Ripperologist 127: August 2012

[Ally]

I liked the article about the dogs.

[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.

[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.

[Monty]

Nice article about Merrick, Neil.

Thank you Robert,

Thought it had dipped under the radar.

Monty

[Robert]

Nice article about Merrick, Neil.

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Debra A]

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.

Don't worry, Trevor will see the funny side, Phil. After all he's always telling those of us he 'puts down' to get a sense of humour.

[mariab]

The "badass" referred to the tone, not the content, Phil.

As you know I'm one of the very few who have encouraged Trevor Marriott's research on the SB (even signed his petition), and (after several comments from those who have already read it) I'm fully expecting a discussion of Victorian law in his article on Tumblety.
My mentioning that I want to compare the new one with the old piece by Simon Wood was not meant as a derogatory comment. In a couple months I'll be also re-reading the entire Vanderlinden, R.J. Parker, and Hawley stuff as I'll be trying to research something pertaining to inspector Andrews' oversea trip. (Not that I'm necessarily expecting to find anything.)

You might recall that I consider Tumblety not as a serious candidate for the Ripper, but as a historical candidate he belongs on the list.

[Phil Carter]

Just as a point of general interest, the Tumblety article is all Trevor's work.

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

[mariab]

I take it you removed all the bold typeface as well?

ROFL.

[Rob Clack]

Hi Rob,

There's no need for an apology, but thank you. I appreciate it.

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.

Anyway, it's doesn't really matter who was first. The important thing is that people got to be made aware of the true facts behind this nonsensical but compelling Ripper theory.

Thank you Simon, perfect gentleman.

Just as a point of general interest, the Tumblety article is all Trevor's work. He sent it to me for comment and all I really did was correct a few errors and spelling mistakes and toss in generous handfuls of commas, semi-colons and full stops for, as posters will no doubt be aware, punctuation is not Trevor's strong point.

I hope it helped.

Regards,

Simon

I take it you removed all the bold typeface as well?

Hello Simon,

If I recall correctly you were the first to research, find and confront Mr Stephen Knight with this material were you not?
(edit. As I apparently havent learned more than Rob has forgotten, I may have this 'tits up'. Aplogies if so.)

Best wishes

Phil

Yes that's about right.

Rob

[mariab]

What I wanna do is compare the Marriott piece to the old Simon Wood article on Tumblety (which I haven't read in a long while).

PS.: I love it that Rob talks so badass in this thread.