Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Spider View Post
    Cheers for that, I've just found her reference detail under the 'Data' heading as being LFH material. Pity it wasn't included

    Regards
    An analysis of the Goulston Street Graffito would’ve been interesting too!

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by phantom View Post
      Hi Trevor

      I’m going to be honest and sheepishly admit I haven’t actually got Cook’s book!

      I have watched the documentary, followed discussions on Casebook and Forums at the time and listened to the podcast.

      • Can I please ask you - or anyone else out there who has the book - is the alleged handwriting of Frederick Best actually reproduced in the book?

      My understanding is that it wasn’t. Happy to find out the contrary and I would purchase a copy ASAP to see it!

      The concern I have is that all the evidence including the letter quoted in your post, was discovered by the author in private family papers and as far as I know the evidence isn’t in the public domain and hasn’t been subject to further scrutiny.

      I also note the author published an earlier book where he also reported letters from private family papers that apparently revealed that Rasputin was assassinated by British secret service. That theory is also in dispute.
      Hi
      I do have a copy of the book and I have read it (Paul Begg please take note)

      There are samples of Bests handwriting in the book in the chapter titled "The Hidden Hand" as well as detailed findings of his expert Elaine Quigley.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Spider View Post
        "Andrew Cook in 2009 engaged a handwriting expert to compare the writing of Bulling and Best. The result was that the expert concluded that Best was the most likely author of The Dear Boss letter."

        I personally have little confidence in 'experts' on handwriting etc. There is no proof on their findings just their opinion. We can all assess what we see before us and form an opinion, though it may not be correct. It is only an opinion that may or may not be proven.
        I remember vaguely the awful documentary with Vic Reeves, where his expert stated that a letter was written by an illiterate or uneducated writer as they'd omitted the letter 'e' from 'knife'. What sort of an expert were they when the so called 'illiterate' writer had managed to include the silent 'k'. And as to JTR experts, there is only a finite amount of knowledge to the case that is available to us all.
        Much of what you say regarding handwriting experts is very true, but we have not one, but several police officers from 1888 suggesting they had proof that the Dear Boss letter was the work of a journalist, and Cooks expert ruled out the other two likely candidates Thomas Bulling and Charles Moore.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by phantom View Post
          An analysis of the Goulston Street Graffito would’ve been interesting too!
          Even if you thought it was written by jack it wouldn’t be suitable for this type of analysis, it is too short.
          G U T

          There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
            Hi
            I do have a copy of the book and I have read it (Paul Begg please take note)

            There are samples of Bests handwriting in the book in the chapter titled "The Hidden Hand" as well as detailed findings of his expert Elaine Quigley.

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            Hi Trevor

            Thanks for the info re: Best's handwriting, much appreciated!
            Ok I'm getting a copy ASAP....

            Cheers

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by GUT View Post
              Even if you thought it was written by jack it wouldn’t be suitable for this type of analysis, it is too short.
              Nah! It's the way it's used.
              Actually GSG is five words longer than the minimum used in the analysis.

              Comment


              • #52
                It's all getting a bit biblical

                References to the Book of Ezekiel can be found from The New York Times, G.R Sims and a letter to the ST James Gazette on the 12th of November 1888 from someone signing themselves S.M, also notable for being a Jill the Ripper theory.
                How this helps with the authenticity of the Moab and Midian letter is open to speculation. Interesting though.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                  Much of what you say regarding handwriting experts is very true, but we have not one, but several police officers from 1888 suggesting they had proof that the Dear Boss letter was the work of a journalist, and Cooks expert ruled out the other two likely candidates Thomas Bulling and Charles Moore.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  yeah but none of them thought it was best. anyway, I need to re look into him a bit more because I thought he had been ruled out.

                  but you do have a point with him sending to CNA instead of his own paper.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    “Much of what you say regarding handwriting experts is very true, but we have not one, but several police officers from 1888 suggesting they had proof that the Dear Boss letter was the work of a journalist, and Cooks expert ruled out the other two likely candidates Thomas Bulling and Charles Moore.”

                    suggesting they had proof”?
                    Either they have it or they don’t.
                    Without seeing or being given the actual proof it is unsubstantiated, hearsay, and counts for little.

                    “but you do have a point with him sending to CNA instead of his own paper.”

                    ………… except of course the ‘journalist’ still addressed it to Central News OFFICE, and with the two day delay after writing it.
                    ‘There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact’ Sherlock Holmes

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Spider View Post
                      “Much of what you say regarding handwriting experts is very true, but we have not one, but several police officers from 1888 suggesting they had proof that the Dear Boss letter was the work of a journalist, and Cooks expert ruled out the other two likely candidates Thomas Bulling and Charles Moore.”

                      suggesting they had proof”?
                      Either they have it or they don’t.
                      Without seeing or being given the actual proof it is unsubstantiated, hearsay, and counts for little.

                      “but you do have a point with him sending to CNA instead of his own paper.”

                      ………… except of course the ‘journalist’ still addressed it to Central News OFFICE, and with the two day delay after writing it.
                      But they did appear to know the identity or suspect

                      Sir Robert Anderson, in his 1910 reminiscences, thought Jack “the creation of an enterprising London journalist . . . I am almost tempted to disclose the identity of . . . the pressman who wrote the letter . . . but no public benefit would result”

                      In 1913 ex-Chief Inspector Littlechild, in a private letter to journalist George R. Sims wrote, “With regard to the term ‘Jack the Ripper’ it was generally believed at the Yard that Tom Bullen of the Central News was the originator, but it is probable Moore, who was his chief, was the inventor.”

                      You have to ask why would someone send it to the CNA, and not direct to a specific newspaper or newspapers. The answer is that whoever did it would have known that it would get national and worldwide exposure which it did, and the Star would have been the first to break the story no doubt

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 02-06-2018, 12:57 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Anderson "thought", and Littlechild said it was "generally believed....". All down to personal theory but not proven.

                        “Dear Boss” letter (25th September 1888) gave rise to all subsequent “Jack the Ripper” communications in which the common purpose of their various authors was to taunt the recipients. It is reasonable to suppose that the inclination to write such letters would be accompanied by an urge to drop them into the nearest pillar box at the earliest opportunity. So, why did the originator of the name “Jack the Ripper” apparently wait two days before posting his now notorious missive? And why did he use two different writing implements?
                        If the letter was written by Sir R. Anderson’s “enterprising young journalist” in order to boost newspaper sales (as was one theory), he partly defeated his own objective in having missed the opportunity (by late posting) of an extra 48 hours increased newspaper vending. Further to this, the letter was addressed to “The Boss Central News Office” and not ‘Central News Agency’ as a journalist would have addressed it.
                        There are only two reasonable explanations which logically agree with both the two day time lapse in posting and the two different writing implements.

                        The first explanation is that the entire letter, including the second postscript, was written in one location only by the following means:
                        The author employed a pen dipped in red ink with which to write the main text and first postscript. Without apparently having run out of red ink he then put down his pen, rotated the letter sheet through ninety degrees of arc, and then picking up a red crayon pencil, added the second postscript at right angles to the main text. He then waited for two days before posting his letter.
                        Notice that, in this particular scenario, there is an obvious urge to write the letter which, when fulfilled, immediately gives way to a lack of urgency in posting it.

                        The second explanation is that the letter in its entirety, complete with second postscript, was written in two locations.

                        In the first location, its author wrote only the main text and first postscript using the available red ink. Being satisfied that his work was then complete, he decided to avoid posting it in his local vicinity because the franking mark on the envelope would reveal his approximate location. Instead, he decided to post his letter in another location (in this case London E.C.).
                        Either at the second location or in transit to that place, he had an afterthought which resulted in the second postscript being written, using the only portable writing implement he had upon his person (ie: a red crayon pencil). By that time, the letter sheet may have already been folded, leaving a blank area exposed on which it’s writer added the second postscript without noticing that it was at right angles to the main text.

                        In the first explanation, the lack of urgency in posting the letter contradicts the urgent desire to write it.
                        In the second explanation it could be argued that the first location was also in London, the only objection being that it doesn’t take two days to cross from one location in London to another. In any case, a hoaxer would be far less likely to be concerned about giving away his local postal area than would the murderer.
                        ‘There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact’ Sherlock Holmes

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Spider View Post
                          Anderson "thought", and Littlechild said it was "generally believed....". All down to personal theory but not proven.

                          “Dear Boss” letter (25th September 1888) gave rise to all subsequent “Jack the Ripper” communications in which the common purpose of their various authors was to taunt the recipients. It is reasonable to suppose that the inclination to write such letters would be accompanied by an urge to drop them into the nearest pillar box at the earliest opportunity. So, why did the originator of the name “Jack the Ripper” apparently wait two days before posting his now notorious missive? And why did he use two different writing implements?
                          If the letter was written by Sir R. Anderson’s “enterprising young journalist” in order to boost newspaper sales (as was one theory), he partly defeated his own objective in having missed the opportunity (by late posting) of an extra 48 hours increased newspaper vending. Further to this, the letter was addressed to “The Boss Central News Office” and not ‘Central News Agency’ as a journalist would have addressed it.
                          There are only two reasonable explanations which logically agree with both the two day time lapse in posting and the two different writing implements.

                          The first explanation is that the entire letter, including the second postscript, was written in one location only by the following means:
                          The author employed a pen dipped in red ink with which to write the main text and first postscript. Without apparently having run out of red ink he then put down his pen, rotated the letter sheet through ninety degrees of arc, and then picking up a red crayon pencil, added the second postscript at right angles to the main text. He then waited for two days before posting his letter.
                          Notice that, in this particular scenario, there is an obvious urge to write the letter which, when fulfilled, immediately gives way to a lack of urgency in posting it.

                          The second explanation is that the letter in its entirety, complete with second postscript, was written in two locations.

                          In the first location, its author wrote only the main text and first postscript using the available red ink. Being satisfied that his work was then complete, he decided to avoid posting it in his local vicinity because the franking mark on the envelope would reveal his approximate location. Instead, he decided to post his letter in another location (in this case London E.C.).
                          Either at the second location or in transit to that place, he had an afterthought which resulted in the second postscript being written, using the only portable writing implement he had upon his person (ie: a red crayon pencil). By that time, the letter sheet may have already been folded, leaving a blank area exposed on which it’s writer added the second postscript without noticing that it was at right angles to the main text.

                          In the first explanation, the lack of urgency in posting the letter contradicts the urgent desire to write it.
                          In the second explanation it could be argued that the first location was also in London, the only objection being that it doesn’t take two days to cross from one location in London to another. In any case, a hoaxer would be far less likely to be concerned about giving away his local postal area than would the murderer.
                          I dont intend to argue. I will let the facts from 1888 and the results of Andrew Cooks expert speak for themselves on this matter and let people draw their own conclusions. If you think the killer wrote the letter then it is up to you to prove that, when their is evidence which flies in the face of that belief.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Spider View Post
                            Anderson "thought", and Littlechild said it was "generally believed....". All down to personal theory but not proven.

                            “Dear Boss” letter (25th September 1888) gave rise to all subsequent “Jack the Ripper” communications in which the common purpose of their various authors was to taunt the recipients. It is reasonable to suppose that the inclination to write such letters would be accompanied by an urge to drop them into the nearest pillar box at the earliest opportunity. So, why did the originator of the name “Jack the Ripper” apparently wait two days before posting his now notorious missive? And why did he use two different writing implements?
                            If the letter was written by Sir R. Anderson’s “enterprising young journalist” in order to boost newspaper sales (as was one theory), he partly defeated his own objective in having missed the opportunity (by late posting) of an extra 48 hours increased newspaper vending. Further to this, the letter was addressed to “The Boss Central News Office” and not ‘Central News Agency’ as a journalist would have addressed it.
                            There are only two reasonable explanations which logically agree with both the two day time lapse in posting and the two different writing implements.

                            The first explanation is that the entire letter, including the second postscript, was written in one location only by the following means:
                            The author employed a pen dipped in red ink with which to write the main text and first postscript. Without apparently having run out of red ink he then put down his pen, rotated the letter sheet through ninety degrees of arc, and then picking up a red crayon pencil, added the second postscript at right angles to the main text. He then waited for two days before posting his letter.
                            Notice that, in this particular scenario, there is an obvious urge to write the letter which, when fulfilled, immediately gives way to a lack of urgency in posting it.

                            The second explanation is that the letter in its entirety, complete with second postscript, was written in two locations.

                            In the first location, its author wrote only the main text and first postscript using the available red ink. Being satisfied that his work was then complete, he decided to avoid posting it in his local vicinity because the franking mark on the envelope would reveal his approximate location. Instead, he decided to post his letter in another location (in this case London E.C.).
                            Either at the second location or in transit to that place, he had an afterthought which resulted in the second postscript being written, using the only portable writing implement he had upon his person (ie: a red crayon pencil). By that time, the letter sheet may have already been folded, leaving a blank area exposed on which it’s writer added the second postscript without noticing that it was at right angles to the main text.

                            In the first explanation, the lack of urgency in posting the letter contradicts the urgent desire to write it.
                            In the second explanation it could be argued that the first location was also in London, the only objection being that it doesn’t take two days to cross from one location in London to another. In any case, a hoaxer would be far less likely to be concerned about giving away his local postal area than would the murderer.
                            Great post spider.
                            I think these are great insight, but the main one being the fact it was sent to the. Central news office. A journalist would not have done that.

                            Then of course there’s the three things in the letters that probably only the killer knew:
                            Getting to work soon
                            Cutting the ear
                            Squealed a bit.

                            I could see a hoaxer getting lucky on one of these, but three?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                              Great post spider.
                              I think these are great insight, but the main one being the fact it was sent to the. Central news office. A journalist would not have done that.

                              Where would a journalist have sent it then ? Not to his own paper that would be too obvious

                              I wonder how many of the population knew of the existence of the CNA and what its role was ?

                              Then of course there’s the three things in the letters that probably only the killer knew:
                              Getting to work soon- I would suggest is a subjective statement
                              Cutting the ear - Part of Eddowes ear was cut off but not by design
                              Squealed a bit. - "No evidence to support this in any of the murders"

                              I could see a hoaxer getting lucky on one of these, but three?
                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                                Trevor
                                A journalist wouldn’t have made the mistake of addressing to central news OFFICE, instead of the correct central news AGENCY.

                                Getting to work soon-soon to me would be in this context within a day or two. The writer nailed it.

                                Cutting the ear. Eddowes ear was cut off. Maybe by accident. Maybe not.

                                Number two squealed a bit. Stride, according to Schwartz yelled out but not too loudly.
                                Again, the writer nailed it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X