I wanted to see what you guys think of the Ripper letters, particularly the "Dear Boss" and "From Hell" letters. Do you think either of them was from the killer, neither and why? I've posted the letters in the photos section.
posted by:
|
-
Re: Ripper Letters A Fraud?
Sun, April 4, 2004 - 6:23 PMThis is a complex issue. Some people have taken the stance that all the letters are a fraud, some that they are all genuine, and then some that most are a fraud, but some are true.
There was a theory I read that the original letter, the "Dear Boss" one, was written by either Thomas Bulling, a news paper writer, or his editor, in order to sell papers when the murders had gotten slow. There seems a certain amount of truth to this to me, but it might just be my cynicism.
There are too many, I think, for there not to be a real one somewhere. I suspect the "From Hell" letter is genuine. Who else would send half of a kidney?
For this matter, do you really think all the killings were done by the Ripper? Or were some copycat killings, done by people who thought they might get away with it if they could do it in the style of "jack?"
At the very least, I've never been convinced that Elisabeth Stride was truly a Ripper victim. (SHe was first on the night of the double event.) I think it is far more likely she was just a victim of an argument/fight. She was, after all, only stabbed. Though they say the Ripper was interupted, I'm not so sure about this. How could he be so sly and covert on the others, but not on this one? It indicates he was too close to a public thoroughfare, and was perhaps even sloppy. That does not sound like his MO to me. -
-
Re: Ripper Letters A Fraud?
Mon, April 5, 2004 - 4:22 PMI think you're right, the "From Hell" letter is the most likely of the letters I'm aware of to actually be from the killer. I don't think the killer was as sophisticated or smooth as people like to think he is. Most likely, the killer was just a mentally-ill misogynist who got lucky and escaped notice for a long enough to escape notice and kill five women.
I think you've got a point that some of the women who followed the "Canonical Five" were most likely copycat killings.
I do think Stride was killed by the Whitechapel Killer. It fits with a theory I've heard of the escalation in the mutilations. You see a jump between Stride and Eddowes in the savagery of the assault and the mutilations which may have been due to his being frustrated in trying to mutilate Stride. In several of the Whitechapel Killings, the murder and mutilation happened in close proximity to relatively public areas. In one case, a man left an area, returned a few minutes later and found a body.
This case is so complicated, we could argue the minutiae for ages. Isn't it great? -
-
Re: Ripper Letters A Fraud?
Tue, April 6, 2004 - 5:02 PMBut Stride wasn't mutilated. Only stabbed. And the witnesses saw two men. Niether of which matched any of descriptions of Jack.
The truth will probably never be known, but it's still interesting to think about/theorize. Do you have any 'pet' theories of your own? -
-
Re: Ripper Letters A Fraud?
Wed, April 7, 2004 - 3:51 AMBriefly (since I'm getting ready to go to work, groan) I think Stride wasn't mutilated because the killer didn't have time. I think he damn near got caught and was lucky to get away. He then found Eddowes and vented his rage on her.
We *all* have pet theories, my friend! I'll post more about them later. After work, when I've had some time to think about them. Not that I would *ever* do anything but work at work.
-
Re: Ripper Letters A Fraud?
Wed, April 7, 2004 - 9:07 AMOne fact I'd forgotten was the in the years leading up to and immediately following the Whitechapel Murders, there was an average of one murder per year in the East End. Think about that for a minute. ONE MURDER PER YEAR! Kind of boggles the mind, doesn't it? BTW, my source for that stat is Ripper expert Donald Rumbelow. I think this makes it even more unlikely that there were two men running around killing prostitutes in the East End on the evening of Sept. 30, 1888.
www.casebook.org/authors/i...nt-dr.html -
-
Re: Ripper Letters A Fraud?
Wed, April 7, 2004 - 10:00 AMI am not as completely versed in the Ripper stuff anymore, as it was a long time ago that I read all I could get my hands on, but I don't think it is possible for the East End to have had one murder per year at that time in history. More likely it was one murder per year that was worth reporting or investigating. It was not a well patrolled, or well thought of, area for many years. Sort of the trash heap, castoff people section, ya know? -
-
Re: Ripper Letters A Fraud?
Wed, April 7, 2004 - 11:08 AMAgreed. It was such a dirt-poor neighboorhood, full of transients, that I suspect a lot of people simply went missing and had no friends or family to report them. That, and the police probably ignored the neighborhood until the Ripper killings came along and became public very quickly due to their horrific nature. -
-
Re: Ripper Letters A Fraud?
Wed, April 7, 2004 - 2:13 PMI don't have time to read the link right now, but I will later. Yet I have to agree. One murder a year sounds a little unrealistic. I'm curious what stats your source may be basing that on---though I know he is a noted expert.
Doubts aside, if you go with the theory that the increase of murders from one to many was because of ONE man/killer, then don't you have to accept that there are more than just the cannonical five murders? Was Emma Smith a victim? Or a number of others that died in that year, or the following years? And what about the mutilated body found in the Thames? Or the torso at New Scotland Yard. Since these murders are in excess of the one a year stat, does that mean they were all also Ripper victims?
Just a thought.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the case of Stride. I really don't see conclusive proof that she was actually a Ripper victim---unless you subscribe to the black magic ritual theory, which includes her as part of the victims because the placing of her death completes a ritualistic symbol on the map.
-
-
Re: Ripper Letters A Fraud?
Wed, April 7, 2004 - 3:27 PMOkay, Let me address each of your comments/questions to the best of my ability. First, let me say I'm having a blast. I love a good debate, don't you? (That goes for all of you, not just Chris)
I don't doubt that it's entirely possible that there are more victims than the Canonical Five. Given that serial killers usually build up and gradually escalate their level of violence, it's possible there were victims before Polly Nichols. I do think M.J. Kelly was the last victim, simply because I believe the leve of mutilation is so extreme. I think it's indicative of a person who was, quite simply, at the end of his rope. There are other serial killers who have exhibited this type of behavior, Ted Bundy comes to mind.
I think Stride's killing fits in with the general Whitchapel modus operandi, though there are some aspects that bother me. I have no problem at all agreeing to disagree. I don't know much about the body found in the Thames or the NSY torso you mentioned, so I'll have to do some more research before I can offer an opinion (See? I don't suffer from Male Answer Syndrome :-) I'm glad we can do so and still debate the case.
-
-
-
Re: Ripper Letters A Fraud?
Wed, April 7, 2004 - 3:19 PMOkay, okay. I'm taking your, Oliver's and Chris's comments as a direct challenge and I love a challenge! :-) Seriously, I'm not pissed at any of you (a little hurt that you would doubt me, Eris, but not pissed ;-). I'm going to do some research and see what I can dig up on this. Research is kind of what I do for a living and it's one of my great loves. I've posted a message on the Jack the Ripper Casebook forum to see if anyone out there has some info on this. If anyone knows, it's one of them, cause they know the case a lot better than I do.
Here are my thoughts on the the murder rate issue now, without hearing from anyone from the Casebook Forum. First, I got the information from an interview with Donald Rumbelow, who knows more about the case than just about anyone. Plus, it's on the Casebook website and if it was wrong, I'd bet my next paycheck that somebody would have called them on it. The interview was done several years ago.
Also, I totally agree that life was (and probably still is) cheap in certain areas of London. I've read, however, that it was unusual for someone to be murdered, at least during the commission of a crime. I recall reading that the common practice was to assault someone with the goal of incapacitating them, not killing them. Killing someone just brought unnecessary attention from the Bobbies. I wonder too if it wasn't possible that a variation of something you said here isn't true, Eris. There may not have been many deaths that looked like murders. If they just found you dead in the gutter and couldn't tell why, they probably just buried you. Plus, I'd imagine a good number of people just dissapeared.
Anyway, I'll post again when I get some more information on the whole "murder rate in the East End in 19th Century London" can o' worms I opened up here. How's that for a run-on sentence? -
-
Re: Ripper Letters A Fraud?
Wed, April 7, 2004 - 3:40 PMMartha Tabram was murdered before Polly Nichols. Some believe she was a Ripper victim, others don't. I think the common thought is that she was killed by the Nichols Street Gang.
Emma Smith was raped with a railroad stake, and left to die. (Another one, I believe, blamed on the Nichols Street Gang.) Though she wasn't murdered on the street, she did die from her wounds. Which counts as murder in my book.
Both of these were in the preceeding month before the Ripper's canonical five. That's two for the year alone already. But I know we are dealing with statistics here. An average of one a year prior to 1888 could still mean that there was occasionally more than one. And I believe we are just talking about the East End here, and not all of London.
I will give you, however, that if you are talking about violent murders on the scale of what the Ripper did, then yes, that figure would seem accurate/believable to me. But it is still much more fun to argue. ;)
I'll be curious to see what you can turn up, then try to debunk it.
-
-
-
Re: Ripper Letters A Fraud?
Wed, April 7, 2004 - 3:43 PMOne more comment about Stride. She almost got lost in this one a year killing debate.
I don't think that she was a victim of a second murderer running around killing prostitutes. I agree, it would be unlikely for there to have been two, unless one was a copycat. I think she was a prostitute that happened to get killed; a result of an argument that turned physical, ending her being stabbed.
Ask yourself this question. If it was the Ripper, why didn't he slice her throat first like he did with all the others? -
-
Unsu...
Re: Ripper Letters A Fraud?
Wed, April 7, 2004 - 4:06 PMTaken from www.casebook.org/victims/stride.html
Hopefully this will help a bit.
1:00 AM: Louis Diemschutz, a salesman of jewelry, entered Dutfield's Yard driving his cart and pony. Immediately at the entrace, his pony shied and refused to proceed -- Diemschutz suspected something was in the way but could not see since the yard was utterly pitch black. He probed forward with his whip and came into contact with a body, whom he initially believed to be either drunk or asleep.
He entered the Workingman's Club to get some help in rousing the woman, and upon returning to the yard with Isaac Kozebrodsky and Morris Eagle, the three discover that she was dead, her throat cut.
It was believed that Diemschutz's arrival frightened the Ripper, causing him to flee before he performed the mutilations. Diemschutz himself stated that he believed the Ripper was still in the yard when he had entered, due to the warm temperature of the body and the continuingly odd behavior of his pony.
-
Re: Ripper Letters A Fraud?
Wed, April 7, 2004 - 4:53 PMHer throat was cut. It was the mutilations that were lacking in this case. -
-
Re: Ripper Letters A Fraud?
Thu, April 8, 2004 - 7:26 PMNow, now, Eric. I was not personally doubting you, merely doubting that the East End, and Whitechapel in particular could be without suspiciously dead people for so long as to have a 1 a year statistic.
As someone else clarified already, my comment was more about the fact that more than likely so many dead people were just buried without comment. Death by "misadventure" (sickness, alcoholism, exposure, mugging, beating, etc) wouldn't show up as a murder statistic if it didn't look like a murder enough to be investigated as such. -
-
Re: Ripper Letters A Fraud?
Fri, April 9, 2004 - 3:33 AMI was just so, so...*shocked* at the thought that you might doubt me, Eris. How could the Goddess of Discord not believe me? :-) I am doing research on the question and will share what I learn. You've gotta love that term, though. "Death by Misadventure." It's so British. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: Ripper Letters A Fraud?
Fri, April 9, 2004 - 7:32 AMI want that on my tombstone. -
-
Re: Ripper Letters A Fraud?
Fri, April 9, 2004 - 9:02 AMI want this on my tombstone: "Oh, well." -
-
Re: Ripper Letters A Fraud?
Mon, April 12, 2004 - 8:39 PMi did think for some reason that the throat had not been cut, either, but I think I was confused with something else. Anyway, it doesn't make much difference. I still contend that there is a very strong liklyhood that Elisabeth Stride was killed by someone else.
The letters, however, that were promising a 'double' event before this happened does seem suspicious...
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: Ripper Letters A Fraud?
Sun, March 25, 2007 - 11:12 PMIt was the opinion of FBI agent and author, John Douglas, that the the rhyming and "Saucy Jack" letters were frauds, manufactured by newspaper writers of the period. He cites as evidence other instances of that same period in which journalists admitted falsifying such papers in order to sell more papers.
However, he does believe that the "From Hell" letter--which included human remains--was genuine, and points out that the writing and spelling were crude enough to have originated from the mind of the kind of man he believes responsible for the killings.
Douglas (who pioneered the technique of profiling for the FBI) believed that the killings were the work of a man who lived in Whitechapel, not the opera-caped crusader of popular fiction. Based on the steadily-escalating brutality of the crimes, Douglas postulated that the killer was a man who had probably grown up as the offspring of a London prostitute, and likely suffered much physical aned sexual abuse at the woman's hands. The killings were his way of striking back at her. The removal of sexual organs, and the horrifying brutality of the last murder, were corollary to his unconscious desire to "stop" prostitution as its source--since it had been the cause of such pain and degradation to him.
While we would like to believe that such crimes were the result of a vast conspiracy (such as Frank Spiering suggested) the truth is probably much more mundane.
