September 17th Letter

[Cap'n Jack]

Don, I like Stewart, a lot, and have a deep and abiding regard and respect for his later works... he knows this.
For your information I do regard Stewart as the master in this regard, and myself as the hapless pupil, but that does not deter me from rocking a ship that might not take water anyway.
I entertain no personal feelings or animosity towards anyone I have never met, but rather base my views on what they say on the research materials available to me at any given time; when those materials flex or change I flex and change my opinion accordingly.
My only regret in all my dealings with Stewart is that we have never had the chance to have a glass together.
I'm sure if we did we'd probably get engaged.
And probably produce the best book that was ever written about a little **** from Whitechapel who murdered women.

[mac-the-kipper]

Just for info, it was me who labeled the 17 September letter a fake in the Photo Archive.

Rob

Why? what proof do you have please?

[Dan Norder]

Why? what proof do you have please?

Proof is the realm of mathematics. All we have to work with in history, as well as most topics, is the weight of overwhelming evidence and expert opinion... and that's more than enough.

[DVV]

When you read this letter, you easily understand that it cannot be the first communication of "Jack the Ripper".
This is internal "critique" of a text, source, etc, and it's the ABCs of methodology in history.

Amitiés,
David

[mac-the-kipper]

Proof is the realm of mathematics. All we have to work with in history, as well as most topics, is the weight of overwhelming evidence and expert opinion... and that's more than enough.

What 'overwhelming evidence' please?

[Rob Clack]

Why? what proof do you have please?

My opinion, there's is not one piece of contemporary evidence for the letter in any official source. And there's not one piece of evidence to suggest that it is genuine.

[Cap'n Jack]

Mac
lucky you are used to the smell of fish, for when Dan & Co roll out their stall at Billingsgate you can smell the old cod right across the Thames.

[Rob Clack]

I prefer the smell of cod to a smell of old bull.

[Cap'n Jack]

Thank you, Rob, you have fully confirmed my suspicions about your character and intentions here.

[Natalie Severn]

Proof is the realm of mathematics. All we have to work with in history, as well as most topics, is the weight of overwhelming evidence and expert opinion... and that's more than enough.

I have come to have much regard for your judgement Dan,over time.However on this matter I tend to disagree.The reason I do so is because of what I have deduced about the Home Office,in the released files of
which this letter was allegedly found in between two pieces of paper.I know Sir Edward Jenkinson had more than the ear of the Home Office in 1888 and was in constant touch with his political masters.Everything he knew he took pains to hide from Anderson and Monro,also based there in 1888.Jenkinson claims that after they managed to oust him from his rooms in Dublin Castle,he burnt all his papers so neither Monro nor Anderson could gain sight of them.We also know that Anderson was equally secretive and took great pains to hide everything from everyone,except Monro. A letter such as the Sept 17th letter could,in my view,have been sent to either Jenkinson or Anderson or even Matthews, the Home Secretary himself, who Lusk had just written to about the possibility of a reward.It is not at all beyond the realms of possibility that each and everyone of these men could have had reason to keep that letter under their hat-telling nobody about it.After all this was the headquarters of disinformation,of secret service work,work that was kept secret from the mainstream police and even from politicians when need be.
This is why I keep an open mind about that letter.It may well be a fake,but the reasons you give do not hold water with the backdrop in secret service work,closed files---some still and in perpetuity.One of these appararently has the heading, "The Whitechapel Murders".So no, the letter need never have reached an"official file".

[mac-the-kipper]

My opinion, there's is not one piece of contemporary evidence for the letter in any official source. And there's not one piece of evidence to suggest that it is genuine.

Nor is there one piece of evidence to prove its a fake.

[Chris]

Nor is there one piece of evidence to prove its a fake.

As has already been pointed out to you, no one can "prove" with mathematical certainty that this letter is a modern fake. If people are determined to believe in it, they will come up with some explanation (albeit a preposterously far-fetched one) whatever evidence they are presented with.

Given that fact, it is very misleading to claim that there is no evidence that it's a modern fake. On the contrary, you know as well as anyone that all kinds of evidence to that effect have been discussed here, and that most people find them persuasive.

For most people, the facts that the file it was supposedly found in had previously been microfilmed, and that the letter does not appear on the microfilm, would themselves be conclusive - unless a very plausible explanation could be offered, which it has not been.

[Natalie Severn]

What I had understood Chris , is that the letter was found between two pieces of aged looking brown paper ,stuck together,in other words it didnt look like it contained a letter.After a hundred years paper of that kind probably can get stuck together,no big deal.
A lot of what went on in the Home Office in 1888 was to those observers who saw it very far fetched indeed,Chris.
Take Joyce,the Dublin Castle civil servant, seconded to London during the Special Commission of 1888,to collate evidence in favour of The Times and to prise the reluctant Robert Anderson of some of his secret information.Anderson didnt want this Irish "nosey parker" seeing any of his files and kept them very well hidden.In the end it appears that it took the personal intervention of Henry Matthews,Home Secretary,to achieve the release of 100 important such files with statements from informers etc.
Joyce called what went on in the Home Office in the Autumn of 1888,"a huge fraud, a gigantic farce"----though things became less farcical after Pigott"s suicide.So please dont suggest my own post on this matter was "far fetched"-much stranger things went on in those offices than a possibly "mislaid "17th September letter,allegedly from the ripper.
Best Wishes

[Chris]

What I had understood Chris , is that the letter was found between two pieces of aged looking brown paper ,stuck together,in other words it didnt look like it contained a letter.After a hundred years paper of that kind probably can get stuck together,no big deal.

All I can say is that I have never in my life seen documents in any record repository "stuck together with age", as the claim is here. I'd be interested to know whether anyone else has.

If whatever it was that contained this letter was stuck together, I suggest it was deliberately stuck together with glue, in an attempt to provide an explanation for the absence of the document from the microfilm.

At the very least, the story of the mysteriously stuck-together whatever-it-was should provoke a loud peal of alarm bells, even before all the other evidence that indicates a modern fake is considered.

[Chris]

So please dont suggest my own post on this matter was "far fetched"-much stranger things went on in those offices than a possibly "mislaid "17th September letter,allegedly from the ripper.

I wasn't referring to any post in particular - just making a general point that if people are determined to believe something, they can find a way round any evidence they are presented with, so it is impossible to "prove" this is a modern fake with mathematical precision.