Saucy Jack Postcard

[Aethelwulf]

Noticed that Bury and the author of Saucy Jack have something in common: an inability to plan how many words they can fit on one line (how to space them). Lines 2-8 don't quite fit, so the author has squeezed them in on a slant. The author obviously realised his mistake as the following eight lines are straight. I do wonder whether Saucy Jack used his normal handwriting as it looks rather childish. Also, modern linguistic analysis suggests a common author between SJ and Dear Boss, and the hand writing is quite different IMO. Not sure what that line down the postcard is, but it doesn't seem to affect which words are squashed in (compare 'squealed' to 'couldn't' and 'straight').



Bury was also a bad planner at times. Below is part of his either dictated or totally made up letter from Ellen. Lines 4, 6-9 squashed in on an angle. Bury too realised his mistake as the following 6 lines are straight. Although the handwriting is different, it was testified that Bury could write in several different hands. Bury was described as very intelligent but you can see examples of his odd habit of improper capitalization (Pitching, Tossing, Rolling, Bed, But). It may have been different back then, but I always think improper capitalization is a sign of a lower level of education.

'Blamed'?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Wess, Eagle & Diemschutz all indicated at the inquest that they had never seen a prostitute in Berner St, with the possible exception of outside the beer hall

And they could tell whether a woman was a prostitute or not how exactly? It sounds more like them saying "no member of our club has ever consorted with prostitutes."

c.d.

Morning Advertiser, Oct 2:

Baxter: Have you ever seen a man and woman in the yard?
Wess: About twelve months ago I happened to go into the yard, and heard some chatting near the gate, and I at once went there and shut the gate.

Baxter: Have you ever seen a man and woman in the yard?
Eagle: No; but I have seen them just outside near a public-house.

Baxter: Have you ever seen men and women in the yard?
Deimschutz: Never.
Baxter: Have you ever heard anyone say that they have found men and women there?
Diemschutz: I have not.

The Times, Oct 2:

In further examination, witness [William Wess] said after he returned to the club he called his brother and they both left by the street door and went together home. Another member of the club, named Louis Stansley, left the club at the same time and accompanied them as far as James-street. Witness did not see any one in the yard, and as far as he could remember did not see any one in Berner-street. They went by way of Fairclough-street, Grove-street, and then to James's-street. Witness generally went home from Berner-street between 12 and 1 a.m. On some occasions he had noticed low women and men together in Fairclough-street, but had not seen any in Berner-street. He had never seen any of these women against his club. About 12 months ago he happened to go into the yard and heard some conversation between a man and a woman at the gates. He went to shut the gates, and then saw a man and woman leave the entrance. That was the only occasion he had ever noticed anything.

What the above indicates, is that unrecognized (men and) women at the gates, or anywhere in Berner St, was a very rare occurrence.
It it therefore unnecessary to know if and how it was known which of these women were prostitutes.

Schwartz' story is a combination of low probability events and outcomes.

A few days after the murder, Arbeter Fraint said the murder occurred at a quarter to one.
When do you think it occurred?

[c.d.]

Although certainly not definitive, I find Anderson's remark that Scotland Yard was pretty sure the letters came from editor Tom Bulling but were reluctant to say so publicly for fear of a libel suit to be pretty compelling evidence against their authenticity.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Wess, Eagle & Diemschutz all indicated at the inquest that they had never seen a prostitute in Berner St, with the possible exception of outside the beer hall

And they could tell whether a woman was a prostitute or not how exactly? It sounds more like them saying "no member of our club has ever consorted with prostitutes."

c.d.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

right where Schwartz said she was-in front of the Dutfield yard gates

This is going off topic, so I won't reply if you reply here, but have you considered the odds of Schwartz's story being true?
Consider:

• Wess, Eagle & Diemschutz all indicated at the inquest that they had never seen a prostitute in Berner St, with the possible exception of outside the beer hall
• JtR has little reason to be in a prostitute free street (unless he lives nearby)
• Fairly suddenly we have 4 moving parts to account for, and moving parts they are; BS Man throws, Stride is thrown, Pipeman walks, Schwartz runs
• At least 2 of the 4 make audible noise, and Schwartz' running probably means 3
• No one else sees or hears any of this

Multiply out the odds of each of these, and the chances of the story being true look remote.
By remote, I'm talking 1000/1 at best.

bingo. because he dosnt want the fact that he wants "to get to work soon" be widely known as it may impede his ability to do his "work". and also maybe hes a controlling type and wants to see if they'll actually follow his instructions.

And it is odd for a hoaxer-especially if its someone from the CNA-because actually holding the letter back would lead them to possibly getting scooped by someone else. especially if they did it for publicity-which is one of the main reasons levelled agains the CNA for hoaxing it!

Good points.

Has anyone ever considered that the word 'work' should be taken literally?
We are in year 132 of the investigation - every possibility should be considered.
Also, I believe Stephen Knight brought Israel Schwartz to prominence in 1976.
Much debate and discussion on the subject ever since, but was is the dividend?

[Simon Wood]

The so-called double-event took place in the early hours of Sunday, 30th September.

The postcard reads as if written and posted on Sunday 30th September 1888 [“you’ll hear about Saucy Jacky’s work tomorrow,"—Monday], before anyone except Central News and the Metropolitan Police knew about the name Jack the Ripper, yet is postmarked [Monday] 1st October 1888, by which time “Dear Boss” had appeared in the Daily Telegraph.

So the question is whether the writer of the postcard was displaying any foreknowledge of Dear Boss or simply taking advantage of the name Jack the Ripper going public.

There were eight postal districts in London. The main Eastern Central district boasted twelve deliveries per day, nine of which were hourly. Districts within three miles had eleven deliveries a day, and the suburbs six. A postcard mailed at 8.00 am in central London could reach another central London destination within two to three hours.

And if posted on a Sunday—

“Letters posted in the pillar-boxes within the town limits, and in some of the nearer suburbs, on Sundays, are collected early on Monday morning in time for the general day mails, and for the first London district delivery.”

This makes the question of whether the postcard was mailed on Sunday or Monday a moot point, for in either case it would have been postmarked 1st October 1888.

[Michael W Richards]

Saucy Jack does not say he cut her ear...at all.

[Abby Normal]

The following assumes Dear Boss and Saucy Jacky were written by the same hand.

DB: Keep this letter back till I do a bit more work, then give it out straight.

Dear Boss was first in the papers on Sunday, Sep 30.

SJ: Thanks for keeping last letter back till I got to work again.

This implies that when this line is written, the boss is no longer 'keeping last letter back', so it must now be Sunday.
Obviously, 'till I got to work again' is past tense.

The possible scenarios seem to be:

1. The postcard was written entirely on the Sunday, by a hoaxer who is not too bright
2. Jack wrote the entire postcard fairly early on the Sunday, and didn't realize the two murders would make it into that day's papers
3. Jack wrote about half the postcard on the Saturday, completing it on the Sunday

#1 would therefore mean the same about the author of DB, yet DB seems to have a bit of creative flair about it, including the famous name it gave to the world, and the handwriting is good.
#2 seems unlikely.
#3 would seem, given 1 & 2, to be a real possibility!

An interesting question to me is; why would either Jack or a hoaxer want boss to keep the first letter back, until he gets more 'work'?
This seems like an odd thing for a publicity seeking hoaxer to request.

bingo. because he dosnt want the fact that he wants "to get to work soon" be widely known as it may impede his ability to do his "work". and also maybe hes a controlling type and wants to see if they'll actually follow his instructions.

And it is odd for a hoaxer-especially if its someone from the CNA-because actually holding the letter back would lead them to possibly getting scooped by someone else. especially if they did it for publicity-which is one of the main reasons levelled agains the CNA for hoaxing it!

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby.
Where do you suppose Stride was, when she squealed a bit?

right where Schwartz said she was-in front of the Dutfield yard gates

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The following assumes Dear Boss and Saucy Jacky were written by the same hand.

DB: Keep this letter back till I do a bit more work, then give it out straight.

Dear Boss was first in the papers on Sunday, Sep 30.

SJ: Thanks for keeping last letter back till I got to work again.

This implies that when this line is written, the boss is no longer 'keeping last letter back', so it must now be Sunday.
Obviously, 'till I got to work again' is past tense.

The possible scenarios seem to be:

1. The postcard was written entirely on the Sunday, by a hoaxer who is not too bright
2. Jack wrote the entire postcard fairly early on the Sunday, and didn't realize the two murders would make it into that day's papers
3. Jack wrote about half the postcard on the Saturday, completing it on the Sunday

#1 would therefore mean the same about the author of DB, yet DB seems to have a bit of creative flair about it, including the famous name it gave to the world, and the handwriting is good.
#2 seems unlikely.
#3 would seem, given 1 & 2, to be a real possibility!

An interesting question to me is; why would either Jack or a hoaxer want boss to keep the first letter back, until he gets more 'work'?
This seems like an odd thing for a publicity seeking hoaxer to request.

[JeffHamm]

Just posting this link, which is simply about the speed of mail delivery. It's a letter of complaint, the complaint being his letter took 8-9 hours to be delivered, and in the writers opinion and experience, it should only be 2-3 hours.

https://www.victorianlondon.org/communications/frequency.htm

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Hi Abby.
Where do you suppose Stride was, when she squealed a bit?

[Abby Normal]

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.'

hi not
so you have dear boss that gets three things right and saucy jack gets one right-squealed a bit (stride). added to that he thanks them for holding the dear boss letter back until he gets to work. it all adds to their authenticity IMHO.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Good post.

It's rather like the debate on the spelling of "Juwes" or "Jewes", is it a "u" or is it an "e". No mention of why there's a second and unnecessary "e".

The second question I cannot answer at this stage.
The first question seems to have been answered here, by a chap going by the name of Jack the Ripper.

[Spider]

Yes, an important fact of the ‘Saucy Jacky’ postcard that is usually overlooked, “You’ll hear about Saucy Jacky s work tomorrow”. Many people consider this a mistake, being postmarked 1^st Oct, but in fact bears out the fact that it was actually written the previous night, the night of the double murder!!!
Strange also how no-one queries "ev-ent". There must be a reason for it.
It's rather like the debate on the spelling of "Juwes" or "Jewes", is it a "u" or is it an "e". No mention of why there's a second and unnecessary "e".
The devil is forever in the detail.