If the 'Dear Boss' letter is a hoax...

[Pierre]

You said exactly the same thing about the Gogmagog letter, Pierre. Doesn't that suggest to you that you putting forward absurd arguments?

Absurd arguments =

A serial killer gives official information about the exact street where he is going to commit the next murder.


A clear example =

Beware. I am going to kill again on Friday night. The address is:

13 Miller´s Court.

Jack the Ripper

[David Orsam]

Do you think that a well educated killer would tell the press and police that he was going to kill two persons in a specific street on a specific date? Do you not think that such a thing would be very unlikely?

You said exactly the same thing about the Gogmagog letter, Pierre. Doesn't that suggest to you that you putting forward absurd arguments?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;393948][QUOTE=Pierre;393924]

Pierre

This will be very simple.


1. What data source do you have that suggests this letter could be genuine, given it first publication date and lack of a real date on it?

Hi Steve,

Good, I will make it simple too.

Not data source but sources. It is a set of sources, known and unknown, giving a very high historical coherence for established hypothetical facts. There are sources for a clear and distinct motive and they have very high explanatory power.

2. What data source do you have or are you using to say this letter was written by your suspect?

A set of sources. There is an explanation for the name Jack the Ripper. There is an explanation for the choice of the date 30 September and it is connected to sources giving a clear and distinctive motive.

3. What data source do you have that backs up your view that the writer is referring to an ancient parish, and not a street?

Do you think that a well educated killer would tell the press and police that he was going to kill two persons in a specific street on a specific date? Do you not think that such a thing would be very unlikely?

If no such data is produced, it is safe to assume, none exists.
I will assume that this idea is a work of imagination.

Why do you think I would care about what you "assume"? I do my research in the interest of history, not in the interest of people who´s only interest is to destroy the interest of history.

Of course you refuse to discuss the provenance of the letter.

That is the really hilarious thing.

It is so very sad that you cannot argue and defend your corner, or your views

Steve

I don´t do defense. I do research. If you want to argue with people who have spent years and years defending their own ideas, you will find many others here to debate with.

Actually Steve, I don´t care what you or others think about me. I serve history. And if I am wrong, you will have a wonderful time.

And I do not care about that either. I just hope I am wrong.

[David Orsam]

Thanks David. However if, say,the letter was sent to the Telegraph in 1889 why was it never published? After all, a number of very dubious letters were published.

Well there was certainly a lot of press interest in Ripper letters during September and October 1888 but I think by September 1889 the excitement had rather worn off. Consulting Evans and Skinner's 'Letters from Hell' I see the following letter was addressed to the Press Association:

E 28. Sep.
Dear Editor,
I hope to resume operations about next Tuesday or Wednesday night. Don't let the coppers know.
Jack the Ripper

This was 28 September 1889. I don't know for sure but I somehow doubt any newspapers bothered to publish this one.

Then we have one dated 30 September 1889 sent to the Met Police:

I am Jack the Ripper I am at present living At the Neighbourhood of Islington I have got my eyes on the beauties I guess I will make Islington ring before I ave done do you think I am mad What of mistake you make so Prepare for Another Mutilation Case before this day week

Just another one of the hundreds put in loony file and forgotten.

[John G]

Yes, but how could Hall Richardson have "produced" an original letter in a book?

I think one can say there is provenance, just not particularly good. Would Hall Richardson have completely invented this letter? I rather doubt it. The problem is that later writers took "29th Sept" to be 29th September 1888 which it obviously isn't. This has confused many people, including Pierre.

Thanks David. However if, say,the letter was sent to the Telegraph in 1889 why was it never published? After all, a number of very dubious letters were published. And if it was contemporary, assuming it existed at all, why did it take decades for Hall Richardson to reveal its existence?

[David Orsam]

But isn't it the case that the "original" letter was never produced? Can there be provenance when no one, apart from Hall Richardson, can even confirm the existence of the supposed communication?

Yes, but how could Hall Richardson have "produced" an original letter in a book?

I think one can say there is provenance, just not particularly good. Would Hall Richardson have completely invented this letter? I rather doubt it. The problem is that later writers took "29th Sept" to be 29th September 1888 which it obviously isn't. This has confused many people, including Pierre.

[John G]

I'm not sure one can say the provenance is non-existent because Hall Richardson was the crime correspondent for the Daily Telegraph during the period of the Ripper murders so he might have kept one of the many letters written to the press. But there is no reason to think this letter was written on 29 September 1888. It was probably written on 29 September 1889, by which time the press were probably not bothering to pass them all onto the police.

But isn't it the case that the "original" letter was never produced? Can there be provenance when no one, apart from Hall Richardson, can even confirm the existence of the supposed communication?

[David Orsam]

Is there the slightest evidence that this letter was written at anytime in the 19th century? Why is as it not referred to by a single contemporary source? And then there's Steve's excellent comment about the provenance, which is none existent.

I'm not sure one can say the provenance is non-existent because Hall Richardson was the crime correspondent for the Daily Telegraph during the period of the Ripper murders so he might have kept one of the many letters written to the press. But there is no reason to think this letter was written on 29 September 1888. It was probably written on 29 September 1889, by which time the press were probably not bothering to pass them all onto the police.

[John G]

Is there the slightest evidence that this letter was written at anytime in the 19th century? As its a reproduction, is there any evidence it was written at all? Why is it not referred to by a single contemporary source? And then there's Steve's excellent comment about the provenance, which is none existent.

No one recognized as a serious historian would take this drivel remotely seriously. To quote David Hume, "Commit it then to the flames. For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion "

[David Orsam]

And the press had very little time to publish it and had no reason to publish it quickly, since they did not care much about it. Until the next day.

You seem to know a lot about this letter Pierre bearing in mind there is no surviving letter, envelope or postmark. Hall Richardson's reproduction of the text shows that it bore the date 29th September but, if it was actually written on that day, when was it posted? The same day as it was written or the next day? If the same day, was it posted in the morning, afternoon or evening?

If in the evening, and we go along with your fantasy of it being written on Saturday 29 September 1888, with the next day being a Sunday, it wouldn't have been received by its intended recipient until Monday 1st October would it?

How do you know it wasn't received on the Monday?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Robert St Devil;393977]

Hi Pierre.

Your interpretation of the 2nd ,,inst.,, does reveal something. The letter wouldnt make sense if it read...

29th [of September]
BEWARE! I shall be at work on the 1st and 2nd [of September]

...unless the writer possessed a time machine (nix). So i can accept a separation of ideas, or short-hand in phrasing, between ,,1st and 2nd,, and ,,inst.,,. Only...
- Elizabeth and Catherine aren,t the 1st and 2nd. Polly and Annie or Martha are.

Hi Robert,

They are the first and second on this particular date.

If it,s not written in September 88, then it,s useless. Any of the other months would make less sense.

I can wonder if the journalist actually saw those letters. He did know that they were written in red ink, and there is an excessive usage of quotation marks, which would require a keen memory if that is where the journalist is pulling his source. Even Minories receives single quotation marks.

That is a good observation.

It reads to me like two letters, which means there may have been more. Unless JACK THE RIPPER is the name of the street where he lived, I didn,t see any street mentioned in the top ,letter,.

This is just initial thoughts, all ideas that miss the point. Point being, if they were trying to cover up the fact that they received a letter before the murders, why create a letter claiming to be written before the murders?

Because it was a sensation to them that the murders came true. That is the reason why they reproduced the name used by the killer.

I am presuming this letter went to the press since it refers to the police.

And the press had very little time to publish it and had no reason to publish it quickly, since they did not care much about it. Until the next day.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

As a London resident (or as you would describe a citizen of the ancient cathedral city of Southwark), I take serious umbridge with your cavalier attitude to London Geography. The Minories, I will agree, could reasonably include Mitre Square (just the other side of Aldgate High Road from Tower Bridge northern approach as now is), being unarguably within the City of London. This however is the border of the City. Berner's Street is either Whitechapel or arguably Wapping, neither of which were ancient parts of the City, but Eastward suburban slum sprawl. As for King William Street being near the Strand, please look again at the map. Central London has three Cathedral cities: London (St Paul's), Westminster (St Peter's) and Southwark (the old Abbeys associated with the Virgin and Saviour and closely tied to the Chaucerian St Thomas Pilgrimage). The road Strand links London to Westminster along the original Saxon landing point, King William Street is in the heart of the City of London and was in fact terminus to the original tube underground railway - the City and Southern, which opened in 1890 (and closed 1900). London's compact geography can be confusing but please do not assume an estate agent-esque spread to the regional names, they were, and still very much are, effectively individual villages and towns merging into one great metropolis

Sincerely

Paul

Dear Kjab3112

I am another person born and bred in London.

I would however have to contest your view that Mitre square could be referred to as being in the minorities,

That’s like saying Northumberland Avenue and the Strand could be seen as the same thing, or Reagent street and Piccadilly. my point is that the roads
are separated from each other by a major road or junction and are not a natural extension of the same road under another name, as could be the case say with Edgware Road, Madia Vale and Kilburn High street.

Having said that it is clear from your post you do know London well, unlike some who post.

The king William street Pierre refers to was close to the Strand/Charing Cross, the name has changed over the years it is now William iv street.


The rest of your post is very informative, the history of the underground is very interesting and i have seen some great pics of the original tunnel in King William street a few years ago.

Agree with you that many do not seem to understand that the London of today was a group of settlements which merged.


All the best

Steve

[Abby Normal]

The “Dear Boss” letter (25th September 1888) gave rise to all subsequent “Jack the Ripper” communications in which the common purpose of their various authors was to taunt the recipients. It is reasonable to suppose that the inclination to write such letters would be accompanied by an urge to drop them into the nearest pillar box at the earliest opportunity. So, why did the originator of the name “Jack the Ripper” apparently wait two days before posting his now notorious missive? And why did he use two different writing implements?
If the letter was written by Sir R. Anderson’s “enterprising young journalist” in order to boost newspaper sales (as was one theory), he partly defeated his own objective in having missed the opportunity (by late posting) of an extra 48 hours increased newspaper vending.
There are only two reasonable explanations which logically agree with both the two day time lapse in posting and the two different writing implements.

The first explanation is that the entire letter, including the second postscript, was written in one location only by the following means: 
The author employed a pen dipped in red ink with which to write the main text and first postscript. Without apparently having run out of red ink he then put down his pen, rotated the letter sheet through ninety degrees of arc, and then picking up a red crayon pencil, added the second postscript at right angles to the main text. He then waited for two days before posting his letter.
Notice that, in this particular scenario, there is an obvious urge to write the letter which, when fulfilled, immediately gives way to a lack of urgency in posting it.

The second explanation is that the letter in its entirety, complete with second postscript, was written in two locations.

In the first location, its author wrote only the main text and first postscript using the available red ink. Being satisfied that his work was then complete, he decided to avoid posting it in his local vicinity because the franking mark on the envelope would reveal his approximate location. Instead, he decided to post his letter in another location (in this case London E.C.).
Either at the second location or in transit to that place, he had an afterthought which resulted in the second postscript being written, using the only portable writing implement he had upon his person (ie: a red crayon pencil). By that time, the letter sheet may have already been folded, leaving a blank area exposed on which it’s writer added the second postscript without noticing that it was at right angles to the main text.

In the first explanation, the lack of urgency in posting the letter contradicts the urgent desire to write it.
In the second explanation it could be argued that the first location was also in London, the only objection being that it doesn’t take two days to cross from one location in London to another. In any case, a hoaxer would be far less likely to be concerned about giving away his local postal area than would the murderer.

Hi Spider
nice assessment.
Ive often said the same thing-if the letter is a hoax from someone from CNA-why wait two days before sending? it gives the killer and or othr journalists a chance to scoop you. They would send as soon as they completed writng it.

also, why write if its a hoax, hold back before I get to work again then send out? seems to me too subtly a point for a hoaxer to come up with, but the real killer might want them to do it, so as not to stir things up so he has an easier time of doing his work.

I like your ideas on the postscript too.

[Spider]

The “Dear Boss” letter (25th September 1888) gave rise to all subsequent “Jack the Ripper” communications in which the common purpose of their various authors was to taunt the recipients. It is reasonable to suppose that the inclination to write such letters would be accompanied by an urge to drop them into the nearest pillar box at the earliest opportunity. So, why did the originator of the name “Jack the Ripper” apparently wait two days before posting his now notorious missive? And why did he use two different writing implements?
If the letter was written by Sir R. Anderson’s “enterprising young journalist” in order to boost newspaper sales (as was one theory), he partly defeated his own objective in having missed the opportunity (by late posting) of an extra 48 hours increased newspaper vending.
There are only two reasonable explanations which logically agree with both the two day time lapse in posting and the two different writing implements.

The first explanation is that the entire letter, including the second postscript, was written in one location only by the following means: 
The author employed a pen dipped in red ink with which to write the main text and first postscript. Without apparently having run out of red ink he then put down his pen, rotated the letter sheet through ninety degrees of arc, and then picking up a red crayon pencil, added the second postscript at right angles to the main text. He then waited for two days before posting his letter.
Notice that, in this particular scenario, there is an obvious urge to write the letter which, when fulfilled, immediately gives way to a lack of urgency in posting it.

The second explanation is that the letter in its entirety, complete with second postscript, was written in two locations.

In the first location, its author wrote only the main text and first postscript using the available red ink. Being satisfied that his work was then complete, he decided to avoid posting it in his local vicinity because the franking mark on the envelope would reveal his approximate location. Instead, he decided to post his letter in another location (in this case London E.C.).
Either at the second location or in transit to that place, he had an afterthought which resulted in the second postscript being written, using the only portable writing implement he had upon his person (ie: a red crayon pencil). By that time, the letter sheet may have already been folded, leaving a blank area exposed on which it’s writer added the second postscript without noticing that it was at right angles to the main text.

In the first explanation, the lack of urgency in posting the letter contradicts the urgent desire to write it.
In the second explanation it could be argued that the first location was also in London, the only objection being that it doesn’t take two days to cross from one location in London to another. In any case, a hoaxer would be far less likely to be concerned about giving away his local postal area than would the murderer.

[Robert St Devil]

Hi Pierre.

Your interpretation of the 2nd ,,inst.,, does reveal something. The letter wouldnt make sense if it read...

29th [of September]
BEWARE! I shall be at work on the 1st and 2nd [of September]

...unless the writer possessed a time machine (nix). So i can accept a separation of ideas, or short-hand in phrasing, between ,,1st and 2nd,, and ,,inst.,,. Only...
- Elizabeth and Catherine aren,t the 1st and 2nd. Polly and Annie or Martha are.

If it,s not written in September 88, then it,s useless. Any of the other months would make less sense.

I can wonder if the journalist actually saw those letters. He did know that they were written in red ink, and there is an excessive usage of quotation marks, which would require a keen memory if that is where the journalist is pulling his source. Even Minories receives single quotation marks.

It reads to me like two letters, which means there may have been more. Unless JACK THE RIPPER is the name of the street where he lived, I didn,t see any street mentioned in the top ,letter,.

This is just initial thoughts, all ideas that miss the point. Point being, if they were trying to cover up the fact that they received a letter before the murders, why create a letter claiming to be written before the murders?



I am presuming this letter went to the press since it refers to the police.