Saucy Jack Postcard

[Bailey]

Hey folks

I've on occasion wondered about the process by which the facsimilies of the letter / postcard were made. Does anyone have a link to an article, thread or other info on this process, or can someone shed some light? Many thanks.

Bailey

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stewart,

Here's the two Saucy Jacky postmarks, superimposed to their best fit.



The fonts plus the general orientation of the characters are completely different, and nothing matches or lines up.

Both look like they were made with a John Bull printing outfit [Whoops! That's given my age away].

Regards,

Simon

[Stewart P Evans]

Different Postmarks

Hi Stewart,
Here's the two Saucy Jacky postmarks, superimposed to their best fit.

[ATTACH]3518[/ATTACH]

The fonts plus the general orientation of the characters are completely different, and nothing matches or lines up.
Both look like they were made with a John Bull printing outfit [Whoops! That's given my age away].
Regards,
Simon

Simon, all I think that means is that two different rubber postmark stamps were used. When it was noticed the stamp had been applied on the wrong side it was stamped by a different operator. I don't think that there is anything else to be read into this. The cancelling postmarks did vary quite a bit.

[Cap'n Jack]

I like this, Simon, tell me more.

[c.d.]

OK. I'm completely lost here...postmarks, stamps, Victorian efficiency...is the damn thing real or a hoax?

c.d.

[Simon Wood]

Hi AP,

Not much more to tell really, but if you believe [as I do] that the person who killed Eddowes did not kill Stride it kicks the Saucy Jacky postcard into a whole new ball park.

Somebody was laying claim to a coincidental and wholly unexpected murder. And that person could only have been someone with knowledge of Dear Boss, which was not public knowledge at the time the postcard was allegedly mailed.

Somebody was thinking on their feet on Sunday, September 30th.

And the very next day Jack the Ripper was born.

I'll leave you to work out the who and why.

Hope you're well.

Regards,

Simon

[Cap'n Jack]

Simon, I guess that you and me only get into contact once or twice a year, but I have to say everytime we do, you always have a damn good thing to discuss.
This is nice and neat. I like it.

[Simon Wood]

Hi AP,

Thanks.

I'm pleased you "got it".

Regards,

Simon

[c.d.]

Well I'm sorry to say that I don't "get it." Could you spell it out for me? Thanks.

c.d.

[Simon Wood]

Hi CD,

I'm sorry to be cryptic, but if I spelled it out you and everyone else would probably dismiss it out of hand as absurd.

The purpose of Saucy Jacky is something you have to arrive at under your own steam, but I solemnly promise that once you "get it" there will be no turning back. Jack will never be the same.

I should add that "getting it" will also present you with a brand new set of problems to solve.

I'm still grappling with them.

Ain't Ripperology fun?

Regards,

Simon

[Bailey]

I'm sorry to be cryptic,

Then don't!

but if I spelled it out you and everyone else would probably dismiss it out of hand as absurd.

I tend to dismiss a lot of what I read or hear about the Ripper as absurd...

The purpose of Saucy Jacky is something you have to arrive at under your own steam, but I solemnly promise that once you "get it" there will be no turning back. Jack will never be the same.

I should add that "getting it" will also present you with a brand new set of problems to solve.

Aw, you're just being mean! Please let us in on your big secret!

In all seriousness, I would really like to know what you're getting at here, Simon. I won't promise not to think it absurd, but I will consider it seriously.

Cheers,
B.

[Shelley]

i am reviewing a number of aspects of the ripper case and have come across an issue with regards to the saucy jack postcard.

From what has been written suggests that the postcard was received at the central newsagency on October 1st. Is there any definate proof that this was the case.

The envelope is clearly postmarked October 1st so I do not beleive it could have been posted and deleiverd on the same day.

In this day and age the postal service are not that good and i am sure in 1888 they were very basic.

If this be true then this must add more weight to the fact that it was a
hoax.

Trevor, i have one disagreement, the Victorian's pride themselves on good quality/service in any job area, there were several posting times on the same day and i'll bet they did start very early in the morning, so i would think that anyone having heard about Eddowes death, and it has been mentioned before that members of the public did see Eddowes body in the square before she was moved to the mortuary, so easy for someone to have scrawled that postcard and popped it in the post, the public would have known about Liz Stride as well, so anyone could write down ' Double event ' in any case, it is probability and a need to search for improbability/ impossibility adds the weight. I agree with you that it was a hoax, as i believe all the letters/postcards are.

[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?

[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.

[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