Motivation for the Dear Boss

[Errata]

Hi Lynn

But using the function is a bit childish, isn't it ? Are you sure you can never learn anything from Hunter ?

Life is short, this is just a message board, and there is actual crap that people have to deal with in their lives without adding the manufactured drama of an intellectual dispute over an 130 year old unsolvable case. Who cares if someone uses ignore for a little while? It's a healthy way of minimizing exposure to personal unpleasantness. Just because you or I might prefer to try and argue our way out and potentially escalate a conflict doesn't mean everyone should. Or that you or I would be right to do so.

I'm just saying, there are real problems out there. Let's not confuse this dispute with one of them.

[DVV]

Bah, aaarfff, much ado about nothing.
I maintain the ignore list is stupid. You miss posts that can be of interest. No need to use the ignore function to ignore X or Y.

[lynn cates]

this, that, other

Hello Abby.

"Why would a conspirator with political motivations for the murders write a hoax letter claiming to be from the killer?-To make it seem like these killings are from a homicidal Maniac and not government conspirators?"

Not sure whether the motivation is political or personal. But WHATEVER the motivation, it seems obvious that Kate needed to be passed off as the next in the series. To their credit, the City of London Police did not buy it. There is a story from "The Times," October 2, I believe, in which they had discounted a single hand.

"Can you clue me in on your overall idea of what you think was going on here? I thought you think JI was resposible for a couple of the murders-is he in on it too?'

Polly and Annie, yes. He was sectioned September 12. By September 19 he was "prime suspect." But in "The Star", "The Daily News", and "The Pall Mall Gazette"--and only 2 days later--there was a false story about JI about to be released, having been vouched for by his brother. I am curious about which wire service provided that tit bit.

"And why would a bunch of prostitutes be "important" enough to knock off?"

A "bunch of prostitutes" wouldn't be. But what on earth has Kate to do with that?

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi Lynn,

A bunch of prostitutes?

The proper collective term is An Anthology of Pros.

Regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

alternative

Hello David.

"But using the function is a bit childish, isn't it?"

Not as childish as the theatre I see so often on the threads. The function is there for a purpose. If more would use it, there would be fewer acerbic posts--and fewer suspensions.

"Are you sure you can never learn anything from Hunter?"

I think you miss the point. I am delighted to discuss ANY view--Vincent Van Gogh, Lewis Carroll, Sir Winston Churchill, even the most absurd of all, the sexual serial killer. But when someone insults at the personal level, it's time to use "ignore" and use the extra time doing research.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

right

Hello Errata. Right you are. There is no time for silly personal feeling. Too often I have wished to learn something from a thread, but instead 2 posters were calling one another names.

If someone cannot show civilised behaviour, ignore, and go on.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Welcome to Fantasy Island.

Hello Simon. See, I thought they were called "male fantasy."

Cheers.
Tatoo

[DVV]

Hello David.

"But using the function is a bit childish, isn't it?"

Not as childish as the theatre I see so often on the threads. The function is there for a purpose. If more would use it, there would be fewer acerbic posts--and fewer suspensions.

"Are you sure you can never learn anything from Hunter?"

I think you miss the point. I am delighted to discuss ANY view--Vincent Van Gogh, Lewis Carroll, Sir Winston Churchill, even the most absurd of all, the sexual serial killer. But when someone insults at the personal level, it's time to use "ignore" and use the extra time doing research.

Cheers.
LC

Fair enough. Sorry. May have missed these "personal attacks" - but not Hunter "public apology" in the Pub talk.

[lynn cates]

In the past.

Hello David. Thanks for pointing this out. Found it. All is forgiven and forgotten.

Cheers.
LC

[FrankO]

Hi Lynn,

I am suggesting that, just after Chapman's killing, the public were at fever pitch for a solution. Later, that had died down somewhat.

Going through the newspapers between 10 and 30 September or the police documents, I don’t particularly get the impression that there was less attention for the murders.

The inquests of Nichols and Chapman were widely covered by the newspapers. The Nichols inquest lasted until 22 September, the Chapman inquest was concluded on 26 September, which finished with Baxter’s controversial solution to the mystery, the ‘Burke & Hare theory’.

With regard to this solution the Times of 27 September states: “The whole civilized world is concerned in bringing the murderer to justice, and it cannot afford to be beaten in the attempt. The police will be expected to follow up with the keenest vigilance the valuable clue elicited through the CORONER's inquest, and, since the lines of their investigation are plainly chalked out by information which they themselves failed to collect, it will be a signal disgrace if they do not succeed.”

The news about Jane Beatmoor’s murder at Gateshead hit the news on the 24th/25th, Dr. Phillips being sent there with the view to ascertain whether the injuries to her body resembled those inflicted on the Whitechapel victims.

On the 15th Chief Inspector Swanson was appointed to take overall charge of the enquiry by Warren, so that there would be someone at a higher level to concern himself with nothing but the inquiry into these murders. A telling statement in a report by Warren of 19 October reads: “A large staff of men are employed and every point is being examined which seems to offer our prospect of a discovery.”

On 10 October Warren wrote to Lushington about the Dear Boss letter and postcard: “At present, I think the whole thing a hoax but we are bound to try and ascertain the writer in any case.”

Clues? Do you think that the City Police took it seriously? (I know that's difficult to say since it was there only part of a day.) But given CNA "dismissed" it why should ANYONE take it seriously--at least, until that night?

So, like others have written, yes, I do think the police would have taken it seriously, regardless of the fact that the CNA dismissed it and regardless of the ‘doulbe event’. If there was a possibility that the letter was written by the actual killer, they simply had to investigate this tangible clue.

All the best,
Frank

[lynn cates]

reaction

Hello Frank. Thanks.

I am thinking about the police reaction early on. Of course, as I said, it would be difficult to ascertain this since the "Double Event" happened less than 24 hours after the letter arrived.

Cheers.
LC

[TradeName]

Is there any truth to this?

Chicago Tribune, Sunday, 7 October 1888, link

THE WHITECHAPEL HORRORS.

Public Excitement Not Abating and the Police Still Without a Clew.

SPECIAL CABLE DISPATCH TO THE TRIBUNE.
[Copyright, 1888, by the Press Pub. Co., N. Y. World.]

[...] But in the Police Department itself [Sir Charles] Warren has started an inquisition. He suspects, and probably with good reason, members of his own force with writing letters to the newspapers about him, and has been making a big row about it. He made a rule this week that every newspaper man calling at Scotland Yard must register his name and business in a book.

[lynn cates]

new one

Hello Trade. Thanks for this. The police? Never thought of that.

Were they hoping to force Sir Charles out?

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Hello TradeName, very interesting. So much that you should have started a new police thread, I believe. I've never heard of this "new rule" regarding newspapers. Could be true, but is it ?

[mklhawley]

Is there any truth to this?

Chicago Tribune, Sunday, 7 October 1888, link

THE WHITECHAPEL HORRORS.

Public Excitement Not Abating and the Police Still Without a Clew.

SPECIAL CABLE DISPATCH TO THE TRIBUNE.
[Copyright, 1888, by the Press Pub. Co., N. Y. World.]

[...] But in the Police Department itself [Sir Charles] Warren has started an inquisition. He suspects, and probably with good reason, members of his own force with writing letters to the newspapers about him, and has been making a big row about it. He made a rule this week that every newspaper man calling at Scotland Yard must register his name and business in a book.

Great find TradeName. It looks like this was a rule for Scotland Yard headquarters at Whitehall in the West End. I wonder if there was any kind of 'rule' for those working elsewhere, such as the East End.

Sincerely,

Mike