'What a pretty necklace'.

[Rob Clack]

Thanks. At any rate, it seems she still believed as late as 2013 that this letter was written by the "Rippler":
https://au.news.yahoo.com/sunday-nig...ueen-of-crime/

Her latest update of her book is long overdue. Don't even know if it even has a release date now.

But if tests were 'supposedly ' done in 2009 then someone must know the results n

[R. J. Palmer]

It's interesting that after all the build-up and arguing on this thread back in 2009-2016, no one ever came back and actually discussed Patricia Cornwell's findings (ie., Peter Bower's findings) after her book was published in 2017.

It ended with a silent whimper rather than with a bang.

For the record, the 17 September letter was discussed on pages 286-289 of her book Ripper: The Secret Life of Walter Sickert (2017).

Here are the main points. I won't print it all out for copyright reasons, but I think I'm legally allowed to quote sections of it as long as they are part of a critical assessment of the work. The entire book is fully 569 pages in length.

“I brought a forensic light source expert to London and recruited the assistance of Peter Bower. While Paul Begg, Keith Skinner, Peter McClelland and others observed, we examined the September 17 letter…”

[She later makes a point that if McClelland had been the hoaxer, she wouldn’t have expected him to have risked instant exposure in front of witnesses if the examination proved damning]

”While we couldn’t prove Jack the Ripper wrote what would be the earliest known document introducing his name, we did discover a number of findings that if nothing else are grist for continued conversation and speculation.”

“The paper the letter is written on is of the period, Bower determined, and the language and erratic handwriting appear to be deliberately disguised.”

“But what turned out to be the most intriguing discovery is a stain on the paper. What the Ripper claims is blood faintly fluoresced under a forensic light, and blood doesn’t fluoresce white or whitish. But seminal fluid does. I described this in my journal at the time: “Sept. 17 fluor like semen.”

[Shades of Russell Edwards and the shawl--I say no more].

“It can’t be shown irrefutably that the letter is authentic. However, I can state with confidence that if it’s not, then someone quite clever and well-informed went to a lot of trouble. This person would have to find paper of the period and imitate the style and language of a Ripper communication in a manner that fit the timeline of the crimes. Finally this hoaxer would then have to fake a bloodstain using a body fluid or some other substance unusual enough to fluoresce under a forensic light source.”


[I found the next statement particularly bewildering—RP]:

“Another detail that adds credence to the authenticity of the letter is that the Ripper’s name was known by the public in September, certainly by the end of the month. This supports the likelihood that there were early communications that introduced the Ripper by name.”

What?

Anyway, to me at least, it is all rather anti-climactic:

No discussion of the ink--which is particularly odd considering the early accusations of a ballpoint pen.

No discussion of how it was determined the paper was ‘of the period.’

Wouldn’t that mean it wasn’t inconsistent with 19th Century paper? She seems to be saying that the paper was definitively dated to the 19th Century. (Not that it would be hard to find a single sheet of old paper, but I'd be interested in hearing how that was determined).

Nor does she mention whether Peter Bower made a formal report.

In conclusion, I can't fault her for bringing in Mr. Bower to examine the letter to try to learn something. I'm just not sure we have learned anything.

[Chris Phillips]

It's interesting that after all the build-up and arguing on this thread back in 2009-2016, no one ever came back and actually discussed Patricia Cornwell's findings (ie., Peter Bower's findings) after her book was published in 2017.

It ended with a silent whimper rather than with a bang.

For the record, the 17 September letter was discussed on pages 286-289 of her book Ripper: The Secret Life of Walter Sickert (2017).

Here are the main points. I won't print it all out for copyright reasons, but I think I'm legally allowed to quote sections of it as long as they are part of a critical assessment of the work. The entire book is fully 569 pages in length.

“I brought a forensic light source expert to London and recruited the assistance of Peter Bower. While Paul Begg, Keith Skinner, Peter McClelland and others observed, we examined the September 17 letter…”

[She later makes a point that if McClelland had been the hoaxer, she wouldn’t have expected him to have risked instant exposure in front of witnesses if the examination proved damning]

”While we couldn’t prove Jack the Ripper wrote what would be the earliest known document introducing his name, we did discover a number of findings that if nothing else are grist for continued conversation and speculation.”

“The paper the letter is written on is of the period, Bower determined, and the language and erratic handwriting appear to be deliberately disguised.”

“But what turned out to be the most intriguing discovery is a stain on the paper. What the Ripper claims is blood faintly fluoresced under a forensic light, and blood doesn’t fluoresce white or whitish. But seminal fluid does. I described this in my journal at the time: “Sept. 17 fluor like semen.”

[Shades of Russell Edwards and the shawl--I say no more].

“It can’t be shown irrefutably that the letter is authentic. However, I can state with confidence that if it’s not, then someone quite clever and well-informed went to a lot of trouble. This person would have to find paper of the period and imitate the style and language of a Ripper communication in a manner that fit the timeline of the crimes. Finally this hoaxer would then have to fake a bloodstain using a body fluid or some other substance unusual enough to fluoresce under a forensic light source.”


[I found the next statement particularly bewildering—RP]:

“Another detail that adds credence to the authenticity of the letter is that the Ripper’s name was known by the public in September, certainly by the end of the month. This supports the likelihood that there were early communications that introduced the Ripper by name.”

What?

Anyway, to me at least, it is all rather anti-climactic:

No discussion of the ink--which is particularly odd considering the early accusations of a ballpoint pen.

No discussion of how it was determined the paper was ‘of the period.’

Wouldn’t that mean it wasn’t inconsistent with 19th Century paper? She seems to be saying that the paper was definitively dated to the 19th Century. (Not that it would be hard to find a single sheet of old paper, but I'd be interested in hearing how that was determined).

Nor does she mention whether Peter Bower made a formal report.

In conclusion, I can't fault her for bringing in Mr. Bower to examine the letter to try to learn something. I'm just not sure we have learned anything.

Thanks for posting these details. "Shades of Russell Edwards [or rather Jari Louhelainen]" was exactly what I thought!

Regarding Peter McClelland, it's fair to say that if Bower had been able to determine somehow that the letter was a fake by looking at the fluorescence, it really wouldn't have amounted to his exposure, in that it would still have been possible that he had found a fake planted by someone else.

[R. J. Palmer]

Regarding Peter McClelland, it's fair to say that if Bower had been able to determine somehow that the letter was a fake by looking at the fluorescence, it really wouldn't have amounted to his exposure, in that it would still have been possible that he had found a fake planted by someone else.

I think this is why a hoax would be so difficult to prosecute, even if a crime had been committed, which is not always the case. I don't aim this comment at McClelland, but if a hoaxer were to act as bewildered and shocked as everyone else that the thing turned out to be a fake, it would be difficult to prove that his denials weren't made in good faith.

He could have been the victim of a prankster. And since it is a case where no one had been assaulted, raped, robbed, or murdered, the instinct of the police or the Crown Prosecution Service might be to quietly drop the matter. If the CPS didn't prosecute Martin Allen for those 29 bogus documents found in the Archives, are they likely to prosecute anyone?

There is a fascinating article on the Martin Allen case in Financial Times.

Lies and secrets | Financial Times (ft.com)

A couple of points.

The woman given credit for proving the 29 documents were fakes was Dr. Audrey Giles, formerly of Scotland Yard--the same document examiner whose name should be familiar to 'Ripperologists' in reference to a certain document out of Liverpool.

When confronted, Allen gave the most extraordinary theory about the fake documents. "Some time after he saw the documents," he suggested, "they had been removed and replaced with exact replicas, clumsily forged to cast doubt on his discoveries."

They are hoaxes of older, genuine documents!

The real 29 documents had been replaced with obvious hoaxes (evidently by MI6 or the Home Office) in order to discredit his discoveries!

I think I remember someone suggesting this about that certain diary from Liverpool. What better way to exonerate a guilty man than to plant an obvious fake confession under his floorboards to discredit the suspicions against him.

[R. J. Palmer]

Oh, and who's going to tell the journalist for the Financial Times?

"With the exception of a single forged document found in the US National Archives in Washington in 1985, and apparently aimed at proving the existence of UFOs, nothing like this had happened before."

[Chris Phillips]

I think this is why a hoax would be so difficult to prosecute, even if a crime had been committed, which is not always the case. I don't aim this comment at McClelland, but if a hoaxer were to act as bewildered and shocked as everyone else that the thing turned out to be a fake, it would be difficult to prove that his denials weren't made in good faith.

He could have been the victim of a prankster. And since it is a case where no one had been assaulted, raped, robbed, or murdered, the instinct of the police or the Crown Prosecution Service might be to quietly drop the matter. If the CPS didn't prosecute Martin Allen for those 29 bogus documents found in the Archives, are they likely to prosecute anyone?

There is a fascinating article on the Martin Allen case in Financial Times.

Lies and secrets | Financial Times (ft.com)

A couple of points.

The woman given credit for proving the 29 documents were fakes was Dr. Audrey Giles, formerly of Scotland Yard--the same document examiner whose name should be familiar to 'Ripperologists' in reference to a certain document out of Liverpool.

When confronted, Allen gave the most extraordinary theory about the fake documents. "Some time after he saw the documents," he suggested, "they had been removed and replaced with exact replicas, clumsily forged to cast doubt on his discoveries."

They are hoaxes of older, genuine documents!

The real 29 documents had been replaced with obvious hoaxes (evidently by MI6 or the Home Office) in order to discredit his discoveries!

I think I remember someone suggesting this about that certain diary from Liverpool. What better way to exonerate a guilty man than to plant an obvious fake confession under his floorboards to discredit the suspicions against him.

Well, I would hope that if someone inserted a fake document into the National Archives, for whatever reason, it would be a criminal offence. If not, I think the law would need to be changed.

But probably the main lesson from this is that precautions at all record repositories need to be made adequate to prevent this kind of thing happening again in the future.

[R. J. Palmer]

I was somewhat amused to see that the National Archives now has a special series for the forged documents used in Martin Allen's books. Instead of removing them and pulping them, they have been quarantined into their own collection and can still be requested and studied. I guess that's why historians love the British--they don't throw away anything! (unless it was generated by the Special Branch)

The National Archives: Investigation into Forged Documents discovered amongst Authentic Public Records: Documents purporting to have been created by members of the British Government and members of the British Armed Services relating to leading Nazis figures and Axis Power governments | The National Archives

[Chris Phillips]

I was somewhat amused to see that the National Archives now has a special series for the forged documents used in Martin Allen's books. Instead of removing them and pulping them, they have been quarantined into their own collection and can still be requested and studied. I guess that's why historians love the British--they don't throw away anything! (unless it was generated by the Special Branch)

The National Archives: Investigation into Forged Documents discovered amongst Authentic Public Records: Documents purporting to have been created by members of the British Government and members of the British Armed Services relating to leading Nazis figures and Axis Power governments | The National Archives

I love the last paragraph of that description:
"The series also contains all the copies and documentation released as a result of a Freedom of Information (FOI) request relating to the discovery of these forgeries."

We may have one of the oldest continuous governmental administrative archives in the world, but we also have the Official Secrets Act. My impression is that protecting official secrets is still something of a competitive sport among secretive officials.