The Red Handkerchief...

[Stewart P Evans]

Just goes to show...

Hi Stewart
The reference to a mystery was a gentle and humorous "dig" at Richard's radio programme, something that some posters down the years seemed to believe was apocryphal...thank you for expanding

Just goes to show how little most around here actually know.

[m_w_r]

Mystery? This is no mystery. The script, by Michell Raper, was broadcast on the B.B.C. Radio Four on 1st June 1972. The whole script was published in 1974 by The Tabaret Press (my friend Jack Hammond) in a limited edition of 100 numbered copies.

Obviously this was at a time when the 'royal conspiracy' was still very much to the fore and it was featured in the script. Twenty-odd years ago Jack gave me his last half dozen or so copies of the script, a small booklet in soft wraps running to 37 pages. I dished these out to Ripperological friends (including one to Paul Begg) and retained one for my own collection. I also discussed the script with Mich Raper, on the telephone, not long before he died.

Hi Stewart,

I recently bought a copy of Fido and Skinner's The Peasenhall Mystery, which you and Rosie had inscribed and given to Jack Hammond.

Regards,

Mark

[Stewart P Evans]

Legend

Hi Stewart,
I recently bought a copy of Fido and Skinner's The Peasenhall Mystery, which you and Rosie had inscribed and given to Jack Hammond.
Regards,
Mark

Thank you for that Mark. Dear old Jack was something of a legend in 'true crime' book dealing. Originally based in London, he lived in Ely in his latter years. His Waterside premises were visited may many of his illustrious customers, including Jonathan Goodman, Richard Whittington-Egan and Joe Gaute.

A few years ago senility took over and his book collection was bought by a local dealer and sold off by that dealer. He certainly belonged to the 'golden age' of true crime and took a keen interest in many of the cases himself. An article he wrote on the Constance Kent case was published in Criminologist. He was a 'dear old boy' of the very best kind.

Walking into his Crown Point premises for the first time, I spotted on his shelves, six pristine copies of Whittington-Egan's A Casebook on Jack the Ripper, a beautiful copy of Anderson's Lighter Side of My Official Life, etc., etc...

[Cogidubnus]

So poor old Richard goes possibly to his grave, (because he's now cut off from Casebook), not knowing that the programme he thought he'd listened to, was not apochryphal after all, but well known to a small group of Ripperologists...

And that ignorance can be conveniently be blamed on himself

Just goes to show how little most around here actually know.

You're a really nice man Mr Evans

[Bridewell]

So poor old Richard goes possibly to his grave, (because he's now cut off from Casebook), not knowing that the programme he thought he'd listened to, was not apochryphal after all, but well known to a small group of Ripperologists...

And that ignorance can be conveniently be blamed on himself



You're a really nice man Mr Evans

Dave, I read Stewart's remark about lack of knowledge as a comment on the posters who claimed Richard's account was apocryphal, not on Richard himself.
Stewart is indeed a really nice man - and very generous with both his time and his exhaustive knowledge of this subject.

[Stewart P Evans]

I'm really not sure...

So poor old Richard goes possibly to his grave, (because he's now cut off from Casebook), not knowing that the programme he thought he'd listened to, was not apochryphal after all, but well known to a small group of Ripperologists...
And that ignorance can be conveniently be blamed on himself
You're a really nice man Mr Evans

I'm really not sure what you are running on about here..."not knowing that the programme he thought he'd listened to, was not apocryphal after all, but well known to a small group of Ripperologists...
And that ignorance can be conveniently be blamed on himself..."

My post was responding to yours stating that the Richard may well have been vindicated by the finding of the Radio 4 transmission of The Other Victorians which included the piece 'Who Was Jack the Ripper' broadcast at 8 p.m. on 1 June 1972. This was heralded as a 'new' find which, as I pointed out, it was not. This programme is not 'well known to a small group of Ripperologists', it's well known to many Ripperologists and was pointed out to Richard in a debate on these boards, back in March 2008, by Bob Hinton.

Also very many people own a copy of The Jack the Ripper Handbook A Reader's Companion by Ross Strachan published in 1999. On page 14 is the following entry 'RAPER Michell Who Was Jack the Ripper? The Tabaret Press, London, 1974, booklet. Limited to 100 copies. A resume of the Whitechapel Murders of 1888 and an investigation of a recent suspect. The script of this publication was broadcast on BBC Radio Four on 1st June 1972.'

I fail to see how it can be said that this was well known to only 'a small group of Ripperologists' nor how 'that ignorance can be conveniently be blamed on himself.' Perhaps you should do a little research yourself before leaping into print. The programme, actually, does not conform to Richard's description of the programme he heard which he said bore the title 'The Man That Saw Jack'.

[Stewart P Evans]

I really should...

I really should have learnt my lesson long ago and kept off these boards.

[Robert]

Richard dismissed the show as being not the one he was trying to find :

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4219

[Ben]

Thanks for the information on this broadcast, Stewart and Dave. Most appreciated.

I'm not sure who "the posters who claimed Richard's account was apocryphal" refers to. Richard often made reference to a "radio show" from the 1970s which purportedly featured an interview with Reginald Hutchinson (of "Ripper and the Royals" notoriety). Does this Radio 4 transmission contain such an interview? Apparently not. In which case, can someone explain how Richard has been "vindicated"?

[Stewart P Evans]

Thanks

Thanks for the input Robert and Ben.

The point I was trying to make was that the 'discovery' of the Raper radio transmission was not new at all, and it was pointed out to Robert many years ago.

[Stewart P Evans]

Cast list

Thanks for the information on this broadcast, Stewart and Dave. Most appreciated.
...
...Does this Radio 4 transmission contain such an interview? Apparently not. In which case, can someone explain how Richard has been "vindicated"?

I have to confess to not listening to this show at the time it was broadcast in 1972. However, the cast list in the script booklet shows that the parts of Sir Charles Warren, Vigilante Speaker, Hutcheson [sic] and Tutor of Clarence were read by William Eedle.

The show was written by Michell Raper and was a factual dramatization which, obviously, contained some invention. A 'Narrator' (Raper himself) linked all the players with his comments and interpretations. Hutchinson's lines ran as follows (for those interested in detail) - HUTCHESON: "The man put his hand on her shoulder and said something to her which I did not hear. Then they both burst out laughing He put his hand on her again and they both walked slowly towards me. As they came by, his arm was still on her shoulder. He had a soft felt hat on and this was drawn down over his eyes. I put down my head to look him in the face and he turned and looked at me very sternly. My suspicions were aroused by seeing the man so well dressed but I had no suspicion that the man was the murderer. He was about five foot six in height and about 34 or 35 years old with a dark complexion, and a dark moustache turned up at the ends. He was wearing a long dark coat trimmed with astrokhan [sic], a white collar with black neck tie in which was fixed a horse shoe pin. He wore a pair of dark spats with light buttons and a gold watch-chain with a red stone hanging from it. He looked like a foreigner."

There is no interview with Reginald Hutchinson, nor reference to any such person.

[The Good Michael]

I
There is no interview with Reginald Hutchinson, nor reference to any such person.

Hi Stewart,

Does the script include all components of the particular programme? You are referring to a dramatization, but is that the complete programme, or might there have been an interview segment or two that of course wouldn't be scripted, that may have been part of the entire programme?

Mike

[Debra A]

I'm really not sure what you are running on about here..."not knowing that the programme he thought he'd listened to, was not apocryphal after all, but well known to a small group of Ripperologists...
And that ignorance can be conveniently be blamed on himself..."

My post was responding to yours stating that the Richard may well have been vindicated by the finding of the Radio 4 transmission of The Other Victorians which included the piece 'Who Was Jack the Ripper' broadcast at 8 p.m. on 1 June 1972. This was heralded as a 'new' find which, as I pointed out, it was not. This programme is not 'well known to a small group of Ripperologists', it's well known to many Ripperologists and was pointed out to Richard in a debate on these boards, back in March 2008, by Bob Hinton.

Also very many people own a copy of The Jack the Ripper Handbook A Reader's Companion by Ross Strachan published in 1999. On page 14 is the following entry 'RAPER Michell Who Was Jack the Ripper? The Tabaret Press, London, 1974, booklet. Limited to 100 copies. A resume of the Whitechapel Murders of 1888 and an investigation of a recent suspect. The script of this publication was broadcast on BBC Radio Four on 1st June 1972.'

I fail to see how it can be said that this was well known to only 'a small group of Ripperologists' nor how 'that ignorance can be conveniently be blamed on himself.' Perhaps you should do a little research yourself before leaping into print. The programme, actually, does not conform to Richard's description of the programme he heard which he said bore the title 'The Man That Saw Jack'.

Just a little in Dave's defense if I dare, Stewart. It wasn't immediately obvious from reading these last posts that Richard had been told of this radio programme already. The answers did come across as though everyone knew and no one had told Richard....and google, like most of our memories is not what it used to be! I don't want to presume that is what Dave meant but it did come across that way to me.

[Stewart P Evans]

Script

Hi Stewart,
Does the script include all components of the particular programme? You are referring to a dramatization, but is that the complete programme, or might there have been an interview segment or two that of course wouldn't be scripted, that may have been part of the entire programme?
Mike

I did not listen to the programme, as I stated. The script is what I have quoted from and it is the whole of Mich Raper's dramatization. Might there have been an unscripted interview segment at the end? I don't know as I didn't listen to it. However, Richard seems to have rejected the idea that this programme was the one he listened to and has categorically stated, more than once, that the programme he listened to was called 'The Man That Saw Jack'. That certainly was not the title of Raper's programme.

[Stewart P Evans]

Point

Just a little in Dave's defense if I dare, Stewart. It wasn't immediately obvious from reading these last posts that Richard had been told of this radio programme already. The answers did come across as though everyone knew and no one had told Richard....and google, like most of our memories is not what it used to be! I don't want to presume that is what Dave meant but it did come across that way to me.

No, the point I was making was the fact that the Raper programme is very well known in Ripper circles and was not something that had only just been found which was the drift of the post. Anyway, I appear to have caused an upset and will resume my exile from the boards.