Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Two authentic comms from the Ripper?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Two authentic comms from the Ripper?

    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.

  • #2
    I'd be very wary of drawing any conclusions from the "diseased" kidney, the sole source of which is Major Henry Smith's decidedly unreliable memoirs. In the same passage, he claims that the Lusk kidney was compared, and matched, to the renal artery and the kidney that remained in the body... at which time Eddowes was at least six feet under the earth! Not to be trusted, I'm afraid.
    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by etenguy View Post
      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.
      Good post. I agree.
      "Is all that we see or seem
      but a dream within a dream?"

      -Edgar Allan Poe


      "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
      quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

      -Frederick G. Abberline

      Comment


      • #4
        On point "c" - I'd be very wary of drawing any inferences from the spelling mistakes in the Lusk Letter and the GSG... a huge number of "Ripper" letters had spelling mistakes in them.
        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

        Comment


        • #5
          Thanks Abby. Hardly conclusive, but adds to the weight of reasons to believe they might be authentic.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
            On point "c" - I'd be very wary of drawing any inferences from the spelling mistakes in the Lusk Letter and the GSG... a huge number of "Ripper" letters had spelling mistakes in them.
            Hi Sam. Agreed. The same is true of any individual point in my rambling proposal. It is as you consider the whole that you might begin to reach the point where it becomes more difficult to suppose the From Hell letter was a hoax and the GSG an accident of coincidence.

            Comment


            • #7
              straight from the horse's mouth...

              The killer's anti-Semitic cry of "Lipski" is as good and authentic a piece of communication as you could hope to rely on - straight from the horse's mouth. Together with the GSG, the thematics of a killer determined to stay on-message that early morning, appear clear enough. Not to downplay:

              * the body left at the entrance of a Jewish radical club and newspaper

              * the last sighting of JTR & Eddowes, by the south-eastern corner of the Great Synagogue (cnr. Duke Street and Church Passage, adjacent to Mitre Square)

              It may, at least in part, account for why the top cop, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Charles Warren, is on record saying, “…the last murders were obviously done by some one desiring to bring discredit on the Jews and Socialists or Jewish Socialists”.

              Stephen
              http://www.timesofisrael.com/were-th...mitic-frameup/
              Last edited by cnr; 04-22-2018, 03:39 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Hello cnr,

                First of all, welcome to the boards. But I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with you.

                It is not proven by any means that the B.S. man was Stride's killer. There are numerous reasons to believe that he was not. Schwartz could not be certain that what he heard was the slur "Lipski." Even if it was it is certainly not unusual that a person of Jewish appearance would get that tossed his way.

                It is still unclear whether the GSG is pro-Jewish or anti-Jewish.

                Stride was not killed somewhere else and her body dumped at the club. That is right where she had her encounter with the B.S. man so it is hard to see how that can be interpreted as being anti-Jewish in nature. It could be nothing more than a coincidence meaning that her killer happen to come across her near a Jewish club.

                Eddowes was seen in a number of places earlier that evening. Naturally one of them had to be the last place she was seen but I see no reason to attach a special significance to it.

                Sorry but I just don't see a Jewish connection to that evening.

                c.d.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                  Hello cnr, First of all, welcome to the boards.

                  Sorry but I just don't see a Jewish connection to that evening.

                  c.d.
                  I appreciate the welcome. Greetings to you too .

                  I don't think there's anything wrong with not seeing it, c.d. So many aspects of the police's determinations and actions don't necessarily make sense to us, we the burghers of the 21st century. We are at a distinct disadvantage in so many ways - and I'm reminded of it often.

                  On the substantive issue/s, I think that you and I may have to disagree; you're right there. As an aside, let me say that I seem to be stuck in a time warp and I can't seem to leave historical Whitechapel 1888 - demographic shifts, community tensions, industrial antagonism, political dynamics and all. That's just my reality, and I don't pretend it's everyone's take or cup of tea - but it does make me mindful of what I see as the anti-Semitic overtones of the saga.

                  It is maybe some of these same things, which played on the minds of those police officials who thought the GSG to have been authentic, anti-Semitic, or both. But who's to say why, exactly, they came to the conclusion/s they did ? We have a fragmentary knowledge of the episode, and I wish we knew more...

                  You are perfectly entitled to your interpretations and opinions about the case, like everyone - indeed. I always find it interesting to contemplate a broader sweep of the landscape that's not in keeping with my own view of it, including your posts.

                  Stephen
                  http://www.pressreader.com/australia...81694025363295
                  Last edited by cnr; 04-22-2018, 06:13 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Hello Stephen,

                    I completely missed your name the first time. Sorry about that.

                    It is nice to see someone on these boards with good manners and who is attempting to keep an open mind. We'll see how long it lasts.

                    Just kidding. I look forward to further posts from you.

                    c.d.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by c.d. View Post

                      It is nice to see someone on these boards with good manners and who is attempting to keep an open mind. We'll see how long it lasts.

                      Just kidding.

                      c.d.
                      Sit tight c.d..

                      It won't be too long before I'm walking around in an old potato sack, unshaven, and barking at the dog - I've only been (totally and utterly) immersed in the story for going-on three years, after a lifetime's reading.

                      ...and now I'm posting on Casebook. Surely, that can't be a good sign.

                      Stephen
                      http://www.pressreader.com/australia...81694025363295

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Hi Stephen/ all
                        The three clues that that try to implicate Jews:
                        Lipski
                        GsG
                        Aman

                        IMHO point the ripper himself. The clues are there, we just need to recognize them.
                        "Is all that we see or seem
                        but a dream within a dream?"

                        -Edgar Allan Poe


                        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                        -Frederick G. Abberline

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The strongest argument I've seen against the Lusk letter is not anything related to the kidney, but rather that it appears to be written in "Stage Irish" - i.e., what native English speakers wrote when imitating an Irish accent. I don't think people with accents generally "write their accent" - Germans who learn English as a second language for example do not generally write "we" as "ve" even though they might pronounce it that way.

                          As for Lipski, keep in mind that a great many people on this forum don't find Israel Schwartz to be a credible witness at all. Also, many people on this forum don't accept Stride as a Ripper victim.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                            Hi Stephen/ all
                            The three clues that that try to implicate Jews:
                            Lipski
                            GsG
                            Aman
                            IMHO point the ripper himself. The clues are there, we just need to recognize them.
                            Hi Abby,

                            You well know how I feel about that , but there's more to it !

                            I pursued the relevant arguments in the first edition of my book - and by taking my time with the second incarnation and maybe being a bit more bullish in discussing those points, I hope to have done a more thorough job of outlining the grand architecture, as it were, of the saga. Hopefully, the new bits and pieces brought forward in support helped too - in all, about an extra 20% by way of volume.

                            But I don't want to derail this thread with self-serving references, so I'll pipe down. If anyone's interested, I suggest reading my 'Dear Rip' letter in edition 155 of 'Ripperologist'; or the 'author's note' which follows my piece on Toppy in edition 160; or London-based author and journalist Robert Philpot's fair summary of the first edition of my book.

                            Happy posting, Abby et al.

                            Stephen
                            http://www.pressreader.com/australia...81694025363295

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Regarding the Lusk kidney if Jack had made his mind up, [and i no it is an if ] to communicate with someone after his next murder. Why didn't he wrap the kidney before sending it, in the apron instead of discarding it ? That would surely have authenticated it.
                              Also if he dropped the apron to authenticate the GSG why not make any mention of the rubbing out of said communication ? Or anything else regarding the double event . As has been mentioned by other posters, i feel that the tried suppressing of the news that the heart was missing with MJK might have been done to see if it was sent to the police etc later. When it was not i think [ just guessing here ]that the Mepo probably considered the lusk kidney a hoax but couldn't be certain as we are not today.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X