September 17th Letter

[Chris Scott]

There's a Spanish - I think - documentary/discussion ('Jack el Destripador') on Youtube which features the 17th September letter in a sequence with several others. The image used is my one that has been posted here - lined paper background and all.

The link is below and the letter appears 3m 15s into the item.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=oom8c7sZm1E&feature=related

Can anybody translate? Are they actually saying anything specific or is it about the letters generally?

Hi John
I have had a listen and they say nothing specific about the 17 September letter. It is just part of a montage of letters and, as the 17 Sept letter is on screen, the commentary runs along the lines of: The large number of letters received caused a great scandal among the British people.
Chris

[Chris Scott]

Just one other quick comment.
In the Ripper letters section of Casebook, the 17 Sept letter is transcribed as follows:
(Transcription)
17th Sept 1888

Dear Boss
So now they say I am a Yid when will they lern Dear old Boss! You an me know the truth dont we. Lusk can look forever hell never find me but I am rite under his nose all the time. I watch them looking for me an it gives me fits ha ha I love my work an I shant stop until I get buckled and even then watch out for your old pal Jacky.
Catch me if you Can
Jack the Ripper
Sorry about the blood still messy from the last one. What a pretty necklace I gave her.

There is one word I read differently which does, in my opinion, fit more logically with the meaning. The section in question is:
I shant stop until I get buckled and even then watch out for your old pal Jacky
This appears to be warning the addressee to beware of the writer even after he is captured, which, to me, makes little sense. I believe the word "even" is, in fact "only," and there is a break in the sense of the letter after that word. This passge would now read:
I shant stop untill I get buckled and only then
watch out for your old pal Jacky

Have a look at the very good version that Stewart posted earlier in this thread and see what you think
Chris

[caz]

"Somehow the texture of the paper feels wrong. Rather like a page from a cheap notebook you would buy at Woolworths...looks suspiciously modern - texture of paper and the appearance of ink - it looks too fresh..."

Well that ought to have been a doddle then for the NA experts to have sussed out if the paper is indeed akin to a cheap notebook from Woolies. Let's hope Peter Bower managed to see through it even if they failed. I mean how hard can it be, and what does it say about the declining expertise of document analysts if this thing can't be put to bed just like the Hitler Diaries were, because the paper was quickly found to be too modern??

Hi Chris,

I think you may be right. It certainly makes more sense, particularly with the underlining for emphasis on that bit.

Love,

Caz
X

[Stewart P Evans]

only

Just one other quick comment.
In the Ripper letters section of Casebook, the 17 Sept letter is transcribed as follows:
(Transcription)
17th Sept 1888
Dear Boss
So now they say I am a Yid when will they lern Dear old Boss! You an me know the truth dont we. Lusk can look forever hell never find me but I am rite under his nose all the time. I watch them looking for me an it gives me fits ha ha I love my work an I shant stop until I get buckled and even then watch out for your old pal Jacky.
Catch me if you Can
Jack the Ripper
Sorry about the blood still messy from the last one. What a pretty necklace I gave her.

Chris, I didn't realise that he Casebook transciption of the letter had the word as 'even', all the transriptions I have seen, including the earliest, have it as 'only'.

[Chris]

... what does it say about the declining expertise of document analysts if this thing can't be put to bed just like the Hitler Diaries were, because the paper was quickly found to be too modern??

Are you suggesting that expert document analysts have tried, and failed, to "put this thing to bed"?

[mac-the-kipper]

Apart from Stewart and John, who has actually seen the letter first hand?

Monty

Keith Skinner.
Paul Begg.
Peter Bower.
Patricia Cornwell.
Sally Bower.
Me.

The fact that it's still in the file after being subject to paper, ink, and handwriting style analysis tests must tell us something.

The NA are happy with it.

[Chris Scott]

Hi Stewart
Many thanks for the confirmation on the transcription
regards
Chris

[Monty]

Mac,

You? When?

The NA would push for its validity. Who did these tests and can you clarify what kind they were exactly?

Just trying to get a grip on it.

Thanks- Monty

[mac-the-kipper]

Mac,

You? When?

The NA would push for its validity. Who did these tests and can you clarify what kind they were exactly?

Just trying to get a grip on it.

Thanks- Monty

I've seen and handled it many times over the last 20 years.
As for the tests, the NA did their own a while back, they confirmed that it's as it should be, they are happy to leave it where it is, some more were done this summer. The person who paid for the tests wants to publish the findings themself so we will have to wait for those to become made public.

[caz]

Are you suggesting that expert document analysts have tried, and failed, to "put this thing to bed"?

No.

To clarify:

Well that ought to have been a doddle then for the NA experts to have sussed out if the paper is indeed akin to a cheap notebook from Woolies. Let's hope Peter Bower managed to see through it even if they failed. I mean how hard can it be, and what does it say about the declining expertise of document analysts if this thing can't be put to bed just like the Hitler Diaries were, because the paper was quickly found to be too modern??

Are you suggesting there are people still debating the Hitler Diaries because they don't know whether anyone has succeeded in establishing that the paper was too modern?

Are you suggesting that anyone has succeeded in establishing that the paper in this case is from a cheap modern notebook? If so, you could end this thread here and now by enlightening us all.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Chris, I didn't realise that he Casebook transciption of the letter had the word as 'even', all the transriptions I have seen, including the earliest, have it as 'only'.

Hi Chris (S),

Feldman has it as 'even'. Can't believe the Casebook would have used him as their source, but stranger things have happened.

Love,

Caz
X

[Stewart P Evans]

Source

Hi Chris (S),
Feldman has it as 'even'. Can't believe the Casebook would have used him as their source, but stranger things have happened.
Love,
Caz
X

Speaking for myself, I would never use Feldman as a source for anything like a transcription of a document - I would take it from the document itself. I am able to see how someone might mis-transcribe the word as 'even' but, as I stated, the earliest transcriptions had it as 'only'. Quite possibly the Casebook made the same error as Feldman, after all they did have an image of the letter to use for the transcription.

[Stewart P Evans]

Amaze

No.
To clarify:
Well that ought to have been a doddle then for the NA experts to have sussed out if the paper is indeed akin to a cheap notebook from Woolies. Let's hope Peter Bower managed to see through it even if they failed. I mean how hard can it be, and what does it say about the declining expertise of document analysts if this thing can't be put to bed just like the Hitler Diaries were, because the paper was quickly found to be too modern??
Caz
X

It does amaze me that those who have never seen this letter can argue on about it. Or can we now add Caz to the list of those who have seen it 'in the flesh'? The foregoing description of the paper certainly does describe how it looks when seen.

[Monty]

Mac,

Many thanks but what kind of tests exactly? Did they just hold it up to the light and say "Yep, thatll do for us" or were they plentiful and extensive?

All due respect but the NA would be happy with a positive results. It avoids the awkward questions that dared not be asked.

Monty

[mac-the-kipper]

Mac,

Many thanks but what kind of tests exactly? Did they just hold it up to the light and say "Yep, thatll do for us" or were they plentiful and extensive?

All due respect but the NA would be happy with a positive results. It avoids the awkward questions that dared not be asked.

Monty

Monty,

The tests were very extensive but I don't know what the results are/were.
The NA have done their own seperate tests and have concluded that the letter will remain in the file. If they thought it a hoax it would have been removed I imagine.