September 17th Letter

[Stewart P Evans]

Amazing

One of the most amazing things about this '17th Sept. 1888' letter is the fact that it has been 'hanging around' since 1988, that is 20 years, and still its status has not been resolved. The blame for this must surely lie with officialdom. It has become a saga and will soon be worth a book all of its own.

[Stewart P Evans]

Afternoon Stewart,
You know as well as I do that Melvin was more than capable of giving as good as he got and launching his own virulent attacks on anyone who dared to challenge his evidence, or the sources for his various claims. If someone kept insisting that the diary paper was sky blue pink and obviously written with purple magic marker, would you think I was arguing ‘in support’ of the diary if I kept asking why I should believe them, given that all the visual examinations by various professionals (not to mention chemical analyses) had indicated otherwise, long before I saw it for the first time?
That’s an extreme example, but it’s the same principle. You’d be very cross with me, and rightly so, if I accused you of endlessly arguing ‘in support’ of Tumblety being the ripper, because you challenge unsupported claims, question dubious reasoning and correct misinformation. I don’t think there’s a cat in hell’s chance that Tumblety was the ripper, just like you don’t think there’s a cat in hell’s chance that the diary was created before 1987. But I don’t see it as arguing for either, just because we tend to step in whenever we believe a challenge is warranted.
Caz

I am not going to be drawn into one of your puerile 'diary' debates, suffice to say that you do not know as much as you think you do. I do not argue endlessly that Tumblety was the Ripper - mainly because I don't know that he was. There is no evidence for who the Ripper was. But I know an obvious fake when I see one.

[Stewart P Evans]

Description

Afternoon Stewart,
I didn’t appreciate that if anything like a cheap modern notebook from Woolies was indeed used for this letter, the paper could stand a reasonable chance of revealing no inconsistencies (eg in size, colour, chemical composition or manufacturing process) with its Victorian equivalent, when undergoing professional analysis. At the very least, one would expect our modern hoaxer to have assessed those chances when choosing notepaper that is both cheap and modern and looks it, especially in the wake of the Hitler Diaries coming crashing down over the use of a modern bleaching agent.
Caz

What is your disagreement with me here? The description given in my post is a pretty good summing up of the appearance of this letter. Indeed, I would add that the paper, and ink for that matter, does not resemble any to be found in MEPO 3/142, nor any of the many Victorian letters in my own collection.

The Hitler diaries are a poor basis for comparison here as they are 62 handwritten volumes. Chemical analysis showed that the binding contained polyester threads not produced until after WWII, the glue contained post-war chemicals and the paper and ink were of post-war manufacture. The arguments of what 'our modern hoaxer' would or would not have assessed and used are totally baseless. The fact is that the paper used in this letter is cheap and modern looking - re-read the initial description that I gave.

[Chris]

The tests that the NA run were to determine whether it is indeed paper from the relevant period and also if the ink is as it should be.

These are the tests you say you were told about by a senior member of staff at the National Archives, whose name you can't remember? The ones that you say were done some time ago? (Not the ones that have recently been paid for by someone who doesn't wish the results to be released because she is saving them for a future publication of her own?)

And are you saying that this person told you that these tests did determine that the paper came from the relevant period, and that the ink was "as it should be"?

Because if that were the case it would obviously be highly relevant to these discussions, and there would clearly be no reason why the results of these tests would need to be kept secret.

[caz]

Afternoon Stewart,

I didn’t appreciate that if anything like a cheap modern notebook from Woolies was indeed used for this letter, the paper could stand a reasonable chance of revealing no inconsistencies (eg in size, colour, chemical composition or manufacturing process) with its Victorian equivalent, when undergoing professional analysis. At the very least, one would expect our modern hoaxer to have assessed those chances when choosing notepaper that is both cheap and modern and looks it, especially in the wake of the Hitler Diaries coming crashing down over the use of a modern bleaching agent.

Opinion is fine but, surely, to have seen and felt this letter would allow one to carry more authority when commenting upon its appearance.

I couldn’t agree more - which is why I am not commenting on its appearance myself.

I should have thought it was obvious why the diary has a place in any discussion about handwritten documents of undetermined origin.

You know as well as I do that Melvin was more than capable of giving as good as he got and launching his own virulent attacks on anyone who dared to challenge his evidence, or the sources for his various claims. If someone kept insisting that the diary paper was sky blue pink and obviously written with purple magic marker, would you think I was arguing ‘in support’ of the diary if I kept asking why I should believe them, given that all the visual examinations by various professionals (not to mention chemical analyses) had indicated otherwise, long before I saw it for the first time?

That’s an extreme example, but it’s the same principle. You’d be very cross with me, and rightly so, if I accused you of endlessly arguing ‘in support’ of Tumblety being the ripper, because you challenge unsupported claims, question dubious reasoning and correct misinformation. I don’t think there’s a cat in hell’s chance that Tumblety was the ripper, just like you don’t think there’s a cat in hell’s chance that the diary was created before 1987. But I don’t see it as arguing for either, just because we tend to step in whenever we believe a challenge is warranted.

Good weekend all.

Love,

Caz
X

[Monty]

Mac,

The NA have never stated that tests hadn't been done, I've no idea where this suggestion came from.

As I said before, my understanding based on the previous discussion was that the National Archives did not have the resources to carry out its own tests on the letter.

Apologies, a misunderstanding on my part. I assume that tests have been conducted but not by the NA themselves, yes?

Has or rather would (whichever the case may be) these tests be verified by another independent party?

Whilst I can understand Stewarts lack of prescence at the discovery and subsequent interview, not that he could help that, I am confused as to why you would be present at the testing stage and not Stewart also. Given his knowledge of the subject, letters and Police experienced eye.

Cheers

Monty

[mac-the-kipper]

If youre confused then what hope I?

Somebody somewhere is clouding the issue, either it has been tested, as Mac states or it hasnt, as the NA states.

Which is it?

The NA have never stated that tests hadn't been done, I've no idea where this suggestion came from.

[mac-the-kipper]

Im confused.

Mac tells me tests have been run and assume the NA are happy to keep the letter on file because of the results, indicating that it has passed the requirements for validation.

Stewart posts that credible validation tests have not been run on the ink or paper, is that correct or am I having a senior moment?

Doddering Monty

Monty,

You aren't having a senior moment.

Stewart wasn't present when the tests were done, I was.
Stewart wasn't present when I was interviewed by the senior manager about it's discovery. (I obviously was)

The reason I say 'wait and see' is because the person who paid for the independant tests wants to publish the results themselves. And quite rightly so.

The tests that the NA run were to determine whether it is indeed paper from the relevant period and also if the ink is as it should be.


I say again and for the last time. If it was a sheet of paper from woolies and written in gel ballpoint do we seriously expect the NA to still include it in the file?



Of course it still could be a fake and almost certainly not written by the killer.

[Monty]

Blimey Chris,

If youre confused then what hope I?

Somebody somewhere is clouding the issue, either it has been tested, as Mac states or it hasnt, as the NA states.

Which is it?

[Chris]

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

No.

Thank you for clarifying that.

[Chris]

Im confused.

Mac tells me tests have been run and assume the NA are happy to keep the letter on file because of the results, indicating that it has passed the requirements for validation.

You're not the only one who's confused. When I asked him about this before, he said I should "wait til the results are published".

Why he should say that if the letter has been validated by tests that the National Archives did "a while back" is beyond me. As I said before, my understanding based on the previous discussion was that the National Archives did not have the resources to carry out its own tests on the letter.

[Monty]

Forgive my stupidity but...

Im confused.

Mac tells me tests have been run and assume the NA are happy to keep the letter on file because of the results, indicating that it has passed the requirements for validation.

Stewart posts that credible validation tests have not been run on the ink or paper, is that correct or am I having a senior moment?

Doddering Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

Melvin Harris

It amazes me sometimes that Melvin Harris was able to argue for England about the Maybrick diary, having only seen two pages of it under glass and never bothering to request a closer look. Others still argue on about it without ever having seen it 'in the flesh'.Caz
X

Yet again you raise the spectre of your 'diary' foe. I don't really know what this remark is supposed to mean - 'Melvin Harris was able to argue for England about the Maybrick diary, having only seen two pages of it under glass and never bothering to to request a closer look.' He certainly didn't do so without receiving virulent attacks from the 'diary' camp on a regular basis. Likewise you have 'been able' to endlessy 'argue for England' in support of the 'diary', even before you ever saw it.

[Stewart P Evans]

Slap - stick

Hi Stewart,
No I haven't seen it in the flesh. I didn't think it was compulsory before expressing mild surprise that anyone is still arguing about it, if it could have been examined by a reputable paper expert (which clearly I am not) long ago and established as modern. I wondered what was holding up the process, that's all. I wasn't doubting that it looks like a notebook from Woolies to those who have seen it. In fact I don't recall ever commenting on its physical appearance.
It amazes me sometimes that Melvin Harris was able to argue for England about the Maybrick diary, having only seen two pages of it under glass and never bothering to request a closer look. Others still argue on about it without ever having seen it 'in the flesh'. Curious then that you have singled me out for a ticking-off on a similar score, being such a fair and even-handed chap normally.
Is it cos I is easy to slap around a bit?
Love,
Caz
X

Caz, as you and I are well aware the only thing that can be proved with this letter is that it is a modern production (i.e. not Victorian) if the paper or ink can be tested and shown to contain a post-Victorian ingredient. Such testing, I am led to believe, is very expensive and not something that TNA would want to spend good money on.

It cannot be proved to date from September 1888 because if old paper and a basic ink with no modern ingredients were used it would be impossible to date (where have we heard such argument before?). It is generally believed that Patricia Cornwell is funding some testing but will reserve the right, naturally, to reveal the results when she wishes to. For their part TNA can't really do anything else other than keep it on file and if its modernity cannot be proven then there it will remain.

I haven't singled you out for 'a ticking-off' as you call it, my remark was merely instigated by the fact that you had cited my post for what seemed, to me anyway, a rather cryptic response. I thought that my comments, in view of that, were rather apposite. Opinion is fine but, surely, to have seen and felt this letter would allow one to carry more authority when commenting upon its appearance.

As for the naff 'diary', it is rather strange how you manage to wangle that into the debate at every opportunity. And no, I don't think that you 'is easy to slap around a bit' - in fact quite the opposite.

[caz]

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.

Hi Stewart,

No I haven't seen it in the flesh. I didn't think it was compulsory before expressing mild surprise that anyone is still arguing about it, if it could have been examined by a reputable paper expert (which clearly I am not) long ago and established as modern. I wondered what was holding up the process, that's all. I wasn't doubting that it looks like a notebook from Woolies to those who have seen it. In fact I don't recall ever commenting on its physical appearance.

It amazes me sometimes that Melvin Harris was able to argue for England about the Maybrick diary, having only seen two pages of it under glass and never bothering to request a closer look. Others still argue on about it without ever having seen it 'in the flesh'. Curious then that you have singled me out for a ticking-off on a similar score, being such a fair and even-handed chap normally.

Is it cos I is easy to slap around a bit?

Love,

Caz
X