Tweet
This letter fascinates me, real or not. For some of what I'm going to reference an image of the original is needed, not a transcript (pg 114 in Letters From Hell if you have it). That said, here is what it says,
10/11/88
WELL YOU SEE I'VE KEPT MY WORD, AND DONE FOR THE ONE I SAID I WOULD. I SUPPOSE YOU TOOK NO NOTICE OF WHAT I SAID. THOSE OTHER LETTERS WERE NOT WRITTEN BY ME AT ALL AND HAS SOME ONE HAS BEEN KIND ENOUGH TO GIVE ME THE NAME OF "JACK THE RIPPER" I'LL ACCEPT IT AND ACT UP TO IT. LOOK OUT FOR THE NEXT
P.S. YOU CAN'T TRACE ME BY THIS WRITING SO ITS NO USE ON THE POLICE STATIONS
For several reasons I'm drawn to this letter and there hasn't been much talk about it so I would like to stir some.
1. It's written in large case, not to shout but apparently for two reasons, i) to differentiate and make it stand out, ii) to make it readable, and iii) for the reason stated in the post script. Our writer, for whatever purpose, feels the need not only to disguise his handwriting but to tell us that's what he's doing. Alternatively, it could be a ploy to have the police not put the letter out in-case it would be traced. Either way he doesn't want anyone save the police to see this letter, apparently; this further differentiates him from the gloating others who send to News Agencies and so forth. He also wants it to be clearly understood and legible (unlike many JTR chicken scrawls - 'from Hell' anyone?!) Alongside this, it's written in black ink when the 'JTR fashion' is red, with some writers apologising for not using red. Our writer isn't bothered about blood imitation or suchlike. In this our writer has gone all out to make sure he's not aligned with any of those 'other letters' not only by writing so, but by formatting his letter differently. Of course, this doesn't make it real. Any hoaxer could do this. Just food for thought. None of those other letters were written by him 'AT ALL'. Very emphatic indeed.
2. He doesn't correct himself....and then he corrects himself. As all have seen, he writes, '[A]nd has someone has been kind enough...' when he obviously means 'as'. I am of the opinion, of course others may and will differ, that this isn't a schoolboy error, but that he intentionally wrote 'has' with a view to a different sentence but changed his mind, leaving the 'h' for some reason. The overall spelling and grammar lead me to believe that he knows the difference between 'as' and 'has'. Perhaps he left the H so as not to scribble it and make a mess of the letter, which he has gone to lengths to make pretty neat. He then, however, to my discredit, does write over a letter - an 'A', which he replaces with an 'S' in 'SO ITS', which appears to me pretty plain in the original. After this he also misses the apostrophe in 'ITS'. IOW he becomes a little sloppy towards the end, apparently. He demonstrates correct apostrophe use in 'I'LL' and 'CAN'T', as well as air quotes in the sobriquet. Still, he misses full stops after 'NEXT' and in the last line.
3. Look out for the next what? Letter? Victim? What? Context seems to indicate next victim and if this is the case this letter is likely fake if you believe the murders ended with MJK. There are also no other known letters by this writer, so that also seems suspicious. Still, he could have been incapacitated somehow, died, been arrested on other charges; we don't know - there could be any reason for neither of these things happening. Or the letter could be fake. Or he did kill again. Ah, the questions.
4. The first two lines make no sense at all. At first blush it seems he's talking, and could well be and probably is, about a former letter of which we have no copy. However, our writer uses 'SAID'. Obviously the rebuttal to this is, We all generally write 'said' to indicate something we infact wrote, not spoke; but what if our writer is referring to actual speech? It seems highly unlikely but in absence of a former letter and his repudiating all other letters it could seem plausible. Personally, I very much doubt it and believe that when he writes 'THOSE OTHER LETTERS WERE NOT WRITTEN BY ME[...]' he is actually referring to other letters besides his original about which he talks in the opening. Again, just thinking aloud.
5. This letter writer holds to himself. His opening statement is 'WELL YOU SEE I'VE KEPT MY WORD[...]. He is retaining a kind of honour here. He says and then he does. He plans. This is a far cry from the 'disorganised killer' JTR is traditionally seen as being as 'I'VE DONE FOR THE ONE I SAID I WOULD', if referring to a victim, acknowledges preplanning not opportunism. Again this could potentially be seen as a strike against letter authenticity. The neat way in which the letter is written and formatted also suggests a highly organised individual. Even the paper itself is a square.
6. If it's a hoax it's a pretty boring one
7. He accepts the nickname of 'JACK THE RIPPER' but doesn't sign off with it. He leaves no signature whatsoever and apparently his letter was supposed to end, 'LOOK OUT FOR THE NEXT'. 'Oh and by the way you can't trace me' is an afterthought. IOW the last thing on his mind is being caught. There's the ego. He also thinks that his letter is worthy of being put on the police stations in the first place, for some reason, when we don't even have any trace of the original he apparently sent that, if once existent, went completely ignored - so what makes him think that this one will be displayed is anyone's guess. He realises that 'NO NOTICE' was taken of what he apparently said. He's pretty adamant about this - it's the whole thrust of his letter: that he did what he said he would and no-one bothered paying it any attention. ('Now I've ripped MJK to shreds, maybe NOW you'll notice me?!?')
Whew. O.K. done. Rip me apart
10/11/88
WELL YOU SEE I'VE KEPT MY WORD, AND DONE FOR THE ONE I SAID I WOULD. I SUPPOSE YOU TOOK NO NOTICE OF WHAT I SAID. THOSE OTHER LETTERS WERE NOT WRITTEN BY ME AT ALL AND HAS SOME ONE HAS BEEN KIND ENOUGH TO GIVE ME THE NAME OF "JACK THE RIPPER" I'LL ACCEPT IT AND ACT UP TO IT. LOOK OUT FOR THE NEXT
P.S. YOU CAN'T TRACE ME BY THIS WRITING SO ITS NO USE ON THE POLICE STATIONS
For several reasons I'm drawn to this letter and there hasn't been much talk about it so I would like to stir some.
1. It's written in large case, not to shout but apparently for two reasons, i) to differentiate and make it stand out, ii) to make it readable, and iii) for the reason stated in the post script. Our writer, for whatever purpose, feels the need not only to disguise his handwriting but to tell us that's what he's doing. Alternatively, it could be a ploy to have the police not put the letter out in-case it would be traced. Either way he doesn't want anyone save the police to see this letter, apparently; this further differentiates him from the gloating others who send to News Agencies and so forth. He also wants it to be clearly understood and legible (unlike many JTR chicken scrawls - 'from Hell' anyone?!) Alongside this, it's written in black ink when the 'JTR fashion' is red, with some writers apologising for not using red. Our writer isn't bothered about blood imitation or suchlike. In this our writer has gone all out to make sure he's not aligned with any of those 'other letters' not only by writing so, but by formatting his letter differently. Of course, this doesn't make it real. Any hoaxer could do this. Just food for thought. None of those other letters were written by him 'AT ALL'. Very emphatic indeed.
2. He doesn't correct himself....and then he corrects himself. As all have seen, he writes, '[A]nd has someone has been kind enough...' when he obviously means 'as'. I am of the opinion, of course others may and will differ, that this isn't a schoolboy error, but that he intentionally wrote 'has' with a view to a different sentence but changed his mind, leaving the 'h' for some reason. The overall spelling and grammar lead me to believe that he knows the difference between 'as' and 'has'. Perhaps he left the H so as not to scribble it and make a mess of the letter, which he has gone to lengths to make pretty neat. He then, however, to my discredit, does write over a letter - an 'A', which he replaces with an 'S' in 'SO ITS', which appears to me pretty plain in the original. After this he also misses the apostrophe in 'ITS'. IOW he becomes a little sloppy towards the end, apparently. He demonstrates correct apostrophe use in 'I'LL' and 'CAN'T', as well as air quotes in the sobriquet. Still, he misses full stops after 'NEXT' and in the last line.
3. Look out for the next what? Letter? Victim? What? Context seems to indicate next victim and if this is the case this letter is likely fake if you believe the murders ended with MJK. There are also no other known letters by this writer, so that also seems suspicious. Still, he could have been incapacitated somehow, died, been arrested on other charges; we don't know - there could be any reason for neither of these things happening. Or the letter could be fake. Or he did kill again. Ah, the questions.
4. The first two lines make no sense at all. At first blush it seems he's talking, and could well be and probably is, about a former letter of which we have no copy. However, our writer uses 'SAID'. Obviously the rebuttal to this is, We all generally write 'said' to indicate something we infact wrote, not spoke; but what if our writer is referring to actual speech? It seems highly unlikely but in absence of a former letter and his repudiating all other letters it could seem plausible. Personally, I very much doubt it and believe that when he writes 'THOSE OTHER LETTERS WERE NOT WRITTEN BY ME[...]' he is actually referring to other letters besides his original about which he talks in the opening. Again, just thinking aloud.
5. This letter writer holds to himself. His opening statement is 'WELL YOU SEE I'VE KEPT MY WORD[...]. He is retaining a kind of honour here. He says and then he does. He plans. This is a far cry from the 'disorganised killer' JTR is traditionally seen as being as 'I'VE DONE FOR THE ONE I SAID I WOULD', if referring to a victim, acknowledges preplanning not opportunism. Again this could potentially be seen as a strike against letter authenticity. The neat way in which the letter is written and formatted also suggests a highly organised individual. Even the paper itself is a square.
6. If it's a hoax it's a pretty boring one
7. He accepts the nickname of 'JACK THE RIPPER' but doesn't sign off with it. He leaves no signature whatsoever and apparently his letter was supposed to end, 'LOOK OUT FOR THE NEXT'. 'Oh and by the way you can't trace me' is an afterthought. IOW the last thing on his mind is being caught. There's the ego. He also thinks that his letter is worthy of being put on the police stations in the first place, for some reason, when we don't even have any trace of the original he apparently sent that, if once existent, went completely ignored - so what makes him think that this one will be displayed is anyone's guess. He realises that 'NO NOTICE' was taken of what he apparently said. He's pretty adamant about this - it's the whole thrust of his letter: that he did what he said he would and no-one bothered paying it any attention. ('Now I've ripped MJK to shreds, maybe NOW you'll notice me?!?')
Whew. O.K. done. Rip me apart
Comment