Author: Caz
Monday, 21 June 1999 - 04:59 pm |        |
Hi Chris,
You're let off with a caution this time. I believe you :-)
Hi Jon,
YOU leapt in too quickly this time. I just read 'The Lighter Side...' bit, thinking 'that authorship don't sound quite right', then in the next breath you get out of it with the 'deliberate mistake' ploy. I'm with Red on this one :-)
Hi David,
Keep quoting The Beatles, Honey Pie, and I'll keep swooning, even when I'm 64. So, while my guitar gently weeps, I'll just say 'Hello, Goodbye' and be off.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jon Smyth
Monday, 21 June 1999 - 05:07 pm | |
Caz
Look woman, that was the best I could do in the time allowed,.....those are the pitfalls of posting from work, no reference to hand.
Anyhow, thats my story 'n I'm sticking to it !!
And sticking to everything else too right now,.....its just cooking outside.
Jon 'Any excuse'll do' |
Author: Caz
Monday, 21 June 1999 - 07:24 pm | |
Hi Jon,
Sorry to hear you're copping a heatwave mate. We are enjoying a cooler spell this week, but rumour has it that July is gonna be a scorcher.
I know it's on the wrong board, but talking of sticking to things, I was chatting to my baby bruv yesterday and he said, "Why can't they get the DNA from the spittle on the stamps/envelopes of all the Yours Truly letters and compare it with that of the descendants of all the suspects to see if any match?" I volunteered you for the job in your spare time :-)
I don't think my bruv QUITE appreciates the current length of the suspect's list, not to mention the Anastasia-like difficulties of extracting saliva from such characters as Sooty and Mrs Mopp's modern-day equivalents. Mind you, if we could use other bodily fluids to get our DNA samples, we could nominate a few other recent posters for the job.
The ones who are so good at extracting the p... (wink)
Love,
Cool for Caz |
Author: Jon Smyth
Monday, 21 June 1999 - 08:35 pm | |
Caz-Mania
Could do with some of that British weather right now......
Like there'd be any 'hoik' left on those lickety split thingys, huh?
Anyhow they did'nt all have stamps, some were postmarked, lick that !!
Seems to me like you've got yer bruvver sussed, he ain't one of those Adrian Mole characters, is he?
Anyway as the Ripper-police are watching, we'd better turn this around to RIPPER stuff, cause this is a RIPPER site with RIPPER enthusiasts, and you m'lady have a tendency to stray off subject taking a handfull of others wiv ya.
And if I get into taking the pi** right now, beleive me kid, you'll be the first to know.
(are we 'avin fun yet?)
Jon |
Author: Picture
Tuesday, 22 June 1999 - 07:02 am | |
 |
Author: Picture
Tuesday, 22 June 1999 - 09:23 am | |
Sorry, failed, 2nd try...the doorway
|
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 22 June 1999 - 06:38 pm | |
Hey Jon!
My brother was quite serious about a possibility of getting traces of DNA from those envelopes. (He will be all hurt now, bless 'im :-))
Any medicos out there with any comments? Bruv is a doctor but not the right sort I guess, his forte being physics.
Hey Picture,
Can you try 3rd time lucky mate?
We was all looking forward to seeing the doorway :-)
Love,
Caz-Manian Devil |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 29 June 1999 - 03:10 am | |
I thought you may be interested to see a photograph of the Goulston Street Model Dwellings doorway before it was altered.
|
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 29 June 1999 - 03:28 am | |
| Sorry - failed, I'll try again... |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 29 June 1999 - 03:41 am | |
Here we go again, if I fail this time I will have to seek advice...
 |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 29 June 1999 - 03:56 am | |
And a second one, but please note that a copyright exists on these photo's and they may not be used commercially without the permission of Richard Whittington-Egan -
 |
Author: Rotter
Tuesday, 29 June 1999 - 04:11 am | |
| Great photos-is this exactly how it appeared in 1888? When were the photos taken and when was the doorway changed? Where would the exact spots be where the piece of apron and grafitto were found? Thanks for your persistance in posting them. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 29 June 1999 - 04:40 am | |
Hey! One question at a time! :-)
The photo's were taken in the early 1970's, and this is how the doorway was in 1888. The doorway was changed, I believe, in the 1980's, and is now part of the frontage of a Fish and Chipe restaurant, althought the full doorway entrance surround, on which the graffiti was written, is still there.
The below enlargement (from the last photo above) shows (as far as all know evidence indicates) where the message was written. It was on the black painted door surround, inner edge, and it would have been visible to anyone passing in daylight.
 |
Author: Ashling
Tuesday, 29 June 1999 - 05:24 am | |
Hi y'all.
STEWART: What a treat!!! Thanks for the Wentworth pics. I'm going to re-read our old board arguments before attempting any further debate or questions.
Take care,
Janice |
Author: Jon Smyth
Tuesday, 29 June 1999 - 05:53 am | |
Thankyou Stewart
Now it appears easy to see why the Graffiti was written with only three or four words in a row.
Because it appears to have been written on a doorway leading into the entrance.
And that being only a brick & a half wide.
There also was a report that the tallest letters were approx 3/4" in height, this is easy to understand, if true.
And also if the piece of apron was found at the foot of this black section of doorway, then we can believe P.C. Long when he says it wasn't there when he passed at 2:20am. It would or should have been clearly noticable.
Did someone say earlier that there was a wall lamp outside the doorway?
Above the sign there on the left of the doorway is a dark curved line that might be evidence of a gaspipe. A lamp in this location would have shone light onto the right hand side doorway section where the graffiti is supposed to have been written, rather than inside on the right hand wall. Which would have been in total darkness.
Your becoming quite a 'tech' figuring out how to post these pics :-)
Regards, Jon |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 29 June 1999 - 06:19 am | |
I apologise to you all for my difficulties in getting these pictures posted, I'm no computer wizard.
As those who have seen my collection will know I have hundreds of photographs, and I will try to post a few now and then.
To answer your question Jon, there was not a street lamp outside the doorway, the nearest was some distance away. And yes, you are right, the reason that the message was written in five lines was because of the narrow width of brickwork on which it was written.
Stewart |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 29 June 1999 - 12:11 pm | |
Hi All,
Terrific work Stewart. Can't wait for some more pics.
I have a question and I'm sorry if it's an oldie.
Does anyone know how common it was at the time for such graffiti to be chalked up ANYWHERE in London, and not just in times of political or racial unrest? In other words, was it as common as nowadays on lavatory walls etc? So would the Goulston Street message have attracted particular notice if it had not been for the piece of apron and the murders that night?
As an example, I was standing by one of the medieval walls in my daughter's school at the weekend, and noticed just one message scratched in the old brickwork. Being the only graffito there, it stuck out like a sore thumb, but I didn't even bother to go up close to read it (I was listening to my daughter taking a piano exam in the chapel.) Gosh, it might have been Elizabeth I, scratching "I love Essex, true" before going for a quick feast in the Banqueting Hall. I'll have to go back and take another butcher's...
Love,
Caz |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 29 June 1999 - 12:25 pm | |
I believe that graffiti was common in 1888, as it is today. Albert Bachert had some scrawled on his wall at a later date, to the effect that 'Jack the Ripper' lived at the address, in Newnham Street. This was probably as a result of the publicity he received in the newspapers.
Stewart |
Author: Caz
Tuesday, 29 June 1999 - 06:08 pm | |
Cheers Stewart.
Does anyone think the Bachert graffito could have been Jack's work, miffed at this 'busybody' witness who wrote to the papers, poking his nose in?
Lusk copped for harassment too, didn't he, for being a vigilante?
IMHO, it smacks of a very self-important, very annoyed serial killer who wanted no-one raining on his parade.
Are there other examples of 'Jack' telling people in no uncertain terms to 'butt out' of his business?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Christopher George
Wednesday, 30 June 1999 - 08:13 am | |
Hi, all:
I entirely agree that graffiti was as common in 1888 as now. The Jack the Ripper letters are in my opinion a form of graffiti, probably written by a mass of people who were getting a rise out of the authorities by claiming to be the infamous murderer. Whether one or two of those missives may have been from the killer is debatable. Possibly the only message Jack sent was in his handiwork in the murders. But, yes, graffiti is known down through the ages. Cave paintings can be counted as a form of graffiti if you like, and Pompeii and Herculaneum have examples of Roman graffiti. In England during the seventeenth century, the Puritans enjoyed carving their names on the marble effigies of knights on tombs in churches as well as putting their feet up on the altar as a mark of disrespect to the established Church of England. Shakespeare's birthplace in Stratford has names inscribed on the glass panes going back, as I recall, to the eighteenth century, with some quite well-known visitors having left their calling card in the glass.
Chris George |
Author: RLeen
Wednesday, 30 June 1999 - 12:48 pm | |
Hello All,
Some marvelous pictures Mr. Evans and I hope that you will stay on the board. I believe you boycotted the boards previously because of personal abuse being directed your way but remember, it's only sticks and stones that break bones. Stay on-line and beat them at whatever game they're playing. I believe you'll have enough support.
Now, to blow my own trumpet, I pointed out that the doorway was probably about nine inches thick which is why the graffito was written in that style. It's not often I can take some credit for something so bear with me. Anyway, please don't be offended Mr. Evans, but I was also the punter who thought that there may have been a gas lamp outside the doorway. It actually shows up very well in the first picture and if I were technically literate I would post a blow-up.
If you cast your eyes towards the top left corner, i.e. at the top edge slightly offset from the number 8, you will see a lump of pig iron protruding from the brick facade. This strikes me as being nothing other than an old gas lamp bracket. Apart to congratulate myself on my own perspicacity that's all I want to say though I am, as always, prepared to concede defeat in the face of overwhelming logic.
Thanking you for your consideration
Rabbi Leen |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Wednesday, 30 June 1999 - 07:28 pm | |
More kind comments, thank you. And thank you for the offer of support.
The only piece of iron protruding in the area described is an old, bent, iron sign support, which was still there when I last examined the doorway. It definitely was not an old gas lamp bracket.
Indeed, the fact that there was no gas light near the doorway was recorded in the contemporary inquest records so we know this for a fact.
I hope that this information is of interest. Below is another shot of the area of wall in question, in which the iron support is visible.
Stewart |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Wednesday, 30 June 1999 - 02:00 am | |
Further to the above, I was photographed standing at the very doorway in question just nine weeks ago, so I thought you may be interested in seeing the doorway as it is now.
Stewart |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 06 January 2000 - 08:15 pm | |
Dave Yost kindly passed this graphic on to me to poste to the boards.
It was printed in Sugdens, The Complete History of Jack the Ripper, and Knights, The Final Solution, and is I believe still part of HO 144/221/A49301C (8c)f.182
However, we do not know who wrote it, when it was wrote or whether it is a faithfull copy.
Det. Daniel Halse said the original was wrote in three lines. So here we have another conflict.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Diana
Friday, 07 January 2000 - 08:31 pm | |
| The above is not necessarily a conflict. If you will look carefully, lines three and five are indented. When writing poetry, it is sometimes necessary to use this device. Sometimes a given line of a poem is too long to fit in the space provided. To break it into two lines would give the verse of the poem in question too many lines. In order for the reader to know that a line of the poem has been broken into two parts rather than constituting two lines the second half is indented. |
Author: D. Radka
Friday, 07 January 2000 - 11:40 pm | |
Diana,
Seems to me he positioned the words where he could, so as not to write over the mortice between the bricks. I find it pretty amazing he could even write as much as he did, considering the narrowness of the little brick wing he was writing on.
David |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 22 January 2000 - 07:04 pm | |
Regarding the picture posted above on Jan 6th, (writing).
I said "we do not know who wrote it" but on reflection there is at least one possibility.
The writing shown above is kept in a home office file, and so is a confidential letter from Sir Charles Warren to Matthews, wrote on Nov 6th, 1888.
In this letter Warren writes "....I considered it desirable to obliterate the writing at once, having taken a copy of which I enclose a duplicate....."
Now, for anyone who has any handwriting examples from Charles Warren it might be worthwhile to analyse it letter by letter. We might be mistaken if we think that the above photo is the only example of someones copy of the graffiti to make it to the archives.
But on the other hand, the possibility is there, however slight, that we are looking at a contemporary rendition by Sir Charles himself.
Go to it. people :-)
Jon
(whether the style is also accurate is another matter entirely) |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 26 November 2000 - 05:37 pm | |
I don't see any conflict between the message in the Archives and Halse's statement that the message was written in 3 lines. The 3 lines are :
(a)The Jewes are the men that
(b)Will not be
(c)Blamed for nothing
as evidenced by the capital letters.
The way the message was written suggests , as pointed out above by David , the writer wanted to avoid the mortice of the bricks ; the right hand side of the message would be the end of the jamb also. Thus the pattern of the bricks would be such :
|______|__(a)__|
|__|______|_(b)_|
|______|(b)(c)__|
|__|______|_(c)_|
With the letters in brackets refering to the phrases as noted above.
Comparison with the size of an English brick might now be made to discover the height of the letters ( potentially ). |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 26 November 2000 - 05:51 pm | |
| I'm wondering now if the spelling of Jews as ' Juwes ' was meant to disguise the fact that the writer was one of some education , ie it was a deliberate misspelling. The strange diction of the message might also have been employed to this end. The handwriting may also have been disguised , but it was by necessity neat to fit onto the brickwork and get the message across ; that the Jews were to blame. This nasty laying on of blame suggests almost certainly the writer was a non-Jew ; was he the Ripper though ? It might have been that the Ripper dropped the piece of apron by the writing merely because he agreed with its sentiments. |
Author: Scott Russell Chapman
Sunday, 25 February 2001 - 01:25 pm | |
Hi Stewart,
After researching my family tree i have discovered that Albert Bachert is my Great Great Uncle.
I have been reading this forum and have read your message about the graffito, and i wondered how you know about it and was it "Jack's" work?
I also wondered if anyone has got any photographs of 13 Newnham Street or just the Street, i would be very grateful.
Yours, Scott |
Author: Scott Russell Chapman
Monday, 26 February 2001 - 02:44 pm | |
Hi All,
Can anyone tell me what the exact words were on the Newnham Street graffito?
It would be of much help.
Thanks, Scott |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 26 February 2001 - 04:45 pm | |
Albert Bachert receives a fair bit of attention in our new book Jack the Ripper - Letters From Hell as he was the recipient of communications from 'Jack the Ripper.' This was not uncommon for those whose names had appeared in the newspapers in stories associated with the murders.
The chalked writing on Bachert's wall read:- "Dear Boss,-I am still about. Look out.-Yours, 'JACK THE RIPPER.'"
I apologise for being unable to enter into debate on the boards. |
Author: Scott Russell Chapman
Wednesday, 28 February 2001 - 01:23 pm | |
Hi Stewart,
Could you tell me a bit more about the "communications from 'Jack the Ripper'" Bachert recieved.
Do you think there would be any photograph of the graffito on Bachert's wall?
Thanks, Scott |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 28 February 2001 - 05:14 pm | |
Here is my revised impression of how the Goulston Street graffiti might have looked like :
Simon |
Author: Tom Wescott
Thursday, 01 March 2001 - 10:58 am | |
Hello all,
Just a quick show of hands...Who believes the graffiti was left by the Ripper and who doesn't?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. I am of the opinion it was. |
Author: David M. Radka
Thursday, 01 March 2001 - 12:42 pm | |
My hand is up.
David |
Author: Jade Bakys
Thursday, 01 March 2001 - 04:16 pm | |
Both my hands are up : |
Author: Diana
Thursday, 01 March 2001 - 08:07 pm | |
| If it is possible to vote "no opinion" , "not sure", etc. that is what I would do. |
Author: Tom Wescott
Thursday, 01 March 2001 - 10:08 pm | |
Jade...The cheerleader symbol is very cute. 
David...What makes you think it is from the Ripper, either than that the apron was found along with it?
Diana...What unanswered question(s) do you have that keep you from swaying one way or the other?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: David M. Radka
Thursday, 01 March 2001 - 10:37 pm | |
Tom,
Can't release yet why I think the graffitus is from the Ripper. Evidence concerning it conceived in an insular way is indeed insufficient to demonstrate its authenticity, I agree. I believe I've got an holistic way of looking at all the evidence, however, which ties it in.
David |
