6th October letter

[Aethelwulf]

Thoughts on whether this one could be genuine and if so, who was it intended for? Letter here: https://wiki.casebook.org/file_6octletter.html#metadata:

You though your-self very clever I reckon when you informed the police. But you made a mistake if you though I dident see you. Now I know you know me and I see your little game, and I mean to finish you and send your ears to your wife if you show this to the police or help them if you do I will finish you. It no use your trying to get out of my way. Because I have you when you dont expect it and I keep my word as you soon see and rip you up. Yours truly Jack the Ripper.

PS You see I know your address

Sent on the 6th October must mean Stride/Eddowes and I can't see 'But you made a mistake if you though I dident see you' referring to Schwartz, but could easily be JtR noticing Lawende out of the corner of his eye. Or could it be James Brown (as he made his way along Fairclough Street, he passed a man and woman standing by a wall). Wasn't there someone else that saw a couple and the man had a flower?

[Aethelwulf]

Wasn't there someone else that saw a couple and the man had a flower?

This guy. Text in red is for PI1 and his Nordic Sailor

William Marshall, examined by the Coroner, said: I reside at No. 64, Berner-street, and am a labourer at an indigo warehouse. I have seen the body at the mortuary. I saw the deceased on Saturday night last.
[Coroner] Where? - In our street, three doors from my house, about a quarter to twelve o'clock. She was on the pavement, opposite No. 58, between Fairclough-street and Boyd-street.
[Coroner] What was she doing? - She was standing talking to a man.
[Coroner] How do you know this was the same woman? - I recognise her both by her face and dress. She did not then have a flower in her breast.
[Coroner] Were the man and woman whom you saw talking quietly? - They were talking together.
[Coroner] Can you describe the man at all? - There was no gas-lamp near. The nearest was at the corner, about twenty feet off. I did not see the face of the man distinctly.
[Coroner] Did you notice how he was dressed? - In a black cut-away coat and dark trousers.
[Coroner] Was he young or old? - Middle-aged he seemed to be.
[Coroner] Was he wearing a hat? - No, a cap.
[Coroner] What sort of a cap? - A round cap, with a small peak. It was something like what a sailor would wear.
[Coroner] What height was he? - About 5ft. 6in.
[Coroner] Was he thin or stout? - Rather stout.
[Coroner] Did he look well dressed? - Decently dressed.
[Coroner] What class of man did he appear to be? - I should say he was in business, and did nothing like hard work.
[Coroner] Not like a dock labourer? - No.
[Coroner] Nor a sailor? - No.
[Coroner] Nor a butcher? - No.
[Coroner] A clerk? - He had more the appearance of a clerk.
[Coroner] Is that the best suggestion you can make? - It is.
[Coroner] You did not see his face. Had he any whiskers? - I cannot say. I do not think he had.
[Coroner] Was he wearing gloves? - No.
[Coroner] Was he carrying a stick or umbrella in his hands? - He had nothing in his hands that I am aware of.
[Coroner] You are quite sure that the deceased is the woman you saw? - Quite. I did not take much notice whether she was carrying anything in her hands.
[Coroner] What first attracted your attention to the couple? - By their standing there for some time, and he was kissing her.
[Coroner] Did you overhear anything they said? - I heard him say, "You would say anything but your prayers."
[Coroner] Different people talk in a different tone and in a different way. Did his voice give you the idea of a clerk? - Yes, he was mild speaking.
[Coroner] Did he speak like an educated man? - I thought so. I did not hear them say anything more. They went away after that. I did not hear the woman say anything, but after the man made that observation she laughed. They went away down the street, towards Ellen-street. They would not then pass No. 40 (the club).
[Coroner] How was the woman dressed? - In a black jacket and skirt.
[Coroner] Was either the worse for drink? - No, I thought not.
[Coroner] When did you go indoors? - About twelve o'clock.
[Coroner] Did you hear anything more that night? - Not till I heard that the murder had taken place, just after one o'clock. While I was standing at my door, from half-past eleven to twelve, there was no rain at all. The deceased had on a small black bonnet. The couple were standing between my house and the club for about ten minutes.
Detective-Inspector Reid: Then they passed you? - Yes.
A Juror: Did you not see the man's face as he passed? - No; he was looking towards the woman, and had his arm round her neck. There is a gas lamp at the corner of Boyd-street. It was not closing time when they passed me.

[Scott Nelson]

I'm going to venture a guess:

That it had something to do with the Imperial Club on Duke Street. The writer knew the address of the recipient and knew he had a wife. If the letter is genuine, it would seem to me that the writer may have been a member (or former member) of the club and knew the recipient, who was also a member, or recognized him. I'm going to suggest Joseph Hyam Levy as the possible recipient.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I'm going to venture a guess:

That it had something to do with the Imperial Club on Duke Street. The writer knew the address of the recipient and knew he had a wife. If the letter is genuine, it would seem to me that the writer may have been a member (or former member) of the club and knew the recipient, who was also a member, or recognized him. I'm going to suggest Joseph Hyam Levy as the possible recipient.

You ventured to guess that Anderson's witness was the same Joseph Hyam Levy in # 6 of The Seaside Home: Could Schwartz or Lawende Have Put the Ripper's Neck in a Noose?

I pointed out in # 493 of the same thread that Levy could not have been Anderson's witness:

We are asked to believe that he pretended not to recognise the suspect, nor to have got a good look at him, then admitted he did get a good look, then identified him, and only then, on learning (Anderson's word) that the suspect was Jewish, or (Swanson) that the suspect was also a Jew, refused to testify against him, even though he had known all along that the suspect [allegedly a relative of his] was Jewish.

In spite of being reminded of this refutation of your suggestion, you have never even replied.

[Trevor Marriott]

This guy. Text in red is for PI1 and his Nordic Sailor

William Marshall, examined by the Coroner, said: I reside at No. 64, Berner-street, and am a labourer at an indigo warehouse. I have seen the body at the mortuary. I saw the deceased on Saturday night last.
[Coroner] Where? - In our street, three doors from my house, about a quarter to twelve o'clock. She was on the pavement, opposite No. 58, between Fairclough-street and Boyd-street.
[Coroner] What was she doing? - She was standing talking to a man.
[Coroner] How do you know this was the same woman? - I recognise her both by her face and dress. She did not then have a flower in her breast.
[Coroner] Were the man and woman whom you saw talking quietly? - They were talking together.
[Coroner] Can you describe the man at all? - There was no gas-lamp near. The nearest was at the corner, about twenty feet off. I did not see the face of the man distinctly.
[Coroner] Did you notice how he was dressed? - In a black cut-away coat and dark trousers.
[Coroner] Was he young or old? - Middle-aged he seemed to be.
[Coroner] Was he wearing a hat? - No, a cap.
[Coroner] What sort of a cap? - A round cap, with a small peak. It was something like what a sailor would wear.
[Coroner] What height was he? - About 5ft. 6in.
[Coroner] Was he thin or stout? - Rather stout.
[Coroner] Did he look well dressed? - Decently dressed.
[Coroner] What class of man did he appear to be? - I should say he was in business, and did nothing like hard work.
[Coroner] Not like a dock labourer? - No.
[Coroner] Nor a sailor? - No.
[Coroner] Nor a butcher? - No.
[Coroner] A clerk? - He had more the appearance of a clerk.
[Coroner] Is that the best suggestion you can make? - It is.
[Coroner] You did not see his face. Had he any whiskers? - I cannot say. I do not think he had.
[Coroner] Was he wearing gloves? - No.
[Coroner] Was he carrying a stick or umbrella in his hands? - He had nothing in his hands that I am aware of.
[Coroner] You are quite sure that the deceased is the woman you saw? - Quite. I did not take much notice whether she was carrying anything in her hands.
[Coroner] What first attracted your attention to the couple? - By their standing there for some time, and he was kissing her.
[Coroner] Did you overhear anything they said? - I heard him say, "You would say anything but your prayers."
[Coroner] Different people talk in a different tone and in a different way. Did his voice give you the idea of a clerk? - Yes, he was mild speaking.
[Coroner] Did he speak like an educated man? - I thought so. I did not hear them say anything more. They went away after that. I did not hear the woman say anything, but after the man made that observation she laughed. They went away down the street, towards Ellen-street. They would not then pass No. 40 (the club).
[Coroner] How was the woman dressed? - In a black jacket and skirt.
[Coroner] Was either the worse for drink? - No, I thought not.
[Coroner] When did you go indoors? - About twelve o'clock.
[Coroner] Did you hear anything more that night? - Not till I heard that the murder had taken place, just after one o'clock. While I was standing at my door, from half-past eleven to twelve, there was no rain at all. The deceased had on a small black bonnet. The couple were standing between my house and the club for about ten minutes.
Detective-Inspector Reid: Then they passed you? - Yes.
A Juror: Did you not see the man's face as he passed? - No; he was looking towards the woman, and had his arm round her neck. There is a gas lamp at the corner of Boyd-street. It was not closing time when they passed me.

May I again remind researchers of the dangers with regard to Identification we have a witness who saw a couple, the witness states he didn't see the face of the man yet later identifies the victim at the mortuary by her face and clothes. At the time it was dark and the only light was a gas lamp 20 feet away.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Aethelwulf]

You ventured to guess that Anderson's witness was the same Joseph Hyam Levy in # 6 of The Seaside Home: Could Schwartz or Lawende Have Put the Ripper's Neck in a Noose?

I pointed out in # 493 of the same thread that Levy could not have been Anderson's witness:

We are asked to believe that he pretended not to recognise the suspect, nor to have got a good look at him, then admitted he did get a good look, then identified him, and only then, on learning (Anderson's word) that the suspect was Jewish, or (Swanson) that the suspect was also a Jew, refused to testify against him, even though he had known all along that the suspect [allegedly a relative of his] was Jewish.

In spite of being reminded of this refutation of your suggestion, you have never even replied.

Do us a favour and take your Anderson obsession elsewhere IP.

[Darryl Kenyon]

May I again remind researchers of the dangers with regard to Identification we have a witness who saw a couple, the witness states he didn't see the face of the man yet later identifies the victim at the mortuary by her face and clothes. At the time it was dark and the only light was a gas lamp 20 feet away.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor we all know the dangers of ID evidence especially in the present day . But we have to remind ourselves that this was 1888 . There was no DNA, nor forensics of virtually any kind. No CCTV, no pining mobile phone calls etc
I am not saying that ID's couldn't be wrong, of course they can, even today we can still see it. But back then it would have been a useful tool in murder enquires , especially in cases where there are no obvious suspects .

Regards Darryl

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor we all know the dangers of ID evidence especially in the present day . But we have to remind ourselves that this was 1888 . There was no DNA, nor forensics of virtually any kind. No CCTV, no pining mobile phone calls etc
I am not saying that ID's couldn't be wrong, of course they can, even today we can still see it. But back then it would have been a useful tool in murder enquires , especially in cases where there are no obvious suspects .

Regards Darryl

But any ID identification or a statement made as a result of back then would be even more contentious that in today's world of policing

We have witnesses ID victims at the mortuary when they only saw a fleeting glimpse of the alleged victim in almost total darkness.

And as a result we have researchers playing pin the tale on the donkey with trying to match a suspect or a victim to uncorroborated witness testimony

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Darryl Kenyon]

But any ID identification or a statement made as a result of back then would be even more contentious that in today's world of policing

We have witnesses ID victims at the mortuary when they only saw a fleeting glimpse of the alleged victim in almost total darkness.

And as a result we have researchers playing pin the tale on the donkey with trying to match a suspect or a victim to uncorroborated witness testimony

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We all know the problems of the potential ID Trevor. The point I am trying to make is that the police couldn't follow up any possible sighting of JTR with corroborative CCTV or a DNA test for example . What evidence could they procure, short of capturing the murderer in the act or a full confession ? It would mostly had have to have been circumstantial, with A possible sighting as part of that.

Regards Darryl

[Sam Flynn]

Interesting though it is, I suggest we stop arguing about eyewitness testimony under dim light, and discuss instead the authenticity of the October 6th letter. That is, after all, the subject of this thread.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Do us a favour and take your Anderson obsession elsewhere IP.

It is for Scott Nelson to respond to my point about Joseph Hyam Levy, which I made in answer to his point about Joseph Hyam Levy.

It is difficult to discuss anything here without Anderson's name coming up, with it probably being brought up more by his supporters here than his opponents.

Consequently, if you object to any mention of Anderson's name, perhaps you are the one who is posting in the wrong place.

[Aethelwulf]

Interesting though it is, I suggest we stop arguing about eyewitness testimony under dim light, and discuss instead the authenticity of the October 6th letter. That is, after all, the subject of this thread.

I'd be prepared to take a modest punt on this being genuine. It reads like a fairly convincing attempt at witness intimidation. He sounds genuinely angry and I guess that comes from fear of someone getting an extended, if not particularly good, look as at him. That must bring it down to Lawende, Levy or William Marshall that we know of. I'm sort of leaning towards Marshall because he was outside, very near his house for 15 minutes, although it doesn't sound like the couple were there that long. I wonder what he was actually doing out there, near his house at that time for a quarter of an hour? You would think talking to someone else but I can't see any mention of another person. Perhaps is door was open as he was only three doors away, and that his how he worked out his address, and perhaps subsequently staked it out. Does anyone know if he was married?

Alternatively, could JtR have known of Lawende's address by 6th October, as if JtR did see him it was only outside the club. The former club member line sounds a bit too convenient. The phrase 'you see I know your address' sounds more like something a total stranger would say, rather than an acquaintance.

[Sam Flynn]

I think it's very possible that the 6th October letter was by the same person who wrote the Dear Boss letter and Saucy Jack postcard. The tone/style is similar, as is the handwriting. This could be explained by someone copying the facsimiles of the two more famous missives, which were widely circulated in the papers, but I'm inclined to believe that they were by the same hand.

Whether it was written by the killer is another matter. I don't believe so, as the details could have been obtained by someone with access to the jungle grapevine and/or the newspapers. An "enterprising journalist" would fit the profile of potential hoaxer on both counts, as would a police officer.

[rjpalmer]

Does anyone know if he was married?

William Marshall - Jack the Ripper Wiki (casebook.org)

Check it, though; sometimes errors creep in these entries.

[rjpalmer]

Does anyone know if he was married?.

Yes, I just had a quick peek. He was with his wife, Mary, at 64 Berner Street in 1881, and they are still married in 1901, now living at 185 Cable Street.