|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 May 15, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Letters: General Discussion:
The Goulston Street Graffito:
Archive through May 15, 1999
Author: RED DEMON
Saturday, 08 May 1999 - 10:00 pm |        | Dear Jon,
Relax, man! Geez! You'd think you want to kill me or something!
I don't quite see your logic, either, Jon. Not on all points. I understand what you mean about no corroborating testimony with the Times. I am aware that they newspapers of the time were less than accurate in their accounts. But, you're missing one thing. Where does it say the photo was NOT taken outside. You've already identified a contemporary account, as questionable as it may be, that states the photo was taken from OUTSIDE. Also, by calling me illogical and blind to the truth, you are calling Paul Begg, Phil Sugden, and Donald Rumbelow that same. And they, the last time I checked, are the most reputable names in Ripperdom. I may be living in ignorance, but I'm with wonderful company!
YOU RULE, JON!!!
In a rush. Gotta go. Talk to you later. Until then...
Yours truly,
RED DEMON |
Author: Jon Smyth
Sunday, 09 May 1999 - 12:16 am | | Oh, c'mon now RED, get off your knees and stand up like a man :-)
Paul, Don & Phil are only human, they bleed & sweat like everyone else.
Those guy's are not icon's, they make assumptions & make mistakes, just like we all do.
They may pay attention to detail more than the average guy. Like this for example.......
The contemporary account if your refering to the Times article, says that a photographer was sent for, and took photo's of the room and its contents. NOT...I repeat NOT from either INSIDE or OUTSIDE. (this is what I mean by paying attention to detail)
It just says photo's were taken ...agree ???
No, I don't mean that your living in ignorance, I do think that your interest is superficial, not as deep as some of the rest of us.
But I'm glad you see the article as questionable, and that you don't support that 'diary' thing.
I did ask in an open letter several days ago for some other corroboration of this Times article.
No one has come forward yet, I'll leave it till next weekend then send Paul an E and get a response from him.
One way of the other, I'll get a comment.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 09 May 1999 - 12:39 am | | Jon,
As I previously said, you deductions are well reasoned and correct, there was no photograph taken of Kelly from outside the room, it was taken inside after entry was gained.
The corroboration for this, as you rightly outlined before, is in the evidence given at the inquest. All statements regarding the window being removed, by whomever made, are based on the incorrect newspaper report. |
Author: Ashling
Sunday, 09 May 1999 - 04:56 am | | Hi y'all. I appreciate all the info resulting from this discussion.
DAVID R: Good question. I too want to know what's on the rear of Mary's table. Evidently it looked like breasts to whatever source The Times reporter talked with.
BOB H., JON, STEWART: I'm really struggling to visualize everything y'all have mentioned. In the photo shot from "between the bed & wall," I had thought the sunlight streaming over the table came through a slit in the curtain over the window. (Was the man's coat the only material over the window?)
But y'all are saying the sunlight comes from a vertical crack down the middle of the door - which is pushed open? I guess that's reasonable, but wouldn't the photograhper have gotten more light for his shot by closing the door & removing any coverings off the windows?
STEWART: Write faster please - I'm looking forward to reading your new article on Kelly's room.
Take care,
Ashling |
Author: Jon Smyth
Sunday, 09 May 1999 - 09:58 am | | Thankyou Stewart, Your previous comment was appreciated also.
Maybe between us we can bury this erroneous point of trivia, for once and for all.
Its only fair to mention that Fido also notes this fallacy, in his 'Crimes, Detection & Death' on Pg 93.
Rumbelow gives some background in his 'Complete Casebook' page 136.
[quote]
".....Stranger still was the fact that the photograph was the work of the City Police, in spite of the dressing down they had received from Sir Charles Warren for being in Whitechapel.
A story which explains this, although it is at variance with the newspaper accounts, is that although the Metropolitan Police didn't dare to disobey Warren's order and break down Kelly's doorway before the bloodhounds arrived, the City Police did so as they ran no such risk.
Apparently, as the morning dragged on, and nothing happened in Miller's Court, somebody quietly asked the City Police for their help which they gave by breaking into Kelly's room and taking the photograph of her body as their only justification for doing so. Certainly all the surviving photographs of Ripper victims were taken by the City of London Police ."
[end of quote]
Now, Don Rumbelow knows that to offer an unsubstantiated report is not in keeping with good research practice. Don will have had no ulterior motive for reporting this 'story' but it has its consequences, we have to ask of Don 'what was his source for this story?'
An oral tradition ?, rumour ? or something of more substance.
Was the photographer at Millers Court a private, hired photographer ?
Was he the same one that was hired by the City Police ?
Was this the source of the rumour of the City Police photographer ?
Rumbelow's 'story' does not mention the removal of a window, we know for sure that photo's were taken from inside following the door being broken in.
The above 'story' has the hallmarks of a tradition, something not recorded, just passed on by word of mouth. From where did it eminate ?
Its a shame that Don did not see fit to include his source.
Don goes on to say that he obtained the photo from the City Police photographic dept. in 1967 when they were clearing out a lot of old negatives.
Don seems to be the one who started this thing, and supported? by that Times article, it appears to have been picked up by various other authors and just accepted as fact.
I wonder if we can entice Don Rumbelow to clarify this issue, or comfirm that there is no source to back up this 'tradition'.
Then maybe we can put it to rest.
Once again Stewart, thanks for your support.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jon Smyth
Sunday, 09 May 1999 - 10:14 am | | Good Morning Ashling
Your point is well made.....
We might assume that the window coverings were removed to assist in getting more light for the investigation, and photography.
I suggest that the verticle slit of light is thru the gap between the door and the door frame (hinge side) though it is only my suggestion.
They might not have wanted the door to be closed due to the smell of blood, .....with all that mess, can you imagine what it might have been like in there? ..the human need for fresh air :-)
The photo's, according to one news report were taken around 2:00 following the prelim. investigation but then from 2:00 until 3:50 when the 'body wagon' came, the Doctors were involved in the intense examination.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Leanne
Sunday, 09 May 1999 - 07:06 pm | | Excuse me everyone,
I didn't know that the 'F.M.' in Kelly's room, had anything to do with the 'Goulston Street Graffito'!!! |
Author: Caz
Monday, 10 May 1999 - 12:37 pm | | No Leanne, neither did I. But someone on another board (think it was Red Demon, apologies if not) confessed to deliberately twisting this board round just to prove he could. Very constructive!
Love,
Caz |
Author: RED DEMON
Friday, 14 May 1999 - 01:32 pm | | Hello All,
CAZ: It's obvious that you are referring above to a statement I made in the 'THE RIPPER, ZODIAC, AND FRIENDS' board responding to a jokester named 'Crappy'. I thought it obvious that what I was saying to him was that you shouldn't disrupt a board with worthless slanderings...it's unconstructive. I don't remember 'twisting this board around just to prove I could', let alone saying that I did. I made a legitimate statement regarding comparisons I made between the Goulston Street Graffito and the FM on Kelly's wall. I stayed on the subject, but it sparked a debate which did not. You and I have both taken part in this debate. If I'd known it would have been so heated and worthwhile, I would have started another board with my observations.
Why is it that people on here like to read things into me? One day I'm a 'diary supporter', the next I'm Yazoo (I'll take that as a compliment), and the next I'm superficial (Jon Smyth) and a hack who gets his rocks off by manipulating the message boards. That one didn't feel so good. Thanks Caz.
Yours truly,
RED DEMON
P.S. I believe I read on the other board that you were upset because someone attacked your character and printed untruths about you...Hmmmmm. |
Author: Christopher T. George
Friday, 14 May 1999 - 06:28 pm | | Hi, RED:
I too greatly regret the recent deterioration of the boards into private attacks. Indeed, Stephen Ryder remarked in the chat room this morning that the feuding that was going on is one reason that the message boards were discontinued--to allow feelings to cool down--that, and, of course, the fact that he is moving the site, which has not happened as speedily as he had anticipated. So we have a few days back on the boards on this site, and hopefully to debate Jack and not attack each other. Having said that, ha ha, I hope you do not take the following amiss. It is meant in the spirit of debate.
You should note that earlier today I posted two messages directed at you under "The Jack the Ripper Letters." I have to tell you that your approach to the letters, the Goulston Street graffito, and the supposed "FM" on Mary Kelly's wall is a bit like the approach of R. Michael Gordon to Severin Klosowski (aka George Chapman), attributing every murder to the same killer: Whitechapel canonical and other, the Pinchin Street and Whitehall murders, Carrie Brown (Old Shakespeare) in Jersey City, even apparently the murder of his parents. One observer remarked that RMG's style is a "pin the tail on the donkey" approach, and I fear that your approach is likewise a catch-all approach to the supposed written communications said to have been from the Whitechapel murderer.
Chris George |
Author: Leonard
Friday, 14 May 1999 - 07:27 pm | | Good Evening to All;
I read something tonight on page 188 in Sudgen's book [complete history-jtr] that made me put the book down an think about what I had read. If I read the comment correctly, then I think I have found an explaination for the Goulston Street message, the victim's apron, and a possible motive for the acitivities of jtr. Motive was always a problem but I am satisfied that he had an adequate motive in the message he left. For awhile I was indeed, puzzled as to whether he left the messsage as an inditement of the Jews, but now I don't think so. Everything apparently fits into place now as far as I am concerned.
I believe he left the apron at the scene to leave a message for the police [ "This writing is by me, JTR ] but also to send the message directed to the police and no one else. He intended to tell them that "They are the men that will not be blamed for nothing". He apparently thought that they would be clever enough to understand the word "Jewes" and accordinately to erase the message which they, in fact, did.
The passage in the book that I refer to is the location of the City police headquaters located in, of all places, "Old Jewry".
Jack now takes on a whole new perspective as a man with an ax to grind against the police.
He probably had more than one run in with them from time to time and had his "ears boxed" by them on numerous occasions. What better motive could a man have than personal revenge.
In creating these crimes and getting away with them, he makes fools of the entire force. He laughs at the newspapers articles that are printed about him. He strolls the streets past them and thinks to himself "Just wait until next time".
Police are not known for their gentileness towards criminals. Some one that they throttled deceided to get "even". Ruining careers seems to be the ultimate motive. Who knows how far back his resentment goes or when it finally became an extreme hatred. Maybe he was present at "Bloody Sunday" and lost someone close to him or maybe he was a victim himself. The answer may never be known but the message is clear....."I'm still thinking of you". |
Author: Ashling
Friday, 14 May 1999 - 08:40 pm | | Hi y'all.
LEONARD: Your train of thought is interesting, especially the bits about Bloody Sunday and the theory that JtR manipulated the cops into destroying the sample of his handwriting.
A resentment against the police sounds plausible ... But the Goulston Street Grafitto seems about as clear to me as a brick wall. I can't visual JtR leaving a message that required a secret decoder ring to understand. I always get confused about what ANY sentence containing a double negative really means.
Now if the Goulston St. chalking had read "Death to the Bobbies" (shades of Charles Manson) ... Now that would be a c-l-e-a-r message, but the authorship would still be debatable.
Take care,
Ashling |
Author: anonymous
Friday, 14 May 1999 - 09:47 pm | | Hello Y'al
Dont think this writting business could've been a message to the cops, just the Jews.
I also read in the Post Gazette (6 Oct) that the writting was no less than a half inch in height and near the ground as if some smart allack kid did it or some vargant sleeping off the juice. Kids & drunks, they do the darndist things.
Also wonder if anyone thought of a wild dog roaming through the streets. ol Jack buddy could've dropped that cloth and then a dog picked it up as a toy. I think Martin Fido did a study about that a few years ago.
This would make the writting and cloth a mere coincidence and them being together nothing but coincidence and having jack to do with Jack or the cops.
end trans |
Author: RED DEMON
Saturday, 15 May 1999 - 12:00 am | | Hello Leonard, Ashling, and anonymous,
Leonard, I think that that is a wonderful idea regarding the use of the word 'Juwes'...Very possible. I don't think, however, that Jack's beef was with the cops. It was with women. I think most of us agree that it probably stemmed back to his mother. However, it is not uncommon for serial killers to toy with the cops. Often, it is the chase that keeps the serial killer's fuel burning. I hope you're aware, Leonard, that you and I just may be the only ones on this message board who believe that the graffito came from Jack the Ripper.
To Chris...No, I'm not offended by what you say. If anything, it's one of the nicer things said about me here. I'm not sure why. As much as people enjoy knocking me, my ideas, when written, seem to spark huge debates that seem neverending. I suppose that means that my theories aren't immediately disprovable. I am thankful for constructive criticism. I have learned ALOT from these boards and you folks. I'm even beginning to waver on my certainty that the 'FM' came from Jack the Ripper. I eagerly await more theories and ideas. I'm having fun here. However, I'm not having fun when I read derogatory untruths about myself from people I've never met. Choosing a psuedonym for this board was the smartest thing I've done in a while. I'd hate to have my reputation ruined because somebody's a worse speed-reader than I am...And Chris, any belief I suggest as to what is attributable to the Ripper, I have something to substantiate it. Of course, I'm fully aware that no matter what topic of discussion, there will be 'evidence' to show either side of the coin (i.e. what Ripper letters are rea/fake). Keep up the good work, friend. No hard feelings. I'll see you all soon. Until then...
Yours truly,
RED DEMON |
Author: RED DEMON
Saturday, 15 May 1999 - 12:29 am | | DEAR CHRIS AND EVERYONE...
I have responded to Chris' messages on the board entitled 'THE JACK THE RIPPER LETTERS'. I'd love it if everyone could read read his thoughts and my responses and let me know what you think. You're opinions are valuable to me. Until then...
Yours truly,
RED DEMON |
Author: Christopher T. George
Saturday, 15 May 1999 - 04:40 am | | Hi, Leonard et al.:
I think any possible link between the Goulston Street graffito and the fact that City Police HQ was at Old Jewry is mere coincidence. We should not underestimate the historic presence of Jews in London for centuries before the Whitechapel murders of 1888.
Acts of intolerance had been committed against Jews in England during the Middle Ages, including a slaughter of Jews at York Castle during the reign of King John, and the expulsion of the Jews in 1290. Jews established a community again in Britain during the mid-17th century, the first since the expulsion. This community continued to grow in the 18th and 19th centuries with Jews settling in other cities. Today the total Jewish population of Britain, probably just under a half million, is mainly centered on London with upwards of 250,000 British Jews living in the capital.
England in the the decades before 1888 had proved welcoming to Jews. Indeed, one of the recent Prime Ministers of Great Britain, Benjamin Disraeli, Lord Beaconsfield, was Jewish. By the time of the Whitechapel crimes, Jewish merchants were well established in the East End of London. Due to the recent progroms in Eastern Europe, a new influx of Jewish immigrants reached London in the later nineteenth century and swelled the already existing Jewish presence in Whitechapel and other East End communities.
SO the connections of the Whitechapel murders with the Jewish community are many, but are they merely coincidental because of the Jewish element in the population? Note the following:
1) The first canonical murder, of Mary Ann Nichols took place in Buck's Row, close to the Jews Cemetery on Brady Street.
2) After the murder of Annie Chapman on eht morning of September 8, "The Star" gave a description of a suspect, "Leather Apron," whom they described as "a Jew or of Jewish parentage, his face being of the marked Jewish type" and who had a reputation for assailing women. [A leather apron was found in the yard behind 29 Hanbury St. where Chapman's body was found, but was later found to have been innocently left there by a man unrelated to the crime.] The idea of a Jew as a suspect was linked in the public mind that the murderer could have been a "shochet" or ritual Jewish slaughterman.
Chief Rabbi Hermann Adler wrote in "The Gazette" that there was no truth to the contention that the Talmud sanctioned such murders as the Whitechapel murders.
Major Henry Smith of the City of London police sent shochet knives to pathologists to find out if they could have been used in the murders. He was informed by the pathologists that since the sochet knife was curved, it could not have been used in the crimes. The Whitechapel crimes were committed with a straight blade. Incidentally, Smith was later vehemently critical of Sir Robert Anderson who claimed in his memoirs (1911) that the killer was a Jew that the police had identified but that his people would not give him up. Smith adamantly denied that the killer was known.
3) The events of the early morning of September 30. Swedish-born Elizabeth Stride, who was said to have spoken Yiddish, was killed around 12:45 a.m. in Dutfield's Yard at the side of the International Workingmen's Educational Club, a Jewish socialist organization. Less than an hour later, at 1:45 a.m., Catherine Eddowes was found murdered in Mitre Square. Part of her apron was missing and was found around 2:50 a.m. in the doorway of Wentworth Model Dwellings, whose residents were described as being largely Jewish. The City police, coming from Old Jewry, reorted the wording of the graffito found chalked on the wall above the torn apron as:
"The Juwes are not The men That Will be Blamed for nothing."
The reports of the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police reported the wording slighly differently:
"The Juwes are the men That Will not be Blamed for nothing."
Actually as a double negative common among the Cockneys of London, though not necessarily among the Jewish immigrants, the first (City police) version makes the more sense. In any case, we will never know which one it was since Metropolitan Police Commissioner Warren ordered the graffito to be removed before it could be photographed, presumably to prevent an anti-semitic riot.
So, a connection with the Jews or not? The thing is that the East End of London was so rife with Jewish connections, there could hardly fail to be SOME connection even if coincidental. And who is to say the graffito was left by the killer and the torn apron just happened to be dropped nearby? Are these apparent ties to the Jews necessary connections because the killer was himself Jewish or who either wanted to blame or exonerate the Jews? We may never know.
Chris George |
Author: Caz
Saturday, 15 May 1999 - 05:04 am | | Hi all!
Sorry, Red, I obviously 'upset' you, I didn't mean to, and certainly never thought you, of all people, would take umbrage at my post, which actually apologised in advance in case I'd got it wrong! Please accept my apologies this time, I'll try not to offend you again.
And sorry to ANYONE who misinterprets a post of mine, either in the past or in the future. I'm obviously not very good at being nice to people in writing (grin). Blame my O level English Language, folks!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Bob Hinton
Saturday, 15 May 1999 - 06:39 am | | Dear Jon Smyth,
In response to your posting Saturday May 8th 12:49, where you state Phillips didn't take any photographs himself.
In his inquest testimony he states 'I produce a photograph I had taken....'
Now I agree that this does not make it clear whether he had actually taken the photograph or whether he had caused the photograph to be taken. It is also not clear what photograph he is referring to, but bearing in mind the reference to a 'book of photographs of the scene' it is possible that he did in fact take his own photographs using a small roll film camera for his own use.
The plot thickens like cold soup!
Bob Hinton |
Author: Ashling
Saturday, 15 May 1999 - 07:33 am | | Hi y'all.
BOB H: Good to "see" you. Correct grammar wise - If Phillips photgraphed anything himself, wouldn't he have said - Photographs I took, instead of photographs I had taken? I think it's reasonable to believe a doctor was sufficiently educated to speak reasonably gramatically correct.
Just a thought.
Take care,
Ashling |
Author: Jon Smyth
Saturday, 15 May 1999 - 08:05 am | | Morning Bob
I used that same quote in my May 5th poste (above), I am well aware of what the Doctor said.
And (following Ashling) I believe he would have made it clearer by using the correct grammar if that had been the case.
But, as it say's "I had taken" then this implies he had someone do this for him.
And why wouldn't he? he has his profession, and they have theirs.
ROLL FILM ???? In 1888 ?????
Bob ? .....I am no camera expert, but where do you get this idea from ?
Thanks, Jon |
|
|
|
|
