Ripperologist 127: August 2012

[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.

[Debra A]

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

[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

[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

[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

[Robert]

Hi Lynn

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

[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

[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

[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

[Monty]

Lynn, Robert, Chris,

Chris pretty much sums up my opinion on that.

The City Police seemed very keen to use photography and capture images of wall writing.

I can understand why in Goulston St, due to Eddowes apron, but not so much with this piece. I can only think that it was taken soon after Eddowes murder or there was something else tied to the photo of which we are not aware of.

Monty

[Robert]

Hi Lynn

Well, that would depend on how many messages were left on walls etc in the square mile. If it was a lot, it would have been impractical to photograph them all, and surely if that had happened, more would have survived? So, as Neil says, why photograph that one?

In the case of Goulston St the presence of the apron meant there was a real chance that the message had been left by the killer. So that puts it in a different category.

[lynn cates]

rare?

Hello Robert. Thanks.

I would presume that this was a rarity. There were purported messages near Hanbury, etc. But, as you point out, the GSG was the important one. Hence, afterwards, I suppose most ostensibly pertinent ones would be photographed--just in case the handwriting looked like one of the alleged missives.

Cheers.
LC

[Howard Brown]

Monty, Debs:

Thankfully, the material was found and eventually presented in this issue of the Rip by a five star cadre such as your two good selves...and Rob.
Doubt it could have been presented any better, IMHO.

[Monty]

Indeed How,

It verifies the photo and is what we required. You must bear in mind Rob, Laura , John and myself saw the photo and quizzed each other on if we had seen any reference to it before.

We were very cautious about it until we saw the report.

As for its taker, personally my money is on William Gee Parker, who had taken the Snow Hill Queens Jubilee group shots (featuring Harvey, Hutt and Byfield) in 87.

He is the closest photographer to that time period we know of.

I've done a bit of research about him and his career covers the period.

Monty

[sleekviper]

The picture of the wall writing came with a report? Is that common for a report to be issued for a picture of evidence without a date of discovery and location?