Dear Boss

[mariab]

Kosminsky-work? Nah!
(But I TOTALLY feel like writing my boss a “Dear Boss“ letter. Or a “Dear John“ letter, for what it's worth!)
As a matter of fact, the dialect in the Lusk letter (if it's not fake, meaning both the letter and the dialect being fake) would fit with Jo Barnett. Now shoot me, all of you!
And I can't imagine Jacob Levy having written any of the Ripper letters, but the graffito, yes. (Which incidentally materialized a few blocks away from Levy's brother's house.)

[Abby Normal]

Also I don't know if it means anything but-

The Dear Boss letter was written after the killer possibly committed his first murder to his complete satisfaction-i.e. mutilation and organ removal.
"grand work" indeed?

Of Course my point being, the ripper was feeling his oats and it was time to let the world know who did this "grand work".

[Tom_Wescott]

If he wanted to let the world know who did it, then I'd expect to see his name appear in the letter. Oops, we're back to 'grand work' again! Actually, I'm not sure the Ripper wrote any letters, but he may have. Strange he didn't include SOMETHING that would have identified him as the author beyond all doubt.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[sleekviper]

I see it like this...

This letter works out in a brilliant, and incredibly well thought out manner that either someone has gone to great lengths to plan, or someone fell into a unique situation that could have had them swinging from the gallows. The author, whether fake or real, portrays Jack as something of a avid sports fan whose undefeated team is playing for the championship against a team that has yet to win a game. Why is he so sure? Well Kidney does not see Stride again after the early part of the 25th, the date that the writer places at the top of the letter. It is as if he knows his next victim is going to be where he wants, when he wants, and can not wait to prove just how much control he has over a city. Then he wants them to hold this back until after he kills again, why? Three huge reasons; one, he is about to do something totally different than before, and wants it all known as his. Two, by explicitly implicating another crime, the postal authorities are going to be alerted since criminal activity passing through the system requires their knowledge. Finally, if they do print this, multiple letters are going to come to police and papers claiming to be Jack, and sent to "Dear Boss". He has a unique recipient,(Boss)and unique trade name,( Jack the ripper) and wants it to stay that way. He can not send it to a individual paper, they probably will not hold it back wanting to scoop a major story, and the police can deny it ever arrived, or file away as a hoax, so his next option would be the Central News.
The P.S. is a mistake by the writer. In the excitement of having his game started, he sends the News the wrong copy of "Dear Boss". When he plays this game of his, his writings may disappear, so he makes a copy for CNA, and a copy for someone that knows what he is up to. In his rush to get his postal date, he does not clear the red ink completely from his hands, and when he returns, says so on the copy to whomever, along with the fact that they think he is a surgeon. He changes his voice, he goes from a letter talking to you, to a p.s. talking about you. Unless he went to the post office, handed them the letter to mail, then asked for it back to open and write this P.S., how else does one post "this" and place a P.S. about a possible mistake, unless "this" is a copy of something already mailed? Between excitement, and thinking ahead, he places the letters in the wrong envelopes, and never bothered to double check his work. Jack does not seem to be the type to second guess himself, so once he mailed the first, he would not have thought anything about looking to see what was the address on the copy, just write the P.S., stuff the envelope, clean off the ink, mail the copy in a day or two.
Now Jack wants two kills, so part two of the plan is the postcard. Now if all is done correctly, the postal service should be on the lookout for mail addressed to the CNA, red ink,look for " Boss", might have Jack the Ripper. He makes it that much more simple by using a postcard; no time wasted to decide if this is something, just turn it over. Then what does he do? He mailed it on Saturday. Why? Now the police are looking for two dead women, probably moving outward from a central location, leaving a smaller force to catch him. He divided and conquered. Once they poked in a back street, he had a clear path. Kill Stride, and walk inward, or the closest to a starting point where they would have began a search. The lack of mutilation on Stride would have been her reward for unknowingly allowing this plan to work, a sick thank you. Police would have been standing there holding a postcard from Saturday, trying to explain how they could not catch the killer on Sunday. Postcard would have been found before it was postmarked in sorting, so no stamp. It was stamped the wrong day, and the only people that can say otherwise are labeled the guilty party for a hoax, the CNA. Did they do it? If the postcard has the correct stamp, it is possible. The push for a Sunday postmark is a pretty thin thread to hold to, yet they did, to the point of claiming hoax without considering it sat in a pillar box. If they did think on the pillar box, it was not much of a thought, and between changing the glory of his game, and painting him as a flesh eating monster, they may have caused the destruction that would happen with Kelly. They wanted to mess with his game, and think him a monster to the world, he gave them a monster. I imagine that they figured the P.S. was a mistake from excitement, and if he was angry, he may write back and make a vital mistake from anger. I think that he let his work do all the talking for what happens when Jack gets angry.It is only what I think, so probably wrong.

[FrankO]

Strange he didn't include SOMETHING that would have identified him as the author beyond all doubt.

Couldn’t agree more with you there, Tom. One of the best things he could do to take away all doubt would have been to leave a letter, postcard or whatever in the same handwriting on one of his next victims, that made reference to the Dear Boss letter, just like the Saucy Jacky postcard did. Would have been easy too.

All the best,
Frank

[caz]

Regarding timing, I noticed and remarked some time back that the Dear Boss author was obviously waiting until the Chapman inquest concluded to see what had been learned, which explains the post script. Likewise, the Ripper was waiting until the inquest ended to see what the police knew. For different reasons, both men where waiting for the inquest to end to make their move. That's not to say it wasn't the same man, but there's nothing in the letter that tells us the letter had to have been written by the killer.

That's a good point, Tom. It's more the timing of it than the content that intrigues me. But one wonders what the killer could have written in the wake of Hanbury St, and before his next outing, that would have proved only he could have written it.

One thing that only the killer could really have known was whether he was a 'common criminal', a post-mortem room frequenter, a doctor or something else entirely. So when the Dear Boss author laughed at the latest opinion that "he" was a doctor (and not a "Leather Apron" type after all), he was clearly implying that the ripper was no such thing.

...if no other woman was found killed & mutilated, then his letter would have been regarded as a hoax and therefore not likely be published. And that would have been the end of it (no harm done). On the other hand, if another body would turn up, the writer could be quite sure that his letter would likely be regarded as genuine and, subsequently, that the letter and the tradesname he invented would get maximum exposure.

Hi Frank,

While that may reflect the author's thinking on the matter at the time of writing, we know that two more bodies of 'whores' (I only use the term because the author used it) did turn up, but not until after the letter had been forwarded by the CNA to the police. The police published it even though they suspected a prankster was behind it, so I can only assume they would have done so anyway, and not just because of Stride and Eddowes. They still had four unsolved unfortunate murders on their books to investigate (Smith, Tabram, Nichols and Chapman), regardless of which may or may not have been linked.

Genuine or hoax, whoever wrote Dear Boss could be no more sure than anyone else that more murders were on the cards. The killer could have been run down by a horse and cart first.

If the details of the letter do not come to pass, so what? Nobody knows who "Jack" is and it wouldn't be unusual for a deranged killer to lie or change his mind about who, how, when, or how many he kills. And who would hold "Jack" accountible for his untruths/inaccuracies anyway?

It's a good point, D.B., but people usually argue the exact opposite - that if the killer had written anything he would have been 100% true to his word and capable of doing everything he promised with pinpoint accuracy - no more, no less. But of course, in this case, the details of the letter did come to pass. But still the author gets precious little credit - despite the trendy argument that there was never the slightest reason to think an active mutilator was really on the prowl in Whitechapel.

Faking a post mark doesn't seem like a big stretch considering the length some hoaxers have gone to . . .

You'd have to take that up with the keepers and examiners of the document in question. I have heard no hint of suspicion that the postmark could have been faked. In any case, the police still received the letter before the killer got to work again, as its author rightly predicted.

We've seen enough proven and probable Ripper hoaxes, some of them less clever than others, to know there are lots of people who have tried to "get invovled" in the Ripper "game" for all types of logical and uillogical reasons. It is far more likely any particular and probably all of the Ripper letters are hoaxes than the likelihood they were written by the Ripper.

But isn't that a logical fallacy, to work backwards from a sea of obvious copycat hoaxes, to conclude that it's far more likely that the original letter was also a hoax? By that logic, Elvis was 'far more likely' a bogus singer than the real thing because of the sheer number of impersonators - good, bad and horrendous - that followed him.

It is most likely, although not provable beyond whatever doubts some will clling to, the letter was written AFTER the double event or the hoaxer made a very lucky guess, the postmark was faked, the letter a hoax, and therefore the whole mess is not of major importance.

I'm afraid you are way off here. It is not remotely likely that the police lied about when that letter was forwarded to them.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

If he wanted to let the world know who did it, then I'd expect to see his name appear in the letter. Oops, we're back to 'grand work' again! Actually, I'm not sure the Ripper wrote any letters, but he may have. Strange he didn't include SOMETHING that would have identified him as the author beyond all doubt.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom

Strange he didn't include SOMETHING that would have identified him as the author beyond all doubt.



Perhaps he thought he had, but I definitely see your point.

[FrankO]

While that may reflect the author's thinking on the matter at the time of writing,...

Hi Caz,

That was the only thing I was trying to say: if he was a hoaxer, this might have been his way of thinking at the time of the writing, obviously not actually knowing if other bodies would turn up and not knowing if his letter would be published anyway if no other bodies would turn up - only guessing (but not baseless) and perhaps even hoping.

The police published it even though they suspected a prankster was behind it, so I can only assume they would have done so anyway, and not just because of Stride and Eddowes.

I don't know about that, Caz. To me, it seems that it was the postcard that convinced the police to take both communications seriously, which caused them to placard posters of the letter & postcard at every police station asking the public for help and sending facsimiles of them to the press. As the postcard was a result of the double event, I am not so sure the police would in fact have published the communications if Stride and Eddowes hadn’t been murdered.

Genuine or hoax, whoever wrote Dear Boss could be no more sure than anyone else that more murders were on the cards. The killer could have been run down by a horse and cart first.

Can't argue with you there.

All the best,
Frank

[Stewart P Evans]

Journalist

Regarding timing, I noticed and remarked some time back that the Dear Boss author was obviously waiting until the Chapman inquest concluded to see what had been learned, which explains the post script. Likewise, the Ripper was waiting until the inquest ended to see what the police knew. For different reasons, both men where waiting for the inquest to end to make their move. That's not to say it wasn't the same man, but there's nothing in the letter that tells us the letter had to have been written by the killer.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott

But the timing also fits in with the belief that a journalist wrote the letter. Reports on the Chapman inquest, and inquiries, had given the newspapers subject matter to keep writing reports on the murders. However, with the ending of the inquest on 26 September 1888 they could no longer write about the ongoing inquest. Therefore something new to discuss, to keep the story alive, was needed and the 'Dear Boss' letter was posted the very next day.

[Nothing to see]

But the timing also fits in with the belief that a journalist wrote the letter. Reports on the Chapman inquest, and inquiries, had given the newspapers subject matter to keep writing reports on the murders. However, with the ending of the inquest on 26 September 1888 they could no longer write about the ongoing inquest. Therefore something new to discuss, to keep the story alive, was needed and the 'Dear Boss' letter was posted the very next day.

Wow!! Stewart Evans!! Man, I'm in fan mode.

And I absolutely agree. Dear Boss was written by a journalist.

[mariab]

Tom Wescott wrote:
I noticed and remarked some time back that the “Dear Boss“ author was obviously waiting until the Chapman inquest concluded to see what had been learned, which explains the post script. Likewise, the Ripper was waiting until the inquest ended to see what the police knew. For different reasons, both men where waiting for the inquest to end to make their move.
Stewart P. Evans:
Reports on the Chapman inquest, and inquiries, had given the newspapers subject matter to keep writing reports on the murders. However, with the ending of the inquest on 26 September 1888 they could no longer write about the ongoing inquest. Therefore something new to discuss, to keep the story alive, was needed and the 'Dear Boss' letter was posted the very next day.
For whatever my uneducated, newbie estimation's worth, I too always thought it very significant that the “Dear Boss“ letter turned up in perfect timing JUST after the Chapman inquest concluded, post scriptum and all. My completely uninformed gut feeling says, journalist 80%, the Ripper 20%. I know that Wescott is concentrating on the numerous threat-letters his favorite suspect Le Grand wrote to several ladies, and my suggestion would be, try to find le Grand's original handwriting, and compare it to the Ripper letters. How about bank records, could someone research such for Le Grand? (Apologies for being so fixed on this bank records thing, but I was able to find some relevant information through early 19th century bank records in Naples a couple years ago. But I'm afraid I've no experience whatsoever about the London situation for bank records.)

[Nothing to see]

I'll go back into previous posts from this site.

http://www.casebook.org/witnesses/w/Matthew_Packer.html

Matthew Packer

Matthew Packer, contemporary press illustration.Witness (though not called to Elizabeth Stride's inquest).

Matthew Packer was born in Goulston Street, Whitechapel[1] in 1831. He married Rose Ann Wallis (b.1832, Maidstone, Kent) in Bethnal Green in 1867. There is no record of any children.[2]

In 1871, the couple were living at 1 Princes Street, Whitechapel (now part of Old Montague Street)[3] where Matthew is listed as a fishmonger. They later moved to 25 Fairclough Street and were joined by Matthew's stepmother Sarah[4]. By 1888, the Packers were living at 44 Berner Street, with lodgers Sarah Harrison and Harry Douglas. Matthew ran a fruit and sweet shop from the premises.

At 9am, 30th September 1888, Sergeant Stephen White called at No.44 to take statements from all the tenants. Packer claimed that he closed his shop at 12.30am that morning as he felt it was not worth staying open on account of the wet weather. When asked if he had seen anybody at the time he replied, "No. I saw noone standing about neither did I see anyone go up the yard. I never saw anything suspicious or heard the slightest noise and know nothing about the murder until I heard of it in the morning".

On 2nd October, two private detectives (Messrs. Grand and J.H.Batchelor of 283 Strand) had found a grape stalk in the drain of Dutfield's Yard. They subsequently took Packer to Golden Lane mortuary to view the body of Catherine Eddowes (without telling him she was the Mitre Square victim in order to test his veracity) - Packer did not recognise her. The Evening News of 4th October criticised the Police in the wake of this discovery of a new witness by two independent detectives.

Thus, on 4th October 1888, White was instructed to make further enquiries and called once again at 44 Berner Street, where Rose Packer told him that the two private detectives had called and that Matthew had gone with them to the mortuary to view Stride's body. On his way there, White met Packer who was in the company of the two detectives. Packer had seen the deceased in the mortuary and recognised her as a woman who had bought grapes from him at 11.00pm, 29th September.[5]

At 4.00pm the same day, Grand and Batchelor returned to Berner Street stating that they were to take Packer in a cab to Scotland Yard to see Sir Charles Warren. It is unlikely that Warren actually did meet Packer and a report written by (Senior) Assistant Commissioner Alexander Carmichael Bruce revealed what Packer had to say[6]:


"Matthew Packer keeps a shop in Berner St. has a few grapes in window, black & white.

On Sat night about 11pm a young man from 25-30 - about 5.7 with long black coat buttoned up - soft felt hat, kind of yankee hat rather broad shoulders - rather quick in speaking, rough voice. I sold him 1/2 pound black grapes 3d. A woman came up with him from Back Church end (the lower end of street) She was dressed in black frock & jacket, fur round bottom of jacket with black crape bonnet, she was playing with a flower like a geranium white outside and red inside. I identify the woman at the St.George's mortuary as the one I saw that night-

They passed by as though they were going up Com- Road, but- instead of going up they crossed to the other side of the road to the Board School, & were there for about 1/2 an hour till I shd. say 11.30. talking to one another. I then shut up my shutters.


Before they passed over opposite to my shop, they wait[ed] near to the club for a few minutes apparently listening to the music.

I saw no more of them after I shut up my shutters.I put the man down as a young clerk.

He had a frock coat on - no gloves

He was about 1 1/2 inch or 2 or 3 inches - a little higher than she was"[7]


Due to the drastic changes in his statements, Packer was considered unreliable and was not called to the inquest, despite the possible importance of his testimony. The Illustrated Police News felt he was important enough to have Inspector Abberline depicted as taking down Packer's details.[8]


As for the private detectives, 'Grand' was in fact a gentleman with a long criminal record who operated under numerous aliases, often known as 'Le Grand of the Strand', aka Charles Grant, Christian Nielson and 'Briscony' to name a few. In consequence of this reputation and allied with Packer's changing story, Chief Inspector Donald Swanson was moved to report that "any statement he (Packer) made would be rendered almost valueless as evidence".[9]


Packer returned to the news again when on 27th October he claimed to have seen the man who bought grapes on the night of Stride's murder again:

Mr Matthew Packer, who keeps a fruit shop near the gateway where the Berner Street murder was committed, stated on Wednesday that he felt just then greatly alarmed owing to his having seen a man exactly like the one who bought some grapes from him for the murdered woman Stride, a short time before the murder was committed. He alleges that he had often seen the man before the murder, as well as the woman; but he had not seen anyone resembling the man since the murder ___ Saturday night. He was then standing with his fruit stall in the Commercial Road when he observed the man staring him full in the face. After passing and repassing him several times, the man got into the roadway and looked at him in a menacing manner. Packer was so terrified that he left his stall and asked a shoeblack, who was near, to keep his eye on the man. His fear was that the fellow was going to stab him. No sooner, however, had he called the shoeblack's attention to the man than the latter ran away and jumped onto a passing tramcar.[10]


Another incident involving Packer occurred at the time of the discovery of the Pinchin Street Murder in 1889. He claimed to have been attacked on his doorstep by somebody who mentioned the Ripper, spending three weeks at the London Hospital as a result. This story is as yet unconfirmed by contemporary sources, however.




[edit]

[mariab]

Dear Nothing to See,
for the newest information on Matthew Packer, read Tom Wescott's article in Examiner 2. It discusses all the issues you mentioned in your post.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mariab,

Author of Dear Boss?

Journalist 50%, Ripper 0%.

Evidence is starting to emerge that the concept of JtR was in the pipeline as early as the week of 8th September 1888.

More later.

Regards,

Simon

[Abby Normal]

But the timing also fits in with the belief that a journalist wrote the letter. Reports on the Chapman inquest, and inquiries, had given the newspapers subject matter to keep writing reports on the murders. However, with the ending of the inquest on 26 September 1888 they could no longer write about the ongoing inquest. Therefore something new to discuss, to keep the story alive, was needed and the 'Dear Boss' letter was posted the very next day.

Hi Stewart

If they couldn't wait but one day "to keep the story alive" and hoax/post the letter, why then did they wait several to send to the police?