From Hell Letter DECODED

[Herlock Sholmes]

by the way wheres Pier... uh rookie detective with his decoded message? lol

[Purkis]

I miss Pierre,kept you on the edge of your seat.
Regards Richard.

It's not even subtle. You'd think he'd at least try a different approach.

[Iconoclast]

That might explain why it took so long before the letters started to arrive in any great numbers Fully five murders (Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes) had been committed before "Dear Boss" was published in the papers; in fact, "Dear Boss" itself was only written at the end of September, and the "Saucy Jack" postcard on the same day as, or the day after, the Double Event. Wouldn't the real killer have started gloating sooner?

Like with a "Jack the Ripper" rhyme around September 9 and a letter signed "Jack the Ripper" dated September 17? Is that the sort of thing you mean, Sam?

[Iconoclast]

Good point Sam.

Herlock, I'm disappointed in you!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, I'm disappointed in you!

Sorry Ike

[Sam Flynn]

Like with a "Jack the Ripper" rhyme around September 9 and a letter signed "Jack the Ripper" dated September 17? Is that the sort of thing you mean, Sam?

I don't know which rhyme "around" 9th September you're referring to, but the letter of 17th September is an obvious modern forgery.

[Iconoclast]

I don't know which rhyme "around" 9th September you're referring to, but the letter of 17th September is an obvious modern forgery.

The one which you presumably will also call a ‘hoax’ if you knew any better?

Your argument about the September 17 letter is about as viable as mine about Celtic being top of the Scottish league right now. The table is an obvious modern forgery and it’s actually Hearts.

See what I did there? I just said something was an ‘obvious modern forgery’ without any evidence whatsoever. Just like you did.

PS I keep trying to edit in the missing apostrophes but this rubbish new format doesn’’t seeem to care how illiterate its entries are.

[Sam Flynn]

The one which you presumably will also call a ‘hoax’ if you knew any better?

Again, I don't know which "Dear Boss" rhyme you were referring to, so I can't comment either way.

Your argument about the September 17 letter is about as viable as mine about Celtic being top of the Scottish league right now. The table is an obvious modern forgery and it’s actually Hearts.

See what I did there? I just said something was an ‘obvious modern forgery’ without any evidence whatsoever. Just like you did.

I'm really not interested in enumerating the reasons why the 17th September "Dear Boss" letter is an obvious modern fraud, but it is.

[Iconoclast]

Again, I don't know which "Dear Boss" rhyme you were referring to, so I can't comment either way.

Read my Society's Pillar, Sam - you really ought to know that no-one was talking about a "Dear Boss" rhyme but rather one of the very well-known Jack the Ripper rhymes.

I'm really not interested in enumerating the reasons why the 17th September "Dear Boss" letter is an obvious modern fraud, but it is.

And that is quite simply because there are no reasons whatsoever for making the outrageous (but very convenient) claim you're making about it. Peter McClelland discovered it in a sealed envelope in the official records (Public Records Office) back in 1988, some four years before the Victorian scrapbook came to light. You are obviously suggesting that this was miraculously implanted there by some hoaxer who was playing some incredble long con.

I for one would like to know why you are able to so confidently make the claim (and yet so suspiciously unable to back it up).

[Joshua Rogan]

Read my Society's Pillar, Sam - you really ought to know that no-one was talking about a "Dear Boss" rhyme but rather one of the very well-known Jack the Ripper rhymes.



And that is quite simply because there are no reasons whatsoever for making the outrageous (but very convenient) claim you're making about it. Peter McClelland discovered it in a sealed envelope in the official records (Public Records Office) back in 1988, some four years before the Victorian scrapbook came to light. You are obviously suggesting that this was miraculously implanted there by some hoaxer who was playing some incredble long con.

I for one would like to know why you are able to so confidently make the claim (and yet so suspiciously unable to back it up).

Why would a sealed envelope have been filed in the records office?

[phantom]

Hi all

I contacted the National Archive in February 2018 and asked the following questions re: the 17th September letter:

• Does the National Archives confirm that the letter in this image is a genuine historical document from 1888?
• Can you also please tell me if National Archives have conducted any testing or analysis to confirm it is a genuine document consistent with 1888/Victorian period?
• And if not, does the National Archives have any intent to label the image as ‘allegedly from 1988’ or some other similar disclaimer?

I received the following reply:


The HO144/221/A49301C (103B) letter is made available by The National Archives at its face value. No plans are in place to label the document as either genuine or fake, although the caption to the digital image we supply refers to a letter 'purporting to be' from the Ripper.

The content and date of the letter suggest that it is a forgery, placed into the file at a later date. It predates the 'original' Ripper letter by eight days, and uses terminology from other hoax letters which only became widespread via the Victorian press over the following months.

The circumstances surrounding its discovery also give rise to suspicion, as the letter was claimed to have been found in a sealed envelope. The presence of a sealed enevelope in a TNA file is contrary to policy, as any sealed envelope or pouch poses a risk to the integrity of the envelope and the documents inside, if a reader attempts to open it.

To my knowledge, the letter has not been subjected to testing. In 2015 the author Patricia Cornwell conducted forensic testing of some of the hoax letters in file MEPO3/142, but I believe that the HO144/221/A49301C (103B) letter was not included in this work.


I asked for permission to quote from the above and received the following response:

Provided that it is clear that the views below are simply assumptions, and not corroborated fact, you may quote from them.

Paul Johnson
The National Archives Image Library Manager





Regards

[Ginger]

The content and date of the letter suggest that it is a forgery, placed into the file at a later date. It predates the 'original' Ripper letter by eight days, and uses terminology from other hoax letters which only became widespread via the Victorian press over the following months.

The circumstances surrounding its discovery also give rise to suspicion, as the letter was claimed to have been found in a sealed envelope. The presence of a sealed enevelope in a TNA file is contrary to policy, as any sealed envelope or pouch poses a risk to the integrity of the envelope and the documents inside, if a reader attempts to open it.

Hearken, O Eikonoclastes, despiser of the sacred images!

[Sam Flynn]

Hearken, O Eikonoclastes, despiser of the sacred images!

Indeed, and thanks to Phantom for contacting TNA in the first place.

[Iconoclast]

Indeed, and thanks to Phantom for contacting TNA in the first place.

It's hardly a ringing confirmation of forgery, people! The TNA have commented exactly as you would expect - with scepticism and reservation. They have hinted at forgery without confirming it. For example, they make the absolutely disgraceful comment that the September 17 letter contains phraseology from the LATER Sept 25 and 'From Hell' letters. Doh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe the Sept 25 and 'From Hell' letters were written by the same person who wrote the September 17 letter and it is those two letters not the former which aped from the earlier one? That could make them genuine or it could make them fakes, but it OBVIOUSLY does not make the September 17 letter fake!!!!!!!!!!!!!

With regard to the fact that the letter was found in a sealed envelope, one would have to beg the questions: Was it a valid envelope from 1888? (We have to presume so, so how so if it was a forgery?); and Was it 'sealed' or 're-sealed'? Presumably it was the former, which was a breach of policy but hardly definitive proof of a forgery. Maybe, just maybe, that particular letter was stored and the fact that it was unopened was simply missed. **** (wow - that's not what I wrote!) happens, people. Get over it.

By the 1980s, the Jack the Ripper documents held at the Public Record Office were on microfiche. Peter McClelland was permitted to see the original documents because he was struggling to make some of them out. So access to them was not a given. Let's remember that and come back to it. If the September 17 letter were genuine, you only have to believe that its not having been opened was missed during the original enquiries. That's all you have to believe. Indeed, it has been argued that the fact that it was missed caused Jack to shift from the blue ink he used on September 17 to the more striking red ink he used on September 25. Makes sense, huh?

If the September 17 letter were a hoax, you have to believe that some artist of the very long con arrived at the PRO prior to 1988 (who knows how long before!) to slip a faked Jack the Ripper letter into the records. And the PRO just let them do it! Genius. His (or her) plan was to wait FOREVER (at very least four years) until a Liverpool scally came along with a scrapbook (written in a similar hand) purporting to be written by James Maybrick. So the September 17 letter and the scrapbook presumably were written by the same person? (I certainly believe so!)

Here's the rub, though, Peeps. Quite apart from the profound stretch of imagination the forgery theory requires, it fails to address two issues:

1) Why did the author of the September 17 letter make no attempt whatsoever to mirror the writing of either the famous September 25 letter or the 'From Hell' letter? That would seem logical given that it was being presented as a hitherto unknown precursor of both; and

2) How could this forger - given that he or she presumably also created the scrapbook (oh, and the watch with James Maybrick's known signature inscribed in the back!) - have had so much good fortune at every step of their work? We know that incredible happenstance followed that forger at every turn, but - get this - he (or she) placed that 'forged' September 17 letter in with the September 25 letter and its original envelope at the PRO and the evidence of the latter was crying out for the existence of the former (or some other precursor). How so? Well, allow me to let Paul Feldman explain [Hardback, p271, my emphasis]:

"For deacdes the original 25 September letter was missing from the official files, which had a copy only of the facsimile. In 1987 the original was returned to Scotland Yard anonymously. It arrived in a manilla envelope postmarked Croydon, in south London. It was still attached to the original docket by the Victorian equivalent of modern transparent sticky tape. The docket was market with a number 2 and was accompanied with its original envelope, also attached to its docket, marked number 3. Clearly the historical records have been missing an important document. Where was number 1 in the series? And what was it? We can reveal for the first time the following letter, discovered late in 1988 by Peter McClelland ..."

If the September 17 letter was never opened, how did the police kow that it should be number 1 in a series which contained the famous 'Dear Boss' letter? I can only infer from that that the letter had indeed been read and then re-sealed by the police and a century later had appeared to McClelland as unopened, but clearly I don't know that for a fact. Maybe the September 17 letter was not number 1 in the series, but either way it was unbelievably convenient once again for our long con artist, was it not, that some unknown 'number 1' was evidently somewhere in the system linked inextricably to the most famous crime letter ever written?

The implication of all this is clear:

1) Nothing is as clear as you think; and

2) You really should do some research before you post so blindly on this site.

Iconoclast
Doesn't do Greek - no idea what all that was about

[Iconoclast]

Hi all

I contacted the National Archive in February 2018 and asked the following questions re: the 17th September letter:

• Does the National Archives confirm that the letter in this image is a genuine historical document from 1888?
• Can you also please tell me if National Archives have conducted any testing or analysis to confirm it is a genuine document consistent with 1888/Victorian period?
• And if not, does the National Archives have any intent to label the image as ‘allegedly from 1988’ or some other similar disclaimer?

I received the following reply:

Excellent work, phantom.