September 17th Letter

[Natalie Severn]

Nope. Just because the phrases 'Catch me when you can' or 'Yid' were in the press, common usage (or whatever they were by 1888) does not prove that the 17th September letter was written on 17th September 1888.

Could have fooled me

[John Bennett]

Could have fooled me

I'm assuming the 'Yid' business was pre-crash, as I can't find it here.

That notwithstanding, I'm not quite sure what you're saying, Norma. Any clues?

[Natalie Severn]

John,
you may be relieved to know I am going to bed now--- !
yes.........I seem to remember that at one time you were thinking the Sept 17th letter might be an 1888 fake---and now you dont?

Cheers
Norma

[John Bennett]

I think you might be confusing me with somebody else.

Nighty night.

[Chris]

Just because the phrases 'Catch me when you can' or 'Yid' were in the press, common usage (or whatever they were by 1888) does not prove that the 17th September letter was written on 17th September 1888.

Particularly considering that a centenary forger could obviously have copied "Catch me when you can" from the Lusk letter and "Yid" from Macnaghten's widely quoted "I'm not a Butcher ..." rhyme (or - though it's much less likely - from McCormick's fictional dialogue concerning the Nichols murder).

[John Bennett]

Particularly considering that a centenary forger could obviously have copied "Catch me when you can" from the Lusk letter and "Yid" from Macnaghten's widely quoted "I'm not a Butcher ..." rhyme (or - though it's much less likely - from McCormick's fictional dialogue concerning the Nichols murder).

Indeed Chris,

Those and I don't doubt many other sources.

[mac-the-kipper]

John,
you may be relieved to know I am going to bed now--- !
yes.........I seem to remember that at one time you were thinking the Sept 17th letter might be an 1888 fake---and now you dont?

Cheers
Norma

I think it probably

[White-Knight]

Alas ,the opportunity to write letters on woolies note paper has now become academic, along with the use of their range of biros.

And thats a scientifically provable fact..unlike most of this thread, which I am assuming now awaits the re-invigoration of 'further'? test results.

-unlike woolies, which can be re-invigorated no longer and has clearly gone for good!

I liked their tat. sniff.

poor Mac. what a soldier..how many times are people gonna provoke his response ...'they wouldn't have left it in....'?
same with Philip and his photo...!

and have you all read Marlowe and Ben today ?

..blimey it gets hot on these boards ..yet in the end people tend to end up realizing they have been saying pretty much the same things but from a different starting point, all along!? look at Chris and AP on the Cutbush thread...yep, what do you know its all gonna be down to cross checking those Sun stories! which is all Chris suggested and which AP ,Natalie and Robert are obviously all about already anyway! honestly, you lot..

makes you glad to be an ignorant amateur like me! And Mac having the same thing here..yep what do you know that letter IS going to need a proper paper dating test..who ,what, where, wasn't it done already? to what degree..?.oh, whatever.. its obviously a moot point of interpretation and requires a bunch of Cornwellycash (i've invented a new word there!)..let 'em get on with it and stop squabblin'.

AP..you went into spasms at the suggestion that The Sun may have been a little sensational on another thread but you are casting quite a few
clouds over press sources on this thread! Now I'm a fan, but careful now ,this is where you get yourself into trouble isn't it? lol!

AP..you mentioned on this thread 'our boy' having written letters previously ...are you referring to Tom and Grimthorpe etc..or postulating that Tom may have had a hand in a 'ripper letter' or 2 also? Is the child-likeness of some of this epistolary as suggestive as you and Norma seem to hint or are you toying a bit wildly here..just that a serious consideration would obviously throw up a lot more possibilities for the psychology of Tom Tom..its a bit pat for the boy who wouldn't grow up isn't it?.though actually I find it quite credible and fairly chilling...reminds me of the only schizophrenic sufferer I knew...back in the eighties when I lived in some very insalubrious spots..highly childish and playful, by turns also very dark and dangerous when forgetful of his medication...!
x.

with much repsect,
WK.

[Cap'n Jack]

Thanks WK, but I enjoy trouble.
As to your question.
If Tom Tom had written a letter connected to the murders, I feel it would have been written as a complaint, like can't the police do something about the women wandering about Whitechapel when they are suffering their monthly vagaries.
I believe it to be entirely possible that Thomas was Jack the Ripper, and did indeed write some letters connected to those crimes and events, but I do not believe that he would write a letter like the letter we discuss here.
For this is merely one of the common hoax letters written in 1888 at the time of the crimes.

[mac-the-kipper]

Did Woolies sell biro's in 1888?

[White-Knight]

Mac...
George and Laszlo Biro. Hungarian inventors... 1938.
your question in bold; to what end, exactly?
you miss my point(s) do you not? or am I missing yours?
I'm all sympathy for you and that letter.

AP- I thought that would be your answer, just checking. Many thanks. For what it's worth, I'm in agreement with you on all counts. Though to state as if fact, that the letter is another hoax from 1888, after all the hoo-hah on this thread,you do like trouble don't you? ..though I ain't the one to give you any!

thankings muchly,

WK.

[White-Knight]

Further to the last, AP. Am I to assume that such possibles fall into the lost/burned/destroyed category or do you have some contenders for us to consider?

Furthermore..I know the complaint to Grimthorpe is lost and only referred to but is their ANY writing KNOWN to have been written by Tom, on anything, in existence, do you know? I don't recall a mention of such in The Myth.

Perhaps this should be on another thread. Apols if so.

thanks again.

WK.

[Cap'n Jack]

Ah, WK, I've always been drawn to this missive from the 10th October 1888:

'Jack the Ripper
Sir
You had better be carefull how you send those Bloodhounds about the streets, because of the single females wearing stained napkins - women smell very strong when they are unwell.'

Note how the writer seems to be under the impression that 'single females' only might suffer from this delicate complaint. That speaks worlds to me.

Worth a look, as it has some commonality with the 17th September 1888 letter... written in biro in 1998, childish fake blah blah etc.

[White-Knight]

yes, i have read transcript of that one.. funny that commonality aint it AP!? lol! I wonder why a letter like the 17th sept is sooooooo slated. I don't see why its greatest hits quality and its fake date gives some the 'evidence' that its not from 1888!? both keep it well within bounds for a contemporary 1888 hoax, as you , i was going to say suggest...but with you it seems its a given!?

this 'un is speaking to me too though...very odd...very appropriate..but a very long shot, nonetheless...one of so many crank jobs after all...but mmmmmmmmmmm.very interesting

as to the content...yes a complaint about this 'complaint' would seem to be right up Tom's street! I've not seen a copy of the original, though..how is it for itchy, scratchy handwriting..and where can i see it or a faithful repro?

p.s.
I've a gig tonight and off out soon.. I'll be beating me own tom-tom..
steady as you go, Cap'n..check you tomorrow.

WK.

[Cap'n Jack]

Ask Stewart nicely, WK, and he might post the original for you.