The GOGMAGOG-letter

[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!

[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

[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.

[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.

[Rosella]

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

[GUT]

Or even go barefooted

[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.

[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

[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.

[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!

[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]

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'.

[kookingpot]

Interesting. Thanks jerryd!

[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]

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?