From Who?

[Chava]

What I'd dearly love to know is when the 'Jack the Ripper' letter was published in the press. I've been through a bunch of newspapers (thanks guys for the transcriptions!) but can't find reference to the letter at the time it was sent. So I don't know when the name 'Jack the Ripper' was publicized. However it's possible that the name was at least known anecdotally by the time the From Hell letter was sent in mid-October. If everyone was referring to 'Jack the Ripper' by then, I think it's possible that the From Hell letter was sent as an indication that the killer had not himself chosen the name Jack the Ripper and didn't appreciate someone else appropriating his voice and his exploits. If that's the case, the point of the kidney was not to amaze and horrify, but to warrant that the letter had come from the actual killer of Catherine Eddowes.

Now what (else) did I find by poring over the text of the communication?

- The writer refers to 'one woman', not 'the woman' or 'that woman'. Does that speak to the idea that he actually killed two women that night? Or is it simply a reference to the fact that he has 'prasarved' other bits and pieces he took from other women. And going on from that...

- The Jack the Ripper letter was sent September 27th. The From Hell letter was sent October 16th. If he really is interested in making a clear difference between him and the writer of the prior letter, and preserved the kidney for that purpose, he waited quite a while to send it. It's more likely that he preserved his trophies and used this one when he found out about the Jack the Ripper thing because it was handy to prove his own identity. Which tells me that he did keep his anatomical specimens and had somewhere private to do so. Wouldn't be easy to keep a jar full of nasty in a doss-house trunk where people might see it. The dossers were always trying to steal each others' stuff. Someone might break the lock of a trunk or box and find more than they bargained for. There were rewards out for the capture of the killer.

- Also, there's a two week hiatus between the JTR letter going out and being spoken of and the FH letter. Did FH find out about the JTR letter and stew about it for ten days or so? Or was he out and about away from newspapers etc and only found out about it when he came back? In which case we can look at a two-week break between the Double Event and the letter, with a further three-week break between the letter and MJK. Which is a bit more manageable and explainable than a six-week break between murders.

- Why was this sent to George Lusk? Why was it not sent to the Central News Agency, one of the newspapers, or the police? I think there's more going on here than a casual choice of recipient. The letter begins and ends with his name. Not 'Catch Me When You Can' but 'Catch Me When You Can Mishter Lusk'. It's a direct challenge and I'm not sure why. Lusk and his Vigilante Committee were a bit of a joke as far as I can see. They did their best and held nightly sessions, but I don't think they were taken seriously. So maybe the killer didn't take them seriously either. Given that he was running rings around the police force, which were much more fun to confuse than a bunch of businessmen playing detective, I'm surprised he targetted Lusk for his game. Therefore I think it's pretty good odds that he knew Lusk personally, or had at least had some dealings with him. One more thing on that subject: given the 'I'm drunk!!' spelling of 'Mishter', which people believe goes with the slightly cod-Irish usage, does anyone know of George Lusk's drinking habits? Because it's just as possible that the killer is taking a swing at a man known to over-indulge as pretending to be drunk himself.

- Lastly, I don't think anyone believes that the Jack the Ripper letter and the From Hell letter were sent by the same person. Apart from anything else, the JTR letter is spelled correctly. However the letters do share some interesting elements. JTR talks about 'saving some of the proper red stuff' in order to write to the police. FH talks about 'prasarving' a kidney. JTR says he'll send a woman's ears to the police. FH sends a kidney to George Lusk. Both letters end by referring to the knife. What this means I don't know. But I strongly believe that FH had the text of the JTR letter strongly in his mind when writing his letter. Either consciously or unconsciously he's echoing it in various ways.

[FrankO]

What I'd dearly love to know is when the 'Jack the Ripper' letter was published in the press. I've been through a bunch of newspapers (thanks guys for the transcriptions!) but can't find reference to the letter at the time it was sent. So I don't know when the name 'Jack the Ripper' was publicized.

Hi Chava,

According to Sugden's 'The Complete History of JtR' the police publicized facsimiles of the letter & postcard as a poster on 3 October. It was placarded outside every police station. Fascimiles were also sent to the press and on 4 October several newspapers made mention of the letters or (partly) printed the fascimiles: the Daily Telegraph, Pall Mall Gazette, St. James Gazette.

The Evening News & Times printed this interesting reaction from a reader:

"Sir - Another remarkable letter has been written by some bad fellow who signs himself "Jack the Ripper." The letter is said to be smeared with blood, and there is on it the print in blood of the corrugated surface of a thumb. This may be that of a man or a woman. It is inconceivable that a woman has written or smeared such a letter, and therefore it may accepted as a fact that the impression in blood is that of a man's thumb.

The surface of a thumb so printed is as clearly indicated as are the printed letters from any kind of type. Thus there is a possibility of identifying the blood print on the letter with the thumb that made it, because the surface markings on no two thumbs are alike, and this is a low power used in a microscope could reveal.

I would suggest - (1) That it be proved if it is human blood, though this may not be material; (2) that the thumbs of every suspected man be compared by an expert with the blood print of a thumb on the letter; (3) that it be ascertained whether the print of a thumb is that of a man who works hard and has rough, coarse hands or whether that of one whose hands have not been roughened by labour; (4) whether the thumb was large or small; (5) whether the thumb print shows signs of any shakiness or tremor in the doing of it.

All this the microscope could reveal. The print of a thumb would give as good evidence as that of a boot or shoe.
I am , yours, &c.,
FRED. W. P. JAGO."

The Star of the same date carried the following interesting comment:

"BY the way, why does our friend, the D.T., print facsimiles of the ghastly but very silly letters from "Jack the Ripper?" We were offered them by the "Central News," and declined to print them. They were clearly written in red pencil, not in blood, the obvious reason being that the writer was one of those foolish but bad people who delight in an unholy notoriety. Now, the murderer is not a man of this kind. His own love of publicity is tempered by a very peculiar and remarkable desire for privacy and by a singular ability to secure what he wants. Nor is there any proof of any pre-knowledge of the Mitre-square crimes, beyond the prediction that they were going to happen, which anybody might have made.The reference to ear-clipping may be a curious coincidence, but there is nothing in the posting of the letter on Sunday. Thousand of Londoners had details of the crimes supplied in the Sunday papers."

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

- The writer refers to 'one woman', not 'the woman' or 'that woman'. Does that speak to the idea that he actually killed two women that night? Or is it simply a reference to the fact that he has 'prasarved' other bits and pieces he took from other women.

Hi again Chava,

To me, it seems that he used 'one woman' to let the reader know he killed more than one and that he didn't care who she was or which one in the series she was. She was just one of them.

All the best,
Frank

[Chava]

Thanks for that FrankO!

I'm not sure what he means with 'one woman'. Yes, he killed two women that night. But, yes, he also took trophies from another woman. He could be referring to either case.