Ripperologist 127: August 2012

[Robert]

I've finished John and Chris's enjoyable and thorough article. I noticed the TV Times photo in the gin palace gave a little biographical info on one of the people at the table - Mr Wright, who found blood outside his door after a JTR murder, was 89 years old. This was in 1959. I did a very quick and very unscientific look at the 1891 census for men in that area of that name born within a year of 1870. A couple of interesting ones :

Henry T Wright, railway porter, 82 Wentworth St Dwellings, Osborne St
William Wright, carman brick yard, 6 Bucks Row

[lynn cates]

occupation

Hello Robert. No, not another carman . . .pleeaaassseee!

Cheers.
LC

[Robert]

Yes indeed Lynn, another carman. Now the question is, was "Wright" his right name?

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

I have just finished Trevor Marriott's piece and must say that this very detailed and responsible article raises, imho, serious questions against Tumblety's candidacy as a suspect for the Ripper crimes. The methodology used by the authorities shown in this article, if correct (and I see no reason to say that it isn't) is quite conclusive.

Well done to Trevor, and to Simon as well. It is a very fine article indeed, that may well be groundbreaking imho.

Best wishes

Phil

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Neil and Rob,

do you think this means it post dates GG wall writing and they took it because of the fuss they kicked up when the Met didnt take GG?

Jenni

ps interesting stuff, did i mention that lol

[Monty]

Hi Jenni,

I feel that his highly unlikely, as the name Jack the Ripper wasn't public knowledge until after the graffito find.

However, that's not certain.

And thank you.

Monty

[Ally]

So far I've only read Rob and Monty's, just wanted to say, very nice piece of research.

Really it is great that you found this and went through all the drama of bringing it to us. This kind of hard work and co-operation amongst Ripperologists is really a treat to see.

[Rob Clack]

Hi Neil and Rob,

do you think this means it post dates GG wall writing and they took it because of the fuss they kicked up when the Met didnt take GG?

Jenni

ps interesting stuff, did i mention that lol

Thanks Jenni,

It most likely post dates the GG wall writing. I personally think it was written in October 1888, but that is just a speculative opinion.
The City Police may have been a bit more forward thinking then the Met in this respect. But the graffito may have been a location where it was easier to have a photograph taken and the City Police may have felt it was important enough for a photograph to be taken.
It does beg the question that if the Goulston Street Graffito was in a more secluded spot would the Met have definitely had a photograph taken? Possibly they would.

Rob

[Rob Clack]

So far I've only read Rob and Monty's, just wanted to say, very nice piece of research.

Really it is great that you found this and went through all the drama of bringing it to us. This kind of hard work and co-operation amongst Ripperologists is really a treat to see.

Thanks Ally. It was easy to work with Neil, he just did as he was told.

Rob

[Monty]

Thank you Ally,

Hopefully this will dispel the ridiculus evil cabal/cartel/old boys club myth that has been bandied about in recent times.

The co-operation of various researchers, plus the assistance given to us by Paul, Keith, Stewart and Don was beneficial. Also the access granted by Cathy was fantastic.

Also the community should be thanked. Apart from the odd half arsed comment, they have also been very supportive. The patience shown enabled us to organise ourselves and bring it to conclusion, which would have been very difficult if having to constantly respond to questions before its release.

It gives hope that stuff is out there. Finding the original would be ideal.

Monty

[Monty]

Thanks Ally. It was easy to work with Neil, he just did as he was told.

Rob

Ally,

As I'm sure you are aware, the secret to any great marriage is to let him think he is in control.

Need I say anymore?

Monty


PS...could I use anymore 'alsos'?

[Jenni Shelden]

Chris, John,

what an engaging piece. It was a complex piece of research explained with great clarity and flow. I felt able to fully engage in it without more than a working knowledge. Well done

Jenni

[Chris]

I've finished John and Chris's enjoyable and thorough article. I noticed the TV Times photo in the gin palace gave a little biographical info on one of the people at the table - Mr Wright, who found blood outside his door after a JTR murder, was 89 years old. This was in 1959. I did a very quick and very unscientific look at the 1891 census for men in that area of that name born within a year of 1870. A couple of interesting ones :

Henry T Wright, railway porter, 82 Wentworth St Dwellings, Osborne St
William Wright, carman brick yard, 6 Bucks Row

Thanks to Robert and the others who have made complimentary comments on our article.

Regarding Mr Wright, checking my notes of the production files I see that he is credited in the cast list as "Mr A. Wright". However, there is also a bundle of signed agreements to being filmed and televised, and his form is signed "W. Wright". So the Bucks Row man looks like the right one to me.

[robhouse]

I have just finished reading through Chris and John's article for the second time... very well written, informative and engaging. I, like Jenni, knew little about this whole story, but it is very interesting. I admit I am curious to hear more about this "meeting over drinks that went badly wrong" between Keith Skinner Martin Howells and Farson. (!)

Also, I am left wondering what happened to Cullen's bumf (assuming that he indeed stole Farson's original files.) Where are they now I wonder? I am sure people have looked into this, I just can't recall if I have read about it.

But great work. My congratulations to both of you.

Rob H

[Tom_Wescott]

What exactly is in that pipe Monty is smoking in his pic?

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.

You’re confusing two different statements as one. I was not asking for speculation, I was suggesting that the photo be given the Adam Wood treatment or something, with certain parts blown up where we can see detail. Someone mentioned the cuts on her legs, so that could be looked into. I thought it was clear that I was suggesting that a part 2 of your and Rob’s piece would be a good idea. Only you could draw a negative from that!

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.

You’re off the deep end!!! Just because Paul writes Adam’s editorials now and Simon writes as Trevor Marriott does NOT mean that AP Wolf or Phil Carter write my posts and accuse others of fakery!

Read my words again. Clearly, I’m convinced the photo was taken prior to August 1891. In fact, based on Sleekviper’s answer to my question, I’d say there’s a likelihood it dates from October 1888, though who knows. I used the word ‘alleged’ in regard to the suggestion that it was found on an artizan’s dwelling, etc. I don’t think any of that’s proven. But I would say it’s beyond question that it dates prior to August of 1891. Relax a little and stop expecting to be accused of crimes against history.

Sleek,

Thanks!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott