How strange is this

[Errata]

I think it's fair to say that the letter is suspicious. I think it's probably way too early to say that it leads to the Ripper. It could be a letter from Maxwell. It could be because she had a desperate need to be impotant. It could be a malicious hoax targeted at someone who lived at 14 Dorset st. It could be a letter from someone convinced that the Ripper lived at 14 Dorset. It could be a cry for help from someone who thought they lived with the Ripper. It could be a cry for help from someone who lived with a real bastard, and having him locked up as the Ripper seemed like a good way out. I think it's fair to say it could be anything.

But any theory has a logical means of pursuit. Starting with the police. Did police at that time try to track down the authors of these letters, and did police talk to the residents of 14 Dorset st? Was anyone in that building arrested for any reason following this letter?

[Chris Scott]

Hi guys
Very interesting discussion - thanks for all the info
Below is the original article mentioning this letter. This is from the Ipswich Journal of 2 Nov 1888

[Sally]

Chris - thanks very much for posting the press report detailing the letter

Richard -

I don't often see a nearby neighbour of mine, but I know her name, she knows mine, and I can identify her easily , even if I have hardly conversed with her.
So I cannot see the angle with Maxwell

I agree with you. You know your neighbours by sight at the very least. Its possible that Maxwell mistook Kelly for another Mary (as discussed ad nauseum) But then - how about Morris Lewis? Its a mystery. Were they both mistaken? Both untruthful?

I think that, although this letter allegedly coming from 14 Dorset Street may be coincidence; there is likely more to the story than that. As I say, whether it'll prove possible to take it any further at this remove is another matter. I think it would be useful to see if this press account was reproduced in any of the London papers - and which, if it was.

Whatever the answer, I think it would be premature to dismiss it as a hoax written by a bored young woman. Whoever wrote it was probably aware of earlier publicised 'Ripper' letters - hence the red ink, presumably.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Thanks Chris for placing that article on this thread, it is now present to refer to,
Hi Sally.
Lets go with the theory that is was simply a hoax, albeit written by somebody clued up enough to use red ink. , clearly this was a dig at the London police force, to have sent the letter to Yarmouth, but why that location, and why use the address that was opposite the next Ripper murder?
Was it pure coincidence ?
What are the odds for any hoaxer outside the area, to have used that address, to have predicted the very scene, is something out of psychic detective...
The letter was sent from London on Monday 29TH October[ one day before Barnett left Kelly] claiming to be active on Thursday 1ST, one week prior to the Ripper leaving his refuge to be active.
The very fact that the letter was to the Norfolk area, may be linked to the Smith Family, if one of them was living at number 14 in 1888,we know Helen Smith was in 1891[ of the same family] and they were Norfolk born, actually Yarmouth.
We know that Mr and Mrs Maxwell lived there in 1888, was Helens father living there ,a 42 year old porter.?
If this letter was from someone involved in these crimes, and was predicting the very scene of the next event, by using that address, then it would show us that the murder of Kelly was premeditated it would indicate also that the killer was giving a massive clue to the police, but it was ignored.
The letter Chris reproduced actually reveals a taunting attitude.
But why 14, Dorset street, why Norfolk?
Did the killer once stay there, was he well known there, if he used Norfolk because of the Smith family, he obviously knew them , or was the sender , one of them?
The very fact is, by using an address right opposite Millers court, he was informing the Chief Constable of the locality,where his next murder was to be,which would give credence to those who believe Kelly was targeted, and the habitants of 14,Dorset street may be innocent pawns...
Regards Richard.

[Chris Scott]

One thing in the letter itself is the detailed and specific nature in the quoted text which would point, I would suggest, to a local man.
"Look out for him on Thursday night at either of the piers, where he intends to do for two Norwich women, before closing time."
The reference to "either of the piers" suggests someone who knew the town of Great Yarmouth has, unusually, two piers, the Britannia and the Wellington. Whilst not unique - Brighton also has two piers - it is unusual.

[Bridewell]

How many of the residents on Dorset Street would be in a position to waste money on a bottle of red ink?

[richardnunweek]

Hello Chris,
Very good point about the piers, indeed it would suggest that the writer was someone who not only knew the location , but also 14, Dorset street, and its rather significant location.
Hello Bridewell,
Yes indeed I somehow do not picture a resident of number 14, sitting down and reaching out for quill and red ink,
Was not Henry Maxwell a deputy lodging keeper, would he not had access to ink.?
I am not suggesting that the Ripper spent his days eyeing up Millers court especially the rather pretty Mary Kelly going in , and coming out the passage, but it's possible.
It would have given the killer every opportunity to watch comings and goings.
It would be handy to know if the Yarmouth Smiths resided there at that time.
Regards Richard.

[Errata]

How many of the residents on Dorset Street would be in a position to waste money on a bottle of red ink?

Red ink would not have been all that difficult to make. There are any number of appropriate pigments available to the average Englishman. Including Mercury Sulfide, which is a common ore of mercury, which was used to treat syphilis.

[claire]

I'm quite interested in the fact that, although the writer went to the trouble of getting hold of red ink and a quill (or, at least, bothered to use them rather than a simple pencil), thereby mimicking previous publicised Ripper letters, they then went ahead and referred to the killer in the third person ('look out for him' et cetera). By the end, they see fit to sign it JtR--but certainly it seems they did not set out just to write a hoax letter from the 'killer.'

Whether a bored prankster or not, the use of the third person implies trying to implicate someone in the crimes--but just weren't brave enough to name them. The return address is the closest they'll go.

All of which seems rather interesting.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Claire,
Absolutely, reading the article it certainly gives that impression....the whole crux of the matter is, even if the residents of number 14 were not implicated[ and that's not certain] the very fact that the next Ripper murder was right opposite that address is either truly psychic, or was sent by the killer .
Since 1888 many people have persistently believed that the Millers court affair, was a premeditated act, I for one do not accept the murder was a one off, or a intruder, having the view that the killer waited for the right moment, to kill Mary Kelly.
There is no doubt in my view , that this apparent hoax letter, is the most revealing correspondence of all, and to think that it has only recently come to light is amazing.
As stated in a earlier post...If it does not finger a actual individual,it certainly implies premeditation .
Regards Richard.

[Bridewell]

Norfolk

Hello, All.

I think the wording of the letter, as reported, suggests that the letter is a hoax and that the writer didn't live in Spitalfields - or even London. The first because the writer refers to the killer in the third person, the second because he or she writes:

'Lets hope the police here, can do better then the London police'.

Where is 'here'? Presumably not Spitalfields, as the police covering that location were the Metropolitan force. Presumably not anywhere outside Norfolk or the writer would have written:

'Lets hope the police there, can do better then the London police'

I think that the writer lived in Norfolk and that he gleaned his knowledge of the Spitalfields area from the press. I wonder if Dorset Street got a mention in the nationals in the days preceding the writing of the letter?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Sally]

Hi Colin

The press report suggests that the letter had a London postmark. Doesn't rule out a person originating from Norfolk though.

[Bridewell]

Norfolk

Hi Colin

The press report suggests that the letter had a London postmark. Doesn't rule out a person originating from Norfolk though.

Okay - pure hypothesis:- If the letter-writer is trying to point the finger at someone, how about a person named Norfolk? In the 1891 census there is a 29-year-old, Ratcliff-born carman by the name of James Norfolk, living in West Hackney. In the 1881 census the same man is shown as living at 1, Market Hill, Shadwell.

I'm still thinking hoax though, on balance.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

More Realistically!

The following link is to Chris Scott's 2004 Casebook article:

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/castofthousands.mrs-fiddymont.html?

Samuel Fiddymont, the presumed husband of Mrs Fiddymont was a Norfolk man who married in Yarmouth.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Sally]

I'm not..

I'm still thinking hoax though, on balance.

Welll it could be, couldn't it? But I think on balance (that ever-shifting thing) I'm with Richard here.

If hoax, then we want a coincidence in that the letter writer chose Dorset Street.

We then want another one in that the letter writer chose 14 Dorset Street - which happened to be the house (almost certainly) where Caroline Maxwell, a contraversial witness in the Kelly murder lived. It could have been any other number. Any other lodging house. But no, it wasn't.

We then want another one in that a week later, a woman was murdered in Dorset Street.

We also have - connected or not - the Smiths from Yarmouth. Now whether or not Helen/Ellen Smith was in Whitechapel in 1888 I don't know, but she may have been - the infirmary records show one, perhaps two Ellen Smith/s living in the immediate vicinity at the time. of the right age, listed as a prostitute. Not living at 14 Dorset Street, so inconclusive, but interesting, nonetheless; albeit that Smith is a common name.

I suppose my next question would be what we know about the Maxwells? Have they been traced in the census? (excuse my ignorance)