Ripperologist 127: August 2012

[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.

[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]

Slight correction. It was Sagar not White.

Rob

Glad one of us read it.

Monty

[Robert]

Thanks Rob.

[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

[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?

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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