Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Littlechild - Whitechapel Murders Find

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

  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Well, you have me interested. It looks like it was a decent boarding house run by a Maria Appleby in 1881. She's still there in 1885, but after that I haven't determined. As I say, rooms were rented out in April 1888.


    Click image for larger version

Name:	Cumming Street.JPG
Views:	299
Size:	111.6 KB
ID:	783334

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    If you're right about Cumming Street, there was a No. 30 Cumming Street, Islington being rented out in April 1888

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Pentonville.JPG
Views:	292
Size:	18.4 KB
ID:	783332

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    I'm just passing by, so I can give you a quick response.

    Does it say Cumming Street, or does it state Cumming, "Sheet 30"? I took it to mean that Cumming is a reference to someone in another document.

    PC Colhane is evidently John Colhane, an Irishman who worked in J-Division since about 1880. I looked at his pension papers and there is no evidence that he ever made it into the Special Branch--he retired from J-Division and lived in Hackney. Thus, I think it is highly likely that Culhane is indeed the correspondent--he is probably inquiring what happened to his promotion, since Littlechild evidently had voiced some interest in him. There could be another explanation, but that's how I read it.

    I haven't actually visited her site. I wonder if she has photographs of the entire page, along with the headings?
    Last edited by rjpalmer; 03-21-2022, 12:52 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • seanr
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    "Mr. Churchill" was in the House of Commons, MP for South Paddington, whereas 'Lord Churchill' was just an honorary title, so I don't find it strange that he is referred to as "Mr" in reference to his correspondence.

    Personally, I am convinced he is the letter writer; he is not himself suspected of the murders.

    The 'Cunningham/Cunninghame' is Henry Cunyninghame (correct spelling) who was the secretary of the Parnell Commission. It's clear from the context of the second column that he must have been frequently writing to the Special Branch, which is not surprising, considering his position at the time.

    That's how I see it. The first column is the name of the correspondent; the second column is the subject matter.
    Well maybe, but the other entries we have here don't necessarily align tidily with the hypothesis of the first column being the correspondent and the second column being the subject matter. It looks like a bit of a mixture.

    For example:

    Culhane P.C - Chf Insp Littlechild recommending the appointment to Special Branch of
    Presumably it would be Littlechild or one of his representatives reporting this to Special Branch, and not P.C Culhane themself?

    Cumming Street 30 - alledged suspected American at
    I can't interprept this to mean the building at 30 Cumming Street had written to inform Special Branch it contained a CID suspect.

    Your interpretation is possible, but with the wording I tend to think an allegation having been made against a Mr Churchill is more likely than, Lord Churchill having written to Special Branch to name a suspect of his own.

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by seanr View Post

    Maybe, although the existence of a column seems to demand an entry from the writer. The column which has 'Mr' has a mixture of titles (PC) and first names (Henry), so the entry of 'Mr' may suggest Churchill's first name or correct title were not known to the writer. Which may also suggest the vagueness of the algations made against Mr Churchill.

    If it was written in this way out of a respect of the position of the person meant, it doesn't seem as though that would suggest Randolph Churchill, wouldn't the correct title in that case have Lord?
    "Mr. Churchill" was in the House of Commons, MP for South Paddington, whereas 'Lord Churchill' was just an honorary title, so I don't find it strange that he is referred to as "Mr" in reference to his correspondence.

    Personally, I am convinced he is the letter writer; he is not himself suspected of the murders.

    The 'Cunningham/Cunninghame' is Henry Cunyninghame (correct spelling) who was the secretary of the Parnell Commission. It's clear from the context of the second column that he must have been frequently writing to the Special Branch, which is not surprising, considering his position at the time.

    That's how I see it. The first column is the name of the correspondent; the second column is the subject matter.

    Leave a comment:


  • seanr
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    Does the use of 'Mr' and the lack of a Christian name not suggest someone higher up the food chain?

    'Kosminski' was good enough when referring to the riffraff
    Maybe, although the existence of a column seems to demand an entry from the writer. The column which has 'Mr' has a mixture of titles (PC) and first names (Henry), so the entry of 'Mr' may suggest Churchill's first name or correct title were not known to the writer. Which may also suggest the vagueness of the algations made against Mr Churchill.

    If it was written in this way out of a respect of the position of the person meant, it doesn't seem as though that would suggest Randolph Churchill, wouldn't the correct title in that case have Lord?

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    Yes, that's what I thought. The two entries from Henry Cunningham/Cunninghame seem to suggest as much.

    Mr. Churchill may have had a suspect, rather than Mr. Churchill was a suspect.
    I think if that had been the case the entry might have been worded differently

    The entry would suggest that the information came from a CID source rather than a Special Branch source

    You have to understand that these registers were one of the first collators systems used by the police and the entries made may have been from sources that may have not been reliable, or from anonymous sources. Back in those days and into the early 1980`s before police computers almost all information received was recorded and kept on file which is what we see in the registers.

    While on the subject of The SB files let me introduce a couple of interesting finds from my book

    in a memorandum from the Home Secretary Henry Matthews sent in 1888 to his Private Secretary Evelyn Ruggles-Brise that read: “Stimulate the Police about the Whitechapel murders. Monro might be willing to give a hint to the CID people if necessary.”

    Also recorded under MEPO 18/1. The file in question is a crime record book, which contained details of internal police memos and files relating to enquiries and investigations. Some of these entries related to the Whitechapel murders although the dates of the files referred to and the entries are un-dated. One such entry read: “Whitechapel Murders suggested complicity of Irish Party.” This entry related to an original file numbered 93867.



    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 03-16-2022, 11:00 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    It would be interesting to see the heading of that first column, assuming it had one. ‘Sender’, perhaps?
    Yes, that's what I thought. The two entries from Henry Cunningham/Cunninghame seem to suggest as much.

    Mr. Churchill may have had a suspect, rather than Mr. Churchill was a suspect.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    It would be interesting to see the heading of that first column, assuming it had one. ‘Sender’, perhaps?

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by seanr View Post
    It's been suggested Mr Churchill was Randolph, the father of Winston Churchill, but surely there were other people with the same surname in the late 1880s .
    Does the use of 'Mr' and the lack of a Christian name not suggest someone higher up the food chain?

    'Kosminski' was good enough when referring to the riffraff

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi All,

    What is really interesting about this entry is the file number 52983, which also appears on Abberline's report into the Kelly murder and Sergeant White's report into the Stride murder.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • FISHY1118
    replied
    Its a pity the dates are not shown , Felicity Lowed ... explosive blog indeed.

    Leave a comment:


  • seanr
    replied
    Originally posted by Monty View Post
    The following is an extract of an Email issued by Phil Carter on behalf of Trevor Marriott in relation to the Special Branch files.

    "The specific entries referred to were as follows...-

    Under a specific entry titled “Jack the Ripper” the entry reads “The name given to Wilson at Bushmills

    Under a second entry relating to a file submitted by “Chief Inspector Littlechild” the entry reads “Suspect O`Brien & the Whitechapel Murders”

    In addition I obtained from a confidential source details of another entry which is purported to be in the register this entry reads “R Churchill- Perpetrator of the Whitechapel Murders”

    O'Brien.

    Monty
    The Churchill entry happens to be one of those photographed by researcher Felicity Lowde and published on her blog. It can be found here (where she has published it herself as she holds the copy right of the photos):

    https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HxbUosUzM...techapelm2.JPG

    The actual wording was:

    'Churchill Mr - Alledged perpetrator of Whitechapel murders'

    It's been suggested Mr Churchill was Randolph, the father of Winston Churchill, but surely there were other people with the same surname in the late 1880s?

    The very next entry relates to Chief Superintendent Littlechild recommending the appointment of a PC Culthane to Special Branch.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • FISHY1118
    replied
    Originally posted by ChrisGeorge View Post

    Hi Monty

    Although we may never know for sure I have the hunch that the involvement of Special Branch in the Whitechapel murders was only tangential, that Special Branch men heard of leads to the murderer through their work in combatting and monitoring the Fenians. This could have been how Littlechild knew about Tumblety as being a suspicious character. Considering that the Whitechapel murders generated thousands of leads about who the Whitechapel murderer could have been, it would be surprising if there wasn't something about the murders in the Special Branch files. Although any speculation about what that information was is probably useless since as Trevor Marriott remarked in his talk at the recent Whitechapel Society conference, the actual files with the information have seemingly been destroyed. What is left is a ledger that only summarizes the information and gives tantalizing leads that go nowhere.

    Best regards

    Chris
    I have a hunch about Littlechild ,im sure some files still exist.

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    Red Jim

    Hello Mike.

    "I'm sure there were numerous Irish suspects."

    Indeed. And Red Jim was amongst them. If you recall, he and O'Brien were both blackmailing Sir Ed. That may have been the impetus for Sir Ed "spilling his guts" to Michael Davitt.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X