Casebook Forums

Casebook Forums (https://forum.casebook.org/index.php)
-   Letters and Communications (https://forum.casebook.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   CoL Police find photo of graffito? - NOT Goulston St! (https://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=6630)

Hutch Orris 05-10-2012 01:35 AM

CoL Police find photo of graffito? - NOT Goulston St!
 
It is with tin hat on and foxhole ready to dive in to that I lob this grenade on to the board!:worried:

Two weeks ago I was in Spitalfields on one of my regular stays there. I met a man who joined the City of London Police in the mid 1950's and he's now in his seventies. Let me establish immediately I am NOT referring to Don Rumbelow.

I know his name and I know he has impeccable connections with the City of London Police but I will not reveal his details here because it is discourteous and, indeed, unwise to give out personal details without permission, or those details having been already published before hand.

We were talking about the Sydney Street siege and I told him of my particular interest in the Whitechapel murders. He told me he could remember seeing in their museum/archive when he was a young constable a jar that contained part of a kidney which had long since disappeared.

We can only hope no one "fried and ate it". :1shocked:

Then he told me something that made my jaw drop. Indeed, had almost anyone else told me I wouldn't be repeating it here. He said recently, in the last few months, the City of London Police had found a photograph from 1888 believed to have been left by the murderer on City of London territory.

He said news of this was due to be released and he wasn't sure what they were waiting for but he speculated that maybe they were releasing it nearer the time of the Olympics.

In my opinion it's more likely they're waiting until after the Jubilee and the Olympics because a serial killer, however long ago, is not the image we're looking for during these national celebrations with the whole world watching.

Now "Alf" (as I'll refer to him) couldn't or wouldn't give me an answer to the questions that we would all want to know. What does it say, when was it found - in relation to the double event, where was it written and when can we see it.

I have never in 30 odd years of reading about and discussing the case even heard a rumour before that such a message was found. I know Alf is genuine and he has not and is not going to be publishing any book or theory relating to this. Indeed, I found I knew more about the case than him as he had never taken a particular interest in it.

Perhaps he's hopelessly misunderstood what's turned up and he's wrong but I did ask him to repeat it more than once as I found I couldn't believe my own ears.

You see now why, particularly as a new poster, I was so reluctant to put this forward but whether it's correct or not it is presented in good faith and is potentially too important to ignore.

Has anyone got any contacts to confirm or deny?

Tom_Wescott 05-10-2012 01:50 AM

Hi Hutch. A number of years back the police released the 'Openshaw' letter to the press who trumped it as a 'new' find, although of course we'd known about it for many, many years. My guess is your source is either thinking back to this letter, or it's the photograph of yet another letter they're going to release. Since many letters referred to the kidney, or Eddowes, that would be the City Police link. And letters were in fact left on doors (such as outside the London Hospital) or discovered lying on the street or stuck to light posts. But NONE of them were discovered on the night of the double event and none are related at all to the murders themselves.

That's what I think's going on, but who knows, it could be something bigger and better, and I would love that to be the case.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Jason 05-10-2012 08:11 AM

1 Attachment(s)
wonder whether it is just this one ?

lynn cates 05-10-2012 10:06 AM

anniversary
 
Hello Hutch. Sounds interesting. Perhaps it deals with the 4 down, 16 to go message?

They may be waiting on the 125th anniversary for the release.

Cheers.
LC

Chris Scott 05-10-2012 10:09 AM

Hi hutch
Many thanks first for putting this forward into the arena. I know it can be daunting. I have recently put up two images that were sent to me as apparently pictures of Mary Kelly and her family.
It was posting them on here (and at JTR Forums) that the information came to light that at least one of the pics (that of the Kelly family) was not what was claimed for it. I did not feel embarrassed by this - all I was interested in was getting to the truth of what I had been sent. So I admire you for having the readiness to post this info here.
What I really wanted to ask was about the actual wording of your post. In the title of the thread you created you mentioned a "photo of graffito" but specify it is not the Goulston Street writing. In the message itself you do not make any further mention of graffito but say "He said recently, in the last few months, the City of London Police had found a photograph from 1888 believed to have been left by the murderer on City of London territory"
I am probably misreading this but the wording implies that the killer actually left a photograph at or near the crime scene. Or should it read that there had recently been found a photo of writing believed to have been left by the murderer? If this was on City of London territory then the inescapable conclusion would be that this related to the Mitre Square killing. If the photo does not refer to the Goulston Street writing, does this mean another supposed sample of writing left by the killer has been referenced?
Please take these questions in the spirit in which they are intended - i.e. purely seeking to clarify the nature of the image that is being referred to. I have no intention whatever to cast any negative light on either yourself or your former police friend.
As I said earlier, in the light of the Kelly photo saga recently, you have my admiration and appreciation for posting this info.

Bridewell 05-10-2012 01:44 PM

Hi Chris,

Very well put, and you asked exactly the question I was thinking of when I read Hutch's post.

Hutch, welcome to Casebook, and many thanks for posting what you have. Anything new, or even rediscovered, has to be a welcome addition to what we have. Are you still in touch with 'Alf'? If so, is it possible he can clarify the exact nature of what has been found - especially if he has actually had sight of it himself?

Best Wishes, Bridewell.

Ally 05-10-2012 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hutch Orris (Post 219963)

You see now why, particularly as a new poster, I was so reluctant to put this forward but whether it's correct or not it is presented in good faith and is potentially too important to ignore.

Has anyone got any contacts to confirm or deny?

Hiya Hutch. Well I can confirm you are being burned in effigy and pilloried at the present moment. :lol:

Anyone who does know the details will have been sworn to secrecy pending the grand reveal, which is the CoLPs prerogative, and your scooping them will be met with much gnashing of teeth. But that's the way it goes in the world of Ripperology with the museum dinosaurs (we call them Riposaurs) not having caught up with the fast moving times of internet sharing.

Welcome to the boards, fabulous entrance!

Jason 05-10-2012 02:36 PM

seems like this thread has initiated another one ! fantastic !!

Ally 05-10-2012 03:05 PM

Yep. Here's your answer, Hutch:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=6633

The Good Michael 05-10-2012 03:17 PM

Hutch,

Since it's not really a secret anymore, why not have your contact give you all the information? I mean, it's going to be posted anyway, so it's no big deal to do it now.

Mike


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:06 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.