Ripperologist 127: August 2012

[lynn cates]

turf

Hello Chris. Thanks.

Exactly! They could not complain that, "The Met erased the GSG, what idiots!" and yet not photograph what was on their own turf.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

reason

Hello Robert. Thanks.

Precisely, but I am suggesting that they were involved in the fracas over the GSG ("Don't erase!"). It would have sent the wrong message had they not applied their own point of view and taken a photograph.

Cheers.
LC

[ChrisGeorge]

Hello Neil.

"I think one of the questions which needs to be addressed regarding the writing photo is why take the photo at all?"

I wonder if the heat that Sir Charles experienced after having the GSG expunged could have some bearing on that?

Cheers.
LC

Yes it could but also, as Neil and Rob point out in their article, the City Police's viewpoint was that it was a mistake to erase the writing in Goulston Street, which could have made them even more determined to photograph other examples of Ripper-related wall writing.

Chris

[Robert]

Hi Lynn

If I understand correctly, this was a City Police photo and had nothing to do with Warren.

[DGB]

Firstly....how the f*kc did we miss that?

Secondly....Apologies to Howard and Magpie because if we had known of this it would have been included.

We thank you for the find Howard.

Monty

Funnily enough, I saw Magpie's post just yesterday....after putting the text of the grafitti into Google (that's as limited as my research ever gets!)

Well done Neil and Rob

[lynn cates]

past sins

Hello Neil.

"I think one of the questions which needs to be addressed regarding the writing photo is why take the photo at all?"

I wonder if the heat that Sir Charles experienced after having the GSG expunged could have some bearing on that?

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

And I just came across an old post of How Brown's from 2007 where he mentions it too!

Firstly....how the f*kc did we miss that?

Secondly....Apologies to Howard and Magpie because if we had known of this it would have been included.

We thank you for the find Howard.

Monty

[Debra A]

And I just came across an old post of How Brown's from 2007 where he mentions it too!

[Debra A]

As for 'alleged' provenance, are you stating the Report, which supports at least two facts, (1- there was a photo of wall writing prior 1891 & 2 - Gave the text of the wall writing, confirming the photo) does not verify the photo? Or that it is a fake?

Id like you to expand on that if you may.

Monty

Hi Neil, Rob, Tom
I sincerely hope that Tom just worded his post particularly badly in this instance, but if not, I'd also like to take the opportunity of pointing out that this 'freakishly obscure' reference was also found independently, by the poster 'Magpie' a few months back and posted to JTR forums. At the time Magpie had no idea that there was a corresponding photograph found by Neil and Rob and that I'd also found the reference a few months earlier, knowing what it was. I obviously wasn't able to say anything to Magpie at the time he posted the snippet.
Rob and Neil made a great find. Simple.

[Rob Clack]

I would like to see more on these 'new' pics of Eddowes, which really weren't presented at all to effect.

There's only one new photo of Eddowes which we showed.

Rob

[Monty]

Congratulations to everyone involved in this discovery. Finding unknown photographs is huge in my book. Thanks for all your continued efforts and let's hope for more in the future.

All the best,

JM

Thanks Jon,

I think one of the questions which needs to be address regarding the writing photo is why take the photo at all?

Dear Rip, great issue, im onyl but part way through.
Rob and Neil,
congratulations on your article. Jut the kind of thing I find intriguing following the puzzle of the research, I am looking forward t any future projects

Jenni

Thank you Jenni

I then read Monty and Rob's piece. Not sure what to make of the graffiti yet, but I know for sure I would like to see more on these 'new' pics of Eddowes, which really weren't presented at all to effect. Had Debs not found that freakishly obscure entry regarding the graffiti and its alleged provenance, there really wouldn't be much of anything to speculate upon. Or maybe I have that backwards...there'd be nothing to do but speculate!

How could the news photos been presented Tom? With speculation? That was something we wanted to avoid on the whole. The photos were presented factually and as is. That was deliberate. As you may know, Rob and I work that way.

As for 'alleged' provenance, are you stating the Report, which supports at least two facts, (1- there was a photo of wall writing prior 1891 & 2 - Gave the text of the wall writing, confirming the photo) does not verify the photo? Or that it is a fake?

Id like you to expand on that if you may.

Monty

[sleekviper]

Thank you for the wonderful find with the writing!!!! Tom, the 27th was a Saturday in 1888, a Sunday in 1889, in the month of October.

[drstrange169]

Perhaps inspired by the current clime, Ripperologist has serious lifted it's readability of late to Olympic standards. It's moved from the "catch up later pile", which contains some quality companions, I might add, to the "read right away" pile. Of course, this current copy has the added bonus of not just Aussie content, but suburbs close to home here in wet and windy Melbourne.

[lynn cates]

Tumblety

Hello Trevor. Well done.

So our snake oil friend was in gaol at the crucial time? Why do I get the feeling that Tumblety may have enjoyed some aspects of that?

I recall Manson's dictum, "There is plenty of sex in prison."

Kudos.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

mystery

Hello Tom. I'll second that. As an ex-Druittist, naturally I felt a slight twinge.

Perhaps some day that mystery will be solved.

Cheers.
LC