Donston: The "Openshaw Letter"

[Debbie D]

Here's my next question... What are the types of pens they would have been using at the time to write these notes? Any pictures?

[Chris G.]

Here's my next question... What are the types of pens they would have been using at the time to write these notes? Any pictures?

Hi Debbie

Following is an American pen but I think the British counterpart would have been similar--



Above is shown Lapham's Rival pen made by Lapham and Bogart of 202 Broadway, New York City, introduced in 1886 but was “Patented January 24, 1888”. See "Lapham's Rival" by L. Michael Fultz This is from Penbid: Fountain Pen Auction which gives information on the history of fountain pens.

The alternative to a fountain pen would have been a plain wooden handle and steel nib.

Chris

[Debbie D]

I was not aware that, as you say, a high stroke on the "t" is an example of "what is called 'clubbing' or club strokes", which you say "can be an indication of cruelty in an individual."

It's not the level of where the t is crossed. It's simply the shape of the cross stroke, because it's shaped like a club (pointed at one end and wider at the other). So it could be towards the bottom, middle or the top.

I shyed away from elaborating too heavily on handwriting analysis, number one because some people aren't very open to it, and two because there's alot more too it than just crossing T's when your evaluating a sample. There may be one nasty trait here and there, but one trait alone wouldn't necessarily make a truly nasty combination. What I would look for would be 2 or more traits along with slant, pressure, style, and there are way too many factors in this to mention them all! I will however, post this quote about the T crosses...

"The longer and stronger the T bars on average, the greater the writer's work drive and motivation. The weaker, more frail, and lower-placed on the stem the horizontal movement is, the weaker the willpower, the weaker the drive and ambition, and the lower the writer's goals."-Handwriting Analysis by Andrea McNichol

So what does that mean? a high T bar cross combined with the fact that the bars are clubbed (but remember this is only two traits here factoring in here) COULD indicate a highly motivated person with a tendancy for cruelty. I also noticed that the crosses are mostly convex, ever so slightly in the Openshaw letter and but very obvious in the D'Onston letter which can also signify self protection (or a shield or covering type of effect).

OR Maybe D'Onston was simply ambitious in getting his point across in his letter?

Also I thought that your opinion of the sloppiness exhibited in the Openshaw letter could have some basis -- that, as you believe, "the author used their weak hand to write this in an effort to conceal their own handwriting." Nice work, Debbie! Chris

Give it a try sometime, (unless you are truly ambidextrious). Write a couple sentences on unlined paper with your weak hand and compare it to the Openshaw letter. Look at the wiggles and shakes in the letters! I'll be happy to write more on handwriting analysis of any of the letters so long as everyone stays nice I'm in no way pushing it as any kind of exact science by any means, but there are some very interesting things.

Hey! I finally figured out how to quote multiple items from someones post!

[Debbie D]

Of all the known suspects,Stephenson should have been considered as a prime candidate for some ,not all,of the anonymous letters for the obvious similarities between the two or three non-anonymous letters long before Tom,Chris,or we here ever pointed that out.

I'll look into these "other" letters more this week. If you seem to think that there are similarities with more than just the Openshaw than you have lifted my curiosity a bit. I've never put much study into anything beyond Dear Boss x3, Openshaw, From Hell, and so on,,, as I'm sure many other new people do

We must ask ourselves why those who considered Stephenson "sinister" enough to be Jack The Ripper would uniformly denounce him as an anonymous letter writer if these similarities are of a nature that someone taking the time to read them at all can see what we see.

He was most definitely "sinister" in my eyes, and I would also suspect boredom reared it's ugly head while in the hospital. No TV, radio, cellphone, pager, laptop, and so on. With only the daily paper and a bunch of mental patients to keep him company??? I picture him getting into all kinds of extracurricular activities while "recouperating".

[Chris G.]

I'll look into these "other" letters more this week. If you seem to think that there are similarities with more than just the Openshaw than you have lifted my curiosity a bit. I've never put much study into anything beyond Dear Boss x3, Openshaw, From Hell, and so on,,, as I'm sure many other new people do

[D'Onston] was most definitely "sinister" in my eyes, and I would also suspect boredom reared it's ugly head while in the hospital. No TV, radio, cellphone, pager, laptop, and so on. With only the daily paper and a bunch of mental patients to keep him company??? I picture him getting into all kinds of extracurricular activities while "recouperating".

Hi Debbie

I value your additional thoughts on handwriting analysis and I would encourage you to write more about the topic. I find it fascinating.

We know for a fact that D'Onston inserted himself into the case at various points, I think there is good reason to think he may have dabbled in the case in various other ways, writing anonymous letters to the press or mischief-making "Ripper" letters. Of course his 1 December article in the Pall Mall Gazette was written anonymously so why not other letters in which he did not attach his name? Definitely a dark and interesting individual, whether Jack the Ripper or not.

Chris

[Howard Brown]

Debbie:

Just to clarify why I do not consider Stephenson "sinister", allow me to point this out to you. I also value your opinion as Chris does. Very much so.

When Stephenson was originally labeled as a "sinister" man....this was based on the now proven incorrect assumption,based on Stephenson's Borderland article that he went to the Cameroon and killed a witch doctor....possibly killed his wife....practiced black magic....and had no problems with giving orders to kill prisoners in his service to Garibaldi,among other things.

I agree with you 100 percent that IF Stephenson did write anonymous letters in order to harass the police,he would be considered as somewhat out of the ordinary. Creepy,a pain in the rear,a nuisance...and above all,as you mentioned...bored to tears while the event of the age was happening outside the walls of the London Hospital.

But here is the twist to this labeling of "sinister"....

Neither of the authors who originally presented him ( one on the front cover of his book ) as a "sinister" character acknowledged that Stephenson may have written an anonymous letter at all. Their labeling of Stephenson as "sinister" has nothing to do with what you may think it does...

Please continue,as Chris suggested....to examine the letters for more links to Stephenson.

Thanks a lot Double D

[Chris G.]

Hi Howard

I am not sure I ever did buy the witch doctor story so for that reason I don't necessarily view D'Onston as "sinister" even if he wanted to be viewed that way. That is why in my last post I characterized him as a "dark and interesting individual." I think he was a manipulator and poseur and that he told stories about himself to make himself appear more interesting. The close and hard look that is being given to some of his biography as accepted by Harris and Edwards is allowing us to clarify what is true and what is not.

Chris

[Howard Brown]

C.G.

My personal "problem" regarding Stephenson in the past was that I believed the phony dates supplied by these gents. There is no reason for Melvin to have said,as he did,that Stephenson changed dates.Stephenson NEVER changed dates. The Borderland article has the ONLY date he ever supplied and in three distinct ways....and he is concrete on this date. The problem is,as you know,he was in Hull at the very time he claims he was learned black magic from Lytton....and Melvin knew that because he was the first man to have both the Customs House record and the Borderland article at his disposal.

This liason with Lytton,which once more,has never been satisfactorily proven,contains the seeds for the black magic practice...eradication of a witch doctor,hence,sinister character of Stephenson....in the context that it was intended.....not as Debbie may have meant it. In addition,that Stephenson learned black magic from Lytton,at all,is dubious,considering the extent that Melvin went to,to fit 10 pounds of sawdust in a 5 pound bag to make everything plausible.

I know that someone who has only been involved for 4 or 5 years in Ripperology has to tread lightly when it comes to making claims or as in this case....my case...a finger pointing towards one of the heavyweights in the field for a bit of...shall we say...misplacement of dates in order to push a suspect. Yet, this is exactly what happened.

One of the concepts that has gone through the old grey matter over the last two years has been the very real possibility that the projected "image" of Stephenson-as-Ripper which the two gents push or pushed,so mightily....will one day be replaced by the possibility that despite Stephenson's innocence, he may be remembered as an anonymous Ripper letter writer and proto-Ripperologist like Sickert.

In short,the emphasis on him as Ripper which is based on a manipulation of dates which snowballed the entire basis of Stephenson as even being considered the Ripper and rejection of the possibility that he wrote anonymous letters....will be turned on its head and that eventually the mainstream view is that he was possibly an anonymous letter writer...yet not the Ripper based on the sober,unadulterated,reliable,truthful and tangible facts.

Those new to this individual may not know that his basis as a suspect does rely on his "black magic practice" as well as these other ridiculous claims ( the absurd "indifference to killing" idea...) and not on the possibility of him writing a letter in anonymity.

This is an unusual circumstance in regard to a "suspect-based" approach or book within the field. The uniform rejection of any possibility that RDS wrote even ONE anonymous letter which might even further the "pro-side" is peculiar perhaps to some but not to others.

Focusing on his letter writing diminishes his projected sinister side and reveals the interested bystander....which does not sell books.

[Debbie D]

Focusing on his letter writing diminishes his projected sinister side and reveals the interested bystander....which does not sell books.

I will agree to change my "sinister" to "neighborhood busy-body". That might fit him a bit better if he was just writing letters...

[Debbie D]

Hi Debbie

I value your additional thoughts on handwriting analysis and I would encourage you to write more about the topic. I find it fascinating.

We know for a fact that D'Onston inserted himself into the case at various points, I think there is good reason to think he may have dabbled in the case in various other ways, writing anonymous letters to the press or mischief-making "Ripper" letters. Of course his 1 December article in the Pall Mall Gazette was written anonymously so why not other letters in which he did not attach his name? Definitely a dark and interesting individual, whether Jack the Ripper or not.

Chris

How & Chris,
Thank you both for showing interest in my "other" hobby. I did order the book mentioned in another thread by Dresbold. Assuming that I won't be in forced overtime at work this weekend, I'll have fun reading her book (just for jolly, wouldn't you?)

Anyway, if you have any particular questions about any of the letters in Letter's From Hell, just ask and I'll take a closer look.

I've been going over the letters again in LFH over the past few nights and I discovered something very interesting about one of them, but it has nothing to do with D'Onston. It would almost make an interesting article.

Back to D'Onston... Maybe sinister was a bit harsh on my part, but I would definitely give him a "big pain in the arse" award. I'm not exactly clear on what motivated his actions and interest in the investigation.

[Howard Brown]

Back to D'Onston... Maybe sinister was a bit harsh on my part, but I would definitely give him a "big pain in the arse" award. I'm not exactly clear on what motivated his actions and interest in the investigation.--Debbie

No,Debbie...its not "harsh"...its in a different sense than the original "sinister" tag given to D'onston. The "point" to my previous post was not to steer your way of thinking at all, but to point out the different basis of the mainstream claim that Stephenson was sinister. You, and quite possibly correctly so,thought he was "sinister". Thats not an issue or a problem,dear lady. Why you did is completely opposite from what the authors based their assessment of Stephenson upon.

Now this may seem like small potatoes....but its not in regard to RDS. Once one realizes that the "evidence" used against him and for his candidature is false,misleading,or hogwash,then an appraisal of his behavior in the Hospital might be considered "sinister,but only for that reason alone.