Tweet
I would like to propose that at least two of the communications discussed in relation to the murders were sent by the murderer. They are:
1. the GSG;
2. the 'From Hell' letter.
The reasons to support this theory include:
a. Each communication was accompanied by corroborative murder scene artifacts, the apron piece (GSG) and the kidney section (From Hell). While the apron has been authenticated, the kidney section has not definitively. It is also true to say that nothing we know about the kidney section discounts the possibility it was from the murder scene. The only argument I have seen to detract from the kidney originating from the murder scene is that it might have been possible for someone to find a kidney with a similar/same disease (or indeed a pig with a similar/same disease) and mount an elaborate hoax. That is perhaps more implausible than the kidney being authentic.
b. It could be argued that the murderer wished to distinguish these letters from hoax comms – ( pure speculation but perhaps previous comms to the press regarding earlier murders had not gotten the attention the murderer wanted). Also, both of these comms were related to Catherine Eddowes murder. Consistency of the specific murder and authentification with artifacts would support the view that there was something different about that murder (the Liz Stride disturbance earlier) which aggravated the murderer and increased the murderer’s desire to vent anger and/or taunt those who may have come close to catching him in the act. This is perhaps further supported by his next murder being conducted indoors – ie he was spooked by the Liz Stride incident.
c. Both comms had misspellings and constructions which suggest a similar level of writing ability. We do not have a photograph of the GSG to know if the police corrected or introduced spelling mistakes, but we do have jewes or juwes. Having looked at the From Hell letter, I found it difficult to be certain of the transcription (eg – is it Sor or Sir – I would say Sir but others read Sor). This would also appear to be the case with the GSG, which is surmised from the different interpretations of the words and spellings by the different policemen. Of course, there were many that had poor writing and poor spelling in the area at that time and taken alone is not strongly conclusive.
d. Neither communication referred to Jack the Ripper, which would be an obvious sign off for a hoaxer to use. This relates more to the From Hell letter than the GSG, which wasn’t signed and if it was unrelated to the murders, would not have a reference to Jack the Ripper in any case.
This is, of course, not conclusive evidence that the two comms were related and authentic.
When you look at each comm. separately, there are alternative explanations. By linking the two and considering them together, I suggest there are additional arguments which lend weight to them being authentic.
1. the GSG;
2. the 'From Hell' letter.
The reasons to support this theory include:
a. Each communication was accompanied by corroborative murder scene artifacts, the apron piece (GSG) and the kidney section (From Hell). While the apron has been authenticated, the kidney section has not definitively. It is also true to say that nothing we know about the kidney section discounts the possibility it was from the murder scene. The only argument I have seen to detract from the kidney originating from the murder scene is that it might have been possible for someone to find a kidney with a similar/same disease (or indeed a pig with a similar/same disease) and mount an elaborate hoax. That is perhaps more implausible than the kidney being authentic.
b. It could be argued that the murderer wished to distinguish these letters from hoax comms – ( pure speculation but perhaps previous comms to the press regarding earlier murders had not gotten the attention the murderer wanted). Also, both of these comms were related to Catherine Eddowes murder. Consistency of the specific murder and authentification with artifacts would support the view that there was something different about that murder (the Liz Stride disturbance earlier) which aggravated the murderer and increased the murderer’s desire to vent anger and/or taunt those who may have come close to catching him in the act. This is perhaps further supported by his next murder being conducted indoors – ie he was spooked by the Liz Stride incident.
c. Both comms had misspellings and constructions which suggest a similar level of writing ability. We do not have a photograph of the GSG to know if the police corrected or introduced spelling mistakes, but we do have jewes or juwes. Having looked at the From Hell letter, I found it difficult to be certain of the transcription (eg – is it Sor or Sir – I would say Sir but others read Sor). This would also appear to be the case with the GSG, which is surmised from the different interpretations of the words and spellings by the different policemen. Of course, there were many that had poor writing and poor spelling in the area at that time and taken alone is not strongly conclusive.
d. Neither communication referred to Jack the Ripper, which would be an obvious sign off for a hoaxer to use. This relates more to the From Hell letter than the GSG, which wasn’t signed and if it was unrelated to the murders, would not have a reference to Jack the Ripper in any case.
This is, of course, not conclusive evidence that the two comms were related and authentic.
When you look at each comm. separately, there are alternative explanations. By linking the two and considering them together, I suggest there are additional arguments which lend weight to them being authentic.
.
, but there's more to it ! 
Comment