Talk:From Hell letter

Photograph

If the letter was lost, what is the source of Image:FromHellLetter.jpg? Is it based on a photograph of the original? dab (ᛏ) 20:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The letter was photographed, yes, back when it was still around, and also copies were printed up and widely distributed in hopes that someone would recognize the handwriting. So we have plenty of images of it, just not the original anymore. DreamGuy 22:57, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

I was initially unable to corroborate this article's assertion that the letter was lost. I was somewhat perturbed by the passive construction in the article, and did some digging. Though the website is not explicit on this point, it is reasonable to presume that some of the Ripper letters are in the Black Museum, and some have been moved to the Public Record Office. Lost evidence in a major case like Jack the Ripper should have more of a paper trail, and the case's conspiracy theories should incorporate that loss, in the same way that they incorporate New Scotland Yard's decisions in 2011 to continue concealing the unredacted files in order to protect the identities of police informants. However, for whatever reason it seems that the letter was initially photographed (in sepia) in 1888, and no further mention of it is made until it was microformed (either of these, the sepia or the microform, I believe, could be the original source forImage:FromHellLetter.jpg. It's impossible for me to tell if the image, which seems to be monochrome, is actually the 1888 documentation or not.) At some point after it was microformed, it seems to have vanished. Thevillaindiluvian (talk) 05:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm intrigued by this. How common was police photography in England in 1888? This must be one of the earliest crime-related photographic images, certainly the most famous early crime photograph. Unless of course the letter was lost in, say, 1968 and photographed the year before. When does the photograph date from? When was the letter last seen? If someone has it in their attic it would be worth a fortune, assuming it is not official government property. -Ashley Pomeroy 14:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Photography was more common than you think, it's just that most of those photos did not survive (there are mortuary photos of Ripper victims, a couple of crime scene photos, some photos of other victims before and after the standard Ripper murders that may be by the same hand, and I've seen photos of victims in other crimes prior to those).

I know they did photos of this letter back then, but this particular image of the letter appears to be more recent than 1888, based upon the color. At least it looks that way to me, I could be wrong. DreamGuy 21:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

To be honest how did they lose it?the police was a little lazy but they can't be that lazy! either that or someone stole it to figure it out themselves or somehow "lost". how can they lose a kidney?! ( User:Benjida) 5:55 PM, 2 Febuary 2006 (UTC)

Knif

From what I've read of the subject, this letter was also believed to be authentic due to the spelling of "knif", which suggested the word was intentionally misspelled to imply a less literate writer. It was thought that if they had actually been less educated, they would not have known to include the silent 'k'. (Strangely, I think I got this information from this very article, though it's possible someone has removed it since due to some lack of citation? Ear regardless, as Van Gogh said, I was wondering if anyone else had heard of this theory or it's relevance to the letter's infamy. 24.3.14.157 (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"While": technically the <h> in "while" is not silent at all. In combination with <w>, the standard pronunciation would be /hw/, certainly so in 1880s Britain. The presence of the <h> in "while" might well indicate that the writer is more literate than it may seem because he/she does not drop his aitches; but it makes no sense to argue that the writer includes a silent letter as this is not the case.178.60.157.255 (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Just on the spelling: the "Sor" given on the page - is that an official transcription? The photo looks more like a "Sur" (Sir) which would fit the context of the letter. I didn't want to change anything yet - I will leave that to the more professional editors. - Adam Miljenovic

"Sor" probably is a misspelling of "sir". Regardless the letter definitely says "sor" not "sur". Compare the shape of the letters to the handwriting in the rest of the letter. He wrote his "u"s completely differently. Mloren (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sor is the most common way that is listed. Some reliable authorities say that it is actually just Sir, based upon the R in prasarved and elswhere showing the the lowercase R sometimes starts with an upstroke like that. DreamGuy (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree that it should be "Sor" based on the fact that the "o" looks more like the other examples of that letter, and nothing like the examples of "u". I think, though, that it is a case of the the author of the letter writing phonetically - either genuinely or (more likely) in imitation - as per "prasarved" and "Mishter". There is an inherent contradiction between the fairly competent "copperplate" handwriting and the standard of English employed. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"Catch me when you can" in popular culture

More importantly, I've tried to find a reference that places the origin of this phrase to this specific letter, but have yet to find a creditable one. Is there an article that contains the phrases origin I overlooked? "From Hell" also seems to have originated from this letter, but isn't credited as such in any material I've come across.24.99.161.15 (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Porter

"Catch me if you can" as a phrase did not originate with this letter. The term from hell didn't either. DreamGuy (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The term utilized as the sign-off is "Catch me WHEN you can" not IF as is popularly yet incorrectly thought. Section and header Updated and corrected by User: CalMurphy, 00:42, 16 August 2017

Openshaw did not say what some bad press reports claimed he did

This is well documented in many, many books. Reports that he said the kidney was female, ginny and all that were based upon claims that some other people who merely said he said those things and not based upon a direct interview. When reporters talked to Openshaw himself, he explicitly denied making those claims. In fact some of the things he allegedly said were not even things that the scientific tests available at the time could have determined. We should not be repeating bad information that has been debunked for years. Worse than that, the person who kept adding it back in doesn't seem to have even read the edit comments explaining the situation to him, as he claimed that we weren't endorsing the claims, just saying they happened, which is the whole point, they DIDN'T actually happen in the first place. DreamGuy (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Misspellings

I'm sure I am not the only one who noticed the differences between this letter and the prior "Ripper letters," namely the odd spelling of words in the From Hell letter. Are these actual spelling mistakes within the letter, or are they simply archaic ways of spelling these words? If they are actual errors, couldn't this be some sort of flag about the letters? The "Dear Boss" letter seems to give off the air of the writer being an intellectual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.95.151 (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2006

Considering the letter was from the late 19th century, I wouldn't consider that time period "archaic." Any spelling mistakes are just that. --clpo13_(talk) 08:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Those are deliberate errors meant to conceal the author's level of education. They constitute evidence that the letter was in fact genuine. --CRATYLUS22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.110.28 (talk) 03:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There was recently some text re. the possibly deliberate misspellings. This should go in, I think, as the idea appears in almost every standard reference work. Unfortunately at the moment I'm unable to source it myself.... 68.36.136.24 (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm talking about the silent 'h' and 'k' issue, not the questions of 'Sor', 'Mishter' etc. addressed before. 68.36.136.24 (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I note that some see the way the letter was written as intentionally misspelled, but I would like to add that spelling and grammar at the time, at least for those of the working class, was slightly optional. I am not a hundred percent sure when the English written language was standardized, but I believe that there are still those in England who spell words in their own way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.39.129.33 (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Lack of education would have been the primary reason for such spelling at the time. Minus some, rather small, regional and national variations, English had been fairly standardized by that time. It was only 125 years ago after all, not really that long a time. 63.224.156.49 (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

"Silent" h

The article claims that the "h" in "while" is silent. But, for an Irish person, it would not be silent. See Phonological history of wh. Grover cleveland (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

From Hell letter to go on display?

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/jack-the-ripper-letter-could-raise-cash-to-help-the-met-8738945.html Published July 31st. Does this deserve mention in the article? Also, is the original letter still missing? A comment in the Talk section of the Saucy Jacky postcard says the From Hell letter was recovered but it doesn't reference anything. --RThompson82 (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Tother

Is there a reason "tother" is called out for explanation but not the other non-standard words?--Khajidha (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

O.

Is it only me who thinks that only a native of Poland will actually come to an idea of writing "Sir" with an "O"? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

"Sor" could also be a way of spelling out the way someone with an Irish accent might pronounce "sir." Along with other nonstandard spellings like "Tother" and "Prasarved" , it's why one theory is that the letter was written by a not fully educated Irishman writing phonetically. 71.203.43.13 (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I thought that myself, the letter does suggest some Irish influence. IF the letter is genuine and IF this is how the author normally wrote and talked then it is serious evidence that the Ripper was a semi-literate Irishman. However there are other possibilities e.g. it really could be from the Ripper trying to draw a false scent. I also notice that the words "fried" and "piece", which could trip up some people of limited education, are spelt correctly. I sense some similarities with the Wearside Jack tape. PatGallacher (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

There is one other point which may have been missed. The kidney was preserved in surgical spirits. Would a semi-literate psychopath have gone to the trouble of preserving the kidney for 2 weeks, using the recognised medical procedures of the time, or even known how to do so, before posting it? PatGallacher (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)