Annie Farmer November 1888

[How Brown]

Some papers state her name as Adele Anne Farmer. Thread for discussing the incident in late November 1888 on the heels of the Millers Court massacre.

This paper had an interesting comment....that the police had clues in relation to a murderer.

The Bristol Mercury and Daily Post
Thursday, November 22, 1888

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Photo%20Thanksgiving/clue1-1.jpg
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/Photo%20Thanksgiving/clue2.jpg

[The Red Dahlia]

How,
Were any arrests ever made over this incident? i guess not?
The police must have been very frustrated to find a woman escaped with her life & witnesses too, but none of them could be absolutely certain about the description of the offender, except for that omission "the black bag is wanting"
It could have been a copycat attempt and doesn't sound much like JTR's mo
but there again coming after "Millers court " which varied in its method of killing because for the first time JTR wasn't on the street he was inside mary Kelly's home, & although it wasn't as late as 9am it was still later than his previous attacks
Maybe he was becoming more unpredictable & audacious & thought if he had gotten away with that then what was the next step up! Actually going into a common lodging house where he knew there would be a greater risk of being caught.
Other serial killers in more recent times have done this eg Ted Bundy when he killed those students in a serority house! of course though that was his downfall. But he went from peeping tom to lone murderer to that final audacious massacre.
It was amazing though that none of the witnesses descriptions tallied!!?
Perhaps it was because of all the panic at the time.
Dahlia

[How Brown]

Red:

Witness testimony, and I think Magpie will echo this as well, is less reliable than we already consider it as being in many cases. This might be a very good example of such confusion.

I shake my head when I read that line of how no one tried to stop the man until he was down the road a bit.

No, no one was ever arrested in the November incident.

[Paul]

How,
This may be a reference to Joseph Isaacs who took lodgings at 6 Little Paternoster Row, off Dorset Street, where his strange behaviour attracted the attention of the deputy Mary Cusins. His description apparently fitted the man seen by George Hutchinson. He was in due course arrested for theft and was taken to Leman Street in a ‘strongly escorted’ cab by Inspector Abberline (Morning Advertiser, 7 December 1888) who was allegedly overheard to say to a subordinate, ‘Keep this quiet – we have got the right man at last. This is a big thing!’ It was later reported that Isaacs was wanted in connection with the attempted murder of a woman in George Street, Spitalfields (Annie Farmer) (Evening News, 7 December 1888) but he was shown to have had nothing to do with it as he was in prison at the time. Eventually, he was charged and pleaded guilty to the theft of the watch, receiving a sentence of three months.

Also see The Fox and the Flies where an attempt is made to link Isaacs with Joseph Lis.
Paul

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Perhaps this has been discussed before, I do not know. I have wondered about this a long while, and would like a "clean-up" expert and/or a.n.other to comment on this sketch. It seems to me the name F A R M E R in this sketch is not quite as it seems, either with other letters or more than the 6 letters of Farmer. Apologies if this has come up before somewhere.

I could well be wrong of course, and readily accept it to be so.. but this is a slight niggle.

Best wishes

Phil

[Chris G.]

Hi Phil

Isn't it more that the surname is complicated by the folds in Farmer's dress or that the artist has spaced the letters of the surname apart to allow for the detail of the dress. I think you are reading too much into this. Take another pill, mate.

Chris

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil

Isn't it more that the surname is complicated by the folds in Farmer's dress or that the artist has spaced the letters of the surname apart to allow for the detail of the dress. I think you are reading to much into this. Take another pill, mate.

Chris

Hello Chris,

Like I said, I am not actually convinced of anything.. its a niggle as I can't distinguish the "F" for example, amongst other things.. thats all.

best wishes

Phil

[Rob Clack]

This is a better copy Phil.

9503

Rob

[Phil Carter]

Hello Rob,

Ahhhh...Thank you. Where does this clean copy come from, if I may ask? (As I have only ever seen the unclean version.. which (I thought) is the original isn't it?)

best wishes

Phil

[Rob Clack]

Hi Phil,

I got a photocopy from the copy held on microfilm at the Newspaper Library at Colindale.
I don't know the source of the one you posted but it's the same as the one I posted just not as clear,

Rob

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,

I got a photocopy from the copy held on microfilm at the Newspaper Library at Colindale.
I don't know the source of the one you posted but it's the same as the one I posted just not as clear,

Rob

Hello Rob,

Thanks for the reply. I have just looked at the Casebook version, and that is the same as the one I posted, which happens to be the one that Adam Wood posted on a thread today in conjunction with Rip 121.

When one puts them side by side.. there is quite a difference in fact.
Who supplied the Casebook/Adam Wood thread version?

http://www.casebook.org/victims/afarmer.html

What is the date of the newspaper (and which newspaper) you got the clean version from, if I may ask?

Most appreciated.

best wishes

Phil

[Rob Clack]

Hi Phil,

It's from 'The Illustrated Police News', Saturday 1 December 1888.
The one you posted is quite a bit darker which makes the image look a bit different, but they are both exactly the same drawing.

Rob

[Phil Carter]

Hello Rob,

I appreciate the help. Thank you.
However I have put both together here... and it is pretty obvious there are additional lines, markings and fill-ins (the hair and the clear dark lines after where the "R" should be on the Casebook version amongst other things).

Looks to me like a photo-shop touch up... sorry. No offence meant.. just that the more I look at some of the images connected to this case that pop up all over the internet, the amount of "touching-up/ played around" with via photo-shop and the like is pretty clear.

They may well be ORIGINALLY the same image Rob, but no way were the additional dark lines and markings seen on the Casebook version on the clean version you have kindly presented here.

It's quite simple. If the IPN version you presented is the original, clean and clear, then the Casebook version is not. It has been altered, imho.

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/2011%20Forums/Summer%202011%20Forums/twofarmers.jpg

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello How,

Many thanks.

best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

Some people have far too much time on their hands.

Monty
:)

[Colin Roberts]

The darker image is probably an enlarged scan, of a scan, of a scan, of a darkened photocopy, of a scan, of a photocopy that had been reduced from its original size.

The two images are - without question - of the same origin.

[Phil Carter]

Some people have far too much time on their hands.

Monty
:)

Hello Neil,

And some people can see the difference between the original newspaper image, as kindly supplied by Rob Clack, and the one that has been displayed on Casebook for years, which is a mess in comparison.

What is your problem with that Neil?

Hello Colin,

I have ALREADY said they were ORIGINALLY the same image. I said that the one on Casebook has ADDITIONAL fill ins and lines... it has been touched up imho.

Now I judge no-one- I am just saying that the ORIGINAL is a clean, clear version. The one on Casebook is not. If it was a scan of a scan of a scan of a scan.. then there is one very simple solution.

Whoever is in charge of the image on Casebook, can now download a nice clear version from this site. IN it's original condition. Lovely jubbly.

Not so hard is it? After all, we are supposed to present non-distortion, both written and visual. The presently used version misleads.

best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

And how does it mislead Phil?

My issue is the veilled insinuation, yet again, of shenanigans based on assumption.

Its purely questioning for questionings sake and brings nothing to the field.

Monty
:)

[Phil Carter]

And how does it mislead Phil?

My issue is the veilled insinuation, yet again, of shenanigans based on assumption.

Its purely questioning for questionings sake and brings nothing to the field.

Monty
:)

Hello Neil,

Here we go again.

1) Yes it does bring something to the field. A clean, clear, ORIGINAL image. It's quite simple Neil. What's the problem with replacing it for everybody's sake.. you know, the thousands of people who visit web-sites looking for answers to their interest?

2) Ahhhh.... The golden rule of Ripperology.. "Accept everything that is presented as true, original and untouchable"... well I don't adhere to all that old garbage.. and YOU Neil, are one of the people who harp on constantly that everything should be based on the stuff we have. Well, the difference in the two images WE HAVE is clear to all with a pair of eyes.

ORIGINAL, clean, clear sketches, photos are the ONLY ones that should be presented. Period. IT IMPROVES the quality of the field we are all interested in. That is good for Ripperology's reputation.

A touched up version that is cleaner Neil.. is something else.. it isn't the original in it's clarity.. but when the original NEWSPAPER image is already clean and clear, then there is absolutely no reason to present a devaluing, messy version in its place.

Try and base that load of comments on assumption Neil.

This is YOUR genre too. It's all of us, our responsibility NOT to present something of lower quality if the ORIGINAL is better.

I blamed no-one, I only said that imho it has been photo-shop touched up. I didn't mention a name (and personally don't give a fig for who may or may not have done anything).. I just saw room for improvement and clarity.

Terrible to say something like that isn't it.. oh shame on me...... because everything in Ripperology is SO cheerfully clean as a whistle, always has been....

So if there has been any shenanigens, if you want to veil that accusation.. (I didnt)..then it is OUR part to try to change it.

If some of the icons in Ripperology allow it to be done, of course.. because there are some who seemingly know better (and especially those who have a laugh at other peoples expense) than we mere plebs here on the ground that question things, LEGITIMATELY.

best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

Ok Phil,

Sit down and have a cup of cammomile, it calms.

As Rob has provided a clean image it indicates there is one out there. Why did you not locate one yourself?

Do not preach to me about our genre and our responsibility. The time, money and effort I have spent (along with others) to obtain the information you demand far outweighs my resposibility.

This concerns an image on Casebook, yet you bought the issue up here on Forums. This is, in my opinion, a flounting of Forum rules where criticism of Casebook is not permitted (a rule I think exists on Casebook also). It begs the question of why you have raised it here and not there?

The questioning of the clarity of this image is progression? Does it bring anything to the case? I tell you what, let others decide. Let's start a poll.

No, not everything in Ripperology is squeaky clean, nor is everything dark and corrupted. This questioning is not legitimate at all, its shit stirring. And for what?

And there are no Golden rules. Just common sense, which is lacking in this situation.

Monty
:)

[Phil Carter]

Ok Phil,

Sit down and have a cup of cammomile, it calms.

As Rob has provided a clean image it indicates there is one out there. Why did you not locate one yourself?

Do not preach to me about our genre and our responsibility. The time, money and effort I have spent (along with others) to obtain the information you demand far outweighs my resposibility.

This concerns an image on Casebook, yet you bought the issue up here on Forums. This is, in my opinion, a flounting of Forum rules where criticism of Casebook is not permitted (a rule I think exists on Casebook also). It begs the question of why you have raised it here and not there?

The questioning of the clarity of this image is progression? Does it bring anything to the case? I tell you what, let others decide. Let's start a poll.

No, not everything in Ripperology is squeaky clean, nor is everything dark and corrupted. This questioning is not legitimate at all, its shit stirring. And for what?

And there are no Golden rules. Just common sense, which is lacking in this situation.

Monty
:)

Hello Neil,


I am perfectly calm Neil, and although the tea suggestion may have been well intended, I decline. My orange juice is chilled and tastes perfectly fine thank you.
I don't, and haven't shit-stirred at all. If I had said that X did something, or Y did something.. yes.. but read my lips Neil..

I don't give a fig for who may or may not have done anything in the past. I am not out to crucify anyone. That is an assumption you come up with...again..and again you are told you are wrong.. but then again you are obviously a mind reader and know better than I my own meanings behind my own words.

I do not DEMAND anything of you. Another assumption. Poor choice of words too. I suggested.

I did not locate one because I asked about something TOTALLY different. Rob Clack kindly came in and offered one WITHOUT my asking. It was kind of Rob to do so. I humbly and respectfully suggest you try reading the thread again.

I came up with it here because Rob Clack didn't know where the image came from, and the VERY same image was presented by Adam Wood on HERE on a thread this afternoon to do with the new Rip 121 edition. It happens to be the same one as Casebook's image. I only suggested it be changed, as I have NO IDEA who is in charge of such things on Casebook, and as Rob presented the image perhaps he would be able to get it done or suggest it.

As far as flouting rules are concerned, I would suggest that the Admin here are capable of determining that quite easily without your intervention and accusations, thank you. If Admin wish to interpret it as such, then I will reply to Admin as and when. If it IS against rules, then I will apologise to Admin, as it was clearly NOT intended. And as How came in early and put the two images together for me, AFTER that questioning occurred, and did nothing, then I would be surprised if I now received a warning for breach of rules.

Your clear flippancy on the subject suggesting a poll is exactly the sort of response that I expected.

You talk of common sense. Yet judge me for pointing out that clarity in a picture is better than a messy one. Duh!

You are NOT the only person around here using time, money and effort doing many things. I have too as quite a few people know. Because you do not know what I do, where I travel, how often I travel, where I visit, what contacts I have and what I contribute financially as well as materially, don't assume I don't. Because you aren't privy to things everyone is up to does not mean somebody is idle.

best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

You must be really calm Phil, you're slurring your words. However, I won't be cruel on the errors obviously born out of frustration. Besides, I am not perfect myself.

I do care what people have done in the past. Your views are utterly disrespectful to those who have worked bloody hard in the past, no matter what you think of there work. We gain from the work of others and you will do well to remember that.

You demanded Casebook altered the image. I stand by my words.

For the sake of harmony I will not respond to the rest of your rant.

I've had my say.

Monty
:)

[Phil Carter]

You must be really calm Phil, you're slurring your words. However, I won't be cruel on the errors obviously born out of frustration. Besides, I am not perfect myself.

I do care what people have done in the past. Your views are utterly disrespectful to those who have worked bloody hard in the past, no matter what you think of there work. We gain from the work of others and you will do well to remeber that.

You demanded Casebook altered the image. I stand by my words.

For the sake of harmony I will not respond to the rest of your rant.

I've had my say.

Monty
:)

Hello Neil,


I do care what people have done in the past. Your views are utterly disrespectful to those who have worked bloody hard in the past, no matter what you think of there work. We gain from the work of others and you will do well to remeber that.

Utterly disrespectful? To question and to better their work without accusing anyone imparticular? Yes Neil.. sure.. if you say so... I am NEVER respectful am I... nah.. never....

You can stand by whatever you choose. It's a free world.

The fact remains that if the Annie Farmer image Rob kindly posted is the original from the IPN from Dec.1 as he said, which I have no doubt about at all, then ANY image of poorer quality is not positive. And again, I don't care who supplied it, when or where. I don't care one precious iota if they themselves or the the people they got it from may or may not have touched it up either. We now have one, here, thanks to Rob Clack's generosity. That is the point.. moving on... presenting a better, cleaner, original image to the thousands that visit this site.. or any other for that matter. For the better of Ripperology.

That is something I stand by. Period.

best wishes

Phil

[How Brown]

It's too hot to fight...so let's not.

I seriously doubt that anyone would consider tampering with an easy to access caricature or photographic representation of Annie Farmer from the IPN or any newspaper for some ulterior motive.

If its all the same to everyone else, let's drop the matter.

Thanks very much to Rob for sharing the copy you provided. :clap2:

I hope the new issue of The Rip will be out soon. Jon's recent articles ( one along with Neil Bell ) have been very interesting....and this one on Farmer ought to be a good 'un.

[Monty]

Heh heh, sure Phil.

You can state how respectful you are all you wish.

Its others who will decide.

To make clear your misleading statement, I didn't say never. I said those specific words were disrespectful. You simply do not care for the people who research for your benefit.

I wish you well in your crusade to clean up Ripperology. Your mentor has had a heavy influence upon your own mind. You talk a lot.

Monty
:)

[Monty]

As you wish How

Monty
:)

[How Brown]

Thanks Neil.:typing:

[Phil Carter]

Heh heh, sure Phil.

You can state how respectful you are all you wish.

Its others who will decide.

To make clear your misleading statement, I didn't say never. I said those specific words were disrespectful. You simply do not care for the people who research for your benefit.

I wish you well in your crusade to clean up Ripperology. Your mentor has had a heavy influence upon your own mind. You talk a lot.

Monty
:)

Hello Neil,

Why? Why the loaded comments about about a "mentor"? Utter made-up piffle.

And as regards not caring for people reasearching for my benefit.. that is an accusation I wholeheartedly refute. Please kindly desist from further personal comments of that nature.

I agree with How. Drop it. Done and dusted.

best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

Aplogies How,

I'll take my lead from the Admin Phil.

If you aint happy report me.

Otherwise quit making yet more demands.

I don't not give a fig for who may or may not have done anything in the past......your words.

Monty
:)

[Phil Carter]

Aplogies How,

I'll take my lead from the Admin Phil.

If you aint happy report me.

Otherwise quit making yet more demands.

I don't not give a fig for who may or may not have done anything in the past......your words.

Monty
:)


For heavens sake Neil.. please stop this.!

Ok... I am not demanding ...I said KINDLY DESIST. Totally different.
I have no intention of reporting you either!..

The other quote you missed out the last bit.. who may or may not have done anything to the etc etc etc another misquote out of context.(see postings No.19, 23)

Now PLEASE drop it.

My apologies How.. a response was needed when quoted out of context and mis accused.

Now.. moving on

best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

Sure Phil, sure.

Whatever you say Buster.

I'll wait for the inevitable Email.

Monty
:)