Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Forbes Winslow Forgeries?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Chris G.
    replied
    Originally posted by Caroline Morris View Post
    Hi All,

    Is it me or is the date on the postmark Oct 7 89?

    If so, the letter (clearly dated Oct 19th top and bottom) would not appear to have been sent in that particular envelope, whether the year was meant to be 1888 or altered from 1889.

    Is it possible that the letter had hung around for a year or so unsent, before someone came across it and sent it anonymously to FW? That would certainly be intriguing.

    BTW, I have long thought that the old 'Poste Restante' sign (ubiquitous in the LVP) would explain why our dopey diarist thought Maybrick's Post House and post haste deserved the French touch, with an e on the post. French was evidently not the diarist's forté, if the humorously grotesque 'rondaveau' (just a few words before the Poste House is mentioned) is anything to go by. But was this a canny hoaxer portraying James as a jumped up nouveau riche merchant, or a late 20th century faker who unaccountably composed the whole 63 pages of text without thinking it might be worth consulting a dictionary before putting pen to paper?

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Hi Caz

    We have discussed before over on Casebook, as I recall, that the envelope and letter (at least the supposed October 19 1889 one) don't seem to belong together. The other thing to be said is that if Winslow changed the date of the letter from 1889 to 1888, that's meddling with the letter (evidence?) but not exactly forgery.

    C

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Kearney A.K.A. NEMO
    replied
    Now I've got the search button, I find a couple of threads that are related to the Ripper Confession thread with a Maybrick reference

    The envelope on this thread belongs to the letter in APs first post

    This was the one in which the handwriting is supposed to be significant in that it matches that supposedly found under an arch - a man was witnessed writing "There will be no more murders from Jack the Ripper" or similar

    The 88/89 letter was more significant in that it purported to be a genuine true Ripper letter as it undoubtedly predicted Kelly's death on 9th Nov 1888

    In Letters from Hell you can see a number of letters predicting a murder on Nov 9th 1889

    This letter is among those

    Leave a comment:


  • Caroline Brown
    replied
    Hi All,

    Is it me or is the date on the postmark Oct 7 89?

    If so, the letter (clearly dated Oct 19th top and bottom) would not appear to have been sent in that particular envelope, whether the year was meant to be 1888 or altered from 1889.

    Is it possible that the letter had hung around for a year or so unsent, before someone came across it and sent it anonymously to FW? That would certainly be intriguing.

    BTW, I have long thought that the old 'Poste Restante' sign (ubiquitous in the LVP) would explain why our dopey diarist thought Maybrick's Post House and post haste deserved the French touch, with an e on the post. French was evidently not the diarist's forté, if the humorously grotesque 'rondaveau' (just a few words before the Poste House is mentioned) is anything to go by. But was this a canny hoaxer portraying James as a jumped up nouveau riche merchant, or a late 20th century faker who unaccountably composed the whole 63 pages of text without thinking it might be worth consulting a dictionary before putting pen to paper?

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • SPE
    replied
    End

    And a scan of the end of the letter -

    Leave a comment:


  • SPE
    replied
    Date

    And here's a scan of the date only -

    Leave a comment:


  • SPE
    replied
    Winslow Book

    Originally posted by Debbie D View Post
    ...I don't know if you guys are basing your judgements solely on the pictures posted here or if there are nicer copies somewhere....
    Unfortunately I've found that when examining documents of the time we tend to overlook the fact that 99% of them are a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy.... you get the idea. It can be hard to do detailed anaylsis of any document under these circumstances. While the letter looks to have some corrections or cover ups present, these are not quality "copies" to do a fair analysis. Some of the conclusions that I've read here can only be made under a magnifying glass,,,, literally! The envelope copies are in the same condition. I would suggest keeping an open mind in regards to this until such time that a more closeup, clear copy is made available.
    Debs, it is not known whether the originals of these letters have survived or not. All we have is what Winslow reproduced in his book. Attached hereto are scans from my original copy of Winslow's book. I think that this is the best we have.


    Leave a comment:


  • SirRobertAnderson
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul Butler View Post

    You have to be a bit intrigued by a Ripper letter containing both the words "Poste" and "Hammersmith" on the same page though, don't you?


    Paul
    Works for me. Every once in a while Diary World provides a creepy crawly moment.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Thanks for that Deb....thats a damned good point to remember.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Hi guys and gals....

    I don't know if you guys are basing your judgements solely on the pictures posted here or if there are nicer copies somewhere....

    Unfortunately I've found that when examining documents of the time we tend to overlook the fact that 99% of them are a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy.... you get the idea. It can be hard to do detailed anaylsis of any document under these circumstances. While the letter looks to have some corrections or cover ups present, these are not quality "copies" to do a fair analysis. Some of the conclusions that I've read here can only be made under a magnifying glass,,,, literally! The envelope copies are in the same condition. I would suggest keeping an open mind in regards to this until such time that a more closeup, clear copy is made available.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Butler
    replied
    Chris.

    Yes, I'm inclined to agree with you. Its hard to make out, but the "res" of restante seems to be crossed out, or is it a blot for dramatic effect?

    The letter writer seems to be rather random in his choice of curly or straight "d", and I suppose this is probably evidence of a disguised hand.

    I don't know what to make of the altered date, when taking the other strange alterations in mind.

    You have to be a bit intrigued by a Ripper letter containing both the words "Poste" and "Hammersmith" on the same page though, don't you?

    regards.

    Paul

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris G.
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul Butler View Post
    This is the letter that rather spookily refers to the "Poste house" towards the end.

    A fascinating echo of that other rather more controversial alleged forgery isn't it?

    Regards to all.

    Paul.
    No I don't think so, Paul. Melvin Harris in "The Maybrick Hoax: A Guide Through the Labyrinth" over at Casebook interprets the letter to read, I think correctly, as "Write to the Poste Restante Charing x. address to. . ."

    Chris

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris G.
    replied
    Originally posted by Debra A View Post
    Hi AP, in FW's book there is also a picture of an envelope, do you happen to know if this is supposed to be the envelope that the letter arrived in? Or is it illustrating another letter entirely? It's just that the postmark on the letter clearly says 1889, but there is no caption or text that I can relate to it in the book....can you? Thanks

    Hi Deb

    The "d" in "London" on the envelope is executed plainly and without the flourish seen in all the "d's" in the letter, which is also written in a more cramped manner. It looks to me as if the envelope does not belong to the letter, as you apparently assume also.

    All the best

    Chris

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul Butler
    replied
    This is the letter that rather spookily refers to the "Poste house" towards the end.

    A fascinating echo of that other rather more controversial alleged forgery isn't it?

    Regards to all.

    Paul.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Bump up

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Thanks AP, yes that's the one. I've not been able to find a mention of an 1889 letter in the book myself, although it's been a while since I last looked.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X