'Ripper' letters which disavow or don't acknowledge the 'Ripper' sobriquet

[Defective Detective]

I don't actually disagree with you, in that I also consider the Lusk letter the likeliest communication from the killer. My point is only that several of the other letters have qualities to recommend them as being of a comparable authenticity to 'From Hell', and certainly likelier than either 'Dear Boss' or 'Saucy Jacky'.

In particular, September 24 and "10/11/88", I think, are likelier than any letters outside of the Lusk saga to come from the killer - while I doubt either did, I at least incline to the view that nothing absolutely rules them out, and that both are intriguing. Skinner and Evans make a point of showing that the pseudonym 'Jack The Ripper' wasn't popularized before the 'double event' of September 30, and would just have entered popular circulation when the author of "10/11/88" reacted to it.

If I were to rank them on a scale of 0-100, say, the collective kidney letters might get a 55%, those two I've mentioned a 35%, 'Dear Boss' and the postcard (and maybe also 'Moab and Midian', on the basis that it disavows the Whitehall mystery, which a news-savvy hoaxer might wish to claim for effect) a 5%, and the rest a zero.

[Defective Detective]

I must correct myself on a point in the OP: the Openshaw letter is signed off as being from 'Jack The Ripper'. I'm not sure how I missed this. It certainly does make it more questionable to me whether or not it's written by the same hand as 'From Hell'.

Also, 'Tom Bullen' ought to be 'Tom Bulling'.

[The Good Michael]

Generally I am more skeptical of letters that say "I've done [x], [y] more and I'm done" than otherwise. September 24 and "10/11/88" have the advantage, for me, of avoiding this format.

The 24th letter does say, "I'm done...I killed Chapman and I'm done" Then there's the statement unrelated to anything else saying, "I may do it again." I believe it's, again, a way for the writer to perhaps be able to write another letter in the future so he's covering the options. Seems fake enough to me.

Mike

[DJA]

spirits of wine, not the sort of liquid an ordinary householder would have in those days.

The question remains though, where did the Lusk kidney come from?

These men have gigantic egos.

What us hillbillies call moonshine.White lightnin'!
Pommies add some herbs,water it down and call it gin.
Ginny kidney

Catherine Eddowes.

Repress an ego for long enough......

[Joshua Rogan]

if "10/11/88" is authentic, for instance, then 'From Hell' cannot be, as its author explicitly denied writing "THOSE OTHER LETTERS"

And yet, it also says "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."
So how did the writer previously get in touch, if not by letter?

[Abby Normal]

Of all the purported Ripper writings the following stand out to me as being authentic in order of probability:

GSG
From hell
Dear boss/saucy jack


and just possibly the "winters coming" letter of 1896.

I own Letters from Hell, and most if not all seem like incoherent lame attempts at hoaxes or copy cats, whether signed ripper or not.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

I tend to dismiss Dear Boss and Saucy Jack because they were sent to Central News Agency, which requires some level of journalistic knowledge. I think Jack would have sent them directly to a newspaper.

This said, I think JtR could have very well written one or more letters, simply by the fact that the way he did (not) dispose of the bodies, expressed some kind of defiance, or showing off.

I'm no expert, though.

[Bridewell]

This said, I think JtR could have very well written one or more letters,

He may have done so if he became aware of how many letters were being written by others claiming to be him. That might appeal - send in the one genuine letter, knowing that it will probably be dismissed along with all the others. But of course that pre-supposes that the killer was at least semi-literate, which he may not have been.

[Abby Normal]

I tend to dismiss Dear Boss and Saucy Jack because they were sent to Central News Agency, which requires some level of journalistic knowledge. I think Jack would have sent them directly to a newspaper.

This said, I think JtR could have very well written one or more letters, simply by the fact that the way he did (not) dispose of the bodies, expressed some kind of defiance, or showing off.

I'm no expert, though.

Hi Fallstaff

Well considering that the ripper was more than likely employed, was a class or so above his victims and probably had some kind of medical knowledge I don't think it's too off the mark that he would have known about the CNA and how to get maximum exposure.

He also says three things in the letters that point to the authenticity-wanting to get to work soon, number one squealed a bit and clipping off the ears, all which pretty much happened.

Serial killers also have been known to send letters all over the place-to the police, press, victims and victim family members, tv stations so who knows why they send them where they do-probably for exposure and fame.

Plus one only need to look at the penmanship of a low life thug like bury to realize that you don't have to be upper class to be able to write well at the time.

And I agree with you. The way he left the bodies, and being able to escape in the nick of time , shows he may have had a secondary motivation of getting off on the taunting aspect of his crimes and beating the police.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Yeah, but why CNA? it was fairly new. Why not Reuter or others?

I consider JtR to be streetsmart, clever, but not highly educated.

Zodiac wrote directly to the San Francisco Chronicles and other newspapers.

It's possible he was aware of CNA. I admit, it's more a matter of opinion from my part than probability.

[Defective Detective]

And yet, it also says "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."
So how did the writer previously get in touch, if not by letter?

I asked the same thing when the existence of this letter first came to my attention.

"Well you see I've kept my word, and done for the one I said I would.

I suppose you took notice of what I said.

These other letters were not written by me at all and has some one 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"


Okay, here's a question: if this letter writer had never before written a letter, when did he say he'd do "for the one"? What did he say that we were to take notice of?

This letter obliquely suggests another communication of some kind in its first lines, or so it reads to me, and yet denies having made any previous communication just a few sentences later.

And the user Caligo Umbrator came up with what I consider a very reasonable explanation.

Hi, Defective.

The communication you reference does initially appear to have some internal contradictions.
In stating that " These other letters were not written by me. . ." it does seem that the writer is disavowing authourship of any previous missives.

It could be argued, however, that the writer of this letter may have previously sent one or more letters to the authorities, describing his intentions or motivations and that that particular communication has been lost (This letter was addressed to "The Inspector, Leman St. Police").
So that this letter could be, from the authours point of view, a continuation of his 'dialogue' with those connected to the investigation and also a confirmation that at least one previous letter had been offered to them by him.
When he says " These other letters . . ." should we not consider that he might be referring to just those letters that had been made public at the time and published in newspapers and on handbills, rather than all the letters the police had received?

It should also be noted that this particular letter is unusual, when compared to the majority of other 'Ripper" letters, as it is written all in capitals, reasonably neat, correctly spelled throughout and missing just a punctuation point. The writer keeps each sentence on a straight line.
The writing slopes between 12 and 18 degrees rightward from the upright and the sheet it is written upon is almost perfectly square as opposed to the usual short and wide postcard or the tall and thin letter paper of the time.
Capital or block letters, while acceptable for general communication, were not used in most professions, unless clarity was absolutely essential.
One such profession was printing.

I'm sure there are other reasons for using block capitals and perhaps others on here can expand on this matter.

If you have Evans and Skinner's 'Letters from Hell', a facsimile of the letter is reproduced on p.114 and the transcript on p.248-9.

Yours, Caligo.

I'd add that the letter substitutes the word "HAS" for "AS", but I otherwise agree with this analysis. I think the tone of "10/11/88" in particular is quite what I'd expect from the actual Ripper - impatient and proud of his work, but not to the point of the Cockney cariacture of 'Dear Boss' and 'Saucy Jacky'. Assuming for a moment it's ahentic, its author does want recognition, and sounds exasperated by the prevalence of hoaxers, but isn't quite so cartoonishly gleeful as in those missives.