|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 254
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 5:20 pm: | 
|
Natalie - really looking forward to seeing the pictures of the house as it is today. Great work.
Thank you,
Phil |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1725
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 6:36 pm: |
|
Its been a pleasure,Phil-only glad to have been of help.Need to get the photos on line next!
Natalie |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1726
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 10:56 am: |
|
 |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1727
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 11:06 am: |
|
Hi Folks,
Andy [my husband]has put this on for us today.
Number 33 Oakley Gardens taken in March 2005.Previously [17?]Oakley Crescent and lived in briefly by George Gissing, Writer 1882-1884 as written on Blue Plaque seen in photo |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1851
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 11:21 am: |
|
Natalie
Very well done in tracking this down and I think there can be no doubt it is the same building. It is remarkable how little it has changed. It even appears to still have the same ironwork in front of the windows. Even the hydrant sign is in virtually the same place.
So, what we have is that this was actually 17 Oakley Street where Gissing lived from 1882 to 1884, as the blue plaque indicates. The main question remains how would someone obliquely connected with the murders by rumour, who lived in this house 4-6 years before the murders, become connected with Clarence as in the writing on the card? There is, as far as I know, no indication that Clarence ever owned or stayed at a house in Oakley Street or Gardens.
I think the crucial thing, which we are no nearer to being able to determine, is when the writing on the front of the card was made.
Many thanks again, Natalie, for going to these extraordingary lengths to further our knowledge - outstanding!
Chris
(Message edited by Chris on March 28, 2005) |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 796
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 12:05 pm: |
|
Hi everybody,
Thanks again Natalie (and thanks to your husband) for allowing us to see what the house looks like today.
At the risk of sounding cynical, the obscure Gissing connection sets off hoax alarms, and I agree with Chris George that there are differences between the handwriting on the front/back of the card (in particular look at the lower case "y" between the two sides).
Hopefully John will be able to learn from the vendor how he/she obtained the card (honestly I'm sure). If this is a hoax, it's a splendid, quite sophisticated one, which involves planting it with an innocent vendor and then just waiting for someone to notice it.
Maybe someone's been paying attention to a recent discussion about the origins of the Royal Conspiracy and combined it with the Ebay thread?
I might be wrong though!
Dave |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 259
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 12:59 pm: |
|
Fascinating to see how little change there has been.
Sort of summarising again, are we agreed that the address and message on the reverse of the picture are probably genuine, but that it is the writing on the face of the photograph that is in question?
That's how I see it.
So what alternatives do we have?
a) someone (recently?) buys a random picture of a London house of around the right period (within 20 years of the murders) and writes a fake "conspiracy message on it?
b) a genuine misunderstanding from the period - garbled understanding of people/events?
c) an old joke - say from the Stephen Knight era/mid-70s - now forgotten that has emerged as a seeming hoax, unknown to anyone now involved (ie the dealer)?
Logically, the writer/sender of the original card would hardly have written the message on the face (as has been said before); although I suppose if the sender did not live in the house but somehow acquired the card, he just might have done.
The original recipient would also have been unlikely to do so. However, there is one possibility that occurs to me. That is, that the recipient visits London as suggested by the message on the reverse of the card; either staying in the house, or visiting it; and then records what he has been told on the card as a memento.
Neither of these alternatives seem logical to me. Which would imply that the used card was sold at a later date, bought by someone who wrote on the picture, and then sold again.
Anyone know when interest in/a trade in, old postcards started?
Just some points to fuel discussion and to check out the views of others,
Phil
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1731
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 2:05 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,David,Phil,
I agree it does seem strange.
The point made by David is credible-I wonder how long the vendor had had the card?
Someone must have recognised the house though.Someone living near there?Maybe people round there know Gissing was once a suspect of sorts?Certainly people living not that far from here know where Christie used to live which was about 50 years ago- in fact its more known about than ever it was even though his particular house was pulled down long ago.But then Christie was actually the murderer whereas it seems Gissing coundnt have been the Ripper since he hopped off to Italy that Autumn.Unless ofcourse there were several people involved!Unlikely though.
I had a vague memory of hearing about a Gissing
suspect and Chris above reminded me again of it.
I thought Phil made a good point over the Stephen Knight joker!Possible-!
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 260
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 2:25 pm: |
|
Natalie
As regards Stephen Knight I was just thinking when a "joke" rather than a deliberate "hoax"/fraud might have been reasonable to expect.
The other potential times are around the time that Stowell published his piece in the Criminologist (1970) or when Michael Harrison published his biography of Clarence.
At those times one might imagine (say) someone, maybe in the publishing trade, finding an old card and "fixing it up as an in-joke, then giving it to the author as alleged "proof" of their theory. (A kind of elaborate, April Fool's day joke.) This then gets detached from its original purpose and confuses us today. A literary connection might explain a Gissing/Clarence link, also an in-joke.
I don't promote this as a theory, just a train of thought.
On a wholly separate issue, the A-Z cites Gissing as having been disgraced after marrying a prostitute. Is there any chance that Gissing (or his wife) might have acted as a go-between for Clarence and a mistress, as a procurer, or even allowed him to use the house for assignations?
Do we know anything about Mrs Gissing and her connections after marriage?
Phil |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1852
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 4:26 pm: |
|
Harry Mann kindly gave us the house without the writing - here is the logical counterpart - the writing without the house!
 |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1736
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 4:36 pm: |
|
Now that is a new line of thought, Phil,
I wonder if such "in joke"s abounded after the great ripper scare?Maybe some of the sillier types
could have revelled in "posing" as ripper suspects
half scaring their friends etc andmaybe this went on for quite a bit.
But regarding Mrs Gissing-yes we have here someone who the likes of the Chelsea Set may have looked down on.It was perhaps OK to have affairs,even with prostitutes-but never to marry them as Proust expains so penetratingly when he discusses Swann and his marriage to Odette.
So maybe Mrs Gissing was the role model for Annie Crook and the two tales got muddled up as AP suggests above!Maybe it was George Gissing marrying a woman from the "lowest class" rather than HRH.The Victorians loved hearing about tales like this whether it was about Marguerite Gautier
dying tragically of TB and inspiring operas and romantic novels etc or hearing about or inventing tales about their Princes of the realm
Anyway I hope someone can enlighten us about Mrs Gissing soon.
Natalie |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1737
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 4:39 pm: |
|
Thanks for the writing Chris-thats much clearer
now
Natalie |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1401
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 5:35 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie & hubby, Harry Mann, and Chris Scott
Outstanding images! Thank you everyone. Yes it does appear to be exactly the same house in the modern view and the postcard view. One difference is that the iron railings around the house are different and I am presuming the old railings were used for war needs in the First or Second World War as happened throughout the British Isles in those wars. The old fence is higher, more regular and has a spear point or filial not evident in the new fence.
If this is a hoax it could have been done, as has been mentioned, at the time of the height of the fame of the Royal conspiracy theory, when Michael Harrison and Stephen Knight's books came out or done when Whittington-Egan in his book, A Casebook on Jack the Ripper, happened to mention George Gissing as a possible suspect. All of these books came out in the mid-1970's.
If a hoax, I think we have to assume the postcard seller is completely innocent of involvement, although we have to recognize that even with an honest seller, someone, a buyer, presumably an afficianado of the case on the look for anything to do with the Ripper, is going to pick up a Ripper-related artifact in short order, when such things are for sale via the Internet. And need I remind everyone, that April Fool's Day is just around the corner? 
By the way, I have just noticed that on ABE books Whittington-Egan's slim book is selling for $366.78 to $529.78!!!! 
All my best
Chris
(Message edited by ChrisG on March 28, 2005)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 337
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 8:04 pm: |
|
Hi All,
Firstly may I also add my thanks to Natalie for these excellent pictures of 33 Oakley Gardens, I was thrilled to see that it remains almost exactly as it was in 1909, right down to the fire hydrant sign!
Phill has made some very good points regarding the handwriting and the possibilities of it having been added at a later date, all of which I intend to think over very carefully, and then try to decide what can be done to take matters further.
I did e mail the vendor of the card to ask where he obtained it, and although he did not answer this directly he commented that “ I can confirm with all my knowledge of 15 years Postcarding that the card is original and genuine. I will think hard and try and contribute to your interesting site comments”. However I do seem to recall that mention was made (perhaps by Chris Scott) that he had been in possession of it for only eight weeks. Perhaps he will post here or get in touch and let us know where he obtained it.
Regarding the handwriting I have come to the conclusion that it is probably in a different hand to that of the address side, however closer examination has revealed that the handwriting on the picture side shows indentation marks made by the nib of the pen, it is also clear that the writer had difficulty controlling the flow of ink. If you look at the first line “This is the house of” it can be seen that the ink deposited on the paper is much less than in the following lines, (the word “the” has very little ink) and in the final line it is almost dropping blots. I believe that the writer was using a nib which he had to dip in an ink well, and probably a badly worn or “crossed” nib at that. The writing on the address side shows no such indentations or variance of ink flow and could probably have been written with a fountain pen, but certainly a different pen. It could be possible, that the writing on the picture side was done by a child.
I have carried out a small experiment writing on an old photograph taken in the 1950’s first with a fountain pen, which gave no problems, and then with an artists calligraphy nib dipped in the same ink; this was very scratchy and gave a result similar to that on the picture.
Having said all of the above, I have to admit that I am no expert on handwriting, although should it ever be possible, I would happily co-operate with anyone who was, although from previous experience I think we can say that tests on the ink are likely to be inconclusive. I really don’t know if it is the genuine article or some sort of hoax, but I do feel that it is something worthy of further investigation. It may be possible to trace other owners/tenants of the house, which may lead somewhere. One possibility would be the 1910 Valuation Survey, but this is only available at Kew so it may be a while before I could undertake that, but if anyone else wants to have a go please feel free.
Rgds
John |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 338
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 28, 2005 - 10:19 pm: |
|
Hi All,
I have just been doing a trawl of The Times and have found that one Herbert Betts of 17 Oakley Crescent died in 1923. There is also a legal notice regarding his will (article 147 of 216) dated Jun 14th 1924 which states that his executor was one Edwin Scott.
Unfortunately I cannot print it out or save it correctly, but if any other kind person would like to try I should be most grateful.
Rgds
John |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 262
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 12:56 am: |
|
The net seems to tighten - thanks John.
As for the railings - Chris, they may have been changed, but I don't think during the war. Park railing etc were indeed removed, but in this case there will be an 8-10 foot drop on the other side to the subterranean "area" used by the servants. It would have been too dangerous to passers-by to leave that unprotected.
I can only assume that the railings have been changed later because of corrosion, or been adapted, perhaps by having sharp spikes etc removed.
Cheers,
Phil |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 339
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 6:25 am: |
|
David OFlaherty has kindly mailed me a scan, so hopefully below is the relevent notice from The Times 14th. June 1924. Looking at the postcard again the initials at the end of the message could well be HB
 |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 265
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 6:53 am: |
|
I think we have now successfully identified original sender and original recipient. the question now remains, did either of them write the inscription on the face of the card?
To those of you with access to census information - can we trace Edwin Scott and/or a connection to Selby?
Thanks for all the hard work folks,
Phil |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4320
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 7:39 am: |
|
I found these items in Kelly's Directory of N and E Ridings of Yorks 1913, under Bedale :
Robert |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 775
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 8:22 am: |
|
I wonder if this could be same man in 1901?
Edwin Scott, 44, [born] Lincs Gainsborough [at] Gainsborough, [admin. county] Lindsey [occupation] Civil Service Chief Clerk Postal
Chris Phillips
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1404
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 8:29 am: |
|
Hi all
Superb work, Robert, Phil, John, and David. It now appears that we have definitively identified the sender of the postcard and the recipient. Since Edwin Scott, the recipient of the postcard from Herbert Betts of 17 Oakley Crescent in 1909 and also one of two executors to the will of Mr. Betts in 1924, is listed as postmaster in Bedale, N. and E. Riding of Yorkshire in 1913, it now makes sense that the postcard was sent to the post office in Selby, where he probably similarly held the position of postmaster in 1909.
Phil, thank you for your additional thoughts about the changed railing around the house. I agree that a rail would be needed to stop people falling into the areaway below.
Now, of course, having established, who the Chelsea resident was and which house... Mr. Betts was sending a photograph of his own house... it seems very unlikely that he would tell Mr. Scott that he stood outside his own house, with delighted exclamation marks, and tell him it was the house connected with the Duke of Clarence, suspected to have been Jack the Ripper. I suppose stranger things have happened but that sounds an unlikely scenario. Does the inscription on the picture side of the postcard then start to smell fishy? The message side linked to the writing on the photograph would seem to indicate that all happened on the same day, Mr. Betts wrote the bland communication on the address side and then wrote excitedly, you know who lived in my house. Something is wrong here, I think. Mr. Scott undoubtedly knew what Betts's house looked like and you would not want to attract attention to your own house by sending such a message through the mail telling everyone a notorious murderer had lived in your house, would you?
All my best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 267
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 8:30 am: |
|
Well that explains the address - E. Scott Esq.
Post Office, Selby, Yorks - Scott was obviously the postmaster for Selby.
Now let's look again at the reverse of the card, with that in mind:
“Your card received. Agnes will take it in. "
The post-master has informed them of a package, no doubt travelling by slower route (road?) than the card (rail?). An alternative, on reflection perhaps more likely, is that Scott has written to Betts to say he HAS a package and would someone be there to take it in. It has not yet been sent, but will be on receipt of this card.
He knows the Betts family well enough to be aware that Agnes (I assume their maid) is so-called. The next line: Hope you will get better weather when you come... surely underlines the acquaintanceship, because it implies Scott is to pay a visit to London and maybe soon. The comparison of weather suggests a few days or weeks, to me, rather than months, otherwise the prevailing weather could be altogether different (ie summer/winter).
A further thought, should not the provenence of the card be Yorkshire or down the Selby/Scott line. One would not expect the card to come back to the original sender. So it should have belonged to a descendent/relative of Scott; have come from a sale or bequest from the contents of his home; been acquired at some stage in the north.
One last question, was the Post Office also Scott's residence? Ca we find out where he resided if not?
Any Bett's connection to Yorkshire? How might they have known Scott well enough for him to vivit? Did they have a country cottage/shooting box near Selby? Is Selby hunting country?
Is my logic sound?
Phil (grateful for all the tid-bits of information).
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 268
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 8:36 am: |
|
Chris - your last message crossed with mine.
I know Gainsborough (I'm a Lincolnshire man by origin). It's a small market/industrial town on the River Trent, of no great notoreity, apart from a C15th Old Hall. It is probably quite like Selby (which I don't know at all) in character.
In Victorian/Edwardian times, I would think Gainsborough would have been a dullish, quiet, introverted place. It has rail-links, but is really on the way to nowhere.
Phil |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 777
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 8:46 am: |
|
Here's the Gainsborough Edwin in 1881:
Edwin SCOTT Head M Male 24
Gainsboro, Lincoln, England Telegraph Clerk
Emma A. SCOTT Wife M Female 24
Romford, Essex, England
Dwelling Frampton St 9
Census Place Gainsborough, Lincoln, England
Family History Library Film 1341786
Public Records Office Reference RG11
Piece / Folio 3296 / 80
Page Number 7
Chris Phillips
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4321
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 8:59 am: |
|
I have looked at the Market Place, Bedale in 1901, and the Postmaster then seems to have been (at Number 20, I think) John William Calvert. At 62 years of age, he must have been close to retiring.
Robert |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 269
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 9:00 am: |
|
If anyone wants to know about Gainsborough, here's a link http://www.gainsboroughlincs.co.uk/
and for Selby
http://www.selbytourism.co.uk/
Might give some background.
Phil
(Message edited by Phil on March 29, 2005) |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1854
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 9:08 am: |
|
Hi Chris P
This may well be the right guy. Here is his census record:
Edwin Scott
1901:
4 Cecil Street. Gainsborough, Lincolnshire
Head:Edwin Scott aged 44 born Ganisborough - Clerk Service Chief Clerk Postal
Wife: Emma A Scott aged 44 born Romford, Essex
1891:
31 South Parade, Gainsborough.
Head: Edwin Scott aged 34 born Gainsborough - Civil Service (Telegraph clerk)
Wife: Emma A. Scott aged 34 born Romford
1881:
9 Frampton Street, Gainsborough
Head: Edwin Scott aged 24 born Gainsborough - Telegraph Clerk
Wife: Emma A Scott aged 24 born Romford
1871:
Back Street, Gainsborough
Head: William Scott aged 37 born South, Lincolnshire - Grocer's porter
Wife: Frances Scott aged 39 born Bole, Notts.
Children:
Edwin aged 14
Henry aged 11
William aged 9
Alfred aged 6
Charles aged 1
All children born in Gainsborough
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1855
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 9:32 am: |
|
Phil
With regard to Gissing's wife, Nell Harrison, I found this passage which may help:
On the eve of his success, however, his prospects were ruined when he was caught stealing money from the students' cloakroom. The money was for Nell Harrison, a young prostitute with whom Gissing was infatuated. After a month's imprisonment he was packed off to America, where he passed a year schoolteaching and writing his first short stories for a Chicago newspaper. He was back in London by October 1877, friendless and penniless; Nell joined him and they married. He scratched a living by doing private tutoring while working on his large first novel, Workers in the Dawn, whose publication in 1880 he paid for with a small legacy. The novel, which was a complete failure, is a naturalistic study of the most desperate levels of poverty-stricken London life.
Gissing's marriage was unhappy: his wife was a drunkard and intermittently returned to prostitution; eventually he paid her to live apart from him. The relationship in Workers between the idealistic Arthur Golding and the sluttish and invincibly stupid Carrie Mitchell is clearly autobiographical. The other female character in Workers, Helen Norman, is a first study for a long line of ladylike, virtuous and intellectual woman, distant as stars and just as unattainable for the Gissing hero. 'My one supreme desire is to marry a perfectly refined woman' says one of his many alter egos, Godwin Peak in a later novel, but he never achieved it.
Nell Gissing died, of drink and (probably) venereal disease, early in 1888
There is also a passage from his diary which describes hism identifying his wife's body. This can be found at:
http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/english/Gissing/Biog.htm
The whole site is worth a look and the main page is at:
http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/english/Gissing/Gissing_HomePage.htm |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1856
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 9:54 am: |
|
There may be a sighting of Gissing in the 1881 census under a slightly different surname. The biog outlined above tells us that in 1871 he returned to London and was working as a private tutor. We also know that he was born in Wakefield, Yorkshire in November 1857, so at the time of the census (April 1881) he would have been 23 years old. In 1881 there is this entry listed:
55 Wornington Road, Chelsea
Head: George R Gilling aged 23 born Wakefield, Yorks - Private Tutor
Wife: Mary A H Gilling aged 22 born Shrewsbury
It is not definite this relates to Gissing but I have been unable to find him under his real name. This is not a transcription error. I have checked the original entry and name is definitely down as Gilling. But it does seem very coincidental that we have a man with the right age, place of birth and profession whose surname is almost the same.
Chris |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1857
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 10:00 am: |
|
I am now pretty certain that this George R Gilling is in fact George Gissing. I have traced his marriage to "Nell" Harrison. This was registered in Pancras in the last quarter of 1879. The husband's name is given as George Robert Gissing and the wife as Marianne Helen Harrison. I strongly suspect that the "Mary A H Gilling" of the 1881 census was, in fact, Mary Anne Helen Gissing, alias Nell Harrison
Chris |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 270
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 10:29 am: |
|
Tremendous stuff Chris, well done.
It still brings me no closer to solving a conundrum of why Gissing's former house, PAV and JtR should be linked on a 1909 postcard apparently sent to a Postmaster in a small Yorkshire town. Where is the link? Why THAT house?
I am intrigued by Gissing's involvement with the poor (he obviously researched his "naturalistic" novel somehow); his prostitute wife; and the association on the card to the Ripper (poor east End; murderer of whores.
PAV might have been seen by his contemporaies as dissolute and hopeless; and by those closer to him as a man who made stupid choices of bride (Helen d'Orleans/a catholic); but was he known in 1909 as having asscociations with whores and the East End? For instance, I don't recall Stephen Knight (who would surely have used it if he could) making reference to other associations between PAV and whores apart from the alleged one with Annie Crook!!
PAV's most notorious association was with Cleveland St and young men.
I have read both Harrison's and Aronson's books on Clarence and don't recall them referring to anything relevant.
So where is the link except in a hoaxer's mind? Could there be anything genuine here?
Anyone know of any factual references from the period about PAV?
Anyone know how/where Richard Whittington-Egan found Gissing's name as a Ripper suspect?
Just me thinking aloud, but grateful for the thoughts of others,
Phil
Phil |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 799
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 10:58 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
There's a thread about the origins of the Gissing connection in the archives CD (Ripper Suspects/General Discussion/George Gissing, novelist: Ripper Suspect?). I believe the fellow who started the thread, Peter Morton, is the same fellow who put up that short bio of Gissing that Chris Scott referenced earlier.
Basically in the thread, people were discussing where Whittington-Egan's information was coming from. Martin Fido wrote:
Back when we were first compiling the A-Z I telephoned RW-E with a couple of questions about material in 'The Casebook'. One was the source of the Gissing suspicion, (and another the precise source of the alleged journalistic start of the pile of coins and rings under Annie Chapman, since nobody has ever been able to find it in British Library copies of the Pall Mall Gazette). Richard, alas, could no longer remember in either case. I must add, given the occasional snideries occurring on the board, that his integrity is beyond question: there is no doubt at all that some time, somewhere he really did see a charge laid against Gissing.
Basically everyone agreed that if W-E said he'd read the reference somewhere, then that's what happened. Later, someone named Jacunius posted this:
Richard W-E was definitely not the first person or Ripperologist to print this suspicion of Gissing as the Ripper. It was in fact stated five years earlier in the new and revised Donald McCormick book; ‘The Identity of Jack the Ripper’, 256 p. Arrow Books Ltd. (London, 1970). In this paperback (there was also a hardback version brought out simultaneously by John Long Limited) it is said on page 170:
“Pat Pitman, who collaborated with Colin Wilson in an Encyclopaedia of Murder, has even mentioned the idea that Jack was George Gissing, the novelist—while even so benevolent a character as Dr. Barnardo has been named on the grounds that he was devoted to waifs and strays and that most of the unwanted children in his district were the offspring of prostitutes.”
For me personally, the paragraph by the some time notorious late Mr. McCormick offers a lot in respect to research. For a start, he is quoting that Patricia> Pitman had in fact came up with the idea first that Gissing was Jack--and also perhaps that the good old Doctor Barnardo himself was Jack. However, no where in the Encyclopaedia of Murder (published in 1961) does Pitman make any remark to Gissing or Barnardo for that reason? McCormick was also the first to mention, as far as I can account for, Dr. Barnardo being a suspect, unless as he ambiguously seems to put it, Pitman was also the first to mention Barnardo?
So the question remains ‘where did McCormick get his information from?’ Obviously Pitman must have had some publication containing the accusation of Gissing and perhaps Barnardo printed sometime between 1961, and 1970. Apart from Gissing, I myself must now admit, that like Gary Rowlands in his superb thesis of Barnardo entitled ‘The Mad Doctor’ printed in The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper (1999), believe and have done so since 1993, that Barnardo was the Ripper. Yes, Jacunius has finally let the cat out of the bag on this one…umm perhaps I should create a new suspect conversation?
So there you go Mr. Morton, Evans, Fido, Begg, Stock and Chris George, I hope this clarifies a few things that R. W-E was not the first, even at a flying jump to have suspected or even printed that Gissing could have been the Ripper. Therefore, to hunt down publications/articles by <patricia> Pitman from the 1960’s, might well become a significant leap towards the beginning of an end of this issue.
Yours Obligingly,
Jacunius.
There's a last post from Stan Russo:
Better late than never. Pat <pittman>'s belief that George Gissing was 'JTR' is stated as a positive fact by Colin Wilson.
Wilson states that Pittman's belief regarding Gissing's guilt is based on "no discernable grounds". This statement appears in The Mammoth Book of 'JTR', p. 431.
So apparently the answer is Pat Pittman in the 1960s. I don't have any of those books, so maybe some of you with better libraries than I have can confirm this information.
Cheers,
Dave |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1858
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 11:12 am: |
|
This early Ordnance Survey map shows the relationship between Oakley Crescent (centre right) and Oakley Street (running diagonally top to bottom)
Chris
 |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 271
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 11:23 am: |
|
I can confirm the McCormick and Mammoth Book quotes, I just looked them up.
So - assuming that any really old reference (which might have been seen by R W-E) is so obscure that he cannot now recall it and no other authority has mentioned it, we have these possibilities of a link to Gissing:
a) the writer was aware of PatPittman's view in the 60s (though these apparently had no basis known to her co-author);
b) read R W-E's book at some time (so rare that even though I was deeply interested in JtR when it was published, I have never seen a copy then or since);
c) that it was picked up from McCormick's admittedly popular work at some time post 1970;
d) that it is even more recent, dating from since the Mammoth Book came out (1999).
A recent (last 25 or last 5 years) fraud seems likely to me.
BUT
These links are only to GISSING - they make NO links between Gissing and PAV!!
So how was the link made between Gissing (or his residence) and PAV and on what basis?
Are we dealing with:
a) something genuine - a hitherto unknown, roughly period, link between Gissing and PAV known to the writer of the inscription on the face of the card. To me this seems unlikely given what we have deduced about the history and origins of the card, it's sender and recipient;
b)a very well-informed hoax or prank (I discussed the possibility of an in-joke in a previous post) by someone who knows Ripper arcana;
c) a coincidence - the hoaxer knew nothing about the house or Gissing, and simply chose a period p/c of a London house and wrote on it. This too seems unlikely - if that were the case why not chose a p/c of Buckingham Palace, Marlborough House, Sandringham or some such with a known link to PAV? There must be loads of those around. The coincidence seems to me too great to uphold - and thus logically we must assume:
that whoever wrote the words about the Ripper knew who's house the picture showed, knew Gissing had been suspected and then inferred... what?
Again I come to this gap in the logic. Why link Gissing and PAV and JtR?
Either there is something there and it can be researched? Or we are missing something (obvious?) in our analysis?
Do others follow and agree my logic? Or am I off beam here?
Phil
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1859
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 11:36 am: |
|
Thought this note from the Times following Gissing's death might be of interest:
The Times
24 June 1904
A pension of £74 a year has been granted to Mr. Walter Gissing and Mr. Alfred Gissing during the minority of either and in recognition of the literary merits of their late father, Mr. George Gissing and of their straitened circumstances.
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1860
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 11:45 am: |
|
Phil
I agree that there seems to be a gap in the logic of how this may have come about. The other thing that puzzles me is why anyone would write on the FRONT of a postcard. If this card were already used by the original sender (presumably Herbert Betts) it would be impossible to reuse it to send in the post. Perhaps, if not a hoax, it had been bought ot somehow acquired by someone unrelated to Betts and placed in an album, which would make more sense of writing on the front.
From a research point of view the only potential importance of this object, in my opinion, would lie , if it is not a hoax, in two points:
1) It would presume some link between Gissing and PAV (like you, Phil, I find it hard to believe this was a postcard chosen at random without the writer knowing the Gissing link) and
2) If the writing is contempoary or not much later than the original use of the card it would be important in showing a link between JTR and PAV than the earlies known linking in the 1960s
Chris |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1406
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 12:08 pm: |
|
Hi Chris et al.
I was trying to look up that inkstand thing that was on ebay a while back and that we must have a thread for. Any relationship between the writing on that object and the postcard? As a caveat, is someone out there manufacturing "Ripper" artifacts?
All my best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 779
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 12:15 pm: |
|
The other thing I can't understand, if it is a late hoax based on Gissing having lived in that house, is quite how it happened.
Did someone come on this card at random in a postcard album, read the street name and house number, do the same sort of research that's just been done, work out that Gissing had lived in the house briefly, and then hatch the idea of a Ripper hoax, based on some now-forgotten connection between Gissing and the Duke of Clarence?
I find that a bit difficult to believe.
Or did they work in the reverse order - think up the idea of a hoax, then go in search of a postcard showing a house where Gissing had lived, and miraculously come up with this one?
I find that impossible to believe.
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1861
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 12:17 pm: |
|
Hi Chris
I think this is the object you mean
Chris
 |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1862
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 12:20 pm: |
|
Chris P
I agree that both scenarios seem very unlikely. Although we have manged to find a helluva lot about the location, sender, recipient etc of the card, I can't get my head round the possible background of the writing on the front.
I've run various scenarios through the old brain but none of them make any sense.
Chris
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1407
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 12:24 pm: |
|
Hi Chris Scott
Thanks for coming up with that image of the inkstand. Indeed, the writing on the inkstand seems unlike that on the postcard. Still wondering what this postcard is all about. 
All my best
Chris
(Message edited by ChrisG on March 29, 2005)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1408
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 12:29 pm: |
|
Hi Chris Phillips
Since there is absolutely nothing on the postcard that would tell anyone that Gissing had lived in the house, someone coming across this p.c. of a London house would not know it was Gissing's house. The only way that I can connect things is if someone came across Betts' effects and happened to know that Gissing had lived in the house prior to Betts. Otherwise, the postcard, independent of the Betts connection is, it seems to me, meaningless, and it would have taken major research, like we've just done to make the connection. I doubt if that could been possible before the Internet age.
All my best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 272
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 12:43 pm: |
|
Chris (P) I like your analysis of the two approaches:
a) finding the card, doing the research and finding Gissing lived there, then hatch the hoax?
or
b)think up the idea of a hoax, then go in search of a postcard showing a house where Gissing had lived?
Like you, I find both scenarios too complex to accept easily.
An alternative is that the card was passed (by someone who knew what it showed etc) in all good faith to someone who then tampered with it - either in good faith (garbled story, or anecdote they had been told);
or b) that the card came into the hands of someone (by what means?) who knew what it was, understood the Gissing connection, and also had knowledge of Gissing's background. The writing was then applied to the face, either in good faith or as a hoax/now forgotten in-joke.
I don't think we have to assume that the writing is a deliberate "con" at this stage - it might be false but still have an innocent explanation.
I was always told, when confusion threatens, cling to a fact. On that basis, the key to me is this:
We know the original recipient; we must assume the card reached him. So the provenance/chain of evidence must start in Selby, or
in London, if Scott brought the card back with him. This seems unnecessary. Thus the first link in the chain of transmission is established from Mr Scott or his family, to whom?
We might also assume Scott knew the Gissing link as he had visited the house.
So, using Occam's razor: could Scott have returned home from london, put the card in his album, and written on it what he had been told while in Oakley Crescent - that there was an association with Clarence and the Ripper.
This is simple as explanations go:
Betts can be expected to know the history of the house
Scott has a postcard of the house
He is expected to visit and might be assumed to have done so.
While there he is told about the connection (true or false but accepted by all as a god story).
Humble postmaster Scott has retained the card as a reminder of his more well-to-do friends the Betts, and now records on it a reminder of this amazing story he was told. (however, how does that explain the word - "today"? We have to assume, for this argument, that Scott wrote it on the same day he returned home from London. NOT impossible.
Thus, we have a record of a genuine allegation against PAV from within 20 years of the murders?
That seems to me to explain everything.
Any takers? Any doubters?
Please deconstruct this, I don't want to accept it!!!
Phil
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 273
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 12:49 pm: |
|
Chris (G), you wrote:
Since there is absolutely nothing on the postcard that would tell anyone that Gissing had lived in the house, someone coming across this p.c. of a London house would not know it was Gissing's house.
But if they could have worked out the number there is a blue plaque there today - so the connection might not be as difficult as we think.
The only way that I can connect things is if someone came across Betts' effects and happened to know that Gissing had lived in the house prior to Betts.
But why should a postcard sent to SCOTT be in the Betts' hands? One has to assume that they retained a picture of their own house which had been used. I would assume they had many unused cards in their possession.
Phil |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1409
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 2:14 pm: |
|
Hi Phil
Yes you're right of course... it would have been Scotts' effects.
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Fiona Rule
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 11:11 am: |
|
Hello Everyone - Having been more than a little intrigued by this thread, I took my digital camera and went over to Oakley Gardens in search of the house.
It is still standing and very little has changed over the past 100 or so years. The door in the original picture is the only front door to the property. The house is now number 33 so obviously the street was renumbered at some stage (not an unusual occurence.)
It is situated on the corner of Oakley Gardens and Phene Street, opposite the Phene Arms pub. Although Oakley Gardens is quite pretty, the houses are not very large so I suspect they were built for the middle classes (the census entries seem to corroborate this). Therefore it seems unlikely that the Duke of Clarence ever lived there.
Most intriguing is the fact that the house was indeed the residence of George Gissing, as evidenced by the blue plaque on the wall. Below should be some photos of the property. I hope they come out as I have never uploaded anything onto this site before!
 |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 341
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 7:30 pm: |
|
Hi Fiona,
Many thanks for taking the trouble to post those pics.
Over the last week we have discovered an awful lot of information about this house, we know that Gissing lived there betwen 1882-4 and that a family by the name of Betts lived there from at least 1895, however we have still to discover who lived there inbetween these dates.
The reason I ask is that I beleive that this is an area were you have some experience as you have been kind enough to advise me be before. Can you help please?
Rgds
John |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 276
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 12:46 am: |
|
Fiona:
...the houses are not very large so I suspect they were built for the middle classes ...it seems unlikely that the Duke of Clarence ever lived there.
I don't think the assumption is that this was ever any sort of official residence for PAV.
If there were to be a connection, for me, it would be likely to be a house where he kept a mistress - as his brother George (later King George V) is known to have kept a woman in St John's Wood.
Given Gissing's marriage, there are clearly links to a woman who made a living by prostitution. Could Nell Harrison be the link to PAV in some way - did she keep the house? find a woman? Did PAV use/could he have used, the Gissing's as cover or use the house after their departure?
Chris (S) posted earlier:
The Times 24 June 1904
A pension of £74 a year has been granted to Mr. Walter Gissing and Mr. Alfred Gissing during the minority of either and in recognition of the literary merits of their late father, Mr. George Gissing and of their straitened circumstances.
Do we know who paid the pension?
Phil
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1864
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 12:56 am: |
|
Phil
This comment about the pension was in the Politics column about Government business. I got the impression that this was a pension from the public purse and would be paid by the Treasury but I will check.
Chris
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1865
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 1:01 am: |
|
Yes, I have checked and the Gissing boys were given a Civil List pension which would have come from public funds.
The article is headed:
CIVIL LIST PENSIONS
Full details concerning the pensions sanctioned during the year ended 31 March last under the provisions of section 9(1) of the Civil List Act, 1901, are now available and will shortly be published as a Parliamentary paper.
Hope this helps
Chris
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
