|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 16, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Letters: General Discussion:
The Goulston Street Graffito:
Archive through May 16, 1999
Author: Jon Smyth
Saturday, 15 May 1999 - 08:36 am |        | Ok, my private sources tell me that roll film was invented in 1888 (really?)
So how often did anything come into common use the same year it was invented ?
Question:
Is that existing outside shot, taken in the yard in Rumbelows 'Complete Casebook' done with roll film???
Thanks, Jon |
Author: Karoline
Saturday, 15 May 1999 - 11:07 am | | Everyone - I've been talking to my friendly Victorian photography expert who tells me that roll film was invented in 1888-9, but that the early prints produced in this way were circular. I THINK the MJK and other photos are actually rectangular and this would seem to mean they were produced by the old dry collodion plate process.
I also think it's quite unlikely that the doctor would have taken photographs for himself. For the Victorians, before the use of film, photography was a much more specialised art than it is today, requiring large amounts of equipment and considerable knowledge. The image of the doctor taking casual snaps with his little pocket camera is just not compatible with 1880s technology.
Hope this helps
K |
Author: Jon Smyth
Saturday, 15 May 1999 - 11:17 am | | Thankyou 'K'
I think we all understand that between the date when an invention is made and the evolution of that developement to user-friendly non-professional use, requires some considerable time.
The shots at Millers court will have been taken using long established technology and using a tripod. (my opinion)
Thanks, Jon |
Author: Guy Hatton
Saturday, 15 May 1999 - 11:37 am | | Maybe some clarification of the history of
photography is in order here.Karoline is very
close to the truth in her posting above re.
photographic technology. I did some checking on
the Kodak web site, and Bob Hinton's claim that a
small roll film camera could have been used to
take the "MJK2" picture does not stand up to
historical scrutiny. Kodak did not develop the
first commercial roll film until 1889. The very
first Kodak camera did become available in
1888, but it seems extremely unlikely that
a (presumably) professional photographer sent to a
crime scene would use such a new, unproven device.
We well know, after all, that the Police of the
time were not renowned for "early adoption" of
technologies such as fingerprinting, and for
any kind of photographic evidence to be
gathered was at this time a considerable
novelty.
So, for what it's worth, I believe that Karoline
(and Jon) are right - a large-format stand (or
view) camera must have been involved, and
the image probably captured on dry plates (an
earlier Kodak innovation, incidentally.) |
Author: Un-Historian
Saturday, 15 May 1999 - 12:20 pm | | Kodak is NOT responsible for the dry plate.
The roll film camera was meant for the amateur
market,not the pros.
The Kodak camera reportedly reached the UK in the
fall of 1888. |
Author: Jon Smyth
Saturday, 15 May 1999 - 12:36 pm | | I hope I don't detect a spot o'bovver 'developing' 'ere.
:-) |
Author: Leonard
Saturday, 15 May 1999 - 01:41 pm | | Coincidence? Seems to be a lot of that but I don't believe anti-semitism was at work when the message was left. If this was the case, he could have left other clues and messages to infer that the jews were responsible. There is no coincidence that the torn apron belonged to the murdered woman. That was established fact. The apron was to testify to the genuineness of the message. Also note that as the message was removed , it was also copied before it was erased.
Now note the differences in the message;
City police copied it as The jewes are not the men...etc.
The home office changes it to read The Juwes "ARE" the men.....etc.
Now we have a different meaning of the message.
Spelling is not important, content is.
It must be remembered that after the murder, Major Smith {sudgen's complete JTR..page188} says "I wandered around my station houses, hoping I might find someone brought in, and finally got to bed at 6:00 a/m, after a very "harrassing night", completely defeated.
Finally, also find at the bottom of this same page: When the sun rose on Sunday 30th September, the new day thus found the police "baffled and bickering". Nothing was as apparent as "their defeat".
You will also note that the ripper case resulted in the resignation of Sir Charles Warren who, just happens to be responsible for: the riot at the Lord Mayor's Show {1886} [see A-Z, page 469]
The Clerkenwell riot
The mass demonstration at Trafalgar Square{Nov. 13th, 1887} remembered as "Bloody Sunday".
Coincidences? Yeah...Right.....I call them by a different name....strong circumstantial evidence os to motive for the Ripper's activities.
Why prostitutes everyone ask? Well,if the books are correct, there were something like 62 brothels, in "H" Division, 233 common lodging houses, and 1,200 prostitutes [A-Z page 401].
That's a lot of prostitutes out there working all hours of the day and night. These women present the easiest of targets for any man. Most are intoxicated, steal from their clients and commit crimes themselves [Sudgen page 197]" One poor creature, who had apparently been drinking, cried bitterly: "We're all up to no good, amd no one cares what becomes of us". "Perhaps sopme of us will be killed next". Her words were prophetic according to the author and I agree with them.
How easy to lure them to their doom. If the Ripper had chosen men as his intended targets, the Ripper saga might have ended differently.
The headlines would have read: Ripper caught at last; the last moments of "Jack the Ripper". Last night an man was accousted and attacked by a man that fits the description of the ripper and carried a knife but the victim, this time, was much stronger and had a knife of his own....case closed.
Jack used women, not for sex, drugs, fantasies, or anything else but to accomplish what he set out to do and by using the "weaker sex" he was assured of his success.
Jack prowled an area rife with Jews and may have been one himself, we may never know, but I am assured that he never wanted to accuse them of the horrible crimes he commited.
Jews have always been a target in every country where they settle and do not need a "Jack the Ripper" for a catalysis for hate.
In other words: [Southern Slang intended] "The Jews ain't got nothing to do with it". |
Author: Jon Smyth
Saturday, 15 May 1999 - 05:03 pm | | Excuse me Leonard,
'The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing'.
Means.....the Jews will not take blame or depending on the emphasis, it could mean, the Jews are justifiably to blame.
Alternatively,
'The Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing'
Is a alternate placement of the word 'not' which does not change the meaning at all.
Both are double negative comments which can invariably be taken two ways.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Leanne
Saturday, 15 May 1999 - 07:44 pm | | G'day Everyone,
I remember reading somewhere, that Jack was disturbed, before he mutilated the body of Stride, by Jews. Maybe that's why he wrote the message bringing the word 'Jewes' into into the investigation. I don't know if anyone else has posted that idea before, I haven't the time to check, but it's a simple explaination. Isn't it?
-Leanne! |
Author: Leonard
Saturday, 15 May 1999 - 07:49 pm | | Could be but, but again, according to Sudgen, page254. " The trouble with the chalk message is that, like many clues relating to the murders, we can document its existence but do not know enough to interpert its meaning".
I take that to mean that "NO ONE" knows the exact meaning of the terminology.
Some such as Chief Inspector Henry Moore and Sir Robert Anderson are both on record as having explicitly stated their belief that the message was written by the murderer, as other disagree.
Walter Dew ask: Why should the murderer "fool around chalking things on the wall when his life was imperilled by every minute he loitered?".
Well on page 252[Sudgen] we read at the bottom of the page: "For, since the apron was not found until 2:55, we are left with the possibility that the murderer "Loitered for an hour" or more on the fringes of the City before making good his escape.
Maybe Dew should have read Sudgen? Oh well, as far as I'm concerned, the message is open to interpretation and mine is as good as any. I do think that if the message was written by someone else than the Ripper, that people living in the area {Jews} would have erased the message immediately. So it is reasonable that the writing could not be very old.
According to Sudgen, you have your pick from the below interpretations, all three are feasible, not one capable of proof.
[1] The writing was not the work of the murderer.
[2] You take the scribe at his word.
[3] The message was a deliberate subterfuge.
Take your pick. |
Author: Jon Smyth
Saturday, 15 May 1999 - 08:23 pm | | Leanne
Take my word for it.........Jack was 'disturbed'.
Leonard
Sugdens quote......true, we can only surmise, but given the words as have come down to us, we can be sure of two meanings, maybe more, but two for sure.
And your point about the graffiti not being tollerated for long.....exactly so. I posted to that effect myself last year.
I think your interpretations (or Sugdens) are only two:
- It was written by Jack
or
- It was not written by Jack
The meaning, being ambiguous is secondary.
I can't see anti-jewish graffiti being there for too long, not in a predominantly Jewish residence, out on the public street maybe, but not where it was found. I could be wrong though.
Regards, Jon |
Author: anonymous
Saturday, 15 May 1999 - 11:57 pm | | Hi Y'all
Glad you guys are keeping up with the times, here.
Far be for me to point out that ol Doc Phillips probably meant that he personally received the darn photo from the guy who actually took it, not that he actually physically picked up the camera and snapped the photo himself. He never said from whom he took it, plain & simple, only that he obtained it. Guess that's a far stretch for some.
Course, maybe it was conspiracy between Phillips and the cops since it would have been a cop photographer, or should have been, right?
You guys with you mountains out of mole hills. What does it matter either way, except to prove yourselves right? Does it help show who her killer was? - NO. Does it help us at all? - NO. So what is your point regarding this matter of who took that darn photo? And I hope we're still not arguing about whether or not Kelly's room was big enough to take the photo - jeehosiphats! it was ten foot by twelve foot for cryin out loud. What do you want - a Hotel suite with maide service and a butt washer before you accept its big enough?
And then I suppose you'll say it was SO big that Kelly's heart was lost about all that Sunday furniture and goin-to-meetin clothes.
You guys need to drink more coffee or cut back a cup or two, not sure which. Maybe some good ol sasparille tea?
end trans |
Author: Steven F
Sunday, 16 May 1999 - 01:05 am | | A definite case of too many Sherlock Holmeses spoil the plot. Or is it too many pipes fog the solution? Or is it the 107 per cent solution? Or maybe too many detectives bust an armchair. Then again it could be too many experts to agree.
The writing on the wall was simple graffiti, nothing to do with the killer. 'Juwes' meant he couldn't spell (if the grammar is anything to go by), or it was copied wrong.
The camera used at Miller's Court was the old tripod, box-type, glass negative, affair, and the photographer was a professional called in by the police to do the job. The photograph was taken inside the room after they broke in.
The Ripper case did not result in the resignation of Sir Charles Warren.
Jack was 'disturbed' period. The evidence given about the Berner Street murder indicates that the killer had gone before the arrival of Diemshutz.
No one knows the exact meaning of the Goulston Street graffiti because it is written in the double negative, therefore only the writer knew for sure what he meant. It is ostensibly anti-Semitic.
No-one knew at the time if the killer wrote it or not. All they could give was their opinion.
There were no 'cop photographers', they were professional photographers called in by the police to take the photographs.
Happy detecting. |
Author: anonymous
Sunday, 16 May 1999 - 01:41 am | | Hi Steven,
Or a cse of too many Watsons trying to become Sherlock?
Nice bit - really!
end trans |
Author: Dave Yost
Sunday, 16 May 1999 - 02:11 am | | Hi Guys!
While some of you may have this URL, I offer it here. It provides detailed and fully sourced info on Stride.
http://business.fortunecity.com/all/138/cp_investigates_jtr/time_lines/stride_elizabeth.htm
Cheers,
Dave Yost |
Author: Steven F
Sunday, 16 May 1999 - 05:31 am | | | Many thanks anonymous, and Dave. |
Author: The Viper
Sunday, 16 May 1999 - 06:24 am | | Good day Steven F.
I don’t know which sources you are using or your line of reasoning for the statements you make; perhaps you might care to expand a little with some of your future contributions. Many of your comments seem eminently sensible, however. One point I would like to pick up on though is the one about ‘no cop photographers’. I came across a press report a book entitled “The East End Then And Now” by William G. Ramsey which states the following...
“The man whose livelihood was to photograph murdered people has died after being knocked down by a lorry in East India Dock Road, E.
He was Mr. Joseph Martin of Canton Street, Poplar, E. who a year ago retired from the position of official photographer to the Metropolitan Police, which he held for half a century.
It was his duty to photograph the bodies of unknown persons in the Metropolitan Police area, and among his ‘subjects’ were the women killed by Jack the Ripper in the narrow alleys of Whitechapel and Commercial Road, as well as the victims of many other murders”.
Taken from the Daily Herald, 23rd December 1933.
The words ‘half a century’ are a bit vague, though they take us back approximately to 1882. If Mr. Martin was the official photographer, then I assume that he would have taken the famous mortuary slab photographs of the victims. There is insufficient detail in the report to know whether he was at Millers Court or any of the other murder sites.
Anyone else ever heard of Joseph Martin? After all he was run over by a lorry. A Masonic conspiracy to be sure! :-)
Regards, V. |
Author: The Viper
Sunday, 16 May 1999 - 06:34 am | | | The author of the book I mentioned was Winston G. Ramsey, (not William). I beg his pardon and yours. |
Author: Caz
Sunday, 16 May 1999 - 07:08 am | | Hi Viper!
Good to see ya.
Your piece on Joseph Martin sounded vaguely familiar to me, although I'm sure I've never seen Ramsey's book. I would be very interested to find out more about Mr Martin though. I wonder why his name and apparent 'claim to fame' was only mentioned after his sad death in 1933? And where did the Daily Herald get their info? Maybe he just liked to stay in the background, nothing particularly unusual in that, I guess. It would be interesting, however, if we could find any relatives to whom he told his professional memoirs, wouldn't it?
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jon Smyth
Sunday, 16 May 1999 - 10:23 am | | Hi Viper
I think Steven was saying a private photographer was hired by the Police on contract, for example.
Which may be the same as your Mr Martin, a professional photographer hired on contract by the Police.
I'd like to know if he was the same person hired by the City Police too.
Police photography was in its infancy back then and so I'm sure neither force had a 'photographic' department, as they do today.
Jon |
|
|
|
|
