Ripperologist 127: August 2012

[Monty]

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!



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

No, not off the deep end Tom. Just seeking clarification. Dont get in a flap like a High School date at her first prom.

Theres no 'alleged' in that regard. The report states its was found on one of the blocks of Artizan Dwellings.

Oh rats, the word 'signed' is missing from the pic. The writing bears a superficial resemblance to the 'From hell' letter, but none at all to 'Dear Boss'. I don't understand the practice of writing the word 'signed' to the far left of a signature. Rather like stating the obvious. Definitely looks like rather small print written on a standard wood door. Here's another question:

Is there a month between Oct. 1888 and the first half of 1891 in which a holiday fell on the 27th? Maybe even a local holday, similar to Lord Mayor's Day? Assuming the writer didn't pull the date out of his arse, which he may have, I think the 27th must have referred to a weekend or holiday.

Is it not also possible that a citizen photographer saw the writing, took the pic, and gave it to the police, and that this is the only reason it entered the file

The 27th October was a Saturday, which is connected to the Cloak Lane writing as that occurred on that date. However theres no holiday or other specific connection to that date.

I cant see it being anything other than a Police photo to be honest.

My infamously BAD taste in humor? Maybe a little. In hindsight, I should have just stuck with AP Wolf, who certainly is known to have gratuitously and without cause accused reputable researchers with fakery on no grounds. I must say I was very insulted to be placed in ranks alongside AP by Monty, so I apologize for bringing your name into the mud along with mine.

And for the record, I don't actually think that Paul wrote Adam's editorial.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hey, that was MY bad taste in humour.

Come now Tom, if you dont want the Tiger to bite quit poking it with a stick.


I am going to tackle Chris and Johns article tonight, after the lawn has been mown. Cannot wait.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

I am hoping this is another example of your infamous taste in humour?
Otherwise I like it be known that I have never, to my knowledge at least, accused any individual of fakery.

My infamously BAD taste in humor? Maybe a little. In hindsight, I should have just stuck with AP Wolf, who certainly is known to have gratuitously and without cause accused reputable researchers with fakery on no grounds. I must say I was very insulted to be placed in ranks alongside AP by Monty, so I apologize for bringing your name into the mud along with mine.

And for the record, I don't actually think that Paul wrote Adam's editorial.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Trevor

I too have read Trevor's article. It's VERY detailed and laden with law references which I don't pretend to be familiar with. However, I'm not sure Trev was playing fair with some of his accusations. For instance, he starts by suggesting that most Ripperologists believe the Ripper killed 5 and only 5 people, which I would argue is not the case. Some believe he killed less, some believe he killed more, though I will grant that most of us do believe that those 5 'canonical' women were killed by one man/men. From this the argument is built that if Tumblety was in jail for Kelly's murder, then he could not be claimed by the majority of us to have been the killer of ANY of the women. What is curiously missing from the article is the fact that the original book on Tumblety (Evans & Gainey) also happens to be the first Ripper book that seriously explores the idea that Kelly was not a Ripper victim. Therefore, there's already a book in print that argues the possibility that Tumblety could have been the Ripper, but not the killer of Kelly. Why wasn't this acknowledged in the essay?

Also being argued between the lines is the idea that Tumblety - at no point - was an actual Ripper suspect, which seems to be arguing that Tumblety, Littlechild, and the entirety of the American press were in a conspiracy together to accuse Francis of the Ripper murders. I don't believe the evidence actually bears this out though. And if people who accepted Kelly as a Ripper victim (which was literally everybody) accepted Tumblety as a potential Ripper, then that is evidence he was on the streets at the time of the murder. Or am I wrong?

But getting back to the meat of the argument - that the laws and statutes of the time leave no room for Tumblety to have been anywhere but in jail during the Kelly murder - my layman opinion is that there might be something to this. Certainly much research was undertaken for which Trevor should be congratulated. But I regret to say that I have no choice but to wait for the inevitable scholarly rebuttals so I can weigh the two viewpoints. But again, I say congratulations to Trevor and Simon on all the hard work in researching and presenting all this new evidence.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mklhawley]

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

Hi Phil,

I won't get to read my issue until this weekend. I'm sure I will love it!

Sincerely,

Mike

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Phil

In Shirley Harrison's The Diary of Jack the Ripper (Smith Gryphon, 1993), six victim photographs were published -- two of Mary Jane Kelly, the famous photograph of her lying forlorn and mutilated and the smaller photograph taken from the other side of the bed, and both are pasted on the same black album page; a picture each of Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes again pasted on a black album page; and a separate black album page with a photograph of Elizabeth Stride (one of those with her pegged against the wall). All three of the album pages have typed on an oblong white piece of paper pasted above the photographs, "WHITECHAPEL VICTIMS" and for the MJK photographs pasted below the images a white rectangle typed in three lines "Mary Jannette [sic] Kelly / Millers Court / 9. 11.88."; for the photos of Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes, on three separate rectangles, it reads, respectively, typed "Mary Ann Nicholls / Bucks Row / 31. 8. 88", "Annie Chapman, Hanbury Street, 8. 9. 88.", and [handwritten] "Catherine Eddowes" (I'm squinting at the photo which is small in the book and assume that's the spelling) / [then typed] "MITRE SQUARE. / [handwritten] 30. 9. '88."; and for the separate Stride photograph all typed on a rectangular piece of paper, "Elizabeth Stride / Berner Street / 30. 9. 88." Note that attribution is clearly given for all of the victim photographs, "(Public Record Office, Kew)". I know that Richard Whittington-Egan provided some of the illustrative material for the book, particularly Maybrick-related illustrations, as per attributions in the captions to those images, so I don't know if he was the one who directed Robert Smith and Shirley Harrison to the PRO, which is now, as you will be aware, named the National Archives, or if someone else facilitated the obtaining of copies of the photographs. Phil, I hope you find this information helpful.

Best regards

Chris

[Phil Carter]

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!

Hello Tom,

I am hoping this is another example of your infamous taste in humour?
Otherwise I like it be known that I have never, to my knowledge at least, accused any individual of fakery.


Whilst we are on the subject, I perhaps may now get an answer to the questions I asked many years ago, and have repeated here and on JTR Forums. Namely-

The first time I saw a print of the 'ripper victims' photos in situ as it were, in the album, was in the "Diary" book. (Yes- THAT book) I would still like to know, given the questionable nature of THAT book, and the amount of shenanigens happening at that time, WHO provided the photo album to be photographed and gave permission for such, for THAT book to use them and WHEN (DATE), WHEN exactly (date) were the photos taken out of the album, and lastly, as I would find it extremely odd that an album of photos apparently used by a retired policeman for educational/training/whatever purposes ONLY contained these 'ripper victim' photos, what was the rest of the album content and where are the other contents of the album now?

Photo albums normally contain more than two pages of photos. And even if emptied, where is the album itself- let alone any photos that would normally fill the pages therein.

I asked these things many years ago. No answers have been put forward as far as I am aware. Perhaps I missed some perfectly normal set of explanations? Do pardon my sceptical, cynical manner. It comes on naturally with age, so I've been reliably informed by my other, ageing peers. Lol

best wishes

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Yes, all the most interesting stuff was left out of their essay. I recall that Farson thought a production assistant or intern from the television studio stole his briefcase, so I'm surprised to see Cullen being brought in to this. What would he have even been doing there at this time? And how about sharing more of those handwritten notes!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

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

I agree with Rob on this, you cannot possibly throw out something like "after a meeting over drinks that went badly wrong" and then just leave that hanging, I mean come on....that's just mean.

Did someone make a pass? Toss a drink? The possibilities are boggling.

I looked it up according to the footnote and apparently it was just a case of Farson being a bit on the paranoid side and questioning their motives for why they were asking him about his research. Not nearly as interesting as the scenario I was concocting.

[Tom_Wescott]

Thoughts on the graffiti

Oh rats, the word 'signed' is missing from the pic. The writing bears a superficial resemblance to the 'From hell' letter, but none at all to 'Dear Boss'. I don't understand the practice of writing the word 'signed' to the far left of a signature. Rather like stating the obvious. Definitely looks like rather small print written on a standard wood door. Here's another question:

Is there a month between Oct. 1888 and the first half of 1891 in which a holiday fell on the 27th? Maybe even a local holday, similar to Lord Mayor's Day? Assuming the writer didn't pull the date out of his arse, which he may have, I think the 27th must have referred to a weekend or holiday.

Is it not also possible that a citizen photographer saw the writing, took the pic, and gave it to the police, and that this is the only reason it entered the file?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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'?

[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