A new front in the history wars? A new article on 'the five'

[MrBarnett]

Yes. Now I can die happy.

Can I have your autograph before you go?

[MrBarnett]

My interest of Breezers Hill probably extends 70 odd years before the Ripper "era", back to the time of the Ratcliffe Road murders. You must of seen that photo of the Highway looking East from number 8 the address of the Prince Regent PH. The entrance into Breezers Hill is surely in that photo.

I think I know the photo you mean - there are a couple of very small people in the right foreground?

Breezers Hill is just out of shot, unfortunately. There is a photo of the White Bear at 1, St George Street, which was on the Breezers Hill corner, but that’s about it as far as I know.

I’m also interested in the Ratcliffe Highway murders.

[rjpalmer]

at least Sam Flynn and RJ Palmer get mentioned, they must be stoked!

Yes. Now I can die happy.

[Observer]

My interest of Breezers Hill probably extends 70 odd years before the Ripper "era", back to the time of the Ratcliffe Road murders. You must of seen that photo of the Highway looking East from number 8 the address of the Prince Regent PH. The entrance into Breezers Hill is surely in that photo.

[Observer]

It’s an extension of family research as far as I’m concerned. I know virtually nothing about Montague Druitt or Melville McNaghten, but I could provide you with the biographies of loads of Harrison, Barber slaughtermen or residents of Breezer’s Hill etc.

I’m not claiming to be entirely immune to the mystery - I have a home-grown suspect for the Tabram murder - but it really is way down the list of reasons for my involvement in ‘Ripperology’.

Righto Mr B, as I said each to his own.

It's odd though with regard to those who are interested in family research, (and I know quite a few individuals so inclined) are rather enamored more with their criminal ancestors as opposed to the more mundane, the bakers, the blacksmiths, the road sweepers.

[MrBarnett]

Really? A "Ripperologist" who's not interested in solving the case. That's novel. That's where we differ Each to his own though. I'm finding it hard to envisage how anyone would be suspicious at the mention of Jack The Ripper.

With regard to original research, I was thinking somewhere along the lines of that article which revealed the Kosminski court appearance for walking a dog without a lead, rather than the name of the dog which belonged to the woman who lived three doors down from Kate Eddowes when she was a ten year old lass. I made the latter up of course, but I hope you get the drift. There's research, and there's reasearch which makes a difference, if you know what I mean.

Anyhow each to his own

It’s an extension of family research as far as I’m concerned. I know virtually nothing about Montague Druitt or Melville McNaghten, but I could provide you with the biographies of loads of Harrison, Barber slaughtermen or residents of Breezer’s Hill etc.

I’m not claiming to be entirely immune to the mystery - I have a home-grown suspect for the Tabram murder - but it really is way down the list of reasons for my involvement in ‘Ripperology’.

[Observer]

What I was trying to say in reply to Observer when he asked had anyone clammed up when they mentioned the Ripper is-
Tower Hamlets Local History Library declined my request to record and release Julian Woodford’s talk on the Boss of Bethnal Green solely because the word ‘Ripper’ appears in the name of my podcast.
I found that pretty odd.

JM

Really Mr M? The bloke in charge of the local history section in the Bancroft Road Library, was the exact opposite. i believe his name was Clive. Many years ago a friend and I visited the Bishopgate institute library, they have a few bits dealing with the Ripper murders. The librarian let me take a photograph of a small wanted hand bill they have.

On the whole I believe the general public regard the average "Ripperologist" for want of a better word, harmless. Of course the politically correct brigade are a different matter. Fortunately they are in a minority.

[Observer]

Actually, I think do remember him. It was found in a garage in Bethnal Green or somewhere in the East End?

Yes that's the fella.

[Observer]

I have no interest in solving the Ripper case. My focus at the time was researching Dr Killeen.

By ‘original research’ I meant research that involves contact with people outside of the Ripper bubble. Some people are fascinated when the Ripper is mentioned, others become suspicious. That’s my experience and the experience of others I’ve spoken to.

Really? A "Ripperologist" who's not interested in solving the case. That's novel. That's where we differ Each to his own though. I'm finding it hard to envisage how anyone would be suspicious at the mention of Jack The Ripper.

With regard to original research, I was thinking somewhere along the lines of that article which revealed the Kosminski court appearance for walking a dog without a lead, rather than the name of the dog which belonged to the woman who lived three doors down from Kate Eddowes when she was a ten year old lass. I made the latter up of course, but I hope you get the drift. There's research, and there's reasearch which makes a difference, if you know what I mean.

Anyhow each to his own

[MrBarnett]

What I was trying to say in reply to Observer when he asked had anyone clammed up when they mentioned the Ripper is-
Tower Hamlets Local History Library declined my request to record and release Julian Woodford’s talk on the Boss of Bethnal Green solely because the word ‘Ripper’ appears in the name of my podcast.
I found that pretty odd.

JM

I’ve had a few similar experiences. On one occasion I enquired informally at the LMA whether I could post a photo and asylum case notes of Biddy the Chiver online and I was given the impression that it would be ok but I was told I’d have to fill out a form specifying where I wanted to post it and for what purpose. I’d seen almost identical records being used in a book and the LMA being credited, so I thought it was just a formality.

I filled out the form saying I wanted to post it on JTRForums and was surprised to receive an email almost immediately saying they weren’t in a position to grant permission because they didn’t actually own the record.

After a lot of to-ing and fro-ing between the LMA and the NHS, I was essentially told they neither of them would refuse permission and I took that as being given it.

I have other examples of contacts I’ve made on Ancestry and elsewhere where the line went dead as soon as I mentioned the Ripper.

On the face of it it’s a weird hobby we have. It’s little wonder that ‘normal’ people look askance at us.

[jmenges]

What I was trying to say in reply to Observer when he asked had anyone clammed up when they mentioned the Ripper is-
Tower Hamlets Local History Library declined my request to record and release Julian Woodford’s talk on the Boss of Bethnal Green solely because the word ‘Ripper’ appears in the name of my podcast.
I found that pretty odd.

JM

[MrBarnett]

Just one more thing Mr B we had a wind up merchant, before the crash I believe, Tom Pepper never had a look in. If memory serves me well I'm sure he had in his possession a blood stained knife that was apparently found in a wall. I wonder if it's the same individual.

Actually, I think do remember him. It was found in a garage in Bethnal Green or somewhere in the East End?

[jmenges]

I tried replying to one of Observers posts above and deleted it by mistake. My sincere apologies. I’ll see if I can retrieve it when I’m not on a phone.

JM

[MrBarnett]

Just had a look. Interesting stuff Gary I also ordered Mark Ripper’s book at the same time that you did. As you say, it’s a good little book but Killeen has got next to nothing going for him as a suspect.

The Killeen family member I spoke to said they would dig out an old photo of Clonfeigh, the house owned by the Killeens from the time of the famine until today. It is much altered, but it had been a single-storied thatched farmhouse back in the day. I haven’t heard from them (I’m even keeping their gender quiet) for a couple of months. They clearly didn’t feel totally comfortable releasing the photos for online (and print) publication or they would have said I could credit them personally for doing so. They made it very clear that I shouldn’t do so.

Yes, Mark’s book is very good, but the Killeen theory isn’t very convincing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have. Over on JTRForums.

It’s a photo of Dr Timothy Killeen and one of a book of testimonials he had produced in 1888 in Co. Clare, presumably before he came over to work in Dr Septimus Swyer’s practice in Brick Lane. It has splashes of what look like blood on the cover.

Whether he took this particular document to Spitalfields, and when in the past 132 years the blood splashes got on it (assuming it is blood and not claret), I don’t know. But as an example of interesting material that may still be out there in the hands of people who may read HR’s misrepresentation of Ripperologists I thought it worth mentioning on this thread.

Just had a look. Interesting stuff Gary I also ordered Mark Ripper’s book at the same time that you did. As you say, it’s a good little book but Killeen has got next to nothing going for him as a suspect.