Saucy Jack Postcard

[NotBlamedForNothing]

There is another reason to suppose that the standard reading of the postcard is incorrect.
You'll hear about Saucy Jacky's work tomorrow - refers to what day?

Suppose the writer actually began writing the card on the Saturday, and then decided he couldn't finish straight off until completing the 'double event', or that it was too risky to post until the next day.
On the Sunday afternoon, he completes the writing and posts the card.
Slight problem - the word 'tomorrow' is on the card - which at the time of writing meant 'Sunday'.
Too bad - postcards aren't cheap items in 1888, so it will have to do.

Saturday:
I wasn't codding dear old Boss, when I gave you the tip.
You'll hear about Saucy Jacky's work tomorrow: Double Event!
Sunday:
This time, number one squealed a bit - couldn't finish - straight off!
Had not time to get ears for police.
Thanks for keeping last letter back till I got to work again.
Jack the Ripper
[smears with blood]

Why would a hoaxer write 'tomorrow', rather than 'today'?
A hoaxer would want to make it appear that the card had been written on early on the Sunday morning, and dear old Boss will be hearing about it all, that day, not on Monday.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

How would the postcard read, if the punctuation were improved?
Here are some alternately punctuated versions of the text, with each sentence on a new line, for clarity.

Original:

I wasnt codding dear old Boss when I gave you the tip, you ll hear about saucy Jacky s work tomorrow double ev-ent this time number one squealed a bit couldn t finish straight off.
had not time to get ears for police thanks for keeping last letter back till I got to work again.

I take this as being understood to read like this:

I wasn't codding dear old Boss, when I gave you the tip.
You'll hear about Saucy Jacky's work tomorrow.
Double event this time.
Number one squealed a bit - couldn't finish straight off.
Had not time to get ears for police.
Thanks for keeping last letter back till I got to work again.

Here is a version in which the phrase 'double event', is interpreted as though the writer is suggesting a newspaper headline:

I wasn't codding dear old Boss, when I gave you the tip.
You'll hear about Saucy Jacky's work tomorrow: Double Event!
This time, number one squealed a bit - couldn't finish straight off.
Had not time to get ears for police.
Thanks for keeping last letter back till I got to work again.

In this version, the reference to ears seems more in reference to 'number one' (Liz Stride), than either of number one or two.

In the next version, 'couldn't finish straight off' is reinterpreted.
The phrase 'finish off', in the context of a murder, would normally be a euphemism for 'final action required to end the victim's life'.
For a murderer intent on mutilating the victim after death, who had already 'finished her off' by cutting her throat, 'couldn't finish straight off' is an odd turn of phrase.
Maybe 'straight off' is actually meant in the sense of; I was straight off:

I wasn't codding dear old Boss, when I gave you the tip.
You'll hear about Saucy Jacky's work tomorrow: Double Event!
This time, number one squealed a bit - couldn't finish - straight off!
Had not time to get ears for police.
Thanks for keeping last letter back till I got to work again.

The phrase 'squealed a bit', reminds me of 'she screamed three times, but not very loudly.'

[sleekviper]

Little Help

Ok, I have just entered into the world of Jack a few weeks ago, something from the same era reminded me of the situation, so I came to see if something was here. Well I look at the Boss letter and think that he mailed the wrong version to the news, then I look at this postcard and think that it is totally wrong. I mean this thing looks so wrong that I can not believe that it began to work, so can somebody shed some light please? I don't mean that the postcard is wrong, but that postmark looks as staged as it gets. I can not find an "R" postal code for the second postmark, and if that "7" is correct with that "E", isn't that in an area where the postmark would not matter anyway? The thing that I see is that the postmark means the world, and yet areas have mail sitting from Saturday night, until Monday morning; that is a Monday postmark isn't it? I don't know, looks really odd that a person picking mail out of a box doesn't notice a postcard with bright red ink, neither does the guy sorting mail, that puts it in backwards so that the guy stamping it doesn't notice that he stamped the wrong side, so that someone else can spend five minutes to make sure that the stamp is picture perfect straight over a pre-paid postcard stamp, which he does not have to do since the only reason to deface a stamp is so it can not be used again, and you can't with pre-paid, and adds an "R" that is a mystery postal code to me, so that somebody can deliver it Monday morning...and nobody reads it, or calls the police? Is that about right?

[halomanuk]

If the ear was in the folds of her dress when the body was moved and then transported,moved again to a slab etc then i'm sure it would have dropped out at some stage,so i agree with Monty on this one,i'm sure it fell off during stripping or transit into the dress folds.

[Monty]

Tom,

The fact that in his scene of crime report Brown noted the ear (and not that a portion was missing) indicates it was still attached.

It would seem it either became detached in transit, or during the clothing removal, and fell amongst her clothing. And in turn was noted as her body was being stripped.

There was no indication it had been placed there.

Either the author was very lucky or he knew full well what he was talking about.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Monty and Caz,

The cutting of the ear may well have been accidental, but I don't believe it ended up in the folds of her dress by accident. Regardless, the Dear Boss/Saucy Jacky author was certainly lucky.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

Like Caz, I feel the cutting of the ear was accidental. Its common in some throat cuts that the ear gets slashed during the act. One line of thought I had is the author was party to the mutilation, the ear cut, via gossip as opposed to news reports. Reporters and public alike mingled with PCs and information was obtained. See The Star Oct 1st 88.

[caz]

The other day I was listening to a Radio 4 phone in when a caller came on who was obviously Southern Irish. He was talking about the MP’s expenses then suddenly used a phrase I thought I would never hear. He said:

“I’m not codding you…………….”


To actually hear those words used in a normal run of the mill way really made me sit up and take notice.

Hi Bob,

How wonderful. It's amazing how little things like that can make you prick up your ears. There's a touch of the racing tipster about that postcard too, if you ask me.

Hi caz.

The postcard says...

...He's saying himself that he did not cut Stride's ears. The letter predicted that he would cut an ear. It doesn't say anything about cutting Eddowes' ear. And he didn't cut the ears off, which Dear Boss says he would. He certainly would have had time to cut Eddowes' ears off if he wanted to validate the letter.

There's no way way I can see this as validating the prediction in letter--quite the contrary, he's admitting that his prediction failed and he's attempting to explain it. I see no coincidence here at all, quite the opposite. He doesn't even try to say "I cut the second one's ears, not all the way off, but some, sort of like what I said I would do, but not exactly."

Thanks Christine, but I do know what the postcard says.

I wasnt codding dear old Boss when I gave you the tip, you ll hear about saucy Jacky s work tomorrow double ev-ent this time number one squealed a bit couldn t finish straight off. had not time to get ears for police thanks for keeping last letter back till I got to work again.

The author is saying he had no time to get any ears on his latest job - either in Dutfield’s Yard or Mitre Square. His ‘last’ letter (interestingly Dear Boss is not referred to as his ‘first’) had playfully promised to ‘clip the lady s ears off’ on the ‘next job’ and send them to the police ‘just for jolly’ - ie for the sheer hell of it. Had its author predicted, as you suggest, that the killer would merely ‘cut an ear’, he’d have been spot on, because Kate’s ear was indeed cut. In fact a bit of ear was clipped right off during this first attack on any victim’s facial features, and it only came to light later, when it fell from this one’s clothing - and someone uttered the immortal line: “What’s this ear?”

Anyway, Kate’s killer may or may not have realised at the time that he’d managed to clip a bit of her ear off. It was very dark, his ‘safe’ time was very limited, and his adrenaline would have been sky high if he’d just had a fruitless and frustrating time of it with Liz. So he arguably wasn’t about to spend a whole lot of time severing trifles ‘just for jolly’, especially if it could involve fannying around in the darkness trying to retrieve and pocket them, with the main event still ahead of him. The police would just have to be patient. He could cause real mayhem by bagging a more substantial body part like a womb or kidney.

In that context, having not the time to get ears makes sound sense to me.

Love,

Caz
X

But the first is a strong indicator that the author was not the man that killed on Sept 30th.

Sorry...that should have read men.

All the best.

1. He certainly would have had time to cut Eddowes' ears off if he wanted to validate the letter.

2. I do see your interpretation of "you'll hear about Saucy Jacky's work tomorrow." My take on it was that the postcard was written Sunday, and that he's bragging that something will be found on Monday. If this is the correct interpretation, it's a failed prediction.

Hi Christine,

On the points I quoted above;

1. I think thats a key to its probable authenticity. If he had time to cut her nose and her apron, he had time for an ear. Not taking any ears from any victim that night shows the writer as someone who did not ensure that his "prediction" would take place,...even when in control at a murder scene.

2. The date of the postcard suggests it was processed in the mail system for delivery on Oct 1st...which leaves it being posted Sunday as viable....and therefore he is suggesting that the Monday papers would be printing the details.

But the first is a strong indicator that the author was not the man that killed on Sept 30th.

All the best.

[Bob Hinton]

Words from the world of Jack the Ripper

The other day I was listening to a Radio 4 phone in when a caller came on who was obviously Southern Irish. He was talking about the MP’s expenses then suddenly used a phrase I thought I would never hear. He said:

“I’m not codding you…………….”


To actually hear those words used in a normal run of the mill way really made me sit up and take notice.

[Christine]

Hi caz.

The postcard says

number one squealed a bit couldn't finish straight off. ha not the time to get ears for police

He's saying himself that he did not cut Stride's ears. The letter predicted that he would cut an ear. It doesn't say anything about cutting Eddowes' ear. And he didn't cut the ears off, which Dear Boss says he would. He certainly would have had time to cut Eddowes' ears off if he wanted to validate the letter.

There's no way way I can see this as validating the prediction in letter--quite the contrary, he's admitting that his prediction failed and he's attempting to explain it. I see no coincidence here at all, quite the opposite. He doesn't even try to say "I cut the second one's ears, not all the way off, but some, sort of like what I said I would do, but not exactly."

I do see your interpretation of "you'll hear about Saucy Jacky's work tomorrow." My take on it was that the postcard was written Sunday, and that he's bragging that something will be found on Monday. If this is the correct interpretation, it's a failed prediction.

[caz]

If the "Dear Boss" letter had not been widely known and the next victim had had her ears cut off, that would be a strong proof of its authenticity. But it was known, and the victim did not have her ears cut.

Hi Christine,

But the public - and presumably Kate's killer - did not know about Dear Boss until after she coincidentally had a bit of ear cut off. This was not only coincidentally the ripper's 'next job' in terms of successful mutilation murders, but it was also coincidentally his first venture into above the neck mutilation. Not only that, but the author of Dear Boss, in turn, presumably had absolutely no idea whether there would ever be any more mutilated bodies turning up when the letter arrived in police hands, coincidentally just hours before two more murders took place.

And I simply don't understand your confusion here:

"You'll hear about Saucy Jackys work tomorrow" is apparently another prediction that didn't take place.

When the postcard was written, the double event had obviously taken place, and its author was merely saying that the recipient would hear about the two murders on the Sunday morning - ie before the postcard would reach its destination. So I don't see how that's a 'prediction' at all, let alone one that didn't take place. The author was apparently claiming to have written it in the small hours immediately after the murders - ie before the papers got hold of the story. But because it could have been posted after the news broke, it could have been a bluff.

Given the large number of "fake proofs" that these two letters were genuine and the complete lack of convincing evidence, it's easy to see why most believe these to be hoaxes.

I find it a little harder than 'most' to swallow all the coincidental stuff and leave myself with this complete lack of convincing evidence that 'most' seem to enjoy, but then I'm funny that way.

Love,

Caz
X

[Christine]

"Number One" would be Elizabeth Stride. The "Dear Boss" letter says "I shall clip the ladies ear off send to the police officers just for jolly wouldn't you. Keep this letter back till I do a bit more work, then give it out straight." It's an attempt to explain why he did not actually cut ears--he was planning to cut off Stride's ears, but she screamed and attracted people so he had to flee.

If the "Dear Boss" letter had not been widely known and the next victim had had her ears cut off, that would be a strong proof of its authenticity. But it was known, and the victim did not have her ears cut.

Here, the writer is attempting to take credit for the double event before it was widely known that two women had died in one night. But the event was probably already written about in the papers when the postcard was mailed.

"You'll hear about Saucy Jackys work tomorrow" is apparently another prediction that didn't take place. Given the large number of "fake proofs" that these two letters were genuine and the complete lack of convincing evidence, it's easy to see why most believe these to be hoaxes.

[DrPL]

While watching a documentary on Jack this evening, I noticed something that I hadn't noticed before (sorry if its been brought up before). The Saucy Jacky postcard says:

"I wasn't codding dear old Boss when I gave you the tip. youll hear about saucy Jackys work tomorrow double event this time number one squealed a bit couldn't finish straight off. had not time to get ears for police thanks for keeping last letter back till I got to work again."

The tenses involved in the postcard are a peculiar mix.
"youll hear about saucy Jackys work tomorrow" is written in the future tense. I doubt if it refers to the press hearing about the murders the next day as the press would have found out almost straight away, or that same night (?)
But "number one squealed a bit couldn't finish straight off. had not time to get ears for police" refers to an event that had already taken place.

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?