From Hell Letter DECODED

[Iconoclast]

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

Good question, Joshua, and not one I can answer with certainty, but my response to Mr Flynn hopefully suggests possible answers?

[Sam Flynn]

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

I don't post blindly on anything. I've long been aware of the 17th September letter and its iffy provenance, and it's patently a modern fake. Quite apart from the fact that there is no contemporary reference to this letter, and that the "Dear Boss" letter remains the earliest officially-acknowledged reference to Jack the Ripper, the mere appearance of the 17th September letter gives the game away. The deliberately shaky handwriting, the lettering and phraseology are clearly lame attempts to ape the Lusk Letter, which wasn't sent until mid-October 1888 and which wasn't in the public domain until the best part of a century later.

[Sam Flynn]

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

To make it appear that it was a super-pristine source, I'd imagine. "Not only was it filed in THE National Archive, but it was still unopened!" (Yeah, right )

[Iconoclast]

I don't post blindly on anything. I've long been aware of the 17th September letter and its iffy provenance, and it's patently a modern fake. Quite apart from the fact that there is no contemporary reference to this letter, and that the "Dear Boss" letter remains the earliest officially-acknowledged reference to Jack the Ripper, the mere appearance of the 17th September letter gives the game away. The deliberately shaky handwriting, the lettering and phraseology are clearly lame attempts to ape the Lusk Letter, which wasn't sent until mid-October 1888 and which wasn't in the public domain until the best part of a century later.

Honestly Sam, is it just me who is able to see through the trail and train of tenuous argument you have inflicted upon us there?

Absolutely nothing of what you say has any merit and if these are your reasons for decrying the letter as a forgery you are too easily persuaded, sir.

But we both know that you've just come up with these right now off the top of your head because you haven't ever given it any thought. Because of your unreasonable agenda against Maybrick (or against any candidate who might solve the case?) you have dredged up a few non sequiturs and had the brazen cheek to call them 'arguments'. No contemporary reference to a letter that may have been overlooked for a century. Doh - I wonder why there was no contemporary record then! The 'deliberately' shaky handwriting. But the handwriting in the Lusk letter wasn't, I assume, based upon your unsupported assumption of which one came first? Oh, and citing the 'Dear Boss' letter as some some of high water mark below which no other communication could matter simply on the grounds that 'Dear Boss' is "the earliest officially-acknowledged reference to Jack the Ripper" is scurrilous delusion or - worse - deception. There are a huge number of easily-influenced people on this site and every indolent comment like that gets taken on faith so we have to be careful that claims are fully-evidenced. Other than that of my genius, of ocurse (I meant 'course', but maybe 'curse' is more apt?), which can be taken on any flavour of faith you want.

Your facile 'arguments' don't hold any water. Not so much empty vessels as just horrendously leaky.

[Iconoclast]

To make it appear that it was a super-pristine source, I'd imagine. "Not only was it filed in THE National Archive, but it was still unopened!" (Yeah, right )

I think I've already addressed that one, Sam. Do keep up, mate.

[Ginger]

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

Sorry. It was late, I was tipsy.

"Iconoclast" means, literally, "breaker of sacred images". Adding the "es" on the end makes it a man's name. The quote is from "The Phoenix and the Carpet", by Edith Nesbit (Nownes, 1904), a YA novel about a grandiose bird who loves to hear herself talk, and which is (for what should be obvious reasons) a great favourite of mine.

[rjpalmer]

There was some debate as to whether the letter was actually in a sealed envelope. McClelland, or someone claiming to be McClelland, showed up on Howard Brown's site about 10 years ago and denied it had been in a sealed envelope, and that this detail had been misreported.

Can I ask, is the envelope in the file?

That said, the letter wasn't stamped by either the MEPO people back in 1888, nor the National Archives people at a much later date, which is mighty mighty odd and suggests it was somehow planted post-Michael Caine. Most of those who have handled the letter state that the paper appears to be of a newish, modern variety, and one even suggested the blue ink was from a ballpoint pen, though this was evidently conjecture. According to the A-Z, McClelland made inquires about having the letter tested, which could show his good faith, but this led to nothing and he eventually gave up. Yet, strangely, I reviewed his posts at Brown's site last night, and he made some vague reference to publishing the results of a forensic test, but this was 9 or 10 years ago and nothing, to my knowledge, has ever appeared. ???

Attempting to prove the authenticity of one questioned document by referring to another questioned document might some strike some as rather questionable gamesmanship. You can ask your audience to suspend disbelief once, but if they're asked to suspend disbelief a second and third time in order to maintain the first suspension, pretty soon they simply get exhausted and their eyes glaze over.

[Joshua Rogan]

There was some debate as to whether the letter was actually in a sealed envelope. McClelland, or someone claiming to be McClelland, showed up on Howard Brown's site about 10 years ago and denied it had been in a sealed envelope, and that this detail had been misreported.

Indeed. The whole thread is here;

https://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=3025&page=4

If I may quote what the finder said about discovering the letter in various posts;

"Whilst browsing the files I came across what I thought was a single sheet of brown card and thought why is this here then? I couldn't see what purpose it might serve other than a divider of some sort. On closer examination I found it was a very thin folder which was stuck together with what I can only describe as age. That's when I used my thumbnail to crack it open"

"The folder that contained this letter wasn't glued down, it was stuck with age in my opinion. I think I have mentioned previously that I spent many years researching my family tree and I came across many documents that hadn't seen the light of day for possibly 80 or 90 years. They behaved in the same way, cracking upon opening, slightly musty smell etc."

"It was on the micrifiche I examined."

"as far as I can remember, there weren't any notes or comments on the outside (or the inside for those of you into the nitty gritty) !"

[Abby Normal]

Indeed. The whole thread is here;

https://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=3025&page=4

If I may quote what the finder said about discovering the letter in various posts;

"Whilst browsing the files I came across what I thought was a single sheet of brown card and thought why is this here then? I couldn't see what purpose it might serve other than a divider of some sort. On closer examination I found it was a very thin folder which was stuck together with what I can only describe as age. That's when I used my thumbnail to crack it open"

"The folder that contained this letter wasn't glued down, it was stuck with age in my opinion. I think I have mentioned previously that I spent many years researching my family tree and I came across many documents that hadn't seen the light of day for possibly 80 or 90 years. They behaved in the same way, cracking upon opening, slightly musty smell etc."

"It was on the micrifiche I examined."

"as far as I can remember, there weren't any notes or comments on the outside (or the inside for those of you into the nitty gritty) !"

thanks JR

"It was on the micrifiche I examined."

if it was on microfiche-the letter couldn't have been placed there by the finder, yes?

[Sam Flynn]

"It was on the micrifiche I examined."

if it was on microfiche-the letter couldn't have been placed there by the finder, yes?

However, there's this: "Whilst browsing the files I came across what I thought was a single sheet of brown card... I couldn't see what purpose it might serve other than a divider of some sort"

Why would a (blank?) sheet of apparently brown card, that looked like a divider, have been microfiched in the first place?

Unless he meant that the letter had been scanned onto fiche and was thereafter stuck into the "divider" - if so, then how could the two sides of the "divider" have become "stuck together with age" by 1988, when microfiche technology had only really become mainstream from the 1960s onwards?

[Joshua Rogan]

thanks JR

"It was on the micrifiche I examined."

if it was on microfiche-the letter couldn't have been placed there by the finder, yes?

I believe the "it" he was referring to is the folder, not the letter. Though why the PRO staff would have microfiched what appeared to be a blank cardboard divider I'm not sure....is that usual, anyone?

[Joshua Rogan]

However, there's this: "Whilst browsing the files I came across what I thought was a single sheet of brown card... I couldn't see what purpose it might serve other than a divider of some sort"

Why would a (blank?) sheet of apparently brown card, that looked like a divider, have been microfiched in the first place?

Unless he meant that the letter had been scanned onto fiche and was thereafter stuck into the "divider" - if so, then how could the two sides of the "divider" have become "stuck together with age" by 1988, when microfiche technology had only really become mainstream from the 1960s onwards?

My thoughts exactly. I believe from the thread that the microfiching(?) had been done only months earlier.

[Kattrup]

However, there's this: "Whilst browsing the files I came across what I thought was a single sheet of brown card... I couldn't see what purpose it might serve other than a divider of some sort"

Why would a (blank?) sheet of apparently brown card, that looked like a divider, have been microfiched in the first place?

Unless he meant that the letter had been scanned onto fiche and was thereafter stuck into the "divider" - if so, then how could the two sides of the "divider" have become "stuck together with age" by 1988, when microfiche technology had only really become mainstream from the 1960s onwards?

It is common practice to photograph (these days scan) every scrap of paper in a bundle, in order to reproduce as faithfully as possible the archival order. Exceptions of course are made where many pages are missing, e.g a ledger having been used pages 1-20 and 353-460 - the missing pages should be noted in the photos/scans but not necessarily included.
(in my opinion a misguided effort). Presumably this was so also in 1980s UK.

So the blank front page of the “folder” could easily have been microfiched. The point he makes is that apparently no one had noticed that it was a folder which could be opened.

[Sam Flynn]

So the blank front page of the “folder” could easily have been microfiched.

So why would his attention have been drawn to something as boring as an apparent document-separator on the fiche? Something doesn't quite add up.

[Ginger]

So why would his attention have been drawn to something as boring as an apparent document-separator on the fiche? Something doesn't quite add up.

To me, it sounds like he found the folder while examining the physical files, then subsequently confirmed that it was on the microfiche.

If it *was* the other way around, I'll note that microfiche isn't always the most faithful reproduction. If I saw an apparently blank sheet in an interesting archive, I'd probably ask to see the physical archive, just to be sure that there wasn't faint writing, etc, that didn't reproduce.