|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Hanbury Street
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Ripper Victims:
Hanbury Street
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Sunday, 20 October 2002 - 04:26 pm |        | I wanted to start a thread about one of the spookiest (IMHO) of Ripper sites. I don't know what it is about this particular site that gives me the chills. I do have some general questions and observations I have wanted to ask about Hanbury street though.
1. The passage from the street to the yard...is this an enclosed passage or was there a way from the inside the passage to inside the house? Is there another way to the yard from inside the house other than the passage? Was this a common architectural occurrence?
2. Can anyone give an approximate date 29 Hanbury street was constructed? It was already considered a tenement in 1888....I am guessing 1700's?
3. When was the house demolished? I know Colin Wilson photographed it before demolition so I am guessing the late 1950's, early 1960's. I have seen several photographs of 29 Hanbury street, were all of these taken by Colin Wilson?
4. One of the Hanbury street photographs appears in Jack the Ripper A to Z and shows the view of the yard (this photo to me is so incredibly spooky, I get a worse feeling viewing it than I do Miller's Court photos). I would like to know how is responsible for the yard photograph. When Colin Wilson took his pictures, was he able to access the passage or did someone have to let him in? I wonder what his feelings were at that time? (I don't think I could have gone through the passage alone) Obviously at the time of the photos the building was deserted.
5. Contemporary sketches of the time show the fence as being a small affair, looking pretty shoddily constructed. The photograph shows a solid fence that most normal men would have to have something to stand on to look over it. I am assuming this is not the same fence that was there in the Ripper era?
6. Can anyone tell me what the heck is "Brylcreem?" Obviously the building was a hair salon in its last incarnation. Can one still purchase "Brylcreem" today?
7. The address sign over the entrance...to me it doesn't really look like a "29" but surely it is. Then it looks like "N. Brill...." It certainly doesn't say "Hanbury".....was the street called Brill Street at any point? And obviously there is a word after "Brill" that I can't make out....
29 N. Brill Creem St.? LOL
8. I am sure at some point I have seen a photo of what Hanbury street looks like today, but I can't recall it at this moment or where to find it. I know the building itself was demolished. What is Hanbury Street like today? Is it still called Hanbury Street?
9. Lastly, if anyone has any interesting stories or anecdotes I would love to hear them. I am especially interested in the stories of persons older than me (37) who may have acutally seen the building in person and if anyone else out there gets extremely eerie feelings viewing the photographs of this place or of any other Ripper sites. Its only a matter of time before Hanbury street shows up in my nightmares.
Thanks for reading and though I am sure some of the answers to these questions are archived on here somewhere, it won't hurt to have them reposted in the newer section, would it? |
Author: The Viper
Sunday, 20 October 2002 - 05:59 pm | | Brenda,
1. Entrance was by the main front door (the only one in 1888). A passage led straight through the house to the back door. It was about 25 ft. long by a yard wide. The house had two rooms on each floor, each of which was allocated to tenants (the landlady had more than one room). Presumably each of these rooms had a lock or bolt on the door for privacy.
2. All four buildings in the block 25-31 Hanbury Street were designed by Dan Marsillat, described as a carpenter. Leases were granted by Granville Wheler, a local landowner (there is a Wheler Street nearby) in October 1740. I'm not clear whether that means whether a lease was granted to commence building work, or on the finished buildings. Number 29 consisted of three stories plus a garret. It had been re-fronted in yellow stock brick in 1846. At some point the top floor window (top floor proper that is – not the garret) above the door had been blocked in.
3. Demolished August 1970. The properties in Hanbury St. had been empty for quite some time before that.
4. Sorry, can't help you there.
5. I doubt whether it would be the same fence. The one in 1888 is generally agreed to have been in poor condition, but you can take your pick as to its height. Swanson's report of 19th October describes it as 5 ft. high. Some of the newspapers – The Times included – went for 5 ft. 6 ins. high palings, whilst The Star went for it being only 4 ft. high and described the fence as "old and rotten".
6. Brylcream is a male hair care product for greasing down hair. It was very popular in the 1940s and ’50s when it was advertised by a well-known cricketer called Denis Compton. It made Compton so rich that he became the first British sportsman to get himself an agent!
7. There was some discussion about this a couple of years ago, but it seems to have been lost. Nathan Brill was a barber who took over the shop some time in the early C20th, if memory serves. 29 Hanbury Street first became a hairdresser's shop in the mid-1890s, which is when the second doorway depicted in the now famous photographs was added. Hanbury Street had generally been known as Browne’s Lane until just a few years before. No doubt in 1888 some older members of the community still referred to it by that name.
8. Yes, it's still Hanbury Street. That whole section of the street is covered by an ugly 1970s brewery extension. The brewery closed in 1989 and the buildings now have other uses.
9. Stewart Evans visited this area in 1967 when the building was still standing. His reminiscences are still recorded Here at the main Casebook site.
Regards, V. |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Sunday, 20 October 2002 - 08:46 pm | | Thank you so much for posting this information! 1. I was a little confused as far as the doors of Hanbury Street....there was only one door in 1888? Why was the other one added? I was always under the impression that Annie and Jack just went through the passage to the yard without entering the house. It would have taken some guts to march right through the house in the early morning hours.
2. I was thrilled to find out you knew so much about the construction of the building. I would have never guessed a construction date of 1740. After 230 years, I guess the old building was about ready for demolition.
And I thoroughly enjoyed reading Stewart Evans' account of his visit in Whitechapel. It was kind of like being there walking with him and I don't know if he truly understands how important his memories are! To have someone come along (way)after the facts and describe the area in full....I'm so glad he could preserve some history in this way. That's an important little essay, and one I had overlooked in my Casebook ramblings.
Thank you Viper for all the info. I'm interested in any other memories anyone would like to share. |
|
|
|
|
