New Tests on Tilly letter prove it genuine

[New Waterloo]

I just get the feeling that scissors being involved is not as unlikely as you think. Having had a quick read of the postmortem and thinking of the cuts to the eye lids of Eddowes i think there may have been scissors used. Any knife used on her torso would need to be pretty strong i would think but probably however sharp not great for snipping eye lids. Something like an experiment with a tomato may be useful. I will try later but it seems to me the knife would pull the skin. If you see what I mean. You know snag. Maybe same with facial injuries maybe another knife/instrument. Is the evidence of the postmortem telling us this. Does it mean a nag or parcel would be required.

NW

[New Waterloo]

Should read bag

[rjpalmer]

I have to correct myself here. I’d made an assumption which I think was wrong. I can’t see anyone at the time referring to the ripper victims as ‘girls.’ I agree with Karsten Giese that, if genuine, the Reverend was referring to The Bell Club incident.

Hi Herlock

but the Bell Club interpretation has its own problems, doesn't it?

The line reads:

"It’s a wonder he hasn't hung for what he did to those poor girls"

Abrahams' involvement in the Bell Club incident was supposedly the seduction of a girl. Singular.

And that's hardly a death penalty case.

Why would 'Dott' be surprised that Kosminski hadn't been executed for mere seduction? Prison maybe, but capital punishment?

No; it seems to me that the writer wants us to believe that 'Dott' knows that Kosminski is a murderer. That he should hang. The use of the term 'girls' is indeed clumsy--but that could only mean that the writer didn't put a lot of thought into it.

I would use 'wooden nickel' instead of 'three-dollar bill.'

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

but the Bell Club interpretation has its own problems, doesn't it?

The line reads:

"It’s a wonder he hasn't hung for what he did to those poor girls"

Abrahams' involvement in the Bell Club incident was supposedly the seduction of a girl. Singular.

And that's hardly a death penalty case.

Why would 'Dott' be surprised that Kosminski hadn't been executed for mere seduction? Prison maybe, but capital punishment?

No; it seems to me that the writer wants us to believe that 'Dott' knows that Kosminski is a murderer. That he should hang. The use of the term 'girls' is indeed clumsy--but that could only mean that the writer didn't put a lot of thought into it.

I would use 'wooden nickel' instead of 'three-dollar bill.'

Hi Roger,

Yeah that’s a good point which hadn’t registered with me. I should have re-read the Bell Club stuff first. I started off being suspicious of the letter and I can only say that things haven’t improved. You’ve just pushed me further in that direction.

[caz]

On reading the original handwritten letter recently, and learning that Dott was educated at Oxford, I found it impossible to believe he could have written 'recieved' [sic] - let alone on the very first line. Was the rule: i before e except after c not drilled into every student at primary school age in those days, as it was when I was growing up in the 1960s?

This mistake alone screamed caveat emptor to me the moment I saw it, so was it an exercise in how far its author could go and still get someone to buy it - and then to see if others would buy into it?

Frankly I'm amazed it was considered worth a second look, and this from a silly old woman who doesn't buy the Maybrick diary as a Barrett creation, any more than a Maybrick one.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

Sorry Caz, but I am going to disagree. Knowing the rule and always remembering it are two different things. It could have just been an "oops" moment. Everyone has them. Look how many times people right "your" when when it should be "you're."

c.d.

[The Rookie Detective]

On reading the original handwritten letter recently, and learning that Dott was educated at Oxford, I found it impossible to believe he could have written 'recieved' [sic] - let alone on the very first line. Was the rule: i before e except after c not drilled into every student at primary school age in those days, as it was when I was growing up in the 1960s?

This mistake alone screamed caveat emptor to me the moment I saw it, so was it an exercise in how far its author could go and still get someone to buy it - and then to see if others would buy into it?

Frankly I'm amazed it was considered worth a second look, and this from a silly old woman who doesn't buy the Maybrick diary as a Barrett creation, any more than a Maybrick one.

Love,

Caz
X

The writer also used the term "hung" instead of the correct term; "hanged."

I believe the letter is a complete hoax and not worth the paper it's written on.

[rjpalmer]

On reading the original handwritten letter recently, and learning that Dott was educated at Oxford, I found it impossible to believe he could have written 'recieved' [sic] - let alone on the very first line.

There seems to be considerable confusion here.

Personally, I have my own reasons for thinking the letter is an audacious fake, but you don't seem to fully grasp that no one claimed that the letter was written by the Oxford educated Rev. W.P. Dott other than the letter's eventual owner, Tim Atkinson.

The seller did not claim that 'Dott' was the Rev. William Patrick Dott. There is no indication he even knew who W.P. Dott was. There was nothing in the handwriting, the context of the letter, or the provenance to suggest it, either. The letter does not refer to Oxford, for instance, nor to anyone in the Reverend Dott's circle of friends or family.

The letter was allegedly found in a book in Australia and there was nothing at all to identify who 'Dott' was supposed to be or what their education level was, or even what their gender was.

The name W.P. Dott was literally pulled out of a hat by Mr. Atkinson, so unfortunately the good Rev. W. P. Dott being Oxford educated is neither here, nor there.

No, the letter was not worth a second look (in my opinion) but I also knew from bitter observation that even bad Ripper hoaxes tend to have longevity, so I thought it would be advisable to contact the seller and ask for clarification on a few points and get them down on record.

What I heard did not calm my initial suspicions.

I would think that the lack of provenance, the timing, the over-egged language, and the seller's behavior would be much bigger red flags than a commonplace spelling error in a letter whose author has not been identified and who might not have even existed.

[caz]

Sorry Caz, but I am going to disagree. Knowing the rule and always remembering it are two different things. It could have just been an "oops" moment. Everyone has them. Look how many times people right "your" when when it should be "you're."

c.d.

Ah, but how many of us were Oxbridge educated? I left Grammar School at seventeen, a few months after my O levels, so I have some excuse for my own lapses, but would it not have come as second nature to someone in Dott's position to spell 'received' correctly in a brief handwritten letter? I'd be disappointed [one s and a double p] to be proved wrong, but if Dott is known to have spelled it 'recieved' in any of his authenticated writing, that would do it!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

There seems to be considerable confusion here.

Personally, I have my own reasons for thinking the letter is an audacious fake, but you don't seem to fully grasp that no one claimed that the letter was written by the Oxford educated Rev. W.P. Dott other than the letter's eventual owner, Tim Atkinson.

The seller did not claim that 'Dott' was the Rev. William Patrick Dott. There is no indication he even knew who W.P. Dott was. There was nothing in the handwriting, the context of the letter, or the provenance to suggest it, either. The letter does not refer to Oxford, for instance, nor to anyone in the Reverend Dott's circle of friends or family.

The letter was allegedly found in a book in Australia and there was nothing at all to identify who 'Dott' was supposed to be or what their education level was, or even what their gender was.

The name W.P. Dott was literally pulled out of a hat by Mr. Atkinson, so unfortunately the good Rev. W. P. Dott being Oxford educated is neither here, nor there.

No, the letter was not worth a second look (in my opinion) but I also knew from bitter observation that even bad Ripper hoaxes tend to have longevity, so I thought it would be advisable to contact the seller and ask for clarification on a few points and get them down on record.

What I heard did not calm my initial suspicions.

I would think that the lack of provenance, the timing, the over-egged language, and the seller's behavior would be much bigger red flags than a commonplace spelling error in a letter whose author has not been identified and who might not have even existed.

Fair enough, but at the very least the original author appeared to want 'Dott' to be received [as opposed to 'recieved'] as someone who could write a half decent letter back in 1889. It's not a surname I ever recall coming across before, so it's hard to know who - or what - the author had in mind by using it. They presumably didn't do a 'Mrs Hammersmith' and invent the name Dott without even trying to establish how many examples - if any - were alive and well at the right time and could fit the bill.

I doubt that the buyer 'literally' pulled this particular Dott out of a hat. That one made me smile. But seriously, how many potential Dotts did he track down, before singling out the only one who would almost certainly have kicked himself for writing 'recieved' and 'hung' - and might even have topped himself had he misused 'literally' to pull off a bloomer hat trick?

I thought I'd heard more than enough, but now I find myself intrigued by the person who penned the letter in the first place, giving birth to the speculative Rev. Dott.

[rjpalmer]

I doubt that the buyer 'literally' pulled this particular Dott out of a hat. That one made me smile. But seriously, how many potential Dotts did he track down, before singling out the only one who would almost certainly have kicked himself for writing 'recieved' and 'hung' - and might even have topped himself had he misused 'literally' to pull off a bloomer hat trick?

I'd say he very much did pull the name out of a hat...or out of a Google search.

Why do you assume Dott is a surname?

The letter refers to 'Tilly' and 'Jenny' (not a particularly common name in 19th Century UK) and 'Mary' and 'Walter' and 'Michael.'

It then signs off 'Dott.'

The letter came out of Australia, and at the time of the sale an Australian commentator pointed out that 'Dott' (with two t's) is a common nickname for Dorothy. A look through various Australian obituaries of women named Dorothy confirms this.

I think it is far more likely from the context and flow of the letter that 'Dott' is meant to be someone named Dorothy. It seems a little out of place to refer to all sorts of mutual acquaintances or friends by their Christian names and then sign off 'Dott' as a last name. It's too impersonal.

[rjpalmer]

I'd say he very much did pull the name out of a hat...or out of a Google search.

This came across harsh, but I don't mean it in a rude way. The letter obviously refers to religious folks and I can see that finding a Reverend Dott in the UK might have stirred someone's interest.

But W. P. Dott was a young student at Oxford in July 1889 and I see it as nothing but a happy coincidence.

[caz]

I'd say he very much did pull the name out of a hat...or out of a Google search.

I was more amused by the misuse of the word 'literally'. I'm fairly confident that no real hats were involved, whether or not the name was real.

Why do you assume Dott is a surname?

The letter refers to 'Tilly' and 'Jenny' (not a particularly common name in 19th Century UK) and 'Mary' and 'Walter' and 'Michael.'

It then signs off 'Dott.'

The letter came out of Australia, and at the time of the sale an Australian commentator pointed out that 'Dott' (with two t's) is a common nickname for Dorothy. A look through various Australian obituaries of women named Dorothy confirms this.

I think it is far more likely from the context and flow of the letter that 'Dott' is meant to be someone named Dorothy. It seems a little out of place to refer to all sorts of mutual acquaintances or friends by their Christian names and then sign off 'Dott' as a last name. It's too impersonal.

Every day is a school day. I did assume Dott was a surname for the simple reason that I had no idea it was short for Dorothy down under. The variations I found include everything but:

'Dotty, Dottie and Dot are all sweet nicknames for Dorothy that became popular in the 1890s and experienced a revival in the 1930s and 40s. If you're looking for an adorable vintage-sounding name for your little one, Dotty could be the perfect choice.'

'People also ask
What name is short for Dorothy?
The name was at one time viewed as the English equivalent of the etymologically unrelated Russian name Daria or its diminutive Dasha. Traditional English diminutives include, among others, Do, Dodi, Dodie, Doe, Doll, Dolley, Dollie, Dolly, Dora, Dori, Dorie, Doro, Dory, Dot, Dottie, Dotty, Tea, Thea, and Tia.'

Not a Dott in sight, but yes, the Australian angle makes sense of it now. If only I hadn't fallen into the trap of opening my own trap before familiarising myself with all the available facts. I am always tut-tutting at others for doing this, so I should have known better. I will have stiff words with myself.

Mea culpa - as the Rev. Dott might have said if he had caught himself making any of the schoolboy blunders in that letter. So I can't agree that finding him and attributing it to him was a 'happy' coincidence, either for him or the buyer of the letter.