Ripperologist 127: August 2012

[Rob Clack]

Well Maria, I think this statement clears up any misinterpretations, coming from Simon Wood himself.
As it would take 'more than the likes of ..Simon Wood, Trevor Marriott and myself... to rewrite the Jack the Ripper mystery', (according to your 'bad-a$$' poster colleague)... Trevor Marriott deserves more kudos for his Tumblety article than has been shown in some silent quarters. Exceptions being Monty, Mike Hawley, Lynn, Simon, Tom and myself, having seen it's value, Maria. It does ask questions from a basis of Victorian law. As I said, come with arguements that show the laws quoted to be erroneous or any additional laws thusfar not mentioned and make a case against the article. If the law says one thing and tells us due process, then someone had better show something pretty substantial to argue with it.

Therefore any disrespect given to 'the likes of' Simon and Trevor are imho out of order. Perhaps instead of giggling at jibes and snipes by others whose clear primary intention was to put others down, I humbly suggest you take a serious look at the work in question instead, before you comment. Trevor Marriott has researched and put together things that have never been seen by many here before. Comparing a previous article of Simon's to Trevor's wont change Simon's comment at the top of this posting either. It would be disrespectful to Trevor to assume anything else.

Best wishes

Phil

I think you will find, if you can be bothered to read peoples posts properly, is that I said I enjoyed Trevor's article. I picked out one point which I didn't agree with and I commented on it, which is what I am entitled to do. Or are people not allowed to disagree with any part of Trevor's article? The main thrust of Trevor's article was the legalities of whether Tumblety was in Gaol or not and I posted that I couldn't respond to that as it would need further reading from me to understand.
And I didn't ask for your opinion before I posted my thoughts, what makes you think I give a toss now?
And for your information, I have a helluva lot of respect for Simon which you can tell in the way we communicate with each other. Simon has contributed quite a lot over the past 30 or so years and while I don't agree with all he has to say, especially his more recent output, I do respect the fact that he has made an effort to contribute and further our knowledge.

What have you done? Absolutely nothing. You have tried to bring doubt on genuine photographs and documents and made out that there is some great conspiracy and people are only in it for the money. Thankfully nobody believes in your twaddle.

Rob

[Phil Carter]

I think you will find, if you can be bothered to read peoples posts properly, is that I said I enjoyed Trevor's article. I picked out one point which I didn't agree with and I commented on it, which is what I am entitled to do. Or are people not allowed to disagree with any part of Trevor's article? The main thrust of Trevor's article was the legalities of whether Tumblety was in Gaol or not and I posted that I couldn't respond to that as it would need further reading from me to understand.
And I didn't ask for your opinion before I posted my thoughts, what makes you think I give a toss now?
And for your information, I have a helluva lot of respect for Simon which you can tell in the way we communicate with each other. Simon has contributed quite a lot over the past 30 or so years and while I don't agree with all he has to say, especially his more recent output, I do respect the fact that he has made an effort to contribute and further our knowledge.

What have you done? Absolutely nothing. You have tried to bring doubt on genuine photographs and documents and made out that there is some great conspiracy and people are only in it for the money. Thankfully nobody believes in your twaddle.

Rob

You showed your respect for Simon with the comment ' the likes of' and quickly backed off when his Ripperological pedigree was pointed out to you.
As fas as photos are concerned, I still cant see aerolae around the nipples on the Eddowes in a coffin photo which are amazingly apparent in the other Eddowes photos, and to this day you are yet to provide provenance to that photo, no matter WHO found it, where or when. It was not labelled, dated nor named. Therefore no provenance. I repeated that it in no way detracts from its finder, Don Rumbelow. It was his considered opinion that it is Eddowes. I maimtain expert opinion without provenance is opinion only.
Experts, no matter who they are, can also be mistaken. Without provenance, the photograph itself must be examined in detail, and as pointed out on another thread there is much left wanting in that photo.
If you persist in personal insults you will be reported. At no point have I returned the same. We may disagree, but I stick to the subject, and dont have to resort to the type of personal responses you do. I highlight it as we, 'the likes of' get it continually from you imparticular.
It shows time and again that your version of discussion is littered with insults- in this case 'the likes of' comment that was clearly derogatory towards Simon, Trevor and myself.
You just dont like your word challenged by others with something else to say in a different, non-traditional manner. No Rob, we won't toe the line. And as I said, insults wont wash us out of your hair. It only serves to give the opposite effect.

Phil

[Monty]

Phil,

You have no grounds to question that photo of Eddowes. You insinuation that its not is insulting to Don Rumbelow, whose track record is impeccable. There's no difference between that and what you accuse Rob of doing.

And speaking of Rob, he addressed Simon and erred. Rob apologised like a man and Simon was gracious enough to accept it. Its no one elses business, not mine or yours. Trying to re stoke it is poor form. Leave them be.

As for Trevors article, it is good. Simon does admit to changing errors so there is a bit of Wood input, and to be honest its clear where. However this is only in places. What Trevor has done is laid out Victorian legalities regarding custody and bail. He has NOT furnished us with evidence specifically relating to Tumbelty but speculation, therefore he has NOT laid Tumbelty to bed....far from it in fact.

Monty

[Rob Clack]

You showed your respect for Simon with the comment ' the likes of' and quickly backed off when his Ripperological pedigree was pointed out to you.

Try reading between the lines.
I know Simons pedigree and I didn't back off, I showed Simon some respect. Which you could do by letting him speak for himself if he wants to and don't stir up any ill feeling when there is none.

As fas as photos are concerned, I still cant see aerolae around the nipples on the Eddowes in a coffin photo which are amazingly apparent in the other Eddowes photos, and to this day you are yet to provide provenance to that photo, no matter WHO found it, where or when. It was not labelled, dated nor named. Therefore no provenance. I repeated that it in no way detracts from its finder, Don Rumbelow. It was his considered opinion that it is Eddowes. I maimtain expert opinion without provenance is opinion only.
Experts, no matter who they are, can also be mistaken. Without provenance, the photograph itself must be examined in detail, and as pointed out on another thread there is much left wanting in that photo.

It is seriously creepy that you have been focusing on Catherine Eddowes nipples. Hasn't it occurred to you that Eddowes was likely covered by a sheet from below the neck?
The issues I had with you Phil over these photos is that you had absolutely no knowledge of how these photos were found, when and where. You never bothered to find out anything about there history. You relied on very poor low resolution copies to try and make your point. You made no effort to view the originals even thinking the original negative was still in existence.
You didn't even know why Don Rumbelow suggested that they were of Catherine Eddowes. Since the return of the album photos in 1988 where one of the Eddowes photographs is the same view as the one of the ones Don found and it is labeled Catherine Eddowes then that to me is conclusive proof that these photos are of Catherine Eddowes. But even that isn't good enough for you as you don't think the album photos are genuine either. But then that is something you are going to have to live with as there are no doubts that these photographs are genuine.
I wont even mention the Foster drawing of Catherine Eddowes which you tried to bring into doubt by claiming the date on the drawing was the 50th of September which is to stupid for words. I even tried to help you out by suggesting you pop along to the London Hospital Museum to have a look at the original, but then you don't want to admit your wrong do you.

If you persist in personal insults you will be reported. At no point have I returned the same. We may disagree, but I stick to the subject, and dont have to resort to the type of personal responses you do. I highlight it as we, 'the likes of' get it continually from you imparticular.
It shows time and again that your version of discussion is littered with insults- in this case 'the likes of' comment that was clearly derogatory towards Simon, Trevor and myself.
You just dont like your word challenged by others with something else to say in a different, non-traditional manner. No Rob, we won't toe the line. And as I said, insults wont wash us out of your hair. It only serves to give the opposite effect.

Phil

No what you are doing is trying to drag this case back into the mire. There has been a lot of good work over the past ten years which has advanced the case. Your dragging it back into the dark ages with your naive ill informed opinion.
And I have my word challenged quite a lot and I have no problems admitting when I am wrong, problem is, they are from people I respect and your not one of them.
Report me if you want. I'll have a ban and when I come back you would be gone as you have retired from it all.

Rob

[Robert]

Nice article about Merrick, Neil.

[Monty]

Nice article about Merrick, Neil.

Thank you Robert,

Thought it had dipped under the radar.

Monty

[Chris]

Regarding information from the production files at the BFI concerning the other three interviewees shown with Farson in the TV Times photograph:

(1) Mrs Harvey, "who thinks she once met the killer".

She appeared in the first episode, and was Mrs A. Harvey in the cast list and on the consent form.

That's all I know for sure, but I wonder whether she might have been the "delightful old lady" named Annie who lived in a "pristine house in a new town on the outskirts of the East End", and told Farson that when in service as a young girl she had been sent to buy some fish and ran into a man with a big black beard, a black bag and a little black moustache, who she thought was the Ripper. Farson worked out that the event occurred after the murders, but did not disillusion her. The story is told in Limehouse Days, p. 60, and Never a Normal Man, p. 267.

(2) Mr Curry, "who ran errands for Mary Kelly".

He appeared in the second episode, and his name is spelled Currie in the cast list.

(3) Mrs Little, "who lived in the girl's home after the murder".

She is not in the cast list for either episode, but there is a consent form signed C. Little (in a bundle with others for those not in the cast lists).

She is referred to as Mrs Little in Tom Cullen's Autumn of Terror, p. 195. Cullen says that she claimed that her mother had moved into 13 Miller's Court after the murder of Kelly, and told a story about an indelible blood handprint on the wall, which many smartly dressed gentlemen used to visit the room to see.

[Robert]

I noticed a male Currie in 1891 who was seemingly the right age and location to have run errands for Kelly : Edwin Currie born 1881-2 living Blossom St. This might be the Edwin Currie who died 1964, but only if we allow him to acquire middle initial 't'. And, you guessed it : in 1911 he was a carman.

[Ally]

I liked the article about the dogs.

[Phil Carter]

Try reading between the lines.
I know Simons pedigree and I didn't back off, I showed Simon some respect. Which you could do by letting him speak for himself if he wants to and don't stir up any ill feeling when there is none.



It is seriously creepy that you have been focusing on Catherine Eddowes nipples. Hasn't it occurred to you that Eddowes was likely covered by a sheet from below the neck?
The issues I had with you Phil over these photos is that you had absolutely no knowledge of how these photos were found, when and where. You never bothered to find out anything about there history. You relied on very poor low resolution copies to try and make your point. You made no effort to view the originals even thinking the original negative was still in existence.
You didn't even know why Don Rumbelow suggested that they were of Catherine Eddowes. Since the return of the album photos in 1988 where one of the Eddowes photographs is the same view as the one of the ones Don found and it is labeled Catherine Eddowes then that to me is conclusive proof that these photos are of Catherine Eddowes. But even that isn't good enough for you as you don't think the album photos are genuine either. But then that is something you are going to have to live with as there are no doubts that these photographs are genuine.
I wont even mention the Foster drawing of Catherine Eddowes which you tried to bring into doubt by claiming the date on the drawing was the 50th of September which is to stupid for words. I even tried to help you out by suggesting you pop along to the London Hospital Museum to have a look at the original, but then you don't want to admit your wrong do you.



No what you are doing is trying to drag this case back into the mire. There has been a lot of good work over the past ten years which has advanced the case. Your dragging it back into the dark ages with your naive ill informed opinion.

And I have my word challenged quite a lot and I have no problems admitting when I am wrong, problem is, they are from people I respect and your not one of them.
Report me if you want. I'll have a ban and when I come back you would be gone as you have retired from it all.

Rob

Going to be a long ban then. 12-18months.
Thats what I said in April this year. You are ill informed if you thought otherwise.

As far as your respect for Simon,Trevor, myself and others is concerned, you nailed your flag to the sludge bucket telling us all that we take the genre back years, whěch you have done to all three of us over a long period of time.

I reacted to your 'the likes of' comment quite rightly, and pointed out, rightly, Simon Wood's pedigree. Simon confirmed it, you even questioned the date because YOU werent aware of it. If you get on so well with Simon Wood you would have known that he was behind the revelations made re the Knight book. You, it seems were ill informed.
'the likes of' shows your true colours. It was clearly derogatory to three people giving the distinct impression of knowing better than those three.
If that type of attitude reflects your position in Ripperology then Lord help any person attempting to might just know better than thou. 'The likes of' ... ??

The Eddowes in a coffin photo has its own thread where both Simon and myself agreed against you. I stand by my comments then as I do now. I cant speak for Simon butas far as I know know he is still of the same opinion as then. And for the umpteenth time, it rčflects no disrespect towards Don Rumbelow. End of.

I suggest discussion further is WITHOUT personal insult. Try. Without abhorent comments such as ' it wlll take more than the likes of you, Simon and Trevor' to rewrite the Jack the Ripper mystery'. Which was belittling, derogatory and insulting and you MEANT it.
True colours. Seen and shown.
Your offered apology to Simon referred to the date of his discovery of which you were unaware. It had nothing to do with THAT comment. And you know it.

Back to the thread and apologies for the dispuption to all.

Phil

[jmenges]

Nice article about Merrick, Neil.

I agree it was very good. Thanks Neil for writing that one up.

JM

[Monty]

I agree it was very good. Thanks Neil for writing that one up.

JM

My pleasure Jon,

As some may be aware, Joseph has an interest to me. It was nice to show that Merricks Paternal side of his family actually hailed from Shoreditch.

Adam approached me to do the piece as for the anniversary....I jumped at it.


Ally,

Jans articles in the past few Rips have been great. I'm not a doggy person but enjoyed them.

Monty

[Rob Clack]

Going to be a long ban then. 12-18months.
Thats what I said in April this year. You are ill informed if you thought otherwise.

Wishful thinking on my part.

As far as your respect for Simon,Trevor, myself and others is concerned, you nailed your flag to the sludge bucket telling us all that we take the genre back years, whěch you have done to all three of us over a long period of time.

I reacted to your 'the likes of' comment quite rightly, and pointed out, rightly, Simon Wood's pedigree. Simon confirmed it, you even questioned the date because YOU werent aware of it. If you get on so well with Simon Wood you would have known that he was behind the revelations made re the Knight book. You, it seems were ill informed.

You know, I was going to let this go out of respect to Simon, but you just wont keep your trap shut would you.

This what Simon said on the subject:

Don Rumbelow was extremely generous with his time and advice during my 1976 researches, but as in those days there were few opportunities to publish such material he beat me to it in the reprint of The Complete Jack the Ripper, by which time he had independently researched the subject. My article in Bloodhound appeared a few years later—1987 or 1988.

Let me translate into simple words for you to understand:

Don and Simon both researched the Sickert story about the same time and helped each other out.
Don published his findings (with Simon's help) first in 1981 and Simon published his researches in 1987/88. So Don was the first to demolish the Sickert story in print.

So your comment:

I commend you on enhancing your verbal reputation. I'm sure Simon appreciates the comment too, having already done exactly that many years ago...
joseph Sickert's tale. Remember?

Is bollocks.

'the likes of' shows your true colours. It was clearly derogatory to three people giving the distinct impression of knowing better than those three.
If that type of attitude reflects your position in Ripperology then Lord help any person attempting to might just know better than thou. 'The likes of' ... ??

If you want to carry on muck spreading which I have already told you about, then fine, we will both get banned together, hopefully for 18 months.

The Eddowes in a coffin photo has its own thread where both Simon and myself agreed against you. I stand by my comments then as I do now. I cant speak for Simon butas far as I know know he is still of the same opinion as then. And for the umpteenth time, it rčflects no disrespect towards Don Rumbelow. End of.

This is about your comments and no one elses.

I suggest discussion further is WITHOUT personal insult. Try. Without abhorent comments such as ' it wlll take more than the likes of you, Simon and Trevor' to rewrite the Jack the Ripper mystery'. Which was belittling, derogatory and insulting and you MEANT it.
True colours. Seen and shown.
Your offered apology to Simon referred to the date of his discovery of which you were unaware. It had nothing to do with THAT comment. And you know it.

Back to the thread and apologies for the dispuption to all.

Phil

What I said to Simon is not your concern so stop muck raking.

Rob

[Cogidubnus]

Going to be a long ban then. 12-18months.
Thats what I said in April this year. You are ill informed if you thought otherwise.

As far as your respect for Simon,Trevor, myself and others is concerned, you nailed your flag to the sludge bucket telling us all that we take the genre back years, whěch you have done to all three of us over a long period of time.

I reacted to your 'the likes of' comment quite rightly, and pointed out, rightly, Simon Wood's pedigree. Simon confirmed it, you even questioned the date because YOU werent aware of it. If you get on so well with Simon Wood you would have known that he was behind the revelations made re the Knight book. You, it seems were ill informed.
'the likes of' shows your true colours. It was clearly derogatory to three people giving the distinct impression of knowing better than those three.
If that type of attitude reflects your position in Ripperology then Lord help any person attempting to might just know better than thou. 'The likes of' ... ??

The Eddowes in a coffin photo has its own thread where both Simon and myself agreed against you. I stand by my comments then as I do now. I cant speak for Simon butas far as I know know he is still of the same opinion as then. And for the umpteenth time, it rčflects no disrespect towards Don Rumbelow. End of.

I suggest discussion further is WITHOUT personal insult. Try. Without abhorent comments such as ' it wlll take more than the likes of you, Simon and Trevor' to rewrite the Jack the Ripper mystery'. Which was belittling, derogatory and insulting and you MEANT it.
True colours. Seen and shown.
Your offered apology to Simon referred to the date of his discovery of which you were unaware. It had nothing to do with THAT comment. And you know it.

Oh Phil...I'm honestly so sorry to see you fritter things away in such a fashion...because quite simply you're one of the people who've genuinely encouraged me as a newbie on this site...and more so because Trevor didn't, in my honest opinion, really NEED defending...

Look after yourself anyway mate

Dave

[Phil Carter]

Hello Dave,

Yes. Point taken. I agree.
Thank you for the compliment.

Best wishes

Phil