'the biggest blunder in the search for Jack the Ripper'

[curious]

Hello Curious, all,

thanks for the reply.

As you youself wrote Curious, the known intention of this promotion was for recognition of the handwriting. Perhaps I am therefor over-simplifying logic,
Phil

Hi, Phil,
If you over-simplified in the first post, you certainly did not in the second.

Without doubt, JtR lines many pockets and is useful to people perhaps more interested in the personal gain than in solving the riddle of those long-ago deaths.

However, it is a far leap from that to believing that the police deliberately misled everyone and continued the deception.

Is there a Fenian angle here somewhere? I don't think we know enough to say for sure. There are certain hints in that direction.

There are so many different types of people on here that I would expect your musings and conclusions to garner both supporters and detractors.

Anyway, whatever you are doing for the next few weeks, I wish you well.

curious

[Archaic]

Hi Phil.

I feel that the police would have been remiss if they hadn't published broadsides and appealed to the populace for help. They weren't trying to scare the public; they were trying to alert and protect the public.

1888 London actually had a pretty good basic literacy rate. And though many people in England were immigrants who spoke a foreign language, many of them also spoke at least basic English. Either way, I don't think the presence of immigrants was any reason for the police to not even try- after all, the majority of the population spoke and read English.

A modern example of catching a criminal via his handwriting is the Unabomber. Kaczynski got away with his deadly crimes for a long time. It was only when his "manifesto" was published that the FBI got the break they needed to catch him- Ted Kaczynski's own brother recognized the handwriting as well as certain phrases, and he contacted the FBI.

God only knows how many lives were saved because of that.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Phil Carter]

Phil,
Perhaps promotion was what occurred. However, it was not necessarily intended that way. In the days before TV and Internet, how did the authorities get things in front of people as they asked for help?

They posted photos of wanted men -- especially in post offices here in the States.

Photos and images are postd everywhere in order to get images before the public who MIGHT recognize something. Lost children, lost pets, suspected people, handwriting examples. They are also printed in newspapers.

To me the most likely reason for posting the cards and letters was in the hope that someone, anyone, would recognize the writing. . .

Did promotion happen? yep, you're probably right on that. Was that the intention, was it a conspiracy?
Doesn't seem likely to me.

It appears the authorities were using an avenue they had to ask for help.

curious

Hello Curious, all,

thanks for the reply.

As you youself wrote Curious, the known intention of this promotion was for recognition of the handwriting. Perhaps I am therefor over-simplifying logic, but there are very reasonable questions to be asked here below-

1. What is the point in trying to 'catch' the killer using this method? Because as I wrote earlier, a great majority of the local population were illiterate, so 'Mabel' and 'Malvina' wouldn't be abke to read the prose anyway- and would they therefore be able to recognise 'Fred' or 'John' 's handwriting? I doubt it. When they received letters they went to a tìrd party for the letters to be read to them.
2. The population also had an immense non-English group. They not only could not read English well, if at all, they had problems speaking it. So whatever those letters said, someone would have to translate and re-tell. There were many first generation foreigners in the area.
3. If the writer(s) was literate- he must be- and the killer was the writer (according to the police THEY thouit he was) then the literate population was being aimed at. Which means they could read- read newspapers- so why take somethìng already being splashed across the newspapers wìch they read anyway? Which brings me to recognition of handwriting-
4. If re-sizing was to make recognition easier- logical thought- they are relying on someone wa£ing into a police station and saying ' That looks like my 'Fred's handwriting, or, I have a letter from 'Joe Bloggs' who has the same type of handwriting'. So apart from all the vindictive women wanting to rid themselves of 'Fred' and all the people with examples of letters from people who lived in Scotland, Poland, USA etc- thereby ruling them out of the equation, how in heavens name would similar handwriting, not in the same prose, prove anyone to be a murderer? They only had to say where they were on any one of the murder nights and they cannot have been Jack the Ripper, because the police had already decided that one man was responsible for every murder. No way would they admit there were two maniacs on the loose in the same area- theqe was unbridled panic already!
5. All thoughts of a poor dishevelled Polish Jew connected to the writing on the wall at this stage are zero- he would have to be literate. So exactly when did the 'hand of an enterprising journalist' become clear? Only that would clear the way for an illiterate to be Jack the Ripper.
6. Now IF the Dear Boss and Saucy Jack stuff were hoaxes, the same method of trying to catch Jack was not repeated. The plethora of subsequent letters obviously meant nothing to the police because they DIDNT compare to Dear Boss, Saucy Jack etc. When then did the police drop the import of Dear Boss?
7. There was no reward money- no financial incentive- no 'wanted dead or alive' poster. This wasnt USA where vigilantes got paid for rounding up the naughty cattle. So who, in the police's wisdom, was the poster aimed at?

This example of promotion of ONE killer, ONE Jack the Ripper has ONE clear advantage. It buries a possibility that there could have been more than ONE killer on the loose, which must have occured to the police in October 1888 because of the dissimilarity of the Tabram kiiling vis a vis Eddowes. After all, the swiftness of the Tabram killing would have given the killer TIME to take a soùvenir from her body if the swiftness of the Eddowes murder allowed it.
One month later a report to Anderson indicated 5 only of the same hand- ruling out Tabram. That told the police that there were 2 killers of 6 women on the loose. Did this report reach the media? No. (please correct me if I am wrong)

Up until that report- ONE Jack was thrown at the population. ONE killer only. It was done, imho, not as a conspiracy, but to deliberately prevent even more cries of police incompetanc should they admit to there being more than one killer they couldnt catch. The H6e Secretary was under pressure-Warren was-Anderson even. Only one high ranking man gained any kudos out of all this- Monro- who took over from Warren and hey presto- the killings stopped until way into 1889. Anderson's problems with Parnell was the new spotlight of policework and the murders stopped conveniently during this too.

It is worth remembering that Anderson had his area of expertise in fighting Fenianism, brought in Irish police to Whitechapel during the murders, Monro, Abberline and Williamson and many others were experts in anti-Fenian work. Also that Special Branch were involved in the investigation as well. We know of an Irish interest through them due to Trevor Marriott's revelations of the ledgers. We know that in 1956 comment refering to Fenianism being linked to the murders was thought of, through unseen (to date) police comment about the plot to kill Balfour by it's 'leader'. We know that a newspaper comment after the death of a Coroner in 1920 also attributed suspicions to Fenianism reported by said Coroner to the Home Office at the time.
Does this mean there WAS an Irish connection to all of this? Certainly NOT. I HAVE NO IDEA!

But notice that every single official opinion. At various times from 1888 to 1930 has one thing in common- all suspects are anything BUT Irish. Even though Special were in fact looking at precisely that- and all with Irish connections (Tumblety- via Littlechild in 1913 private letter).

ONE Jack-lowly Polish gutter living Jew- mad barrister/teacher-Russian thief-Russian spy- mad butcher-mad doctor-mad woman-mad physician who expertises in vivisection-Royal Prince- Royal Prince's boyfriend- painter who paints and talks about loose women, degredation and Jack the Riqer in conjuction with said Royal Prince's illegitimate baby and Anderson himself, the painter alöe, a cotton merchant from Livepool, more paimters, an army top whack, a Welsh Doctor, and g Poor Irish ex-boyfriend of Mary Kelly. A memoranda with more mistakes in it than a 6th grade 7ejing test supplied first by a policeman then his daughter who changes her preferance 13 years after keeping the pot boiling through an inventive writer- a marginalia with no substance of provable proof written by a policeman, we are told, that keeps a few more litarary companies happy, an American quack that convinces Americans that Jack was one of theirs and happens to be a best seller too- and a film that gets THE most popular actor on the planet portraying a policeman with a drug problem chasing that elusive Royal physician and a Prince's girlfriends best friend that the spaced out policeman falls in love with, which makes millions to keep the pot boiling. A plethora of tv programmes going over the same old ground again and again, including an over-hyped documentary pointing to Ye Olde Polish Jew given a new facelift through brilliant scene techniques whìch also gets members of the Ripperological communlty acting, writing scripts and advising- but produces no new factual evidence to get us nearer the truth-whatever it ir- spin off books and DVD's, and much much more besides.

The police started the one man Jack promotion which directly involved or led to all of the above and more. And everytime something 'new' gets discovered, the same old Merry-go-Round starts again- more Polish Jew-more naughty barrister-more painter-more Royal Prince and more hype.

Mention ANYTHING other than a one man kilker called Jack the Ripper and all hell breaks loose in Ripperology. Writers are put down, theorists ideas are quashed, gang-like groups attack with verbal vitriol and viciousness, the 'silent' treadtment is tried, people who have had the smell of being near the top of the totem pole of Ripperology obviously feel the collywobbles
and try aj they can to emphasise through all of the above and more, including the classic 'if you dont like it, nobody is forcing you to stay' hint.
The 'we are above you' attitude, the who actually cares about the truth attitude as long as we keep this hobby going stance, the 'proffessional' debators-expert in rhetoric and argumentation- the jokers that are only in it for a laugh, the hoaxers who get their kicks from trying to fool people (and I include McCormick) and make a bob or two in the process, are all spin-offs of the police pro6tion of ONE 'Jack the Ripper'.

Sadly, GENUINE and hard working researchers get swallowed up because their work is 'used' to help promote yet another spin of the Merry Go Round. I feel sorry for them, I really do. Their onlx answer is to remain 'neutral' which doesnt help either because it enhances the stuff the police gave us from 1888 and gets us no further then ONE killer called Jack the Ripper.

Great.

I listed 15 reasons why we simply MUST move away from the traditional view- 15 reasons why without proof, the Eddowes murder can have many more variants tham what we have been given, and 15 reasons to DARE to look in other directions of possibility. This posting will no doubt 2use a mini uproar or embarrassed silence, bring in the 'heavyweights' to counter and condone or the all too visible potty mouths who want to somehow goad it into a personal attack. I wonder who have the bottle to back it? I wonder who dare stand against the traditionalists?
I dont expect total agreement- not at all- but it would be nice to see something.

I will be busy for the next few(3-4) weeks and UNABLE to reply to any replies directed to or at me. My apologies. This posting is a personal opinion only and is MEANT for discussion amongst yourselves, not for me to answer directly. The intention is NOT to provoke, is individually respectful and attacks no individual. That isnt the meaning.

Imho, the biggest blunder is the police promotion of ONE killer. It has led to an industry that used that promotion, and still does, in some cases deliberately in full knowledge that it will shamelessly keep the Merry Go Round turning.

Please discuss amongst yourselves. I wish you all well and hope to be around again in a few (3-4) weeks.

Kind regards

Phil

[Wickerman]

What? Everyone is in agreement on the ear? Dare I say, I agree too? Collateral damage only, and not the US war on terrorism kind of "collateral".

Mike

Just to take this a step further, not only do I see the sliced earlobe as collateral damage, it occurred (IMO) as a consequence of the diagonal slice across her right cheek.

Regards, Jon S.

[curious]

The decision by some intelligent person to poster size examples of the Dear Boss and Saucy Jack stuff-signed- and post them outside police stations in an area populated by the many illiterate- that the literate verbally passed on- frightening the devil out of the population of the area- telling and giving all the impression that not only was it a one man kilker with insatiable blood lust- but this was JACK THE RIPPER.

Promotion and encouraged promotion of image achieved. Proof.(imho)

Phil

Phil,
Perhaps promotion was what occurred. However, it was not necessarily intended that way. In the days before TV and Internet, how did the authorities get things in front of people as they asked for help?

They posted photos of wanted men -- especially in post offices here in the States.

Photos and images are posted everywhere in order to get images before the public who MIGHT recognize something. Lost children, lost pets, suspected people, handwriting examples. They are also printed in newspapers.

To me the most likely reason for posting the cards and letters was in the hope that someone, anyone, would recognize the writing. . .

Did promotion happen? yep, you're probably right on that. Was that the intention, was it a conspiracy?

Doesn't seem likely to me.

It appears the authorities were using an avenue they had to ask for help.

curious

[The Good Michael]

What? Everyone is in agreement on the ear? Dare I say, I agree too? Collateral damage only, and not the US war on terrorism kind of "collateral".

Mike

[Monty]

I recall fighting Sam Flynn and Monty on this way back in the day, but now I'm inclined to this same view.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

We never fight Tom,

Just disagree slightly ;-).

The angle of the cut indicates that removal of the ear wasn't his intention in my opinion.

Monty

[Garry Wroe]

You da man, Tom.

[Tom_Wescott]

I incline to the view, Caz, that Eddowes’ detached earlobe was nothing more than collateral damage.

I recall fighting Sam Flynn and Monty on this way back in the day, but now I'm inclined to this same view.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Garry Wroe]

Well he may have planned to slice off an ear, Garry, but in the darkness made a pig's ear of it, only sliced off a small piece, which was then lost among her clothing.

I incline to the view, Caz, that Eddowes’ detached earlobe was nothing more than collateral damage. Had the killer’s intention been to remove an ear, he could have done so quickly and cleanly with one sweep of his knife.

But you are surely not suggesting he only picked on Eddowes because she had a handy, easy to remove apron on her person, to use afterwards for the fluid seepage?

Come on, Caz. We both know you’re better than that.

If Hanbury St had taught him such a lesson he'd have simply brought something out with him for the purpose along with his newly sharpened knife.

Why would he have complicated matters unnecessarily? Women of the period generally wore aprons. Failing that, they certainly wore voluminous skirts. The simplest and most practical solution to the problem of fluid seepage was thus for him to have sliced away a piece of the victim’s own clothing.

[Tom_Wescott]

Sounds fair to me.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

Hi Monty. I never thought you were a 'run to admin' guy, but you DID threaten to run to them on me recently, and I didn't even make anything resembling a veiled threat. Not picking, just saying. You're a little more tightly wound than usual these days.

I wonder if it's possible you and Trev will 'grab a pint together' at the conference and perhaps find some middle ground? I just hope Leahy's around to catch it on video, however it turns out.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I did Tom,

However that was in reference to the subject being discussed that anything personal.

Words are one thing, actions are more considered.

I'd buy Trevor a pint no problem. As I will anyone who I've locked horns with. Life is too short.

However, I won't stand for bull$hit. Be that from Trevor, Rob or you. I will say what I see and that's the end of the matter once its been said.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Monty. I never thought you were a 'run to admin' guy, but you DID threaten to run to them on me recently, and I didn't even make anything resembling a veiled threat. Not picking, just saying. You're a little more tightly wound than usual these days.

I wonder if it's possible you and Trev will 'grab a pint together' at the conference and perhaps find some middle ground? I just hope Leahy's around to catch it on video, however it turns out.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cogidubnus]

Goodnight Phil...

Dave

[Monty]

I am not like you i dont go runing to admin I stay and fight my cause. I may not do that in a way that pleases all but thats me if people dont like it tough.

I dont crave any attention the ripperology tree needs a good shake. Too many people been holding onto outdated theories and are not prepared to consider anyhting new that goes against there beliefs.

You are one of those persons and I would have thought you of all persons would welcome the input of new stuff. But you dont yet you cannot produce anything concrete to support your own outdated perception of this whole mystery and everyhting connected to it.

Trevor,

Ok, if you, or anyone, wishes to find out how many times I've 'ran to admin' then I give authority for them to find out.

And when you do, you will realise that you are, yet again, wrong.

Yeah, shake that tree Luke.

I welcome all new research, as long as its sound and correctly evidenced.

You have no idea about me do you? Take a look at my work. Go look at what I've done. Unlike you I do not feel the need to self promote. My work is there, and some of it conducted behind the scenes yet you and others benefit from it.

Whereas you brag and belittle. You promote ideas yet you, yourself have produced what? I mean what exactly? If you wanna play the I've done more than you for Ripperology game then let's play.

Just name the when and where.

Now, you've had your tantrum over my bitchslap. We can either get back to the thread in hand or degrade it even more.

Your call fella, I bet I know which one you'd prefer.

Monty