Tweet
Last night, after being inspired by conversations on another thread, I decided to take another look at Dear Boss Postcard and letter. Whilst perusing over the Saucy Jacky postcard, I suddenly came across something about the text that did not agree with me. I’m not sure if this has been mentioned before, and you’ll have to forgive me if it has, but I would like to share it with you nevertheless.
My problem with the S J postcard lies in this line: You’ll hear about saucy Jacky’s work tomorrow.
As we all know, the Saucy Jacky postcard was sent to The Central News Agency. We also know that the line ‘you’ll hear about saucy Jacky’s work tomorrow’ is widely regarded to refer to the information that was published in the newspapers of the 1st of October. Indeed, Phillip Sugden himself wrote, in his excellent book ‘The Complete History of Jack the Ripper’ , that he believed the communication must have been sent on the 30th of September due to this line.
My problem, however, is this: Why would someone write to ‘The Central News Agency’ on the 30th of September telling them that they’ll discover the news about the killings in a newspaper the following day? Am I the only one that finds that line and incredibly stupid thing to write? Especially when you consider that his decision to send the postcard to them in the first place must have been based on the fact that he’d get a wide distribution in the field of NEWS. So why write that? Why does he feel that it necessary for him to explain to the CNA where they can hear about his crimes? They are The Central News Agency, for God’s sake! If they do not know what will appear in the newspapers, then who will? By the time he sent that postcard, the CNA would have had virtually a whole day to hear about a set of murders that, by this time, most people in not just Whitechapel but the whole of London would have heard about!
Let us not forget that this is the same Central News Agency that apparently had news of the death of General Gordon and the fall of Khartoum a full 12 hours before anyone else did. As such, it would seem that the CNA needed no help in the general area of gathering and distributing breaking news. In that case, Why would someone believe that this huge news-orientated organisation would need him to point out exactly where they might find the facts? It just doesn’t make sense. The line almost makes that part of the postcard read: Dear Central News Agency. Just thought I’d let you know that you’ll find out about two murders I’ve committed in a newspaper to which you’ve probably supplied the information too anyway. Not to mention a set of murders that you’ve had a whole day to find out about and that you probably know the details of, inside out, already. Still, thought I‘d let you know out of courtesy.
The more I read this line, the more I cannot understand why someone would write it – especially when you consider it in the context of the current understanding of its meaning. I do, however, have a very simple solution that would explain it. And it is a solution that, if agreed on, would clear up the whole mystery of whether the DB postcard (and, indeed, the DB letter) was sent by the killer or not. Imagine this scenario if you will:
Let’s just say that the writer of the postcard was indeed the killer. What if, when he wrote the line ‘you’ll hear about saucy Jacky’s work tomorrow’, our killer wasn’t referring to the newspapers of the 1st of October but was referring to the news that would break on the morning of the 30th of September instead? Imagine also that he wrote the postcard not long after the murders had been committed, i.e. in the early hours of Sunday morning. If he was writing to The Central News Agency about information which still would not yet be widely known until the later hours of the morning of the 30th, then we have a line that makes much more sense.
Remember: our killer would quite possibly have been wandering around during the later hours of Saturday the 29th of September as well, so to him, the late hours of the 29th and the early hours of the morning of the 30th would have seemed the same to him. He would most probably have still counted them as the evening and, therefore, ‘tomorrow’ would have represented the latter part of the morning of the 30th, i.e. when it was light.
For instance, if I stay up late one night and don’t go to bed until one or two o’clock the next morning, I still count that as the night-time – even though it technically isn’t. The morning to me starts when I awake after my sleep. I believe this would have held true for the killer.
The problem of the postcard being dated the 1st of October can be explained away by the fact that the book 'Jack the Ripper: Letters from Hell' states - on the subject of collection times - that, and I quote:
'On Sundays all post offices in the London district were closed, with the exception of those open for receipt and despatch of telegrams during stated times.'
It then goes on to say:
'Letters posted on Sundays in pillar-boxes within the London limits, and in some nearer suburbs, were collected early on Monday morning in time for the general day mails, and for the first London district delivery.'
Therefore, the postcard could very well have remained dormant in a local post box until it was collected and delivered on the Monday. This would also hold true if the postcard was a preemtive missive and sent before the killings were committed.
Then again, maybe the killer himself could possibly have delayed the posting for some reason. Perhaps because he wanted to wait until the aftermath of the murders had calmed down; maybe he only felt safe posting it on the later part of Sunday. By that time, the text of the document could not have been altered, but it would still have been relevant. I doubt whether that would have bothered the killer too much, anyway. On the other hand, maybe there was an entirely different reason. I do not know.
The fact remains, however, that whatever the reason behind the delay, the way the text reads in the S J postcard means that it does not fit in with the popular idea that the writer was referring to the information that would appear in the newspapers of the 1st of October. It fits in much more with the idea that the writer is talking about the morning of the 30th of September and the news that would break thereon. This means it was written not that long after the murders had been committed and thus almost certainly written by the killer, not a hoaxer.
Kind regards,
Tempus
My problem with the S J postcard lies in this line: You’ll hear about saucy Jacky’s work tomorrow.
As we all know, the Saucy Jacky postcard was sent to The Central News Agency. We also know that the line ‘you’ll hear about saucy Jacky’s work tomorrow’ is widely regarded to refer to the information that was published in the newspapers of the 1st of October. Indeed, Phillip Sugden himself wrote, in his excellent book ‘The Complete History of Jack the Ripper’ , that he believed the communication must have been sent on the 30th of September due to this line.
My problem, however, is this: Why would someone write to ‘The Central News Agency’ on the 30th of September telling them that they’ll discover the news about the killings in a newspaper the following day? Am I the only one that finds that line and incredibly stupid thing to write? Especially when you consider that his decision to send the postcard to them in the first place must have been based on the fact that he’d get a wide distribution in the field of NEWS. So why write that? Why does he feel that it necessary for him to explain to the CNA where they can hear about his crimes? They are The Central News Agency, for God’s sake! If they do not know what will appear in the newspapers, then who will? By the time he sent that postcard, the CNA would have had virtually a whole day to hear about a set of murders that, by this time, most people in not just Whitechapel but the whole of London would have heard about!
Let us not forget that this is the same Central News Agency that apparently had news of the death of General Gordon and the fall of Khartoum a full 12 hours before anyone else did. As such, it would seem that the CNA needed no help in the general area of gathering and distributing breaking news. In that case, Why would someone believe that this huge news-orientated organisation would need him to point out exactly where they might find the facts? It just doesn’t make sense. The line almost makes that part of the postcard read: Dear Central News Agency. Just thought I’d let you know that you’ll find out about two murders I’ve committed in a newspaper to which you’ve probably supplied the information too anyway. Not to mention a set of murders that you’ve had a whole day to find out about and that you probably know the details of, inside out, already. Still, thought I‘d let you know out of courtesy.
The more I read this line, the more I cannot understand why someone would write it – especially when you consider it in the context of the current understanding of its meaning. I do, however, have a very simple solution that would explain it. And it is a solution that, if agreed on, would clear up the whole mystery of whether the DB postcard (and, indeed, the DB letter) was sent by the killer or not. Imagine this scenario if you will:
Let’s just say that the writer of the postcard was indeed the killer. What if, when he wrote the line ‘you’ll hear about saucy Jacky’s work tomorrow’, our killer wasn’t referring to the newspapers of the 1st of October but was referring to the news that would break on the morning of the 30th of September instead? Imagine also that he wrote the postcard not long after the murders had been committed, i.e. in the early hours of Sunday morning. If he was writing to The Central News Agency about information which still would not yet be widely known until the later hours of the morning of the 30th, then we have a line that makes much more sense.
Remember: our killer would quite possibly have been wandering around during the later hours of Saturday the 29th of September as well, so to him, the late hours of the 29th and the early hours of the morning of the 30th would have seemed the same to him. He would most probably have still counted them as the evening and, therefore, ‘tomorrow’ would have represented the latter part of the morning of the 30th, i.e. when it was light.
For instance, if I stay up late one night and don’t go to bed until one or two o’clock the next morning, I still count that as the night-time – even though it technically isn’t. The morning to me starts when I awake after my sleep. I believe this would have held true for the killer.
The problem of the postcard being dated the 1st of October can be explained away by the fact that the book 'Jack the Ripper: Letters from Hell' states - on the subject of collection times - that, and I quote:
'On Sundays all post offices in the London district were closed, with the exception of those open for receipt and despatch of telegrams during stated times.'
It then goes on to say:
'Letters posted on Sundays in pillar-boxes within the London limits, and in some nearer suburbs, were collected early on Monday morning in time for the general day mails, and for the first London district delivery.'
Therefore, the postcard could very well have remained dormant in a local post box until it was collected and delivered on the Monday. This would also hold true if the postcard was a preemtive missive and sent before the killings were committed.
Then again, maybe the killer himself could possibly have delayed the posting for some reason. Perhaps because he wanted to wait until the aftermath of the murders had calmed down; maybe he only felt safe posting it on the later part of Sunday. By that time, the text of the document could not have been altered, but it would still have been relevant. I doubt whether that would have bothered the killer too much, anyway. On the other hand, maybe there was an entirely different reason. I do not know.
The fact remains, however, that whatever the reason behind the delay, the way the text reads in the S J postcard means that it does not fit in with the popular idea that the writer was referring to the information that would appear in the newspapers of the 1st of October. It fits in much more with the idea that the writer is talking about the morning of the 30th of September and the news that would break thereon. This means it was written not that long after the murders had been committed and thus almost certainly written by the killer, not a hoaxer.
Kind regards,
Tempus
Comment