Dear Boss P.S.

[Stewart P Evans]

Disagree

Stewart,
Thank you for that explanation, and I dont think you're "nitpicking" at all.To say that it is a rare treat to be able to discuss this letter and card with someone like yourself is an understatement.
Do you consider the PS in Dear Boss to be an explanation of a two delay delay in mailing?
My best regards.

Whenever I consider anything someone or other always pops up to disagree and argue. So it's best not to consider...

Stewart,

Thank you for that explanation, and I dont think you're "nitpicking" at all.To say that it is a rare treat to be able to discuss this letter and card with someone like yourself is an understatement.

Do you consider the PS in Dear Boss to be an explanation of a two delay delay in mailing?

My best regards.

[Stewart P Evans]

The 'saucy Jacky' Postcard Facsimile

Here is my 1888 Police facsimile of the 'saucy Jacky' postcard. It came from the George R Sims collection, together with the Littlechild letter, and there can be little doubt that this was given to Sims by his friend Macnaghten.

[steje73]

Had to read that a couple of times, but yes, I get it now.

[Stewart P Evans]

Reproductions

Stewart,
The images we have here on Saucy Jack are referred to as reproductions, but Ive always assumed that those images, which do show stains and smears, were taken from that card. Is that not the case?
My best regards.

I may be accused of nitpicking here, but here goes anyway. In 1888 the police had colour facsimiles made of both pages and envelope of the 'Dear Boss' letter and both sides of the 'saucy Jacky' postcard. These were printed as individual handbills as well as on the Metropolitan Police poster asking any person who recognised the handwriting to communicate with the nearest Police Station. This was an early photo-mechanical process of printing but was not a photograph. I am not a printing expert so I am not sure exactly what process was used, but I believe it was single colour and therefore the lilac stamps were not reproduced.

The images you include in the first post above are, I believe, taken from ones that I reproduced myself. The 'Dear Boss' letter shown is not an original photograph but is a photograph of the printed facsimile. However, the 'Boss' envelope is a photograph of the original envelope as I photographed this at Scotland Yard (where it was returned anonymously in 1987). The 'saucy Jacky' postcard was not returned with the 'Dear Boss' letter, so presumably the original had not been with the letter and envelope when purloined from Scotland Yard. The only 1888 images of the 'saucy Jacky' postcard that we have are the facsimile handbill (which I have an 1888 original of) and the poster. Therefore the images you have reproduced are the card message being a photograph of my facsimile and the address side from the poster). I hope that this clarifies the issue.

[steje73]

Stewart,

The images we have here on Saucy Jack are referred to as reproductions, but Ive always assumed that those images, which do show stains and smears, were taken from that card. Is that not the case?

My best regards.

I've always thought that that was what that was.

(That sentence makes my head hurt.)

The red ink remark could have been Bullings way to give a clue as to its authorship (newspaper journalist) without letting the cat out of the bag completely.

Mike

You must have missed me already suggesting that Mikey. Although I can compliment you on your creative and "outside the box" thinking.

Cheers Mike.

Stewart,

The images we have here on Saucy Jack are referred to as reproductions, but Ive always assumed that those images, which do show stains and smears, were taken from that card. Is that not the case?

My best regards.

[Stewart P Evans]

Missing

Unfortunately the 'saucy Jacky' postcard is missing and we have no photograph of it.

[The Good Michael]

The red ink remark could have been Bullings way to give a clue as to its authorship (newspaper journalist) without letting the cat out of the bag completely.

Mike

[Monty]

Just my tuppence worth.

Why is the writer concerned with inky hands? Theres no fear of fingerprinting. Then, lo and behold, on the postcard, theres smuding...odd.

Im in agreement with Tom and Gareth re the delay. For me it hinges on the 'They say Im a Doctor now' line and is a direct reference to Baxters summing up in the Chapman inquest. He is letting the reader know he is up to speed with events.

Monty

[paul emmett]

Hi, Michael.

Thanks for the letter image. "No obvious smudging"--for sure. But what I've been struggling with all along is whether there is any non-obvious smudging. If not, I do go for your idea of some inside joke, even though I'm not sure that a reporter working to get the ink off his hands is so funny. Still, I think it's better than, "Oh, so sorry I have been laboring for two days to get these stains off." AND noone has addressed the question of why the writer should care about the two day gap.

The differences between the letter and postcard ARE striking.

Jack the Ripper is such a perfct name for an insecure "macho" guy; just like not having the ability to say, "I was not good enough . . .," it seems so right.

Good evening.

As you can see by the attached images...I thought Id save anyone a trip to the Letters section....there is no obvious smudging or smearing on the letter, or the envelope.

There is however a different "strength" in the post script, a weaker impression...perhaps either a depleted pen, or a different one.

Its not likely the author meant what he wrote literally...and that falls into what Sam and Tom and others suggest...he didnt mail it right away, and added the PS to explain the 2 day lag.

Its hard to say...but since I personally dont believe The Whitechapel Murderer ever called himself anything on paper, I would still lean towards some inside joke, or a masked reference to the real authors occupation. Funny how Dear Boss is so neat and such fine script, and Saucy Jack looks run over.

Now,.. From Hell... that I believe has "Ripper" potential.

Best regards.

[The Grave Maurice]

Were there any flaws, marks, blotches on the letter?

That's what I've always assumed the writer was referring to---the inky handprints on the letter---not to a delay in posting it.

[paul emmett]

He's saying it took him two days to get the blood off of his hands. Seems kind of unlikely, but it wouldn't take him two days to get ink off either.

Hi, Christine.

I do see the blood reference, but you are right: it's ludicrous--"LAME" to use Tom's earlier word--to think it took him two days to get anything off, blood or ink. That's why I feel there must be more to it.

Were there any flaws, marks, blotches on the letter?

Hi, Michael.

As I suggested to you privately, I think that your printer idea is smart, and I'm all for tongue in cheek. But I don't think it was Bulling for many reasons. The only one relevant here is that that obscure P.S. reference wouldn't have covered even the smallest of butts.