| Author |
Message |
    
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 278
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 1:07 am: | 
|
So it could be a cover for something else.
I'm not really suggesting anything, but someone in a high place must have taken an interest in these boys - if only to know they were in poor financial straits.
How old were they? It doesn't seem a large enough sum to suggest they might have been PAV's illegitimate off-spring, or to be a pay off to silence them.
Just exploring potential links to the establishment really. Interesting - thanks Chris.
Phil |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1866
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 1:53 am: |
|
The first step in tracing the boys was the fact that Gissing remarried after the death of Nell Harrison (aka Mary Gissing) in 1888. His second marriage was registered at Pancras in the 1st quarter of 1891 where the parties are named as George Robert Gissing and Edith Underwood.
I have found Walter Gissing without too much trouble. At the time he was 9 years old and had gone to live in Wakefield, where George Gissing was born, with his grandmother, Margaret Gissing, at 9 Wentworth Terrace. His details are given as:
Walter Gissing aged 9 born Exeter, Devon - Grandson
The younger son, Alfred, was living in 1901 with his mother at 19 Scarbrook Road, Croydon, Surrey and their details are given as follows:
Head: Edith Gissing aged 32 born Camden Town
Son: Alfred Gissing aged 5 born Epsom, Surrey
Although George Gissing was still alive at this time, there is no entry for Edith Gissing with regard to her marital status.
Hope this helps
Chris
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1868
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 2:07 am: |
|
Birth details for the two boys are as follows:
Walter Leonard Gissing birth registered in Exeter, Devon in the last quarter of 1891.
Alfred Charles Gissing birth registered in Epsom, Surrey in the first quarter of 1896
Chris
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 279
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 3:35 am: |
|
Good - Alfred certainly too late to be a PAV offspring. It simplifies things.
Walter wasn't named after Sickert was he? (Just joking!)
Phil |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 342
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 12:21 pm: |
|
Hi All,
Here is the entry from the National Probate Calendars for Herbert Betts.
Betts Herbert of 17 Oakley Crescent Chelsea Middlesex died [?]26 July 1923 Probate London 29 August to Thomas William Johnson Gentleman and Edwin Scott gentleman.
Effects £12,538 18s 6d.
What strikes me as interesting is that from census records we know that Herbert was a solicitiors clerk and to me the large amount of his estate seems unusual. Also as the executors were advertising as late as June 1924 for interested parties to contact them matters cannot have been that straightforward.
Rgds
John |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 805
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 12:29 pm: |
|
Hi John,
I'm only speculating, but I wonder if part of that wealth comes from family holdings, possibly from the estate of Herbert's brother Walter Betts who died in 1919, I think (apparently that estate wasn't settled until 1922?). I believe there was also a sister living in that house with them (at least in 1895).
(Message edited by oberlin on March 30, 2005) |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 344
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 12:48 pm: |
|
Hi Dave,
Good thought, I shall check out the National Probate Calendars for Walter and see how much he left.
Thanks for that.
Rgds
John |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 347
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 9:51 am: |
|
Hi Dave,
You were correct about Walter, here is his entry from the National Probate Calendars 1920.
Betts Walter of 17 Oakley Crescent Chelsea and of 30 Chester Terrace Eaton Square both in Middlesex died 1 November 1919 at 17 Oakley Crescent Probate London 3 February to Thomas William Johnson bank messenger and George Alfred Harvey law clerk.
Effects £11,905 6s 10d.
Now Eaton Square is a pretty upper class area, so it may be interesting to know more about Walter
Rgds
John |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 289
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 10:04 am: |
|
So do we take it he owned two houses? Was this only in the 20s or earlier?
Anyone able to trace ownership of the Eaton Sq property over the years?
Phil |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1876
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 10:44 am: |
|
Hi John
Well done with finding that - very interesting.
For someone who is described in successive censuses as a carpenter and builder, this is an extraordinary amount in this estate. It is not clear of the estate quoted would include the value of the two houses. Eaton Square certainly ws, and is, a very prestigious area.
Hope we can find out more about him.
As Walter died first it looks as though as sizeable part of his estate may have gone to Herbert but it would be fascinating to know how the Betts brothers came by these large sums of money for two men of comparatively humble occupations.
Chris
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4327
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 2:05 pm: |
|
Hi all
According to the 1922 article, we're looking at Chester Terrace SW, which I would have thought would have been as posh as the Regent's Park one. it wasn't very posh by the look of it in 1882, though.
Robert |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1878
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 2:20 pm: |
|
Hi Robert
Well found - definitely more down market than I would have thought. So the tenant of No 30 was William Savage, boot and shoemaker. In 1901 there is a father and son of this name and trade living at 23 Suffolk Place, Marylebone. Their details are:
Head: William Savage aged 59 born Ireland - Shoemaker/Bootmaker
Wife: Julia Savage aged 62 born Ireland
Son: William Savage aged 26 born Marylebone - Shoemaker/Bootmaker
(Message edited by Chris on March 31, 2005)
(Message edited by Chris on March 31, 2005) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4328
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 2:21 pm: |
|
Here's part of it in 1915. More upmarket. Note No. 37.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4329
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 2:26 pm: |
|
Thanks for that, Chris.
I should add that in 1915 Walter John Hughes was
living at No. 30.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4330
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 2:52 pm: |
|
Strangely, there is an item Jan 4th 1905 under "Partnerships Dissolved" :
R.W. Jones and W. Betts, builders and decorators, Chester-terrace, Chester-square, London, S.W., under the style of Jones and Betts.
Robert |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 292
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 3:56 pm: |
|
Any chance that someone in the London area could check out Chester-Terrace. Is this part of Eaton Square proper (which i recall as imposing mansions with pillared entrance doorways (remember the house in "Upstairs Downstairs TV series which was set there?)
Or is the terrace an area at one end which I recall as being different in character - shops and businesses?
We may be on a red-herring here.
Phil |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1879
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 4:19 pm: |
|
I thought this summary of addresses where Gissing lived might be useful:
When he came to London in 1877, Gissingís first found lodging near King's Cross railway station at 62 Swinton Street, off Grays Inn Road, and in January 1888 he was living in a single basement room at 22 Colville Place*, off Whitfield Street. By November 1878 he and Marianne (Nell) Harrison were living in a single room at 31 Gower Place*, off Gower Street. A year later they were in terraced houses at 70* then at 35 Huntley Street*, Bedford Square. By the summer of 1879 they were at 38 Edward Street* (now Varndell Street), joining Hampstead Road and Cumberland Market. It was from this house, where George finished writing Workers in the Dawn., that they had the banns declared for their wedding at the nearby chapel of St. James, Hampstead Road*. When George and Nell married, on 27th October 1879, they set up home at 5 Hanover Street, Islington. Later addresses associated with Gissing included 55 Wornington Road, Westbourne Grove, 15 Gower Place* (across the road from his previous rooms); 29 Dorchester Place, Blandford Square, Marylebone; 17 Oakley Crescent, Chelsea; 62 Milton Street, Regentís Park, Marylebone; 18 Rutland (now Mackworth) Street*, off the Hampstead Road; and 7k Cornwall Residences, Baker Street, Regentís Park before he moved to Exeter in January 1891. The old St Pancras Register Office, where Gissing married Edith Underwood on 25th February 1891, no longer stands.
Found this at http://homepages.gold.ac.uk/oscholars/vol_iii_07/conferences.html |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1926
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 5:08 pm: |
|
Robert
is that the same Inspector Chisholm (1882 edit) who helped prosecute poor old Thomas? |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4334
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 5:11 pm: |
|
Blimey, i missed him, AP! i'll try and check. "Colin" rings a bell.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4335
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 5:23 pm: |
|
I think it is, AP. Funny thing is, I was only looking him up the other day.
By the way, in 1881 the only Savage at No. 30 was Mary Savage, dressmaker, unmarried.
Robert |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1880
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 2:34 am: |
|
We have accumulated so much good research on this thread I thought it might be worth drawing together the bones of where we stand:
Summary:
1) The house in the picture was, without doubt, No 17 Oakley Crescent (now No 33)
2) This is corroborated by the house's current appearance which is virtually unaltered from that in the card.
3) The writer of the reverse of the card is very likely Herbert Betts ("HB") who was living at that address in 1909 with his brother Walter and sister Clara.
4) The addressee in Selby is Edwin Scott, a postmaster, who is listed as one of the executors in Herbert Betts' will.
5) The house at 17 Oakley Crescent was occupied by George Gissing from 1882 to 1884.
We have still to establish the following:
1) Who wrote the message on the front of the card?
2) When was the message on the front written?
3) Why would anyone link the house with Clarence?
4) Was there any link between Clarence and Gissing?
Any thoughts or additions would be most welcome:-) |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 295
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 5:56 am: |
|
Chris:
I think we can add that the postcard almost certainly came from the possessions of Edwin Scott - whether with or without the inscription. (I did postulate - though I by no means think this proven - that Scott could have penned the inscription on the picture.
For me, the big question is how he might have heard of the Clarence connection from Betts.
Phil |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4337
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 7:54 am: |
|
Well, one thing I suppose we need is for the next person with some free time in London to look up the inhabitants of the address for the late 80s.
Robert |
Joan Taylor
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 6:05 pm: |
|
I find this whole thread an unfortunate sign of how desparate people are for conspiracy theory related evidence these days. (Although many deny it!)
It's a joke scrawl on a post-card written by a hoaxer, written to sell a post-card at what the writer supposed was at weirdos' expense.
Come on! 
No offence to Chris, who explores every lead with the same dignity and dilligence.
But is everyone desperate for the slightest sign of Eddy?
These days?
And there was me thinking some people enjoyed boasting that it had gone out of fashion?
hmmmmmm.
!
It's my compassionate side that deplores the way people are taken for idiots over this matter. |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 300
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 12:40 pm: |
|
Joan - I do think evidence has to be tested.
You wrote: "It's a joke scrawl on a post-card written by a hoaxer..."
Frankly, you have no basis to make that statement. That it is a joke or a hoax or a forgery is not YET proven.
Indeed, what the diligent and admirable researches of my fellow Casebook members has shown is that there are inexplicable factors here that might mean it is not a hoax, OR, perhaps as significantly, that the Duke of Clarence was a relatively widely known suspect rather earlier than was thought.
As far as I am concerned (and I can speak for no one but myself) THAT is the reason we are touching on this.
A hoaxer would have to have found a card, recognised where it was, researched Gissing and then written a far from logical message. Don't forget, this card was originally thought to be of a house in Oakley STREET and was only later recognised as of a RENUMBERED house in Oakley CRESCENT.
The Betts have now shown some interesting links too.
So maybe we should have compassion for you Joan tfor rushing to judgement quite so quickly!! maybe you are blessed with 100% correct intuitive knowledge of such things. the rest of us have to use evidence and argument before reaching conclusions.
And this is NOT about conspiracies - it would certainly blow me out of the water if this showed one might be more likely!!
And whether it is the Diary or this card - your approach won't sink them. Concrete proof that they are fakes might. This thread might just PROVE that.
Bye Joan, thanks for dropping by,
Phil |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4339
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 1:48 pm: |
|
I must say, the Crescent in 1881 seems a bit downmarket - labourers, lodgers, tailors....there were more than 20 people living at No. 26.
Robert |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 348
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 5:57 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
Thank you for replying to Joan's post, I must admit that when I first obtained this postcard I expected many more comments of that sort. Surprisingly there have been remarkably few.
Let me just state that I am only interested in researching this to see where the evidence leads, only then will I decide if it is genuine, fake or forgery. I am sure that goes for others as well.
Rgds
John |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 349
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 7:14 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
Well done in posting your summary, an excellent overview of were we stand at the present. Things have moved very quickly on this thread, so I thank you for this clear thought, very timely.
In the list of things we still need to establish, with which I agree entirely, may I add that I think it important to establish who lived there at 17 Oakley Crescent between Gissing (left 1884) and the Betts family (from 1895).
As regards the way forward, I believe that we should concentrate on tracing the descendants of both Edwin Scott and Herbert Betts, a living member of either may be able to tell us more about how and when the writing got there. To this end I have been in touch with the West Yorkshire Archive Service at Wakefield, who tell me they have electoral rolls for 1900-1920 for Barkston Ash, the division under which Selby came at the time. It will require a personal visit, and their opening times are a little restricted, so it may be a few days until I can find time to go over there. I am intending to search the electoral rolls, but if you or anyone else have any ideas as to what other information we could search for there please let me know.
It occurs to me that the postcard may well have come into the public domain fairly recently, as an item like this would have been snapped up fairly quickly had it been hawked around antique fairs and the like. If it were possible to trace a member of family who had died within say the last year, we may be able to find out were the card came from. A long shot I admit, but it might work.
Also if the Edwin Scott found by Robert is the sake man as at Selby, then we know when he was born, so it should be possible to find an entry for him in the death registers. The other thing I was thinking of doing was ordering a copy of the will of Herbert Betts, as this may also give some clues to other members of his family. It may also help find out how the family had this large sum of money (£12,538), which I believe to be unusually large for a family who appear to be lower middle class.
I would be pleased to hear from anyone who has other thoughts on how to proceed further. (Should I say, “Answers on a Postcard”)?
Rgds.
John
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1413
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 8:41 pm: |
|
Hi Joan
Thanks for your comment, but I don't consider that we are "desperate" to prove the Royal Conspiracy to be true.
What we have here is, as most of us have said, a postcard inscription that is probably a hoax but that presents an interesting mystery that bears investigation. If you have followed this thread, the postcard has provided an exercise in research that has produced some fascinating information even if it leads nowhere in terms of helping us to know who the Ripper was.
Personally, Joan, I could care less whether Eddy was the Ripper and I am sure many who have contributed to this thread don't care much for the Royal Conspiracy angle either. Thus, your basic complaint is off base, IMHO. Sorry, Joan.
All the best
Chris
(Message edited by ChrisG on April 01, 2005)
(Message edited by ChrisG on April 01, 2005)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4341
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 4:23 am: |
|
Just pondering the suggestion that Edwin may have written on the card on the day of his return from a visit to Oakley Crescent. Isn't it more likely that he'd have written "I've been in there!!"?
I don't understand why Edwin kept the card, with the result that it's still around today. Of course, people do accumulate all kinds of things without intending to. Still, presumably the card had no sentimental value, so why keep it? Maybe Edwin kept it because he thought that there was a JTR link. But then, again, why the strange wording about standing outside?
Speculating about possible reasons why Clarence's name may have become linked to JTR (and excluding the stories that anyone in the public eye is liable to) : I wonder whether there was some confusion with Tumblety? If the rumour got around that JTR was a man who used rent boys (although the charges against Tumblety didn't involve a brothel) perhaps the suspicions against Tumblety somehow got transferred to Clarence. It might or might not be significant that 1909 was the 20th anniversary of Cleveland St.
Robert |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 306
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 5:49 am: |
|
I don't understand why Edwin kept the card, with the result that it's still around today.
I think Scott may have kept it in an album with the inscription on the picture showing. Note that the wording says "today" with no date - which must logically be different from that on the reverse of the card. This suggests that it was not written for or to a third party.
Isn't it more likely that he'd have written "I've been in there!!"?
But we have no proof that he stayed In that house. We know (from Betts' message on the reverse that Scott was due to come to london (presumably soon) but he may have stayed elsewhere. thus he might have called around to see Bett's but not gone in. Having the card at home, he recorded what he had been told when he returned to Selby.
Just some options - I'm not wedded to them. I am, however, increasingly of the view that Edwin Scott (for whatever reason) penned the inscription about Clarence. A hoaxer would have to have recognised not only the house, but that Bett's knew Scott. You cannot infer as much as we know of their connection from the card alone. Any explanation apart from a genuine note by Edwin seems almost too complicated to sustain.
I'm not convinced by the Tumblety connection, Robert - sorry, but it sounds too complex. Good try though.
Phil
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4342
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 2:10 pm: |
|
This is from the “London Gazette” Sept 23rd 1910 :
LAND REGISTRY.
Land Transfer Acts, 1875 and 1897
Notice.- The following Persons are about to be registered as Proprietors of the following Properties with Absolute or Good Leasehold Title :-
Number of Title 146548
County London
Parish or Place Chelsea
Dwelling-house and garden, 44, Redburn-street
Leasehold
Walter Betts
17, Oakley-crescent, Chelsea, S.W.
Builder
Robert
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 310
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 3:34 pm: |
|
So is that the date Walter Betts gained ownership of the Oakley Cres house? What about Herbert then, as he his brother's tennant?
Phil |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4343
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 3:52 pm: |
|
Phil, the info is in the form of a table. Redburn Street, Chelsea, London comes under "The Land" while Walter Betts 17 Oakley Crescent etc comes under "The Applicant" - 17 Oakley Crescent was his address. He was about to gain 44 Redburn St (provided no one objected).
Robert
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 313
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 4:50 pm: |
|
I find this "legalese" very difficult to understand and be sure of, frankly.
Phil |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 350
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 5:38 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
Thanks for the information about 44 Redburn Street.
Perhaps this is how Walter made his money, dealing in property?
Rgds
John |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4346
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 5:59 pm: |
|
Could be, John - buying them up, doing them up, and selling them on.
Robert |
Joan Taylor
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 7:14 am: |
|
Oooohhhhh !
 
Come on guys it is a trip down muggins alley. |
Joan Taylor
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 8:34 am: |
|
Re-reading this thread, and sympathising with people's enthusiasms, I respectfully suggest the following conclusions.
That a) it is a modern hoax
That b) it is an old flippancy, a touristic comment, based on a rumour, based on the fact that PAV did indeed have connections in the area,- eg his friends Gissing and Wilde. ( as is well known).
It was enough for 'the chattering classes' to see evidence such as PAV's visiting his contacts for them to start gossiping on. Aristocrats in Tite street knew one another, they went to town, murders happenned in the East End- as they did in the east end- everyone starts gossiping and then a rumour becomes famous. In 1910, it probably was still a famous rumour; was Clarence merely a topic of Gissing's or had Clarence committed the murders? Two tourists stand outside the house, and scrawl on a card. It was probably more of a local joke than a rumour.
He might have visited there, but that's no big deal in itself. We knew he went to Chelsea to see his friends. Can't the poor man go to town in peace, without silly post-cards being written, one might have asked in 1910.
I think these two possibilities are the probable ones and there is little point people getting desparate about it. It is a post-card, and an obviously flippant one.
However the writing on the card saying 'this is the house of Jack the Ripper' etc. isn't old looking, I think it's modern. The blotches and blunders are very suspicious.
This board smacks of tabloid newspaper research leads. |
Joan Taylor
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 01, 2005 - 6:14 pm: |
|
Hi again,
I am sure you've been dilligent, that's not what I'm saying. I just deplore the way people take people like you for a ride for the sake of a laugh. It's unkind.
Indeed, Phil, the Duke of Clarence was rumoured a suspect very early. As Chris showed, the rumour mill began with his associations with Cleveland Street; people tended to slur his name and drag it into talk about back street events. But that really is all we know. It's long been known. I would listen to Chris, who researches relevant stuff efficiently.
They laughed at aristocrats and politicians then, believe it or not.
By the way when I was dropping in I should have brought the chocolate biscuits. |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 351
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 4:14 pm: |
|
Hi All,
I managed to get over to the West Yorkshire Archives at Wakefield today and checked the electoral rolls in search of Edwin Scott.
Found that Scott appears in the registers for Selby in the years 1909 – 1910 - & 1911. There is no entry for him in the registers of 1908 – 1912 & 1913.
His number on the roll for 1909 is 1620, for 1910, it is 1612 and for 1911 it is 1664.
His address is given as Post Office, Micklegate, Selby, which address is also shown as his dwelling house.
This seems to confirm the earlier research done by Robert Linford and Chris Scott.
On the way back, I dropped into Selby to have a look at Micklegate, the main post office is still situated there, although the present building is of concrete and glass and would probably date back to the 1960’s. However the lady behind the counter confirmed that this building was built on the site of the earlier post office. She also informed me that the local newspaper “The Selby Times” holds photographs of Micklegate from earlier times.
Rgds
John |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 811
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 07, 2005 - 5:23 pm: |
|
Joan
However the writing on the card saying 'this is the house of Jack the Ripper' etc. isn't old looking, I think it's modern. The blotches and blunders are very suspicious.
Maybe I'm a "muggins", but I must admit I thought the opposite - I thought, "If this is a fake, they have done the handwriting very well". (Much more convincing than the You Know Who Diary, at any rate!)
Not that I'd find it very earth shattering if the scurrilous rumours about PAV being the Ripper did date back to the early 20th century. (Or even the 1880s.)
Chris Phillips
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 328
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 2:02 am: |
|
Joan,
I think YOU are a hoax.
Unless you do the research, your belief is only that. It has no substance. people like John Savage are actually doing the leg-work to establish the veracity of this newly emerged card. It may be nothing, it might be an interesting opening to new and hitherto unexplored vistas.
If you re-read my and other posts with attention, you'll see that at the very least this could be contemporary - thus NOT a hoax.
I am sure you've been dilligent, that's not what I'm saying.
no you are just being condescending and adding no value.
I just deplore the way people take people like you for a ride for the sake of a laugh. It's unkind.
Where is the "ride" and who is taking us on it? Who is laughing?
Indeed, Phil, the Duke of Clarence was rumoured a suspect very early.
Citation or reference please.
As Chris showed, the rumour mill began with his associations with Cleveland Street; people tended to slur his name and drag it into talk about back street events.
Citation and reference please - you may these unsupported statements - hence my belief that YOU are a hoax.
Reverting to your other post (YAWN):
based on the fact that PAV did indeed have connections in the area
Is it a fact? Please cite your source?
...eg his friends Gissing and Wilde.
Define friendship in this case, and please give references in particular for his "friendship" with Wilde.
( as is well known).
Not by me and I have read extensively about PAV and Wilde.
It was enough for 'the chattering classes' to see evidence such as PAV's visiting his contacts for them to start gossiping on.
So well known that evidence is rare??
Aristocrats in Tite street knew one another,
What precisely do you mean by an "aristocrat" - I think you might use the term too loosely for my taste. We are NOT talking about Tite St.
In 1910, it probably was still a famous rumour; was Clarence merely a topic of Gissing's or had Clarence committed the murders? Two tourists stand outside the house, and scrawl on a card. It was probably more of a local joke than a rumour.
Who are the two people? All this is supposition.
Can't the poor man go to town in peace, without silly post-cards being written, one might have asked in 1910.
You are aware, I assume that PAV had been dead for almost 20 years by 1909? he WAS resting in peace!!
But that really is all we know.
Probably because people like you decry research that might change their closed minds.
It's long been known.
From precisely what date. back up what you say Joan.
They laughed at aristocrats and politicians then, believe it or not.
I laugh at you, and your lamentable approach to investigation, but what does that prove?
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4362
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 11:36 am: |
|
Thanks for that info, John. Where do we go from here?
Robert |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 352
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 12:32 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
I think the next step must be to try and trace any living descendants of Edwin, next week I am going to try to spend some time in the library going through death registers to see if I can find him.
In the meantime I have also ordered a copy of Herbert Betts will, so when that arrives there may be other angles to look at.
Rgds
John |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1894
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 1:19 pm: |
|
John,
One thought - did you hear anything back from the company that sold the card as to its immediate origin . It is possible it has been in the same hands for a long time
Chris |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 816
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 1:54 pm: |
|
John
Possibly you could trace Edwin Scott's subsequent history through the Post Office's archives?
http://www.postalheritage.org.uk/research/family_history/
Chris Phillips
|
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 353
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 08, 2005 - 6:54 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
I did try to phone the seler of the card but could not get hold of him. I e mailed him and although he did reply, he did not say were he bought the postcard. If you fancy giving him a try, then please do.
Chris Phillips,
The Post Office Archive is something I have not heard of before, so the link was most interesting. I shall try to find out what information they hold, thanks very much indeed.
Rgds
John |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1903
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 11:38 am: |
|
Hi John
I have today e-mailed the guy from Carlton, the vendors of the card to see if there is any info he can give me without breaking any confidentiality etc. I fear that the query I am most eager to find out about - namely if the card, before it was offered for sale, was in the hands of the same individual or family for a long time - may be beyond his knowlegde.
It may come to nothing and he may not want to get involved but if I hear anything I will let you know.
All the best
Chris |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 354
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 5:32 pm: |
|
Thanks Chris,
Let's hope he can help us, it may save a great deal of work.
Rgds
John |
