No announcement yet.

Littlechild Letter Authenticity (Recovered)

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Littlechild Letter Authenticity (Recovered)

    This is G o o g l e's cache of as retrieved on 16 Jan 2008 17:01:54 GMT.
    G o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.
    The page may have changed since that time. Click here for the current page without highlighting.
    This cached page may reference images which are no longer available. Click here for the cached text only.
    To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url:

    Google is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.
    These search terms have been highlighted: casebook littlechild letter authenticity

    Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Forums > Ripper Discussions > Police and Officials > Individual Police Officials > Littlechild, Chief Inspector John George > The Littlechild Letter Authenticity

    View Full Version : The Littlechild Letter Authenticity

    15th March 2007, 10:04 AM
    I would like to know if anyone knows what tests were done on the Letter and all that is known about it?

    I would appreciate some input on this...Thanks!

    Glenn L Andersson
    15th March 2007, 10:25 AM
    Leather Apron,

    I don't remember off hand what was done about it, but the letter WAS subjected to rigorous scientific and objective tests on both paper and signature, and the letter HAS been comfirmed to be absolutely genuine.

    This was done already when the letter was discovered and the "Ripperologist" who found it would not in any way have any "motives" whatsoever. After all, he is one of the very few who says that the guilt of the suspect that letter refers to "can not be proven". In spite of he being the one who found the letter.
    How many researchers display such honesty?

    As far as I know, the letter was tested very thoroughly by independent scientists and experts.

    All the best

    15th March 2007, 12:44 PM

    I can confirm Glenns post.

    Having seen the said letter (I think you have too, havent you Glenn?), its provedence has been verified.


    Glenn L Andersson
    15th March 2007, 12:53 PM
    Hi Monty,

    No, I never got the chance to see the actual original letter.

    All the best

    15th March 2007, 02:15 PM

    I was lucky then.


    15th March 2007, 02:41 PM
    I've seen the actual letter and heard from the finder the story of its discovery. There is no reason to suspect there is anything questionable about it.

    15th March 2007, 03:09 PM
    This is going to sound odd but the genuiness of the Littlechild letter (which I have no cause to doubt) is, in the context of what it contains and what it led to, almost incidental. The main impetus of the letter was to point at a suspect (Tumblety) by implcation (Dr.T.) but any case against Tumblety had to be built from evidence ouside of the letter itself.
    The letter pointed a finger, so to speak, but offered no explicit evidence against the man identified as the focus of that implication.

    15th March 2007, 08:55 PM
    Ok..Seeing as you all seem to agree, I will accept that it is real. In fact I was just thinking about how Spryder recently discovered the pictures of "Frenchie" so Evans story sounds like it could have happened.

    As I research this further Ill post some links on this thread or any info I find as to the tests that were done.

    OMG! I just thought of something! A solid unquestionable fact concerning the JTR cases? Something that seems very rare indeed!

    Thanks Everyone!

    16th March 2007, 01:03 AM
    There's nothing about the Littlechild Letter that even smacks of it being less than authentic. Someone hoaxing a new document would include much more dramatic content that wasn't so muddled and rambling. As it is, the Littlechild letter does as much to discredit Tumblety as a suspect as it does raising him in the first place.

    If you want a textbook example of completely unbelievable text (ignoring Canter's bizarre comments to the the contrary)... well, let's not derail this thread.

    If you automatically question items based upon their age and not having been seen for years then most all of the police documents, photos and etc. are just as likely to be forged -- which is to say, not bloody likely.

    16th March 2007, 09:12 AM
    What, a Ripper-associated document someone is suggesting might be a forgery? Whatever next!

    From the tone of his letter, I never thought that Littlechild really saw Tumbelty as a probable JtR suspect. He was, after all, only replying to Sims' apparent mention of a 'Dr D', and was being helpful when he suggested that it could have been 'Dr T'.

    It always amused me that Tumblety could have ever been suggested as JtR - you've only got to look at him! He'd have stuck out a mile in the East End - and anywhere else, for that matter. But nevertheless, as he was named by a former police officer, his candidacy can't be totally ruled out.

    The latter part of Littlechild's letter is also of interest. Harry Thaw was an American millionaire married to Evelyn Nesbitt, a model and, er, actress. Thaw shot Evelyn's former lover Stanford White, in public in a nightclub, and pleaded insanity and was placed in a mental institution. Because of his money he could do what he liked in the institution, and just walked out of the place one day. From what I recall, he was re-captured but pronounced sane and released. Shows what can be done when you have the necessary wherewithal. The novel Ragtime by E Doctorow was based on the case, and there was a film in the fifties called Girl In The Red Velvet Swing in which Evelyn was portrayed by Joan Collins, no less. I would have to say that Littlechild's description of what Thaw got up to in his London hotel kind of suggests the sort of man he was.



    16th March 2007, 09:19 AM

    Stewart told me the story some weeks (or is it a month or so?) back regarding the discovery of the Littlechild Letter.

    Without going into too much detail (and most know the story anyway), Stewart was contacted by this chap who was selling up his book shop. He wanted to know if Stewart was interested in any of his old stuff. Now anyone who knows Stewart (not that I do particularly well) knows a) his extreme interest in collecting particular books and b) his unbounded kindness to others, so he went took look out of interest and maybe buy a few things to help this chap out.

    The letter was amongst a collection of G R Simms correspondence, of which the book shop owner had no idea about nor interest in, and Stewart obtained it. This transaction happend in 1993 and I believe the letter was authenticated around the late 1990s, I may be wrong on that.

    The reason the letter was written was in response to a Sims letter asking questions about the murderer. And, just for convenience, Ive posted the casebook copy below.

    The Littlechild Letter
    8, The Chase
    Clapham Common S.W.,
    23rd September 1913

    Dear Sir,
    I was pleased to receive your letter which I shall put away in 'good company' to read again, perhaps some day when old age overtakes me and when to revive memories of the past may be a solace.

    Knowing the great interest you take in all matters criminal, and abnormal, I am just going to inflict one more letter on you on the 'Ripper' subject. Letters as a rule are only a nuisance when they call for a reply but this does not need one. I will try and be brief.

    I never heard of a Dr D. in connection with the Whitechapel murders but amongst the suspects, and to my mind a very likely one, was a Dr. T. (which sounds much like D.) He was an American quack named Tumblety and was at one time a frequent visitor to London and on these occasions constantly brought under the notice of police, there being a large dossier concerning him at Scotland Yard. Although a 'Sycopathia Sexualis' subject he was not known as a 'Sadist' (which the murderer unquestionably was) but his feelings toward women were remarkable and bitter in the extreme, a fact on record. Tumblety was arrested at the time of the murders in connection with unnatural offences and charged at Marlborough Street, remanded on bail, jumped his bail, and got away to Boulogne. He shortly left Boulogne and was never heard of afterwards. It was believed he committed suicide but certain it is that from this time the 'Ripper' murders came to an end.

    With regard to the term 'Jack the Ripper' it was generally believed at the Yard that Tom Bullen of the Central News was the originator, but it is probable Moore, who was his chief, was the inventor. It was a smart piece of journalistic work. No journalist of my time got such privileges from Scotland Yard as Bullen. Mr James Munro when Assistant Commissioner, and afterwards Commissioner, relied on his integrity. Poor Bullen occasionally took too much to drink, and I fail to see how he could help it knocking about so many hours and seeking favours from so many people to procure copy. One night when Bullen had taken a 'few too many' he got early information of the death of Prince Bismarck and instead of going to the office to report it sent a laconic telegram 'Bloody Bismarck is dead'. On this I believe Mr Charles Moore fired him out.

    It is very strange how those given to 'Contrary sexual instinct' and 'degenerates' are given to cruelty, even Wilde used to like to be punched about. It may interest you if I give you an example of this cruelty in the case of the man Harry Thaw and this is authentic as I have the boy's statement. Thaw was staying at the Carlton Hotel and one day laid out a lot of sovereigns on his dressing table, then rang for a call boy on pretence of sending out a telegram. He made some excuse and went out of the room and left the boy there and watched through the chink of the door. The unfortunate boy was tempted and took a sovereign from the pile and Thaw returning to the room charged him with stealing. The boy confessed when Thaw asked whether he should send for the police or whether he should punish him himself. The boy scared to death consented to take his punishment from Thaw who then made him undress, strapped him to the foot of the bedstead, and thrashed him with a cane, drawing blood. He then made the boy get into a bath in which he placed a quantity of salt. It seems incredible that such a thing could take place in any hotel but it is a fact. This was in 1906.

    Now pardon me -- it is finished. Except that I knew Major Griffiths for many years. He probably got his information from Anderson who only 'thought he knew'.

    Faithfully yours,
    J. G. Littlechild

    George R. Sims Esq.,
    12, Clarence Terrace,
    Regents Park N. W.

    To me its one of the most important finds regarding this case. As it names a contempary suspect perviously unknow prior to 1993.


    7th June 2007, 07:25 PM
    Hi all

    At JtR Forums (, AP Wolf has wondered about the genuineness of the Littlechild letter and stated, "What confuses me here though is that the case I believe Littlechild refers to in his 1913 letter is the case where Thaw horsewhipped and abused a certain Fred D. Grump, a young man in a hotel room, but this didn't happen until 1917, so how come Littlechild knew about this particular case in 1913?"

    However, as I pointed out to AP at JtRForums, "Check this book extract ( out, AP, -- from Tragic Beauty: The Lost 1914 Memoirs of Evelyn Nesbit edited by Deborah Paul. It appears to refer to the London hotel incident, and was actually written by her in 1914, referring to what happened at the hotel in 1906. The account matches squarely what Littlechild says in his letter to George R. Sims. Case closed, AP.”


    Grey Hunter
    7th June 2007, 08:52 PM
    I wasn't sure whether to respond to this nonsense thread initiated by 'Leather Apron' or not. I am fully aware that it was all started by A. P. Wolf over on How's Forums and I have privately emailed A. P. telling him what I think of it. I also thank those of you who have shown support on this thread - it is greatly appreciated.

    I consider the initial post to be an insult and the implication it contains amounts to defamation of character. The history of the provenance of the letter is widely known and totally open. It is beyond question and was subjected to scientific testing by Dr. Audrey Giles in 1996. She declared that there was no reason to regard it as anything but genuine. The paper was even examined by the paper expert Peter Bowers. But all this information is in the public domain - it's just that some idiots choose to post before doing any research themselves first. They expect someone else to tell them to save them the trouble.

    I was speaking to another long-time Ripper student the other night and he said that he has lost a lot of interest in the subject as a result of some of the unpleasant people who frequent the message boards.

    I know what he means, I have always assisted others in this field and often end up getting a kick in the teeth. This thread takes the biscuit. Don't expect me to appear on these boards again.

    7th June 2007, 09:03 PM
    Earlier today I posted similar sentiments to Grey Hunter's above - that AP's accusation (Leather Apron must be on his payroll) was tantamount to character assassination. AP made his assertions without first giving even a brief thought to the provenance of the letters, which is known and considered impeccable. Obviously, the provenance of an item should be the FIRST thing considered when trying to determine it's legitimacy.

    I'm not sure which pisses me off more - AP making his original post on Howard's site out of his usual desperate jealousy, or Leather Apron spreading the disease here at the Casebook.

    I will say to Grey Hunter that for all but TWO of us in the message board community, your credibility, character, and honesty - and the legitimacy of the Littlechild letter - are under absolutely no doubt.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    P.S. I would hope that in the case of Leather Apron, this thread was the result of ignorance and not maliciousness.

    Grey Hunter
    7th June 2007, 09:08 PM
    Many thanks for that Tom, I have printed out all the messages and I am taking legal advice.

    Sam Flynn
    7th June 2007, 09:12 PM

    I could not agree more with everything you just said - Stewart's sincerity, integrity and generosity of spirit are beyond reproach. I am genuinely upset by all this.

    7th June 2007, 09:24 PM
    GH - you know that those of us in the field that you have assisted, and who know how valuable that assistance has been, would never dream of kicking you in the teeth in this or any other way. This was a ridiculous thread started by someone who obviously didn't know what they were talking about and posted before they engaged their brain, and it really should be simply ignored.

    7th June 2007, 09:35 PM
    Stewart, I don't think AP was accusing you of participating in or concealing a forgery. I think he was questioning the message, not the messenger.

    Me, I believe the the Littlechild letter, and the Swanson marginalia....way to go on the Diary, though.


    7th June 2007, 09:36 PM
    perhaps im missing something here, but ive read these 2 pages and am wondering what the fuss is about? it appears pretty tame to be talking about defamation of character issues.

    7th June 2007, 09:40 PM

    I've PM'd you with a brief explanation.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Grey Hunter
    7th June 2007, 09:43 PM
    Just in case anyone else is wondering, like dougie, the crass insulting part of the message has been edited out by Stephen Ryder. This may be seen and understood by anyone who looks at the bottom of the post and sees that it has been edited by Stephen.

    7th June 2007, 09:58 PM
    ok thanks for the message, it explains things ,it just wasnt apparent from what i read on this thread,of course i hadnt noticed the editing otherwise i might have guessed that the main offending part had been removed

    7th June 2007, 10:12 PM
    Gee..I feel as if Ive been hit in the head by a 2 by 4 by some nameless person with no respect for Man or God!
    I assure you all my question was borne of ignorance and the question was part of my research. It is the opinions of others in the know that I wish.

    Grey Hunter..Im sorry if I offended you. Are you Stewart P Evans himself?
    If so I assure you I meant no defamation of character however considering that I feel as if I have been "Ripped up in the middle of the night with not a soul to help me" I feel as if these rude comments call into question credibility of the "Rippers" themselves.

    Again..I feel as if I were Catherine Eddowes ask ing a simple question. "Sir..Can you help me..I seem to lost and confused I have lost my way but I believe I am in Mitre Square. If you will only point me in the right direction I feel as if I can make it home before Leather Apron gets round me."

  • #2
    7th June 2007, 11:45 PM
    Hello all,

    Ive read the posts here, and the subsequent thread opened after this, and I just wanted to offer an opinion that I hope might help.

    I do not know Grey Hunter, and have had limited interaction with him here and seen very few posts from him, but I recognise the respect he is extended by people here I respect, and I therefore understand his indignation at his perception that his integrity is being challenged. I dont know what connection exists between Mr Hunter and the letter in question, but I do know enough to suspect his opinion on the matter is weighty, and sound.

    What I think happened here is a mistake though. I have read Leather's initial question, and subsequent comments, and to my eye, he was interested in discussing others thoughts on the matter, not casting aspersions at anyone.

    There are small minded posts here, lots of bitter accusations and insults, but I truly feel LA was not intending to insult anyone.

    I hope in the best interests of all that Mr Hunter will remain an active poster, it seems apparent that we can all benifit from his observations,....but I also hope that we dont go around tarring and feathering anyone who asks a question, especially if they are unaware of any member who has some personal stake in the answer.

    Just my two cents, I think Mr Hunter should accept the apology from LA , a misunderstanding, shake hands, and work together.

    My best regards to all.

    7th June 2007, 11:51 PM
    Hi again,

    Having said the above, I do not know what was edited out Mr Hunter, so I have no way of factoring that if Im off base in suggesting there was no malice intended its due to the fact Ive not seen any disparaging remarks before they were removed.

    I assumed I was commenting on what I perceived as a miscommunication.

    My best regards.

    8th June 2007, 03:42 AM
    Grey Hunter,

    Hang in there and don't give up the ship! Not frequenting the boards isn't going to solve anything. You can just as easily come back and frequent only those threads that interest you and that don't insult you!

    All of us who have had the pleasure to make your acquaintance know your character, that it is beyond question. We know you are not in this for notoriety or monetary gain. Please don't leave the boards entirely.

    8th June 2007, 11:13 AM
    So let's see what we have here. We have a relative newbie to the boards, posting a comment and a question out of sheer ignorance of his facts, months ago. He implied that as a "ripperologist" had discovered the L. letter, the provenance was shaky. We have several old-timers rushing in to straighten him out immediately, and tell him that the provenance of the letter and the reputation of the man who found it were both without question. We have said newbie accepting he was completely wrong and ignorant of the facts.

    Then we have an idiot with more ego than common sense reviving the thread because of some thread over on another forum, that has apparently been completely deleted and so his actions go from being completely incomprehensible to completely idiotic. Why even bother reviving said thread,...just to pat himself on the back about his brilliant observation since it got deleted there and he had to post it here to let the world know how amazingly insightful he is?

    Then we have Stewart, going completely apesht over the perceived threat to his reputation. Stewart, relax. There is absolutely no one who has studied the case for more than five minutes who even gives credit for two seconds to the idiotic musings of the ignorant or the insane. You are unfortunately a member of the public eye and an author. Those who don't know better will question the letter's authenticity and the person who found it, you are not immune from that any more than any other person who found evidence and put it out in the public eye. It is up for scrutiny and questioning. You should take comfort in the fact, that other than the ignorant and the insane, there is not one person (read back) who even considered for a second that there was something there.

    Worrying about your reputation is for people who have less of one. You have nothing to worry about.

    25th June 2007, 03:25 AM
    This post is in response to certain comments made on a number of different threads by AP Wolf.

    Recently, AP has stated, in reference to the Littlechild Letter, that it “has vexed me sorely for a long time now.”

    Let’s examine this claim.

    In December, 2005, --eighteen months ago--- AP Wolf reprinted a number of annotations attributable to J.G. Littlechild, found in a copy of Police! by Clarkson & Richardson (London,1889). The original volume is in the Harvard Law Library in the United States.

    I would like to reprint a statement made by Alan Sharp in reaction to those annotations.

    Alan Sharp
    Posted on Monday, December 12, 2005 - 7:09 pm:

    “I have a photographic reproduction of the Littlechild letter in front of me. Of course, this letter was typewritten except for where Littlechild made corrections, but the handwriting on those corrections seems to match perfectly to me. Particularly the signature, and if anyone else has it look at where Littlechild has written the words "This was in 1906" at the bottom of page two, the handwriting on the word "This" matches absolutely with the word "This" at the beginning of the first excerpt posted here. I would have no hesitation in saying that this was quite definitely Littlechild's handwriting.”

    Most interesting comments. Now, bearing the above in mind, let’s look at AP Wolf’s response, which is very illuminating indeed:

    AP Wolf
    Post Number: 2958
    Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 1:05 pm:

    "Thanks for that, Alan.
    Is there anyway that you can put up the two signatures on the boards so that we can have a look?"

    At the time, AP Wolf also wrote:

    “Given the location of the volume I would have thought that it is without question that the annotations are the true work of the person who signed those annotations as his own.” ( ie., Littlechild)


    “Incidentally there is one more page I must post.... no scribbling on the page but someone has marked certain passages with thick, black vertical lines, and this might be of interest to those studying Littlechild's involvement with Fenians etc.”


    What a perfect opportunity for AP Wolf to have voiced his doubts about the Littlechild Letter! What an excellent chance to discuss a document whose historicity has long “vexed him.”

    Instead, what do we see? We see AP Wolf requesting if Alan Sharp might reproduce the Littlechld Letter so he can use that authenticated an unquestioned document [I]as an exemplar to test the ‘Clarkson’ annotations!!

    You see, as is now quite obvious, as recently as at the beginning of last year, AP Wolf voiced no doubts whatsoever about the authenticity of the Littlechld Letter.

    And AP Wolf has no genuine doubts about the authenticity of the letter now.

    It is worth noting that AP’s “doubts” suddenly and spontaneously crawled out of the silt only after certain remarks were posted by Grey Hunter on the JTR Forums. These remarks were made in rebuttal to a series of posts made by AP Wolf, and showed in no uncertain terms that AP’s understanding of police bail, English gross indecency law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Britain were flawed and inaccurate. Shortly afterwards, the Littlechild Letter ‘suddenly’ became a potential forgery. This is in stark contrast to AP Wolf's posts of December, 2005.

    It is also worth noting that AP Wolf began his assault by arguing that the flogging incident alluded to by Littlechild referred to the Fred Gump case. This is very strange indeed and let me explain. Henry Thaw was arrested in 1916 for savagely beating Gump. Since the Littlechild Letter was written in 1913, AP’s suggestion heavily insinuated that the letter was an impudent fake, since any reference to Gump would have been a grotesque anachronism. A number of AP’s posts were subsequently removed from JTR Forums.

    Meanwhile, historian Chris George quickly exposed the flaw in AP’s thinking by reproducing a page from Evelyn Nesbit’s 1914 memoirs. This showed that the telegraph boy incident was an entirely different case. It was an event that happened many years earlier. Indeed, the two cases were quite dissimilar, and this line of argument was not legitimate to begin with.

    Chris G. wrote:

    "The Lost 1914 Memoirs of Evelyn Nesbit edited by Deborah Paul, Nesbit appears to refer to the same London hotel incident that Littlechild is referring to, years before the incident you thought, wrongly, might be same incident with Fred Gump."

    At this point, any reasonable person would have abandoned their campaign in embarrassment, thus ending the matter. Instead, AP Wolf merely switched gears and began a new line of assault, now arguing that there would have been no reason to investigate the boy, since the event happened in 1903 or 1904, and Thaw did not kill White until the Summer of 1906. Surely such a quick ‘switching of gears’ suggest an agenda, rather than a desire to look soberly and dispassionately at the document? And, of course, the record is very clear that directly after the White murder there was a flurry of scrutiny of Thaw’s life by both the defense and prosecution; and that, obviously, is what Littelchild was referring to by ‘This was in 1906.”

    AP also began a bizarre line of argument, suggesting that using the term ‘Dear Sir’ in a greeting was somehow suspect. No one voiced any support for this, and it, too, has since been shown to be without merit.

    Please keep all this in mind whenever you see AP Wolf discussing the Littechild Letter in the future.

    A difficult question that is perhaps worth asking is what effect the internet will have on serious historical debate.

    On one hand, there is free speech. On the other hand, we have the undeniable reality that more and more people are getting their information solely from the internet. This poses the potential danger that anyone with a computer, an agenda, and unlimited time on their hands can wage a limitless war on the historical record through sheer volume of output, regardless of the worth of their claims. Though the reasonable and the informed will quickly see through their arguments, it does leave the possibilty that the unassuming will be bilked. Worst yet, more seriously-minded researchers will be forced to waste time by responding. Rather troubling, and not a very pretty view of the future of internet "history." But perhaps I worry too much.

    25th June 2007, 07:31 AM
    Thanks RJP
    and there was me trying to build a bridge.
    Ah well...

    Natalie Severn
    25th June 2007, 02:00 PM
    I really dont see the point in you raking over everything that AP has said or done regarding Littlechild for over a year back .
    New questions arise all the time throughout a debate and discussion such as this.Do you hold exactly the same position now over the Swanson marginalia as you did last year?Isnt there some slight shift?We all shift position-hopefully, often only gradually but sometimes rapidly as new information comes to light.These are open forums for immediate communication and one of the main advantages they have ,in my opinion, over previous forms of communication is precisely the capacity for spontaneous forum dialectic .And time,RJ, is a great subversive---move with it or ossify.

    25th June 2007, 06:36 PM
    Nicely said, Natalie.
    My usual approach to any subject or discussion is to come in with both guns blazing, and then when the smoke and cordite clears I start cleaning up the mess. This is a personal issue that I am attempting to address, as the final result is that I end up in an isolated chamber full of good ideas but with nobody to listen to them.
    This is not productive, to myself, or anyone else.
    As I said, this is something I have taken into consideration, and that is why I have rejoined the discussion on this board, in a personal spirit of reconciliation, tinged with some considerable regret for my blazing guns, and a determination to discuss all and any matters in a reasonable, polite and rational manner.
    RJP seems to want a war.

    'Let them all pass all their dirty remarks, for
    there is one question I'd really love to ask:
    Is there a place for the hopeless sinner
    who has hurt all mankind just to save his own face?'

    Grey Hunter
    25th June 2007, 06:52 PM
    AP - should I phone you for a chat some time?

    25th June 2007, 07:07 PM

    I always read what you have to tell us. I think your approach is similar to what mine would be if I didn't keep it in check. You get excited about new, little tidbits which in turn give you new ideas and theories. You would just about explode if you couldn't share what you're thinking. I'm right there with you. I love your approach to things, and I think your creative methods may be just the kind of thing that will solve the case some day. Others approach the Whitechapel murders in much the same sort of speculative way you do, but you are the one who gets nailed for it. All I can say is that I support you completely, even if I sometimes get lost in all the details. Keep it up and don't quit this site again.



    25th June 2007, 07:37 PM

    That you thought I was speaking specifically about you says more than anything I could add. Ha ha. As it happens, I was not talking about you this time. Although since you brought it up I will say that when you and Robert Charles Linford defend AP's actions when he's clearly assaulting someone without provocation - as in the case of the Littlechild letter and now the Sept. 17th letter - one could say you were willing accomplices to the accusations themselves.

    While ghost hunters such as Baron find AP's approach useful, I hardly think the case will be solved by calling legitimate documents 'hoaxes' while endorsing obvious hoaxes (Nathan Shine's account, Sept. 17th letter). And I can certainly attest that the subject of Stride here at the Casebook was not forwarded by AP and company's assault with nonsense such as that Stride fell and cut herself on an imaginary bootscrape or that a wooden wagonwheel may have accidentally caused the knife-blade wound to her throat.

    No, it should be apparent to all, including the inherently dense, that AP's got a personal agenda here. It has nothing to do with 'passion' for the case. Get real.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    25th June 2007, 07:44 PM

    No ghost hunter here. I don't believe in them. If I remember correctly, it is you who believes in the supernatural.


    25th June 2007, 07:51 PM
    Baron von Mike,

    I meant that to indicate your overall approach to the evidence. The fact that you support AP's attacks on people actually attempting to move our understanding of the case forward and tell him to 'keep it up' pretty much says it all. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy your humor and your posts on off-topic threads, but...well, like I said, your endorsement of AP's methods speaks for me.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    25th June 2007, 07:57 PM
    Natalie ~ I speak for myself only. I can appreciate the fact that you wish to defend a friend, but let’s take care not to defend insincerity while we’re at it, aye?

    Do you believe the Littlechild Letter is a forgery?
    Of course not.
    And neither does our friend, AP.

    It gives me no pleasure whatsoever to argue; indeed, I find it an incredible waste of time. But I don’t care much for blokes crying fire when they know damned well there isn’t one.

    The question of a document’s authenticity does not ‘arise’ during an unrelated discussion of the mechanisms of police bail.

    Posters here and elsewhere may enjoy witty banter, but I’m afraid I have very little tolerance for this sort of thing:

    “I reckon if I was going to forge a document about this case I'd use a typewriter of the time and not a pen. I was looking at one in an antique shop only the other day, still with its original ink band, and I thought to my good self 'hmmm'....”

    Ah, me. Do you think I don’t recognize the naughty schoolboy when I hear him? Charming, but ultimately not the seriousness that is required in a case dealing with mangled women. If such comments represent “spontaneous forum dialectic,” I’d just as soon ossify. And if we are going to engage in indescriminate shenanigans, we might as well pack our bags and fly to the moon.

    I’ll leave it now as a matter between APW and Grey Hunter. And I appreciate the bridges, just as long as the civil engineer doesn’t come back the following night and tuck a stick of dynamite underneath. Truce. RP

    25th June 2007, 08:11 PM

    AP's a good man and I enjoy his literary style. He's still got that childlike sense of wonder that so many have lost. Regardless if you agree with his postulations or not, that element is so important to the discovery of new ideas. It also keeps people on their toes. Not many are willing to throw out their wild ideas here and take a beating for it. That includes you and your LeGrand/Bachelor ideas. If you were to come out and say "LeGrand was the Ripper and here's why" you would have to suffer the same sorts of attacks that AP and others go through, but it is easier just to sit back and poke holes in an argument and abuse the poster rather than to post original thought. I have no idea if you believe LeGrand was the Ripper, though you have made some arguments that project him as the devil incarnate. I don't care really. The point is that you wouldn't post your theory without sifting through newspapers, books and other media because you would want supporting evidence so that you don't look foolish. You do not want to be judged harshly. No one does. AP posts his ideas without the concern of looking foolish. I find that refreshing.



    25th June 2007, 08:33 PM
    Tom, Natalie can speak for herself. I'll speak for myself.

    I guess it's fairly well known that AP and I are close friends.


    I have made no controversial remarks about the Littlechild letter that I can recall. And I don't believe I've ever commented on the Sept 17th letter.

    I have neither attacked Stewart Evans nor do I ever intend to.

    My support for AP on the Boards/Forums usually boils down to
    1. Trying to help with Cutbush
    2. Sometimes finding info relevant to what he's discussing, posting things for him etc
    3. Occasionally putting in a word for him when someone takes an especially vicious swipe at him.

    Could you give me one example where I have defended an unprovoked assault?

    Many's the time that AP has cantered off up the road with the bit between his teeth, and left me behind because I can't keep up with him - my nose has probably been stuck in some census return or I've been thinking of captions for the captions competition.

    As I said to Stewart Evans the other day, the only spats I'm interested in are the ones worn by Hutchinson's man.


    25th June 2007, 08:35 PM
    Yes Grey, do please give me a call.

    Natalie Severn
    25th June 2007, 08:46 PM
    Thankyou for your perceptive reply RJ. and I take your point about the seriousness of the subject matter we discuss.
    Lets have a truce shall we?

    25th June 2007, 08:53 PM
    Cant everybody just get along?Personally i didnt see anything wrong with l.a s post but then again part was deleted before i read it.But even so, i feel anyone here, and i mean ANYONE, newbie or not ,has the right to question any statement, any finding, by anyone here, either cheif inspector, tea boy or s... house cleaner.nobodys findings or research are sacrosanct,and whatever anyone posts here is a matter for them and their conscience. myself, if i unearthed anything new id welcome criticism,in fact demand it, why? because it would enable me to see another side,and whether i could answer or not answer those critics would determine whether or not my findings, stance or whatever had any ,or, how much credibility. Now for gods sake, can people take themselves a little less seriously? we are not dealing with anything meaningful here,just passing the time,nothing more. now if some poor soul wants to take offence at that ....fine

    Grey Hunter
    25th June 2007, 09:05 PM
    Ah, but the truth, honesty and facts are sacrosanct.

    25th June 2007, 09:14 PM
    grey hunter,
    yeah of course they are, but then again the right to query should also be sacrosanct.

    Grey Hunter
    25th June 2007, 09:20 PM
    Yes, it is fine to query - but to make allegations that are simply misleading and unfounded is an entirely different thing.

    25th June 2007, 09:29 PM
    grey hunter,
    agreed, but surely it depends on whether one makes misleading or unwarranted comments KNOWING them to be exactly that.if thats the case then theres a different issue than if one makes those statements NOT knowing them to be unfounded or misleading....its a question of intent,which is not easily proven ,or even neccessarilly understood by either the perpertrator or the "victim". only L A knows what the intent was,and as i said , wat is posted is a matter for the poster and his conscience. Im not getting involved in ,or indeed have any interest in littlechilds letter so i dont have an opinion either way on that,just really making (or trying to) a general point.

    Grey Hunter
    25th June 2007, 09:33 PM
    Yes these are waters too deep for you to paddle in. But I feel that a reading of all the relevant matter, and internalising it, leaves no doubt as to what was going on. Still, if you're not interested that is fine and I would suggest, then, that it is probably best to to involve yourself by making any comment at all.

    Sam Flynn
    25th June 2007, 10:00 PM
    the only spats I'm interested in are the ones worn by Hutchinson's man.
    I wish I'd said that.

    25th June 2007, 10:04 PM
    Hi Sam,

    Well as Oscar Wilde said "you will."


    25th June 2007, 10:16 PM
    AP's a good man and I enjoy his literary style. He's still got that childlike sense of wonder that so many have lost.

    AA has a word for that - delirium tremens.

    Regardless if you agree with his postulations or not, that element is so important to the discovery of new ideas.

    There's nothing constructive about a 'new' idea, Mike, unless that idea has some merit.

    It also keeps people on their toes.

    Yeah, slander and libel do often have that effect on people.

    Not many are willing to throw out their wild ideas here and take a beating for it.

    Judging by the nonsense I see espoused daily I'd have to politely disagree.

    If you were to come out and say "LeGrand was the Ripper and here's why" you would have to suffer the same sorts of attacks that AP and others go through

    And I would deserve it, since I don't have proof that Le Grand was the Ripper. But I have rarely seen AP attacked. Only people defending themselves against his attacks.

    but it is easier just to sit back and poke holes in an argument and abuse the poster rather than to post original thought.

    Leave Glenn Andersson out of this!

    I have no idea if you believe LeGrand was the Ripper, though you have made some arguments that project him as the devil incarnate. I don't care really. The point is that you wouldn't post your theory without sifting through newspapers, books and other media because you would want supporting evidence so that you don't look foolish.

    You're attempting to compare me unfavorably to AP by stating that I care more about research and accuracy than him. While I can't disagree with your conclusion, your argument leaves me baffled.

    You do not want to be judged harshly. No one does. AP posts his ideas without the concern of looking foolish. I find that refreshing.

    The fact that you think I'm afraid to look foolish on these boards tells me that you lack not only a sense of deductive reasoning but the simple ability to notice what's going on right in front of you. Again, I think you have a good sense of humor.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    25th June 2007, 10:25 PM
    grey hunter,
    deep? geez its anything but deep, but if thats the best way to stifle any opinion by saying dont comment ,then fine ,just invite the head nodders...theres lots of them

    Grey Hunter
    25th June 2007, 10:29 PM
    Dougie, you don't know me and the last thing that I would like to see is a bunch of yes men. But these comments of yours really do show that you do not know what you are talking about. More than that, they indicate that I am wasting my time responding to your unfortunate comments. If you are free to go to the chat room say the word and I shall see you there.


    • #3
      25th June 2007, 10:30 PM
      Yes Sam, Robert always says the best thing; and if the truth be known Robert is the sort of the sensible and elusive creation that would be left to the world if me and Grey ever drank out of the same bottle.
      Which I hope we will do one day.
      It is a heady mixture, the solid and countable experience of a man who has lived this case all his life, and knows the days like years; and then the hip shooting cowboy who hip hops the modern media like he was riding an electric range.
      Whatever, Robert has always been redemption for me, and he has cast me down in the ashes when I deserve it, as he should, and will, but Robert is always his own man.
      Me? Just a bit of an internet tart.
      I think that Natalie, Robert and the Baron have no particular allegiance to my good self, and I thank them for their kind words, I just think that sometimes they like to see a horse run with the bit in its teeth.
      I can do that.

      25th June 2007, 10:38 PM
      grey hunter,
      well if you read my post, you would understand that the comments i made ,although pertaining to the littlechild business were, or was a plea for stopping the obvious bitterness that had arisen return for that i get the "you dont know what you are talking about"....." refrain from commenting" the stock phrases on here when theres a difference of opinion or viewpoint. as for the chatroom, i didnt even know there was one and whats the point? youd obviously wasting your time wouldnt you?

      Grey Hunter
      25th June 2007, 10:45 PM
      Cant everybody just get along?Personally i didnt see anything wrong with l.a s post but then again part was deleted before i read it.But even so, i feel anyone here, and i mean ANYONE, newbie or not ,has the right to question any statement, any finding, by anyone here, either cheif inspector, tea boy or s... house cleaner.nobodys findings or research are sacrosanct,and whatever anyone posts here is a matter for them and their conscience. myself, if i unearthed anything new id welcome criticism,in fact demand it, why? because it would enable me to see another side,and whether i could answer or not answer those critics would determine whether or not my findings, stance or whatever had any ,or, how much credibility. Now for gods sake, can people take themselves a little less seriously? we are not dealing with anything meaningful here,just passing the time,nothing more. now if some poor soul wants to take offence at that ....fine

      I think that I need do no more than re-post your intial remarks. This is a little more than a simple plea to stop the 'obvious bitterness' - which, in fact, I had nothing to do with starting. As I say, if you don't really understand what you are talking about then it's better not to get involved. Such acrimony is usually confined to one or two threads and can be easily avoided by not taking part.

      25th June 2007, 10:53 PM
      Hi all,

      Sidebar....I just wanted to say that I think its great to have both Grey and AP posting with us again, their insights are invaluable and their experience is something that is a real pleasure for someone like me to be exposed to.

      That goes for most everyone else here by the way,.. just a specific "great to have you here" to AP and Grey.

      My best regards all.

      Grey Hunter
      25th June 2007, 10:55 PM
      I have sent a PM.

      25th June 2007, 10:57 PM
      grey hunter,
      Youre a very clever chap, you have (somehow) uncovered a "hidden meaning(s)"in my post . a "hidden meaning" that even i didnt know existed...and i wrote it . now your post stating "its a little more than that" could be construed as misleading as well.......but theres no point arguing over it cos "you dont know what youre talking about" (to coin a phrase).......

      Natalie Severn
      25th June 2007, 10:58 PM
      Yes, lets celebrate that Mike.

      25th June 2007, 10:59 PM
      grey hunter
      ok no problem, thanks for p.m

      Grey Hunter
      25th June 2007, 11:00 PM
      Is it just me or...?

      25th June 2007, 11:02 PM
      could be..on the other hand

      Sam Flynn
      25th June 2007, 11:02 PM
      Is it just me or...?
      It's all of us some of the time, and vice versa, Grey

      25th June 2007, 11:03 PM
      But then again.....

      Yours truly,

      Tom Wescott

      Sam Flynn
      25th June 2007, 11:06 PM
      But then again.....
      "...too few dimensions"

      Sorry, I slipped into Superstring Theory for a moment there

      Grey Hunter
      25th June 2007, 11:07 PM
      Thank you all - I'm off to meditate...well think anyway (meditate sounds a bit heavy).

      29th June 2007, 10:52 PM
      regarding your fairly outspoken comments concerning my good self and my thoughts on the Littlechild letter, I'd be more than happy to hear an explanation from you on your thoughts in this article which I repost from the other side:

      'I thought it interesting that dear old Tom - Westcott I mean, not Bulling - reached the following conclusion on Bulling's involvement with the letters some considerable time ago in his dissertation on the subject:

      'After reviewing the evidence it seems at least questionable that the 'enterprising London journalist' theory is correct.'

      I wondered at the time when I first read this whether Tom realised that he was actually questioning the veracity of the Littlechild letter with his conclusion?'

      30th June 2007, 01:08 AM
      My Dear Wolf,

      I don’t wish to tread on the toes of Mr. Wescott, but perhaps it wouldn’t be amiss to make one small point?

      From the OED

      ‘veracity. 1. The quality or character in persons of speaking the truth.’

      Very briefly, I give you Littlechild:

      “With regard to the term “Jack the Ripper” it was generally believed at the Yard that Tom Bullen of the Central News was the originator...”

      Generally believed. Is this, or is this not, a statement of truth? Was this the ‘general belief’?

      Of course, we can readily find in Anderson’s and Macnaghten’s memoirs the inescapable fact that both men DID believe that the ‘Dear Boss’ letter was the work of a journalist. Commonsense dictates that Littlechild is writing to Sims as a retired Chief Inspector, and, just as obviously, that he is informing Sims about police opinion.

      How then, my I ask, does Littlechild’s statement above become a matter of:

      1. veracity


      2. authenticity in regards to authorship?

      Of course one could explore, as Tom Wescott does, the knotty question of whether or not Anderson and Macnaghten were correct in their suspicions against Bulling. But I hardly think Mr. Wescott is so illogical as to confuse this very different question with anything touching on the authenticity of a historical document.

      I remain, yours &tc.,

      30th June 2007, 01:55 AM

      Nice try. I'm not surprised to hear stuff like this is appearing on the forums now that I'm not there to defend myself. Yes, I questioned the idea that Tom Bulling wrote the 'Dear Boss' letter....and I still do. You know who else questioned it? Littlechild himself, as he suspected Bulling's boss might have been the 'originator' which just goes to show a) there was absolutely no proof of Bulling's guilt and b) There was no police consensus on the matter.

      Thank you RJ for pointing out to AP that questioning a theory and calling an obviously authentic document a 'hoax' are obviously two totally different things and the fact that AP would try to confuse the two shows not only how desperate he is to 'show me up' but also how stupid he thinks everyone but he is.

      Yours truly,

      Tom Wescott

      30th June 2007, 07:32 AM
      Fair comment, gents.
      I'll adopt the same position on the subject as Tom then:

      'If they turn up any evidence to suggest that Tom Bulling was responsible, I will gladly concede. Otherwise, I think Bulling's guilt is seriously open to question and the journalist theory is due for reassessment.'

      30th June 2007, 06:40 PM

      Let me get this straight. It is your opinion that the Littlechild letter is authentic, but there may be inaccuracies in it. You're not questioning the letter, but believe the author may have been mistaken, or at least the possibility exists that he was mistaken. Is this correct?



      30th June 2007, 07:59 PM

      If that's AP's stance it's a newly adopted one. Previously he was quite vociferous that the Littlechild letter was a hoax. By contrast, he considers obvious hoaxes (i.e. Sept. 17th letter, Nathan Shine post) to be legitimate historical documents. Perhaps now you'll see why most of us wish that he would not 'keep up' his 'good work'.

      I'm curious to know which of the jtrforums administrators, quoted by AP, chose to mispell my name and misinterpret my words in order to discredit me. Pretty sad state of affairs I must say.

      Yours truly,

      Tom Wescott

      30th June 2007, 08:32 PM
      I dont think anyone with a brain seriously doubts the authenticity of the letter do they?

      that was rhetorical btw

      30th June 2007, 09:08 PM
      I was quoting directly from your own article here on the Casebook site.
      I'm assuming you have read that?

      I have been questioning the historical accuracy of the Littlechild letter; and still do.

      30th June 2007, 09:29 PM

      I believe Tom was referring to the quotes in your #67 post. Which were the ones that mentioned the other forum and where his name was misspelled.

      30th June 2007, 10:10 PM
      Thanks Ally
      the spelling mistake was mine.
      The post was mine.
      The quote was from Tom on this site.
      Nobody else involved. Only Tom and I.

      30th June 2007, 10:36 PM
      I have been questioning the historical accuracy of the Littlechild letter; and still do.

      It's just that as this thread is entitled "The Littlechild Letter Authenticity", it's easy to get the impression that questions about its accuracy are directed against its authenticity, and that could lead to further offence and needless arguments.

      Maybe the discussion could be continued on another thread with a more appropriate title, or something?

      Chris Phillips

      30th June 2007, 10:52 PM
      I'd agree with that sentiment, Chris, especially as I didn't start this thread, and only joined in because I find it a very interesting subject to discuss.

      12th July 2007, 10:51 AM
      just wondering why with the many (relatively) number of newspaper reports regarding tumbletys actions,and the so called suspicions surrounding him,why it took the "littlechild letter" to bring his name forward as a suspect in the
      "ripper fraternity"? Surely,with the amount of research that has been done through the years,tumblety should have "surfaced "earlier?It seems odd to me.
      I may have asked this question earlier,im not sure,and cant be bothered to search back,if i have i apologise for repeating myself.

      12th July 2007, 02:48 PM
      That is, of course, a puzzle. I think there are a few conclusions we can draw:

      1. The survival of records relating the the WM are somewhat haphazard. It may just be that records mentioning Tumblety did not survive.

      2. Serious suspicion regarding Tumblety as JtR may have been limited to the Special Branch or to Littlechild personally. Neither Special Branch nor Littlechild had jurisdiction in the WM.

      3. We may draw one of two extreme conclusions regarding Macnaghten's knowledge since he does not list Tumblety among his suspects. He either did not know of Tumblety or he knew something about him that eliminated him from serious suspicion.

      12th July 2007, 03:24 PM
      I wasnt so much referring to official suspicion of tumblety,but mostly "unofficial" awareness of tumblety,i.e ripper researchers.The newspaper articles were there for researchers to see.I dont mean that anyone neccessarilly should have taken tumbletys "guilt" seriously,just that someone might have picked up on the fact that he had been a "player" in the story.It just seems odd thats all,i could say more,but its not worth it,otherwise my opinions might be twisted,stretched and manipulated until they bear little resemblance to what was\meant.
      kind regards

      12th July 2007, 04:12 PM
      I was quoting directly from your own article here on the Casebook site.
      I'm assuming you have read that?

      I have been questioning the historical accuracy of the Littlechild letter; and still do.

      Hi AP

      Actually one of the things that persuades me of the authenticity of the Littlechild letter is that the facts are mixed up. Same thing with Macnaghten calling Druitt a doctor (which was inaccurate), that he was age 41 (ten years older than his actual age), and that he committed suicide the day after the Kelly murder and not three weeks later.

      There is a similar blurriness and cavalier approach to the facts in the Littlechild letter and the information is given anecdotally rather than as evidence. Littlechild talks about Thomas J. Bulling as "Bullen" and implies that it was definitely known that the Central News guy and his boss Moore cooked up the Dear Boss letter. Similarly you might be right that Littlechild investigated the story of the hotel incident involving Thaw in 1906 but that the episode did not occur in 1906 even though the letter implies that it did.


      Natalie Severn
      12th July 2007, 04:24 PM
      Thats very true Chris, its like gossip- and all of a muddle....makes you wonder though,whether any of them had any real idea at all!

      12th July 2007, 04:47 PM
      Yes, Chris, I can't really disagree with you there.
      But I thought the point posed earlier was a good one... why indeed did the American press reports lay fallow for so long?
      I've been re-reading the 'Lodger' today, and it's proving a useful and worthwhile exercise as it provides a neat and very effective means of time travel between then - when the American press reports were only available to a very select audience, when the book was researched and published - and now - when these same American press reports are available to a much wider audience, and show much of the conclusions drawn back 'then' no longer hold water 'now'.
      But there appears to be a reluctance amongst the community to acknowledge and recognise this difficult situation, and many still accept the conclusions that were reached 'then' as perfectly acceptable 'now'... which of course they are not.
      My interest in the historical accuracy of the Littlechild letter remains undiminished; and I think we can take it for a fact now that the Thaw case that Littlechild investigated in 1906 could not have taken place in 1906, as Thaw did not leave America in 1906.

      12th July 2007, 04:57 PM
      [quote=chrisg;95581]Hi AP

      Actually one of the things that persuades me of the authenticity of the Littlechild letter is that the facts are mixed up. Same thing with Macnaghten calling Druitt a doctor (which was inaccurate), that he was age 41 (ten years older than his actual age), and that he committed suicide the day after the Kelly murder and not three weeks later.

      Could be that (and lets leave the littlechild letter to one side) it might depend on whether the forger might be a bit cleverer than the average guy,and deliberately blur things a bit so as to give a feeling of authenticity rather than an "everythings correct right up to the most minute detail" approach.or of course could be that a forger wasnt in full possession of the facts.its impossible to say.


      12th July 2007, 05:02 PM
      Im glad you ,at least,realised the relative importance of the issue i raised.The more i think of it,the odder it seems to appear.......such is life i guess, kind regards

      13th July 2007, 12:26 AM
      "But I thought the point posed earlier was a good one... why indeed did the American press reports lay fallow for so long?"

      Not hard to figure out. Until recently, one had to actually leave their computer to access old newspapers. Things only seem easy and obvious after some other bloke does the legwork.

      13th July 2007, 12:33 AM
      While it is perhaps unnecessary to revive a discussion that had so little merit to begin with, it might be worth mentioning that AP’s queer view that Harry Thaw was a relatively innocent soul, vilified by the press, is not known to have any support among historians. Beyond Evelyn Nesbit, the London telegraph boy mentioned by Littlechild, the french prostitutes, Fred Gump, etc., there were several others that Thaw was known to have savagely attacked. One of the earliest confirmed cases involved Ethel Thomas, a young woman whom Thaw thrashed in 1902. And yes, the case did resurface at the time of the trial.

      ‘At first he lavished much affection on me. He took me on automobile rides to theatres and other places of amusement, and bought flowers and jewellery for me..One day, however, I met him by appointment, and while we were walking towards his apartment at the Bedford 304 Fifth Avenue, he stopped at a store and bought a dog whip. I asked him what it was for and he replied, laughingly, “That’s for you dear!” I thought he was joking, but no sooner were we in his apartment and the door was locked, than his entire demeanour changed. A wild expression came into his eyes, and he seized me and with his whip beat me until my clothes hung in tatters.”--from a deposition by Ethel Thomas, attacked by Harry Thaw in 1902.

      “Joseph A. Shay, a lawyer, of 300 Broadway, called on Assistant District Attorney Garvan yesterday and gave him information of importance regarding the habits of Harry Kendall Thaw prior to his marriage with Evelyn Nesbit. That these facts will be brought out at the trial of Thaw for the murder of Stanford White is practically certain. Mr. 'Shay told Mr. Garvan that he represented Ethel Thomas several years ago in a suit for damages brought by her against Thaw,--and that the suit, to the best of his knowledge, was still pending, with Abraham H. Hummel as the attorney of record. Miss Thomaa sued for $20,000, making charges against Thaw of a character unfit to describe. Those charges she embodied in an affidavit, which accompanied the complaint. Miss Thomas, then 18 years old, met Thaw in the latter-part of 1901. He was then maintaining bachelor apartments on the top floor of the building at 304 Fifth Avenue in the name of his valet, Bedford. On Jan. 3, 1902, she met Thaw by appointment, and they walked to the Fifth Avenue apartment. On the way Thaw stopped and bought a dog whip. With this whip, the girl says, Thaw afterward lashed her into submission.” - New York Times, 14 July, 1906.

      “Thaw's stand has aroused Joseph A. Shay, the Broadway lawyer who represented Ethel Thomas when she started a suit against Thaw. Shay says that Thaw is misrepresenting the facts when he declares, that he was never served in the suit, which was for $20,000 damages. " The service was made upon Thaw," Shay declared yesterday, " as he was getting into an automobile at the Waldorf-Astoria on Jan. 6, 1902. Thaw Is evidently trying to draw me out when he says that Miss Thomas is not dead. I am prepared to show that she Is dead, and that her death resulted from injuries received at his hands. When Thaw is placed on trial I shall be ready with the evidence of her death, and will, if it is necessary, conduct the jurors to her grave. He is bluffing when he says he knows she was not dead up to a few weeks ago.” -- New York Times, Tuesday, 7 August, 1906, pg. 12, column C.

      All the evidence suggests that Thaw was a disgusting reprobate

      13th July 2007, 12:57 AM
      I dont believe its quite as easy as that,The newspaper reports werent vague in nature,either regarding tumblety or the suspicions some had that he was the ripper.people researched all manner of things before internet access was easily available to general public.,People read newspapers in the 1880s,certain issues would catch peoples imaginations,and the possible identity of jack the ripper would surely be just such an issue,no question of that.One would of thoughtthat from that moment on the name tumblety would have attached itself quite firmly to the tale.....according to you the reason why it didnt is obvious....aaaah if only life was so simple

      13th July 2007, 01:16 AM
      I hardly care to argue the point, but despite what you might think, the Ripper case was not widely researched in the first half of the 20th Century, and many of the characters involved in it were quite simply forgotten. There were one or two popular English writers who touched on the case--that’s about it. As popular as the case now is, it could have very easily have been forgotten if interest was not revived in the late 1950s by Donald McCormick, as well as Dan Farson’s rediscovery of the Macnaghten Memo. Then came Donald Rumbelow in the 1960s, who might well be called the first serious Ripper researcher. Only then, and particulary in the 1980s , was there another ‘bloom’ of interest. So it is not true that there were many Americans seriously researching the case in until quite recently. It was only after Stewart Evans’ discovery of the Littlechild Letter that he and his friend Paul Gainey took the effort to look at the American press covereage of the crimes. That coverage was, until that point, sorely neglected. The emphasis this website gives to the America press might make that hard to believe, but all of this has taken place in the past ten years or so. It might seem amazing to you in retrospect, but those are the facts. It’s a matter of record, not of opinion.

      13th July 2007, 01:41 AM
      Im not at all convinced that how much or how little the case was researched can be judged by the number of books written during any given period.Its impossible to know how many people ,americans or otherwise,were "serious"researchers during 20th century.Not all researchers write books,that doesnt make them any "less serious."in their endeavours.But thats irrelevant,the fact is the newspaper reports and the details therein should have "stuck",should have become part of the folklore if you like,maybe even in a warped or exaggerated fashion perhaps. but nonetheless there somewhere.that was my point.

      16th January 2008, 12:31 AM
      I'm afraid I still struggle with the historical accuracy of the Littlechild letter, specifically in regard to Littlechild placing the Thaw incident - where he horse whipped a boy in a London hotel - to 1906.
      I was able to show that Thaw had never been in Europe in 1906, let alone London, but now I discover that the Carlton Hotel in London - where it is alleged the incident took place - did not open its doors to the public until 1906.
      Therefore Littlechild has Thaw committing a crime in a year when he never visited London, in a London hotel which had still not opened its doors in the last year that Thaw ever visited London in 1904.
      This is just not good enough I'm afraid.

      vBulletin v3.6.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.