The Red Handkerchief...

[Stewart P Evans]

I really should...

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

[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'.

[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.

[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

[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...

[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]

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.

[Cogidubnus]

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

[Stewart P Evans]

Mystery?

Richard Nunweek, after all these years, you may well be vindicated.
During 1972 BBC Radio 4 broadcast a ten part series of programmes called "The Other Victorians" - and guess what? On the 1st June 1972 they broadcast Episode 8 entitled "Who was Jack the Ripper?"
This was a programme, as you correctly recall, on the Royal Conspiracy...
If you want to know more it's all online with the BBC Genome project, which is now up and running!
http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/
All the best
Dave

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.

[Bridewell]

Richard Nunweek, after all these years, you may well be vindicated.

During 1972 BBC Radio 4 broadcast a ten part series of programmes called "The Other Victorians" - and guess what? On the 1st June 1972 they broadcast Episode 8 entitled "Who was Jack the Ripper?"

This was a programme, as you correctly recall, on the Royal Conspiracy...

If you want to know more it's all online with the BBC Genome project, which is now up and running!

http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/

All the best

Dave

Well done, Dave. Even if the BBC don't have it in their archives, somebody somewhere will have tape-recorded that programme.

[Cogidubnus]

Modern Ripperology's biggest puzzle solved?

Its quite amazing , [and I am as fault as anyone] that no researcher, be it amateur /professional has ever looked through every single Radio times from 1971-75 to find the programme I have mentioned for donkeys years.
I did attempt this a few years back with two members of my family at Brighton University library , but after spending our 90 minute spot, searching frantically through the front pages of countless editions, we unfortunately did not look in the back pages, which a later memory cell informed me we should have done....
I can assure everyone that the article''The man that saw Jack'' is there somewhere, I listened to the programme a few days after I read the article, that is how I knew it was going to be aired.. I remember vividly sitting on my couch, and listening to the tale of Hutchinson the witness, and his vivid description, and at the end of the broadcast, the alleged son of the witness, talked about his fathers tale, and the last words he said,which I can quote..were''It was his biggest regret, that despite his efforts, nothing came of it''.
This is not my imagination, or is it my memory playing tricks on me, I heard that,one hundred per cent....
We must not forget this radio broadcast was approx 40 years ago, it is not surprising members of the family never heard of it. it is even conceivable that the son was not Reg, or his younger brother, but someone relaying what they knew, from a past meeting....it is irrelevant to me, it does not prove that the tale is true, or that George was not a shady customer, or even a killer..what is important is the tale was not invented for the Ripper and the Royals, it was known years before...That is my point.....

Richard Nunweek, after all these years, you may well be vindicated.

During 1972 BBC Radio 4 broadcast a ten part series of programmes called "The Other Victorians" - and guess what? On the 1st June 1972 they broadcast Episode 8 entitled "Who was Jack the Ripper?"

This was a programme, as you correctly recall, on the Royal Conspiracy...

If you want to know more it's all online with the BBC Genome project, which is now up and running!

http://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/

All the best

Dave

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

After that, you have been trying your hand at all kinds of farcical escapes, avoiding to simply say:

Yes, blood would have dripped onto the floor from the flesh to some extent, and yes, Dew could have slipped in it and fallen.

I've avoided saying it because I consider it very unlikely, for reasons I won't go into again.

"There was very little furniture, a bed, a table, a chair or two, all in a bad state of repair."

You don't think it's just a trifle odd that the only observation Dew could make about the table was that it was "in a bad state of repair", not that it had piled-up lumps of flesh on it, the blood from which had caused him to slip over?

I find that baffling myself.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

This (below) does not mention the mutilations. The police are telling the press nothing, and its the same complaint across the board with the press in general. Not just the Echo.

"The house in which the murder was committed stands up a narrow court which at the further end terminates in a cul-de-sac. Up to the present the police refuse the Press any information."
Echo, 9th Nov.

That's the 9th November, Jon.

Of course the police weren't supplying details at such an early stage, and when they had precious few of their own. To extrapolate from this that the police never discussed any case-related details with the press at any stage is utterly ludicrous, especially when we know for an indisputable fact that information was shared, and not just with regard to Hutchinson's statement.

How many times do you need to see this in print?

You've shown me nothing of value in print, and nor will you in the future, because there is nothing to support your provably wrong opinion.

Dr Phillips is reputed to have said "when he was called to the deceased", which means this statement was taken 'before' any post mortem was conducted.

No!

Really, how hard can this be?

Phillips was not offering this opinion at the time he arrived at the deceased (to a reporter stationed elsewhere in the "awfulness" of that little room?). He was saying that based on the recently conducted autopsy and his initial impression of the body as first doctor on the scene, Kelly must have been dead some five or six hours. Sugden got this, so what's your excuse? You insist that Phillips didn't speak to the press - which is definitely wrong - but cheerfully accept that he divulged his findings to some pressman in mythical earshot just a few moments after his initial examination of Kelly!

Phillips's and Bond's estimated time of death for Kelly did not accord with one another, unhappily for your theory.

Is it necessary to remind you of Philips's opinion:
"Dr. Phillips was especially emphatic in his desire that the investigations should not to be made known."

No, it is not necessary to remind me of this particular opinion because it was expressed on the 9th November, the day of the murder, when no policeman or pressman was likely to spread nebulous details of the crimes to the press. I'm talking about opinions expressed on the 12th November. It should be quite clear that a police silence on the day of the crime itself does not equate to total silence thereafter.

You put great emphasis in trying to convince why the police 'wouldn't', and yet you contradict yourself by saying 'but they did'.

No contradiction here. I observed simply that the police would not have wanted for all and sundry to know about the common origin of their own press circulation, and the embellished, contradictory interview supplied to Central News. The fact that it was supplied to one newspaper only is indicative that they trusted that particular newspaper.

An investigator knows what to look for in a statement, seemingly innocuous comments can make an important difference in whether an investigator believes the suspect or not. This is why Abberline would see significance is such an innocent remark.

You're missing the point. Let us pretend for the sake of argument that the police had Astrakhan man in their grasp. How could they have found a way to prove him innocent of the Kelly murder? You've suggested that this could be achieved by Astrakhan relating the detail that Kelly wanted to get some fish and chips for supper, but this isn't proof of anything. It could have been a lie, and no competent detective was going to release the prime suspect based on an opinion that the "supper" story was true.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

... the ones you reference above are concerned solely with the issue of Kelly's mutilations.

This (below) does not mention the mutilations. The police are telling the press nothing, and its the same complaint across the board with the press in general. Not just the Echo.

"The house in which the murder was committed stands up a narrow court which at the further end terminates in a cul-de-sac. Up to the present the police refuse the Press any information."
Echo, 9th Nov.

How many times do you need to see this in print?

The press knew nothing that couldn't be obtained off the streets by following the police around and re-interviewing the same witnesses.

You've gone and misinterpreted yet another press article, and accuse me of recklessness instead....

Yes, and my point is quite obvious if you just read what you quoted.

Dr Phillips is reputed to have said "when he was called to the deceased", which means this statement was taken 'before' any post mortem was conducted.

Since we know the doctor was not permitted to share this observation at the inquest and, since we also know he has been quoted as not being willing to share medical information with the press, then we can reasonably infer this comment is attributable to his initial reaction on Friday morning, on his arrival (ie; "when he was called to the deceased".).

Is it necessary to remind you of Philips's opinion:
"Dr. Phillips was especially emphatic in his desire that the investigations should not to be made known."

So lets not assume he only paid lip service to his own words.
Phillips did not talk to the press.

- extend to Philip Sugden who arrived at precisely the same conclusion I did.

Trying to hide in the shadow of giants is not something to be proud of.
Phil Sugden was not one to insist his opinion is the final say on the matter, unlike 'some' we encounter here.

They wouldn’t have said “yes” - that’s the whole point. The police did NOT sanction the interview between Hutchinson and Central News. They did NOT sanction the public release of his identity. They would NOT, therefore, have advertised the fact that the “George Hutchinson” mentioned in the heavily embellished Central News interview was the same witness mentioned in the 13th November morning papers, which WAS provided by the police. The fact that they did so with the Echo exclusively assures us that some sort of relationship of trust existed.

You put great emphasis in trying to convince why the police 'wouldn't', and yet you contradict yourself by saying 'but they did'.

No such 'special relationship' existed, and a simple 'nod' does not qualify as 'case related information', its as simple as that.

I’m not saying he would. I’m saying that a hypothetical lie from hypothetical “captured” Mr. Astrakhan about fish and chips would not have “proved” him innocent, or anywhere close.

This detail, only known to Abberline, holds no significance to the suspect. Therefore, the suspect has no cause to even mention it. An investigator knows what to look for in a statement, seemingly innocuous comments can make an important difference in whether an investigator believes the suspect or not. This is why Abberline would see significance is such an innocent remark.

And "I", never say anything about "proof" (as well you know), I didn't say "it did happen", I said that "it could". Whereas you said nothing could save him - this was incorrect.

[Fisherman]

All he said about the table was that it was in a bad state of repair! I wonder how he’d react if he saw a unicorn leap over his garden hedge?: “Ooh, that privet needs a trim!”.

Regards,
Ben

Of course, you now paint things out as if Dew specifically spoke of that table, forgetting to mention that there was flesh lying on it, so I think we need to see the whole quotation:

"There was very little furniture, a bed, a table, a chair or two, all in a bad state of repair."

I rest my case.

The best,
Fisherman