Ripperologist 127: August 2012

[Rob Clack]

So far I've only read Rob and Monty's, just wanted to say, very nice piece of research.

Really it is great that you found this and went through all the drama of bringing it to us. This kind of hard work and co-operation amongst Ripperologists is really a treat to see.

Thanks Ally. It was easy to work with Neil, he just did as he was told.

Rob

[Rob Clack]

Hi Neil and Rob,

do you think this means it post dates GG wall writing and they took it because of the fuss they kicked up when the Met didnt take GG?

Jenni

ps interesting stuff, did i mention that lol

Thanks Jenni,

It most likely post dates the GG wall writing. I personally think it was written in October 1888, but that is just a speculative opinion.
The City Police may have been a bit more forward thinking then the Met in this respect. But the graffito may have been a location where it was easier to have a photograph taken and the City Police may have felt it was important enough for a photograph to be taken.
It does beg the question that if the Goulston Street Graffito was in a more secluded spot would the Met have definitely had a photograph taken? Possibly they would.

Rob

[Ally]

So far I've only read Rob and Monty's, just wanted to say, very nice piece of research.

Really it is great that you found this and went through all the drama of bringing it to us. This kind of hard work and co-operation amongst Ripperologists is really a treat to see.

[Monty]

Hi Jenni,

I feel that his highly unlikely, as the name Jack the Ripper wasn't public knowledge until after the graffito find.

However, that's not certain.

And thank you.

Monty

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Neil and Rob,

do you think this means it post dates GG wall writing and they took it because of the fuss they kicked up when the Met didnt take GG?

Jenni

ps interesting stuff, did i mention that lol

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

I have just finished Trevor Marriott's piece and must say that this very detailed and responsible article raises, imho, serious questions against Tumblety's candidacy as a suspect for the Ripper crimes. The methodology used by the authorities shown in this article, if correct (and I see no reason to say that it isn't) is quite conclusive.

Well done to Trevor, and to Simon as well. It is a very fine article indeed, that may well be groundbreaking imho.

Best wishes

Phil

[Robert]

Yes indeed Lynn, another carman. Now the question is, was "Wright" his right name?

[lynn cates]

occupation

Hello Robert. No, not another carman . . .pleeaaassseee!

Cheers.
LC

[Robert]

I've finished John and Chris's enjoyable and thorough article. I noticed the TV Times photo in the gin palace gave a little biographical info on one of the people at the table - Mr Wright, who found blood outside his door after a JTR murder, was 89 years old. This was in 1959. I did a very quick and very unscientific look at the 1891 census for men in that area of that name born within a year of 1870. A couple of interesting ones :

Henry T Wright, railway porter, 82 Wentworth St Dwellings, Osborne St
William Wright, carman brick yard, 6 Bucks Row

[sleekviper]

The picture of the wall writing came with a report? Is that common for a report to be issued for a picture of evidence without a date of discovery and location?

[Monty]

Indeed How,

It verifies the photo and is what we required. You must bear in mind Rob, Laura , John and myself saw the photo and quizzed each other on if we had seen any reference to it before.

We were very cautious about it until we saw the report.

As for its taker, personally my money is on William Gee Parker, who had taken the Snow Hill Queens Jubilee group shots (featuring Harvey, Hutt and Byfield) in 87.

He is the closest photographer to that time period we know of.

I've done a bit of research about him and his career covers the period.

Monty

[Howard Brown]

Monty, Debs:

Thankfully, the material was found and eventually presented in this issue of the Rip by a five star cadre such as your two good selves...and Rob.
Doubt it could have been presented any better, IMHO.

[lynn cates]

rare?

Hello Robert. Thanks.

I would presume that this was a rarity. There were purported messages near Hanbury, etc. But, as you point out, the GSG was the important one. Hence, afterwards, I suppose most ostensibly pertinent ones would be photographed--just in case the handwriting looked like one of the alleged missives.

Cheers.
LC

[Robert]

Hi Lynn

Well, that would depend on how many messages were left on walls etc in the square mile. If it was a lot, it would have been impractical to photograph them all, and surely if that had happened, more would have survived? So, as Neil says, why photograph that one?

In the case of Goulston St the presence of the apron meant there was a real chance that the message had been left by the killer. So that puts it in a different category.

[Monty]

Lynn, Robert, Chris,

Chris pretty much sums up my opinion on that.

The City Police seemed very keen to use photography and capture images of wall writing.

I can understand why in Goulston St, due to Eddowes apron, but not so much with this piece. I can only think that it was taken soon after Eddowes murder or there was something else tied to the photo of which we are not aware of.

Monty