Ripperologist # 78

[Howard Brown]

Hopefully Adam Wood will put up the cover of the latest issue soon....because the magazine is out.

This issue features Forums member Debbie Dobbins,who has an article in this month's magazine. Congrats to Debbie D.:hail:

[Tom_Wescott]

Debbie Dobbins is a cute name. I've just finished reading Adam's rather depressing editorial (serial killer mags are supposed to be fun!) and have started reading Debbie's essay, which looks to be interesting.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Bulling's boss was 'Charles Moore', not John. I think it's time Rip gets a 6th editor. :)

[Chris G.]

Hi Folks

Note that the farthings article is by Kevin Michael aka "Magpie" from these boards. Tom, thanks for pointing out the mixup with Moore's name. I edited Debbie's article and Magpie's but I am afraid that I missed that. As you know, there is some confusion over Moore's first name in the literature.

Chris

[Tom_Wescott]

The Fraser letter - some thoughts.

I've had a chance now to read Debbie's essay. As the Ripper letters have always been of interest to me, I enjoyed it greatly. Her painstaking side-by-sides truly illustrated her point that the handwriting of this letter resembles the 'Dear Boss' trio. Assuming for a moment it was written by the same hand, I would have to challenge the notion that the card represents the author's true hand. My reason is that the other three letters did not consist of such horrid grammar, proving the author was considerably more literate than what's evidenced in the Fraser letter. That being the case, the handwriting would not have been fluid and natural but forced and intentional to achieve the desired effect. I maintain that the true handwriting of the 'Dear Boss' author is found in the postscript to that very letter and in the Saucy Jacky postcard. The fact that this missive alone was written in such bad grammar sets it apart from the other three ('Dear Boss', 'Saucy Jacky', and Oct. 6th) and might suggest a different author with a similar hand, or who mimicked the handwriting of Dear Boss when it was circulated. It is also the only one of the three not to use the name 'Jack the Ripper'.

The Fraser letter - when was it written?

Debbie reasonably suggests that because Annie Chapman was the victim specifically mentioned the postcard may have been written prior to 'Dear Boss'. However, I believe this postcard to have been written following Oct. 2nd, around the same time as the Oct. 6th threat letter. My reasons are as follows:

The address as it appears on the postcard reads:

Mr. James Fraser
City of London Police Office
26 Old Jewery [sic-Jewry] E.C.

On Oct. 1st (following the double event) Fraser released the following notice which was widely publicized in newspapers the next day:

"Murder - £500 Reward.
"Whereas, at 1:45 a.m. on Sunday, the 30th of September last, a woman, name unknown, was found brutally murdered in Mitre-square, Aldgate, in this City, a reward of £500 will be paid by the Commissioner of Police of the City of London to any person (other than a person belonging to a police force in the United Kingdom), who shall give such information as shall lead to the discovery and conviction of the murderer or murderers.
"Information to be given to the Inspector of the Detective Department, 26, Old Jewry, or at any police-station.



"JAMES FRASER. Colonel, Commissioner.
"City of London Police Office, 26, Old Jewry, E.C.

I don't believe it's coincidental that the address on the postcard and in the notice are identical. What's interesting is that the newspapers did not include the 'E.C.' with the exception of the Police Gazette on Oct. 5th. Therefore, the author of this postcard either got took the address from one of the flyers hanging about or from the Gazette. Given the choice I'd say a flyer is most likely.

Now, the inquest into Chapman's murder had ended just four days before, so the news of the missing rings was rather recent. With the timing of the Fraser letter now likely placed on or shortly after Oct. 2nd, we have to remember that near these posted flyers would also have been the facsimiles of the 'Dear Boss' and 'Saucy Jacky' missives. So it's not impossible that the author of the Fraser postcard mimicked the handwriting. It's interesting to note that the Oct. 6th letter and this postcard were written in black ink and not the trade mark red. If they were written at or about the same time, that would make sense.
If Debbie feels so inclined, I would very much like to see her do a side-by-side with just the Oct. 6th and Fraser letters. She might very well be onto something here! I hope the above is of some help.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Chris, I was just having fun with my last post. But just so it's clear to all reading this, there's no longer confusion as to Bulling's boss' name - it's Charles Moore.

[Howard Brown]

Thanks for this Tom...I have to print the issue out tomorrow morning and get busy reading it. Nice review on your part,pal.

Big thumbs up to Kevin as well....now we know who that bird is...er,Magpie is.:rockon:

[Debbie D]

The Fraser letter - some thoughts.

If Debbie feels so inclined, I would very much like to see her do a side-by-side with just the Oct. 6th and Fraser letters. She might very well be onto something here! I hope the above is of some help.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Chris, I was just having fun with my last post. But just so it's clear to all reading this, there's no longer confusion as to Bulling's boss' name - it's Charles Moore.

Tom,
I really appreciate your response. There are MANY interesting points that I have not thought of in regards to this. I don't have enough time this evening to reply to your entire post. I will do so in the coming days.:wave:

I would like to briefly point out a couple things on your coment about comparing it to the Oct. 6th letter. The big problem I had when doing this was the Fraser letter (and with all the letters) is so short. There are very few capital letters to work with for doing side by side comparisons. This was exactly why you didn't see very many Oct. 6th pictures in the article. I would LOVE to see the envelope that the Oct. 6th letter came in, but I can't confirm with anyone that it is still in existance. If you look at the end of the article where you see the a-z comparison, Fraser is on top, DB is in the middle and OCT 6th is on the bottom row.

This is also my fault for not being more detailed in my article... The Fraser card was written in a more fluid and well paced natural motion. Making copperplate letters (try this, I did!) is VERY painstaking and slow. This slowness is also exibited in the flow of DB, many stops and restarts with the pen, and some of the pen marks that appeared in DB. If the Fraser author had copied DB it would have been written alot slower, more ridged and would have had more stopping marks.

It is also interesting to think... if the author of the Fraser card, was copying DB, why would he pick out all the minor nuances and copperplate mistakes? Why did he not copy some of the nicer well formed copperplate letters in DB? Even if he did copy the mistake letters as opposed to the well formed letters he certainly did a GREAT job of copying not just one, two or even five, but rather dozens of mistakes or personal traits found in DB, Saucy, and Oct. 6th. Copying mistakes or personal traits and putting them in various places can be more tedious than copying well formed copperplate calligraphy letters. Anyone who has spent any time investigating check fraud can tell you it's easier to copy an ornate embellished signature than it is to copy a ledgible humble signature. The forgerers will nearly 99% of the time try to mimic the exaggerated ornate curls and twists found in embelished writings when copying. If you flip through LFH you will see this again and again with various communications where people have tried to mimic the capital D, B, and R. I didn't see anyone mimicing these mistakes or "personal traits". Again, this is my own fault and I wish I had put more of this in the article....

Thank you again, Tom. I will ad more to this in the next few days.

[Debbie D]

The Fraser letter - some thoughts.

It is also the only one of the three not to use the name 'Jack the Ripper'.

[.


If the Fraser card was his first true communication, he probably hadn't thought of the "tradename" yet and when he did, the red ink and copperplate calligraphy were added touches. As with any criminal or prankster, their methods improve and in some cases worsen over time. :shocked:

[Debbie D]

The Fraser letter - some thoughts.

The fact that this missive alone was written in such bad grammar sets it apart from the other three ('Dear Boss', 'Saucy Jacky', and Oct. 6th) and might suggest a different author with a similar hand, or who mimicked the handwriting of Dear Boss when it was circulated. It is also the only one of the three not to use the name 'Jack the Ripper'.


I didn't think Saucy Jacky exhibited good grammar or for that matter, complete sentences. Nor did I think that of the DB post script.

[Chris G.]

P.S. Chris, I was just having fun with my last post. But just so it's clear to all reading this, there's no longer confusion as to Bulling's boss' name - it's Charles Moore.

Hi Tom

Note the following on page 49 of Evans and Skinner's Jack the Ripper: Letters from Hell:

"It seems probable that Bulling's 'chief', the Moore referred to by Littlechild, was, in fact, the Manager John Moore. This despite the fact that Littlechild refers later in the paragraph to a Charles Moore, who may or may not be the same person."

Chris

[Tom_Wescott]

Chris,

My apologies, it was indeed John. Guess I'm getting rusty on my Bossology!

While I've got your attention, I noticed something in Chris Scott's Press Trawl (two things of interest, the other coming up in a response to Debbie) that pertains to something you wrote a couple of years ago.
In your piece on Diosy I believe you mentioned his belief that a certain ritual had been performed by the Ripper in Mitre Square when he killed Eddowes. This ritual involved the burning of matches. In his excerpt from the Syracuse Daily Standard of Oct. 2nd, 1888 was the following:

'The scenes of both murders were swarming with curious crowds, preference being given to the place where the most savage murder occurred, and up to tonight morbid citizens were busy lighting wax matches in the dark corner of Mitre Square trying to discover blood stains.'

I don't know about you but I think that explains Diosy's match evidence!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I didn't think Saucy Jacky exhibited good grammar or for that matter, complete sentences. Nor did I think that of the DB post script.

I would say the grammar was good for the purposes intended. It was written in telegraph language.

If the Fraser card was his first true communication, he probably hadn't thought of the "tradename" yet and when he did, the red ink and copperplate calligraphy were added touches.

Perhaps you haven't had a chance yet to read my full post but as the author copied verbatim the address from flyers not publicly posted until Oct. 1st/2nd, there's little doubt but that the Fraser letter followed the two missives in red ink and was written around the same time the threat letter was, or possibly even later. Consider the following from the New York Times as reproduced in this issue's Press Trawl:

"On every wall there was a huge printed poster headed with “Murder! Five Hundred Pounds Reward!”

This refers to the same flyer I produced in my earlier post and shows how prominently it was displayed about the area. Of course, it would still have been displayed for some weeks and the Fraser letter may have been written following the 'From Hell' letter, which might explain the lack of a 'trade name' and the intentional misspellings. I imagine if we can find the press report where Fraser calls the Ripper a 'maniac' we'll know at least the week in which the letter was written.

I would LOVE to see the envelope that the Oct. 6th letter came in, but I can't confirm with anyone that it is still in existance.

It's not, which is why we (frustratingly) don't know who it was sent to. But I believe the recipient was Matthew Packer as I discussed in Ripper Notes #25.

If the Fraser author had copied DB it would have been written alot slower, more ridged and would have had more stopping marks.

That's a good point.

It is also interesting to think... if the author of the Fraser card, was copying DB, why would he pick out all the minor nuances and copperplate mistakes?

Also a good point. I wonder if it's not just a matter of people having been taught similar handwriting styles. The styles are similar, but the execution is completely different.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Joe Chetcuti]

Congratulations to Debbie, Magpie, and Tim for their publishing debut in the current Rip. I'm sure it is an exciting time for all three of you. Issue #78 is something the editorial team could be proud of. We hope there is more to come in the future from these three writers. It even sounds like that new kid Aliffe may have a bright future in this writing business as well.:happy: It was great to have 4 super writers producing four good articles all in one issue.

It's interesting to hear that Mary Kelly might not have been the spring chicken we all thought she was.

[Tom_Wescott]

It's interesting to hear that Mary Kelly might not have been the spring chicken we all thought she was.

Indeed. One of the points I intend to address in my book is that Mary Kelly has always been singled out as an anomaly because her age, when in fact it's Eddowes and Chapman who stand out. Polly, Liz, and Kelly all looked about 30. Surely how they would have appeared to the Ripper is more significant than how old they actually were? The two victims who appeared oldest (Chapman and Eddowes) were the two victims procured when it's reasonable to expect the Ripper was in a rush to find a victim.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Robert Linford]

Tom, with the best will in the world I can't see how Polly could look 30.

Robert

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom, with the best will in the world I can't see how Polly could look 30.

Robert

You're just going off an old picture of her corpse. Those who saw her though thought she was younger than her age.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris G.]

You're just going off an old picture of her corpse. Those who saw her though thought she was younger than her age.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom

It was the middle guy in your avatar who thought Polly looked younger than her age. :D

Chris

[Tom_Wescott]

You peeps are silly. Polly's father said she looked 10 years younger than she was and about every reporter who saw her guessed her age around 30. Same with Stride. And keep in mind we're talking East End 1888 30, not Maybelline 30. John McCarthy said he thought Mary looked 30, so what I'm saying is that maybe WE are imposing a gap (generation, age, beauty) on Kelly that the Ripper himself did not perceive.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Magpie]

I'd have to agree with Tom. The idea of the prostitutes being clapped out old hags is something that surfaced in the 20's and 30's and sort of became an accepted "fact" until the "third wave" of Ripperologists (Begg, Skinner, Howells and Fido) called it into question and pointed out that the newspapers of the time described the victims as being clean, presentable and younger than they looked.

It's possible, as Tom says, that the gap is perhaps something that has grown up around the case, rather than something that existed at the time.

[Joe Chetcuti]

I just read Michael Connor's article. I hope he has good luck finding more information on Charles Cross. I'd say Ripperologist went 5 for 5 with with good articles in this issue.

I'm just guessing, but it seems to me by looking at the current photos of what was previously called Buck's Row, that street looks like it got polished up a bit. It looked somewhat run down in the photos that were taken in the 1960's. I wonder if the increased interest in the Whitechapel murders maybe had something to do with it getting cleaned up. Of course I'm just going on photos. I've never been there.

[Tom_Wescott]

I think it was the new ownership of the board school and all the remodeling that was done (wasn't it turned into flats?) that cleaned it up. If you look at the documentaries done in the 80's you'll see that Essex Wharf was still standing in all its worn glory, but it's gone now as well. I wonder if the street still has its dangerous reputation?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

Joe, Tom,

Yes, the Board School has been converted into flats.

Ive never really felt fearful in that area myself though at night it does have a sinister feel to it. Maybe cos of the street lighting and the narrowness of the street at the Brady St end.

I can certainly see why Cross and Paul were wary. Its where I feel the most uncomfortable.

Monty
:)

PS wait, scrap that, Swallow Gardens is where I feel most uncomfortable.....then Durward St.

[Sam Flynn]

If Debbie feels so inclined, I would very much like to see her do a side-by-side with just the Oct. 6th and Fraser letters. She might very well be onto something here!

Indeed, Tom. I really liked the article (kudos Debbie :)) and if it helps with the comparison, Debbie might like to use my "Jack's alphabet" taken from DB, SJ and October 6th missives, which I attach below:

2332

I'd never made the connection with the "Fraser" letter before, and find the comparison interesting.

[Glenn L Andersson]

Monty, Tom,

According to Philip Hutchinson, Durward Street is still a very unsafe street, although I believe his worst and most violent experiences as a tour guide has been in the Gunthorpe Street--Wenthworth Street area.

Yes, the Board School appears now to contain expensive luxury flats, which apparently (strangely enough) doesn't seem to have improved the reputation or nature of Durward Street.


Sam,

Excellent alphabet there. Very helpful and illustrating.
I have to admit, that the main, important elements of the small letters and capitals show great similarities on many points.

[Debbie D]

By popular demand...

first row of a-l Fraser,
second row, Oct. 6th
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Fraser_Oct6th.jpg


first row of m-y Fraser,
second row, Oct. 6th
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Fraser_oct6th_my.jpg


There are o, s, and t, in Fraser, but these were quick pics I put together. There was no x in Fraser to put on this. The small k in Fraser has bothered me since the start. I'm suspicious to think that he was going to write a different word there that started with a large P and then changed it to a small k for knife.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Debbie,

They seem pretty similar to me! Looks like there's a reasonable probability that all four items - Dear Boss, Saucy Jacky, Fraser and 6th Oct - were penned by the same hand.

[Debbie D]

Hi Debbie,

They seem pretty similar to me! Looks like there's a reasonable probability that all four items - Dear Boss, Saucy Jacky, Fraser and 6th Oct - were penned by the same hand.



Thank you Sam. I couldn't make my letter comparisons look as nice as yours :judge:

To keep it simple, the only major difference with all four are the tpyes of ink, the type of pen nibs, the copperplate calligraphy letters in DB & SJ, and the attempt at cc letters in Oct. 6th. There was something wrong with the writer when Oct. 6th was written. Tense muscles, a shaky hand... but I really believe he was angry when he wrote that one.

[Tom_Wescott]

Sam,

Thank you for reproducing your template here. I've never forgotten how stuck I was by it when you first posted it to the Casebook. I still have every intention of ripping it off in my own work! :)

Debbie,

Thank you also for posting those letters from the Fraser. Any chance you or Sam could run those in a row under Sam's from the other three letters so we can compare them as a group? Also, I wonder if you can tell by looking at the facsimiles of Oct. 6th and Fraser if they were possibly by the same instrument? You mentioned the letters were in 'different in' but I didn't know whether you meant all four or just the two black, two red.

I think the author of the Oct. 6th may have been Charles Le Grand, who had much reason to be angry when the police gave no credence to Packer's statement. No doubt he felt a letter from the Ripper confirming Packer as a true witness would help the cause. Just speculation, but pretty sound given the facts.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Quick Postscript:

Debbie and Sam...if you do decide to do as Tom suggests and have trouble in the upload,please let me know...

How

[Howard Brown]

That most people...even children as Dan Norder once pointed out... who were in the working class/prole reality of the LVP were probably superannuated because of the conditions is no doubt true for the most part.

Yet, there is a statement made within the Freeman's Journal of October 2nd ( The FJ was an Irish newspaper...) regarding a conversation that Albert Bachert and a mysterious gentleman standing at the Three Tuns Hotel were having that included this:

"He (the mystery gent ) then asked me if I knew how old some of the women were who were in the habit of soliciting outside..."

" I replied that I knew, or thought, that some of them who looked about 25,were over 35, the reason they looked younger being on account of the powder and paint..."

[Sam Flynn]

Debbie, Tom, Howard -

I'll tackle Tom's request tomorrow :)

[Debbie D]

Sam,

Thank you for reproducing your template here. I've never forgotten how stuck I was by it when you first posted it to the Casebook. I still have every intention of ripping it off in my own work! :)

Debbie,

Thank you also for posting those letters from the Fraser. Any chance you or Sam could run those in a row under Sam's from the other three letters so we can compare them as a group? Also, I wonder if you can tell by looking at the facsimiles of Oct. 6th and Fraser if they were possibly by the same instrument? You mentioned the letters were in 'different in' but I didn't know whether you meant all four or just the two black, two red.

I think the author of the Oct. 6th may have been Charles Le Grand, who had much reason to be angry when the police gave no credence to Packer's statement. No doubt he felt a letter from the Ripper confirming Packer as a true witness would help the cause. Just speculation, but pretty sound given the facts.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom,

If Sam is so inclined he is more than welcome to add these letters to his lineup, I can also provide more cut outs to help fill in some of the blanks.:tea:

Sam,
I don't know how you edited out the background of the letters, that looks really neat with your lineup.:biggrin1:

[Debbie D]

Also, I wonder if you can tell by looking at the facsimiles of Oct. 6th and Fraser if they were possibly by the same instrument? You mentioned the letters were in 'different in' but I didn't know whether you meant all four or just the two black, two red.

Tom,

I would want to look at the originals and even then it would be hard to tell. by looking at the copies, I would say that Oct. 6th looks like it was written with a finer nib than Fraser. Considering that Fraser was written more quickly and fluidly, that could havce cause some of the lines to look thicker if it was the same pen.

Just for fun, here is a pic with the colors inverted...

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Fraser_Oct6th_invert.jpg

[Sam Flynn]

Debbie, I agree about the finer nib - although it's possible that the absorbency of the paper played a part, not to mention the surface on which the paper was resting at the time. I've speculated previously that perhaps "Saucy Jacky" was written in a confined space - e.g. a pub booth or a carriage on the move - hence the more "blocky" writing seen on the postcard.

However, my side of the bargain:

2341

Same hand? I think so.

(Edit 18:25 Sun May 6th. Added letters "j", "s" and "t")

[Debbie D]

Sam,

I would include the capital J from James on the front of the post card. It doens't have the cross on top, but does fit with the other three. The capital I is also one that all four had that would look good in there.

Good work!

[Sam Flynn]

I would include the capital J from James on the front of the post card. It doens't have the cross on top, but does fit with the other three. The capital I is also one that all four had that would look good in there.
Hi Debs,

Have edited my original post to include some additional letters, namely "j", as you suggest and also a lower-case "s" and "t". I haven't added the capital "I", but I take your point that it would be similar to the "I's" in the other four missives.

[Debbie D]

2342

Sam,
You would need one I from Oct. 6th for your lineup. I worked on the article late at night and for some reason I can't remember why I left that one out.:offinhead:

[Joe Chetcuti]

I'm glad to see your article is being well received by the readers, Debbie. You've worked hard on it, and you deserve a good round of applause.

I have some extra tidbits on Andy's fine article. Earlier this year a theater show about Emperor Norton ran in downtown San Francisco. It played in a theater house which was a short distance from Norton's old home.

There are two bridges that lead out of San Francisco. The Golden Gate Bridge runs to the north and the Bay Bridge runs to the east. Emperor Norton issued a command to build the Bay Bridge to connect San Franciscans with Oakland. The Emperor died, and the Bay Bridge was built five decades later. Just a few years ago, there was a push to re-name the Bay Bridge "The Emperor Norton Bridge." It received plenty of support because the Emperor was billed as an advocate of human rights.

[Sam Flynn]

You would need one I from Oct. 6th for your lineup. I worked on the article late at night and for some reason I can't remember why I left that one out.:offinhead:
Easily remedied, Debs. Revised image now attached - with four eyes (sorry, "I's") already!

2346

[Debbie D]

Easily remedied, Debs. Revised image now attached - with four eyes (sorry, "I's") already!

And the I's have it! What a nice picture it has made... Good work, Sam.:yo:

[Debbie D]

I'm glad to see your article is being well received by the readers, Debbie. You've worked hard on it, and you deserve a good round of applause. On a different note, we've got to privately talk sometime about the Westminster Kennel Dog Show! I think we both have a love for that telecast.

I'm truly humbled that most everyone has enjoyed my saucy article. It is a shame that the German Shepherd Dog has only won Westminster once. A couple years back Dallas, a georgous GSD almost made it but fell short to I believe the Kerry Blue Terrier. I do have a Dallas grandson that will be coming to live with me in a few weeks. I can't wait to start training him for the shows.:laugh:

Someday I hope I will be able to look at some of the other letters that weren't in LFH. I'm very optimistic that there are more similar to the Fraser card. :tea:
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Kiffin.jpg

[Tom_Wescott]

Debbie, Sam, et al,

Thanks for the side-by-side including the Fraser letter. Looking at that, I have to agree with Sam that they appear to be from the same hand, which only adds to my confusion.
I'm confused because Debbie had previously said that the writing of the Fraser letter was free-flowing and natural,which would mean that this is how the writer actually writes and spells. Of course, the spelling is horrid in this letter, whereas it's not in the other missives. It's one thing for an educated person to attempt to appear uneducated in his writing, but entirely another for an uneducated person to feign knowledge (such as proper spelling) that he doesn't possess.
What's the scoop here?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris G.]

Chris,

My apologies, it was indeed John. Guess I'm getting rusty on my Bossology!

While I've got your attention, I noticed something in Chris Scott's Press Trawl (two things of interest, the other coming up in a response to Debbie) that pertains to something you wrote a couple of years ago.
In your piece on Diosy I believe you mentioned his belief that a certain ritual had been performed by the Ripper in Mitre Square when he killed Eddowes. This ritual involved the burning of matches. In his excerpt from the Syracuse Daily Standard of Oct. 2nd, 1888 was the following:

'The scenes of both murders were swarming with curious crowds, preference being given to the place where the most savage murder occurred, and up to tonight morbid citizens were busy lighting wax matches in the dark corner of Mitre Square trying to discover blood stains.'

I don't know about you but I think that explains Diosy's match evidence!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott


Hi Tom

Thanks for the tidbit about the lighting of wax matches in Mitre Square. That might be an explanation for the Diosy's theory of the matches, certainly. Incidentally my grandmother who lived on the Isle of Man used to light her gas stove with long wax tapers and I assume those may be the wax candles to which they are referring. However wax matches might be something else again. See--

http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&um=1&hl=en&q=%22wax+matches%22

Chris

[Howard Brown]

This is the cover of this month's Ripperologist Magazine ( #78 ).

Thanks to Adam....and of course to Manchester United for the title....boy,this has been my month.:flame:

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Rip2078.jpg

[Monty]

Chris,

Swan Vestas.

The word vesta was used solely for matches with wax stems. A saftey match (made with cotton also) of sorts that supposedly prevented matches self lighting and protected them from the wet I believe.

The original Swan Vesta boxes were purely for wax matches but the term stuck with all matchboxes. Like the term Hoover I suppose. Well maybe not, but you get what I mean. Anyway, the original Vesta boxes held wax matches only.

So, to repeat (apologies for doing so) the term Vesta referred to Wax matches but attached itself to a brand thanks to Bryant & May and stuck with all sorts of matches.

The things you learn when researching lamps eh ?!

Monty
:)

[Tom_Wescott]

Debbie,

I don't know what you and Chris G think of the idea, but with all the good info that's come out of this thread, I think you almost have enough for a follow up article! First though I'd like a little more time to see if I can't find an article where Fraser calls the Ripper a 'maniac' as suggested in the text of the letter, although my instinct tells me the author meant the police in general and not perhaps Fraser in particular.

Magpie's Essay On Chapman & the Farthings

I was gonna post my thoughts on this essay but decided FIRST that I'd like to ask the author a question - do you believe any farthings or coins were found on/near Chapman and if so why? If anyone hasn't yet read the essay you really should.

Let me also say that Andy Aliffe and Joe Chetcuti did a great job with their researching and writing on this latest Tumblety adventure, although I freely admit that when it comes to Tumbletiana I'm a total ignoramus. Kudos to Chris and co. on an excellent issue. Why the hell isn't there a thread for it on Casebook. I ALMOST opened one but it occurred to me you guys might have a reason for not starting one. What's the story?

Yours truly

Tom Wescott

[Debbie D]

Debbie,

I don't know twhat you and Chris G think of the idea, but with all the good info that's come out of this thread, Ihink you almost have enough for a follow up article! First though I'd like a little more time to see if I can't find an article where Fraser calls the Ripper a 'maniac' as suggested in the text of the letter, although my instinct tells me the author meant the police in general and not perhaps Fraser in particular.
Yours truly

Tom Wescott

Tom,

I have one more, possibly 2 follow up articles that were planned before this one was published.

I have alot on my plate for the next few months and I have to gather some much needed information first. Unfortunately I can't offer an ETA on the next one :sad: as it requires more cutting and clipping of letters which is VERY tedious! I really apprecaite your intrest in this. I had no idea it would generate this much attention.:rolleyes: .

[Magpie]

Magpie's Essay On Chapman & the Farthings

I was gonna post my thoughts on this essay but decided FIRST that I'd like to ask the author a question - do you believe any farthings or coins were found on/near Chapman and if so why? If anyone hasn't yet read the essay you really should.



Talk about on the spot! :)

Going into the article, I believed that it was entirely possible that the farthings (and only the farthings) were found under Chapman's body when it was moved. Not carefully placed or anything, just coins that had hit the ground and been covered by Chapman's body and found when it was moved. There are several sources that mention it, and certainly many policemen alluded to them at various times.

However after writing the article, I'm not so sure, because I think it is entirely possible that the farthings in Hanbury street arose from a commingling of Chapman's murder and Watson's story, and that the press might have inserted the farthings into Chapman's story on the assumption that Watson was describing an abortive Ripper attack (and she may have been--I think Watson's account is fascinating and don't understand why it doesn't provoke more discussion than it does).

I still believe that the farthings have been prematurely dismissed as a canard, and that they still might prove to be a fruitful area of research:)

[Magpie]

I should point out that the article arose because I, like many others, had accepted earlier authors assertion that the fraud of passing farthings off as half-sovereigns was ridiculous (including the reasons I quoted), but stepping outside of the world of Ripperology and into the world of coin-collecting, it took me all of ten minutes to discover that to those knowledgeable about coins, such a practice was accepted without question*. In the rush to dismiss Smith's story, it looks like none of the early researchers actually checked to see if he might be right, and then later researchers accepted the verdict of the earlier ones (and the parachutists like Cornwell used their "common sense" :tsk: ).

I thought it was an interesting anomoly--It was Chris who spotted the potential for an article and encouraged me to take a closer look.





*in fact such common knowledge that finding an authoritative source turned out to be a complete bugger, because every numismatic book I consulted assumed that everyone knew it was common practice and so didn't provide any supporting citations.

[Tom_Wescott]

Magpie,

Thanks for the response. Of course, you were right to challenge authors' assertions that passing off polished farthings was ridiculous - and your work towards that end was compelling and convincing - but then that was only a minor point in debunking the Chapman farthing myth. Anyone wishing to suggest that farthings were found at the scene has to contend with the fact that this escaped the attention of all the doctors and investigators present as it's never mentioned in the files. The press talked about it only because of Emily Walton/Walters and it seems some got confused and thought such farthings had been passed off onto Chapman. No doubt this is what Reid referred to much later, and not to their actually having been farthings found on or under Chapman. In any event, Reid had a remarkably bad memory when it comes to the Ripper case so we can't really use what he says to support the argument.

Where I get confused is exactly what items were found at Chapman's feet. Some of the more reliable information suggests only two items - a single comb and a piece of muslin. But this doesn't jibe with Dr. Phillips' assertion that they were 'organized' since any two items will always land in a straight line. This leads me to believe there was at least a third item (probably the 2nd comb occassionally mentioned). But no coins.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Chris Phillips]

I should point out that the article arose because I, like many others, had accepted earlier authors assertion that the fraud of passing farthings off as half-sovereigns was ridiculous (including the reasons I quoted), but stepping outside of the world of Ripperology and into the world of coin-collecting, it took me all of ten minutes to discover that to those knowledgeable about coins, such a practice was accepted without question*.
I haven't read the article, I'm afraid, but what I always thought was ridiculous was not so much the idea that a polished farthing might be passed off as a half-sovereign, but that a half-sovereign might be considered an appropriate payment to a Whitechapel prostitute.

Was I missing something?

Chris Phillips

[Magpie]

Tom:

I think it's most likely that since there was a story of the farthing scam in Hanbury st yard, and a murder in a Hanbury st yard at around the same time, it's only natural that the press would assume the two incidents were connected, if not one and the same.

It's possible that if the coins were there but not noted by investigators, it was because they were focussed more on the "arranged" items, which probably seemed far more promising as clues at the time. I agree that in the big picture, the farthings don't mean that much:)

[Magpie]

I haven't read the article, I'm afraid, but what I always thought was ridiculous was not so much the idea that a polished farthing might be passed off as a half-sovereign, but that a half-sovereign might be considered an appropriate payment to a Whitechapel prostitute.

Was I missing something?

Chris Phillips

Hi Chris.

That's a fair comment, however I found several cases of this mentioned in police memoirs and newspaper accounts, with none of them expressing any surprise. I can think of a few possible scenarios where it would be possible:

1)Slummers were known to have paid handsomely and impulsively for their evening's entertainment (um, I meant of course that their sense of christian charity moved them to lessen the suffering of poor souls by making altruistic contributions to the less fortunate). No less than Prince Bertie himself had to be advised by his guides that pulling handfuls of guineas out of his pockets while visiting the rookeries was not only unwise, but dangerously idiotic.

2) I think it's possible that the prostitutes may have been the ones passing the farthings, or obtaining them from a supplier with a view to passing them. The assumption that the prostitutes were receiving them for their venereal service is reasonable, but not the only available explanation (especially in light of the modern view about the actual extent of their prostituting).

[Tom_Wescott]

It's possible that if the coins were there but not noted by investigators, it was because they were focussed more on the "arranged" items, which probably seemed far more promising as clues at the time. I agree that in the big picture, the farthings don't mean that much:)

I disagree, because if the coins were there, it would mean a lot in our understanding of the Ripper, his approach, and his motives. But I can't see the police detailing a piece of muslin found, or combs, but not these conspicuous coins, particularly since they remarked before and after her murder that the women had no money on them. But of course it couldn't be determined for sure whether or not that was because the women simply didn't have any money or because he took it. Although in a couple of cases there is reason to believe the Ripper relieved the women of their dough.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Magpie]

I personally think that any victim who had money probably didn't have any after meeting the Ripper, but then we've discussed the possibly before that the Ripper used the ruse of robbery to reassure his victims.

[Tom_Wescott]

That's why I think it would in fact be important if there were coins found on her. But even if he didn't use robbery as an upfront ruse, it's also been suggested he robbed them after death. He certain cut into Chapman's pockets. As I mention in my article, he seems also to have stolen her medicine and lotion (both of which probably appeared like medicine at a quick glance), or is it possible these were amongst the items found at her feet? Personally, I don't think so, but Dr. Phillips' statements do indicate at least 3 items were found organized.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Magpie]

Personally, I don't think so, but Dr. Phillips' statements do indicate at least 3 items were found organized.


Didn't they initially include the torn piece of envelope as part of the "arrangement?

I thought it was comb, muslim, envelope.

just a thought: perhaps the "arrangement" was just a result of Jack cutting open Chapman's pockets, rifling for coins and tossing the other crud to one side where it hit the fence and dropped into a rough line, later interpreted as a deliberate placement.

[Magpie]

Okay, here it is:

Chandlers testimony:

"After the body had been taken away I examined the yard, and found a piece of coarse muslin, a small tooth comb, and a pocket hair comb in a case. They were lying near the feet of the woman. A portion of an envelope was found near her head, which contained two pills. "


Philips testimony:
"I searched the yard and found a small piece of coarse muslin, a small-tooth comb, and a pocket-comb, in a paper case, near the railing. They had apparently been arranged there. I also discovered various other articles, which I handed to the police."

I've always found it interesting that both Chandler and Phillips both claimed to be the one who searched the yard and found the items--and Phillips with the body there and Chandler after the body was gone, no less!

[Howard Brown]

Excuse me, Magpie and Tom...

Just as an add on here...I remember Dan Norder once mentioning ( or was it you, Tom ?) something about what would happen if the items ( maybe it was just the theoretical farthings.,,.me and my memory:lever: ) were randomly dropped at Chapman's feet....and that what might look arranged was not in reality,but the result of the items being dropped and landing in the manner that they appeared by chance.

Naturally,I was not there in the backyard of 29 and Doc Phillips was...as well as Chandler for that matter....but that Chandler didn't mention this "arrangement" might be reason to believe that the arrangement...or what Tom comments on as being "organized" might solely be in the eyes of just one beholder,in this case Doc Phillips.

Thanks............

edited to make me look smart..

[Chris G.]

Didn't they initially include the torn piece of envelope as part of the "arrangement?

I thought it was comb, muslim, envelope.

just a thought: perhaps the "arrangement" was just a result of Jack cutting open Chapman's pockets, rifling for coins and tossing the other crud to one side where it hit the fence and dropped into a rough line, later interpreted as a deliberate placement.

Yes of course the "arrangement" could have been merely because the killer searched through her pockets and left what he found just lying there. Not an arrangement at all but simply stuff discarded seeing that his main interest was obviously mutilation and removal of organs. Nonetheless it is interesting that the killer seemingly had an interest in going through the belongings of these impoverished women. This does make some kind of statement about the kind of man he must have been. Something tells me that the "highest in the land" would not bother with the rather pathetic and trivial items these women carried. :rolleyes:

Chris