Swanson Said Dear Boss Letter Writer Was Known?

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Rob

Indeed Swanson could have meant that the identity of the Ripper was known to the top officials of the Yard, although his handwritten note leads on naturally from the text at the end of the paragraph, viz., "[printed] the creation of an enterprising London journalist. [handwritten] known to Scotland Yard head officers of CID." Since the idea of each these annotations seems to expand on Anderson's printed word with more information from his own knowledge, I do believe he is saying the journalist responsible for Dear Boss was known to the top officers of the Yard. Case Closed.

Chris

[Tom_Wescott]

I'd like to thank Stewart and Chris for this thread, and Rob for his awesome addition above.

Just so it's clear, I'm not questioning that Bulling was Anderson's suspect for the Dear Boss letter. I merely question that it was the certainty Anderson makes it out to be. As Stewart noted, Littlechild doesn't appear to have shared Anderson's certainty on the matter, and I personally suspect Bulling and Moore only came under suspicion for the 'original' missives when the 'Moab and Midian' letter appeared much later, which is suspicious to say the least and does scream of a CNA hoax.

Having said all this, Rob House's offering above raises some questions about the marginalia which I'm going to post about on the 'other' thread, where I feel it's more appropriate.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[ChrisGeorge]

As Stewart noted, Littlechild doesn't appear to have shared Anderson's certainty on the matter, and I personally suspect Bulling and Moore only came under suspicion for the 'original' missives when the 'Moab and Midian' letter appeared much later, which is suspicious to say the least and does scream of a CNA hoax.

Hi Tom

You know, Tom, I rather think the opposite, and that the "Moab and Midian" letter adds extra complexities and some rather strange psychology not present in the original Dear Boss letter and postcard where the writer comes across more as a street-smart small time crook with a simple and joshing tone.

If the coppers (i.e, Anderson/Swanson, Macnaghten, and Littlechild) were right and Bulling and the Central News Agency were responsible With "Dear Boss", why would they complicate matters? They had got away with it. It doesn't quite make sense.

I think the Moab and Midian letter throws a monkey wrench into the works and makes it less plausible Bulling and colleagues actually were responsible for Dear Boss.

Best regards

Chris

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Chris. To keep this thread on topic, I've created a thread for the Moab & Midian letter and moved your post there. I hope you don't mind.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

And is it not ever so slightly provoking that a suspect I know who was a very prolific letter writer was so well known to the senior officers of Scotland Yard that he was in fact related to one of 'em.
Is this now't but further misinformation and disinformation designed to mask the truth behind the suspect I know and his dear old uncle?

[Tom_Wescott]

AP,

Are you suggesting that Thomas Cutbush wrote some of the Ripper letters and that this would have been known to Anderson and Swanson? What evidence do you have to support that? I'm being sincere, since we're all theorizing here, but I have to assume your theory is based on some sort of evidence.

Regarding your accusation of 'misinformation/disinformation', I assume you meant that towards Anderson and/or Swanson?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

Evidence, Tom?
One sees the mire we are in right now with what we term 'evidence'.
Are we not looking at a number of senior police officers here who were all being quite reckless with the truth of the matter, but in a sort of coordinated manner?
They either claim to know that the killer was a low class Jew or an American quack doctor. I think we are now in a position to refute those absurd and plainly false allegations.
They all claim that the 'Dear Boss' letter was written by a London journalist, even though they are reluctant to name him, or when they do get his name wrong.
I believe this second allegation is just as false and absurd as the first.
One can imagine the true situation as being far more explosive than that for these senior police officers to be making up nonsensical allegations against perfectly innocent folk; and that by doing so they were hoping to obscure and disguise a very delicate situation which if it came into the public domain would bring their force into national shame and infamy.
I can see only one scenario that would provide for such disinformation and misinformation, and that is if the killer was the actual letter writer and he was related in some manner or form to a senior officer of the highest rank in Scotland Yard.
And yes, in my opinion Thomas Cutbush may well have wrote this letter, and my evidence is probably just as good as Littlechild's claim that Bullen wrote it.

[caz]

Hi All,

Taking Stewart's observation into account, that Littlechild was merely referring to a 'belief' held concerning the author's identity, could Swanson have merely meant that Anderson had a specific enterprising London journalist in mind when writing, whose identity was 'known' to the people in question, whether or not they actually shared Anderson's conclusion?

Love,

Caz
X

[Chava]

It looks like there's a period after 'Scotland Yard'. We're long past the ability to explain this, but why should the identity of the author of the note only be known by head officers? If they knew it wasn't germane to the investigation, why keep it so quiet? I can understand them not going after the journalist if they felt they needed the press on their side, but I don't understand the secrecy within CID.

[fido]

I haven't read through this thread, as I'm very busy and my students really must come first, although I've been told I might want to answer criticisms of my work. I can, however, live with the thought that some people don't like it or me!
But I have just had posted to me through a different source Charles Nevin's post saying he thinks his article preceded my book. This is an honest error of memory. My book had been out for about a month. When the Telegraph sensibly approached Don Rumbelow about the marginalia he said they would have to approach me, as I was the only person who knew anything about the Polish Jew and Kosninsky. (Paul Begg's book was still in preparation). So the Telegraph put Don and me in touch, and we met and talked over the mysteious writing for three hourss, reaching no conclusion except for Don's saying "Well, it shows there was a Kosminsky, and he wasn't the Ripper", with which I absoutely agreed, having already published just that. (Don remarked at the time that he'd been very surprised to find an unillustrated fact book from me, as he'd expected a glossy coffee table book like my popular literary biographies: it turned out he and I had been reading each other's books for eyars).
It wasn't until I'd met and spoken to Charled Nevin a day or two later that I realized a conflict of information between the City and Met forces, confusing Cohen and Kosminsky - (again, a confusion i had already said in print I believed had taken place) - would acount for much of the contradiction in the marginalia. The next ediiton of The Crimes Detection and Death of JtR included the new material on the marginalia, and my publishers were screaming that I expected changes every time they reprinted!
Please don't ask me for responses. I'm going straight back to my paid work, and don't expect to be able to look up from it and think about Ripper forums for at least three weeks - if then.
All the best,
Martin F

[Chris]

But I have just had posted to me through a different source Charles Nevin's post saying he thinks his article preceded my book. This is an honest error of memory.

In case he doesn't see this, I hope Charles Nevin won't mind my repeating his explanation given in an email to me - that he was thinking of the subsequent revision of Martin Fido's book, published in 1989.

[perrymason]

Hi all,

Id just like to ask a question here if I may.....to my knowledge its just Dear Boss and Saucy Jack that are the Ripper missives that are reproduced and made into posters to solicit clues from the neighborhood based on the actual handwriting.

If some Senior Men truly believed they were pressmen hoaxes and they even felt they knew the specific authors...why would those posters be made? Any clues suggesting that the author was not one of the pressmen believed responsible would be discarded....there is no potential value in the exercise to my eye unless they were not sure who wrote them.

Thanks for any help, cheers.