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

[Jon Guy]

I agree. Even more damming I think is the third letter which is very rarely mentioned. This was the one apparently received by Central News dated and received on 5th October in which the writer vehemently denies having killed the woman whose torso was found in the basement in Whitehall. For some unknown reason only the envelope (which was apparently in the same handwriting as the two previous communications) was sent to Scotland Yard and the letter itself was transcribed by Thomas Bulling. It is this that has caused most people to presume that it was a hoax perpetrated by Bulling himself.

There are other explanations - for instance the letter might have been sent for photographing or kept back by Central News for future display. If Bulling or his colleagues were the hoaxers would it not have been much more likely that they would have claimed credit for the Whitehall torso? The real Jack had a motive for not wanting to claim that one as his handiwork - he wanted the actual killings to be connected by a distinctive 'signature' and that one fell outside both the pattern and the area.

Hi Prosector,
I`ll have to dig out my copy of "Letters From hell" later to have a look at the hand writing on the envelope of the third letter.
But yes, Bulling may have realised that the first two may have been authentic due to the prophecy coming true and wanted to keep the original.
Perhaps, the police would not return DB and SJ !!

[Prosector]

Absolutely, whomever sent the letter to the Central News Agency wanted it printing (even though in this instance the writer asked for the letter to be held back until he strikes again). Everything points to a killer following events in the newspapers, mentioning leather apron and doctors.

If you wanted the letter printing would you send it to the Police ?



In my mind there are too many coincidences for the 2 letters to be hoaxes:

After 2 murders in a week there is a lull for three weeks and the letter arrives 2 days before the next murder.

First letter threatens to clip the ears which is followed through -although it appears the ear is dropped amongst Eddowes clothing in the dark.

Second letter claims number one squealed a bit and couldn`t finish straight off. Schwartz witnesses Stride screaming.

The writer explains that he didn`t have the time to get ears as promised, and we know time was tight in Mitre Sq.

Jon

I agree. Even more damming I think is the third letter which is very rarely mentioned. This was the one apparently received by Central News dated and received on 5th October in which the writer vehemently denies having killed the woman whose torso was found in the basement in Whitehall. For some unknown reason only the envelope (which was apparently in the same handwriting as the two previous communications) was sent to Scotland Yard and the letter itself was transcribed by Thomas Bulling. It is this that has caused most people to presume that it was a hoax perpetrated by Bulling himself.

There are other explanations - for instance the letter might have been sent for photographing or kept back by Central News for future display. If Bulling or his colleagues were the hoaxers would it not have been much more likely that they would have claimed credit for the Whitehall torso? The real Jack had a motive for not wanting to claim that one as his handiwork - he wanted the actual killings to be connected by a distinctive 'signature' and that one fell outside both the pattern and the area.

Prosector

[Jon Guy]

I bet if you asked 100 hundred people the best place to send a letter if you wanted it published in a national newspaper the vast majority if not all of them would say post it to a newspaper.

Absolutely, whomever sent the letter to the Central News Agency wanted it printing (even though in this instance the writer asked for the letter to be held back until he strikes again). Everything points to a killer following events in the newspapers, mentioning leather apron and doctors.

If you wanted the letter printing would you send it to the Police ?



In my mind there are too many coincidences for the 2 letters to be hoaxes:

After 2 murders in a week there is a lull for three weeks and the letter arrives 2 days before the next murder.

First letter threatens to clip the ears which is followed through -although it appears the ear is dropped amongst Eddowes clothing in the dark.

Second letter claims number one squealed a bit and couldn`t finish straight off. Schwartz witnesses Stride screaming.

The writer explains that he didn`t have the time to get ears as promised, and we know time was tight in Mitre Sq.

[pinkmoon]

Boris
I'm not sure why sending the Dear Boss letters to Central News is a 'dead givaway.' Quite the opposite I would think. See George Robert Sims's article about it in the Referee. He correctly deduced that the writer was a journalist because it was sent to Central News but then dismisses out of hand the possibility that a journalist could also be a murderer. I wonder why?
Prosector

I bet if you asked 100 hundred people the best place to send a letter if you wanted it published in a national newspaper the vast majority if not all of them would say post it to a newspaper.If put a letter in the post simply addressed to the Times newspaper in London I'm pretty sure it would find its way there.A journalist would know about a news agency certainly not the average man in the street also why not send a small piece of the victims clothing with the letter would take seconds to take from the body and it would leave absolutely no doubt letter was genuine.I believed the dear boss letter was genuine for years I think it was mainly because it gave such a sensational twist to this story but when you look at it and way up the facts you've got to say HOAX.I do think we owe the journalist a big thank you because he did choose a fantastic name for our killer.

[Jon Guy]

...then how do we reconcile Jack's promise to "clip the ladys ears off" with Eddowes' missing earlobe? Was the missing earlobe just an incidental act as Jack mutilated her face? Although this might be at odds with the precision of the killer's handiwork. Was it possible this information about the missing earlobe was leaked in time for someone to send the letter?

Harry

It might be just me but it appears from this sketch that more than the just the earlobe was sliced off. It doesn`t look far off from "clipping" the whole ear.

The missing bit of ear was found later amongst her clothes. Did the killer drop it and didn`t have the time to hang around looking for it, as promised?

[Prosector]

Boris
I'm not sure why sending the Dear Boss letters to Central News is a 'dead givaway.' Quite the opposite I would think. See George Robert Sims's article about it in the Referee. He correctly deduced that the writer was a journalist because it was sent to Central News but then dismisses out of hand the possibility that a journalist could also be a murderer. I wonder why?
Prosector

[caz]

Catherine Eddowes' killer didn't "clip the lady's ears off." The writer of the postcard (same pen) apologizes for not doing so and gives the excuse that there wasn't enough time.

Hi Cris,

I had assumed the lack of time was in reference to Stride's murder. The Dear Boss letter threatened to clip the ears off on his 'next' job - which was Stride according to the postcard. Of course, the author (if not the killer) could not have been sure of the full extent of the injuries to either victim when composing the postcard, in which case he (or she) would have been guessing the ears had not been attacked. Not much of a gamble, maybe, but it turned out to be a close call, given that Eddowes was the first victim to suffer facial mutilations of any sort, and in fact had the tip of her nose 'clipped off'. I assume this detail did not appear in the earliest reports, or the postcard's author would surely have exploited it in some way: "Had no time to get ears from one, but got nose from the other. Look out for it in the post".

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Was it possible this information about the missing earlobe was leaked in time for someone to send the letter?

Not possible, Harry. The letter was in police hands shortly before the double event.

Love,

Caz
X

[bolo]

Hello Harry,

how do we reconcile Jack's promise to "clip the ladys ears off" with Eddowes' missing earlobe?

A missing earlobe and a clipped-off ear are two different things.

Was the missing earlobe just an incidental act as Jack mutilated her face?

Yes, and it's the most plausible explanation in my opinion. If Kate's murderer would have wanted to cut one of her ears off (the complete outer ear, not just a lobe), he could have done so. He concentrated on the lower parts and face instead and given the extent of her facial mutilations and bad lighting, I think it's fair to say that he accidentally cut the ear lobe in the process.

I think the Dear Boss letter was a hoax, just like most (all?) of the following Ripper correspondence. The fact alone that it was sent to Central News is the first and most important dead giveaway.

Best wishes,

Boris

[Hunter]

Catherine Eddowes' killer didn't "clip the lady's ears off." The writer of the postcard (same pen) apologizes for not doing so and gives the excuse that there wasn't enough time. There was time to take a uterus and kidney, however. Making good on a threat that was bound to go public seemed to not be so important. So, what's the point of the letter? Probably what the "certain high officials" at the Yard came to suspect.

[Harry D]

...then how do we reconcile Jack's promise to "clip the ladys ears off" with Eddowes' missing earlobe? Was the missing earlobe just an incidental act as Jack mutilated her face? Although this might be at odds with the precision of the killer's handiwork. Was it possible this information about the missing earlobe was leaked in time for someone to send the letter?