my views

[lynn cates]

better and Best

Hello Dixon. Yes, Best is often regarded as one of the two or three most likely candidates for having written that letter.

Although I've said it before, I'll say again. A piece of me died when I learned that letter was a fake.

The best. (Oops! No pun intended!)
LC

[dixon9]

on documentary aired last night on the Crime channel a reporter named Best is named as the writer of The Dear Boss letter.
Sorry cant give anymore details(as blooming family still over for christmas and was only catching snippits)


Dixon9
still learning

[corey123]

Speculation

There are some similarities. But NOT enough to prove. I am still in neutral when it comes to this letter. The coincidence is TOO big still and I dont care how you put it her ear was cut off weather or not it was collateral damage.

yours truly

[corey123]

Handwriting

I have compared the handwriting of Bulling and That of the 'dear boss','saucy jacky', and oct,6th 88 letters and have found a conclusion.

The handwriting matches in alot of spots, which makes me think and revise my other opinion which is that Bulling may have actually wrote the letters.

yours truly

[Jonathan H]

To Stewart

Apologies for clumsy wording. What you wrote is what I thought I HAD written. I did not mean to suggest it was just Littlechild's theory, just that he was the ONLY ONE to actually name the reporters.

[Stewart P Evans]

Incorrect

...
And Littlechild, in private, went even further than Anderson and Macnaghten did in their memoirs, by actually naming the reporters [Bulling and Moore] whom he thought had probably concocted the 'Jack the Ripper' moniker.

This statement is incorrect Jonathan. What Littlechild actually stated was, "With regard to the term 'Jack the Ripper' it was generally believed at the Yard that Tom Bullen [sic - Bulling] of the Central News was the originator...", which is a totally different thing to "...whom he thought had probably concocted the 'Jack the Ripper' moniker." Accuracy, please, at all times.

This is a very misleading post. The killer did not sever the ear. To use Dr. F. Gordon Brown's words, "The lobe and the auricle of the right ear was cut obliquely through", and, at the mortuary, "The clothes were taken off carefully from the body, a piece of deceased's ear dropped from the clothing."

The sketch of the facial wounds is marked , "lobe of ear detached" -

[ATTACH]7190[/ATTACH]

This, of course, makes it more in the nature of a random slash rather than an attempt to sever the whole ear.

Hello Stewart,

Since the killer had "drawn" the intestines out "to a large extent" and placed them across her right shoulder, its likely he would have held his knife while he did so.

I wonder if the right lobe was accidentally cut off during that action, due to his awkward hold on the knife at that moment? Sam Flynn has done a very good analysis of the facial wounds and suggests I believe that the lobe might be collateral damage from those actions.

My best regards SPE

[lynn cates]

concurrence

Hello Jonathan. Excellent point.

The best.
LC

[Jonathan H]

Plus it is worth pointing out that amongst the limited and contradictory sources we are left with, the 'Dear Boss' letter -- being judged a journalistic hoax -- is the one thing that Anderson, Macnaghten, and Littlechild [and Sims] agreed upon, and those three top policemen seemed to have agreed on little else.

And Littlechild, in private, went even further than Anderson and Macnaghten did in their memoirs, by actually naming the reporters [Bulling and Moore] whom he thought had probably concocted the 'Jack the Ripper' moniker.

[Stewart P Evans]

Misleading

...Nor do I think the fact that Kate's severed ear fell into her clothing rather than ending up in the killer's pocket is any reason to discount the letter. The killer said he would cut the victim's ear off and he did...
The ear was probably cut at the beginning of his slash-fest, fell into Kate's garments, and was lost amidst all the gore until it fell out later when the authorities shifted the corpse. I really can't visualize the Ripper stopping in the midst of his rapid evisceration to look for a stray ear in the dark; can anyone else?
I think that the killer "made up" for not sending the ear by sending half a kidney instead.
Best regards, Archaic...

This is a very misleading post. The killer did not sever the ear. To use Dr. F. Gordon Brown's words, "The lobe and the auricle of the right ear was cut obliquely through", and, at the mortuary, "The clothes were taken off carefully from the body, a piece of deceased's ear dropped from the clothing."

The sketch of the facial wounds is marked , "lobe of ear detached" -



This, of course, makes it more in the nature of a random slash rather than an attempt to sever the whole ear.

[Archaic]

Regardless of how Kate's ear came to be sliced through, it is an odd coincidence to say the least, considering that the killer of Polly and Annie had ventured nowhere near their ears with his knife, and for all a hoaxer could have known, he never would. There was no guarantee he would even kill again, never mind soon, and many serial killers since have left much longer gaps between murders.
Yet within a few short hours of the police reading that letter for the first time, the Whitechapel Murderer was out there, supposedly in blissful ignorance of the fact that he was living up to the name and the 'just for jolly' prediction that some unknown stranger had just dreamed up for him, the latter having no actual expectation of any of it coming true - let alone so quickly. A dream team working perfectly in unison, except that neither knew about each other's moves. I do find that hard to get my head round.

Hi, everyone. And yes, Caz; I agree with you; it doesn't look like coincidence to me.

Nor do I think the fact that Kate's severed ear fell into her clothing rather than ending up in the killer's pocket is any reason to discount the letter. The killer said he would cut the victim's ear off and he did.

The ear was probably cut at the beginning of his slash-fest, fell into Kate's garments, and was lost amidst all the gore until it fell out later when the authorities shifted the corpse. I really can't visualize the Ripper stopping in the midst of his rapid evisceration to look for a stray ear in the dark; can anyone else?

I think that the killer "made up" for not sending the ear by sending half a kidney instead.

Best regards, Archaic

PS: Hey, Roy, I wonder if Ted Kaczynski received the first "Extreme Makeover"? I hardly recognize him like that.
How ironic that they dressed him like a nice college professor.

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Corey,

The police deemed the "Dear Boss" letter important enough to reproduce in newspapers and postbills of the time, hoping someone would recognize the handwriting.

In 1995 the Unabomber sent in a "Manifesto" which was published by the NY Times and Washington Post. The man's brother read it, recognized it for what it was, and went to police with the tip that broke the case.

Ted Kacynski in custody

[corey123]

speculation

indeed it is odd that the letter and the murder dates were so close and how that particular murder by jack was the one which he 'clipped the ear off'.even if the letter proves to be a hoax it is very good luck on the authors behalf on that part.but as to believeing what everyone else thought is just jumping on the bandwagon,which isnt very professional.the facts are more important than belive what people told you.

yours truly

[caz]

Hello Corey.

"the writer mentions that I shall clip the lady's ears off
is e[e]rily reminis[c]ent [of] how the ripper clip[p]ed Eddowes['] ear off"

Possibly, but her ear was found in her garments. Now it is generally thought to be collateral damage.

The best.
LC

To Corey,

I wouldn't be put off by what Lynn says here. If we stop thinking for ourselves and go by what is 'generally' thought each time, we'd have been right down there with the flat earth believers.

Regardless of how Kate's ear came to be sliced through, it is an odd coincidence to say the least, considering that the killer of Polly and Annie had ventured nowhere near their ears with his knife, and for all a hoaxer could have known, he never would. There was no guarantee he would even kill again, never mind soon, and many serial killers since have left much longer gaps between murders. Yet within a few short hours of the police reading that letter for the first time, the Whitechapel Murderer was out there, supposedly in blissful ignorance of the fact that he was living up to the name and the 'just for jolly' prediction that some unknown stranger had just dreamed up for him, the latter having no actual expectation of any of it coming true - let alone so quickly. A dream team working perfectly in unison, except that neither knew about each other's moves. I do find that hard to get my head round.

And there is no doubt in my mind that all the slashes made above the neck were 'just for jolly' ie for the sheer hell of it. If so, the ear was 'collateral damage' to what exactly?

Love,

Caz
X

[corey123]

thank you

again

yours truly