“Dear Boss”: Did the White Chapel Killer Give Himself the Name Jack the Ripper?
NOTE: The blog is for educational purposes. All parties are innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law. No analysis can be a substitute for a thorough investigation, but instead must be taken as a tool for investigative purposes.
***I am not associated with any investigation into the “Jack the Ripper” murders. My opinions are my own and not necessarily those of any investigating entities.***
In the late 1800’s, London’s first infamous serial killer stalked the streets of the city’s White Chapel district, brutally murdering women. The killer became known as “Jack the Ripper” after a local newspaper published the first of a series of letters reportedly from the killer, where the author signed off with that name. Some claim that details in what would come to be known as the “Dear Boss” letter could only come from the killer, while others claim that it was a hoax perpetrated by a reporter from the paper.
Conducting an analysis of such a writing demonstrates how culturalism in language can create barriers for our work. Here we are dealing with writing from the Victorian era of London, England, where we expect to see language unfamiliar to someone from the modern-day United States.
Under the leadership of Peter Hyatt, many analysts came together from different parts of the world to train, teach, and analyze. He has taught analysts who come from many different cultures. Something like the “Jack the Ripper” letters may be better in the hands of my brilliant colleagues from the U.K. However, here we can see how applying our principals can still give us insight into this letter, even when we are separated from its source by thousands of miles and over a hundred years. We can still make a reasonable assessment to try to determine if this was an authentic letter, or was this a hoax?
The letter:
Dear Boss,
I keep on hearing the police have caught me but they wont fix me just yet. I have laughed when they look so clever and talk about being on the right track. That joke about Leather Apron gave me real fits. I am down on whores and I shant quit ripping them till I do get buckled. Grand work the last job was. I gave the lady no time to squeal.
How can they catch me now. I love my work and want to start again. You will soon hear of me with my funny little games. I saved some of the proper red stuff in a ginger beer bottle over the last job to write with but it went thick like glue and I cant use it. Red ink is fit enough I hope ha ha. The next job I do I shall clip the ladys ears off and send to the police officers just for jolly wouldn't you. Keep this letter back till I do a bit more work, then give it out straight.
My knife's so nice and sharp I want to get to work right away if I get a chance.
Good Luck.
Yours truly
Jack the Ripper
Dont mind me giving the trade name. Wasnt good enough to post this before I got all the red ink off my hands curse it No luck yet. They say I'm a doctor now. ha ha”
Below is the letter with some of my analysis:
Dear Boss,
First, we should consider the possible reasons the author may have chosen to send this letter. Whether it is truly from the killer or just a hoax, what might be the motivations for sending it? What reward or gratification would the author receive by doing so? Will it be recognition from a killer or will it be entertainment from a newspaper?
We see the author chose to place a greeting at the beginning, which indicates that they are addressing this information to one specific person.
Who is Boss? From the envelope, it is addressed to “the boss” of Central News Office in London, which tells us this is likely the editor in chief or possibly the newspaper’s owner.
Why are they addressed in this letter? Why might “Jack the Ripper” want "Boss” to specifically be the one who has this information?
I keep on hearing the police have caught me but they wont fix me just yet.
Please note that the priority, or very first thing, the author has a need to communicate to “Boss” is that they “keep on hearing the police have caught (him/her).” This will likely be connected to the underlying motivation to write this letter.
We further see that the author has suggested there is some level of sensitivity or perhaps even tension that exists for them over this information when they chose to say “I keep on hearing...” The progressive form of “hearing” shows the perception that this is something ongoing. It is not over for the author.
But the author doesn’t merely say he/she ‘is hearing’ this information. “Keep” tells us that the author is elevating the ‘repetition’ or ‘continuity’ of it in their language. It ‘keeps happening’ and isn’t stopping.
However, we further should note that the author also didn’t merely say, ‘I keep hearing...’ but added extra effort and emphasis when he/she said, “I keep ON hearing...” This appears to make the issue especially sensitive to the author. As we look at these few words, one can begin to picture that this author may have been particularly irritated or frustrated over the fact that this information has been spread.
And what should we make of the word “hearing” itself? If we look at it in connection to the aforementioned points on how sensitive this issue is, it points out the fact that the author appears more focused on how he/she is ‘receiving’ the information more than just what the information is itself. So, we begin by considering this question; who is more likely to be concerned over the ‘spreading of information,’ the killer or a reporter?
... the police have caught me but they wont fix me just yet.
The perfect form of “have caught me” shows us that this information is most relevant in the present moment. It is consistent with the suggested tension and sensitivity over what the author ‘keeps on hearing.’ The author is not focused on an event in the past, but on the effect this potential event holds on him/her in the moment. It also shows us that the temporal reference in the author’s language is vague and obscure. The author does not appear to be thinking back on a specific moment in time but is more abstract with this event.
We must take a close look at the author’s terminology to see where the first real cultural problem arises in the language as we look at it in the micro. The author says that he heard the police “have caught” him but tells “Boss” that they won’t “fix” him “just yet.” Although my knowledge of the linguistic trends of the Victorian era in London leaves me ignorant on exactly how the author is using the word “fix,” we can see from the context it will likely be something closely associated with being “caught.” However, we also see that according to the principle of the subjective dictionary, it means something different. It highlights two things for us:
The author doesn’t deny that he/she has been “caught” by police. If the author hasn’t denied it, then we won’t deny it either.
The author is not denying they will be “caught” either. They are only denying that they will be ‘fixed’ soon.
Understanding the use of the word “fix” would bring better understanding to the letter.
“...just yet.”
This shows us that timing is important. The author is expressing that there will be a time where ‘he is fixed’ but it just hasn’t come “yet.” This again has us asking, who would be more likely to acknowledge a future where the killer will be caught, while being concerned about the timing of it; the killer or a reporter?
I have laughed when they look so clever and talk about being on the right track. That joke about Leather Apron gave me real fits.
As the author continues, we see that not just the information they “keep on hearing” is important, but the source is as well. The author introduced “the police” early in this letter. When they introduced them, it showed us that they perceive them as important to this writing. By introducing them so early, it shows us that “the police” are likely connected to the priority and underlying motivation for the writing. Neither of these observations seem particularly interesting for the analysis on their own, but when we see that the author continues to focus on “the police” by expanding on how they “look so clever and talk about being on the right track” it elevates their importance to this writing even further, so we should take a closer look at what the author is saying about them.
We see the perfect tense in, “I have laughed...” Contextually, this is critical for our analysis. We must again note that this tense makes the ‘laughter’ something relevant and important in the moment while being linguistically abstract and vague on the author’s perception of ‘when this happened.’ Why shouldn’t the author have a more concrete perception of when they “laughed” if they are referencing something specific that made them do so? More importantly, why might the effect of their laughter be perceived as important in this moment instead of focusing on how it affected them while they were actually laughing?
Here we see a strong linguistic indicator for deception. The author’s language is not showing commitment to this as something that occurred, suggesting that they are either sensitive about sharing it, or it is not connected to experiential memory. Contextually, the latter appears more likely, and the language appears to be the need for the author to persuade “Boss” that they find what the police are saying to be funny.
When we take a look at the author’s linguistic disposition towards “the police” we see that the author believes they “look so clever.” “Look” and “talk” are given in the present form, suggesting either deception, or what I believe to be more likely in this case, elevated emotions associated with it. Is it possible that the author believes the police do “look so clever,” however they are unhappy or frustrated in them doing so; as if the author has a dislike for the police that makes it unpleasant to have to attribute positive attributes to them?
One should consider that this author may be someone who uncomfortably found the police to be competent with their work.
I am down on whores and I shant quit ripping them till I do get buckled. Grand work the last job was. I gave the lady no time to squeal.
Note another critical point when the author stated he/she is down on “whores” but then unexpectedly changed their language to say the “last job” was a “lady.” This isn’t just a change in language, but it is two terms that appear to be opposites on the spectrum of linguistic dispositions. The author who is “down on whores” and whom is to be believed to be the person who has brutally murdered these women could not bring him to linguistically demean or degrade the victim? Is it possible that the killer would be “down on whores” but not select women he’s seen as “whores” to be his victim? Or is it more likely that the author, who perhaps is not the killer, could not bring him/herself to demean a “lady” who has been brutally murdered? Deception is once again indicated.
Also take note of the terms “work” and “job” in this context. The author will use the term “work” three times and “job” four times to reference the murders. These terms become extra important and sensitive to the author as we point out that according to the author’s perception of them, these are “jobs” he is doing that requires “work” to do.
“Work” and “job” tend to not be things done for enjoyment or pleasure, so much as they are seen as ‘necessities.’
How can they catch me now.
The author is again presumably speaking of “the police.” When someone asks a question in the free editing process, especially when it appears that no answer should be expected, such as this one, then we take extra note of it as important for the author to feel the need to ask it anyway. The question references time. When we look at it under the context of “just yet,” then it becomes apparent that the author has elevated time in his language as extra sensitive and important.
This author appears to be accepting of the idea the killer will be caught but is hyper focused on the timing of it. It appears that according to their perception, it is ‘too soon’ to believe the killer has been caught.
I love my work and want to start again.
As we note a positive linguistic disposition with the use of the word “love,” and the possessive pronoun, “my,” we must further note that the author does not ever use terms such as ‘kill’ or ‘murder,’ etc., when referencing his “work.” We noted all the times “work” and “job” are used, but only once do we find the author use a more descriptive term when he said, “I shant quit ripping them.” “Ripping” is also not ‘killing’ or something more precise with the language.
Further, one should note that the author has not only indicated a ‘break’ in the murders when he stated they “want to start again,” but that they also fail to show confidence that there will be another murder that follows this letter. They stated they “want to start again” but do not say they ‘will start again.’
You will soon hear of me with my funny little games.
This sentence appears confusing as it highlights a few more points:
The letter opens with “I keep on hearing the police have caught me” which suggests that the author believes that “Boss” will be familiar enough with the murder investigation that there will be no confusion as to who the author is as it relates to the murders. There is perceived shared context outside of what is written in the letter, which is not unexpected given the likely spread of the news of these murders during this time.
Given point #1, then the author should believe that “Boss” has heard of them. Further, this letter will be the first time there is a ‘name’ associated with the killer, so even if he were not familiar with the crimes it would be the case that “Boss” is hearing of them right now.
So, we must ask the question, what does the author mean by, “you will soon hear of me?” What does the author also mean by “funny little games?” Are they referring to the murders or perhaps the letters?
I saved some of the proper red stuff in a ginger beer bottle over the last job to write with but it went thick like glue and I cant use it. Red ink is fit enough I hope ha ha.
It would appear that “the proper red stuff” is meant to be ‘blood.’ Is it meant to be a victims’ ‘blood?’ The author does not say, so neither will we. The interesting question is why didn’t the author say if it was ‘blood’ let alone a victim’s blood? This author, who is meant to be believed to have brutally murdered these women cannot say that they kept some of their blood in a bottle?
Please consider this point in connection to the fact that the author also does not call his “work” ‘killing’ or ‘murder’ and that the victim was not a “whore” but a “lady.”
Further, we note that there is hypersensitivity in this portion of the letter as the author has a need to explain why he “saved some of the proper red stuff” in a bottle which was connected to the need to explain why they then “can’t use it.”
Red ink is fit enough I hope ha ha.
The key to understanding this sensitivity may lie here. It appears the red ink was meant to have the effect of resembling blood. Why would the author use red ink to make it look like blood? This becomes another critical point in our analysis as the author may be leaking a purpose behind the letter when they stated they ‘hoped’ “red ink is fit enough.” The next question becomes, “fit enough” for what?
At a minimum that the “red ink” that was meant to look like the “proper red stuff” was meant for theatrics. Theatrics suggest that there is the element of insincerity and/or inauthenticity lingering in this letter. This suggests to us the likelihood that the author is attempting to mask himself to appear to be a brutal, gratuitous, gory killer, but has slipped up by telling us that the red ink was just for show and it is all about appearances with this letter.
The theatrics are only augmented by the unnecessary inclusion of “ha ha,” which is not authentic laughter, but the need to express laughter on paper. The author has a need for “Boss” to see them as someone who finds this fact to be funny. We then see that this all comes together under a suggestion that this information holds a level of insecurity behind it when the author lets it be known the “red ink” being “enough” is something he/she has to have “hope” for.
Is it possible that the author “hoped’ the “red ink” would look like blood, but as he was writing the letter, he realized that it was not “enough” to pull off the charade, creating a need to address it within his psyche?
The next job I do I shall clip the ladys ears off and send to the police officers just for jolly wouldn't you.
If we follow the train of thought, we see that the preceding point on ‘blood’ led us to where the author has become more linguistically confident that there will be another “job” and the need for the threat that they will “clip the ladys ears off and send to the police officers.” This appears as if the author’s sensitivity over the perception of failed theatrics may have created a need for them to linguistically ‘up the ante’ to regain credibility as a cold-blooded killer. A need that appears elevated as they expressed that they will do this “just for jolly.”
What should one make of the apparent added question of, “wouldn’t you?” The question comes in that free editing vacuum we discussed earlier, and it comes with the element of needed empathy.
Following our train of thought even further down the tracks, I’d like one to consider that this question may reveal that the author feels he has completely lost control of the charade. As he is thinking of the threat to “clip the lady’s ears off and send them to the police officers just for jolly,” it may be the case that he is perceiving that someone would wonder why the killer would do this, but the author has no good explanation. Answering a question with another question shows us that the question is sensitive in an analysis. The author apparently uses a question to create a weak response to a perceived unasked question, which shows us how hypersensitive this is for him.
Keep this letter back till I do a bit more work, then give it out straight.
Here we see a level of assertiveness or control in the author’s language when giving these directions for “Boss” to follow. Why should this author believe that “Boss” would follow these directions? We note that there’s no consequences for “Boss” if he/she doesn’t follow them, so what in the author’s perception caused them to write this, if not in vain?
Further, what might the benefits be for the author to tell the newspaper to “keep this letter back?”
My knife's so nice and sharp I want to get to work right away if I get a chance.
Again, we see the weakened assertion that there will be another victim in the near future.
Good Luck.
“Good luck” with what? What will “Boss” be doing that the author believes he/she will need “luck” with? Does “Boss” need luck ‘keeping this letter back?’ Contextually, this was received by a local newspaper, not by the police, so catching him is not likely going to be the answer to this question. The fact that the answer is unclear to us does not mean that it was unclear to the author. One should consider that when the author wrote “good luck” the author would likely have perceived a reason for “Boss” to understand what he/she was referencing, which may be outside shared context, not shared in this letter.
Yours truly
The letter is signed off with polite etiquette.
Jack the Ripper
Although there is little to scrutinize here, one should begin their analysis of this name by considering that nothing exists in a vacuum. Why did the author pick “Jack” and why call himself a “ripper?” Was “ripper” a common term used in Victorian era London, and if so, how was it being used?
Contextually, we should consider that it likely referred to his “work” in how he carried out the brutality of the murders. If this is correct, then although it is easy to see another element of ‘theatrics’ in the choosing of this name, we can see that “ripper” has augmented that element. Consider this augmented element in connection to the “red ink” that needs to be “fit enough” to replace “the proper red stuff,” and the unnecessary and unexpected inclusion of “ha ha” at times. We can now that the need for ‘theatrics’ in the letter is strong.
Dont mind me giving the trade name.
The postscript should be viewed as a type of ‘afterthought.’ The author, who has already concluded his letter, shows us that there is still a need to add more. I’d like one to consider that postscripts are often ‘parenthetical’ and/or ‘meta’ in nature. Here, it acts, not as content to the letter, but as commentary about it.
Note the difference from what the author wrote, “...giving THE trade name” vs. ‘...giving A trade name.’ The name is also elevated in importance, to the point that the author has a need to address it using the negative, “don’t mind.” Why is the author sensitive about someone ‘minding’ that he added a “trade name?”
Further, we see that the author exposes the concept of it not being his ‘real name’ like an exposed nerve. Not only does he have the need to write this in the letter, we see the difference between “don’t mind ME GIVING the trade name” from what he didn’t write, being, ‘don’t mind the trade name.’ Linguistically, it is not merely there being a “trade name” on the letter that is important, but the act of the author “giving” it that weighs on his mind.
Wasnt good enough to post this before I got all the red ink off my hands curse it No luck yet. They say I'm a doctor now. ha ha”
This final portion of the letter was a separate writing, existing as another ‘postscript,’ but one that seems to have been written apart from the body of this letter, like an added note after the fact.
What or who “wasn’t good enough…?” There appears to be some dissociation here. Was the author being deceptive?
Note that the author mentions getting “all the red ink off (his) hands.” One should consider that this appears to be a reference to ‘washing’ then. In analytical work, we see the unnecessary mention of ‘water’ or ‘washing’ as a suggestion that the subject is experiencing emotions associated with disgust or guilt. Murderers often feel the need to wash off guilt while sexual assault victims need to wash off their perpetrators. It is interesting to consider how likely it would be that a killer like the White Chapel murderer would feel guilt after committing his crimes. Or is it possible that a hoaxer, who can’t bring him/herself to talk about ‘blood,’ ‘murder’ or who can’t call the victims “whores” instead of “ladies” feels a level of ‘disgust’ or ‘guilt’ over the content of the letter?
OPINION:
Based on the observations made in the analysis, I believe that the letter was in fact a hoax. The purpose of the letter appears to be something to the effect of creating ‘theatrics’ which could be for the purpose of being ‘entertaining’ to a wider audience. When we see what appears to be a level of discomfort with demeaning the victims and a disconnect from using more acute descriptive language to clearly state that the author murders women, then the picture of a hoax becomes in focus.
The implied ‘washing’ of the author’s hands leads me to believe this author was not only uncomfortable with the discussion of the murders, but he is likely even more uncomfortable with perpetrating this as a hoax.
By addressing this to “Boss” I also believe that which others have asserted, being this was authored by a reporter for the newspaper, is also likely accurate. The underlying motive behind the writing appears to be focused on the ‘news’ being spread that the killer had been caught, which appears to be upsetting to this author. This would likely cause the paper to fear an end to what I suspect was a significant increase in sales that was centered around people wanting to read about the murders.
Because this was addressed to a specific person at the company, it suggests that the author’s psyche was focused on this one person more than the company in general. “Boss” is a title that when used without an article, as in ‘the boss,’ it becomes used in place of a name. In other words, this author did not address the position, but the person. A person’s subordinates are most likely to be the ones who give them the name, “Boss.”
I believe a component to the underlying ‘motive’ will also be connected to “Boss” in some fashion. Perhaps “Boss” put him up to it, or the hoax was meant to trick “Boss” into keeping the story active.
Telling “Boss” not to “mind (him) giving the trade name” would be consistent with the former hypothesis, as this author may have gone outside of what he was told to write when he signed it “Jack the Ripper,” creating the need to address it in the writing to “Boss.”
Although, like many, I believe mythos created by the “Dear Boss” letter and others purported to be from the White Chapel killer make for a much more fascinating tale, it is always more interesting to pursue the truth of the matter. Although this analysis does not speak for the other letters, I believe it casts a large shadow of doubt upon them.