Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Saucy Jack Postcard

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    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.

    Comment


    • #47
      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.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Christine View Post

        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.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by perrymason View Post

          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.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Bob Hinton View Post
            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.

            Originally posted by Christine View Post
            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
            Last edited by caz; 05-27-2009, 07:40 PM.
            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


            Comment


            • #51
              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.




              Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

              http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

              Comment


              • #52
                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

                Comment


                • #53
                  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
                  Last edited by Monty; 05-28-2009, 10:05 AM.




                  Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                  http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      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?
                      I confess that altruistic and cynically selfish talk seem to me about equally unreal. With all humility, I think 'whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might,' infinitely more important than the vain attempt to love one's neighbour as one's self. If you want to hit a bird on the wing you must have all your will in focus, you must not be thinking about yourself, and equally, you must not be thinking about your neighbour; you must be living with your eye on that bird. Every achievement is a bird on the wing.
                      Oliver Wendell Holmes

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X