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

[James_J]

Just passing this along from KS :-

I was just pondering this point myself...
As far as I can tell, there's no corroboration of the two letters' existence outside the Central News before the 1st Oct. Yes, the Dear Boss envelope wad postmarked 27th Sept, but there's no way to be sure the letter (or that version of the letter) was inside it. It's easy enough to put a false date at thr top of a letter if you're faking it. Likewise, without proof of when Dear Boss was received by the police, it remains possible that it was written (or rewritten) and forwarded to Mr Williamson after the Double Event had occurred, but with the covering letter dated the day before.

TO JOSHUA ROGAN

Thank you Joshua. I was tending to take the letter of September 25th 1888, (plus envelope), together with the accompanying letter of September 29th 1888 at face value, without giving consideration to the possibility of a false date being added or it being rewritten or replaced by another letter.

The “Dear Boss” letter, as you know, was returned anonymously to Scotland Yard in November 1987. In August 1988, Martin Fido sent to me a photocopy of the envelope taped to its original backing sheet and you can see tape marks on the left hand side of the backing sheet which is where the original letter was fixed at the edges. The corresponding matching tape marks are, I believe, still discernible on the original letter. On the top right hand corner of the backing sheet, (which measures 13 inches by 8 inches), is some writing which I have always found of interest. At the top is an original 2, not to be confused with the ringed 4 underneath which had been added, (possibly by National Archives staff for folio pagination purposes) by the time I came to photograph the letter in July 1996. I had often wondered what was on backing page 1, allowing both letter and envelope had been exhibited as one item which, from the original presentation, seemed to be the case? The contemporary writing, which I photographed in detail, was as follows:-


(In black ink) 25th Sept 1888

London E.C



(In red ink) See 20 A & 21 & 3

Anonys Letters

I did try in vain to try and match those references to the other letters in the file but was unsuccessful.

Not sure if that gets us anywhere beyond a clearer state of confusion!

Incidentally, again as I’m sure everybody is aware, in July 1892 both Bulling and Moore visited the Black Museum at Scotland Yard together giving the Central News Agency at New Bridge Street as their address.

Best Wishes

Keith

[Sam Flynn]

I think it more likely, taking into account of Dear Boss, that the ear was deliberately clipped, than accidentally removed.

Why not both ears, as per Dear Boss, though? Why was the one ear left at the scene and not taken away? Why not mention anything of what happened to Eddowes in Saucy Jack postcard? She's just an oblique reference as one half of a "Double Event", but nothing else is said about her at all, still less the (partly) successful removal of one ear. Stride is at least given the honour of being mentioned in the postcard as the "first one" and the - possibly made up - reference to her screaming a bit. But Eddowes... no mention at all.

[Jon Guy]

Why not both ears, as per Dear Boss, though?

No time, according to Saucy Jack.

Why was the one ear left at the scene and not taken away?

I can only hazard a guess (from what we know of the crime scene) that it was lost in Eddowes clothing.

Why not mention anything of what happened to Eddowes in Saucy Jack postcard?

He may have done. It was written on a postcard and was the writer was running out of space and the ha no time to get ears could have been referring to Eddowes.

[David Orsam]

And address it to Central News OFFICE rather than Agency as well!

The Athenaeum, 7 August 1875 - Advertisement:

"PRESS-SESSION 1875-6 – Advertiser, experienced in Verbatim and Abridged REPORTING, desires a LONDON ENGAGEMENT. Sessional or Annual. Well recommended – S. Central News Office, London E.C."

The Observer, 23 May 1880

"A Mallow telegram to the Central News office states…."

Croydon Guardian and Surrey County Gazette, 21 June 1882

"CENTRAL NEWS OFFICE: A Central News telegram from St Petersburg, to-day, states…."

Times, leader, 9 November 1883:

"A request sent off the same day from the Central News office for further information was answered by another telegram…."

Croydon Guardian and Surrey County Gazette, 24 July 1886:

"LATEST INTELLIGENCE. Central News Office. Friday….."

Times, Law Report, 30 November 1886:

"The papers had no right to take telegrams from the Central News Office and publish them if libellous."

Times, 22 May 1895

"The following letter [from the manager of the Times] was delivered at the Central News Office at midday on Saturday. No answer has yet been received".

...

"The manager of The Times presents his compliments to the manager of the Central News…."

[Sam Flynn]

No time, according to Saucy Jack.

The "had not time" is used in the context of "the first one", i.e. Stride. Apropos Eddowes, if he had enough time to extract her kidney, uterus and dissect a section of colon, to say nothing of disfiguring her face and lopping off her nose, he had plenty of time to cut off both her ears.

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 think I'll leave them to it.

[Abby Normal]

The "had not time" is used in the context of "the first one", i.e. Stride. Apropos Eddowes, if he had enough time to extract her kidney, uterus and dissect a section of colon, to say nothing of disfiguring her face and lopping off her nose, he had plenty of time to cut off both her ears.

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 think I'll leave them to it.

of course he wrote them Sam..I mean cmon, theyre clearly signed Jack the Ripper. ; )

[phantom]

Frederick Best's letter

Hi all

I don’t want to derail this thread but wanted to reply with my thoughts re: Frederick Best’s alleged handwriting as reproduced in Andrew Cook’s Jack The Ripper (2009) since I’ve been talking about it on this thread (and thanks to Trevor Marriott for getting me onto that book I DL the kindle version).

I’d have to say I’m even more unconvinced than ever re: Cook’s evidence.

Potentially one of the biggest discoveries of Ripperology i.e. Frederick Best’s hand writing being in the same hand as Dear Boss, and I was immediately struck by the fact that the reproduction of the letter (allegedly Frederick Best’s) is cropped and only shows a random three lines of text.

That’s three sentences only.

It’s also written in French.

And crucially Frederick Best’s signature is not reproduced.

The letter is also apparently dated to “sometime in the late 1890’s”. Was there not a date on it?

Elaine Quigley is also a graphologist. Not a forensic document examiner.

http://www.elainequigley.co.uk/services/

Dr. Quigley’s report as reproduced in the book could be split into 2 halves. The first half is an attempt to analyse the mood, character and emotions of the writer i.e. graphology.

The second half is an attempt to compare “Best’s” handwriting with Dear Boss (Saucy Jacky doesn’t appear to have been included).

Both writers “A’s”, “D’s”, “E’s”, “F’s”, “L’s”, “M’s”, “N’s”, “R’s”, “S’s” and “T’s” are examined.

The number “5” is also examined and considered the clincher – however the problem with this is that the number “5” does not appear anywhere in the 3 lines of French purported to be written by Frederick Best.

I’m just left wondering why in a 296 page book that includes 31 (Kindle) pages of other plates/illustrations including Dear Boss and Saucy Jack in full, the entire Best letter wasn’t reproduced.

Since the alleged Best letter has not been reproduced in full (not even his signature) and as far as I know hasn’t been available for wider scrutiny I’m going to have to stick with my original opinion that the case against Frederick Best is far from proven.

BTW Dr Quigley has also identified Tumblety as JTR… and the author of From Hell.

Here’s Dr. Quigley’s analysis of the 6 most evil scrawls in history - Tumblety as JTR is #2.

Biographical details given for a Tumblety a bit off too and Catherine Eddowes appears to have mistaken for Annie Chapman.

http://www.penheaven.co.uk/blog/graphology-most-evil-handwriting/

[phantom]

Trevor

No-ones claiming both ears were severed.
But someone swiped one off. Look at Fosters sketch

I agree with you Jon Guy.

I believe the killer wrote Dear Boss and Saucy Jack and possibly more including Moab and Midian and the “threat letter” postmarked 8/10/88. IMO the killer also wrote the GSC.

But I’m not a zealot about it. Don’t let it interfere with my consideration of potential JTR candidates and I’m absolutely willing to consider that the hoax/enterprising journalist theory could also be true.

As I said previously if I had to pick a particular ‘enterprising journalist’ I’d go with Moore/Bulling but that’s only because Littlechild named them. I actually find the case against them weak.

IMO I don’t believe that Eddowes sliced ear was an incidental injury caused by slitting the throat or random slashing and hacking.

I believe that the sketch by Foster shows that her facial mutilations were deliberate. There is even some symmetry of wounds when you look at the cuts to the eyes and the “inverted Vs”. This would rule out random slashing and hacking. And I find it hard to understand when you look at the neck wound how that would be responsible for the cut ear.

And then there’s the (improbable?) coincidence that Dear Boss makes the promise to clip ears and Catherine Eddowes did have a sliced ear that even fell off.

Why he didn’t take the ears is only conjecture. Given that the object of his desires seemed to be abdominal mutilations he may have just been absorbed with that and whatever ritual or satisfaction he got from it and when it came to taking the ear(s) he was quite possibly disturbed.

I think with JTR we have to remember that he was a deeply disturbed individual and these people do not always act in a rational way and may at times exhibit behaviour and decision making that we from our comfortable distance and sane minds find bizarre and unfathomable.

[GUT]

Hi all

I don’t want to derail this thread but wanted to reply with my thoughts re: Frederick Best’s alleged handwriting as reproduced in Andrew Cook’s Jack The Ripper (2009) since I’ve been talking about it on this thread (and thanks to Trevor Marriott for getting me onto that book I DL the kindle version).

I’d have to say I’m even more unconvinced than ever re: Cook’s evidence.

Potentially one of the biggest discoveries of Ripperology i.e. Frederick Best’s hand writing being in the same hand as Dear Boss, and I was immediately struck by the fact that the reproduction of the letter (allegedly Frederick Best’s) is cropped and only shows a random three lines of text.

That’s three sentences only.

It’s also written in French.

And crucially Frederick Best’s signature is not reproduced.

The letter is also apparently dated to “sometime in the late 1890’s”. Was there not a date on it?

Elaine Quigley is also a graphologist. Not a forensic document examiner.

http://www.elainequigley.co.uk/services/

Dr. Quigley’s report as reproduced in the book could be split into 2 halves. The first half is an attempt to analyse the mood, character and emotions of the writer i.e. graphology.

The second half is an attempt to compare “Best’s” handwriting with Dear Boss (Saucy Jacky doesn’t appear to have been included).

Both writers “A’s”, “D’s”, “E’s”, “F’s”, “L’s”, “M’s”, “N’s”, “R’s”, “S’s” and “T’s” are examined.

The number “5” is also examined and considered the clincher – however the problem with this is that the number “5” does not appear anywhere in the 3 lines of French purported to be written by Frederick Best.

I’m just left wondering why in a 296 page book that includes 31 (Kindle) pages of other plates/illustrations including Dear Boss and Saucy Jack in full, the entire Best letter wasn’t reproduced.

Since the alleged Best letter has not been reproduced in full (not even his signature) and as far as I know hasn’t been available for wider scrutiny I’m going to have to stick with my original opinion that the case against Frederick Best is far from proven.

BTW Dr Quigley has also identified Tumblety as JTR… and the author of From Hell.

Here’s Dr. Quigley’s analysis of the 6 most evil scrawls in history - Tumblety as JTR is #2.

Biographical details given for a Tumblety a bit off too and Catherine Eddowes appears to have mistaken for Annie Chapman.

http://www.penheaven.co.uk/blog/grap...l-handwriting/

Graphology. About on par with Astrology.

[Jon Guy]

The "had not time" is used in the context of "the first one", i.e. Stride. Apropos Eddowes, if he had enough time to extract her kidney, uterus and dissect a section of colon, to say nothing of disfiguring her face and lopping off her nose, he had plenty of time to cut off both her ears.

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 think I'll leave them to it.

Ok thanks for that.

Do you address the clipped ear in By Accident or Design? A Critical Analysis of the Murder of Catherine Eddowes ?

I couldn`t see it mentioned.

[Sam Flynn]

Ok thanks for that.

Do you address the clipped ear in By Accident or Design? A Critical Analysis of the Murder of Catherine Eddowes ?

I couldn`t see it mentioned.

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 significantly affected (b) either.

I should add that another reason for writing the essay was to question the killer's alleged surgical skill. As any bozo can lop off an ear, it has little relevance in that respect either.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.