Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Dear Boss Letter itself

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Rob Clack View Post
    Going off topic slightly, it does make the interesting point of why the 24 September letter wasn't reproduced. Like the Dear Boss and Saucy Jack postcard.

    Rob
    I've always thought Dear Boss the most plausible of the letters from around the time of the murders themselves, and I guess the authorities at the time thought so too. The mention of clipping the lady's ears and the very close timing to just before the double event, combined with the frustration at having to use red ink to write with rather than blood which had congealed, a telling detail not everyone would think of, strikes me as very much in favour of it having been penned by the killer.

    Best's suggestion that he wrote it with a deliberately battered nib rules him out for me. It clearly wasn't.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Paul View Post
      I'm inclined to favour the envelope because it is part of the same item. Bulling's cover note would have been numbered on its own, I think.
      The envelope cover sheet seems to be labeled with a 2, also?

      Edit-or whatever that is that the Dear Boss envelope was photographed against, shown in the Sourcebook.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Paul Butler View Post
        I've always thought Dear Boss the most plausible of the letters from around the time of the murders themselves, and I guess the authorities at the time thought so too. The mention of clipping the lady's ears and the very close timing to just before the double event, combined with the frustration at having to use red ink to write with rather than blood which had congealed, a telling detail not everyone would think of, strikes me as very much in favour of it having been penned by the killer.

        Best's suggestion that he wrote it with a deliberately battered nib rules him out for me. It clearly wasn't.
        You are probably right, but I presume there was a good reason to dismiss the 24 September letter.

        Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
        The envelope cover sheet seems to be labeled with a 2, also?

        Edit-or whatever that is that the Dear Boss envelope was photographed against, shown in the Sourcebook.
        The numbering does not appear to have been on the letter when it was returned in 1988. So I wonder who put it on and why.

        Comment


        • #64
          Having a guess. The numbers might relate to it being a returned document.
          This is part of Dr Bonds report also returned at the same time. And it has the same pencil markings in the corner. I haven't photographed all of the so I can't be sure. But there are two different numbers for each document.

          Click image for larger version

Name:	DSC00041.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	178.8 KB
ID:	560532

          Rob

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Paul Butler View Post
            I've always thought Dear Boss the most plausible of the letters from around the time of the murders themselves, and I guess the authorities at the time thought so too. The mention of clipping the lady's ears and the very close timing to just before the double event, combined with the frustration at having to use red ink to write with rather than blood which had congealed, a telling detail not everyone would think of, strikes me as very much in favour of it having been penned by the killer.

            Best's suggestion that he wrote it with a deliberately battered nib rules him out for me. It clearly wasn't.
            agree, although I d probably slightly favor from hell. and Ive also had my doubts about the enterprising journalist theory too, for several reasons.

            The 1896 Winters Coming letter has always intrigued me, and after dear boss and from hell think its number three in terms of possibly being authentic. The police thought it matched dear boss enough to have it compared and it references the GSG. I think the only letter out of hundreds that did?
            I mean whos going to remember the gsg let alone quote it eight years later? always struck me as odd.

            Comment


            • #66
              It apparently was Moore who thought there was a correlation. Swanson seemed to questioned that, pointing out the differences and going so far as to chatisise Moore for distributing the letter amongst the department.
              Best Wishes,
              Cris Malone
              ______________________________________________
              "Objectivity comes from how the evidence is treated, not the nature of the evidence itself. Historians can be just as objective as any scientist."

              Comment


              • #67
                Well, I'm confused and ignorant. If you look at some of the letters/cards received by the City of London Police, they tend to be numbered and circled in a similar fashion, and it looks like some attempt at chronological order. One Oct 19 missive is marked 225 and another on the same date is circled as 226, while a postcard to James Fraser (with an illegible stamp) is circled as 224.

                (Letters from Hell, p. 153-156)

                But, of course, these come from the CLRO Police Box 3-18, so I don't know how they could possibly be related to the other, similar markings on Dear Boss, and Bond) ???

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Rob Clack View Post
                  Having a guess. The numbers might relate to it being a returned document.
                  This is part of Dr Bonds report also returned at the same time. And it has the same pencil markings in the corner. I haven't photographed all of the so I can't be sure. But there are two different numbers for each document.

                  [ATTACH]20483[/ATTACH]

                  Rob
                  The letter from Bond is numbered, and there is a number on the backing sheet to which the letter is taped. In the case of the Dear Boss letter the backing sheet was removed by the conservators at the National Archives. I'm not sure when that sort of tape - if it is tape - came into use, but I have an idea it was in the 1930s. The probability, therefore, is that the numbers on the backing sheet are more recent than the number on the letter itself.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Paul View Post
                    The letter from Bond is numbered, and there is a number on the backing sheet to which the letter is taped. In the case of the Dear Boss letter the backing sheet was removed by the conservators at the National Archives. I'm not sure when that sort of tape - if it is tape - came into use, but I have an idea it was in the 1930s. The probability, therefore, is that the numbers on the backing sheet are more recent than the number on the letter itself.
                    The number on the Dear Boss letter wasn't there when it was returned in 1987. So I am wondering if the Met added the number and when it went to the National Archives they added the second number on the backing sheet for their filing system. Even a Pinchin Street report (which I think was returned at the same time (dated 24 September 1889) has number 20 on the page.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X