Ripperologist 127: August 2012

[Tom_Wescott]

Phillips and Ruffels

I really enjoyed this essay. Much of it was familiar to me because, quite by chance, I just last week finished reading Farson's book for the first time. No doubt jumping from the book to the essay as I did lent further to my enjoyment of it. I liked the approach of looking anew at the pamphlet via a biographical sketch of Farson himself. Like the authors, I've long been of the opinion that at the root of the story lies in a newspaper article or chapbook about Deeming. What was completely new to me was the photograph of the people with Farson who allegedly had connections to Mary Kelly (a Mrs Harvey was in there!), and also Farson's notes regarding his talk with Mrs. Little, who claimed to have lived in Kelly's room following the murder. Unfortunately, I couldn't make much of it out. My question to the authors is....do you have more material such as this that we haven't seen? If so, this article is begging for a part 2, much as Monty and Rob's is with the Eddowes photos.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Editorial and graffiti

Hi all...very big issue, small print, lots to read...and I'm still only halfway through the last NIR! But I had a little downtime at work today and used that to read Adam's editorial, which was very good. I actually didn't know any of that stuff, and damn right that Italian should have been disqualified if he had to be lifted off the ground and carried over the finish line. Imagine someone picking up a knocked out fighter and swinging his arms to keep fighting!

Are you sure Paul Begg didn't write that editorial?

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!

Considering the 'Ripper' crimes continued for years after 1888, this could have happened at any time. But which months from Oct 1888 to, say, 1891, had the 27th fall on a Saturday or Sunday? I would wager it would be one of those months that this graffiti was left.

Also, I haven't had time to compare for myself yet, but does the 'signed' on this graffiti compare at all to the same word as found in the 'From hell' letter?

Anyway, big cheers all around to Adam, Monty, Rob, and Debs. Let's see more high res stuff on these 'new' Eddowes pics next issue.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jenni Shelden]

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

[Beowulf]

Hi Beowulf,

The text is different, as stated in the article.

The text on the wall says "I am going to do one on the 27th, Jac" It was cut off. I don't see what you mean by different. They don't claim it to be the Goulston street graffiti, do you mean because it cut off the part 'Jac...k the ripper"?

I don't know if anyone noticed, but the photograph of Catherine Eddowes shows a cut on her right leg. I find it interesting that Mary Kelly had the same cut only deeper, in nearly the same place.

I have pondered that cut for years, why would he cut out a portion of her leg? Of course, why would he cut at all. But it strikes me strange because it it on Catherine Eddowes I would say it could be considered possible evidence it was done by the same hand. Would an investigator consider this important too?

[jmenges]

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

[Robert]

Thanks Rob.

[Monty]

Slight correction. It was Sagar not White.

Rob

Glad one of us read it.

Monty

[Rob Clack]

However there is a report of White locating writing on Kings block, in Stoney Lane, which was an Artizan building. That said, the text of that writing doesn't match the find. So we really aren't certain.

Monty

Slight correction. It was Sagar not White.

Rob

[Monty]

Hi Beowulf,

The text is different, as stated in the article.

I must admit, I haven't fully read the Rip yet but there is a royal collection of articles and other tit bits in this issue.

Looking forward to savouring it.

Monty


PS, White? I should have read our work.

[Beowulf]

Thanks Beowulf, I think this might have to be our Quote for the Month next issue!

Best wishes
Adam

LOL! Love it to be so!

[Rob Clack]

Very interesting article, Neil and Rob. The message included "signed" as part of the message. I don't know how common it was to do this. I'm wondering if it was influenced by the Lusk letter.

Thank you Stephen,

There is one slight error, which Rob wishes to address when he returns later this evening. It doesn't effect the article much, if at all, but it does need to be clarified.

Yes, the photo was cropped and alongside a photo of Eddowes. It is obviously a copy.

The original? We do not know where that is.

I would like to say, at this stage, a massive thanks to all who helped however I feel one person requires a special mention. If it wasn't for Debs Arif we would not have had the verification of the photo. Her find not only gives us the full text but dates. It cuts dead the speculation of photoshop and tampering.

Her find should not be overlooked, and is equally significant to the photo in our eyes.

Monty

Just to clarify. The actual chalk message may not, and in our opinion unlikely to have, included the word 'signed', that was what was included in the transcription from "Reports of Meetings and Discussions held in London 10th -17th August 1891" that we quoted from.
It is our opinion that it was not part of the original message and we should have made a note of that fact in the article and should have been noticed by us.

Rob

[AdamNeilWood]

Ripperologist is what cocaine was to Sherlock Holmes. I feel myself succumbing to the rush and it is fast becoming an addiction.

Thanks Beowulf, I think this might have to be our Quote for the Month next issue!

Best wishes
Adam

[Beowulf]

That said, the text of that writing doesn't match the find. So we really aren't certain.

Monty

I don't really understand what you mean by that? Can you elucidate?

Ripperologist is what cocaine was to Sherlock Holmes. I feel myself succumbing to the rush and it is fast becoming an addiction.

Debra outdid herself. This is significant.

Lynn, I agree with you, September would've been romantic. It happens I have been listening to this lovely old song this morning 'September in the rain' before I ever read this and your comment resonated with me.

http://www.myspace.com/music/player?song=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.myspace.com%2Farthurtracymusic%2Fmusic%2Fsongs%2Fseptember-in-the-rain-76624281

Other than that, I'm speechless.

[Jason]

Hi Jason,

The name 'Jack the Ripper' first came to the publics knowledge early October 88. The report Debs found, in which the writing is mention is headed as
"Reports of Meetings and Discussions held in London 10th -17th August 1891" so is really anytime between those dates. However due to the fact the Police did photograph it we feel it was earlier rather than later.


The location is unknown but we know, again thanks to the Report, it was found on some Artizan Buildings. As the photo was located in the City Police archives, its logical to assume it was found on Artizan building within the City, which could be one of around 14. However there is a report of White locating writing on Kings block, in Stoney Lane, which was an Artizan building. That said, the text of that writing doesn't match the find. So we really aren't certain.

Monty

sounds great, thanks Monty !!

[Monty]

Hi Jason,

The name 'Jack the Ripper' first came to the publics knowledge early October 88. The report Debs found, in which the writing is mention is headed as
"Reports of Meetings and Discussions held in London 10th -17th August 1891" so is really anytime between those dates. However due to the fact the Police did photograph it we feel it was earlier rather than later.


The location is unknown but we know, again thanks to the Report, it was found on some Artizan Buildings. As the photo was located in the City Police archives, its logical to assume it was found on Artizan building within the City, which could be one of around 14. However there is a report of White locating writing on Kings block, in Stoney Lane, which was an Artizan building. That said, the text of that writing doesn't match the find. So we really aren't certain.

Monty