September 17th Letter

[Cap'n Jack]

Take heart, White Knight
swords may be drawn and sabres rattled
but the old wolf he is hard battled.

I think the distinction the letter writer was making was that 'single females' were out of work prostitutes because nature had taken her course.

[mac-the-kipper]

obviously not.
I had taken you at face value for what you said on this thread.
but if that ain't good enough ,cheerio!

another smack for the newbie, eh!
gee, you're a lovely bunch!

WK

Not at all dude, I'm definitely in your camp here. You'll see that I have been treated like an imbecile by some of the rippersaurs, so I decided to be one and take the piss at every opportunity. These so called 'experts' (and I use that term MOST sincerely) Have told me time and time again about something that they have, a. No knowledge, b. No experience, c. No inside information.

I can't wait. I'm bursting with excitement I could crush a grape!

[caz]

I think the distinction the letter writer was making was that 'single females' were out of work prostitutes because nature had taken her course.

I get the impression that the only distinction the writer was making was between those who would be having their period (ie one in four young spinsters of the parish), who could experience undue embarrassment from having bloodhounds sniffing around the place, and everyone who wasn't likely to be having a period (ie men, children and women who were older or with child).

The writer seems more concerned with the nature of bloodhounds than anything else. I suspect the 'single' bit was an unconscious reference along the lines that Ally posted, ie the ingrained image of the impoverished wife (common-law included) would come with her last babe still clamped to her bosom and her next obviously on the way.

Love,

Caz
X

[White-Knight]

Mac...thanks for that, I did see how you had been treated.I have read it. I did understand your sarcasm initially ..I just didn't realise it was a blanket you were using....! but..no offence taken ,as it seems you meant none, as such! to me at least!

Caz-that all sounds very logical and reasonable, maybe the writer IS just wondering about what 'those Bloodhounds about the streets' are going to get upto..on the face of it that IS what the writer seems concerned with ...

But..

It still seems an odd complaint to pluck, to me at least....If you are going to worry about the inconvenience of being sniffed at by a bloodhound and are fairly ignorant of them wouldn't you also issue warning regarding every surgeon, mortuary attendant, people with any kind of flesh wound, anybody who'd been to a hospital recently , not to mention those in the meat trade etc etc..,or are they assumed to have been considered already? If so, why would the 'everyday fact' of menstrusting women, if part of such a common 'mentality' of the time not have been assumed to have already been considered by the police also? why point at that, specifically or at least, initially?

perhaps it was obvious to ,or at least in the mind of the author that menstrual blood gives a stronger scent and therefore merits more concern than other sources of blood scent ,the writer does refer to the strength of the odour, in his/her opinion: 'very strong', but if the writer knew anything at all about the nasal ability of hounds (though I admit the fact he/she seems not to appears to be the motivation for writing the letter in the first place and there is no reason he/she should! ), then the examples I cite would also would form part of the consideration, would they not?

which leaves it a singular complaint to make...and open to theories...

I expect you think I'm clutching at straws. And probably I am. but it keeps me off the streets. lol!

W.K.

[Cap'n Jack]

Yes, it is a quirky little letter.
The police announce that they are bringing in bloodhounds to track the killer, and the killer announces that the bloodhounds will not track him but rather single females with stained napkins.
He may well have been right.
He appears to have had a knowledge of blood.

[White-Knight]

I've just had a look at a scan of it..found it really interesting..the handwriting is quite graceful, fairly but not overly neat and scrolling, with big ,forgive me, 'slashes' to cross the T's etc..very 'clerk' like..but with flourishes, to trace over it feels flamboyant you feel like an orhestra conductor ..reminds me of the style of handwriting I've seen on my father's 70 year old school reports or old census data...a fairly 'standard' , 'educated' English style, and a certain rhythm to the varied ink flow, though hard to tell if its the pen or an intermittent varying of pressure by the writer...

the position of the signature top right seems ambiguous..is it a signature or a heading? If its a heading the letter starts to look and sound like a warning from an old busy-body,which would commpliment the 'mindset' discussed earlier.. if its a signature it starts to look very unusual for a hoax..lacking all the boastfulness, luridity and obviously suggestive scratchy, untidy and semi-literate qualities of the most famous letters..and having for a purpose not so much a boast or taunt as a cool ,acid, little put down...(not so much 'catch me if you can' since i'm too quick and clever, more..you've got no chance..your tactics are rubbish, and no cackling..all very straight faced..the rhythm created by the words used sounds just a touch snide if anything!?)

odd.can't help being reminded of 'the poor old gentleman ,he's fallen down the stairs!'...spurious thought, probably..

yes, I'd have thought it does imply knowledge of blood in the fact that blood smells but its interesting that it's the women who are actually said to smell 'very strong', they are not explicitly excused on account of it being the blood which causes the odour..they seem to be implicated, accused ,the words 'females', 'smell' ,'very' and 'strong' seem to be written a little bolder than surrounding words and the two 'l's' in 'smell' look like they have been copied over!? (I feel like Peter Butterworth in Carry On Screaming..lol!)

The writer it seems to me , holds both the police and the single women in some contempt..how much is unclear since he/she hasn't said so explicitly, but merely infers it through complaints about them and accusations towards them, and possibly carries some complimenting suggestion in some emboldening of key words.

From what IS known and cross referenced about him I don't think you could rule out Cutbush as having written it, ripper or not.

If it is a total hoax, then, its a very odd one, and by the standards of many of the more famous letters, very sophisticated.

Or it may just be some old git! with an outmoded sociology ..who didn't like women, particularly of 'the lower sort' or even just the unmarried sort..which may have meant to him/her the same thing...
who started out writing a missive and then chucked the ripper's name at the top to grab the piece some attention or just to head it up. it does look just possibly squeezed.....

again...very odd little letter...from a very odd little writer, of some sort!?

WK

[Supe]

He appears to have had a knowledge of blood.

But neither you nor the writer clearly have any knowledge of tracker dogs.

Don.

[Sam Flynn]

I've just had a look at a scan of it...the handwriting is quite graceful, fairly but not overly neat

If you're referring to the 17th Sept letter, WK, then - to my eyes at least - it looks like a rather obvious attempt to affect a spidery scrawl.

[White-Knight]

er, no sorry Sam..I'm referring to a missive of 10th October....the thread has drifted a bit because of some possible common features between the two.....

WK.

[White-Knight]

the 'scrawl' NOT being one of them..

WK

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks for the clarification, WK

[John Bennett]

I can't wait. I'm bursting with excitement I could crush a grape!

Mac, do I get the feeling that you have had news, re: testing?

[mac-the-kipper]

Mac, do I get the feeling that you have had news, re: testing?

[Cap'n Jack]

''The Daily Telegraph
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1888

Page 2

EXTRAORDINARY AFFAIR. - It has just transpired that a young woman, named Annie Murphy, living at Sanderstead-road, Croydon, was stopped on Monday night last, when in the Brighton-road, near her home, by a tall, thin man, who suddenly put his arm round her. She struggled and screamed, and a policeman who was near ran at once to the spot. By the time that he arrived, however, the man had got away, and the young woman only complaining that he had embraced her, the matter was not followed up. Later in the evening, however, she found that her dress was cut, and that she had been stabbed in the breast. She immediately went to a doctor, and informed the police, who are now searching for her assailant. The woman says she did not feel the stab at the time.'

Bloody Croydon... bet this bloke read his Croydon Advertiser.

[John Bennett]

What's November 17th 1888 got to do with the September 17th letter?