|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Archive through 30 March 2002
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Catherine Eddowes:
The Goulston Street Graffito:
Archive through 30 March 2002
Author: Jon
Monday, 12 March 2001 - 08:41 pm |        | Ok, sorry about that..
I have the Goads plan here, trying to figure out how to reduce it to poste.....the file is too big.
But, it clearly shows the lampost outside No. 120-131 which was immediately to the right of 108-119.
Immediately to the left of this was 90-107 which was the second building from Wentworth street. The corner building on Wentworth - Goulston St. corner was No. 132-131 Wentworth Street.
Is that clear?
I'll try to poste the map....
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jon
Monday, 12 March 2001 - 09:41 pm | | | . |
Author: Tom Wescott
Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 12:50 am | | Jon,
I'm having a bit of trouble seeing the map. Perhaps it's too DARK on the message board. 
Jeff,
I've done a bit of research into whether or not the graffitist could have seen well enough to have written the graffiti in the daylight, and have come to the conclusion that if a photograph could be taken of the doorway in the daylight, and we could make it out, then he would have probably had no trouble seeing it himself in the daylight. I hope this helps.
David,
You are correct about 'night vision'. I walk home from work, and at one point have to cross a field with no lights. After about 10 seconds out of the light my vision improves. On clear nights with the moon out it is quite easy to see.
To all,
I have to go with Jon that 'Jack's corner' was the darkest of the square, as that is stated in more than one source.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 01:48 am | | A small and irrelevant point about that Zennor pub Simon visited - (but increasing numbers of posters like linking their Ripper studies to their reading). It is the original of the pub in D.H.Lawrence's 'Samson and Delilah', and the landlady who husband deserted her and then came back unexpectedly in that story really existed.
It also serves an excellent range of real ales - and who wants television except when an improtant football match is on?
Martin Fido |
Author: Jade
Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 05:18 am | | Hi Jeff & Rick
I think I may have mentioned E.P Thomson’s ‘The Making of the English Working Class’. I was looking for some stuff on Samual Bamford, (I have read Bamford’s Book on the Peterloo Riots, which is an excellent book, written from the point of view of Bamford: a great chronicler of early nineteenth century radicalsim who marched from Middleton in Manchester to Saint Peters Field)
Anyway Thomson writes:‘In the Luddite times (when few but working men would have supported their actions) anonymous messages vary from self-conscious apostrophes to ‘Liberty with her Smiling Attributes’ to scarcely decipherable chalking on walls’ (Chapter ‘Class consciousness’, page 784)
There are some examples too, such as the one below and notice some words in the sentence are capitalised:
‘We Will Nock doon the Prisons and the Judge we Will murde whan he is aslepe’ (page 784)
Regards, Jade |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 01:59 pm | | | Gosh , I never knew that Mr Fido ! It really was a very nice pub actually , very cosy ! |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 10:16 pm | | Tom - Thanks for pointing out that there must
have been sufficient light, but you have opened
up a new question (at least for me): WHERE IS
THAT PHOTOGRAPH OF THE GRAFITTO? It is one of
two photos that seem missing in this case (actually there are three, as the autopsy photo
of I think Ms Stride or Ms Eddowes is missing).
This photo and the one of the drowned Montague
Druitt bother me. For you who don't understand,
according to George Dilnot in his The Story of
Scotalnd Yard, the River Police were taking photos
of all recovered corpses since the 1870s. Monty's
picture should have been among them. However it
has been suggested to me that as he was seriously
considered a suspect, the photo may have ended up
in a file labelled "Suspects" or even "M.J.Druitt".
Jade, I have read one book on THE PETERLOO
MASSACRE by Joyce Marlow (who also wrote one
on THE TOLPUDDLE MARTYRS). I have heard of
Samuel Bamford, but haven't read his book.
[By the way, when is anyone going to write an
up to date biography on Arthur Thistlewood, and
Cato Street. The last book on that conspiracy
was in 1962.] Thanks for bringing the matter of
the luddites and their graffiti to my attention.
Jeff |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 12:28 am | | Hi Jeff:
The point about the graffito is that it was never photographed. The inscription was erased on Sir Charles Warren's orders before a photograph could be taken. There is (or was) a handwritten copy of the graffito in the official files, however. Maybe this is what you mean?
Best regards
Chris |
Author: Jade
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 03:51 am | | Hi Jeff
E.P. Thomson covers the Cato Street Conspiracy and gives good background on Thistlegood; Again the book is probably dated written in 1963 revised once in 1968. Thomson is indeed a fine writer one if not the best writers of English working class history. (IMO)
Do you know if the graffiti was printed in the newspapers at the time with the letters capitalised. I have recently read the background on D'onston and find his letter to the city police interesting. Not the juives but the capitalised letters.
regards, jade |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Wednesday, 14 March 2001 - 09:50 pm | | Chris - thanks for explaining why the photo of the
graffito is missing - it never existed. I must
have gotten confused about that. The matter about
Druitt's photo is not a mistake.
Jeff |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 06:52 am | | Hi Jeff:
In the matter of Montague John Druitt's missing morgue photograph, this is the first time I had heard there was a photograph taken of his corpse. You wrote that, "[according to] George Dilnot in his The Story of Scotland Yard, the River Police were taking photos of all recovered corpses since the 1870s. Monty's picture should have been among them. However it has been suggested to me that as he was seriously considered a suspect, the photo may have ended up in a file labelled "Suspects" or even "M. J. Druitt.'" The scenario that you mention at the end sounds entirely plausible and could explain why the photo has disappeared--because it was among the now (infuriatingly!) missing suspects files. Possibly Stewart Evans or another of our experts could speak to this point.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 05:11 pm | | I knew this argument sounded familiar : from ' The Ripper Legacy ' by Howells and Skinner :
"Edwin Thomas Woodhall , when writing in the 1930s , admits when talking of his own particular search for Jack the Ripper that his main difficulty had been the minimal assistance from those connected with these crimes...As a postscript to his story , Woodhall recalls talking to an old pensioned police sergeant of the H or Whitechapel division who had taken part in the investigation of the crimes. The old man handed him a faded , yellow looking cardboard picture which the author immediately recognised was a police mortuary photograph. ' With a nauseating feeling of sickness ' says Woodhall ' I studied it in silence for a few seconds and then handed it back. '
If the old policeman is to be believed , Woodhall knew he had looked at the blackened remains of Jack the Ripper , a man whose body had been dragged from the Thames a few weeks after Mary Kelly's murder. That man would have been Montague John Druitt. " ( pages 145 , 149-150 , paperback version ).
This may well have been the missing photo of Druitt , however it could equally have been a copy and another version of it may yet exist in the Home Office files.
Simon |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 07:46 pm | | Dear Simon,
Equally, it may not have been M.Druitt who was dragged from the Thames...too absurd? Remember
Chevalier Calvi? The Home Office Pathologist was
either incompetent or a liar...or both.
Rosemary |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Thursday, 15 March 2001 - 10:06 pm | | Dear Chris and Simon:
Since I am still reeling because of my apparent
blunder about the graffito being photographed,
I am going to be more careful regarding my comments (if I can). The site is George Dilnot,
THE STORY OF SCOTLAND YARD (Boston, New York:
Houghton Mifflin Co., 1927), p. 169 (the chapter
is Chapter XX: River Police):
"One of the grim parts of the work of the river
police is the recovery of dead bodies from the
Thames. The great bulk of these are assumed to
be suicides. There are a few accidentally drowned
persons, but it is rarely that a case occurs in
which there are signs or suspicions of foul play.
Since 1872 it has been the practice to photograph
all bodies found, so that it is possible to
identifu an unknown person months, and sometimes
years, afterwards."
Simon's quote from THE RIPPER LEGACY shows a
photo certainly must have been in existance. It
is gratifying to see some support for this point.
One wishes Mr. Woodward said who the old pensioner
was. Another vaguely ended trail.
Rosemary - I won't debate the "suicide" of Calvi,
which smelled when it first came out. You might
be right - the photo might not be of Druitt. But
it would be nice to see the photo - I think we
all would want to see it.
P.S. I am not so certain about the "suicide" of
Maxwell either.
Jeff |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Friday, 16 March 2001 - 09:15 am | | With regards to the capitalisation of the GSG that Jade wonders about -
I'm afraid I cannot speak to more than the "Daily Telegraph," as I haven't time to trawl through other press archives, but the October 12 DT, in reporting the previous day's inquest testimony from PC Long and Detective Halse, printed "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing" and "The Juwes are not the men who will be blamed for nothing." Long makes a mention of "capital letters," but does not say what they are. A reading of the inquest report appears to show that each man was reading from his own notebook when testifying, though Long initially testified from memory alone.
A look in the Casebook Press Archives for October 12 might be further illuminating.
CMD |
Author: David M. Radka
Friday, 16 March 2001 - 03:53 pm | | I am very interested in the graffitus, and would like to announce to the world that I consider it genuine. Humph!
Now, I'd like to question our assembled intelligentsia concerning the history of Ripperlogical interest in it. Has the graffitus always been known to the Ripperologist? Was there a period following the crimes during which the graffitus didn't have much of a following, perhaps wasn't taken seriously, perhaps wasn't written much about or even known about? When did Ripperology first develop a good focus on the graffitus?
Then kyew.
David |
Author: Jon
Friday, 16 March 2001 - 10:17 pm | | Yes David
It most certainly was genuine....not a copy....not a forgery....not made up....but genuine graffiti......the question thought has always been.....WHO's grafitti was it?
Jon
(sorry David)
;-) |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 17 March 2001 - 07:32 am | | I thought I'd said recently somewhere that the graffito was described in testimony at the inquest that was reported in The Times, and so it has always been part of the picture. But then, I also thought I posted this last night, and find I screwed up somehow, so maybe it never appeared in the first place. (The posting, that is, not the reports of the graffito).
Martin F |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 17 March 2001 - 08:29 am | | Hi, Martin:
You are absolutely correct, the graffito was known pretty much from the outset, since the newspaper reports of the inquest covered it. Whether "Ripperologists" discussed it from the very beginning is another question, unless, that is, we were to class the likes of Roslyn D'Onston, George R. Sims, and Forbes Winslow as Ripperologists.
Chris George |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 17 March 2001 - 09:44 am | | Neither did I understand David's question, I thought everyone knew the graffiti was part of the case from the start.
Maybe David meant, "has it always been in focus, as it is now?"
I would think that far more speculation has been written about it today than was ever dreamed of in 1888. The police, press & public all took it at face value in those days. Isnt it only our modern 'speculative interest' that suggests a more clandestine meaning?
Regards, Jon |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 17 March 2001 - 10:12 am | | Dear David,
The most probable reason for the 'graffiti' only now coming to the fore in the Ripper discourse, is mainly the sensibility of the press & media
regarding the ambiguous content and context, over
a 20-30 year period, when such 'things' mattered in terms of European political psyche. No?
Rosemary |
Author: John Omlor
Sunday, 18 March 2001 - 12:58 pm | | Hi All,
Someone may have mentioned this citation before, but I had a vague memory of it and looked it up this morning. I thought the particular language of this passage might make it appropriate to keep in mind as we discuss the possible scenes and circumstances of the graffito's writing.
In London's People of the Abyss, the author recounts the following argument, allegedly overheard during his stay in the East End in 1902.
"'But'ow about this 'ere cheap immigration?' one of them demanded. 'The Jews of Whitechapel, say, a cuttin' our throats right along?'
'You can't blame them,' was the answer. 'They're just like us, and they've got to live. Don't blame the man who offers to work cheaper than you and gets your job.'"
The conversation stopped me for a moment when I re-read it. Not because of the ideas or the history, which are commonplace, but because of the choice of words. The conversation continues:
"'But 'ow about the wife an' kiddies?" his interlocutor demanded.
'There you are,' came the answer. 'How about the wife and kiddies of the man who works cheaper than you and gets your job? Eh? How about his wife and kiddies? He's more interested in them than in yours, and he can't see them starve. So he cuts the price of labor and out you go. But you mustn't blame him, poor devil. He can't help it."
I suspect that this argument had been going for more than the past 14 years; that it could already be heard in the streets in 1888. And with the graffito being in the vicinity of not only Jews but of political clubs as well...
Well, the conversation takes the inevitable turn, in fact,
"'Wages always come down when two men are after the same job. That's the fault of competition, not of the man who cuts the price.'
'But wyges don't come down where there's a union,' the objection was made." (London, 192-193)
We can't say, of course, the degree to which London, given his own politics, has created this conversation or supplemented his transcription of it (in the book, it purports to be authentic, taking place one night on the Mile End Waste where a number of men had surrounded "a pleasant-faced man of thirty"). London is, after all, a novelist as well as a journalist. But I do think the discussion would not have been an unlikely sort of one to hear on the streets of the East End among certain men...
And it begins with a question of blame.
--John |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 18 March 2001 - 01:50 pm | | Hi, John:
Thank you so much for posting the quotes from Jack London's People of the Abyss which show the resentments in the East End between different parts of the community and that are echoed in the Goulston Street graffito.
I recently published an article in Ripperologist in which I discussed John Galsworthy and a particular short story of his that has some bearing on the "Dear Boss" letters. His short story "Conscience" might provide a model for how a journalist "devilled" the thoughts of the murderer much as they ghost-wrote articles supposedly penned by worthies of the day.
Anyway to the point of this post. As you probably know, John Galsworthy was quite active as a campaigner on social conditions. One of his letters to the press elicited a communication from the East End that in its menace echoes the tone of the Jack the Ripper letters, and that, like the conversation that Jack London reported, shows the bitter rivalries between different elements in the East End. The letter was dated Victoria Docks, Custom House, 7 July 1916, and makes evident reference to jobs on the docks being taken by Belgians displaced by the Great War:
"Your letter in East End News.--us dockers are convinced that your letter is nothing else but a lot of swank on your part to get a good name you old hypocrite, come into the dock district and see Belgians ousting British workmen out of their jobs in the docks and factories, also their supposed wives drunken lot of sots. you ought to be ashamed of yourself but there I suppose you are getting a bit out of it and a man of your calibre will do anything for filthy lucre you old and cunning reptile." (In: H. V. Marrot, The Life and Letters of John Galsworthy. London: William Heinemann, Ltd., 1935.)
Chris George |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Friday, 29 March 2002 - 07:19 am | | I don't know if this has been pointed out before, but Juwen seems to be a variation (different dialect?) of the German word Juden. I even saw Juwes on a non-Ripper academic page written in German--a new one on me, and I minored in German.
Actually, it seems to be an antiquated version of Juden.
Dave |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Friday, 29 March 2002 - 07:56 am | | | And in Manchu, juwe means two or both, while juwen means debt. |
Author: Robert Maloney
Friday, 29 March 2002 - 10:23 am | | Hi David,
That is an interesting find but a paranoid like myself should never have too much to work with. Staying with the legend of the "Tyrian Architect", Master Hiram Abiff, I was just getting comfortable with an idea I had that "Juwes" translates to -- 'the assistants' are not the men that will (in the future) be blamed for nothing. (Druitt was later blamed and his job title was resident assistant master - Ostrog or is that "OZstrog", and Kosminski as well) Now you have me subtracting #108 from #119 Goulston street leaving 11. 11 could symbolize the Serpent or be ripped in half resulting in 1+1=2 which, when combined with aprons and archways, then has me thinking of Shakespeare and cross dressing! Chalk on black, temples, Porters, Tylers and Candidates? hmm.....thanks alot David :-0
Rob |
Author: graziano
Friday, 29 March 2002 - 12:09 pm | | Jews, Juwes, Juden or whatever is generally intended in discussion for the whole of them, the jewish people.
Now, if we forget one moment that "Juwes" could refer to our three friends Jubelo the slim, Jubela the fat (also called among their circle of friends at the time Big Joe) and Jubelum, taking in consideration that "Juwes" could not have been the right spelling on the wall, we have the problem to understand why, speaking about the jews (jewish people), the next piece of the graffito refers only to "the men".
A little mistery.
Well, not for me anymore.
The best explanation of this to this day has been given on these boards by Philip Dowe some time ago:
the writer of the graffito in fact referred to the jewish people when using the words "the men" and by saying that, he intended in fact "Menschen", people, persons in the german language.
So, the writer of the graffito was probably someone whose mother language was german or a dialect of it, let us say....yiddish.
Now let's be clear:
"The Juwes/Jewes/Jews are the men that Will not be Blamed for nothing"
could have certainly originated, in the mind of our writer from thinking of it in this way:
"Die Juden sind die Menschen, die nicht beschuldigt werden für nichts",
which literally translated gives:
"The Jews are the people who will not be blamed without a reason", but,
should have it been so, there would have been (mmmh, I feel a grammar problem here) no reason to write "men" instead of "Men" and to have added the word "be" (only alluded in the german language and in fact very seldom used).
If we think about the possibility of a french minded writer, things turn out like this:
"Les Juifs sont les hommes/gens qui ne seront pas blamés pour rien",
which gives literally exactly the same translation in english as the writing in the Goulston street graffito and it's a very grammatically correct and "fluently spoken" sentence in french.
Note please the similarity of the words "blamés" (very everyday used word in french) and "blamed" (not so used in spoken english).
So, what all this tells us about the writer of the graffito ?
a) he was literate (impossible to think otherwise with such a researched sentence);
b) he spoke german or a dialect of it.
Since in those streets there were more people speaking yiddish than german, I safely assume he spoke yiddish;
Since he spoke yiddish he was a jew coming from the east european countries.
Even if at that time Poland was practically non existing those people coming from that countries were quite generally called "polish";
He was thus a polish Jew;
c) He spoke french as well;
So, Literate + yiddish speaking + french speaking = he was born in "Poland" and educated in Paris.
Now, that's what I deduce from the graffito.
But what does the graffito tells us exactly in the way it is written ?
Someone on these boards has said that if it was written in five lines and with indents is because of the shape and the divisions of the bricks.
Well, let's see.
One astonishing thing about all the graffito is, as far as I am concerned, the strange shapes of the different "Ts".
Not one is similar to the others and......
Oh I see, you are all sleeping.
Well, have nice dreams.
Good Bye. Graziano.
P.S.:
Stewart, as soon as you wake up, note that this will be chapter thirteen: "Amun Râ".
Chapter 10 of which I told you last time is titled: "Nothing happened in Berner street".
And the one about John Richardson (in my opinion and till now, the best of all): "Will you....keep the door open, please ?".
Ivor, Juives is for women, only for women.
"Les Juives sont les hommes" it's a nonsense.
"Les juifs sont les hommes".
"Les juives sont les femmes".
"Le peuple juif".
"Les Juifs" (men + women, in fact everybody). |
Author: Chris Jd
Friday, 29 March 2002 - 12:35 pm | | Hi David ( O'Flaherty ),
you indeed might find the words "juwe" or "juwen" in VERY old German letters or so. I'm talking about the 15. century.
But, to disappoint you, it means "you" or "your".
Sorry
Christian |
Author: Robert Maloney
Friday, 29 March 2002 - 12:41 pm | | Hi Graziano,
Yes, I agree the "Ts" are very interesting. And while most of my message was in jest, I simply refuse to leave "Port Tyre" just yet. :-))
Rob |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Friday, 29 March 2002 - 12:52 pm | | Hi, Christian, and thank you--I stand corrected.
Graziano, I saw Philip Dowe's earlier post, but thanks for pointing it out to me. And thanks for the rest of your message--I thought droll died yesterday with Milton Berle, but I see that I was wrong.
Dave |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 29 March 2002 - 06:49 pm | | Dear Graziano,
There is no escape! "Supposing we forget for one moment"...that may well turn out to be the truth.
Somehow, sometime, someway, we have forgotten to remember SOMETHING. Our goal is to discover that which is 'lost'.As the Master Puppeteer put it...
the question of our time is that of leadership. |
Author: Robert Maloney
Friday, 29 March 2002 - 07:20 pm | | | Hi Rosey, did Randolph Churchill have a sister named Mary? |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Friday, 29 March 2002 - 08:16 pm | | Hi All,
Ummm, I hate to burst the Masonic Theorists Bubble. But I've been doing research on the word 'Juwes'.(I'm sure someone has already said this before, but let me rehash it if I may.)
The three killers of Hiram Abiff, whose names were Jubela, Jubelo, and Jubelum, where never called 'THE JUWES'.(Least not till around the early days of the 20th Century when the first tales of the Masonic Conspiracy involving Jack the Ripper were started.) They were always termed as 'The Three Ruffians', in Masonic Lore. Nowhere in Masonic Myth are they deemed 'The Juwes', only either by their names, or by 'The Three Ruffians'. Also the Masons celebrate a festival over Hiram Abiff's 'martyrdom' entitled 'Jubilee'.(Not 'Juwbilee', but rather 'Jubilee', thusly named after the villianous perpetrators of Hiram's martyrdom. So the closest the 'Three Ruffians' come to be termed as 'The Juwes' would be 'The Jubes' with a 'b' and not a 'w'.)
Also something interesting I found doing my research. Many believe that Jubela, Jubelo, and Jubelum, may be corruptions of the names Jabal, Jubal, and Tubalcain. According to Gen: 4:20-24 these were the direct descendents of Cain.(Yes THE Cain, the Biblical Murderer of his own Brother Abel, who was exiled to the land of 'Nod' by God.) There are many correalations between 'The Three Ruffians', and these Biblical characters.(Most notably that at least one of them was a Craftsman.) Also, much of Masonic Lore does come from the bible. As well as the fact that Tubalcain, is one of the many secret Masonic Passwords.
Just a little F.Y.I. for everyone.
Best Wishes,
Chris H. |
Author: Robert Maloney
Friday, 29 March 2002 - 09:42 pm | | Chris,
I'm not sure who these Masonic Theorists are that you may be referring to but I would guess that their theories are not likely to be destroyed by the addition or subtraction of a 'b' or 'w'. So I wouldn't lose any sleep worrying that your message might have burst their bubble. Not to mention that your research would have to be correct as well. ;-)
Rob |
Author: David O'Flaherty
Friday, 29 March 2002 - 09:48 pm | | You're right, Rosemary
Hey, I still like the Manchu thing--"Both are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." Perhaps we should be looking for a Manchurian Ripper  Or "You (the police) are the men who will not be blamed for nothing."
Well, probably not--but it doesn't hurt to take another look.
Dave |
Author: graziano
Friday, 29 March 2002 - 10:04 pm | | Dave,
you can't better say for droll.
I think that this is the key to read the graffito.
The writer wrote it with derision.
Remember he was "Saucy".
Every word, every letter or what seems to be one, every position, has its importance.
Exactly as for the victims.
Imagine how "Saucy" he would have been, had he left his name to us.
Well, that's my opinion.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Friday, 29 March 2002 - 10:34 pm | | Robert,
take the first letter of the graffito.
Everybody agrees that this is a "T".
But everybody does that because of the context, since the apparent function of it is to be the first letter of the word "The".
Now, let's for a moment forget the context.
Note that the letter "T" is not attached to the following two letters "he".
Consider it for one moment alone.
Hide all the rest.
What would be your first impression about it ?
B(y)e. Graziano. |
Author: Robert Maloney
Friday, 29 March 2002 - 11:17 pm | | Hi Graziano,
Before there is any confusion, I should first ask what version of the graffito are you working with?
And so as not to leave you hanging at this late hour (for me anyway) I will reply in the morning.
Good night,
Rob |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 30 March 2002 - 12:11 am | | Hello Robert,
answer when is best for you, for me there isn't any problem, I sleep three hours a day.
I speak about the version sent by Warren to the Home Office ( "a duplicate of the copy").
Well, I think.
In any case is the one you should find in HO 144/221/A49301C, f 183.
I think you may find it in Knight's book and probably also in The Ultimate.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Robert Maloney
Saturday, 30 March 2002 - 06:42 am | | Good morning Graziano,
Ok, yes, it looks just like your clue, a 'y'. But have you seen the versions in Casebook Productions?
Rob |
|
|
|
|
