|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Wentworth Model Dwellings, Goulston Street--still there?
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
Wentworth Model Dwellings, Goulston Street--still there?
Author: Greg Earnest
Sunday, 24 September 2000 - 04:13 pm |        | | I visited London this past summer and did both a Ripper walk and my own, more leisurely exploration of some of the sites the next day. My question is this--is the building on Goulston Street that's always indicated as the site of the graffito the same building that was there in 1888, just in remodeled form? Or was the old building demolished and replaced by the present one? |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 24 September 2000 - 05:45 pm | | c:\my documents
 goulstone(1).jpg |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 24 September 2000 - 05:49 pm | | Greg
Its the same building remodeled into a chippy..
And thats the fearless Mr Stewart Evans standing outside.
(why can't I get text & pic together in the same poste???)
:-(
Regards, Jon |
Author: The Viper
Sunday, 24 September 2000 - 06:20 pm | | As confirmed by Jon, Greg. The Brunswick Buildings in Goulston Street and the Wentworth Buildings in adjacent Wentworth Street were all constructed in the mid-1880s and occupied by 1886. They were built by the East London Dwellings Company, founded by the Rev. Samuel Barnett to provide social housing whilst paying its shareholders a 4% dividend.
Not all the buildings in Goulston Street now were there in Jack's day. Towards the southern end, a V2 rocket landed in the street on 10th November 1944, killing nineteen people and seriously injuring 97.
Regards, V. |
Author: Greg Earnest
Sunday, 24 September 2000 - 10:31 pm | | Thanks for the great information. What's a chippy, though? Is this a British term I'm unfamiliar with? Does it have to do with fish and chips?
Here's a photo I took of the Goulston Street building this summer (I hope this works). Which doorway in my picture is the one?
 |
Author: Greg Earnest
Sunday, 24 September 2000 - 10:43 pm | | | image{Goulston St. building} |
Author: Greg Earnest
Sunday, 24 September 2000 - 10:48 pm | |  |
Author: Johnno
Sunday, 24 September 2000 - 11:06 pm | | Nice picture, Greg.
The correct doorway is the left-most doorway in your photograph, below the sign on the wall.
It is now a fish and chips shop. |
Author: John Robert Fogarty
Friday, 12 October 2001 - 09:07 pm | | When I was touring Whitechapel a few years ago, one of the tour guides claimed that the Ripper ducked into one of the lodging houses on Goulston, near the archway. Apparently, he saw one of the constables following him, cleaned his knife blade with the scrap of Eddowes' apron, then disappeared into the lodging house.
The significance? The Ripper picked the most infamous lodging house within which to seek shelter -- a place of such dark reputation that the local constables would only enter it in pairs. This effectively stopped the pursuit until the constable in question picked up the trail once more and followed the likely escape route to an outdoor sink, located in a close (Miller's Court perhaps?) where he saw the evidence of the Ripper's passing, in the form of slightly bloody water under the spigot, where the Ripper had just rinsed his hands.
Obviously, then, Jacky knew the area very well -- so well as to be able to pick the one lodging house the cops wouldn't follow him into. My question is, if all this is true, then what were the names of these particular lodging houses, and would it be possible to check who might have been renting a bed there the night of Sep. 30th? Reaching for straws, I know, and I rather doubt any such list of common lodgers exists. But if it did . . .
. . . might find David Cohen's name. Or Nathan Kaminsky. Or Aaron Kosminsky. Or . . . you get the idea.
Ciao for now,
Goryboy |
Author: John Robert Fogarty
Friday, 12 October 2001 - 09:09 pm | | | Are these, in fact, the The Brunswick Buildings? If so, would there be any way to find a list of lodgers for 113 years ago? |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 13 October 2001 - 11:24 am | | John
In your previous poste (9:07pm), the first two sentences are nothing more than embellishments, stories told to create an atmosphere.
Then in your third sentence you start off with 'obviously'.....
Let me suggest it might be wise to find out more about this case and to see for yourself that the comments you base your deductions on are groundless.
And to answer your question about renters, no record was kept of renters in lodging houses. We have census records of who was in-situ at the time of the census (1882, 1892) for private dwellings, but that is a snap-shot in time, and there was no census taken in 1888.
I seem to recall the name Kosminsky, or a variable, resident in the Wentworth Dwellings, that was investigated by a researcher some years ago, though my memory might be playing tricks.
Regards, Jon |
Author: John Robert Fogarty
Thursday, 18 October 2001 - 03:12 pm | | Dear Jon,
I certainly didn't mean to pass on embellishments or groundless rumour. I was merely quoting the story that our tour guide gave us at the time. Also, I was using information as reported by a PC Long the night of the "double event." But it's not so easy to dispel the idea that the Ripper may have ducked into the Wentworth Model Dwellings, since the scrap of Eddowes's apron was found precisely there, in the doorway or archway where the graffito was found.
The only problem is the time lag. If PC Long didn't see the bit of apron on his first walk through Goulston, about 1:50a.m. or so, and only spotted it 65 minutes later, then where was it all that time? Did he simply miss it?
Also, if it was PC Long whom the guide claimed the Ripper saw, and hid from by ducking into the lodging house there, then why wasn't the apron spotted earlier? True, it was dark, but it appears that bit of apron was larger in size than generally believed.
There's a good page here that describes this in detail. Still, my question to you and the board is -- "Could Jack have lived in or near the Wentworth Model Dwellings, or did he just drop the apron (and perhaps scrawl the graffito) there just to baboozle the police?"
All best,
Goryboy |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 18 October 2001 - 03:23 pm | | John.
If you dont mind me making a suggestion,....read this.
http://casebook.org/dissertations/dst-graffito.html
thanks, Jon |
Author: John Robert Fogarty
Thursday, 18 October 2001 - 04:00 pm | | Hi, Jon! That's the very page I was referring to! Great stuff on there, including PC Long, the apron size, etc.
Wasn't there another PC in the Goulston/Wentworth Street area that night who supposedly followed his suspect's likely escape route north from Goulston to "a small close off of Dorset Street, in which I spied a sink" where the alleged suspect washed his hands? Where is this from, and does this ring any bells for you?
Thx!
goryboy |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 18 October 2001 - 05:11 pm | | John
Yes, absolutely, though not a PC, the statement is from the memoirs of Sir Henry Smith, Acting Commissioner of the City of London Police, From Constable to Commissioner, chapter XVI, page 153....
"The assassin had evidently wiped his hands with the piece of apron. In Dorset Street, with extraordinary audacity, he washed them at a sink up a close, not more than six yards from the street. I arrived there in time to see the blood-stained water".
The recollection, above, is said to be evidently a confused collation of seperate events, the event as described never happened.
Memoirs of ex-police officials are riddled with inaccuracies.
However, there was another PC in Goulston street that night and he was posted by PC Long to stand at 118 while Long took the apron to Commercial St. station.
You know about Det. Halse who also passed through.
Regards, Jon |
Author: graziano
Thursday, 18 October 2001 - 06:20 pm | | So we have for one the murder of Elizabeth Stride and some hours after the discovery of a shirt maculated with blood in a lodging house (or simply an ordinary one ?) in Batty street, and for two the murder of Catherine Eddowes and some time after the discovery of the piece of apron with blood and faecal matter upon it.
We have Schwartz clearly seing the face of a man attacking Elizabeth Stride moments before she was murdered and Lawende and Co. clearly seing the face of a man with Catherine Eddowes moments before she was murdered.
This man being quite similar in the description by the witnesses.
Interesting.
Your article also is very interesting Jon (as usual with everything you write).
But if you are right about the murderer bringing home the apron with the organs, he was very lucky that bloodhounds were not used that night.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Friday, 19 October 2001 - 04:22 am | | You know Jon,
I can't avoid asking myself what would have happened to the graffito had the apron not been found right under.
What is your guess about it ?
Thanks. Graziano. |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 19 October 2001 - 04:06 pm | | Hi, Graziano:
If the piece of apron had not been found under the graffito, the graffito probably would not have been noticed and would not be part of the case at all. Only because the piece of Catherine Eddowes' apron was found under the writing does it take on possible significance.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 20 October 2001 - 05:11 am | | Hello Chris,
"Only because the piece of Catherine Eddowes' apron was found under does it (the graffito) take on possible significance.".
Exactly what I think.
But in a something different way from yours.
I try to put myself in the position of a passer-by (not at all related with the murders) who happens to think, just in front of 108-119 Goulston street:
"I know in this house are living a lot of jews.
These f****ing jews who came here to steal my job and to eat my bread. I hate them. I'm going to leave a message for them".
So, I begin thinking about the message I want to write.
Something shocking for the people to read because I know many of them will be jews and I detest them. I want to offend them deeply.
Something that I want people to read while passing, so something catching their attention, big letters, short sentence, easy understandable in the concept (not highly intellectually leveled peopled using living there) and in the words (lot of strangers there not domesticating fluent english).
OK. I've found.
I write :
I f*** the jews and their mothers (intending: men and women, people).
I go away happy because everybody will see and understand it.
But this is not the graffito as it was found.
"The Juwes are the men that Will not be Blamed for nothing",
is a long sentence to read (if you pass by you must at least stop), not easy understandable, neither in the words nor in the concept (by the way does it mean something in english, grammatically speaking ?) and overall no one could simply and immediately guess that this represents an offence for the jewish people.
It was written in small letters, not even on the wall side of the street.
Why having added
"are the men that",
would the graffito not have been simpler and clearer only saying:
The Juwes will not be blamed for nothing ?
Or if, because I am a really strange guy, I hated the men who are jews, but not the women (not knowing, because beside being strange I am also ignorant) that the "jewish virus" is spread by women and not men, why not simply writing
"The jewish men will not be blamed for nothing ?".
In clear, why choosing the surest way for nobody to understand ?
Of course you could argue that it was intended to put the police on the track of the jews relating them (truly or not) to the Whitechapel killings (we are still supposing here that the writer had nothing to do with them).
But if so, what a coincidence:
- right the night of the double event,
- right above the apron,
and in this case, as you said, we must aknowledge that without the apron, it would never have been noticed by the police.
At this point I must admit that in my opinion the only plausible solution could be the following:
a) the writing of the graffito.
b) the killing.
c) the cutting of the piece of the apron.
d) the plunging of the piece of apron cut in the bowels and the soaking by it of the blood and the faecal matter.
e) the deposit of the apron under the graffito.
(All this by the same hands, or, to be more realistic, by the same bunch of hands).
In clear, the use of the apron as a way to lead to the graffito and to make the connection between the latter and the murders.
Wait a moment, I am stealing here the idea of Ed Carter.
Ed Carter, you remember, the guy who said that a name was written in the graffito.
A name, ha ha,
but what name ?
"The Juwes are the men that Will not be Blamed for nothing".
"The Juwes are the men that Will not be Blamed for nothing".
"The Juwes are the men that Will not be Blamed for nothing".
What a fool and a joke this Ed Carter.
Sorry ?
Why didn't they write it on the fence near the body ? ( remember Sherlock Holmes, Jon ? )
Why did they write it in Goulston street ?
Why on the entrance of this specific dwellings ?
Hey Chris, I am a bit tired now, I go (no, not to work).
See you next.
Bye. Graziano.
P.S.: Wasn't I waiting an e-mail from you ? |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 20 October 2001 - 06:38 am | | Hi, Graziano:
There probably was a lot of resentment about the Jews from the local gentile (white English) population so anti-Jewish graffiti might have been expected, although you are quite correct, this particular scrawl on the wall is neither straightforward, short, nor put in a prominent location. Those facts might make the link with the piece of apron more significant.
I sent the e-mail to you right after I mentioned I was going to send it... but I will send it again!
All the best
Chris |
Author: Kandy Kane
Saturday, 20 October 2001 - 06:48 pm | | "The Juwes are the men that Will not be Blamed for nothing"
so has anyone else thought about how this is a double negative....so this should have been written in better english as....
"The Juwes are the men that will be blammed for everything"
i mean sound out the sectence....."will not be blamed for nothing" which means that they are being blamed for something. Maybe nothing to do with the ripper case.maybe someone just wanted to point a finger at the juwes and thought this would be a good way. or maybe the person who did this thought that it would be easier for people to believe that is was a juw. and this person purposely placed the apron below the chalk writting in order to blam the juwes in the wrong.....what do you think....email me....thx |
Author: graziano
Sunday, 21 October 2001 - 03:56 am | | Sure Kandy,
what about this:
"These f***ing Jews are ripping our women".
A bit less candied, but how more powerful.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Jim Leen
Friday, 26 October 2001 - 09:27 pm | | Hello Everybody,
I recently ventured down to the Big Smoke and persuaded my companions to accompany me to the East End.
If you're doing the JTR Trail make sure that you alight, if using the Underground, at Aldgate. We jumped off at Whitechapel Station, ensconced ourselves in The Blind Beggar, with obvious criminal connotations, then started walking.
Unfortunately, a touch of gout and too much falling down juice curtailed my investigation. However, I did reach the site of the Wentworth Dwellings. Incidentally, the White Hart Pub is just around the corner and apparently George Chapman resided in the basement. Then there's Gunthorpe Alley (this is from memory forgive me if I go astray) where Martha Tabram was murdered. This leads onto...buy an A to Z, it makes more sense!
Anyway, when I finally reached the site of the graffito and the discarded apron, even my brother was curiously entranced by the atmosphere.
And, here's the philosophical bit, it felt extremely strange to know that one was following in the footsteps of an historical murderer. Sometimes we perhaps forget about the victims, those they left behind. There we were, with darkness fallen,respectable members of the community actually voyaging about an area, where deprivation still exists, on the trail of a Victorian Murderer.
Pain and suffering are timeless. Perhaps one should consider these aspects at all times.
Thanking you, and signing off seriously,
Jim Leen |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 27 October 2001 - 05:14 pm | | Hi, Jim:
It sounds as if you had a memorable time on the trail of Saucy Jacky. Thanks for telling us about your experiences.
All the best
Chris George |
|
|
|
|
