An authorship analysis of the Jack the Ripper letters (Andrea Nini, 2018)

[Abby Normal]

I have plenty of ideas on that score, don't worry. Re the severing of an ear, just imagine yourself doing it; perhaps you have already done so... to a rabbit or whatever, not a person! Hell, never mind a thin, floppy appendage like an ear - imagine cutting through a thick steak with a really sharp knife. Even cutting a steak takes no time at all. The killer had plenty of time to cut off both ears, no doubt about it. If he could afford the time to cut off the one ear (and the nose), he could afford the time to cut off the other ear, too.I won't answer that here, if you don't mind, because it'll turn into an Eddowes-only thread. Suffice to say I'm not ignoring anything, obvious or otherwise.I am not being stubborn. I have stated that it would have taken no time at all to cut off both ears and that the killer had plenty of time to do so, and I see no sensible reason to believe otherwise. None whatsoever. Two ears off... seconds, mate; mere seconds.

What was written in Dear Boss was NOT enacted in Mitre Square. What WAS enacted in Mitre Square was far, far worse than anything contained in Dear Boss, and none of this - NONE of it - was even hinted at in Saucy Jacky. Instead, the latter only mentions Stride's somewhat boring murder, almost certainly because the details of Eddowes' murder were not yet known. If they had been, any boastful killer - or hoaxer - worth his salt would have bragged about her murder, not Stride's. Instead, he says bugger all about her.People have a tendency to jump to conclusions, and are too easily impressed by "amazing coincidences" when they may well be nothing of the kind. Same thing goes for the contents of certain Ripper letters.

Thanks Sam

And with that well thought out and reasonable response I do believe we are at the just have disagree stage. I do see your points, just don’t agree with them.

And just to be clear, I keep an open mind on the letters and do NOT think they were definitely written by the killer. I’m actually just slightly above 50/50 they were.

Have a great night!

[Sam Flynn]

You have no idea if he had ample time Sam.

I have plenty of ideas on that score, don't worry. Re the severing of an ear, just imagine yourself doing it; perhaps you have already done so... to a rabbit or whatever, not a person! Hell, never mind a thin, floppy appendage like an ear - imagine cutting through a thick steak with a really sharp knife. Even cutting a steak takes no time at all. The killer had plenty of time to cut off both ears, no doubt about it. If he could afford the time to cut off the one ear (and the nose), he could afford the time to cut off the other ear, too.

As a matter of fact-The Eddowes murder was under extremely tight time frame. and you completely continue to ignore the major obvious reason he didn't cut both ears and send to the police-that is after cutting the first one and losing it he decided to scat.

I won't answer that here, if you don't mind, because it'll turn into an Eddowes-only thread. Suffice to say I'm not ignoring anything, obvious or otherwise.

Let me ask you this-have you ever said that you were going to do something and then when the time came didn't, or didn't finish because of the circs at the time? of course you have. why you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge this could have happened is beyond me!

I am not being stubborn. I have stated that it would have taken no time at all to cut off both ears and that the killer had plenty of time to do so, and I see no sensible reason to believe otherwise. None whatsoever. Two ears off... seconds, mate; mere seconds.

Finally- don't you find it an amazing coincidence (at the very least?) that the writer mentioned cutting ears off, and next time he strikes-he does?

What was written in Dear Boss was NOT enacted in Mitre Square. What WAS enacted in Mitre Square was far, far worse than anything contained in Dear Boss, and none of this - NONE of it - was even hinted at in Saucy Jacky. Instead, the latter only mentions Stride's somewhat boring murder, almost certainly because the details of Eddowes' murder were not yet known. If they had been, any boastful killer - or hoaxer - worth his salt would have bragged about her murder, not Stride's. Instead, he says bugger all about her.

Also, you said previously you didn't think stride was a ripper victim. The writer obviously thinks so-killer or not. Why is that?

People have a tendency to jump to conclusions, and are too easily impressed by "amazing coincidences" when they may well be nothing of the kind. Same thing goes for the contents of certain Ripper letters.

[Abby Normal]

No he doesn't. He says he's going to clip the EARS and send them to the police. In the event, he only cut one EAR - despite the fact that he had ample time to cut off both. Furthermore, he didn't even take it from the scene, still less send it to the police.
Well, if you were pretending to be a notorious villain and wanted to grab the attention of police, press and public, isn't that just the sort of thing that you would write?
Assuming Stride squealed at all, of course. If she did, it would have been easy enough for someone with their ear to the ground (a journalist, perhaps, but not necessarily) to have picked up the info about the struggle with BS man and worked it into the narrative. Assuming she squealed at all, of course; it's easy to make this stuff up without fear of contradiction, as murder victims are very likely to squeal, aren't they?


If Saucy Jack had said this...

Whoever wrote that postcard was not responsible for Catherine Eddowes' death.

Hi Sam

No he doesn't. He says he's going to clip the EARS and send them to the police. In the event, he only cut one EAR - despite the fact that he had ample time to cut off both.

You have no idea if he had ample time Sam. As a matter of fact-The Eddowes murder was under extremely tight time frame. and you completely continue to ignore the major obvious reason he didn't cut both ears and send to the police-that is after cutting the first one and losing it he decided to scat.

Let me ask you this-have you ever said that you were going to do something and then when the time came didn't, or didn't finish because of the circs at the time? of course you have. why you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge this could have happened is beyond me!

Finally- don't you find it an amazing coincidence (at the very least?) that the writer mentioned cutting ears off, and next time he strikes-he does? I mean come on.

Well, if you were pretending to be a notorious villain and wanted to grab the attention of police, press and public, isn't that just the sort of thing that you would write?

well sure- but getting it right? another coincidence?

Assuming Stride squealed at all, of course. If she did, it would have been easy enough for someone with their ear to the ground (a journalist, perhaps, but not necessarily) to have picked up the info about the struggle with BS man and worked it into the narrative. Assuming she squealed at all, of course; it's easy to make this stuff up without fear of contradiction, as murder victims are very likely to squeal, aren't they?

wrong.The witness Schwartz said she yelled out, but not that loudly. sounds a lot like squealed a bit to me. Not screamed like a stuck pig, not yelled bloddy murder--squealed abit. The writer pegged it again.

Assuming she squealed at all, of course; it's easy to make this stuff up without fear of contradiction, as murder victims are very likely to squeal, aren't they?

apparently not (most of) the ripper victims, but you've conveniently forgot about that.

"First one squealed a bit. Had not time to get ears for police. Got the second one, though!"

... I might be more interested. As it is, the postcard's complete silence on the Eddowes murder, which was by far and away the Ripper's most extreme to date, is a dead give-away: the writer clearly knew little or nothing of the details of Eddowes' death; if he did, he'd have told us about it, make no mistake. Instead, he only alludes to the relatively "boring" murder of Liz Stride. And, despite the spectacular nature of Eddowes' demise, we don't get so much as a morsel of info; we're not even told whether the "second one" squealed or not. Indeed, the "second one" is not mentioned at all.

ahh. so hear we are again with what someone thinks the writer should have written. LOL. please tell me you see the problem with this Sam?
were you in his head? are omnipotent?

And hes writing a quick post card-not a screen play.

and of course the second one is mentioned-the one that had her ear cut off, that he dropped and didn't have time to look for it!

Whoever wrote that postcard was not responsible for Catherine Eddowes' death

In your opinion Sam.

Also, you said previously you didn't think stride was a ripper victim.

The writer obviously thinks so-killer or not. Why is that?

[Sam Flynn]

I would also say that it is an amazing coincidence that the writer says hes going to clip the ears, and lo and behold, the next time-- he does.

No he doesn't. He says he's going to clip the EARS and send them to the police. In the event, he only cut one EAR - despite the fact that he had ample time to cut off both. Furthermore, he didn't even take it from the scene, still less send it to the police.

add to that amazing coincidence that the writer gets wanting to get to work soon

Well, if you were pretending to be a notorious villain and wanted to grab the attention of police, press and public, isn't that just the sort of thing that you would write?

and first one squealed abit right too

Assuming Stride squealed at all, of course. If she did, it would have been easy enough for someone with their ear to the ground (a journalist, perhaps, but not necessarily) to have picked up the info about the struggle with BS man and worked it into the narrative. Assuming she squealed at all, of course; it's easy to make this stuff up without fear of contradiction, as murder victims are very likely to squeal, aren't they?


If Saucy Jack had said this...

"First one squealed a bit. Had not time to get ears for police. Got the second one, though!"

... I might be more interested. As it is, the postcard's complete silence on the Eddowes murder, which was by far and away the Ripper's most extreme to date, is a dead give-away: the writer clearly knew little or nothing of the details of Eddowes' death; if he did, he'd have told us about it, make no mistake. Instead, he only alludes to the relatively "boring" murder of Liz Stride. And, despite the spectacular nature of Eddowes' demise, we don't get so much as a morsel of info; we're not even told whether the "second one" squealed or not. Indeed, the "second one" is not mentioned at all.

Whoever wrote that postcard was not responsible for Catherine Eddowes' death.

[Sam Flynn]

But it's possible I don't qualify as a well-read student

Keep reading, Kat. You'll get there

[Kattrup]

I find it unbelievable that, in 2018, well-read students of the case are still prepared to argue that Jack the Ripper wrote Dear Boss and Saucy Jack.
.

I personally believe the Ripper sent Saucy Jack, and therefore also Dear Boss.

But it's possible I don't qualify as a well-read student

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby

As I've said, the "had not time to get ears for police" seems to refer to the "first one" (Stride), the reason for his not having time being because she "squealed a bit". As I've also said, he had plenty of time to "get" Eddowes' ears. Instead, he "got" her uterus and kidney, sending the latter not to the police, but to George Lusk. Not that I believe that the real Ripper sent it, of course.

Hi Sam
Thanks! I think it refers in general that night.

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.

its written on a postcard, very brief, and hes talking about the double event as whole it seems to me.

As I've also said, he had plenty of time to "get" Eddowes' ears.

He didn't have plenty of time with eddowes-not at all. a few minutes.

And as ive said, perhaps in the heat of the moment-he only remembered about the letter after and with wanting to get away, it being dark and his hands slippery with blood, he dropped it and not being able to find it immediately, and with his main objective accomplished any way, he bolted.

You said your surprised how people can still believe that the letter might be authentic?! really? I know your a minimalist, but this is surprising even for you.

That its a known hoax is the biggest myth in ripperology I would say.

I would also say that it is an amazing coincidence that the writer says hes going to clip the ears, and lo and behold, the next time-- he does. I believe it was this fact that what was even prompted the CNA to send it over to the police.

add to that amazing coincidence that the writer gets wanting to get to work soon, and first one squealed abit right too.

[DJA]

Ripperologists splitting ears.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Abby

As I've said, the "had not time to get ears for police" seems to refer to the "first one" (Stride), the reason for his not having time being because she "squealed a bit". As I've also said, he had plenty of time to "get" Eddowes' ears. Instead, he "got" her uterus and kidney, sending the latter not to the police, but to George Lusk. Not that I believe that the real Ripper sent it, of course.

[Abby Normal]

Perhaps it was in the madness of the moment that he forgot that he had pockets Plus of course it would have taken him no time at all to remove the other ear. But he didn't.

Top o the morning Guvna!

I think in the craziness of that night and the heat of the moment, the ripper might have forgot about his clipping ear statement. and as an afterthought tried to do it with eddowes but perhaps because of the the circs-trying to hurry, dark, blood covering his hands making it slippery-dropped the ear.

then referenced it in the saucy jack post card-had not time.
__________________

[Sam Flynn]

But in this scenario, Eddowes left ear would be next to be clipped and the killer would have to use his non knife hand to hold, steady or manoeuvre her head. So the left ear could have being placed on her chest or thereabouts and subsequently lost in the madness of the moment.

Perhaps it was in the madness of the moment that he forgot that he had pockets Plus of course it would have taken him no time at all to remove the other ear. But he didn't.

[Abby Normal]

If he'd deliberately set out to cut off the ear with a view to taking it away, wouldn't he already have had a grip on it with his (non-knife-wielding) hand? I know that's what I'd do, so it's hard to see how he could have lost it once the blade had done its work, unless he didn't intend taking it away with him.The lobe and auricle of the ear was obliquely cut through, said Brown. I can't see how both the lobe and the auricle could have been sustained as collateral damage from either the throat-wound nor the slashes to the face. I'd suggest that the ear was removed by means of a separate, dedicated, cut.

Top o the morning Guvna!

I think in the craziness of that night and the heat of the moment, the ripper might have forgot about his clipping ear statement. and as an afterthought tried to do it with eddowes but perhaps because of the the circs-trying to hurry, dark, blood covering his hands making it slippery-dropped the ear.

then referenced it in the saucy jack post card-had not time.

[Jon Guy]

If he'd deliberately set out to cut off the ear with a view to taking it away, wouldn't he already have had a grip on it with his (non-knife-wielding) hand? I know that's what I'd do, so it's hard to see how he could have lost it once the blade had done its work, unless he didn't intend taking it away with him.

But in this scenario, Eddowes left ear would be next to be clipped and the killer would have to use his non knife hand to hold, steady or manoeuvre her head. So the left ear could have being placed on her chest or thereabouts and subsequently lost in the madness of the moment.

[Sam Flynn]

and the killer wasted those few seconds it would have taken feeling in the dark for the ear.

If he'd deliberately set out to cut off the ear with a view to taking it away, wouldn't he already have had a grip on it with his (non-knife-wielding) hand? I know that's what I'd do, so it's hard to see how he could have lost it once the blade had done its work, unless he didn't intend taking it away with him.

do you think the ear could have been cut either when her face was being slashed or her throat cut.

The lobe and auricle of the ear was obliquely cut through, said Brown. I can't see how both the lobe and the auricle could have been sustained as collateral damage from either the throat-wound nor the slashes to the face. I'd suggest that the ear was removed by means of a separate, dedicated, cut.

[Jon Guy]

I don't think I discussed the ear in my dissertation because it wasn't germane to my subject. I was interested in (a) challenging the idea that the facial wounds had been deliberately "drawn" on the face; and (b) the sequence/timings of the wounds in general. The severed ear didn't really relate to (a), and a one- or two-second slash of a blade wouldn't have affected (b) either.

Ok thanks, Sam

But the sequence is important.
If the ear was cut (whether by accident or design) before the mutilations to the torso, then Eddowes clothes would not have been raised at this point. So the ear could have fallen on Eddowes and when her clothes were raised the ear may have been lost, and would explain why it fell out of her clothing when undressed.... and the killer wasted those few seconds it would have taken feeling in the dark for the ear.

I don`t expect you to address the above but do you think the ear could have been cut either when her face was being slashed or her throat cut.