Favoured Suspect...

[FrankO]

Would the real killer adopt the name "Jack the Ripper" based on someone else's invention?

I'm with you, RD. I think he wouldn't.

Cheers,
Frank

[Abby Normal]

The term "Canonical 5" is a Macnaghten construct and based on his subjective opinion.

This is despite the official police file on the case consisting of up to 11 possible victims.


Similarly, the term "Jack the Ripper" is a construct of the individual who wrote "Dear Boss"

If this letter was not written by the real killer, then the term "Jack the Ripper" has no contextual relevance to the case.

The term "Whitechapel Murderer" should be the term used when discussing the case, because it covers a broader range of possibilities.

I would suggest that "From Hell" which doesn't mention "Jack the Ripper" is the authentic letter; if there actually was one written by the killer.

It's also poignant to acknowledge that the likes of Bury and Maybrick with an alleged link to the use of the name "Jack the Ripper' may inadvertently be one of the strongest reasons to infact rule them out as the real killer.

In other words, if the Dear Boss letter wasn't written by the killer, then any suspect linked to the name would have no actual link to the real killer.

Would the real killer adopt the name "Jack the Ripper" based on someone else's invention?

I doubt it.

hi rookie
the term jack the ripper, whether written by the killer or not, is simply what he came to be called then and has lasted to this day. not sure why people struggle with that. imho i lean toward that dear boss/saucy jack or from hell were written by the killer. if i had to pick i agree, probably from hell most likely.

maybrick was never associated with the name.

i think if the real killer didnt write dear boss and didnt like the name he was being called, i think he would have said so. and since no one did, and the real killer apparently liked the shock and notoriety he was making by exposing the bodies, then i think he probably liked the name and the notoriety it was giving him.

and btw, the idea that dear boss/saucy jack was written by a journalist is the biggest myth in ripperology. there is no real evidence, it was just speculation later. and of course the main culprit is our old boastful friend anderson lol. in fact, most of the police at the time beleived they were authentic.
And the letters get three things right and imho have the ring of authenticity to them.

[FrankO]

the term jack the ripper, whether written by the killer or not, is simply what he came to be called then and has lasted to this day. not sure why people struggle with that. imho i lean toward that dear boss/saucy jack or from hell were written by the killer. if i had to pick i agree, probably from hell most likely.

Hi Abby,

I look at this in another way. By the time the ‘From Hell’ letter was written, the name Jack the Ripper for the murderer had already settled with the public. By 9 or 10 October, several men had already used the name or they’d confessed to being “Jack the Ripper”.

The Daily News of 9 October even contained this snippet: “The Central News, since the original letter and postcard of “Jack the Ripper” were published, has received from 30 to 40 communications daily signed “Jack the Ripper,” evidently the concoctions of silly notoriety hunters.”

So, by the time the ‘From Hell’ letter was penned down, letter writers had all (as far as I know) been using “Jack the Ripper” to sign their letters to make them look genuine or to make them be taken seriously. The person who wrote “From Hell”, however, didn’t.

If he was not, why wouldn’t he use “Jack the Ripper”? Of course, it's still possible that he didn't, but it just doesn't make much sense, if any. If he was, however, there's an argument to be made that he didn't use it, actually, to distinguish himself from all those people who pretended to be the killer.

So, instead of signing with 'Jack the Ripper', he sent his letter together with a piece of kidney - as a sort of authentication. As far as I know, it wasn’t widely discussed or made public that the killer had taken a kidney from Eddowes, which to me makes it all the more plausible that the letter writer was, in fact, the Ripper.

Just my two (counter)cents.

Cheers,
Frank

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Abby,

I look at this in another way. By the time the ‘From Hell’ letter was written, the name Jack the Ripper for the murderer had already settled with the public. By 9 or 10 October, several men had already used the name or they’d confessed to being “Jack the Ripper”.

The Daily News of 9 October even contained this snippet: “The Central News, since the original letter and postcard of “Jack the Ripper” were published, has received from 30 to 40 communications daily signed “Jack the Ripper,” evidently the concoctions of silly notoriety hunters.”

So, by the time the ‘From Hell’ letter was penned down, letter writers had all (as far as I know) been using “Jack the Ripper” to sign their letters to make them look genuine or to make them be taken seriously. The person who wrote “From Hell”, however, didn’t.

If he was not, why wouldn’t he use “Jack the Ripper”? Of course, it's still possible that he didn't, but it just doesn't make much sense, if any. If he was, however, there's an argument to be made that he didn't use it, actually, to distinguish himself from all those people who pretended to be the killer.

So, instead of signing with 'Jack the Ripper', he sent his letter together with a piece of kidney - as a sort of authentication. As far as I know, it wasn’t widely discussed or made public that the killer had taken a kidney from Eddowes, which to me makes it all the more plausible that the letter writer was, in fact, the Ripper.

Just my two (counter)cents.

Cheers,
Frank

Excellent post Frank, well said!

[FrankO]

I see I've been sloppy in my last post. The quote I was actually reacting to there was this one:

i think if the real killer didnt write dear boss and didnt like the name he was being called, i think he would have said so. and since no one did, and the real killer apparently liked the shock and notoriety he was making by exposing the bodies, then i think he probably liked the name and the notoriety it was giving him.

Carry on...

[caz]

hi rookie
the term jack the ripper, whether written by the killer or not, is simply what he came to be called then and has lasted to this day. not sure why people struggle with that. imho i lean toward that dear boss/saucy jack or from hell were written by the killer. if i had to pick i agree, probably from hell most likely.

maybrick was never associated with the name.

i think if the real killer didnt write dear boss and didnt like the name he was being called, i think he would have said so. and since no one did, and the real killer apparently liked the shock and notoriety he was making by exposing the bodies, then i think he probably liked the name and the notoriety it was giving him.

and btw, the idea that dear boss/saucy jack was written by a journalist is the biggest myth in ripperology. there is no real evidence, it was just speculation later. and of course the main culprit is our old boastful friend anderson lol. in fact, most of the police at the time beleived they were authentic.
And the letters get three things right and imho have the ring of authenticity to them.

I agree with all your observations here, Abby.

Also, when Dear Boss was written and posted, in the last week of September, there hadn't been a murder since 8th, in Hanbury Street, and a series of seemingly random murders connected to one killer was hardly a well known phenomenon at the time. So who was better placed to confidently predict another one - following Tabram, Nichols and Chapman - than the killer himself? And the killer didn't let the letter writer down, did he? Two in one night, according to the postcard which followed swiftly on the letter's heels, describing another serial killer trait, which even today is so often dismissed as less likely than two cut throats operating independently of one another, close enough in time and space to be noteworthy, but not close enough to rule out the one killer being responsible for both murders.

Whenever I read the words of Dear Boss I find them surprisingly prescient for a journalist who had no right to expect the killer to dance so well to his tune.

As for From Hell, I have never had a problem with the idea that the same hand that wrote Dear Boss and the postcard could have been the killer and could also have sent the kidney to Lusk - just to 'shake things up a bit' if for no better reason. He wasn't a robot and could have got a kick out of sending people off in different directions. The novelty of being known as Jack the Ripper didn't need to be static: it might have suited him on some occasions and not others.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

I agree with all your observations here, Abby.

Also, when Dear Boss was written and posted, in the last week of September, there hadn't been a murder since 8th, in Hanbury Street, and a series of seemingly random murders connected to one killer was hardly a well known phenomenon at the time. So who was better placed to confidently predict another one - following Tabram, Nichols and Chapman - than the killer himself? And the killer didn't let the letter writer down, did he? Two in one night, according to the postcard which followed swiftly on the letter's heels, describing another serial killer trait, which even today is so often dismissed as less likely than two cut throats operating independently of one another, close enough in time and space to be noteworthy, but not close enough to rule out the one killer being responsible for both murders.

Whenever I read the words of Dear Boss I find them surprisingly prescient for a journalist who had no right to expect the killer to dance so well to his tune.

As for From Hell, I have never had a problem with the idea that the same hand that wrote Dear Boss and the postcard could have been the killer and could also have sent the kidney to Lusk - just to 'shake things up a bit' if for no better reason. He wasn't a robot and could have got a kick out of sending people off in different directions. The novelty of being known as Jack the Ripper didn't need to be static: it might have suited him on some occasions and not others.

Love,

Caz
X

thanks caz. and i agree with everything youve added.

[paul g]

When Mcnaughton proposed only 5 victims , did he state and name the five?

[Fiver]

When Mcnaughton proposed only 5 victims , did he state and name the five?

Yes. He mentioned other murders, but thought that only Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly were victims of the Whitechapel Murderer.

[GBinOz]

I agree with all your observations here, Abby.

Also, when Dear Boss was written and posted, in the last week of September, there hadn't been a murder since 8th, in Hanbury Street, and a series of seemingly random murders connected to one killer was hardly a well known phenomenon at the time. So who was better placed to confidently predict another one - following Tabram, Nichols and Chapman - than the killer himself? And the killer didn't let the letter writer down, did he? Two in one night, according to the postcard which followed swiftly on the letter's heels, describing another serial killer trait, which even today is so often dismissed as less likely than two cut throats operating independently of one another, close enough in time and space to be noteworthy, but not close enough to rule out the one killer being responsible for both murders.

Whenever I read the words of Dear Boss I find them surprisingly prescient for a journalist who had no right to expect the killer to dance so well to his tune.

As for From Hell, I have never had a problem with the idea that the same hand that wrote Dear Boss and the postcard could have been the killer and could also have sent the kidney to Lusk - just to 'shake things up a bit' if for no better reason. He wasn't a robot and could have got a kick out of sending people off in different directions. The novelty of being known as Jack the Ripper didn't need to be static: it might have suited him on some occasions and not others.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

WADR to your opinion, I am with Frank on this assessment.

Cheers, George

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

I look at this in another way. By the time the ‘From Hell’ letter was written, the name Jack the Ripper for the murderer had already settled with the public. By 9 or 10 October, several men had already used the name or they’d confessed to being “Jack the Ripper”.

The Daily News of 9 October even contained this snippet: “The Central News, since the original letter and postcard of “Jack the Ripper” were published, has received from 30 to 40 communications daily signed “Jack the Ripper,” evidently the concoctions of silly notoriety hunters.”

So, by the time the ‘From Hell’ letter was penned down, letter writers had all (as far as I know) been using “Jack the Ripper” to sign their letters to make them look genuine or to make them be taken seriously. The person who wrote “From Hell”, however, didn’t.

If he was not, why wouldn’t he use “Jack the Ripper”? Of course, it's still possible that he didn't, but it just doesn't make much sense, if any. If he was, however, there's an argument to be made that he didn't use it, actually, to distinguish himself from all those people who pretended to be the killer.

So, instead of signing with 'Jack the Ripper', he sent his letter together with a piece of kidney - as a sort of authentication. As far as I know, it wasn’t widely discussed or made public that the killer had taken a kidney from Eddowes, which to me makes it all the more plausible that the letter writer was, in fact, the Ripper.

Just my two (counter)cents.

Cheers,
Frank

hi frank
while i see your point, i disagree somewhat. the writer of dearboss disavows tje name leather apron. the writer of from hell disavows nothing and dosnt give himself a nickname. neither does the writer of the gsg, which was most certainly written by the killer, amd the name ripper was known by then.

serial killers write different things in different circs. the zodiac wrote on the victims car in one of the murders and also wrote different letters to different people with apparently different intentions.

again i see your point. and of course its all speculation, but since i lean toward dear boss being authentic imho the ripper probably gave himself the name. and of course if from hell wasnt written by the killer, then your point is moot. (but again imho probably was).

i see the the three writings thus:
gsg 90% chance authentic
from hell 75%
dear boss/ saucy jack 70%

[John Wheat]

hi frank
while i see your point, i disagree somewhat. the writer of dearboss disavows tje name leather apron. the writer of from hell disavows nothing and dosnt give himself a nickname. neither does the writer of the gsg, which was most certainly written by the killer, amd the name ripper was known by then.

serial killers write different things in different circs. the zodiac wrote on the victims car in one of the murders and also wrote different letters to different people with apparently different intentions.

again i see your point. and of course its all speculation, but since i lean toward dear boss being authentic imho the ripper probably gave himself the name. and of course if from hell wasnt written by the killer, then your point is moot. (but again imho probably was).

i see the the three writings thus:
gsg 90% chance authentic
from hell 75%
dear boss/ saucy jack 70%

Just a side point if the chalked GSG was proven to be from the killer would that increase Bury's suspect status considering he in all likelihood wrote the chalk messages at his flat in Dundee?

[caz]

hi frank
while i see your point, i disagree somewhat. the writer of dearboss disavows tje name leather apron. the writer of from hell disavows nothing and dosnt give himself a nickname. neither does the writer of the gsg, which was most certainly written by the killer, amd the name ripper was known by then.

serial killers write different things in different circs. the zodiac wrote on the victims car in one of the murders and also wrote different letters to different people with apparently different intentions.

again i see your point. and of course its all speculation, but since i lean toward dear boss being authentic imho the ripper probably gave himself the name. and of course if from hell wasnt written by the killer, then your point is moot. (but again imho probably was).

i see the the three writings thus:
gsg 90% chance authentic
from hell 75%
dear boss/ saucy jack 70%

Hi Abby,

While I agree that the author of the gsg was most likely to have been the murderer of Eddowes, I don't think 'the trade name' of Jack the Ripper was yet in the public domain when the writing appeared on the wall. At that point, the author of the gsg - ripper or not - would not have known if the Dear Boss letter would ever see the light of day. So I'm not sure that the absence of any 'ripper' reference in the chalked message can tell us much either way.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Having said that, the wording of the message, when compared with the wording of the Dear Boss letter, indicates to me a similarity in mindset, which nobody could have been expecting unless the same person was responsible for both.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Rookie Detective]

Just a side point if the chalked GSG was proven to be from the killer would that increase Bury's suspect status considering he in all likelihood wrote the chalk messages at his flat in Dundee?

There's a scenario whereby Bury wrote the chalk messages in Dundee and was also the author of the Dear Boss letter; his handwriting is pretty close in comparison; as shown by Bern Irca over on Forums.

That would make one automatically claim that it was case closed and that Bury was the Ripper...

However, even if Bury did write Dear Boss and effectively invent the term "Jack the Ripper," it still wouldn't prove he was the man who murdered those innocent women; ergo, the "Whitechapel Murderer."

Imagine a scenario whereby Bury took notice of the murders of Nichols and Chapman, and then felt compelled by them to the point he became obsessed; a Ripper fantasist.

Bachert was also a Ripper fantasist of sorts.

There were likely several men who fantasised that they were the real killer.

After Dear Boss, Bury then writes several more correspondences to keep up with the fantasy... and then at the point he murders his wife, he has a choice to make...
But he soon realises that he doesn't have the balls to either dismember her, or cut her throat down to the bone and instead resorts to making a deliberate post-mortem cut as a means of wanting to feel like the real killer.

But he lacks the attibutes of the real killer and ends up just awkwardly bundling her into a box while he considers his options.

There is also a possibility that his wife was aware he was obseessed with the murders to a macabre level, and chose to commit suicide as a means of escape. Bury then tried to backtrack and make her death as close to a Ripper murder as possible, because he was desperate for his efforts to actually mean something.

He writes the chalk messages as a last attempt for the world to see him as the real killer.

The idea that he told James Berry that he was the Ripper has zero foundations of any proof and in reality Bury went to his death as just another number.

So we have a scenario whereby Bury, the writer of Dear Boss, the inventor of the term "Jack the Ripper" and a man who fantasised about being the killer, was indeed the man who called himself "Jack the Ripper"...but all the while, the real killer (who wrote From Hell) makes no claim to the name "Jack" and goes about his business under the radar...continuing his killings long into the 1890's and possibly beyond.

Bury may have indeed been Jack the Ripper...but that doesn't make him the real Whitechapel murderer, who; unlike Bury, could slice, cut, stab, chop and sever without a moments hesitation.

When Bury inflicted wounds deemed similar to those inflicted by the Whitechapel Murderer, he was aiming to mimic the real killer, but his attempts were lacklustre and I imagine at some point he must have realised that being the real killer was harder than he could ever had envisaged; in a practical sense at least.

Perhaps he should have stuck to writing letters as a confidence trickster and conman, rather than try and be the real Whitechapel Murderer.

If one wants to search for the fantasy and adhere to the myth of "Jack the Ripper," then look no further than Bury, as he's as good a suspect as anyone.

But if one wants to find the truth, and know who actually murdered those poor women; then looking past Bury is a must.