Ripper Notes #28 - "The Legend Continues"

[sdreid]

Hi Tom,

Did you say that you were kicked out of jtrforums? I can beat that, they won't even let me in.

[Tom_Wescott]

Thanks, Andy, but I was just being silly. By the way, I read your essay and found it quite fun. It was also very obvious to me that you were posing a question and persuing a possibility and not trying to convince anyone that you'd reached a hard and fast conclusion.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[aspallek]

Stephen and Philip,
Andy,

So, who do you think the Ripper was?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I really haven't the foggiest but I do think Druitt remains a good suspect.

[George Hutchinson]

Then you may live. You may live long enough to give me my newspapers back in a couple of weeks.

PHILIP

[Ash]

So you're saying, in spite of what I can clearly SEE for absolute certain, including markings on the wall of the factory behind that are apparent in both the colour and internal B&W shots, that I'm mistaken?

Hi Phil

Er, no, I was actually (I thought clearly but obviously not) saying "okay, you got me there" and accepting that what you said was correct.

[George Hutchinson]

I still don't understand how Phil is capable of identifying areas of complete blackness with such specificity

Because they're NOT areas of complete blackness - they just don't show well in scans. I can even dimly just see the outline of the side of the staircase itself, off to the left, on the colour original. I give up.

PHILIP

[Robert]

In 1901 he was at No. 1 Hanbury St, age 27, hairdresser.

[Robert]

A Nathan Brill seems to have taken over the hairdressing shop some time between 1899 and 1914. Either he (or he plus maybe a son) was there a long time, or the shop was unoccupied for a long time.

[Natalie Severn]

I took this photo of a house in Fournier Street-ie what used to be Church Street.Its just behind Christchurch, Spitalfields.a couple of years ago.Its almost identical to the Hanbury Street houses and number 29 , built by the very same builder in the early seventeen hundreds.The house was being gutted at the time but it shows the hallway-quite a short distance from the front door to the back.You can see the back garden just behind the builder holding the trowel.
Natalie

[Tom_Wescott]

Stephen and Philip,

Thank you for the pics and explanation. I still don't understand how Phil is capable of identifying areas of complete blackness with such specificity, but I respect that if he says it's there it is indeed there.

Andy,

So, who do you think the Ripper was?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[aspallek]

As this thread has taken on a disjointed dual nature, I have started a thread in the Druitt area to discuss rail service issues relating to Druitt. I also suggest we move other Druitt-related discussion from this thread to the Druitt area.

I have also cross posted my last post to the "Origin of Drowned Doctor" thread in the Druitt area in order to move the discussion there.

[Stephen Thomas]

I don't understand how it's possible that the lighted area at the end of Phil's photo could be the backyard when, as we see, there's a staircase there. Is there something elementary that I'm completely unaware of?

Hi Tom

This is a typical layout in older terrace housing in Britain. The staircase starts halfway down the hall which then 'bends' to accomodate the stairwell which has to be about 6 feet wide. The front parlour, which in this case became Brill's Barber Shop would therfore be 3 feet wider than the back parlour. Hope this makes sense.

[aspallek]

Hi Andy,

I'm not advocating the dismissal of Macnaghten's views, but it is clear from his comments that his Druitt-related suspicions owed as much (if not more) to his personal theory as to why the ripper "stopped" killing as it did to anything specific that may have incriminated Druitt, and therein lies my problem. Macnaghten's "cessation theory" in that regard ought to be taken with a grain of salt. Without wishing to detract in the slightest from his intelligence or abilities, he had little experience of policing, let alone that which involves serial crime. Moreover, a century's worth if knowledge and experience of other serial killer behaviour has tended to diminish, not bolster, the likelihood of the offenders committing suicide over their "awful glut".

As for Druitt's being singled out over other suicides, it seems likely that the mistaken belief in his medical abilities coupled with a knowledge of his family mental issues may have placed the investigative spotlight over Druitt in particular.

We're left, ultimately, with the issue of the "private information", and whether it containd anything especially incriminating. In light of the above, and Abbeline's (etc) belief that the Druitt theory didn't amount to anything, I'd hazard an educated guess at "not much", but others' mileage may vary on that, and of course, this is where the pursuit of new information is to be encouraged.

Some very interesting stuff here, indeed. Yes, the "suicided doctor" is a recurrent theme that surfaces in many variations over the years and never really disappears. That suspect does not always take the name or precise form of Druitt, however. This is one of the bits we have to process. Do we assume every form of the "suicided doctor" to be a reference to Druitt, or is the "suicided doctor" an entity unto itself which at times takes the form of Druitt? Again, we have to ask ourselves what was known by the principals at the time.

Where did the "suicided doctor" theory come from? What is its first mention? Assuming we toss out Bachert, the first appearance that we know of is Farquharson's "suicided surgeon's son" in early 1891, and it appears nearly certain to be a garbled reference to Druitt. I believe that Farquharson's tale is integral to understanding Macnaghten's private information. Farquharson was blabbing his story publicly, so that in itself was not the private information. Yet, follow up to Farquharson's tale may have led Macnaghten to further information that was indeed private. So, what did Macnaghten know by 1894 that so convinced him that Druitt was JtR? What information did he possess? That's what we have to ask ourselves.

The "suicided doctor" goes on in some form to manifest itself in the writings of Griffiths and Sims (who were following Macnaghten's lead), Abberline's dismissal, the Littlechild letter (mistakenly thinking Tumblety to have suicided), Basil Thompson's history of Scotland yard, Woodhall, McCormick, Farson, Cullen, Howells/Skinner, etc. Yes, some of these authors are unreliable, but I'm merely pointing out that the mythos has continued in a more or less unbroken line.

As to Abberline's dismissal of yet another version of the mythos ("drowned medical student"), that is more likely explained by his enthusiasm for Klosowski. If Abberline believes Klosowski to be the Ripper, then there can't be any truth to the drowned medical student theory.

[George Hutchinson]

Right, if I have to prove it to you when it's totally bloody obvious to me, then I shall.



Here's a detail from the colour shot showing the doorways in full.



Here's an artificially brightened detail of the correct doorway, with a comparison image clearly showing the levels and what's there.



Here's a detail from one of the images I used in the book. Note the positioning of everything - including this supposed 'reflection'. This image was taken from standing a little in from the front door.



This image has not been published before. It's a small detail of the backyard from one of the other photos I acquired in The Whitby Collection. Look at the yard, the darkness of the fence, the wall of the factory behind. Look at the positioning of the two puttlog holes in that factory wall. Look at the pole leaning against the side fence. They are all in the colour image as well if you look for them.

I don't mind having to prove it, but I flatter myself - having the bloody original photographs in front of me - I do know what's in the photo and what isn't!

And Tom, I wasn't ignoring your post, I just didn't feel the statement of opinion required an answer. Yes, the staircase was at the end. No, you weren't seeing it.

PHILIP

[Tom_Wescott]

Thank you for posting that photo, Stephen. I looked around for it yesterday but couldn't find it.

In my post yesterday - which went completely ignored by Philip, et al - I brought up the fact that this staircase was at the end of the hallway and not the back yard. That being the case, I don't understand how it's possible that the lighted area at the end of Phil's photo could be the backyard when, as we see, there's a staircase there. Is there something elementary that I'm completely unaware of? If so, it wouldn't be the first time.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott