do not think the police did anything wrong in publishing the letters... they were simply following up a lead, and following procedure.

Recall that the police did a very similar thing in the Yorkshire Ripper case, in publicizing the tape recording (presumably from the killer)--- the famous man with the Geordie accent. Of course the tape proved to be a hoax, but the Police suspected it was real... at least some of them did. But as usual, there was disagreement over this by the Police and various experts. Still they followed it up as a lead anyway. In that instance, they actually believed more or less that the tape may have been authentic, so it is not a perfect analogy with the "Jack the Ripper" letters...

RH

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

One can also wonder this. If the letter(s) were genuine, why did Warren, and later Anderson and Littlechild afford that they were hoaxes? From the 10th of October 1888 onwards, it appears...

Hello Rob,

I would respectfully suggest that Lynn Cates' theory about Ischensmid is not "far fetched" nor "absurd" at all. It is plausible in my own, and other peoples opinion. Corey describes it as "sensible". (see posting No.26)

Hope you are well.

Hello Corey,

"hiding"...no..."witholding" yes.

best wishes

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mike,

The cops fell over themselves in their stampede to promote the Jack the Ripper phenomenon, thus riding roughshod over Howard Vincent's earlier strictures on dealing with the press–

"Police must not on any account give any information whatever to gentlemen connected with the press, relative to matters within police knowledge, or relative to duties to be performed or orders received, or communicate in any manner, either directly or indirectly, with editors, or reporters of newspapers, on any matter connected with the public service, without express and special authority . . . "

Regards,

Simon

[corey123]

Hello Phil,

Let me correct myself.

I don't believe they are witholding anything of great importance in this respect.

Yours tru;y

[robhouse]

Note: "without express and special authority..."

As today, the Police were well aware of both the usefulness of the Press and the problems caused by press coverage of their investigations.

The Police would use the Press when it served their purposes, and at other times, they would keep information from the press if they were concerned that publicity would harm their inquiries. They clearly monitored the press reports, and in some instances (again, when it suited their intentions) they fed false information to the press.

In the instance of the Ripper Letters, the Police used the press to publicize the letters and see if anyone could recognize the handwriting. Again, this makes sense, and it is exactly what the Yorkshire police did in the 1970s. In other cases, the police seem to have gone out of their way to suppress press coverage of their inquiries... the Batty Street lodger inquiries being (in my opinion) one example.

RH

[robhouse]

Hello Phil,

I am not actually familiar with Lynn's specific theory, although I am fairly well convinced that Nichols and Chapman were killed by the same person who killed the rest. If you send me a link to where her theory is presented, I will gladly read it.

RH

[Phil Carter]

Hello Rob,

This may be of some assistance to you. Sadly, I think it was missed by many.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4590

best wishes

Phil

[bolo]

Hi Corey,

Hello Boris,

I don't believe a name would narrow someones veiw point. Shall we not call Ted Bundy Ted Bundy?

I know what he was, a serial killer, I also know what he could also be, a killer. There is no point in coming back to this point with no evidence helping either.

Ted Bundy is a real name of a real person, "Jack the Ripper" is not, it's just a meaningless nickname that the killer or killers most probably never used.

It narrows down our view because it cements the idea of a single, male and probably quite mad killer of prostitutes. Looked at in that light, the Jack the Ripper label and the inspiration behind it is only slightly above the level of the misleading LVP chauvinism that "surely no Englishman could have done it"...

Regards,

Boris

[Abby Normal]

Hello all,

One can also wonder this. If the letter(s) were genuine, why did Warren, and later Anderson and Littlechild afford that they were hoaxes? From the 10th of October 1888 onwards, it appears...

Hello Rob,

I would respectfully suggest that Lynn Cates' theory about Ischensmid is not "far fetched" nor "absurd" at all. It is plausible in my own, and other peoples opinion. Corey describes it as "sensible". (see posting No.26)

Hope you are well.

Hello Corey,

"hiding"...no..."witholding" yes.

best wishes

Phil

If the letter(s) were genuine, why did Warren, and later Anderson and Littlechild afford that they were hoaxes? From the 10th of October 1888 onwards, it appears...

Perhaps because they did not want to give credence to something that made fun of their own incompetence?