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

[Joshua Rogan]

"Anyway, I don’t think anyone from the cna hoaxed any of the letters. Why hoax a letter and then hold it back before sending to police? The whole reason was supposedly to drum up business, and if you held back the letter, you could get scooped by someone else or the killer himself! Nope you’d want to send it off as soon as you were done with it."

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

Doesn't this just mean that it was directed to the office of the Central News (i.e. where their business was carried out) rather than misnaming the company?

The official notepaper with which the "Dear Boss" letter was forwarded by Bulling to the police was headed The Central News Limited, and he writes that the letter "was sent the Central News two days ago". No mention of Agency.

[Trevor Marriott]

SEE ISRAEL SCHWARTZ STATEMENT

However can you or Abby suggest that pushing a woman over in the street and her shouting back at the person equates to the term she squealed. You are both deluded another example of square pegs in a round hole.

- A PIECE OF EAR WAS FOUND AMONGST HER CLOTHING WHEN SHE WAS STRIPPED AT THE MORTUARY.

yes, and so if he had time to take a piece he would have had time to take both ears in any event he took neither/

, HE STATES IN THE LETTER HE DIDN`T HAVE TIME TO GET THE EARS FOR THE POLICE AS PROMISED.

But he had time to cut a piece off according to your belief in the letter

NEITHER WAS HER KIDNEY

You are correct but he never said in any letter he was going to take other body parts did he ?

-SEE FOSTERS DIAGRAM OF EDDOWES HEAD.

[B] And if you read Brown report the deep wounds to the throat were on the right side consistent with Fosters drawing

One has to wonder why, if a journalistic invention, that a journalist who seems one step ahead of the pack, didn`t just write a journalistic piece for his newspaper, instead of pretending to be the killer, sending it to a central news agency and asking for it to be held back.

Perhaps by asking to hold it back it would give the Star newspaper an advantage over their rivals because the journalistic piece would already have been written when the news of the letter finally broke

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Ample opportunity? Yes, really. He had time enough to remove a uterus, a kidney and a section of colon; cutting off both ears (plural) would have taken mere seconds, and taking them away so he could subsequently send them to the police (which he did not do) would have taken no time at all.

[Jon Guy]

Of course, "Saucy Jack" only refers to his not being able to cut off Stride's ears (plural),

He actually wrote that he didn`t have time to get ears for police.
Which could mean he cut one off, dropped it and couldn`t find it when he heard Watkins.

when he had ample opportunity to do so in Mitre Square.

Ample opportunity. Really ?

[Sam Flynn]

Of course, "Saucy Jack" only refers to his not being able to cut off Stride's ears (plural), but makes no claim to have (partially) succeeded in cutting off Eddowes' ear (singular). This indicates that he had no knowledge of the latter when he wrote the postcard. In neither murder did he clip off both ears and send them to the police, when he had ample opportunity to do so in Mitre Square.

[Jon Guy]

[B]Did any of the victims scream ? if they did we have no evidence to that effect -

SEE ISRAEL SCHWARTZ STATEMENT

Was an ear cut off by design. No a piece of Eddowes ear fell off when the body was being stripped

- A PIECE OF EAR WAS FOUND AMONGST HER CLOTHING WHEN SHE WAS STRIPPED AT THE MORTUARY.

,

if the killer had done what he said in the letter he would have done a better job, and may have then taken it away as a trophy. -

HE STATES IN THE LETTER HE DIDN`T HAVE TIME TO GET THE EARS FOR THE POLICE AS PROMISED.

and was not noted as missing at the crime scene,

NEITHER WAS HER KIDNEY

so it must have only been a small portion of the ear

-SEE FOSTERS DIAGRAM OF EDDOWES HEAD.

One has to wonder why, if a journalistic invention, that a journalist who seems one step ahead of the pack, didn`t just write a journalistic piece for his newspaper, instead of pretending to be the killer, sending it to a central news agency and asking for it to be held back.

[Jon Guy]

[I]
The points made by Abby are contemporaneous documented facts.

Agreed !!

[Trevor Marriott]

"I don't 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."

But now you are trying to turn 'thoughts' and 'general beliefs' of the time into FACT.
It may be a fact that they may have thought or believed something at the time, but what they thought or believed is not a FACT.

Now you are arguing against yourself

And there is no ACTUAL evidence flying in the face of belief, just thoughts, beliefs and an opinion of an 'expert'.

And that is a lot more than you and others wanting to accept without question the fact that the killer wrote the letter

The points made by Abby are contemporaneous documented facts.

yes but with flaws in them !

Did any of the victims scream ? if they did we have no evidence to that effect

Was an ear cut off by design. No a piece of Eddowes ear fell off when the body was being stripped, if the killer had done what he said in the letter he would have done a better job, and may have then taken it away as a trophy. The piece was most likely cut in the process of the throat being cut, and was not noted as missing at the crime scene, so it must have only been a small portion of the ear

More murders to follow as previously stated a subjective statement that may or may not have resulted in what was written

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Spider]

"I don't 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."

But now you are trying to turn 'thoughts' and 'general beliefs' of the time into FACT.
It may be a fact that they may have thought or believed something at the time, but what they thought or believed is not a FACT.

And there is no ACTUAL evidence flying in the face of belief, just thoughts, beliefs and an opinion of an 'expert'.

The points made by Abby are contemporaneous documented facts.

[Abby Normal]

As usual you are making it up as you go along !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And just when I thought to take you seriously again Trevor.

I won’t make that mistake again.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

As usual you are making it up as you go along !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

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?

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk