If There Were Multiple Killers Wouldn't We Expect to See More Killings?

[lynn cates]

Subjunctives R Us

Hello Mike. Thanks.

"The FBI even state that a combination of these might be at play, and even an evolving motivation."

Indeed. Or as the various exigencies of explanation arose.

"Because he was indoors, having no concern about an intruding constable, his act could now be completed to fruition."

Yes. Of course, he could have brought it to fruition any time he chose.

"...but of course, that IF he was a serial killer."

Good. And I like the upper case "If." Thanks.

Cheers.
LC

[RivkahChaya]

Hi Rivkah,

I suggest you concentrate on writing bodice-rippers and leave the thinking to others.

Regards,

Simon

Uh, Simon? That post was a joke, and actually was meant to support your point about the line between common sense and quackery in revisionism.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rivkah,

Sorry, I took you seriously.

But I still think the bodice-rippers are a great idea.

Regards,

Simon

[RivkahChaya]

No problem, Simon.

FWIW, I do think the press had a hand in sensationalizing the case to the point that is has remained in people's consciousness up to the present. There is so much closely-based fiction, as well as pastiche (eg, the Star Trek episode), and the fact that "[fill-in-the-blank] Ripper" was pretty much the generic term for "serial killer" until the Ted Bundy investigation gave us a more clinical term, almost 100 years later. (Bundy was executed in Jan. 1989, and committed his last murder in 1978, but I don't know exactly when the first use of the term was, and "serial murderer" apparently has been around since the 1960s).

It's pretty much agreed upon by people who really know anything, that the letters which first used the name "Jack the Ripper" was by a reporter, and IIRC, the police at the time had a fair idea which reporter, didn't they?

I'm not denying that murder practically sells itself, but again, IIRC, the London papers put out lots of special editions when Ripper murders happened that Fall, to try to scoop one another, and to get a lot of people to buy an extra paper that day, and the papers had headlines like "HORRIBLE MURDER!" in huge type.

I'm not going to try to claim that several women didn't die that Fall-- in fact, that's probably the one indisputable fact we have.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rivkah,

With Jack the Ripper the LVP press thought they'd died and gone to heaven.

The police at the time knew who wrote Dear Boss. They also knew it wasn't the killer and it wasn't a reporter.

As I'm preparing a lengthy article on the subject, for the moment I'll plead the fifth amendment.

Regards,

Simon

[RivkahChaya]

Simon,

What do you make of the fact that the two letters sent to the Central News office don't appear to have been written by the same person, but do look very much alike, as though they were written by people who either had gone to the same school, and been taught to write the same way, or worked together, and were both required to use a certain style of writing, or, third and last suggestion, the person who wrote the second letter had seen the first one-- the actual letter-- and was familiar enough with it to deliberately copy the style, meaning either he had the letter or a photo of it in front of him, or it was written in some identifiable way (ie, D'Nealian; German Gothic; Spencerian) that the writer of the second letter would understand by name, and be able to produce.

[RivkahChaya]

As I'm preparing a lengthy article on the subject, for the moment I'll plead the fifth amendment.

"The fifth"? Does that mean you wrote the letters?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rivkah,

By the "second letter" do you mean the Saucy Jacky postcard?

Regards,

Simon

[RivkahChaya]

Hi Rivkah,

By the "second letter" do you mean the Saucy Jacky postcard?

Regards,

Simon

The second of the two missives to the Central News office, yes, wasn't that the Saucy Jacky one?

[caz]

I thought it was agreed by "people who really know anything" that the same hand was responsible for Dear Boss and Saucy Jacky.

I just wonder at the timing of the former, if the very idea of a serial killer is as daft as some appear to believe. By rights, in any remotely average year, there would have been no more 'work' in the wake of Chapman and the Dear Boss letter, in which case "Jack the Ripper" with his oh-so confident promises about getting back to work again should have been the dampest squib going come November. It was only the double event and MJK that kept his kettle boiling and saved him from becoming a forgotten white elephant of a red herring.

Why was he, like everyone else in the country at the time, expecting more of the same? And how come they appeared to get more of the same, if they were all wrong and the murders after Chapman were unpredictable and coincidental events, committed by men who each wanted a specific woman to die for a specific reason?

I must go now before I get trampled by speeding pink and white striped zebras. At least horsemeat burgers make some kind of sense.

Love,

Caz
X

[Simon Wood]

Hi Caz,

I agree.

Horsemeat burgers make more sense than a serial killer named Jack.

Regards,

Simon

[RivkahChaya]

I thought it was agreed by "people who really know anything" that the same hand was responsible for Dear Boss and Saucy Jacky.

I just wonder at the timing of the former, if the very idea of a serial killer is as daft as some appear to believe. By rights, in any remotely average year, there would have been no more 'work' in the wake of Chapman and the Dear Boss letter, in which case "Jack the Ripper" with his oh-so confident promises about getting back to work again should have been the dampest squib going come November.

At the time of the Chapman murder, I think the police theorized a series of at least three by one hand: Tabram, Nichols and Chapman. It's not such a stretch of the imagination that someone who has killed three people in a fairly short time span will kill again, and even if it doesn't happen, what has the writer got to lose by being wrong?

When you think about it, he has more to lose by being right, on the off-chance that the police track him down through the letter somehow, but he probably doesn't think that will happen, and if he is wrong, then he has a really good defense if he is tracked down.

But, assuming the letter was a prank and a hoax, what does it really matter? If it's taken seriously, it increases the chance that a close-in-time murder by someone else will be credited to the earlier killer, but that's about it. If it's dismissed as a hoax upon reception, then what happens next is irrelevant.

The writer probably has no idea that writing a hoax letter regarding a real crime is considered a crime in itself, and doesn't think what he is doing is risky. He probably has not thought about how it could affect the investigation, either, slowing it down, or sending it in the wrong direction, since catching a killer back then involved usually either catching him in the act, or having someone inform on him.

[RavenDarkendale]

The sheer volume of letters in a variety of different handwriting has to show that almost all were bull. The writing goes from barely literate ( the Lusk missive), to use of Americanisms (Dear Boss), to some who seem highly educated (signed Mathematicus) A leopard does change his spots. Even disguised handwriting will show use of terminology, key phrases, a certain way of speaking,etc. It has caught many a document forger.

Which BTW, has anyone compared any letters of Michael Barrett with the so called Maybrick diary to check on this very thing? Just wondering...

[RivkahChaya]

The sheer volume of letters in a variety of different handwriting has to show that almost all were bull.

The writing goes from barely literate ( the Lusk missive),

I was always slightly suspicious of the fact that he knew to preserve an organ in alcohol, and to use the word "preserve," even if he spelled it wrong, which was exactly the word a medical or other scientific research person would use, and yet did not know that blood would clot.

use of Americanisms (Dear Boss)

I have always heard that this is an Americanism, but exactly how is it an Americanism?

I looked it up, and the theory is that is comes from Dutch, and was a Naval form of address for a captain, that was used in the colonies to distinguish someone who oversaw paid workers from a "master" who oversaw slaves, so I can see how it would have persisted in the US, and trumped "master" after the Civil War (which in the north meant "schoolmaster" to most people, anyway).

My point is, that if it really is an American word, practically unknown in Britain, then why would anyone use it, including an American Ripper, who, one presumes, wants to be understood.

It really only makes sense as a word that is associated with the US, but that most Brits understand the meaning of, that a British hoaxer uses in order to muddy the waters, or be enigmatic.

Unless reporters really did refer to the head of the Central News Office as "Boss" for some reason.

What do people in England call their supervisors? or, more to the point, what word did they use in 1888?

Even disguised handwriting will show use of terminology, key phrases, a certain way of speaking,etc. It has caught many a document forger.

Or, it will hide the original writer, but it will still be transparently a forgery, because it will be a mishmash of different styles and vocabularies that it unlikely one person would naturally combine.

Which BTW, has anyone compared any letters of Michael Barrett with the so called Maybrick diary to check on this very thing? Just wondering...

I believe in his confession, he said he dictated it to his wife. Don't quote me on that, though.

[Wickerman]

I looked it up, and the theory is that is comes from Dutch, and was a Naval form of address for a captain, that was used in the colonies to distinguish someone who oversaw paid workers from a "master" who oversaw slaves, ...

That may well be I couldn't say, but I do know "Boss" was a particularly common term in East Anglia and around that part of the country in the 16-17th century. I came across the term quite frequently while researching Mathew Hopkins, Witchfinder General.
It traveled the Atlantic, we might presume, with the first colonies, so it did come from England.
Calling it an Americanism is perhaps a misnomer.