Picture of 29 Hanbury Street passage?

[Oldsen]

Such claim is made about a fuzzy picture shown in this site. Is the photograph genuine?



Best,

Pablo

[Rob Clack]

It is Pablo, it's from a set of four photos that were on show at The Ten Bells when it was known as the Jack the Ripper.



Rob

[Brenda]

Oh my gosh, ten years of this case and I've never seen these photos! Just when I think I "know it all" about Ripperology, something new shows up! When were these photos taken?

Also, someone please help me understand what I am seeing. When entering the front passage, would you go down stairs and then to the back door? I always thought the passage was just a "straight shot" from entrance to exit, it never occurred to me that stairs might be involved.

[Oldsen]

I think the door of access to the yard would be straight across the passage that is to the right of the stairs, wouldn't it? I may be wrong, but I think the photograph was taken from the building's main entrance...

Another discovery, btw: I hadn't ever seen the photograph of the yard taken from a high point of view. It's always nice to find new stuff...

Thanks for answering and best wishes!

[Bulldog]

Brenda,

There's a much clearer image in Clack & Hutchinson's The London of Jack the Ripper. It's on page 65.

The picture was taken in September 1961, looking from the front door. In the book's image you can see that the passage runs to the right of the stairs. You can see the back door beyond.

It's a good book!!!

Maybe one of the authors could post the image for those who haven't had the opportunity of getting a hold of the book.

Best,

Bulldog

[Brenda]

Yes, I hope a clearer image could be posted! This has totally changed what I had perceived the passage to be like in my mind's eye.

Also, the visual helps to 'bring it home" just how very bold both Annie Chapman and the Ripper really were to utilize that passage at all. It was private property, anyone could have stepped out and encountered them face to face, and it is assumed they were "strangers" to anyone living on the premises. Unless, of course, that all was not quite as it seemed at 29 Hanbury Street......and I mean that in several different ways!

[Stephen Thomas]

Here's a picture of a nearby house on Hanbury Street found by John Bennett. The interesting thing to my mind is that the wall on the right in both photos appears to be a wooden partition as opposed to the usual lathe and plaster internal wall in such houses.

[Rob Clack]

Here's a better photo of the one above. The four photos were probably taken in the late 60's.
The staircase was right in front of the main door. The passage continued around the side of it to the back door. You could see from the main door right out into the garden of 29.



Rob

[Stephen Thomas]

There's a much clearer image in Clack & Hutchinson's The London of Jack the Ripper. It's on page 65.

It's a good book!!!

No it isn't.

It's a GREAT book!!!

And soon to be re-published I believe.

[Khanada]

No it isn't.

It's a GREAT book!!!

And soon to be re-published I believe.

I hope so -- mine was stolen, and I'd like to replace it.

I had a go at drawing how I pictured the layout of Number 29's hallway...hopefully it's not too far off.

[Archaic]

Same As In 1888?

I noticed that the right-hand wall appears to be a wooden partition, too. Does this imply that it had been a larger dwelling at some point but was subdivided?

Maybe the original passage way wasn't so claustrophobic? I would expect a room to open up on the right.

*Would the passage have had the same wooden wall/partition in 1888?

Thank you, Archaic

[Stephen Thomas]

I had a go at drawing how I pictured the layout of Number 29's hallway...hopefully it's not too far off.

Great stuff, Khanada

That's spot on.

[Rob Clack]

I noticed that the right-hand wall appears to be a wooden partition, too. Does this imply that it had been a larger dwelling at some point but was subdivided?

Maybe the original passage way wasn't so claustrophobic? I would expect a room to open up on the right.

*Would the passage have had the same wooden wall/partition in 1888?

Thank you, Archaic

What I think happened is that back in 1888, to gain access to the front room shop you had to go through a door in the passage. When the extra door at the front of the building was built. The door in the passage wasn't needed and was sealed/partitioned off.

Rob

[Graham]

Those photos are scary....I think I posted on the old threads about when, in 1970 or thereabouts, I walked the East End murder-sites and actually got as far as laying my hand on the door-knob of No 29 before bottling out and scarpering, as I think even at that late date there was someone living there.
The James Mason footage I can watch only in broad daylight....weird.

By the way, don't you think that the panelling to the right of the stairs in 5612 and 5613 is just that - panelling installed when the houses were built? Would that have been late 18th century, I wonder?

Cheers,

Graham

[Archaic]

#29 in 1888 vs. 2009

Oh, I get it; thanks Rob! The street-front shop to the right of the front door, which we all know from old photos with the 'Brill' sign overhead, did not originally have its own separate front door, so it was entered via #29's door & passage. I had read before that the double front doors were not in existence in 1888, but I guess I had never envisioned any corresponding alteration to the inner passage way! (I wish I had your book, but when I checked recently on Amazon there was only 1 copy available & it was $145... it's definitely on my Wish List.)

If the street-front shop lacked its own door in 1888, it makes sense that it also lacked the large display window.

And in 1888, #29's creepy inner passage-way must have been even more 'public' than I had previously imagined. Thanks for the clarification; it does affect one's perspective of that fateful night.

Best regards, Archaic