One Letter From another

[clark2710]

Hello everyone, thank you for taking the time my question is this:

With the various sources getting so many letters from different places and so on how did they determine what came from the real Ripper? Now a days we have letter writing analysis and fingerprint analysis and so on but how did they at that time determine the letters to be from the same guy other than just possible similarities in language and so on

[Phil H]

In my view, the two communications that gave rise to the soubriquet "Jack the Ripper" were briefly considered as coming from the killer, but police then recognised them as emanating from "an enterprising journalist".

As far as I am aware - someone is sure to tell me I am wrong! - none of the other letters were regarded as "genuine" at the time. The exception was the Lusk letter, accompanying the half kidney, which was not, of course, initially sent to the authorities.

Have you read LETTERS FROM HELL by Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner?

Phil H

[lynn cates]

A myth is as good as a mile.

Hello Clark. It seems that none of the letters were finally regarded as from the killer/s. Yet another myth gone.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

M & M

Hello Phil. I wonder whether the "Moab and Midian" letter raised eyebrows for a bit?

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Hello everyone, thank you for taking the time my question is this:

With the various sources getting so many letters from different places and so on how did they determine what came from the real Ripper? Now a days we have letter writing analysis and fingerprint analysis and so on but how did they at that time determine the letters to be from the same guy other than just possible similarities in language and so on

Hi Clark,

Of the thousands of letters sent to either the press or the police only 2 or perhaps 3 were suggested as potentially authentic. Dear Boss, Saucy Jack, Catch me when you can.... because many would argue there is information in the Saucy Jack letter that mentions acts specific to the crimes and the handwriting on both seems to be the same. The letter to Mr Lusk is powerful because of the kidney section, although a connection to Kate was never proven because we cant be sure that it was from a human let alone from a right kidney of a female in her late 40's. We know it showed a form of nephritis, which Kates remaining kidney also had.

All those other letters were assessed for their content and the handwriting, and although there are only I believe a few hundred logged, I believe all were examined closely. One of the more interesting correspondences came in 1896 actually, because it mentions the Goulston Street Graffito content.

To me, the only possible in terms of authenticity may be Catch me if you can, because he didnt name himself, he didnt go on and on about his bloodlust or his reputation, he didnt taunt the police, and he mailed it to the head of a local committee formed to hunt the killer,... not the press, or the police. That plus the section, which possibly was Kates, makes me a believer at this stage.

But I believe he was claiming just Kates murder, not all of them.

Cheers

[Bridewell]

Hi Clark,

Of the thousands of letters sent to either the press or the police only 2 or perhaps 3 were suggested as potentially authentic. Dear Boss, Saucy Jack, Catch me when you can.... because many would argue there is information in the Saucy Jack letter that mentions acts specific to the crimes and the handwriting on both seems to be the same. The letter to Mr Lusk is powerful because of the kidney section, although a connection to Kate was never proven because we cant be sure that it was from a human let alone from a right kidney of a female in her late 40's. We know it showed a form of nephritis, which Kates remaining kidney also had.

All those other letters were assessed for their content and the handwriting, and although there are only I believe a few hundred logged, I believe all were examined closely. One of the more interesting correspondences came in 1896 actually, because it mentions the Goulston Street Graffito content.

To me, the only possible in terms of authenticity may be Catch me if you can, because he didnt name himself, he didnt go on and on about his bloodlust or his reputation, he didnt taunt the police, and he mailed it to the head of a local committee formed to hunt the killer,... not the press, or the police. That plus the section, which possibly was Kates, makes me a believer at this stage.

But I believe he was claiming just Kates murder, not all of them.

Cheers

Entirely agree. There's what looks like deliberate mis-spelling by the omission of the last letter of words. (e.g. Why 'knif' and not 'nife'?) Attempt, in places, to disguise the handwriting. To me, whoever wrote that letter was anticipating the possibility that his own script might be compared to that of the letter writer.

I don't think the word 'Signed' (correctly spelt) adds anything to the 'Catch me when you can' taunt, so I wonder why it was included. I think the Lusk Letter is more likely than the GSG or any of the other letters to have been written by the killer. Glad I'm not the only one to entertain it as a possibility.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Hunter]

To me, the only possible in terms of authenticity may be Catch me if you can, because he didnt name himself, he didnt go on and on about his bloodlust or his reputation, he didnt taunt the police, and he mailed it to the head of a local committee formed to hunt the killer,... not the press, or the police. That plus the section, which possibly was Kates, makes me a believer at this stage.

But I believe he was claiming just Kates murder, not all of them.

I send you half the Kidne I took from one woman and prasarved it for you tother piece I fried and ate it was very nise. I may send you the bloody knif that took it out if you only wate a whil longer

The reference about the kidney he took from one women suggests to me that he was implying that he had killed more, but took the kidney from this one. Otherwise, he could have just said "the woman" or "the woman I killed."

I used to believe that this particular letter may be genuine, for the reasons that are usually suggested, but some valid points raised by Wolf Vanderlinden has given me cause to reconsider.

[Michael W Richards]

I send you half the Kidne I took from one woman and prasarved it for you tother piece I fried and ate it was very nise. I may send you the bloody knif that took it out if you only wate a whil longer

The reference about the kidney he took from one women suggests to me that he was implying that he had killed more, but took the kidney from this one. Otherwise, he could have just said "the woman" or "the woman I killed."

I used to believe that this particular letter may be genuine, for the reasons that are usually suggested, but some valid points raised by Wolf Vanderlinden has given me cause to reconsider.

Hi Hunter,

Being familiar with Wolf but not with his arguments regarding this letter I cant address what specifically he said that caused you to reconsider its validity, but I can say that the plural aspect of the word "woman" doesnt concern me when the kidney is purporting to be from one victim of a double kill night.

Its also the only organ taken from any of the victims that could have conceivably been eaten, as the note intimates,.... perhaps also Marys heart, but the other organs taken would not be considered edible by very many people. And therefore odd choices when other traditionally eaten organs were available, and for someone who had intentions of eating the trophies later...if the letter is authentic of course.

Best regards