Ripperologist 127: August 2012

[AdamNeilWood]

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

Sorry to hear this Rob. Does anyone else have the same problem? I'll look into it and report back.

Adam

[Simon Wood]

Hi Adam,

Everything is ship-shape and Bristol fashion in my copy.

Regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

browser

Hello Rob, Adam. What browser are we talking about here?

Cheers.
LC

[Rob Clack]

Hi Phil,

Your welcome.

Rob

[Chris]

Have we Mrs. McCarthy's death certificate? Does this refer to Mrs John McCarthy?
Is Stephen Mc the son of Mrs McArthy?

I assume it refers to John McCarthy's wife, though I don't have any information beyond what I've posted, and I don't know whether this is new information. According to the A-Z, John's son John Joseph used the stage name Steve McCarthy. I assume this is he:

http://www.vads.ac.uk/x-large.php?uid=63532&sos=0

[Phil Carter]

I assume it refers to John McCarthy's wife, though I don't have any information beyond what I've posted, and I don't know whether this is new information. According to the A-Z, John's son John Joseph used the stage name Steve McCarthy. I assume this is he:
http://www.vads.ac.uk/x-large.php?uid=63532&sos=0

Hello Chris,

Many thanks for the reply. Without trying to presume anything, the obvious answer may come in nature of manner of death of both Mrs. McCarthy and her son, which may confirm any relation to drink being a cause of death, (liver disease etc).

Am not able to track either atm, so perhaps others may be able to or may already have. I havent the possibility at this time.

Best wishes

Phil

[robhouse]

Hi Adam,

Well, it seems to be a problem on my end. When I opened the pdf in "Preview" (Mac OS) it doesn't show about half of the images in Chris and John's article. But if I open it in Chrome, they all show up. (??)

So I wouldnt worry about it.

Rob

[Phil Carter]

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

Hello Chris,

Indeed, I was aware of most of this but yes, the information is most helpful.
However, the contents of the rest of the album, if any, are unknown.
(to me at least). I would have thought that if these photos were used for lecture purposes then to me at least, I would expect other crime scene photos/victim of crime also be in that album. A large album of such sizable pages would contain more than the photos shown?
And when the photos were taken from the album, what happened to said album?
Perhaps someone knows the answers to these questions? Even if the album is in private hands?

Best wishes
Phil

[Phil Carter]

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.
Rob

Hello Rob,

Thank you for this reply. It would indeed be interesting to know the whereabouts and or any contents within it. The Black Museum? Would Messrs Begg /Skinner possibly know?
Like you, I would presume that other crime scene photos/perhaps victims of other crimes shown withìn the album, especially if the album was used for lecture purposes originally?
Seems fairly logical to me.

Best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

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

Hello Tom,

No problem at all. Welcome to the dregs of the teapot..
Think positive. Names that are full of muck tend to stick in people's minds.
Haha!

Best wishes

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

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

The photo of Eddowes didn't show up the first time I read Rob and Monty's article. It drove me nuts them talking about it and not showing it! But that was at work. When I downloaded the issue later from home, I saw it. But for all I know there's others they put in there that I'm missing, in which case I'll have to eat crow.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Chris, thanks for the info and your rendering of Farson's notes. Very interesting stuff! I interpret that last bit as Mrs. McCarthy was blind (or near so) and would send her young son, Steven, to fetch her drink for her, and that she eventually died from the drink. I would like to think this is wrong, because it's such a sad story, but I'm sure John McCarthy was not an easy man to be married to. However, I'm not sure Mrs. Little would have still been living there when Mrs McCarthy died, if she was living there when Steven was a young child. I'll need to read up on that. Very fascinating, none the less.

Regarding the Mrs. Harvey in the photo...any thoughts?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris]

I interpret that last bit as Mrs. McCarthy was blind (or near so) and would send her young son, Steven, to fetch her drink for her, and that she eventually died from the drink.

I read it as: "Drink sent Stephen McCarthy blind - Mrs McCarthy died of drink".

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Chris....your interpretation is likely the right one. If Mrs. Little is correct, then she certainly had a long association with the McCarthy's.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Beowulf]

Is it possible the writing was photographed simply because it was signed Jack the Ripper? I mean, I don't think there are other wall writings signed that way?

Since the Dear Boss letter is dated September 25 1888, why could this writing not be considered referring to the double event on the 27th of September?

Supposing they received that letter, the murders then took place and then they found this writing wouldn't they be likely to think it was connected?

I know this seems obvious and for some reason has been ruled out but for the life of me I can't get past it.