The GOGMAGOG-letter

[SuspectZero]

Steve, I think perhaps you should not waste so much time on me, but go ahead and have a very nice Christmas day instead.

Regards Pierre

Hi Pierre,
Is your "police official" suspect a police surgeon?

[Elamarna]

What is known -

The newspaper was published on 6th November 1888.
The postmark had to be 29th October 1888.
The address quoted is 14 Dorset Street.

Possible inferences -
a) Look out for him on Thursday night - either 1st or 8th November.
b) at either of the piers - Yarmouth piers Britannia and Wellington - Whitechapel pubs The Britannia and Duke of Wellington.
c) where he intends to do for two Norwich women before closing time - intends to murder 2 women who are getting more than their fair share.

Seems like a letter that could have been written by someone who knew the intentions of the Ripper. No proof that it was, no proof that it wasn't.

Hi there MysterySinger

a question for you on the 2 reports of the "YARMOUTH" letter.

You may not have an answer, from the information available:

The letter is post marked Monday 29th,

It says to look out Thursday.

Is there any logical reason, given that the letter writer would have expected the letter to arrive at its destination by the 31st at the latest to assume that the Thursday refereed to is anything other than the 1st?

Surely if the writer meant the 8th he would say next Thursday, or Thursday next.

I Would suggest that the papers report that it was a hoax is absolutely correct.

Therefore while absolute proof is impossible to provide, I would suggest that in a civil court, where the onus of proof is not as high as a criminal court a verdict of not guilty would be returned( no connection to killer)

hope you had a good Christmas day

Steve

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre,
Is your "police official" suspect a police surgeon?

No, he isn´t.

Regards Pierre

[MysterySinger]

Hi there MysterySinger

a question for you on the 2 reports of the "YARMOUTH" letter.

You may not have an answer, from the information available:

The letter is post marked Monday 29th,

It says to look out Thursday.

Is there any logical reason, given that the letter writer would have expected the letter to arrive at its destination by the 31st at the latest to assume that the Thursday refereed to is anything other than the 1st?

Surely if the writer meant the 8th he would say next Thursday, or Thursday next.

I Would suggest that the papers report that it was a hoax is absolutely correct.

Therefore while absolute proof is impossible to provide, I would suggest that in a civil court, where the onus of proof is not as high as a criminal court a verdict of not guilty would be returned( no connection to killer)

hope you had a good Christmas day

Steve

That is absolutely correct. By writing on the Monday and referring to Thursday the most logical conclusion would be that same Thursday. However, if the letter was truly from JTR, then he is clearly a clever person and he may well have made the assumption that it might take a few days for the letter to be published (is indeed happened with the 6th November publication) or passed to the Met. Another thing is, he may well simply have missed its publication - how likely would it be for someone to have access to every newspaper each day?

It was sent to the Police and would not necessarily have been published at all - the question being that if it was so obviously a hoax why would the Police bother letting the papers know about it? In this case it appears to be certain details from the letter that made it out rather than the letter itself by which I understand the Police might have otherwise expected someone to recognise the hand writing - as I think had been the case previously.

Another possibility is that in the end he couldn't do his work that Thursday at all and instead had to wait until the following week. True, technically MJK was murdered on the Friday but I personally wouldn't necessarily distinguish Thursday (overnight) from the early hours of Friday morning.

But here's the thing - we cannot prove that the letter was written by anyone connected with JTR but neither can it be disproved. However, the 14 Dorset Street connection is too much of a co-incidence to ignore. The case is clearly not ready to pass to the CPS though we're not actually in the business of prosecuting - we're still investigating and testing. I think it would be foolish to ignore a potential clue like this. It goes up on the white board with all the other little clues.

[Elamarna]

"That is absolutely correct. By writing on the Monday and referring to Thursday the most logical conclusion would be that same Thursday. However, if the letter was truly from JTR, then he is clearly a clever person"

Sorry MysterySinger, i don't necessarily accept that he was clever. that is not proved.

"and he may well have made the assumption that it might take a few days for the letter to be published (is indeed happened with the 6th November publication) or passed to the Met. Another thing is, he may well simply have missed its publication - how likely would it be for someone to have access to every newspaper each day? "

your next line suggest that indeed there was no reason for the writer to think it would be published

It was sent to the Police and would not necessarily have been published at "all - the question being that if it was so obviously a hoax why would the Police bother letting the papers know about it? In this case it appears to be certain details from the letter that made it out rather than the letter itself by which I understand the Police might have otherwise expected someone to recognise the hand writing - as I think had been the case previously.

Another possibility is that in the end he couldn't do his work that Thursday at all and instead had to wait until the following week. True, technically MJK was murdered on the Friday but I personally wouldn't necessarily distinguish Thursday (overnight) from the early hours of Friday morning.

But here's the thing - we cannot prove that the letter was written by anyone connected with JTR but neither can it be disproved. However, the 14 Dorset Street connection is too much of a co-incidence to ignore. The case is clearly not ready to pass to the CPS though we're not actually in the business of prosecuting - we're still investigating and testing. I think it would be foolish to ignore a potential clue like this. It goes up on the white board with all the other little clues."

I understand your thinking, however I do not buy into the killer wrote these letters, of course I am open to persuasion with enough evidence. so for the time being, it stays off my white board.

I think looking at why people write hoax letters is of great interest in itself, I include the tape sent to the police in the Yorkshire ripper case, which of course eventually resulted in court action against the sender.
it is possible the police were were trying to track time wasters writing such letters.
Do we know if the letter was officially passed by the police or leaked? i suspect we do not know?


cheers

[Jason]

Popped in for a quick butchers to see if anything new had come up .....quick scan of the place, then turns around and leaves the building

[GUT]

Popped in for a quick butchers to see if anything new had come up .....quick scan of the place, then turns around and leaves the building

Don't expect any change while Pierre is starting a new thread (or hijacking an old one) every day or two.

[David Orsam]

Incredible new evidence

I believe I have cracked this case wide open.

At a public meeting on 9 October 1888, Edward Hare Pickersgill, the Member of Parliament for Bethnal Green South West, suggested that police should be supplied with rubber boots because:

"everyone knew the heavy military tread of the policeman could be heard at night time a quarter of a mile distant."

This was reported in the Standard of 10 October 1888 (as below).

How is it possible that a full month before the murder of Mary Jane Kelly, Mr Pickersgill could have had in his mind the exact address at which that murder would be committed? Is it not incredible that the M.P. mentioned 13 Miller’s Court in metaphorical language at a public meeting?

More than this, he also knew that the killer would make an attempt on the life of Elizabeth Prater at number 20 Miller’s Court.

Someone needs to let Pierre know urgently. It looks like the murderer was not a police official after all but the local member of parliament.

[MysterySinger]

I think the sentence regarding Sir Charles Warren is the most telling there.

But quess what, the provision of rubber soled boots could have assisted JTR if he was a policeman.

[kookingpot]

I think the sentence regarding Sir Charles Warren is the most telling there.

But quess what, the provision of rubber soled boots could have assisted JTR if he was a policeman.

If rubber-soled boots were actually issed and provided to policemen before the end of JtR's campaign. This source makes no mention of whether anyone acted on this suggestion, merely that the suggestion was made, and that in general, regular policemen's boots were quite loud.

Does anyone know whether or not this suggestion was acted upon?

[jerryd]

If rubber-soled boots were actually issed and provided to policemen before the end of JtR's campaign. This source makes no mention of whether anyone acted on this suggestion, merely that the suggestion was made, and that in general, regular policemen's boots were quite loud.

Does anyone know whether or not this suggestion was acted upon?

London St James Gazette An Evening Review And Record Of News September 10, 1889

[kookingpot]

Interesting. Thanks jerryd!

[Rosella]

In his 'Capturing Jack the Ripper' Neil Bell (Monty) writes that rubber soled boots didn't come into general use in the Met until the 1890's. However, during the Ripper Hunt some constables did take matters into their own hands, removing the wooden studs on their boots which made the characteristic clopping sound or putting rubber strips over the studs or nails. I can't remember whose memoirs I read this in. It might have been Wensley's 'Detective Days'.

[David Orsam]

There's a letter in the Home Office files showing that Sir Charles Warren requested approval for an order of 100 "silent boots" on 22 October 1888.

But that is rather less important than my discovery of the identity of the murderer.

[Rosella]

^ And did the Home Office approve the order, in spite of anxieties expressed regularly over extra expenses in 1888? If they did, how many months did it take to get the boots onto policemen's feet?

Is your suspect CW? I rather like the thought of Charlie, seething with resentment over the way Matthews and Monro were treating him, going on a personal crusade in the East End!