The GOGMAGOG-letter

[David Orsam]

From a letter from Godfrey Lushington at the Home Office to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police dated 13 December 1888:

"I am directed by the Secretary of State to acquaint you that he approves of a trial by the Metropolitan Police of 100 pairs of the new and improved Silent Boot which has been submitted to the Commissioner of Police by the Leather and Rubber Boot Company of Leeds".

My suspect is Edward Pickersgill, see #98. I do hope that this JTR Gold that I am bringing the forum is not going to waste.

[Pcdunn]

Very interesting information.

Assuming Jack was not a policeman (nor a M.P., sorry David)-- is it possible he might have had his own variety of "noiseless" footwear? What did the criminal class use at the time? (I remember a Sherlock Holmes story mentions "rubber soled shoes" worn by our heroes for a bit of investigation, but I'm not sure of the year of that story.)

Another thought-- what if Lechmere wore noiseless footwear? Does that account for Paul not being aware of the car man's presence ahead of him? Would this make Paul's story more plausible, without his being a liar? On the other hand, wouldn't someone working with horses prefer boots with sturdy soles, most likely with nails or studs in them? Hmmm...

Maybe it WAS the M.P. --? ;-D

[Rosella]

It depends on the income of the person, doesn't it? White, plimsoll type shoes good for playing sport like tennis or cricket came in the last decade(s) of the 19th century. Middleclass men would have had Oxford brogues or lace-up shoes as an alternative to boots for work (and a slipper-like shoe for evening wear.) These of course were more expensive than the typical boot of the day.

However, working class men in the 1880's would really have been confined to boots with, (if they were lucky) a pair for Sunday best. Boots were best for the hard graft of a Victorian working day. I suppose if criminals wanted to be quiet they would remove the studs or nails from the sole of the boot.

[GUT]

Or even go barefooted

[Rosella]

Yes, exactly, though I don't suppose Lechmere turned up for work without boots.

[drstrange169]

Policemen had wooden soled boots so they would have been loud and distinctive.

It's a mistake to think all workers wore "hob-nail" boots, as this picture reportedly taken in 1890 shows.

Leather soled boots would have been relatively quiet.

[David Orsam]

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.

I have a lot of trouble with this. Here we have a letter addressed to a Chief Constable in a town many miles from London which refers to two women from Norwich being killed in Yarmouth on a different date from when a single woman was, in fact, killed in the East End of London, yet the comment is that it "seems like a letter that could have been written by someone who knew the intentions of the Ripper". Well, sorry, but no it doesn't seem like that at all. It seems like a letter written by someone who had absolutely no idea about the intentions of the Ripper.

I don't know why "piers" should be said to mean "pubs" but the letter stated that the women would be murdered at one of those piers and Mary Kelly was not murdered at a pub. The Britannia, incidentally, visited by MJK was not a pub, it was a beer house. Further as clues go it doesn't make sense. There was a Britannia public house in Commercial Road as well as a Duke of Wellington public house in Lucas Street, off Commercial Road. So a cryptic reference to two pubs in Whitechapel called Britannia and Duke of Wellington would naturally be to these two pubs, not to Ringer's Beer House in Commercial Street (at the corner of Dorset Street).

As for the Dorset Street reference, there is nothing unremarkable about this considering that Annie Chapman was stated in the newspapers to have lodged at 35 Dorset Street so that street was already publicly connected with JTR.

Rather than saying "no proof that it was, no proof that it wasn't", it is surely more sensible to say that there is absolutely no reason to suppose that the letter to the Yarmouth Chief Constable was written by the murderer and even less reason to think it was written in any form of code which was supposed to relate to Whitechapel.

[curious4]

Yesterday upon this site
I spied a troll whose words were - trite
I saw him there again today,
I wish that troll would go away!

Actually I don't really. He certainly livens things up!

Happy New Year to all!

Best wishes
C4

[John G]

Yesterday upon this site
I spied a troll whose words were - trite
I saw him there again today,
I wish that troll would go away!

Actually I don't really. He certainly livens things up!

Happy New Year to all!

Best wishes
C4

Yes, I've developed a certain fondness for him too. At least he makes be remember not to take anything too seriously!

Happy New Year!

[GUT]

Yesterday upon this site
I spied a troll whose words were - trite
I saw him there again today,
I wish that troll would go away!

Actually I don't really. He certainly livens things up!

Happy New Year to all!

Best wishes
C4

Youse a poemtress.

[Pierre]

A letter

Hi,

I just found this letter in the Hull Daily Mail (11th June 1889). It has the same structure as the GOGMAGOG-letter.

Regards, Pierre

[John Wheat]

Hi,

I just found this letter in the Hull Daily Mail (11th June 1889). It has the same structure as the GOGMAGOG-letter.

Regards, Pierre

So what?

Cheers John

[Elamarna]

"It has the same structure as the GOGMAGOG-letter."


Looking at the image of the letter, could someone explain to me the above statement, I honestly do not see the similarity

Steve

[David Orsam]

"It has the same structure as the GOGMAGOG-letter."

Looking at the image of the letter, could someone explain to me the above statement, I honestly do not see the similarity

Come on Steve, they are both letters to an editor of a newspaper which both start, quite spookily:

"SIR,-"

Note that they both have a comma after the word "SIR" and then a hyphen. It's uncanny.

Both of the letters contain some text written in the English language (albeit one is partly in metaphorical English) below which is a name in capitals which (and this is the key bit) is not the real name of the author.

We can ignore the fact that GOGMAGOG rounds off his letter "I am, Sir, your obedient servant" whereas AN OLD SUBSCRIBER does not but this was an obvious attempt to throw police off the scent, as was the decision to write to the editor of a newspaper in Hull, some 150 miles from London.

You should now be satisfied that the structural similarities between the two letters are remarkable and do not only exist in Pierre's imagination. Once I point out to you that in the GOGMAGOG letter the author wraps some rarely used quotation marks around the phrase "the children" while AN OLD SUBSCRIBER uses the very same technique with the phrase "Jack the Ripper", you will, I am sure, be red with embarrassment that you even had to ask the question in the first place.

[Elamarna]

it is so obvious when you point it out.

i hang my head in shame