Ripperologist 127: August 2012

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Rob Clack]

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

As far as I am aware, some of the album photos were first published in Paul Beggs 'Jack the Ripper The Uncensored Facts' and some were published in Bill Waddells 'The Black Museum'. We don't know the date they were transferred to the National Archives but I believe it was the early 1990s so the author/publisher of the Diary book would in my opinion have obtained the copies themselves from the National Archives. Presumably the album contained other photos but we don't know what or where the rest of the album is now so that is why we didn't expand further on it.

And just for the record the photos are genuine.

Rob

[Scott Nelson]

What's that brown little pile on the cobblestones in the alleyway from Gunthorpe Street into the square (photo on last page)??

[sleekviper]

Sure Tom, I know that date in the land of outer fringe.

[robhouse]

by the way, I don't know if others are having the same problem, but some of the photos are not showing up in my copy of the Ripperologist 127 pdf. Several in Chris and John's article are missing for example.

Rob H

[Chris]

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.

Well, Farson's notes were kindly provided by Keith Skinner, who obviously has a lot of other interesting material, though I think he sent us all he had that was directly relevant to "Farson's Guide".

I have a few more snippets of information from the production file at the BFI about those who appeared (or didn't appear) in the programmes, which I'll try to post over the next few days if people are interested.

My attempt at a transcript of Farson's notes on Mrs Little was as follows:
_______________________

Mrs Little: One
wasn't scared [?]those
days. One was right
in amongst it.

She was a lovely
girl. They were
all good girls at heart
-
One saw stabbing
all the time
saw - cut
up & carted
off to hospital
in a wheelbarrow
-
[??]drink [?]sent [?]Stephen [?]Mc
blind - Mrs McArthy
died of drink

[Phil Carter]

Well, Farson's notes were kindly provided by Keith Skinner, who obviously has a lot of other interesting material, though I think he sent us all he had that was directly relevant to "Farson's Guide".

I have a few more snippets of information from the production file at the BFI about those who appeared (or didn't appear) in the programmes, which I'll try to post over the next few days if people are interested.

My attempt at a transcript of Farson's notes on Mrs Little was as follows:
_______________________

Mrs Little: One
wasn't scared [?]those
days. One was right
in amongst it.

She was a lovely
girl. They were
all good girls at heart
-
One saw stabbing
all the time
saw - cut
up & carted
off to hospital
in a wheelbarrow
-
[??]drink [?]sent [?]Stephen [?]Mc
blind - Mrs McArthy
died of drink

Hello Chris,

Many thanks for this. "saw stabbing all the time" "saw- cut up and carted off to hospital on a wheelbarrow" says a great deal.
Have we Mrs. McCarthy's death certificate? Does this refer to Mrs John McCarthy?
Is Stephen Mc the son of Mrs McArthy?

Best wishes

Phil