HOME   People do good because they are human, not because they are religious! 

Do not give God any credit for the good they do, they did it!



In 1888, the most infamous murders of all time took place in London’s East End. Five prostitutes, destitute women who knew of no other way to survive, were slaughtered and mutilated by a supposedly unknown killer who bears the nickname Jack the Ripper.

The Ripper made a display of most of his victims.  His goal then was to provoke disgust and terror.

Some serial killers like the Ripper like creating or sending messages or letters to taunt the police, the press or the public or all three.

When the Ripper treated most of his victims like gruesome exhibitions it would stand to reason that he could have written something to taunt others with.

Goulston Street Graffiti

The Ripper cut Elizabeth Stride’s throat and then not long later that same night he killed Catherine Eddowes at Mitre Square. The Ripper was seen by three men with Catherine Eddowes just a few steps away from where she was found murdered minutes later. He cut off a piece of her apron and took organs away with him. Later the empty piece of apron was found in Goulston Street with a chalked message blaming the Jews above it.
Why did the Ripper cut off a piece of the apron? If he had to clean his knife then why not just swipe it across her clothing? What did he clean it on the other times?  Why didn’t he take the whole apron? He took a piece because he wanted to ensure that later it would have been matched up to the apron. He took a piece of the apron as if he was not prepared to kill.  But he had to have been prepared.  Why did he need a cloth now when he took organs away from Annie Chapman just by putting them in his own clothes?  Maybe he took the piece to put organs in or wipe his hands. It would not be very effective for carrying organs or wiping.  Whatever, neither of these things was the real reason or the only reason. He had planned to dump it at Goulston Street all along and not only that but in a spot where it would be found.  He needed to be sure the police could match it to the murder victim.
The graffiti at Wentworth Buildings, Goulston Street was the work of the Ripper for it was not seen until the piece of Catherine Eddowes’ apron appeared there. He left the apron piece there to make sure people knew he wrote the message. The writing was tiny and put on a black doorjamb (page 90, 91, Jack the Ripper’s Black Magic Rituals). It was first discovered not long after the killing of Catherine Eddowes by PC Long who found the apron piece first and then the grafitti above it.

Some suppose that the grafitti was not written by the Ripper but was there before.  There are no witnesses to this.  And the police wiping the message away would imply they thought it was written by the Ripper.  It indicates they had no evidence that it was there before his visit.
Some have suggested that since PC Long found the apron piece elsewhere and planted it below the grafitti or wrote it himself in order to make himself look amazing. That speculation is worthless.  It is based on the thought that when Long past the spot earlier after the Stride murder he should have seen the grafitti and the apron piece then?  But why would they matter then?  He didn't know yet of the Stride murder. 

The coincidence between the writing being found above the discarded apron piece would have to point to the Ripper being the writer.
The text can be seen from these images from those who were there.
PC Long wrote the message down as follows:

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Charles Warren accepted this version as correct and the layout is very important. Warren saw the actual writing.  He made the difficult decision to have it erased and no doubt was sure to imprint what it looked like in his memory. He was aware that this imprint might be a clue and solve the mystery of the killer.

It reads: The Jewes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing

And spelled Jewes not Juwes.

DC Halse wrote it down too but gave us the a different version of how the writing was laid out on the wall.

Notice how the handwriting in both cases doesn’t differ too much.

Halse however has it as

The Juwes are

not the men that will be blamed for


which is different from Long’s. Long has the not in a different place.  But as Long studied the writing more than Halse did we can conclude that Long gave us the right position for the not.

Long made a note in his notebook that it was Juwes not Jewes.  So Long contradicts himself.  The fact that Long thought Juwes was Jewes means not that he didn’t look at it every well but only that he made a mistake anybody could have made.

DC Halse seems to have tried to preserve the layout for us because he stated that the writing was in three lines. And besides why else would he have started writing near the middle of the page?

Perhaps significantly we see the cross. The writing is laid out like a cross. This was an extraordinary thing for the Ripper to do when he was writing on bricks.  Why does the killer put the lines in that way? It is like he writes poetry.
They have not the capitalisations as they were. The version as follows is what should be accepted.
The Juwes are The men that Will not be Blamed for nothing
Notice here the strange capitalisations. The Juwes may be a spelling error. Notice the poor grammar. This was the way the graffitist would write normally.

It is interesting that the bad grammar reminds us of how Ripper suspect Aaron Kosminski spoke in 1889, "I goes by the name of Abrahams sometimes, because Kosmunski is hard to spell."  But most men in London at the time would have used words poorly.  It shows as well that Aaron had enough English to talk to prostitutes and maybe he could have been the Ripper and that he was not a complete basket case.  He also said with regard to an unmuzzled dog he had, "I cannot pay; the dog belongs to Jacobs; it is not mine." 

The graffiti commands the reader not to blame and is defiant as if the killer is supremely confident.  Serial killers are famous for commanding and being arrogant.  The message rings authentic.  It does not really have any purpose apart from the fact that Stride died in a Jewish context.  The yard where she was killed was the property of Jewish Socialists and there were complains of men with poor character frequenting it.  Lipski an insult against Jews was uttered at the scene of the crime and that it was Jews who saw the Ripper with Eddowes and acted like they had seen one of their own.  It has a context therefore it is really the Ripper's work. 

It is possible the Ripper feared that the Stride murder would not be linked to him as he only got cutting her throat and needed to assert in some way that he did it.  He was a Jew and was not innocent of the crime so he was not to blame for nothing.  The apron piece and the message were about linking the two murders together.

Some wonder that as John Pizer a Jew was blamed at that time if the message was trying to implicate him.  Was it written by somebody who thought Pizer was to blame or could get blamed?  If the answer is yes then it would have to be the latter.  It would be too much to believe that a message blaming John Pizer that was not written by the Ripper should appear above an apron piece that the Ripper had just handled!
It is not true that the message means that the Jews will not stand for being blamed. The two negatives is a feature of popular speech. It means that the Jews will be blamed for something and should be. What the Ripper could have meant by Jewish men being to blame is that their religion in the scriptures commands that prostitutes be cruelly slain and that they are to blame for his actions for he is a Jew. He was not suggesting that a group of Jewish men were going around killing prostitutes. He was not suggesting that the Jews were as much to blame as he when they were protecting him from the police. Why? What about the Jewish women? And there is no reason for the Ripper to think that Jews were protecting him. If they suspected him they could stop him without resorting to Gentile justice.
It was possible that he wanted to put the blame on the Jews who lived in Wentworth Buildings because it would send the police off on a wild goose chase so that he wouldn’t be suspected. This is the answer to those who claim that a Jew wouldn’t have written such a message so the Ripper could not have been a Jew.
The writing was very small – it had to be squeezed onto a doorjamb. A vandal would have written somewhere better and more prominent and written in bigger and more conspicuous letters. In case there would be any doubt, the cloth was placed below it then to make sure it would be seen and linked with the Ripper.
The Ripper must have gone to his lair after killing Eddowes returned to the streets to leave this message. The one hour and nineteen minutes delay between the murder and the finding of the message shows this. Eddowes was dead by 1.45 am and when PC Long passed the wall where the message later appeared with the apron piece below it at 2.20 am he saw nothing. When he returned about 2.55, to his shock he discovered the items then. The view that he had been careless when he went past at 2.20 and failed to see them is unnecessary. If we begin questioning testimony for no reason we can end up anywhere. Overcrowding was Whitechapel’s other name. The houses and tenements were so packed with people that people were out all night. Had Long been wrong or lying somebody would have been able to say so. The Ripper as well had to be mindful of the fact that a lot of people were out on the streets all night.
The Ripper did not write the message while fleeing back to his lair. The Ripper may have gone back to his lair and started thinking about how he had been seen at Mitre Square by three men at least and how the police could appear at his front door any minute. He decided to fabricate evidence that he had fled in another direction. So he decided to return to the streets with the apron piece and also write the message.

The rag was filthy with blood and body waste.  Did the Ripper clean his knife with it in Goulston Street?  Certainly not.  He cleaned the knife immediately after the murder.  You don’t put a dirty knife away inside your clothes to clean it later with a rag. Moreover, if he didn’t want to contaminate his person with the organs, he wrapped them up in the apron cut-off. He had taken the apron piece both because he wanted to put organs in it and also because he planned to leave a message and he wanted the police to know he wrote the message by dumping the apron piece below it. So he must have gone back to his lair to take the organs out and then he took the apron piece out with him to go to Goulston Street. This indicates that the witnesses who saw him with Eddowes and who saw a reasonably well-dressed man did in fact see the Ripper.

The Ripper may or may not have used the rag to clean the knife.  The cleaning is not important.
Did the killer have a key to some premises in Goulston Street to clean himself up so that he could leave the rag to misdirect police away from his home direction? Without the bloodstains the police would have paid no attention to him. Our suspect may have had a butcher’s shop to wash at in Goulston Street. He was once dragged up before the law for stealing meat from his workplace 58 Goulston Street. The killer wouldn’t dare carry the rag too far. It was dirty and smelly. He knew the police would be searching men on the street. If the knives were taken to a butcher’s shop nothing would be thought of them. Something would be thought if they happened to be found in a doss house where privacy was difficult or at home.
The killer looked dressed – he didn’t look like a worker when he was seen with Eddowes.  He didn't look like a man on the job who might be carrying chalk. So it is possible that he went back home or to his butcher’s shop to get chalk to write the message at Goulston Street.
It took a short time to write the message.  What if the Ripper had been seen in the doorway by residents? Why choose this place and not somewhere safer along the street? Why not some place where he could write the message bigger? Was the Ripper confident that if he had been identified by Jews living in the building that they would not testify against him? Yes - the Jews didn’t believe in giving one of their own over to Gentile justice.
Would a Jew spell Jew wrong? No. In the police transcript Juwes is written like it was Juives with no dot above the i. Did the police miss the dot? Juives is French for Jews. It may have been a mistake made by the killer in the dark. He meant to write an e but it appeared like a u but then we would have Jewes. We must remember that if it is a real spelling error, that to believe somebody living in the East End and reading the papers could nevertheless spell Jew wrong is no more difficult to believe than that a Jew could spell Jew wrong. He spelt the word nothing right so it is hardly likely that he could misspell Jews.
If it was Juives then the killer wrote the message. Nobody else would change the spelling of Jews. A Dutch Jew like our suspect would be more likely than a Polish Jew to know of Juives. Why did the killer write Juives then? To give the misleading impression that he was a Jew who also spoke French. Our suspect didn’t speak French. The real killer was unlikely to hint that he spoke French if he did speak French. That would narrow things down too much for the police. In any case, the killer planned a lot of things carefully in advance.
Only a Jew would be interested in scrawling down the French spelling of Jews.
A possibility is, the killer was a Jew. He wanted to boast of it. But he deliberately spelt it incorrectly to make it seem that he wasn’t a Jew reasoning that detectives would think a Jew wouldn’t misspell Jews. The killer had been seen that night by five potential witnesses. He wasn’t likely to have thought he couldn’t or shouldn’t even bother trying to hide the fact that he was a Jew. So he decided then to put out a little misdirection about what kind of Jew he was. The killer then probably did write Juives.
Concerning the writing Detective Halse who saw it said, “It looked fresh, and if it had been done long before it would have been rubbed out by the people passing. I did not notice whether there was any powdered chalk on the ground, though I did look about to see if a knife could be found. There were three lines of writing in a good schoolboy’s round hand. The size of the capital letters would be about 3/4 in, and the other letters were in proportion. The writing was on the black bricks, which formed a kind of dado, the bricks above being white”.
So it must have looked so fresh that they actually looked for chalk dust. Chalk dust can blow away easily which shows that when they looked for it they were sure it was more than fresh. When one looks at new chalked writing very closely one can see a lot of dust composing the writing that is just about adhering to the surface. In a very short time these come loose especially when there is a breeze.
If you believe the allegation of some that the writing was seen to be slightly erased then the following is what you must ask.

Did the Ripper brush against it by going into the buildings?

The Ripper put the apron piece in that doorway to lay the blame on the Jews in the building for his crime for he knew he had been recognised as a Jew at the scene of the Eddowes crime and he wanted to create a false lead for the police. The Ripper took a change of heart – an attack of guilt maybe for trying to get one of his own people suspected - and most probably tried to erase it but was disturbed and made off. When the writing was fuzzy but legible despite being so small it shows that the Ripper half-heartedly tried to erase it.

The writing was not there long for even a few days would have meant people brushing against it until it was all gone.   And the building was a habitation of Jews who would soon have washed it off. The Ripper wrote it and changed his mind and wished to erase it. If so then that tells us that the killer was indeed a Jew.
If the Ripper didn’t write the message, then someone who saw him plant the apron piece there did.

The argument that the piece of the apron was not mentioned as missing by those who found the body seems significant but may not be.  Professionalism was not 100% in those days. The notion that some hoaxer cut it off and planted it at Goulston Street is too unlikely. It was DC Daniel Halse who commented on it missing and that was at the mortuary.  Some think Eddowes was not even wearing her apron but had it in her pocket.  If they are right then the killer did not take the apron out to cut a piece off it and dump it at Goulston Street.  That would be too much work in dark conditions with the danger of capture.  Somebody did.

The killer of Annie Chapman placed a piece of muslin, a small toothed comb and a paper case containing a pocket comb placed in some kind of arrangement (page 161, Portrait of a Killer). He took time to do this. The arrangement was placed at Chapman’s feet (page 21, The Crimes of Jack the Ripper) and shows shows a sick sense of mystery-mongering humour. He might indeed have written some of the Ripper letters. It shows that his mind was so odd during his mania that he suggestion that he couldn’t have written the Goulston Street message is flawed.

The Ripper gets his name
The Ripper was capable of writing letters to the police to taunt them. The writing on the wall at Goulston Street proves that as does his making a mystery by laying out items near Annie Chapman’s body.

However the two main candidates for being Ripper Letters seem to be the work of a crafty journalist.   We are led to believe that the murderer would not have sent the Jack the Ripper letter and post card to the Central News Agency rather than to a newspaper or the police.  But why not?  Then weakly we are informed by critics that only a journalist and definitely not a layman would even have an idea of the agency's address.  Didn't know it was such a watertight secret!  The writer, if a fraudster, could not send the items to the police in case they would not release them.
The Central News Agency on September 27th, 1888 received a letter claiming to be from the murderer and calling himself Jack the Ripper. This was the first letter ever signed Jack the Ripper and it gave the Ripper his gruesome nickname for the first time. The Ripper could have been inclined to write letters after what he left at Goulston Street.
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
PS 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
“Keep this letter back till I do a bit more work, then give it out straight”, is certainly a sign that this letter probably came from the real killer.
“My knife's so nice and sharp I want to get to work right away if I get a chance”. This all turned out to be true. The Ripper only killed at weekends and didn’t seem to be able to slaughter whenever he wanted. This wasn’t known or figured out at that time.
After the letter was received Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes were killed on the 30th September 1888. This letter was taken seriously when it appeared that the killer of Eddowes had cut a lobe off. Nowadays it is thought to have been a hoax by an enterprising journalist.
Surely a forger would want people to think the killer was a doctor or at least he wouldn’t put people off the impression that he was? It was more frightening and controversial if he was a doctor. A story like that would sell papers better.  The suspicion was that he was indeed a doctor.  And of course the Ripper was not a doctor but nobody knew that then.  The letter writer did for he was the Ripper.
The killer is said to be presented in the letter as a daring rascal and not as one who delights in his “holy” crusade against prostitutes. But we have a later letter this same person wrote that does present the killings as a “holy” crusade. It is not a daring rascal that appears in the letters – it is one who is sure that he won’t get caught as if God is protecting him and one who enjoys his work, doing what he perceives as God’s work. The view that the daring rascal impression could only have been created by someone other than the killer who would have been outraged at being seen that way is wrong. The killer did like to shock and might have pretended to be a daring rascal to achieve that end.
This letter speaking of the Chapman murder said, “Grand work the last job was. I gave the lady no time to squeal”. Did he mean he caught her by surprise? No for Chapman was heard saying, “No!” Then something was heard to hit against the fence. He meant that he killed her before she had a chance to scream which was true.  Nobody heard a scream though there were plenty of people nearby and there was a door that could have been opened any time. Tthe medical examination results that were confirmed after the letter appeared showed that she couldn’t have screamed. The killer was boasting how he had done such a good job of not attracting attention when he slaughtered her in such a risky spot.  He should have been caught at work but wasn’t. He probably heard people out and about in the other yards. Only the Ripper could have thought of boasting. The writer was speaking from memory. Nobody knew but the killer that he should have been caught but wasn’t.
The killer had been more daring with Chapman than with Nicholls. He took parts of Chapman away with him. This was only two murders so far. Only the killer would have been in a position to write that he was going to do more killings. And when it was only two murders nobody knew but the killer that the killer was only out to kill “whores”. He could just have been an evil person attacking prostitutes because they were easy targets but who hoped to start killing any women he could get his hands on. A lot of people thought at the time that it was women not just whores the killer hated. Only the killer at that time knew different.
The writer declared that he would kill if he got the chance. We know that the Ripper couldn’t kill whenever he wanted – he always had to wait to the weekend. Only the Ripper could know that he wouldn’t be free to attack women when he wanted.
The knife was sharpened after the Nicholls murder. The letter boasts about the sharpness. At that time only Chapman had been killed with the sharpened knife and so we get the impression that the killer wrote the letter and is vowing to keep his knife sharp from now on. A journalist might have thought that since Nicholls was killed with a knife that wasn’t too sharp that the Ripper didn’t care if the knife was sharp or not as long as it did the job.
The Americanism, Boss, was not contrived by any journalist for no journalist wanted to advocate the notion that the Ripper was an American. Better to suggest a Whitechapel man as the murderer and have everybody thinking they might know him or live beside him and have everyone quaking with fear. Fear sells papers. A butcher like our suspect Jacob Levy might have picked up the expression from American customers. The journalist forging letters from the Ripper would want to support and inflame public opinion to make more stories and get more papers sold. The letter had to match what people thought of the Ripper for making unusual suggestions was more likely to result in the letter not being taken seriously.
The papers couldn’t risk saying things like that the Ripper was an American for there would be a lot of embarrassment if he was caught and it was found he was not an American. Like fortune tellers they had to play safe and make safe guesses.
We will soon see that the letters were written by a Jew. The journalist accused of writing the letter was not a Jew and nor was he prosecuted even though Sir Robert Anderson of the Criminal Investigation Division of the London Metropolitan Police said he could name the person who wrote these letters! Certainly the letters then might have come from the Ripper’s pen. Nobody could prove they came from anybody else.
No journalist would write, “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 journalist would know that the police would expect the killer to be familiar with blood and how it thickens. The killer is afraid the letter might lead back to him and so if it does he can point to this line as proof that he didn’t write it.
The Ripper wrote in this letter that he wouldn’t stop ripping until he got caught. This proved to be true for the Ripper was certainly stopped from killing by his relatives.
The letter writer wrote that the joke about Leather Apron gave him real fits. What did he mean? Surely a journalist wouldn’t write like somebody who did the writing version of thinking out loud? The Ripper at that time was nicknamed Leather Apron. Why does the killer think its funny? A journalist would have wanted people to believe the Leather Apron thing. It is surmised that because a leather apron was found in the yard where Chapman was slain which was assumed to have belonged to the Ripper until the real owner claimed it that this is what the writer finds funny. “I have laughed when they [the police] look so clever and talk about being on the right track. That joke about Leather Apron gave me real fits.” The police believed at that time that the killer was a butcher and indeed even suspected a mad Jewish bootmaker John Pizer of the crimes. Pizer was subsequently cleared. The killer is laughing because the police suspected the wrong man. Now that wouldn’t be funny unless the killer was a mad and Jewish himself. He probably found it funny as well that he wore a Leather Apron as a bootmaker while he himself wore one as a butcher. This ties in with other things we know about the killer and gives us greater certainty that the Ripper wrote the letter..
The letter writer says that Jack the Ripper is his trade name. Trade name? Butchers are rippers. He speaks as if his ripping women is part of his job. Is this a hint that he is a butcher?
The killer didn’t seem to be particular about washing his hands.  He did not use the tap at the Annie Chapman or Mary Kelly scenes.  The letter writer was as bad for he admitted to forgetting to wash the red ink off.
The Ripper did indeed play funny little games as the letter writer says. The letter writer was the Ripper. At that time the only game was Annie Chapman’s belongings laid out by the killer in some arrangement. After that they got stranger. Nicks in Eddowes face, the apron piece planted at a spot bearing a message from the killer, and the puzzles created in Mary Kelly’s room. Only the killer would vow to play games in a letter and do so.
It is thought that the promise about trying to cut the woman’s ears off reveals the letter to be a fake because it was known because of the early morning papers that the killer tried to do that. But notice he says he didn’t have the time to cut them off. This was not known at the time. And we know the killer worked fast when he slashed Eddowes for the policeman was approaching and left himself very little time to get away. The policeman may have missed him by seconds.
The letter has every mark of being written by the killer.
This letter was signed Jack the Ripper leading the world to use this nickname for the uncaught killer who stalked the streets of the East End.
Sir Robert Anderson was head of the Criminal Investigation Division of the London Metropolitan Police in 1888. Anderson said he knew the journalist who wrote the letter. But Anderson refused to identify the man. You can’t admit that you know somebody who has broken the law by giving false evidence and then not give a name so that the man may be dealt with by civil justice. John George Littlechild said it was believed to have been written by Tom Bullen a journalist with the Central News. Believed to shows that he wasn’t sure. Anderson’s bizarre behaviour in this case shows a need to convince everybody that the letter was fake. Why go to that trouble unless your investigations show the letter is real and you don’t want it to be real. For the police to admit that they were getting letters from a killer they couldn’t trace or stop would be extremely shameful. 
The Postcard of 1st October
Referring to the previous letter the Central News Agency received the following which became known as the Saucy Jacky postcard.
I was not codding dear old Boss when I gave you the tip, you'll hear about Saucy Jacky's work tomorrow double event this time number one squealed a bit couldn't finish straight off. ha not the time to get ears for police. thanks for keeping last letter back till I got to work again.
Jack the Ripper
It may be authentic because though some think the writer got the information about the double event from the early morning newspapers. Did the police really think so when they took it so seriously? The postcard could have been posted on September 30th just after the murder of Stride and Eddowes.
A lot of people were saying that the killings may not have been related – not much was known. But this message states it as fact that the two women were Ripper victims.
And it was true that Stride had alarmed people by squealing a bit.
A witness said she screamed but not loudly when she was attacked on the street. It is not certain that the attacker was the killer but the killer could have witnessed it. 

If she had squealed on the street, she would have attracted attention.  If the Ripper killed her maybe he was afraid for that reason to mutilate her?  Maybe there was just time for a quick slash and then make a getaway?  He had to be careful for she died in a place where there was a busy club with people coming and going.

It was not reported in the papers that Stride squealed a bit. The postcard is authentic.
He writes that because she made some noise he couldn’t finish straight off – this suggests that he killed her and left her there intending to come back to mutilate her later if the coast was clear but that didn’t happen. This fits in with the observation that the Ripper frustrated because he didn’t get the chance to mutilate her may have went in search of another victim to glut his macabre urge.
And it was true that the killer didn’t have time to deal with Eddowes’ ears though he nicked a lobe off. In the confusion after the murder, nobody could have known that the killer was in such a hurry but the killer. At that time nobody could say if the killer really had killed both Stride and Eddowes.
The letter of 5th October 1888
The Central News Agency got a letter on the 5th October that was found to be written by the same person as the writer of the previous letters (page 98, The Lodger).
In the name of God hear me I swear I did not kill the female whose body was found at Whitehall. If she was an honest woman I will hunt down and destroy her murderer. If she was a whore God will bless the hand that slew her, for the women of Moab and Midian shall die and their blood shall mingle with the dust. I never harm any others or the Divine power that protects and helps me in my grand work would quit for ever. Do as I do and the light of glory shall shine upon you. I must get to work tomorrow treble event this time yes yes three must be ripped. will send you a bit of face by post I promise this dear old Boss. The police now reckon my work a practical joke well well Jacky’s a very practical joker ha ha ha Keep this back till three are wiped out and you can show the cold meat
Yours truly
Jack the Ripper
The interpretation of this letter is that the Ripper believed that God approved of his murders and was a Jew for he knew of Jewish doctrine and the curse on the women of Moab and Midian. He knew the Old Testament well.
Is it authentic?
Possibly it was the work of a Jew because it doesn’t advertise its Jewish origin but its origin can be easily seen and the “Dear Boss”, is contrived Americanism to misdirect the police towards looking for an American killer.
What hoaxer would think of capitalising the word Divine out of respect for God? What hoaxer would think of talking about the light of glory? Judaism spoke of the light of glory in memory of the glowing pillars of cloud in which God was present with Moses and God’s people during the Exodus from Egypt in the Jewish Scriptures.
The Ripper suffered from a religious mania that made him hate prostitutes so this letter rings true. It bears the marks of religious mania. No journalist would think of a line like “the women of Moab and Midian shall die and their blood shall mingle with the dust”. Only a Jew would for it is so Old Testament. It almost reads like a line from the Bible. At that time the Ripper was believed to be a sex freak who hated women.
The suggestion in the letter that the Ripper didn’t harm anyone other than prostitutes. It fits the psychological profile of the killer as a man who seemed relatively normal at least most of the time in daily life. No hoaxer would have wanted people to think that the Ripper wouldn’t attack any of them.
The real Ripper would indeed have thought that his dodging capture and the police so far would have been a sign that God blessed his homicidal exploits. The inexplicability of the killer not being caught was the main reason this case became the ultimate murder case.
A journalist or journalists were thought to be the real writers of many of the letters. A journalist would have wanted people to think the Ripper maybe did or actually did commit the Whitehall Murder. In this murder, the body of an unknown and dismembered woman was found wrapped up in a package found in the cellars of new Scotland yard. The killer was never found. The letter starts off by claiming that the writer was innocent of this crime which looks like he was outraged at the thought that he ripped her up. The real killer might react that way. It was prostitutes he wanted dead. To suggest to him that he could kill an honest woman might have offended him terribly.
The “show the cold meat expression” is like something a butcher would write. Our suspect, Jacob Levy, was a butcher.
Why does he promise three murders soon? This is a nasty joke and he says he is a joker. A journalist wouldn’t want to give that impression for a journalist would want people to expect three murders.
Now, the Ripper put Stride and Eddowes on their sides after killing them. This was two women in one night showing he had no intention of mutilating them any further than cutting their throats which he had done. But he decided that he had done enough for one night and then had a change of heart.  He then started knifing Eddowes. The mutilations he inflicted on his victims were frenzied and he enjoyed them. He would have thought that he must go and find a third prostitute that night to kill so that he can mutilate her to glut his overwhelming perverted desire for ripping. Why? For he had been seen at the Stride and Eddowes murder sites and it was too risky there to begin slashing.  But he slashed Eddowes anyway and went to his lair.  The Ripper thought of joking that he was intending to commit three murders because he thought he would have done three that night he killed Stride and Eddowes. That was the inspiration.
The letter says the sender will send a bit of face. Soon after, Kelly’s face was cut off. The murderer made no effort to cut off the face of Catherine Eddowes whose murder had just taken place not long before. The Ripper said he planned to kill three women the next day. For this reason the letter was thought to be inauthentic. But what does he mean by Jacky being thought to be a practical Joker? Its that he didn’t intend to kill three women at all. The letter puts divine in as Divine so God means something to him.
The letter writer didn’t mean it when he said he would rip three up. But what did he mean by “Keep this back till three are wiped out and you can show the cold meat”?
Perhaps the only way the Ripper could kill three women was indoors. Mary Kelly and a prostitute named Julia and Mrs Harvey were three women who often slept in Kelly’s room at 13 Miller’s Court.
The “cold meat” expression shows that he intends to kill a woman or women indoors for only that way can he present them for display like meat. And only that way can he make sure they are cold meat when found for he can close the door behind him or lock it.
It looks as if he means he will kill three and the police can show the bodies. But the police never showed bodies. It could mean “Keep this back till three are wiped out” and until after “you can show the cold meat”. Mary Kelly was left as a heap of cold meat and put on display by the Ripper and the police for she had to be identified with difficulty and was left to be found by the public. Only the killer could write a letter expressing an intention to probably kill indoors and leave women displayed as cold meat when it actually happened with one woman, Mary Kelly. It was probably due to circumstances beyond the Ripper’s control that he didn’t manage to kill two more in a similar way.
This letter was determined to have been originated by the same person as who wrote the postcard on October 1st saying he had no time to get the ears cut off to post to the police. Indeed the killer of Eddowes the night before apparently had tried to do that. It said the first one squealed a bit and she couldn’t be finished straight off. Clearly then the letter writer was claiming that Stride squealed which was why he didn’t take time to mutilate her. But he doesn’t necessarily mean she squealed with him. He must have been present when she squealed when she was attacked by a man who may or may not have been the Ripper. An earlier letter than this one dated 25th September contained a promise to cut the next victim’s ears off and post them to the police which was an accurate forecast. It was posted only two days before the murder of Stride and Eddowes. He had no time to mutilate Stride but may indeed have tried to cut Eddowes ears off. A lobe was cut off suggesting this was a possibility. The Ripper didn’t succeed for time was slipping away.
These are the only letters which may show knowledge of the murders and so which were written by the killer. The author knew of the religious element to the murders which has been proven to exist only recently. Therefore he was the murderer.
Notice how the letter above makes grammar errors, starts a new line with small letters, has poor sentence construction at times. It has all the same characteristics as the Goulston Street message. The letter explains how a Jew could put the blame on a Jew by writing nasty graffiti on a building there inhabited by Jews. He believed they weren’t doing anything wrong if they killed prostitutes and should be praised for it.
If the letters are hoax letters then what hoaxer would send letters in which he admits to being a joker? The whole point of the letters was to boast about the murders and that can’t be done if they are not taken seriously. The real killer would boast but then say he was joking and make jokes in case the letters get traced back to him or he says something that ends in his getting captured. He doesn’t want to put people on the right scent.
Would it be too much to suggest that ^ cut into each of Eddowes cheeks make ^^ when put together an M for Moabite or Midian? Is the letter trying to get at that? Did the killer put his mark on her to show she is a Moabite or a cursed person in his view? The marks stood for something – the Ripper despite being in a hurry and knowing the policeman could catch him at any minute didn’t put them on her face for nothing. 
The Letters and Goulston Street

Analyse The Juwes are The men that Will not be Blamed for nothing.
Notice how its correctly capitalised at the start. But The starts off with a capital letter as does Will and Blamed. There are no punctuation marks. It is written with bad grammar, it should have been The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for anything. It follows popular speech.
Compare this with lines from the letters.
“I keep on hearing the police have caught me but they wont fix me just yet.” It follows popular speech and bad grammar and betrays carelessness with punctuation. It should be I keep hearing that the police have caught me but they won’t catch me just yet. Here’s the whole letter with the errors explained.
Dear Boss,

I keep on hearing [should be I keep hearing that] the police have caught me but they wont [won’t] fix [catch me – fix me is popular speech] me just yet. I have laughed [I laugh] 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 [shan’t] 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. [no question mark] 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 [popular speech] in a ginger beer bottle over the last job to write with [no comma] but it went thick like glue and I cant [can’t] use it. Red ink is fit enough I hope ha. ha. [should be ha ha and then full stop] The next job I do [no comma] I shall clip the ladys [lady’s] ears off and send to the police officers just for jolly [no comma] wouldn't you. [no question mark] 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. [capitalised luck unnecessarily]
Yours truly
Jack the Ripper

Whoever wrote this letter wrote the message at Goulston Street.
I was not codding [joking] dear old Boss [unnecessary capitalisation] when I gave you the tip, you'll hear about Saucy Jacky's work tomorrow [no full stop] double event this time [no full stop] number one squealed a bit couldn't finish straight off. ha [no capitalisation] [Didn’t have] not [bad sentence construction] the time to get ears for police. thanks [no capitalisation] for keeping last letter back till I got to work again.
Jack the Ripper
Whoever wrote this wrote the first letter and admits it and it shows all the characteristics of the Goulston Street message. The capitalisation has been watched for some reason with this letter. The killer probably heard that the police were on the look out for somebody that wrote the way the Goulston Street message was written.
In the name of God hear me I swear I did not kill the female whose body was found at Whitehall. If she was an honest woman I will hunt down and destroy her murderer. If she was a whore God will bless the hand that slew her, for the women of Moab and Midian shall die and their blood shall mingle with the dust. I never harm any others or the Divine power that protects and helps me in my grand work would quit for ever. Do as I do and the light of glory shall shine upon you. I must get to work tomorrow treble event this time yes yes three must be ripped. will send you a bit of face by post I promise this dear old Boss. The police now reckon my work a practical joke well well Jacky’s a very practical joker ha ha ha Keep this back till three are wiped out and you can show the cold meat
Yours truly
Jack the Ripper
This letter too deliberately avoids the strange capitalisations of the Goulston Street message. We know he was contriving this because the first letter has the same bizarre capitalisations of the Goulston Street message. A hoaxer wouldn’t do that.

The assertion in the Pall Mall Gazette that the writing at Goulston Street according to witnesses was similar to the Dear Boss letters is often dismissed as nonsense.  You would wonder.
The Lusk Letter
Scholarly analysis has decided that the infamous Lusk Letter which claimed to be from the killer could well have been really his work. Mr George Lusk of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, which patrolled the streets trying to capture the Ripper, got a parcel in the post containing half a human kidney. There was a letter in the parcel.
From hell.
Mr Lusk,
I send you half the Kidne I took from one woman and prasarved it for you tother piece I fried and ate it was very nise. I may send you the bloody knif that took it out if you only wate a whil longer
Catch me when you can Mishter Lusk
Let’s examine this curiosity.
The letter sought to give the impression that the kidney piece came from Catherine Eddowes. Upon examination it was thought it could indeed have come from Eddowes. This of course could not be proved. The kidney part carried signs of Bright’s Disease – and Catherine Eddowes had Bright’s Disease. Dr Openshaw stated that the kidney belonged to a woman of Catherine Eddowes’ age and was in a similar diseased state to the remaining kidney. Major Smith of the City Police said that two inches of renal artery were left in Eddowes when her kidney was removed and the kidney portion received by Lusk still had one inch left on it as if it would fit in her body. Some doubt the declarations at the time that the kidney was indeed human. It was preserved for several days before it was sent raising the question of why the killer or the sender took so long to send it. To many, the reason would be that he wanted to think carefully and took his time to think and be sure he wasn’t leaving a trail to himself. He believed that what he was sending should convict him as the killer should he be found to be the sender of the parcel.
The killer disguised his writing and wrote to give the false impression of being very illiterate. The spelling is mostly good and easy words are misspelled – he obviously misspelled on purpose. Why spell hell right and spell nice wrong? Nice is a more commonly known and used word than hell. Again you have the strange capitalisations that took place with the Goulston Street message. It is interesting that the only three words relevant to a butcher, kidney, preserved and knife are spelt wrongly. The writer was trying to hide his occupation. He tried too hard and gave himself away! From hell may indicate a religious interest.
The Ripper appeared attached to his knife like it was his friend. That he said he might send it if Lusk could wait a while shows that he planned to stop killing soon. This turned out to be true. The killer killed Kelly and there were no more murders. He writes as if he planned to keep the knife to kill one more woman and then think about posting the knife to Lusk. The killer may even have used a kidney from a butcher’s shop to post to Lusk.
If the Ripper indeed ate a diseased piece of kidney then was it because he didn’t care for he was already diseased like a syphilitic?
The letter was not written to the police or the papers to keep the papers and the world blazing with speculation and to create a big sensation. It was sent to Lusk to create a Whitechapel-confined mystery. The killer was a local man. The absence of effort to make publicity with this letter lends support to its authenticity.


Even if we cannot be sure what the Ripper wrote, the evidence indicates that he wrote something....