When did the Double Event become known as such ?

[Dickere]

Ok, Jack may have first used the term in a letter, but the principle of it I mean. Did police immediately think he had struck twice or was Stride initially seen as a non-Ripper victim ?

[Abby Normal]

Ok, Jack may have first used the term in a letter, but the principle of it I mean. Did police immediately think he had struck twice or was Stride initially seen as a non-Ripper victim ?

yes they immediately thought he struck twice. pretty much any way

[Dickere]

yes they immediately thought he struck twice. pretty much any way

Thanks Abby. I'm not doubting you at all but is there any supporting evidence ?

[Scott Nelson]

I thought the term "double event" originated in the "Saucy Jacky" postcard posted on October 1st.

[jerryd]

Saucy Jack (received on October 1st, 1888)

"I was not 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. ha not the time to get ears for police. thanks for keeping last letter back till I got to work again."

Jack the Ripper


On Monday, October 1st, 1888 Frederick Wildbore visited the mysterious parcel in the vault at Scotland Yard twice and said nothing. On one of those occasions he lit a wax vesta and showed the parcel to his mate (Richard Lawrence). Again, neither man said nothing. On Tuesday morning, October 2nd, Wildbore once again visited the parcel and said nothing. Then later in that day he finally drew attention to the parcel and it became a sensation. (You'll hear about Saucy Jacky's work tomorrow....)

Perhaps one event is a ripper killing and the second event a torso killing. Was the torso held back until the 2nd for a reason? On Sunday, September 30th, a report of a body on the embankment was supplied to a newspaper. Very similar to the John Arnold story in 1889.

Sheffield Evening Telegraph
11 October 1888

AN EXTRAORDINARY STORY

An extraordinary story is going the round of journalistic circles in connection with the mysterious discovery on the Thames Embankment. It will be remembered that the woman's remains were found on the Monday afternoon of last week. The previous evening, however, a man went to most of the daily newspaper offices, saw the respective subeditors[?] and inquired if they had heard of a woman's body being discovered on the Embankment. The man evidently expected remuneration, but, in accordance with practice, was required to call again after inquiries had been made. Reporters were despatched in hot haste to Westminster, and calls were made at all the police stations and other likely quarters, but without result, no discovery of the kind reported having been made. In less than twenty-four hours the remains of the unknown woman were found between the Embankment and Whitehall at the spot previously described. If this reported discovery was a hoax, and a strange coincidence, it is very singular indeed. Moreover, the man who called at the newspaper offices did not call a second time.

[jerryd]

A more direct answer to your question Dickere, it depends on the police force you are talking about. Here is supposedly what the City Police thought.

The Philadelphia Times
Monday December 3rd, 1888

TWO MURDERERS.

The city detectives then early in the first week of October came to a definite conclusion, namely, that the two women met their death at the hands of different men. It was but taking a single step further to conclude that these two men were acting in collusion. The long interval that had elapsed between this and the previous butchery, the fact that the women belonged to the same class and the coincidence that the killing was done within the same thirty-five minutes all pointed to the same conclusion - that the murders had been deliberately planned, probably to be consummated at the same moment, for if even a couple of hours had elapsed between the two crimes the neighborhood would on the discovery of the first, have become so "hot" that the perpetrator of the second outrage would have found the matter of his escape rendered doubly difficult.

[Dickere]

A more direct answer to your question Dickere, it depends on the police force you are talking about. Here is supposedly what the City Police thought.

The Philadelphia Times
Monday December 3rd, 1888

TWO MURDERERS.

The city detectives then early in the first week of October came to a definite conclusion, namely, that the two women met their death at the hands of different men. It was but taking a single step further to conclude that these two men were acting in collusion. The long interval that had elapsed between this and the previous butchery, the fact that the women belonged to the same class and the coincidence that the killing was done within the same thirty-five minutes all pointed to the same conclusion - that the murders had been deliberately planned, probably to be consummated at the same moment, for if even a couple of hours had elapsed between the two crimes the neighborhood would on the discovery of the first, have become so "hot" that the perpetrator of the second outrage would have found the matter of his escape rendered doubly difficult.

Thanks Jerry, though that feels like an imaginative journalist as there are no quotes to support it. Certainly interesting though.

[Azarna]

The next day, The Times newspaper was considering the murders to be linked. Though whether a member of the police expressed this opinion, or whether it is The Times speculating, is open to debate.

Times Monday 1st October

"MORE MURDERS AT THE EAST-END.

In the early hours of yesterday morning two more horrible murders were committed in the East-end of London, the victim in both cases belonging, it is believed, to the same unfortunate class. No doubt seems to be entertained by the police that these terrible crimes were the work of the same fiendish hands which committed the outrages which had already made Whitechapel so painfully notorious."

https://casebook.org/press_reports/times/18881001.html

This line also

[jerryd]

Thanks Jerry, though that feels like an imaginative journalist as there are no quotes to support it. Certainly interesting though.

The Metropolitan police must have found something important in the Philadelphia Times article (as Stewart Evans states in his Ultimate Sourcebook, Chapter 25) because they included it in the official police files. MEPO 3/140.

[Dickere]

The Metropolitan police must have found something important in the Philadelphia Times article (as Stewart Evans states in his Ultimate Sourcebook, Chapter 25) because they included it in the official police files. MEPO 3/140.

From the 'another angle to consider' perhaps. They couldn't find one killer, never mind a pair in tandem.

[GBinOz]

Saucy Jack (received on October 1st, 1888)

"I was not 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. ha not the time to get ears for police. thanks for keeping last letter back till I got to work again."

Jack the Ripper


On Monday, October 1st, 1888 Frederick Wildbore visited the mysterious parcel in the vault at Scotland Yard twice and said nothing. On one of those occasions he lit a wax vesta and showed the parcel to his mate (Richard Lawrence). Again, neither man said nothing. On Tuesday morning, October 2nd, Wildbore once again visited the parcel and said nothing. Then later in that day he finally drew attention to the parcel and it became a sensation. (You'll hear about Saucy Jacky's work tomorrow....)

Perhaps one event is a ripper killing and the second event a torso killing. Was the torso held back until the 2nd for a reason? On Sunday, September 30th, a report of a body on the embankment was supplied to a newspaper. Very similar to the John Arnold story in 1889.

Sheffield Evening Telegraph
11 October 1888

AN EXTRAORDINARY STORY

An extraordinary story is going the round of journalistic circles in connection with the mysterious discovery on the Thames Embankment. It will be remembered that the woman's remains were found on the Monday afternoon of last week. The previous evening, however, a man went to most of the daily newspaper offices, saw the respective subeditors[?] and inquired if they had heard of a woman's body being discovered on the Embankment. The man evidently expected remuneration, but, in accordance with practice, was required to call again after inquiries had been made. Reporters were despatched in hot haste to Westminster, and calls were made at all the police stations and other likely quarters, but without result, no discovery of the kind reported having been made. In less than twenty-four hours the remains of the unknown woman were found between the Embankment and Whitehall at the spot previously described. If this reported discovery was a hoax, and a strange coincidence, it is very singular indeed. Moreover, the man who called at the newspaper offices did not call a second time.

Hi jerryd,

Thank you for the Sheffield Evening Telegraph story. I lean toward the Saucy Jack letter being a hoax, but if that is not the case the "double event" being Eddowes and a Thames Torso murder would tie Jack into both series of murders.

Cheers, George

[jerryd]

Hi jerryd,

Thank you for the Sheffield Evening Telegraph story. I lean toward the Saucy Jack letter being a hoax, but if that is not the case the "double event" being Eddowes and a Thames Torso murder would tie Jack into both series of murders.

Cheers, George

Hi George.

Yes, the letters in general are difficult to figure out, real from not. As far as a double event, I feel the Whitehall victim and Annie Chapman may have been the real double event.

[GBinOz]

Hi George.

Yes, the letters in general are difficult to figure out, real from not. As far as a double event, I feel the Whitehall victim and Annie Chapman may have been the real double event.

Hi jerryd,

Is that to say you have some doubts about Stride being a Ripper victim?

Cheers, George

[jerryd]

Hi jerryd,

Is that to say you have some doubts about Stride being a Ripper victim?

Cheers, George

That’s fair to say I think.

[GBinOz]

Hi George.

Yes, the letters in general are difficult to figure out, real from not. As far as a double event, I feel the Whitehall victim and Annie Chapman may have been the real double event.

Hi jerryd,

I missed this on first read. Did you mean Annie Chapman, not Eddowes, or was that a typo? The letter that I lean towards being genuine is the From Hell letter where he refers to taking the kidney from "one of the women", which had to be Eddowes.

Cheers, George