September 17th Letter

[mac-the-kipper]

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.

But it is 100% fake as you all know.

Permission for tests was granted in 1989/90. The costs were astronomical and there lay the matter until Keith Skinner contacted me after I first posted on this board about 3 years ago. (Or was it the other forum, I can't remember). Keith had spent some years trying to find my whereabouts.

I'm assuming that because of the interest created by the ripper community the NA were informed that they had a fake document in their files, after all, and no doubt someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but was it Stewart that wrote regarding it's dubiousness that 'As far as I am aware they, (the NA) are looking into it'?

Imagine the scenario at the NA.

'Is it fake'?

'Dunno guv, shall we test it'?

'Err, alright then George, sort it ahht wontchya'?

'Dear Mr expert, is this Victorian paper'?

'Err yes George , it is'

'Is this victorian ink'?

'Yes george it is'

'And what about the handwriting' ?

'You know what George? It's a hat trick me old mucker. It is in a hand schooled in the relevant period'.

'Err ok, stick a folio number on it and we're all happy that it's been in that box since the lid was put on it'.

I can't remember the dudes name because I wasn't taking notes and I'm not about to write some startling new book full of tosh and nonsense as many have before. I had a fleeting notion 20 years ago about writing something but soon gave up when I realised how hard it was. I was at the NA at the invitation of Mr Skinner who is doing his own thing regarding this letter.

The fact that I keep dipping into this conversation now and again is down to the ridiculous and scandalous emails I received a couple of years back accusing me of being 'The faker' and 'A F*****g charlatan', not to mention 'Trying to make a quick buck', 'We don't need w*****s like you faking stuff'. Call me paranoid but it's my name that's attached to this damned thing and I just want to make sure it's not abused.

I've not made a penny out of this and if I were ever to be paid anything I can state here and now quite catagorically that every single penny would be paid to an Ex Forces charity. Either the British Limbless Ex Servicman's Association, (BLESMA) or the Ex Forces Mental Welfare Society. (I'm not holding my breath).

So to make it quite clear, the NA have done their own tests and are happy with the document. Secondary and more in depth tests have been done, results unknown to me.

[Chris]

Imagine the scenario at the NA.

Rather than posting imaginary dialogues, please could you just answer my question?

Are you saying that the senior member of staff of the National Archives told you that tests had been conducted by TNA, and that they had determined that the paper came from the relevant period, and that the ink was "as it should be"?

Or is that just what you imagine , based on the fact that the document is still where it has been for the last 20 years?

[Chris]

Rather than posting imaginary dialogues, please could you just answer my question?

Are you saying that the senior member of staff of the National Archives told you that tests had been conducted by TNA, and that they had determined that the paper came from the relevant period, and that the ink was "as it should be"?

Or is that just what you imagine , based on the fact that the document is still where it has been for the last 20 years?

A short time ago, "mac-the-kipper" posted a response, quoting the first two paragraphs of my last message (above), and adding the one-word comment "Quite".

For some reason that response has now been removed. But, just for the record, it was here briefly.

[Cap'n Jack]

Is it not true to suggest that the 17th September letter is spoken of in the manner of cheap and modern Woolworth's notepads because of the image I attach below?
In that the modern lined paper intentionally reflects the photographer's ambitions and design in regard to this letter; in that I mean to modernise the letter with special effects to attach a degree of doubt and speculation to the original?
Subtle, but it works.
As we see.
One can imagine that a disturbed person who wrote such a letter in the LVP would not have been to bothered about the paper type he was using to express his thoughts, about whatever, and would have written on the first thing that came to hand.
Have we been seduced by paper types when we should be looking for a killer in our immediate midst?
I think so.

[Stewart P Evans]

Wrong

Is it not true to suggest that the 17th September letter is spoken of in the manner of cheap and modern Woolworth's notepads because of the image I attach below?
In that the modern lined paper intentionally reflects the photographer's ambitions and design in regard to this letter; in that I mean to modernise the letter with special effects to attach a degree of doubt and speculation to the original?
Subtle, but it works.
As we see.
One can imagine that a disturbed person who wrote such a letter in the LVP would not have been to bothered about the paper type he was using to express his thoughts, about whatever, and would have written on the first thing that came to hand.
Have we been seduced by paper types when we should be looking for a killer in our immediate midst?
I think so.

Sorry, wrong AP. The description of the letter pre-dates this photograph, in fact it pre-dates these Internet discussions about it. Nice psychology tho'.

[John Bennett]

Is it not true to suggest that the 17th September letter is spoken of in the manner of cheap and modern Woolworth's notepads because of the image I attach below?
In that the modern lined paper intentionally reflects the photographer's ambitions and design in regard to this letter; in that I mean to modernise the letter with special effects to attach a degree of doubt and speculation to the original?
Subtle, but it works.

Oh, here we go.

Sorry, Cap'n, but this to me (as the photographer) is frankly rubbish. Firstly, I thought the notepaper looked cheap before I even got round to photographing it. Secondly, the reason the lined paper is behind the letter is so that I had a photograph which was not cluttered by the other documents behind it (which are larger). Unfortunately, lined paper was all I had to hand.

I stand by the fact that this image is the closest we have here to how it actually appears - posted so others may see it for themselves. My article in Ripper Notes #26 was intended as a neutral evaluation of it, although I found more to be sceptical about than positive. The article was certainly not intended to influence anybody else one way or the other.

I don't have a theory to promote or an axe to grind and my motives here were purely so that others in the community who were curious about this letter (and who would probably never see it) may have a little more information about it.

You have brought up similar assumptions/accusations/insinuations about my motives regarding my photographing of this letter before. My general neutrality in the world of Ripperology means that I rarely, if ever, have anything to get hot under the collar about.

However, if you are again accusing me of wilfully doctoring material to suit an agenda, I may just cop the needle. In fact, I already have.

[Sam Flynn]

the reason the lined paper is behind the letter is so that I had a photograph which was not cluttered by the other documents behind it (which are larger). Unfortunately, lined paper was all I had to hand.

Out of interest, John - if you'd accidentally left the lined paper in the file, do you think anyone would have noticed?

[Cap'n Jack]

Sorry John, but regardless of intent or design on anyone's part, the original image appears modern because of the modern background.
As I said it is a subtle distinction to make, but by heavens in certainly works... in much the same way as if I was to photograph my valuable Penny Black postage stamp with a modern Cornflake packet as the background.
It would cast doubt in the minds of those seeing the image as to its real age and origin.
Previously I had taken umbrage with you over the colour enhancement of the image. I still do.

[John Bennett]

AP,

Your opinions or concerns about the quality of what you are seeing do not bother me, after all we are all entitled to our opinions on the various things we are presented with on these boards and debate is what these kinds of thread are all about. Fair do's.

But the suggestion that I tampered with or presented images in a particular way deliberately, with some agenda in mind, does not sit well with me one bit.

[Cap'n Jack]

John, I don't believe I used either 'tampering' or 'deliberate' in my post?
However, when pictorial evidence is introduced into a court of law it is of interest to note that this evidence shows remarkable differences in presentation between the prosecution and defence.
My summation of your presentation would definitely lead me to the conclusion that you were on the prosecution team, rather than the defence team... and that the lined paper prop was a diminishing factor in the evidence's validity.

[Monty]

AP,

Are you accusing John of having an agenda? For what means?

There is one solution of how it looks and thats to get off ones arse and go see.

Besides, how it looks is a pointless debate, it what it actually is that matters.

Monty

[Dan Norder]

If they thought it a hoax it would have been removed I imagine.

As far as I know, the forged line in the records of Sir John Williams still remains despite the National Library of Wales not only knowing about it but even having commented on the fact that the writing doesn't look like Sir John's. A number of other fraudulent items remain in museums throughout the world. A lot of archives exist in a kind of lethargy where they want to believe documents they have are genuine and/or not bring attention to their own slips in allowing a document to be tampered with.

And of course it certainly doesn't help when well-financed people with agendas of their own pay for tests specifically to try to advance a laughable theory instead of for objective purposes. The fact that the Bowers are two people involved that you are citing, after their earlier ridiculous claims in support of Cornwell's Sickert theory, certainly doesn't engender any trust in the results on this either. At this point if they thought it was a hoax (assuming they got the energy together to think about it at all instead of just going with th wind) they'd have to be wary that any move that would treat the document as a hoax would upset a wealthy individual who not only likely provided a donation for access but wouldn't be averse to suing them (knowing her history) if they did something to directly counter what she wants the world to believe.

Can't wait for Cornwell to announce this officially instead of talking around things so we can move onto the real conflict. Cornwell and the Bowers have zero credibility with anything doing with Jack the Ripper. This time, though, I think the people with real credentials will hopefully be forewarned about the PR campaign circus Cornwell is planning to better counter it more quickly and directly.

[mac-the-kipper]

As far as I know, the forged line in the records of Sir John Williams still remains despite the National Library of Wales not only knowing about it but even having commented on the fact that the writing doesn't look like Sir John's. A number of other fraudulent items remain in museums throughout the world. A lot of archives exist in a kind of lethargy where they want to believe documents they have are genuine and/or not bring attention to their own slips in allowing a document to be tampered with.

And of course it certainly doesn't help when well-financed people with agendas of their own pay for tests specifically to try to advance a laughable theory instead of for objective purposes. The fact that the Bowers are two people involved that you are citing, after their earlier ridiculous claims in support of Cornwell's Sickert theory, certainly doesn't engender any trust in the results on this either. At this point if they thought it was a hoax (assuming they got the energy together to think about it at all instead of just going with th wind) they'd have to be wary that any move that would treat the document as a hoax would upset a wealthy individual who not only likely provided a donation for access but wouldn't be averse to suing them (knowing her history) if they did something to directly counter what she wants the world to believe.

Can't wait for Cornwell to announce this officially instead of talking around things so we can move onto the real conflict. Cornwell and the Bowers have zero credibility with anything doing with Jack the Ripper. This time, though, I think the people with real credentials will hopefully be forewarned about the PR campaign circus Cornwell is planning to better counter it more quickly and directly.

Blah blah blah...................
You're gibberish is officially boring.

[mac-the-kipper]

As far as I know, the forged line in the records of Sir John Williams still remains despite the National Library of Wales not only knowing about it but even having commented on the fact that the writing doesn't look like Sir John's. A number of other fraudulent items remain in museums throughout the world. A lot of archives exist in a kind of lethargy where they want to believe documents they have are genuine and/or not bring attention to their own slips in allowing a document to be tampered with.

And of course it certainly doesn't help when well-financed people with agendas of their own pay for tests specifically to try to advance a laughable theory instead of for objective purposes. The fact that the Bowers are two people involved that you are citing, after their earlier ridiculous claims in support of Cornwell's Sickert theory, certainly doesn't engender any trust in the results on this either. At this point if they thought it was a hoax (assuming they got the energy together to think about it at all instead of just going with th wind) they'd have to be wary that any move that would treat the document as a hoax would upset a wealthy individual who not only likely provided a donation for access but wouldn't be averse to suing them (knowing her history) if they did something to directly counter what she wants the world to believe.

Can't wait for Cornwell to announce this officially instead of talking around things so we can move onto the real conflict. Cornwell and the Bowers have zero credibility with anything doing with Jack the Ripper. This time, though, I think the people with real credentials will hopefully be forewarned about the PR campaign circus Cornwell is planning to better counter it more quickly and directly.

In other words, a few of you are about to get sticky egg all over your faces and are frantically stitching together your backtrack pants in advance.

'Conflict'? WTF! What confict?

[John Bennett]

Well, I for one am not worried about getting an eggy face. I have major doubts about the letter being from 1888, but if somebody goes off, does the tests (whoever it may be) and those tests say YES, it really is that old, then so be it.

Then again, if those tests say it is rather more modern, I'm not prepared to sit there and gloat. Not in my nature.

I just wish we knew more - patience, I guess.