Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

source of rumour

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • lynn cates
    replied
    report

    Hello Debs. Thanks.

    Yes, indeed! I am not sure how to understand "report" here. I presume it is colloquial--something like "story"? A paper report or official release would be much more involved.

    Wonder if "The Times" or "Daily News" would have published a rumour or letter to the editor, say, within a week of "The Echo" article?

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra A
    replied
    I wonder where the original rumour, that the Echo is refuting, was published?
    Maybe it was in another paper and it mentioned Kelly's name?

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    Doyle

    Hello Debs. Thanks. I omitted the ones hanged.

    I wonder if the Kelly were Tim Kelly, why the other hanged chaps--Curley, Brady and Fagan--were not mentioned? Of course, Kelly was a bit later--he had 2 mistrials.

    I feel that the rumour was merely that--a rumour. But I wonder its source? Doyle sounds somewhat promising. Perhaps someone just ascribed him to London. NOT a good place to be if you are let out, I should think.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra A
    replied
    Another Kelly who got a shorter sentence do you mean? Could be, Lynn.

    Thanks for the list. So, Hanlon and Mullet were the only ones to get life if I haven't missed something? So the Echo article must have been about one of them?

    This is what Tynan writes about Mullett:

    Joseph Mullet is at this date, December, 1893, in a dungeon
    of the enemy. He and his comrades, at a single word from
    this Briton, W. E. Gladstone, could be restored to the outer
    world ; but his mouthpiece, Mr. Asquith, tells the Irish race
    that he (Mullet) and his imprisoned colleagues will not be
    released.

    Hanlon was also still in prison until 99 according to an earlier post of yours, so the report that the rumours about the release of a 'lifer' only five years later were untrue, was correct? The rumour may have come about with Doyle being released in 87?

    Edit: And Fitzharris got life too. And all were said to be released in 99.

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    small beer

    Hello Debs. I wonder whether there were not many minor "Irish National Invincibles" who were detained and not mentioned by Molony? Does Tynan say?

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    Time's up.

    Hello (yet again) Debs. Rather like having his ticket punched? Could be.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    What time is it?

    Hello (again) Debs. Thanks.

    "Does he mean the ones who got ten years and should have been released April 93?"

    Not sure. Tynan is hard to read. It seems he wrote over a period of years and it is never clear to me which time he refers to.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    roster

    Hello Debs. Thanks.

    James Mullett (10 years) was released 1891; Joe Mullett (life), 1899.

    Others:

    Daniel Delaney (10 years), 1891.

    Patrick Delaney, discharged, ill health.

    Peter Doyle, continuing bail.

    Thomas Doyle (5 years), 1887.

    John Dwyer, discharged ill health.

    Robert Farrell, secretly resettled.

    James Fitzharris (life), 1899.

    Joseph Hanlon, secretly resettled.

    Laurence Hanlon (life), 1899.

    Michael Kavanagh, secretly resettled. (Died in Britain 1886)

    Thomas Martin. Released on own recognisance.

    Edward McCaffrey (10 years), 1891.

    William Moroney (10 years), 1890.

    Edward O'Brien (10 years), 1891.

    George Smith. Released on own recognisance.

    Joseph Smith, secretly resettled.

    Patrick Whelan, discharged.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra A
    replied
    Originally posted by Debra A View Post
    Just a thought-Is the snippet from the Echo not just telling us that the among Invincibles who received penal servitude for life (Hanlon did?)all of them are still in prison despite the rumours of early release and when saying Tim Kelly's sentence 'expired some time ago', they are saying that he was hanged?
    Originally posted by lynn cates
    That could be it, but seems a bit colourful for standard journalism.
    Hi again, Lynn.
    It says that Kelly's "time" expired a while back, and not his sentence. IMHO opinion it is referring to his hanging.

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra A
    replied
    Mullet still being locked up in Dec 93 is something discussed by Patrick Tynan. He mentions Mullet's colleagues still being in prison too. Does he mean the ones who got ten years and should have been released April 93?

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra A
    replied
    The ones who received 10 years penal servitude (which seems to be a lot of them) have a release dates in April 1893 (I don't know if it's a proposed or actual release date) in the prison register.
    There is another who received a life PS sentence and he was also sent straight to Mountjoy. Joseph Mullet.
    Any other who got life? If not, the rumour would be about Mullet or Hanlon? And in Hanlon's case it wasn't true. Do you have a date for Mullet's release, Lynn? Thanks
    Last edited by Debra A; 01-14-2013, 12:25 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    Ah!

    Hello Debs. Thanks. That makes sense.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra A
    replied
    Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
    Hello (yet again) Debs. Wonder why not Downpatrick--like the rest?

    Cheers.
    LC
    I think it's possible that any of them could have been transfrered between several different prisons after sentencing. Hanlon may have been sent to Mountjoy immediately in 83 but he wouldn't necessarily have been there in 88 when the Echo reported on the rumours.

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    whither?

    Hello (yet again) Debs. Wonder why not Downpatrick--like the rest?

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    a date with . . .

    Hello (again) Debs. Thanks.

    Looks like 10 May, 1883. Perhaps a sentencing date?

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X