No announcement yet.

Dr L S Forbes Winslow: Charlatan?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dr L S Forbes Winslow: Charlatan?

    It was a bit difficult to choose where to put this thread but I settled on the "misconception" forum

    I've put it here because the question arose whether LFW was a complete publicist and charlatan who fabricated evidence in the search for celebrity, as appears to be the general consensus or...

    If he is considered in a more favourable light, do his theories and other statements contain any truth or significant information within them that are relevant to the Whitechapel murders*

    I'll try and collate existing links to articles mentioning Forbes Winslow


    His early career is of significance in assessing the man as mentioned by Dave James

    Forbes Winslow lost face and respect by his peers in an early case in which he was complicit in trying to section a woman to an asylum

  • #2
    Originally posted by Nemo View Post
    It was a bit difficult to choose where to put this thread but I settled on the "misconception" forum

    I've put it here because the question arose whether LFW was a complete publicist and charlatan who fabricated evidence in the search for celebrity, as appears to be the general consensus or...

    If he is considered in a more favourable light, do his theories and other statements contain any truth or significant information within them that are relevant to the Whitechapel murders*

    I'll try and collate existing links to articles mentioning Forbes Winslow


    His early career is of significance in assessing the man as mentioned by Dave James

    Forbes Winslow lost face and respect by his peers in an early case in which he was complicit in trying to section a woman to an asylum
    Like a lot of people working in the psychiatric field, Forbes Winslow himself probably should have been sectioned.

    I think on the whole, in regard to his ideas about the Ripper case, he comes across as a publicity seeker forever coming up with different theories, some of them contradictary. My impression is that the Met felt that he was a Larkins-type character, more of a nuisance than a help -- in other words much like Edward Larkins, the Customs official with the theory about an unknown sailor on the Portuguese cattle boats having done the murders, he was viewed as a time waster. Er hem, much like some people today on the Casebook message boards with theories about, say, Henri Toulouse Lautrec, Vincent Van Gogh, or Robert Louis Stevenson having been the killer.


    Christopher T. George, Lyricist & Co-Author, "Jack the Musical" Hear sample song at

    Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conferences, April 2016 and 2018.
    Hear RipperCon 2016 & 2018 talks at


    • #3
      Originally posted by Chris G. View Post
      Like a lot of people working in the psychiatric field, Forbes Winslow himself probably should have been sectioned.

      Plainly, this is, in and of itself, barking mad. Is there evidence to show that a lot of people working in psychiatry ought to be sectioned? More than in other fields? ... Psychiatrists - they're all mad themselves. ... Is that it? Never trust an expert, you mean? What makes psychiatrists so dangerous that they would need to be involuntarily detained for the protection of their own health, their own safety, or the safety of others? Like a lot of academics, editors and poets, psychiatrists probably sometimes say things which they later come to regret, but there we go. It doesn't necessarily require the Mental Health Act (1983) to be invoked.


      Interesting thread. My real purpose for posting here was really to point out that "sectioned" is probably not the correct word to use to describe anyone who has been detained in a mental health institution before 1983; the first use of the word in the OED is from 1984.

      I do actually have a few thoughts about Forbes Winslow, so I may well be back, unless they get me first...


      I bet your Ripper feels better now.


      • #4
        Hi Mark

        From what I have observed, people who themselves have psychological difficulties seem to gravitate to the profession. Is that a bigoted view? I think others might support my view. It isn't a matter of scientists being odd, I'm talking about practicing psychiatrists or psychologists specifically.

        Best regards

        Christopher T. George, Lyricist & Co-Author, "Jack the Musical" Hear sample song at

        Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conferences, April 2016 and 2018.
        Hear RipperCon 2016 & 2018 talks at


        • #5
          Thanks for the comments guys

          You are correct Mark in that "committed to an asylum" is the right phrase to use

          I look forward to hearing your views in regard to Forbes Winslow

          Chris, I understand what you mean about certain people being attracted to the psychiatric profession, but LFW was born into it

          As you know, his father was famous in his own right in the psychiatric field, albeit at a period when ideas about mental illnesses and how to treat them were at minimum "questionable"

          Also, at first sight, I would agree that LFW appears to chop and change in regard to his latest Ripper suspect

          However, after Dave James looked at his theories, he quite rightly pointed out (IMO) that LFW was remarkably consistent with his theory of a man who had fits of mania separated by lucid intervals

          At first he suggested an epileptic, but then preferred a monomaniac

          In being pointed toward GWB (the lodger) in 1889, he felt he had found the perfect candidate, who expressed a religious monomania

          I'm not sure who altered the date on the landlord's statement from the 9th to the 7th - it could have been LFW or the landlord

          It is a moot point anyway as the date was changed to accomodate the Tabram murder in 1888 but LFW states elsewhere that it was a woman accosted by GWB who approached him first (whereas it appears it was the landlord, Callaghan who approached him and informed him of the woman being accosted) on or about 30th August 1889, and that her suspicions were about GWB's activities around the time of the McKenzie murder in July 1889

          He also admitted that any evidence against GWB was circumstantial rather than conclusive

          In later years, LFW sometimes latched on to a recently named suspect but often stated that the new suspect was the man he was looking for all those years ago (the lodger)

          It does appear that LFW completely lost track of GWB and in thinking GWB was still in London, ended up on a wild goose chase

          However, some of his later theories suggest he still considered that GWB might have gone to America at some point

          Although he states categorically at one point that the Ripper is incarcerated in a medical asylum, he later retracts this

          Anyway - I'm jumping the gun a bit and talking from memory

          I'd like to read a bit more about his early cases first and see if anything significant lies there

          The case in which he tried to commit a woman to an asylum under dubious circumstances was quite a famous and sensational one at the time

          In 1878, Georgina Weldon was certified insane, in the main due to her Spiritualist beliefs, but escaped the "men in white coats" sent to fetch her and successfully fought her case later - see here...

          It should be noted that LFW was strongly against Spiritualism at this time, writing a paper in 1877, the year before the committal of Georgina Weldon, on how it induces mental illnesses in practitioners and observers

          In later years he changed his mind and actually gave talks to Spiritualist audiences

          Winslow claimed that the Victorian vogue for spiritualism was causing widespread insanity among its followers in the United States. He supported this claim in his 1877 pamphlet Spiritualistic Madness. His assertion was fully controverted at the time by Dr. Eugene Crowell.

          In later years he lectured for the Spiritualist societies at Merthyr Tydfil and Cardiff. In reply to a question at Merthyr he publicly stated that while at the time that he made his assertion about the dangers of spiritualism he had honestly believed it to be true, he had since learned that he was mistaken and would no longer make any such statement.


          • #6
            Hi Neems

            Yes that's right, L Forbes Winslow was consistent. He was consistent in his inconsistency. I would agree with you that Forbes Winslow believed the Ripper was a man who had fits of mania separated by lucid intervals. But then that's what he was all about, studying people who had bouts of madness rather than perhaps people who were outright lunatics. But his theories show that he was the Mitt Romney of early Ripperologists, utterly convinced that his candidate of the moment was the Ripper. . . until he found a better candidate, and that candidate was the one. And this is what makes his theories about who it was, rather than what the killer was, pretty valueless. They were more like guesses in the dark. Although I do like the one about the Ripper as the Three-Legged Man which has to be his best theory of the lot. A classic.



            Christopher T. George, Lyricist & Co-Author, "Jack the Musical"
   Hear sample song at

            Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conferences, April 2016 and 2018.
            Hear RipperCon 2016 & 2018 talks at


            • #7
              Yes, that's a great pic Chris - lol

              Hopefully this thread will give you some food for thought

              I'll class you as the champion of Forbes Winslow the charlatan - or should I?

              Do you think LFW was a publicity seeking charlatan, or do you think he meant well but may have been misled by others - letters and the like?

              I think he saw an indication of mental illness in the Whitechapel murders and gave his learned and considered opinion as to the murderer

              He did latch on to GWB but is that not understandable?

              Where he appears to falter is when he persistently attempts to be THE person the true Ripper communicated with and backs this up by altering written evidence to imply it was received in 1888 rather than 1889 or later

              This is probably connected to his suggestion that JtR must be aware of his reputation otherwise how would he know to write to him. He suggested that JtR might be an ex-patient for example

              My point is Chris - would he be so blatantly stupid and misguided or is it more likely that he had some ulterior motive for altering the evidence, repeatedly stating that he knew who the Ripper was etc?

              ONE explanation is that everything he did and said was in a true seach for the Ripper and an attempt to get the real Ripper to communicate and so provide some clue where otherwise there were none

              It should be remembered that he frequented the East End, sometimes in disguise for no pay in his search for the Ripper

              He set himself up as an approachable authority to whom information could be passed by the East Enders who might otherwise baulk at contacting the police

              What is his motive otherwise? Plain stupidity? Publicity? Money? He had no other hobby?

              He stated himself that he only became involved because there was some element of lunacy in the case

              We know a lot about him post-1888 but looking at his earlier appearances in the press might provide some clue as to his personality and motives


              • #8
                Hi all,

                Nemo, a word of caution regarding LFW's early cases. In a quick scan of the newspaper archive yesterday, I took a starting point as 1871, when he was appointed to the Royal College of Physicians. The problem is that the newspapers don't differentiate between Forbes Winslow Father and Forbes Winslow son. His father was Forbes B Winslow, but the papers just refer to Forbes Winslow.

                Do you know if it was FW snr of FW jnr who was involved in the Mordaunt case?
                I'm trying to establish a starting point for his first apperance in the papers.
                "From Hull, Hell and Halifax, Good Lord deliver us."


                • #9
                  Hi all,

                  Here's a basic timeline for LFW's newspaper appearances regarding the Whitechapel murders. I discussed this with Nemo last year and he made many interesting points, which perhaps he could reiterate.

                  Forbes Winslow in the Newspapers
                  Prior to the Whitechapel murders, Forbes Winslow had had a busy year, as befits a doctor of his eminence. He had been consulted on a variety of cases, some criminal and some private.

                  11 September 1888 – Western Mail. His first appearance in the Whitechapel murders where he proposes that the murders are the work of one man, possibly a discharged or escaped lunatic, and urges that asylum records be checked.

                  12 September 1888 – Belfast News Letter. In an editorial, praises Winslow and suggest that S Y should consider his suggestion of a killer in a 'far higher station in life' than Pizer. “Dr Winslow, in deed, volunteers the opinion that the criminal may be a well to do lunatic, probably living in the West End...” Winslow proposes that the killer, when not affected by mania, becomes rational with no knowledge of his act. Winslow also suggests deploying decoys and acknowledges the difficulties.

                  13 September 1888 – Belfast News Letter. Quotes Winslow's letter to the Times, laying out the above theory.

                  13 September 1888 – Glasgow Herald. “But the novelty of Dr Winslow's notion lies in the suggestion that 'the murderer is not of the class to which Leather Apron' belongs, but is of the upper class of society.' There is a horrible fascination about this idea which seizes the imagination with a firm grip. It suggests 'The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde' more than ever.” It goes on to suggest that whilst if it was a upper class murderer, he would not kill in Belgravia or Mayfair, Whitechapel seems too far afield and to strange for the killer to be successful.
                  22 September 1888 – Leeds Mercury. An item carrying a resume of a letter in the Lancet which suggests that homicidal tendency in lunatics was confined to the desire to kill one individual. Winslow replied that Whitehall officials agreed with that theory. He then disagrees with the theory citing his own case histories, and describes homicidal lunatics in terms that today point to sociopathy.

                  25 September 1888 – Morning Post. Letter regarding an incident in Brighton, involving his sister-in-law and her daughter being confronted by a man wielding a 'Bowie Knife'.

                  26 September 1888 – The Standard. Winslow's name used in conjunction with an advert for 'Lamplough's Pyretic Saline'.

                  26 September 1888 – York Herald. Birtley murderer could be Whitechapel killer.

                  2 October 1888 – Aberdeen Weekly Journal. Reconfirms his theory of a homicidal maniac being responsible for all the killings, but also adds monomania. “But I may point out that the imitative faculty is very strong in people of unsound mind and that is the reason why there has been a sort of epidemic of knives.” Suggests that asylum attendants should patrol Whitechapel. The killer is '...of infinite cunning' and would not be stopped unless caught in the act. Blames S Y for not acting on his advice.
                  2 October 1888 – Morning Post. Letter expanding on above and describing religious monomania.

                  10 November 1888 – Dundee Courier & Argus. Via Central News. In response to Miller's Court? Reinforces above.

                  10 November 1888 – Western Mail. As above.

                  30 November 1888 – North Eastern Daily Gazette. Responds to the suggestion of a homicidal Russian (Nicholai Vassily?). Authorities should check with their French counterparts. “...I quite expect that the individual in question will turn out to be the actual murderer of all the Whitechapel women.”

                  Forbes Winslow seems to be fairly consistent in his diagnosis throughout the Ripper murders, adding minor changes as more details come to light. He does, however, become fixated on S Y ignoring his advice. He doesn't appear to have made any specific comments on the double event.
                  His press appearances may be self serving, but it appears that the press seek him out as an authority on insanity more often than not. Was he jumping on the band wagon with the mad Russian? It doesn't seem so, his advice to S Y seems to be consistent with earlier advice and he doesn't seem to labour the story or try to enhance it in any way. He did complain about lack of co-operation by the French authorities.
                  Earlier in the year consulted on several cases – said that Bradford murder was not JtR.
                  18 July 1889 – Belfast News Letter. Maintains 1888 theory, all done by one man, a homicidal maniac. Claims to have been in communication with Sir Charles Warren in the previous year with a suggestion for the capture of the lunatic - “...the police as a public body could not undertake what I suggested, but I was given permission to do so as a private individual.”
                  “The man when caught will be shown to be a homicidal lunatic labouring under religious mania, and, perhaps, acting on an imaginary command from Heaven.”
                  23 July 1889 – Belfast News Letter. Appeal for assistance to aid in setting up a small committee to carry out Winslow's 1888 plan.

                  20 September 1889 – Belfast News Letter. I've got Jack the Ripper's boots! (And bloodstained coat). Start of the lodger story. JtR has a possible accomplice.

                  At the same time, AB in story regarding female slaughterhouse worker.
                  29 September 1889 – Birmingham Daily Post. Report of story in the New York Herald which gives more details. Winslow claims to have received a letter on the Friday before the body was discovered saying a murder would be committed in two or three days. Winslow said the police weren't interested – the police have laughed at me – I will have nothing to do with them. He claims that his suspect corresponds with 'Guzzling Jim' about whom a great deal has been published in the New York Herald.

                  20 September 1889 – Dundee Courier and Argus. Same as above, plus “Jack the Ripper is known. He is known to the police, and he is known to several other persons.”
                  20 September 1889 – North Eastern Daily Gazette. As above
                  20 September 1889 – Sheffield and Rotherham Independent. As above.
                  I get the feeling there are two separate stories here!!!

                  27 September 1889 - North Eastern Daily Gazette. John Cleary Found – police say story worthless.

                  Winslow has handed over all his info to the police.
                  Dr G H Savage on epilepsy – some of the most brutal crimes have been committed by epileptics. Seems to back up Winslow's diagnosis at least.
                  9 October 1889 - North Eastern Daily Gazette. Letter from JtR – Next week you will hear of me. Letter sent to SY.
                  10 October 1889 – Northern Echo. Winslow says he has written to SY and is surprised that no one had been to see him about it.

                  29 October 1889 - North Eastern Daily Gazette. Letter to AB – You are one too many for me this time.

                  Letter to Winslow: I defy you to find out who has done the Whitechapel murder....You had better look out for yourself etc. Mind now the 9th November. There may be another murder, so look out, old Sir Funk. P S R Lunigi

                  There doesn't seem to be any correlation between the letters that AB and FW received, at this point, but see Taranaki Herald, 24 Jan 1890. What is interesting is the mysterious East End informant, linked to the lodger story.

                  13 January 1890 – Birmingham Daily Post. In an article suggesting JtR is returning from USA, it also suggests FW may also be a JtR letter writer! “Who wrote the 'Jack the Ripper' letters to the police – Dr. Forbes Winslow and others? Had the writer anything to do with the murders?”

                  24 January 1890 – Taranaki Herald. “Mr Albert Bachert says that the handwriting in a letter sent to him is exactly the same as that of the communication received by Dr. Forbes Winslow signed 'P R Lunigi'. The latter was stated to be in the same handwriting as the one sent to Dr Winslow previously, so that, whether or not they are written by 'Jack the Ripper', all three have emanated from the same person.”

                  It's possible that at this point that AB and FW met up re comparing the handwriting of the letters.
                  The Philadelphia Record, November 26, 1894 – “”Now comes this very Dr. Winslow, who received the primal salutation of the unknown, and makes positive assertion through the agency of a well-known news syndicate, whose authority has always seemed to be reliable, that he knows who ‘Jack the Ripper’ is. Says he substantially: ‘Jack the Ripper at this moment is an inmate of a London insane asylum, where he has been confined for three years.’ According to Dr. Winslow's story, this peculiar patient, upon whose shoulders rests such a heavy load of guilt, was, who suddenly became a slave to this uncontrollable impulse for blood and butchery. His wife finally discovered his own terrible secret and revealed it to Dr. Winslow.”
                  This smacks of the Robert Lees story! How current was it?

                  31 Jan 1895 – FW called in on the Saunderson case.

                  4 October 1895 - Fort Wayne Weekly Gazette - Indiana, USA - Dr. Forbes Winslow, a well known insanity expert specialist of London, is in New York. He says Jack the Ripper is incarcerated in a country lunatic asylum in England. The story told by Dr. Winslow follows:
                  "Jack the Ripper was a medical student of good family. He was a young man of slight build with light hair and blue eyes. He studied very hard and his mind, being naturally weak, gave way. He became a religious enthusiast and attended early service every morning in St. Paul's. His religious fervour resulted in homicidal mania toward the women of the street and impelled him to murder them. He lodged with a man whom I know, and suspicion was first directed toward him by reason of the fact that he returned to his lodgings at unreasonable hours; that he had innumerable coats and hats stained with blood. I have in my possession now a pair of Canadian moccasins stained with blood that the Ripper wore while on one of his murderous expeditions, but at that time they refused to co-operate with me.

                  Subsequently the young man was placed in confinement and removed to an asylum, where he is today. Since his incarceration there has been no repetition of the horrible murders that he perpetrated. These facts are all known to the English authorities, and it is conceded that the man now in the asylum is Jack the Ripper. It was deemed desirable, however, to hush the matter up. The details were too horrible to be made the subject of a public trial, and there was no doubt of the man's hopeless insanity."
                  Now the suspect has gone from “ a highly-honored physician of London”, whose wife suspected him, to “ a medical student of good family”. This seems to be reverting back to the lodger story of 1889!

                  One area that needs looking at is the lodger stories. We have:
                  Mrs Kuer – 1888. Bloodstained shirts etc – Tumblety?

                  Winslow's Lodger story – 1889

                  Aug 30th, an unknown woman who FW has been in communication with, tells him about a suspect – who turns out to live at FW's friend, Callaghan's house. Canadian Mr Bellsmith. Who is the unknown woman? Where did Callaghan live?

                  Also, doesn't FW have some kind of connection to the Cleary story?
                  Albert Bachert's lodger story – 1890. Woman calls on AB with a story about her lodger in Aldgate. Brother of a doctor.

                  Sickert's lodger Story - ? The sickly student veterinary

                  I can see connections, but I can't define them. Any thoughts? Or am I going of beam here?
                  "From Hull, Hell and Halifax, Good Lord deliver us."


                  • #10
                    Hi Dave

                    Thanks very much for the excellent post

                    I can add that LFW suggested that staff from lunatic asylums should prowl the East End in a Ripper hunt because they could identify on sight any mentally disturbed person of interest

                    See this article from September 1889 from which Albert Bachert appears to have gotten the idea of the strong woman from the slaughterhouse


                    Lawson Tait appears in discussions of vivisectionists

                    You will remember that Bachert gave the impression he was "hot on her tail" so to speak

                    Lyttleton Stewart didn't change his name to Forbes Winslow until 1874

                    As for John Cleary - I think he appeared during the Pinchin St torso case and may have been the origin of the "Writing under the arches" which LFW mentioned

                    IIRC, Forbes Winslow stated variously that the writing said "Fifteen more and I give myself up" (Which made me think he was talking of the Chapman case - especially as he professes at one point to have received a letter before the WM even began) or "Jack the Ripper will never commit another murder"

                    LFW also used the writing under the arches to compare with that in his letters and prove that they were true Ripper communications because the writer under the arches had been seen and fitted a recent description. Anderson was mentioned at this point I think

                    There is another connection with Cleary in that Forbes Winslow's Ripper accomplice, "Dodger" , was identified with Cleary - see post 6 onwards here...


                    I'm pretty certain Forbes Winslow was also quoted in the press regarding the suspect in this case - I'll try and find the article(s)


                    • #11
                      Thanks for the link Jon

                      Some of the references show his name as Lyttleton Frank Forbes Winslow

                      LFW was known as Frank when on his excursions in the East End and may have been the reason the Oct '89 letter writer refers to Winslow as "Old Funk" instead of Frank

                      I'm not sure why he may have given that name to a court


                      • #12
                        PS Forgot to mention that the writing under the arches in the Pinchin St torso case was "John Cleary is a fool"


                        • #13
                          I would just point out that originally the writing that LFW is referring to from under the arches is originally the Goulston St Graffito

                          It had been called a lost clue according to Robert Anderson and Winslow said a member of the police force confirmed his letter had been in the same handwriting as the graffito after it had been washed off

                          However, the reason the graffito is a real clue is expanded on by Winslow and exaggerated to become multiple messages that baffled the police and also that there was a description of the writer

                          It's a bit like LFW is considering various accounts such as the alleged "Fifteen more and I give myself up" at the Chapman crime scene, the Goulston St Graffito, and the "John Cleary is a fool" under the arches as generalised rumour-like anecdotes that he can exaggerate and add to willy nilly

                          Bachert had a Ripper message written on the wall of his house at one point


                          • #14
                            Hi all,

                            This article raises some interesting points which may be worth discussing.
                            Attached Files
                            "From Hull, Hell and Halifax, Good Lord deliver us."


                            • #15
                              That's a very interesting article Dave and I'm pretty certain I haven't seen it before

                              There is an article on the forum mentioning the "conference" and that the female detective used psychic powers to gain clues IIRC - I'll find it in a minute

                              The mention that the Ripper ie GWB (the lodger) had been seen in the company of his accomplice "Dodger" might be referring to one of her psychic visions

                              This might be what she means by being able to recognise him, though she repeats LFW's assertions pretty much verbatim and I'm sure LFW would assert that he could pick out the Ripper from a crowd ie He would know him if he saw him (due to visible traits of criminality and lunacy - a bit like Sherlock Homes deductions) Obviously it would be the landlord who would be the most likely person to recognise his lodger on sight

                              LFW later said that when the police refused to help a private investigation, that he went to St Paul's and saw "The Ripper" - GWB So he should have been able to identify him also

                              Note the multiple letters and cards from "Dodger" to the Ripper and the mention that the Ripper often posted something - LFW was a great advocate of the idea that the true Ripper was a communicator via letters and other messages

                              I don't think I've seen such a description of Callaghan (the landlord)

                              I can't remember if genealogical research identified his occupation but I'll check

                              LFW said that when he was not able to gain the physical help of the police that he relied on "friends" - these must some of the friends of which he speaks, perhaps Bachert also?

                              This psychic woman detective needs researching I think because a female informant features throughout his career, usually reinforcing his lodger suspect, and if any fakery was going on then this woman in particular sounds like she would have a hand in it

                              The "conference" sounds like a promotion for LFW

                              Presumably Callaghan was aware that LFW claimed his statement pertained to the Tabram murder (after the date change) and so might back up the suggestion that Callaghan himself made the mistake and corrected it

                              It does sound like Callaghan could provide 50-60 sheets of writing from GWB (the lodger) and some feathers and ribbons from hats "of the victims" so his statement does sound weighty against GWB really

                              The descriptions of GWB treating the women and being seen walking and fraternising with women is new to me also

                              By 1910 I'm sure LFW identified GWB as a French Canadian, as if he did actually know something of GWB who was in the UK on behalf of the Toronto Trust Co - IIRC

                              Also, the Ripper letter in the next article is new to me Dave and is an interesting mention of the search for the one unfortunate who had passed on a disease as a motive for JtR

                              As an aside, I always thought the guy who pointed to George Sims as the likeness of his suspect deserved a bit more attention than he got

                              Dave - I'm trying to ascertain sometimes if the newpaper reporter does misrepresent LFW or is it LFW cleverly manipulating the words

                              For instance, I know one article reads as if the Ripper was lost, believed to be still in London, and that LFW "received" ribbons and feathers from his victims - implying that JtR was sending them to him IMO

                              In an article in another newspaper LFW says he is "in possession" of the articles so which is a direct quote of LFW, if either, or both - lol

                              How much leeway is there for some exaggeration and misrepresentation from the press?

                              IMO there is evidence of this in how the press often seems to write satirically about LFW and also Albert Bachert and in how the press sometimes mixes the stories of the two