BillyE’s Jack the Ripper: Fact and Fiction

     Even though it’s a peripheral part of the case, and not part of the actual investigation one cannot ignore the importance of the “Dear Boss” letter.  It is, after all, the letter which gave us the name “Jack the Ripper.”  There has been great speculation as to the authorship of this famous letter.  Several names have been offered as the writer of the letter, but the most common name mentioned is Tom Bulling.  A facsimile of the “Dear Boss” letter can be found in nearly every book about Jack the Ripper, but the book “Jack the Ripper: Letters From Hell” by Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner (Sutton Publishing, 2001) is near required reading for anyone interested in the “Jack the Ripper” letters. 
     The name Tom Bulling is usually connected with the writer of the “DB” letter because of a letter he claimed to have copied, and sent the copy to the police.  He told the police he kept the original for the press.  The “copy” he forwarded to the police, in which he attempted to copy the handwriting of the letter writer, can be found in the book by Evans and Skinner.  The “copied” portion appears to be identical to the “DB” letter, leading people to speculate Bulling was the author of the original “Jack the Ripper” letter. 

    
     Another name that has popped up regularly in conjunction with the letters is a man with the last name “Best.”  No first name has been given to this man, but he claimed to be a Fleet Street reporter, and going back through the records of the newsmen on that street during the relevant time the only one with that last name was Frederick Best.  Best said he and a “provincial colleague” wrote the Ripper letters to keep the story going.  If this story is true who could the “provincial colleague” be?  Perhaps Tom Bulling? 
     I’ve been looking at the “DB” letter for years now.  Indeed, it was one of the things which got me interested in the case.  Upon close examination it appeared to me the postscript is in a slightly different hand than the body of the letter.  I’ve discussed this in the Casebook message board.  It was shown to me letter by letter how they were all essentially the same.  The schools at the time were teaching people to write in basicly the same form.  It would have been difficult back then to have differentiated the writings of two people who never met each other.  If indeed this is the case the letters would have looked virtually the same no matter who was writing them, but in my eyes I see enough of a difference to think it possible the body and postscript of the letter to have been written by two different men.  At the same time, one must consider the different matterial used to write with.  The body of the letter was written in red ink (debate still rages over the tip of the pen), while the postscript was written in red crayon.  The slight change in handwriting might be explained by the switch of writing instruments, but I think it is just as well explained that two people wrote the different parts of the letter.
     There are, of course, many other Ripper letters in Scotland Yard’s files, and I’ll probably talk about them in this blog.  I’ll likely return to the “Dear Boss” letter before my last entry.  You can’t overemphasize the importance of this, and all the Ripper letters to the staying power of the mystery that is Jack the Ripper.
    

     This time around I thought about posting something about the Jack the Ripper fiction the case inspired.  I’m calling this “Part I” because I’ll be returning to this mini-series at least two more times, and possibly more.  This will be my attempt to extract the 1988 Michael Caine mini-series “Jack the Ripper” from the Royal/Masonic conspiracy theory it always seems to be lumped in with.  There are plenty of R/M conspiracy movies out there, including “Murder By Decree” and “From Hell”, both of which I’ll talk about in later posts. 

     Even though the Michael Caine mini-series has many of the principle characters as the R/M conspiracy theory it is missing key elements, as well as at least three characters.  The mini-series does feature Sir William Gull, and John Netley, and has a cameo with Prince Albert Victor (Eddy), it’s missing important characters like Walter Sickert, Annie Elizabeth Crook, and her daughter (with Eddy) Alice Margaret.

    
     As a result there’s no government conspiracy saying they must cover-up the misdeeds of the prince, because the prince committed no mentioned misdeeds.   The theory presented in this movie is such: ***spoilers*** Sir William Gull, physician-in-ordinary to Queen Victoria, wanted to understand insanity so it could be cured, so he drove himself insane by killing women he didn’t think would be missed: prostitutes.  I struggle in my mind to think of which theory is more rediculous.  I’m leaning towards the movie solution.  The conspiracy is at least compelling, and when presented convincing. 

     I’ll cover a review of the mini-series in a separate post, but the last 30 (roughly) minutes are the offending parts of the show.  This is where the David Wickes theory (sane Gull understanding insane Gull) is presented.  It flys in the face of sanity itself.  I think he came to the case thinking Gull was guilty already, but rejecting the R/M conspiracy theory he had to come up with his own, and this is the result.  I do find it interesting Wickes was one of the directors for the Barlow and Watt “Jack the Ripper” mini-series.  That was where the Joseph Gorman “Sickert” theory which launched the Stephen Knight R/M conspiracy theory to begin with.  Funny how things come full circle, huh? 

     Bottom line is, dispite any similarities this movie/mini-series has with the Royal/Masonic conspiracy theory, this isn’t about that.  It does present it’s own theory, which is equally nonsensical.  Tell me what you think.