6th October letter

[Trevor Marriott]

I am no Anderson fan, but he was merely a puppet for Monro. Monro ran the met, regardless of Warren's position at the time. He had the respect of and influence over Special Branch, CID and all of the senior officers. Swanson was loyal to Anderson, and Anderson was loyal to Monro. Monro was a ruthless politico.

Anderson wasn't the string puller. Monro was.

Clutterbuck specifically mentions Monro from the SB ledgers, and refers to a sentence in a memorandum from the Home Secretary Henry Matthews sent in 1888 to his Private Secretary Evelyn Ruggles-Brise that read: “Stimulate the Police about the Whitechapel murders. Monro might be willing to give a hint to the CID people if necessary.”

James Monro following his resignation as Metropolitan Police Commissioner, November 1890 stated:
“The police had nothing positive in the way of clues about the identity of the Ripper.”

As far as Monro is concerned, it could have been not so much a matter of discretion on his part as a case of ignorance. We do know he had a theory because in 1890 he told Cassell’s Magazine he had “decidedly” formed a theory and stated, “When I do theorize it is from a practical standpoint and not upon any visionary foundation.”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

^^

Agreed. Also, although it was dated 6th October, I believe it was post-marked (in Northwest London) on the 8th. Either the author back-dated the letter a day or two after reading the papers, or (s)he wasn't in a particular hurry to post it. Both alternatives militate against its actually being written by the killer, I'd suggest.

[Joshua Rogan]

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.

Surely no coincidence that the inquest evidence of Marshall and Brown - including their addresses - appeared in the morning papers on 6th October.

Lawende's wasn't reported until the 12th.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Gareth and Welcome back!

I am curious to your statement about the Police Officer? What do you mean with that statement?

I ask because I am with you to some extent on that. Here's why. The author of the postcard states "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." I take from this, the author was saying the witness went to the police with information and was seen doing it. That could certainly have been another policeman. The author goes on, " Now I know you know me and I see your little game..." What game? To claim a reward or a pardon, perhaps?

Hello Jerry

I meant that someone with "inside info" - like, for example, a policeman or a journalist - could have written these letters/postcards, using whatever they'd heard on the grapevine to give their writing a ring of authenticity, however vague.

[erobitha]

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.

I am no Anderson fan, but he was merely a puppet for Monro. Monro ran the met, regardless of Warren's position at the time. He had the respect of and influence over Special Branch, CID and all of the senior officers. Swanson was loyal to Anderson, and Anderson was loyal to Monro. Monro was a ruthless politico.

Anderson wasn't the string puller. Monro was.

[Aethelwulf]

"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." I take from this, the author was saying the witness went to the police with information and was seen doing it. That could certainly have been another policeman. The author goes on, " Now I know you know me and I see your little game..." What game? To claim a reward or a pardon, perhaps?

Interesting idea but perhaps it's taking it a bit too literally. It would mean he was stalking him and followed him to the police station. Sounds a bit unrealistic. I think it's more likely that he's spent the best part of ten minutes all over stride like a rash and was aware of being watched on and off.

Perhaps 'little game' is just a phrase he likes as in dear boss (my funny little games).

[jerryd]

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.

Hi Gareth and Welcome back!

I am curious to your statement about the Police Officer? What do you mean with that statement?

I ask because I am with you to some extent on that. Here's why. The author of the postcard states "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." I take from this, the author was saying the witness went to the police with information and was seen doing it. That could certainly have been another policeman. The author goes on, " Now I know you know me and I see your little game..." What game? To claim a reward or a pardon, perhaps?

[jerryd]

The interesting thing I see about this postcard is where it was found. It was found on the ground in Croydon between Princess Road and Selhurst Railway Station. The question is, was it actually sent to the person intended, or did the writer get cold feet before sending it and discard it? Or, did the intended person receive it and discard it taking the advice of the author?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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