September 17th Letter

[Cap'n Jack]

That's your rub, Sam, nobody is claiming that it is genuine, but everyone is claiming that it is a fake.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi AP,

That's your rub, Sam, nobody is claiming that it is genuine, but everyone is claiming that it is a fake.

Whilst I strongly believe that several indicators point to its being a fake, neither I nor any of us can say that it is one, anymore than one could say that it is genuine.

[mac-the-kipper]

Being purely objective, Mac, there's nothing that proves it's a genuine survivor from 1888 either.

Thank you young fellah me laddo.
And it's exactly that angle of opinion that makes this letter a 'questionable' document.
So far, it's only been proven that it isn't modern.

[Dan Norder]

There is not one jot of evidence that proves this letter to be a fake. Nothing, zilch, zip, diddley.

As I said in my post, the overwhelming weight of the evidence indicates that it's a fake. You can ignore that all you want, but that doesn't make you right.

Show me proof that this is a fake.

Show me the proof that the sun will still exist tomorrow, that oxygen isn't made up fairy dust, or that a swarm of killer sheep won't suddenly invade Lithuania and declare it the homeland for distressed livestock the world over. All sane people can and do make decisions based upon the weight of accumulated evidence.

You, on the other hand, don't have evidence to support your side, there's plenty to indicate you are wrong, so you want to toss out all the evidence and declare yourself right unless you can be proven wrong to your own satisfaction, which is not how the real world works.

I ask again, have YOU personally examined this letter?

No, but then what difference does that make? I haven't personally examined the Hitler Diaries either, but those are fakes. I've never seen an electron, but the evidence shows they exist. Have you ever eaten arsenic laced with weapons grade plutonium? I'm pretty sure you'd die if you did, but if you insist that someone has to experience on object firsthand instead of just reading books and other sources before coming to a conclusion about it, by all means knock yourself out.

[Cap'n Jack]

Well Dan, I reckon Mac has a few good friends, like the National Archives to mention just one. And I'm proud to say that I was able to place Mac's letter in a better historical context by simply being open-minded about it, doing a bit of honest research, like pushing back the date of the first meeting of the WVC back to the 10th September 1888; and then finding him a jolly splendid press reference referring to the wounds around Chapman's neck as a 'necklace' that predated the 17th September letter by at least a week; and then finding quotations from Lusk where he admitted to having had letters in the past but had 'discarded' them.
That's not a bad little haul for an old and sodden drunk who runs rings round you sober boys when it comes to finding and identifying the devil.
Now what were you saying about sour grapes on that podcast?

[nicole]

Hi all,

Jenni & Cap'n Jack.

JENNI: What happened re Cornwell's tests?
JACK: She was declared insane, but rich.

Guys, this really made me chuckle. Cheers!

Nicole

[Sam Flynn]

And it's exactly that angle of opinion that makes this letter a 'questionable' document.

It's not an angle of opinion - that it has not been proven to be contemporary with the Ripper murders is a simple matter of fact.

[mac-the-kipper]

As I said in my post, the overwhelming weight of the evidence indicates that it's a fake. You can ignore that all you want, but that doesn't make you right.



Show me the proof that the sun will still exist tomorrow, that oxygen isn't made up fairy dust, or that a swarm of killer sheep won't suddenly invade Lithuania and declare it the homeland for distressed livestock the world over. All sane people can and do make decisions based upon the weight of accumulated evidence.

You, on the other hand, don't have evidence to support your side, there's plenty to indicate you are wrong, so you want to toss out all the evidence and declare yourself right unless you can be proven wrong to your own satisfaction, which is not how the real world works.



No, but then what difference does that make? I haven't personally examined the Hitler Diaries either, but those are fakes. I've never seen an electron, but the evidence shows they exist. Have you ever eaten arsenic laced with weapons grade plutonium? I'm pretty sure you'd die if you did, but if you insist that someone has to experience on object firsthand instead of just reading books and other sources before coming to a conclusion about it, by all means knock yourself out.

What evidence? No one has produced a single shred of evidence that proves this letter a fake. Please show me where I can find this 'overwhelming' evidence.
The fact that we have no evidence either way makes this a questioned document.

[Cap'n Jack]

Looking again at the 17th September letter I do find that it has a remarkable similarity to the Openshaw letter, in its layout and format.
Try laying one over the other and then see what you get?
Quite remarkable I say.
I reckon the same hand created the layout and format, for you have the same major body of text descending to the signature, placed in the same area, and then the 'PS'.
When was the Openshaw letter first published, or available to researchers?
2001 was it?

[Natalie Severn]

I agree.The pattern of the Openshaw letter is very similar and in my view, it is the "punch line" coming as a "post-script" rather than in the main body of the letter,again with this rather jokingly lurid imagery , that is most redolent of the Sept 17th letter.
Well spotted AP.

[Cap'n Jack]

Thanks Natalie,
you'll also note that in the 17th September letter the writer begins:
'Dear old Boss...'
And in the Openshaw letter he uses the term:
'old Boss'.

Now there is no way that the discoverer of the 17th September letter in 1988could have known about the 'old Boss' in the Openshaw letter from 1888.
Look at the elongated 'PP's' in both signatures.
No accident, and no possibility of copy.

[Stewart P Evans]

Really?

Thanks Natalie,
you'll also note that in the 17th September letter the writer begins:
'Dear old Boss...'
And in the Openshaw letter he uses the term:
'old Boss'.
Now there is no way that the discoverer of the 17th September letter in 1988could have known about the 'old Boss' in the Openshaw letter from 1888.
Look at the elongated 'PP's' in both signatures.
No accident, and no possibility of copy.

From The London Hospital Gazette, April 1966 -

[Chris]

Now there is no way that the discoverer of the 17th September letter in 1988could have known about the 'old Boss' in the Openshaw letter from 1888.
Look at the elongated 'PP's' in both signatures.
No accident, and no possibility of copy.

The text of the Openshaw letter was published long before 1988. For example, it appears in the second edition of McCormick's "The Identity of Jack the Ripper" (1970).

Apparently Derek Davis published a comparison of the handwriting of the Dear Boss letter and the Openshaw letter in The Criminologist in 1974 [Wilson and Odell, p. 143]. I assume that article would have included illustrations. Maybe someone can confirm that.

[Stewart P Evans]

Same Letter

Of course, a photograph of the same letter, and its envelope, appeared in Don Rumbelow's best selling The Complete Jack the Ripper in 1975.

[Cap'n Jack]

Thanks Stewart, for bringing me down to earth.
But I hope you'll admit that this letter deserves a little more than you have previously given it, and I don't mean that in the manner of authenticity but rather good and honest discussion.
My impression - and I think it one backed by good science - is that the paper and ink are from the time period we discuss.
And while I'm on my pony, you do think that a modern forger would have picked up the spelling of 'rite' in the Openshaw letter and then copied it into the 17th September letter?
Am I right to assume that is your studied opinion?