Two good reasons why The Ripper did not communicate by written word.

[Stephen]

I am new to this site but have read quite a few books on The Whitechapel murders. On the question of written communications I believe that the killer put neither chalk to brick nor pen to paper.

My two reasons.

1. The letters publicized were basically too polite. In none of the most famous letters are there any swear words....a hoaxers main goal is to see his letters in 'lights' and he therefore manages this by keeping his hoax letters fit for publication. A man who mutilates and murders women is a man containing much anger . I believe such a man would litter his letters with obscenities as in the case of serial killer Albert Fish's letter to the parents of Grace Bud.

The Whitechapel killer was NOT like the Zodiac killer who wished his letters to be seen as communications from a code creating 'clever man'. The Rippers letters were written to shock....but to shock just enough for general publication.

2. My second reason is Mary Kellys bedroom. On finishing his work, with bloody hands, he left without leaving as much as a finger scrolled 'Goodbye'.

[joelhall]

1. ive seen at least once, words such as c**t in his letters. read 'letters from hell' by stewart evans, very good reference.

2. theres all manner of reasons why he could or could not have chalked up a message. very hotly debated at times

http://forum.casebook.org/forumdisplay.php?f=104

welcome to the boards

joel

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Joel,

1. ive seen at least once, words such as c**t in his letters.

Stephen's correct in that those few letters that were published at the time were broadly "polite". At least they contained no expletives, unlike those to which you refer. Incidentally, whilst not an expletive, I always have a chuckle at the one signed "Jack Porns" - I'm not even sure if it was meant to sound saucy, but I think it's a cracking name

[Stephen]

Ripper possibly unable to read or write.

[QUOTE=joelhall;28971]1. ive seen at least once, words such as c**t in his letters. read 'letters from hell' by stewart evans, very good reference.

Dear JoelHall,

When I wrote of the 'Ripper' letters I was really meaning the 'Dear Boss' and Lusk letters as these are the most famous and most studied letters.

[Stephen]

How I imagine the Ripper.

I imagine the Ripper would be a man in his late twenties who lived, and had llived, in the vicinity of the murders all his life. He was perhaps the bastard son of a prostitute who had been brought up by his Grandmother. By the time he had reached his late twenties and become frustrated and angry with his life.... now caring for his elderly Grandmother..... he had built up a hatred of his Mother for deserting him and leaving him to perhaps a very physically disciplined early life. The position of having an elderly, maybe bedridden , co-inhabitant would mean he would be free to come and go late at night, his Grandmother thinking him to be in bed and unable to go and look....when she called out for him and got no reply she would think he was sleeping. He would also be doing his own and his Grandmothers laundry. The reason he would kill around the weekend would be because, having some menial job, Friday would be pay day and he would be able to afford to get drunk. Maybe being intoxicated brought out the killer in him...as alcohol often does.
I imagine the killer to be a a lot like Hitchcocks Psycho without a Hotel.
I think when his Grandmother died he committed suicide. When his belongings were checked by Police or relatives, maybe his whole room was a shrine....bloody shawls, his knife, newspaper cuttings...dried up organs.
I think the reason the police covered this up was because the Ripper was jewish and they did not want unrest etc. as it was all over.

[DVV]

I too want a crystal ball for Christmas!

[perrymason]

2. My second reason is Mary Kellys bedroom. On finishing his work, with bloody hands, he left without leaving as much as a finger scrolled 'Goodbye'.

Hello David,

Also interesting when paired with the possible communication just off Goulston. If the killer of Kate, the guy who left the cloth, also took a moment to scrawl in chalk....what are we to make of the fact that he has nothing more to say when left alone with bare walls...and as you suggest...ink, of sorts.

I think the only reason for him to write anything, is the need to at least symbolically, cleanse himself. And thats why I think if he did write, it would not be to distance himself from the press or pursuers, but to authenticate himself as being human, with emotions. Maybe the cleansing is the chalk....like he's not guilty of killing a victim placed on his list......and I believe The Lusk Lunch Basket has that simple, human element present. Like perhaps sharing his take would lessen his guilt somehow?

I do think at least one communication was his...the GSG....I hear the gasps..."Great Swansons Ghost".

Best regards all.

[Sam Flynn]

I believe The Lusk Lunch Basket has that simple, human element present. Like perhaps sharing his take would lessen his guilt somehow?

Then why the hectoring, gruesome letter that accompanied it?

Rhetorical question, Mike - some "nise" food for thought, no reply required (at least not here). There are enough threads about the Lusk Letter already without turning this into one!

[caz]

I imagine the Ripper would be a man in his late twenties who lived, and had llived, in the vicinity of the murders all his life. He was perhaps the bastard son of a prostitute who had been brought up by his Grandmother. By the time he had reached his late twenties and become frustrated and angry with his life.... now caring for his elderly Grandmother..... he had built up a hatred of his Mother for deserting him and leaving him to perhaps a very physically disciplined early life. The position of having an elderly, maybe bedridden , co-inhabitant would mean he would be free to come and go late at night, his Grandmother thinking him to be in bed and unable to go and look....when she called out for him and got no reply she would think he was sleeping. He would also be doing his own and his Grandmothers laundry. The reason he would kill around the weekend would be because, having some menial job, Friday would be pay day and he would be able to afford to get drunk. Maybe being intoxicated brought out the killer in him...as alcohol often does.
I imagine the killer to be a a lot like Hitchcocks Psycho without a Hotel.
I think when his Grandmother died he committed suicide. When his belongings were checked by Police or relatives, maybe his whole room was a shrine....bloody shawls, his knife, newspaper cuttings...dried up organs.
I think the reason the police covered this up was because the Ripper was jewish and they did not want unrest etc. as it was all over.

Ok then. I have to ask...

What was his star sign, inside leg measurement and favourite colour, so we can narrow this down a bit.

Not sure I go along with your initial swearing and rude words argument. It's a very personal thing, and many people now, as in Victorian times, just won't do it in any situation, while others would find it hard to resist injecting the f word into every sentence even if invited for tea with the Queen.

I submit that the only real difference between a communicating hoaxer and a communicating killer is that the latter kills. Both are capable of hoaxing or swearing if they feel the need or desire. Both could be hoping that a certain communication would reach the public eye, in which case they would have the same reason to keep it clean.

And of course, there was no guarantee that Mishter Lusk wouldn't simply throw his letter and kidney away in disgust. So your hoaxer's 'main goal' in this case could not have been to see his work in 'lights'. He could have plopped in as many filthy words as his sick heart desired, but apparently the desire wasn't there.

Love,

Caz
X

[Iain Wilson]

I'd agree with Caz. Not all hoaxers wish to see their "work" receiving publicity. In fact, I'm sure the motives of the hoaxers are as varied as those sending the letters. Take "Wierside Jack" for instance, a hoaxer that seriously side tracked the British Police during the hunt for the Yorkshire Ripper in the late seventies and early eighties. When he was finally caught in 2007 (I think!) the hoaxer admitted that the reason he had sent the letters and tapes claiming to be the killer was because he had a deep hatred of the police - in this case he certainly achieved his objective because his antics made the police look very foolish, not to mention having the horrible consequence of diverting the police investigation and leaving the real killer at large to kill at least three more women!

[Mike Covell]

Just the mention of eating someone's innards would have been considered perverse at the time of the murders.

[Stephen]

The Ripper did not write letters

The Police of the time knew the letters were hoaxes and even named the hoaxer in later years...the letters were the work of the Press who wanted to encourage more sales. The letters lead people up blind alleys as they are not the work of the killer. Also, as said before by myself, if the killer liked to write taunting messages then why did he ignore the chance to write on Mary Kellys room walls? Why, with all the red 'ink' available did he not write a word or leave a symbol? Simple...the killer did NOT communicate through writing.

[Stephen]

Throw away the kidney...never!

[QUOTE=caz;34158]
And of course, there was no guarantee that Mishter Lusk wouldn't simply throw his letter and kidney away in disgust. So your hoaxer's 'main goal' in this case could not have been to see his work in 'lights'. He could have plopped in as many filthy words as his sick heart desired, but apparently the desire wasn't there.

Hey Caz,

Mr Lusk was the head of a committee dedicated to catching the Ripper, watching and hoping for clues. There was never a possiblity of him throwing away such a clue...the best part of all the hoax communication...a kidney!

The kidney was trimmed down as the hoaxers did not want bodily comparisons and vein connections to fail being matched, thus, he trimmed it and left everyone with a 'might have been real, my not have' view....a good haox planned with clean language to yet again hit the spotlights....the hoaxer was a showman...the Ripper was shy of the limelight.

I hope that answers your questions my dear....as for his star sign...probably born around March....Prostitutes mainly got pregnant in the Summer...lots of custom lots of booze....little responsibility...so he would have been conceived about June 1860....around March....probably snowing.

[fido]

Although I entirely agree with you Stephen, I recognize that Macnaghten only averred that he thought he could detect the stained finger of the journalist in the letters. Anderson who said he knew was also accused by Littlechild of only thinking he knew the other identity he said was positively ascertained. Littlechild himself only claimed a general belief in Scotland Yard that Bullen wrote the letters and a probability that Moore inspired them. So while, like you I'm convinced that the Ripper wrote none of the letters ascribed to him, I can only confidently cite the Scotland Yard opinion as supportive, not really as proving the fact.
All the best,
Martin F

[maschlesinger]

Ripper Penmanship

I tend to agree with you, except that I think it's possible that he wrote the unsigned one. Also, has anyone ever noticed that the Dear Boss letter is written in nice penmanship, with the EXCEPTION of the signature and the words Yours Truly? Clearly a different hand wrote those-those letters are sloppy, not unlike the unsigned letter. Maybe he was illiterate. The penmanship of the first letter is perfect, even feminine. But the signature and the words Yours Truly are those of a third grader. Has anyone ever heard any of the experts comment on this? It didn't come up in the documentaries I've seen.