|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
A "LONG" shot?
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion:
A "LONG" shot?
Author: Grailfinder
Sunday, 12 November 2000 - 09:45 am |        | Do any readers have any thoughts, info, or ideas on the following;
Much has been written on the validity of Liz Stride being a true JtR victim, and I am sure most of you know the main points of contention, ie; No ripping, different knife etc, So I wont fill this post with old news about the M,O used by Jack in the Stride case but get straight to my question.
Ok, firstly we need to press the rewind button, back to murder #Two, that of Annie Chapman in Hanbury St.
One of the first witnesses to come forward with info to this murder was a Mrs Elizabeth Long, AKA Mrs Darrell or Durrell, who gave a statement at the inquest of Chapman, stating that she had seen a woman that she now identifies as that of the dead woman, outside number 29 Hanbury St, at about 5:30am, talking to a man of foreign appearance, "a little taller than herself, who said to her, "Will you?" to which Chapman replied, "Yes".
The inquest on Chapman, like all of the victims, was reported by the Press to a growing readership, eager for all the gory details of this latest outrage, and I am sure our Jack was one of those readers.
Now! if I were Jack, I would be feeling a little uneasy at these latest reports, for they stated that not only had he been seen and heard by this woman but she has stated on oath that she could recognize Chapman as being the woman with him, so could she therefore, do the same with him?.
Jack knew he would be returning to his hunting grounds. Whitechaple was I believe, chosen by Jack for a reason and as his work was not yet finished, this woman was a threat to its completion and would need to be dealt with.
As we know, Liz Stride was AKA Long Liz, and Mrs Durrell was AKA Liz Long, So, my question is, could Jack have made a mistake with murder #three and silenced the wrong woman? this would explain the lack of his normal M,O.
She was never intended to be a JtR victim so did not warrant his Trade mark rip, just silencing.
I would be interested in knowing what became of Mrs Durrell after the Whitechaple affair, I hope she went on to live a "Long" life and if any reader has any info on her or thoughts on my question, I would be interested in hearing them.
Cheers |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 12 November 2000 - 10:48 am | | Interesting twist, Grailfinder.
Fodder for the conspiracy enthusiasts :-)
But why the different knife & why in full view of witnesses?
Stretching the point we might speculate that Polly Nichols was mistaken for Pearly Poll, the witness with Tabram. That Kate Eddowes was mistaken for Kate Kelly.....this killer was a real bufoon, dont you think?
:-)
Regards, Jon |
Author: Grailfinder
Sunday, 12 November 2000 - 11:45 am | | Jack, I don't think was a buffoon, but along the lines of a conspiracy, his henchmen could have been? and so it was these guys who bungled the Stride affair, whilst our Jack was busy the same night with the important work for that night, ie Mitre Sq.
I have always thought that both girls had a date that night, and that some arrangement with Jack had been pre-arranged.
Stride was reported to have been in good mood as she got ready that night to go out, who gave her the flower?
Eddowes was keen to know the time as she was leaving the Police station, was she late for a date? and who paid for her new Bonnet and the drinks that got her sloshed during the day?
She had left her man that morning penniless and stating that she intended visiting her daughter to borrow a few shillings, Yet a few hours later she,s as pissed as a fart pretending to be a fire engine?
"Conspiracy?" I have always thought so, and feel that when we work out why they were killed, it will point us to by whom they met there end.
It is I think! by careful study of the minor points that the case will be solved, little things that on first sight are meaningless but do in fact hide an important and overlooked clue.
Take for eg: the amount of reference to Bonnets and Boots? these items are mentioned in all the murders in one form or other, and could have a hidden meaning that has been missed.
I see them as a Masonic link, in that they are a visual expression of the Twin Pillars of Solomon's Temple which are in turn a link to the Two Egyptian Obelisks erected at the boundaries of Upper and Lower Egypt, markers of the Head and Foot of the nation.
In the case of Kelly, her breast (a symbol of her womanhood)had been removed and placed, one between her feet, and the other under her head.
The Mason's ironic sense of humor has been written about in many of the conspiracy theory books so I wont go into it here, but I'm sure you will agree the Bonnets and Boots fit in perfectly with there (or someone pointing the finger of guilt at them) funny little games. |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 12 November 2000 - 12:14 pm | | Hi, Grailfinder:
It is Nicholls with the new bonnet, not Eddowes. Your idea about Mrs. Long/Long Liz is interesting but not too plausible. Anyone who heard the name "Long Liz" would have to know that "Long" was a description and not her last name.
I personally think that Stride was done by Jack and that he was scared off: the so-called short knife may not be so because you do not have the abdominal mutilations to know whether it was a long knife. Also if you introduce the Jack had accomplices notion you have to explain the fact that there appears to be no evidence that there was more than one man in the other murders. The assailant/pipeman incident in Berner Street may have been mere coincidence... the men may not have been connected. "Lipski" anyone? :-)
Chris George |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 12 November 2000 - 12:22 pm | | "Beam me up, Scotty"
:-)
Seriously though, I had noticed a few frequent references to new bonnets throughout the Whitechapel series, though on reflection, they were not as frequent as I had first thought.
I guess your conspiracy of Mason's hypothesis is based loosly on Knight's proposal.
It makes for reasonable entertainment, books, movies etc. but conspiracy's at a high level were not uncommon throughout history.
Some conspiracy enthusiasts are influenced by the actions of the CIA, Mosad & other intelligence groups, like they are the masters of secrecy, not so.
I'm refering to the deeds of the men who basically initiated the term, or at least brought it to a modicum of perfection. I speak of William Cecil, Lord Burghley in the late 1500's, then his son Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury.
If you are truely interested how conspiracy was employed at the higher levels of the social ladder then read up on these two for starters.
To leave disected bodies littering the streets would in no way have been acceptable to anyone involved in a conspiratorial undertaking at the higher levels of society.
These women would simply have vanished off the face of the earth if they were victims of such an undertaking.
I cant see anyone in a position of power, which is vulnerable even though powerfull, would have allowed telltale evidence to be exposed for the world to see.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 12 November 2000 - 12:44 pm | | Hi, Jon and Grailfinder:
The plain facts are that women of the day wore bonnets, and these street women wore boots. Beginning and end of story. I side with Jon in taking a skeptical view that there was anything significant in these facets of the case.
Chris George |
Author: Grailfinder
Sunday, 12 November 2000 - 01:12 pm | | What telltale evidence?
Bob the fish gutter or Milly the flower girl had no idea of Egyptian history, to most people reading the reports of the crimes in 1888, these clues (if they be so?) would go unnoticed. Just as they have for the last hundred years until I bought it up a few hours ago.
Only "those in the know" would see the significance and so see the result of crossing there paths, a warning therefore, or a show of there power as in,
"You see, we have spilt blood on the highways in full view of the establishment, and got away with it. Such is the strength of our membership"
Your assumption that my theories are based on a Knight or perhaps Fairclough footing are wrong. If I do have a conspiracy theory at all (which I'm not sure I do, but it is a possible reason for the murders), Then I would opt for a group of social reformers, with an aim to cleaning up the cess pool that the east end had become, and then of cause the display of the body for all to see is necessary.
Hi Chris
I have of cause considered the fact that B&B were more prevalent than in todays mode of dress, however my point is that only in these five murders are they referenced to, if we look at other crimes of this sort before or after the Whitechaple Murders, there is no mention of these items, in the same abundance that there is with the five JtR victims.
No doubt I will be shot down with readers commenting on this or that case where these items do pop up and look forward to the debate, but to get back to my main reason for this board, that of Mrs Long AKA Durrell. What became of her? anyone know?
Regards |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 12 November 2000 - 02:59 pm | | Sorry Grailfinder, but I did say 'loosly' based, and I could have swore it was you who mentioned 'conspiracy' then 'Mason's'.
Ergo, 1 + 1 = Masonic conspiracy.
And by the way, Bob & Milly were not in charge of the murder investigation, nor presiding over an autopsy, or the inquest. It was the educated (at Eaton, Cambridge etc) officials who would see any clue's if they were present.
Ok, so you speculate that a group of local businessmen (Mason's?) were concerned with social evils and took it into their own hands to clean up the streets?
Jon |
Author: Grailfinder
Sunday, 12 November 2000 - 08:51 pm | | Hi Jon
Sorry but I seem to have confused the issue ("nothing knew")
My point was that maybe a closer study of things, that at first might not seem important, or logical, may still hold vital clues, hence the Long/Liz/Long mix up? question I posed, not as any part of a theory I might have, just a simple question on an area of the case that intrigues me because it is, I believe, when criminals make mistakes that they will be caught. and Jack, if responsible for the double event, had started to make mistakes, firstly allowing himself to be seen, and again when he had to leave stride before he could rip her, or risk being caught by the approaching cart.
If he was making mistakes then I think it is worth looking for other errors of Jacks during this period, perhaps it was his nearly being caught that account for the lack of activity during October, his clumsiness had nearly been his downfall, but never again! his next job would be planned, he needed somewhere he would not be seen or heard, and someone who didn't look like the others, maybe take a wench not a crone.
All of this is of course mere conjecture and certainly not part of any theory of mine
Logic is to me a Two edged sword that has put me in the doghouse many times, "Yes"! I was right she said, but I was out of order in telling her that she was wrong!.
However, when trying to understand a mind like Jacks,! can we take it for granted that "normal logic" rules apply?
I mentioned the B&B not as a theory, but as an example as to where clues may hide among the minor points that are ignored simply because they don't make sense or are not in tune with our logic.
I do not have a theory, as such, Masonic, Royal, or any other conspiracy, nor do I have a favored single subject, I would hate to point so guilty a finger at an individual or his descendants as to being or being related to the monster that Jack was.
The list of suspects grows each year with new names, and maybe our Jack is among them, but I cant help but feel sorry for the "names" and Family of the "names" on the growing Suspect list.
My view of the case is still, ?. After 20 yrs spent reading all that I could get my hands on, and over the last few years reading the casebook on-line, I'm as confused and undecided as I was 20 years ago, and that's fine with me, as it means the games still Afoot, " s'cuse the pun".
Many lessons have been learnt here in the UK since the reports on the Yorkshire Ripper of the 1980s proved that mistakes were made and things like coincidences, overlooked or ignored as trivial, where as, had someone said, "hang on a mo! this all looks a bit iffy?" they could have caught Sutcliff two years before they eventually did so.
My reasons for starting this board, were to discus all the "long shots" all those niggling little questions that pop into ones thoughts and wont go away, Questions that are not Logical enough to bother the individual boards with.
As long as we all enter this board with the full understanding that all within should NOT be read as, Prime Source, or for that matter, logical to material that is maybe posted elsewhere on the Boards, then all should be fine.
It would be cool if the Board became not only a place for newer members to air there thoughts, without the fear of having three wise men telling him how stupid his question is, not that I would suggest for one moment that a member would talk down to a "newbie" in this way. But we all, when faced with a new event, feel the fear! of dipping one's toe, and the Long Shot Board would give them an outlet free of judgement.
The board would also act as a collection basket for all the old wives' tales, rumors and folklore that surrounds the case, who knows what snippets of information are out there, but thought to silly to mention?. Could a pattern to the crimes, be found among the gossip and folklore that has built up over the years? but been dismissed as trivia that confuses the case, so logically, it would best to stick to Prime Source!.
I for one,would welcome an illogical debate on a theory, as long as, the theory had strength in areas such as Pattern, or coincidences of events.
The Logic of Jack might only reveal itself, if and when we do put a name to him, and if we are to understand his warped reasoning for his deeds, then we say goodbye to normal logic and say hello to whatever reality the lunatic thinks is real, only in his world are the crimes normal, forgivable, in this world Jack was the Lord of logic, to bend and twist as he thought fit, until the events suited his reasoning and so, justifying his actions.
To recap then, the questions I posed were just examples of the sort of Longshots I am interested in, thoughts and ideas that don't fit in with logic but still nag us, in the small hours.
My own personal nag at the moment is with the Liz/Long confusion and of Mrs Durrell's life and movements, and I hope, health! after 1888.
cheers.. |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 12 November 2000 - 09:17 pm | | Hi, Grailfinder:
Fine to have a board for speculation and loose ends. Sounds like a good idea. As for the ultimate fate of Mrs. Durrell, it sounds like a job for Peter Birchwood.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 12 November 2000 - 11:38 pm | | Grailfinder
Dont worry about the confusion, I think I am responsible for dam near 50% of it on these boards from time to time.
Having no specific theory or suspect to propose I jump around alot from one issue to another, one day Jack's a local low-life with a mental disorder, then he's a somewhat skilled medical practitioner or maybe neither, or maybe both.
The evidence can point in many directions, there are points that can be used to support several hypothesis, so speculation is good for the case. And hearing the views of 'newbie's' makes a refreshing change, unless you are a Royalist conspirator or a Mudbrick/Diary advocate.
Where we have drawn swords is when speculation is used to incriminate an individual who otherwise would not be involved. When speculation of this kind has not been substantiated, but is proposed as 'fact' then I think we are crossing the line into fiction.
I have nothing to add to your Mrs Long/Long Liz question as Chris has already mentioned the implausibility of it and I totally agree.
But speculate away......just please leave out the Royals & Diary type nonsense.
:-)
You almost touched on something that I mentioned a long time ago, that is local Ripper folklore. What are the old wives tales about Jack?. How many boogedy man type stories did mothers tell their kids at the turn of the century, the "or Jack the Ripper'll git'cha!!" type tales.
Any one of them could have had a basis in fact. Some comment by a neighbour, a landlady or distant witness could have been handed down and turned into folklore. But the fact that it was based on an actual event has been lost.
Unfortunately I have learned of no such tales, which is too bad.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Grailfinder
Monday, 13 November 2000 - 01:45 pm | | Hi Jon
Exactly my point!
The "Prime Source" should be read of course, but what does it tell us? Half of them are missing and what is left is of little or no help to us, So we look to secondary source, ie, Newspapers of the day, and books on the subject. "but where next should we look?".
I remember my own childhood, and we had a song for everything and everyone, kings and queens,plagues,wars!. I can recall playgrounds full of boys running around chanting "we won the War, in 1944" and all around the edge of the playground, up against the wall, the girls bounced there ball's to the rhythm of some little dittie, that all the other girls chanted, in rhythm to the balls, "Scary things, Girls" (Those two twin girls from "The Shining"? still give me the shudders)
Then there was the skipping rope and its set of songs, Hop-Scotch- a jump and hop game played with a stone and chalked grid on the pavement, all these games had there own little songs, passed down through the years from generation to generation.
I feel certain, that the local children growing up in the east end after 1888 would have had there own versions of these songs sang in the schoolyard at play time, and my logic tells me Jack must have reared his head into these rhythmatic little games. History has been written in many ways, and nursery rhymes and wives-tales, legend and lore, do all hold little gems of hidden meanings or historical events as in "ring a ring of roses...,Pocket full of poses" telling the tale of the Plague.
It is my hope that some of these songs about Jack have been passed down and could maybe still being sang in the East End schools, but then I'm not sure kids play like this now, "Playstation? =Cool, Balls up against the wall? =Huh!"
Still, we can live in hope! maybe some of the other board members have some leads? "Go on! tell us that really stupid story you heard about Jack, from a friend of your mates aunty"
Now for something, completely different..
The following, is another example of the sort of nagging Questions I have spinning around my orb.
(The Kelly Murder Photos)
Somewhere in the reports on the kelly crime scene, there is a Doctors report that mentions a remark made by someone,a doctor I think?, that the body of Mary when found, was not in its original position at time of death, he stated that a large pool of blood on the other side of the bed, meant she had been moved from that side of the bed and positioned in the way she was found, "was Jack an Artist? was this his display?"
Let us examine the crime scene photos, I am using the photos of M/K found in "The Diary of Jack" but any photo you have of the scene should suffice.
In the main picture of the bed and body, it appears to me that the whole scene has been arranged, either by Jack or the Police Photographer,
The table in front of the bed has surly been moved forward to provide a complete head to toe shot, with all her extras! in view as well?
If the table was to be moved back up against the wall, the contents of the table move out of frame, and he couldn't pan the cam to the right without the feet going out of frame, thus, he brings the table forward, but all is not well with the Artist, The arrangement is perfect, The light, perfect, But at this angle the contents of the table were slightly obscuring her face, So how can he solve this problem? He pushes an old tin bath under the bottom of the bed, and in doing so, creates his "perfect composition".
That the bed has been tilted, is to me beyond doubt, if you compare the bedpost vertical to that of the room and the verticals of the table legs against those of the bed, there is a marked difference in the angles, and if it wasn't the Police Photographer that was responsible for this arrangement then who?.
Could Jack have used the Tin Bath to tilt the bed up and thus cause the blood to drain away from him, and pool on the side found.
The Bath could not have been there prior to the Murder, I don't think, because Mary was doing business? and any client mounting that bed with a bath propping up one end, would soon get sea-sick.
So my Question is: Has any member ever read of an account of the bath, and who placed it, or has anyone any thoughts on this?
cheers |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Monday, 13 November 2000 - 04:19 pm | | Grailfinder,
Jack the Rippers dead
and lying in his bed
he cut his throat with Sunlight soap
Jack the Rippers dead.
"...the mutilated remains of a female were lying two thirds over towards the edge of the bedstead nearest to the door of entry.... and from my subsequent examination I am sure the body had been removed subsequent to the injury which caused her death from that side of the bedstead which was nearest to the wooden partition, the large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the palliasse, pillow, sheet, at that top corner nearest the partition leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery which was the immediate cause of her death was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head & neck in the top right hand corner." testimony of Dr. Bagster Phillips, inquest into the death of
Marie Jeanette Kelly 12 November 1888.
It is apparent that Kelly was killed as she lay next to the wall and was then moved to the centre of the bed in order for her killer to mutilate the body while standing next to the bed. It would be unlikely for the killer to lay next to the body while performing the mutilations and thus become covered in blood. Was the body positioned in some special way? Hard to say with any assuredness but there is no evidence that the scene was arranged by the photographer.
The table next to the bed was not moved forward and in fact was apparently up against the wall. Confusion is caused by the fact that the table is in reality rectangular in shape and thus much longer than it looks in the photo. Look at the smaller second photo, the one that shows the mutilations to the groin and one can clearly see the length of the table with flesh piled at one end, then an empty space and then what looks to be a pillow at the other, close to the wall. I wouldn't want to argue that the photographer moved the flesh down to the end of the table so that they could be ‘in the shot' and then cleaned off the now empty space.
The ‘old tin bathtub'? Well, there's something there under the bed but what it is exactly no one knows. It does look like a metal tub of some sort and it probably was used to bathe and do washing but it is not described in any of the literature. Considering the size of the room, ten by ten, or ten by twelve, it is little wonder that something like a fairly large tub would be kept out of the way under the bed and was not placed there by anyone other than Mary Kelly herself. It is impossible to claim that the tub was used to tilt the bed if you can not see the height of the tub in relation to the length of the legs of the bed. We cannot see any concrete visual proof that the tub was large enough to tilt up the bed. I do see, however, what you mean by, "That the bed has been tilted, is to me beyond doubt, if you compare the bedpost vertical to that of the room and the vertical of the table legs against those of the bed, there is a marked difference in the angles...", but allow me one other explanation that makes more sense and that is that we are looking at old, cheap furniture and that the bedposts of the bed were always tilted on an angle.
Wolf. |
Author: Grailfinder
Monday, 13 November 2000 - 07:18 pm | | Wolf
Cheers for the ditti, this is just the type of thing I am looking for, but it would help if you mentioned where, if you know? the rhyme came from, I take it wolf that the above sample you posted, is some form of Jingle Advertisement, for a Soap Co,? Using a S/K to sell his product...
Don't think that would go down to well with todays watchdogs of moral behavior eh?,
It also begs the question, at what time was it morally acceptable to allow such an advert to be accepted as normal?
As to your points about the length/width of the table, I accept that it is hard to judge its true size from the photos, but I still feel the flesh in view is more by design than luck on the Photographers Part, There are of course, rumors that the window frame was removed and the Photos taken from outside the room, I also think that to have taken the other picture, the one looking across the hips of Kelly towards the Table and its content, the Photographer would have had to have moved the bed away from the wall, otherwise where was he standing when he took this snap? Unless he was on the bed, which I very much doubt.
I also agree with your point about cheap furniture but still feel that the Angles in Question, are being caused by the bath/tub underneath, in the photo it is possible to see the top lip of the bath, tight against the horizontal of the bed frame, I agree it could have been stored under the bed but it isn't under, its tight against the woodwork of the bed, and maintain that if in this position when Mary and her client were, "bang at it" so to speak, would rock the bed and the clanging of the bath and bed would wake the dead,
All is of cause, speculation, but I still feel this Bath/tub is responsible for the beds angle.
And if the bath is responsible for the angle of tilt, then who put it there and why.
Was it Jack using the tilt to make the blood flow into the corner away from his feet? if so, it tells us a lot about Jacks intelligence, and his ability to think on the spot and utilize items at hand to his advantage.
Or was it the Police Photographer, To perfect his composition.? : if so, we have to rethink our view of the importance of the photos as being a true account of the crime scene, as it was when first seen by Bowers the rent man
"anyone else got a view on this one?" |
Author: Jon
Monday, 13 November 2000 - 10:26 pm | | Grailfinder
:-)
No, not an advertizing jingle, but a contemporary childrens skipping rhyme, I believe.
Several authors have devoted a few chapters to contemporary doggerels and amusing rhymes. Daniel Farson tells us of a firm of Taylor & Smith at 176 Brick Lane, which are but one broadsheet publisher who are responsible for such publications. Poets & freelance hack writers would throw together something Ripper related to grab the publics attention. Lots of these are available spread throughout the dozens of Ripper books. I wonder if anyone has collected this kind of Ripper paraphernalia.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Grailfinder
Monday, 13 November 2000 - 10:52 pm | | cheers Jon
"but what prey, then is Morning Soap?
Your comment about a member or reader having collected this kind of Ripper paraphernalia, "we can live and dream eh"?
But if any one out there has any little Rhymes, ditties, doggerels or wives tales, let us all hear them! |
Author: Jon
Monday, 13 November 2000 - 11:16 pm | | Morning soap??
The rhyme refers to 'Sunlight Soap" as in Sunlight washing powder, a brand name. Which tends to suggest to me that this rhyme originated in the streets by children, who are more concerned by words rhyming than words that make sense.
Incidently, I saw an old box of sunlight soap in a junk shop last year, I just had to see the date on the box, I mean if it was 1800's I would have bought it (dont ask why). But it was dated 1922, so I left it there.
We have a couple of contemporary pics of streetlife in Whitechapel and horsecarriages advertizing 'Sunlight Soap' are readable in the foreground.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 14 November 2000 - 12:56 am | | Hi, Wolf, Jon, and Grailfinder:
Grailfinder, be careful what you ask for. 
"William Lever, the son of a wholesale grocer, was born in Bolton in 1851. He joined the family business when he was sixteen and five years later his father made him his partner. In the 1880s Lever became bored with grocery and began exploring the possibility of expanding into other areas. Lever eventually decided on soap and after leasing a chemical works in Warrington he started experimenting with different ingredients. He eventually settled on the formula of palm kernel oil, cottonseed oil, resin and tallow. Lever called it Sunlight soap and it was an immediate success.
"The Warrington factory was not large enough to supply the demand and so Lever built a new one by the River Mersey in Cheshire. The place was named Port Sunlight after the soap it was to produce. He also built a model town to house his workers.
"By 1895 Port Sunlight was producing 40,000 tons of soap a year. Other products produced at Port Sunlight included Lifebuoy Carbolic Soap, Sunlight Soap Flakes and Vim. Lever gave a considerable amount of money to charity and his contribution to society was recognised by being granted the title Viscount Leverhulme. William Lever died in 1925."
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/BUlever.htm
All the best
Chris George |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 14 November 2000 - 01:07 am | | Hi, Jon:
In the children's rhyme, it's a bar of soap not a washing powder, though the brand name may also have been used for the laundry powder.
Port Sunlight, across the River Mersey from Liverpool, incidentally, still stands and is an excellent example of an early twentieth century "model town" of half-timbered houses built by Lever Brothers for the workers at the soap factory. There is also an excellent art gallery there. :-)
On Port Sunlight, see
http://www.portsunlight.org.uk/history/realisation/spirit.htm
For a history of soap, including Sunlight Soap, see http://www.pharmj.com/Editorial/19991218/articles/soap.html
Chris George |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 14 November 2000 - 12:29 pm | | Oops
Sorry Chris, I mislead you.
Yes, it was a bar, but I meant that the bar of soap came in a box. It was about 2.5" x 1" x 1.5".
When I refered to Sunlight washing powder (or washing-up liquid) I was meaning the brand, not the product.
Thanks, Jon |
|
|
|
|
