Littlechild Ltr Survey Complete - Absent Bias?

[Stewart P Evans]

Do not try to be clever...

Well I thought as you know a thing or three you would know seeing as you mentioned that he had.
Were they ones we alreday know about or were you suggesting they were ones we have not yet seen

Do not try to be clever Trevor, it doesn't suit you.

It was suggested in the A To Z, a long time ago (twenty years ago in fact, the authors being well ahead of you in this field), that Browne (and he said so himself anyway) had been given access to the records at New Scotland Yard. That being the case the authors stated that Browne's statement that 'A third head of the CID, Sir Melville Macnaghten, appears to identify the Ripper with the leader of a plot to assassinate Mr Balfour at the Irish office', 'cannot be casually dismissed.' They then point out Browne's very early access to the official files, the [reasonable] presumption that he saw documents which have since gone missing, and that there were Fenians aspiring to assassinate Balfour.

Extrapolating from that they state that Macnaghten, 'may have heard and recorded suspicion of a Fenian as the Ripper, prior to hearing the information that convinced him the Ripper was Druitt.' These, in my opinion, are reasonable statements and also tie in with Warren's contemporary idea (as far as it goes) of the identity of the Ripper.

[Trevor Marriott]

How the hell would I know that? All we know is that he did have access to official records as he quotes from a couple of them.

Well I thought as you know a thing or three you would know seeing as you mentioned that he had.


Were they ones we alreday know about or were you suggesting they were ones we have not yet seen

[Stewart P Evans]

How...?

Which official documents files did Browne have access to?

How the hell would I know that? All we know is that he did have access to official records as he quotes from a couple of them.

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm not quite sure what you mean.

Which official documents files did Browne have access to?

[Stewart P Evans]

Mean

And which ones do you belive they were ?

I'm not quite sure what you mean.

[Trevor Marriott]

In the above sentence you are stating that, 'Browne seems to be quoting not from classified files as has been speculated, but simply from retired cops' memoirs.'

But he does not quote 'simply from retired cops' memoirs.' On the same page of his 1956 book, in the preceding paragraph, and in respect of the Whitechapel murders, Browne states, 'The Home Office was perhaps rather shocked by some of the Commissioner's ideas. On the 4th of October Warren wrote: "I am quite prepared to take the responsibility of adopting the most drastic or arbitrary measures that the Secretary of State can name which would further the securing of the murderer, however illegal they may be, provided Her Majesty's Government will support me." He thought this contingency doubtful, and he was right. The Secretary of State had no constructive ideas of his own to offer, but continued to complain, and a fortnight later Warren was writing: "The Police and C.I.D. have not exhausted all means, etc. They have barely begun."

Browne was writing in the mid-1950s and these are verbatim quotes from official documents that were not to be released to the public until the 1970s. So yes, when writing of the Ripper murders we know that Browne had access to the official documents.

And which ones do you belive they were ?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Spiro,

Oh, I do. Stewart knows a thing or three about this case.

Regards,

Simon

[auspirograph]

Hi Spiro,

If only I'd known.

I would have bought your book, but I'm not into all that black magic malarky.

Regards,

Simon

Thanks Simon,

Either am I, it's dirty work but somebody had to do it.

Let's give Stewart Evans some credit for knowing a thing or two about this case...after considering the available sources, I know I do.

Cheers
Spiro

[Stewart P Evans]

Official Records

To Stewart
My counter is that Browne seems to be quoting not from classified files as has been speculated, but simply from retired cops' memoirs.
...

In the above sentence you are stating that, 'Browne seems to be quoting not from classified files as has been speculated, but simply from retired cops' memoirs.'

But he does not quote 'simply from retired cops' memoirs.' On the same page of his 1956 book, in the preceding paragraph, and in respect of the Whitechapel murders, Browne states, 'The Home Office was perhaps rather shocked by some of the Commissioner's ideas. On the 4th of October Warren wrote: "I am quite prepared to take the responsibility of adopting the most drastic or arbitrary measures that the Secretary of State can name which would further the securing of the murderer, however illegal they may be, provided Her Majesty's Government will support me." He thought this contingency doubtful, and he was right. The Secretary of State had no constructive ideas of his own to offer, but continued to complain, and a fortnight later Warren was writing: "The Police and C.I.D. have not exhausted all means, etc. They have barely begun."

Browne was writing in the mid-1950s and these are verbatim quotes from official documents that were not to be released to the public until the 1970s. So yes, when writing of the Ripper murders we know that Browne had access to the official documents.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Spiro,

If only I'd known.

I would have bought your book, but I'm not into all that black magic malarky.

Regards,

Simon

[auspirograph]

Hi All,

My apologies if this has been posted before.

[ATTACH]13137[/ATTACH]

Note the first entry: Whitechapel murder [singular] . . .

Which murder might that have been?

Regards,

Simon

Well Simon,

If you also had bothered to read my recent book, you would have found all this explained...and dated...

Regards
Spiro

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

My apologies if this has been posted before.



Note the first entry: Whitechapel murder [singular] . . .

Which murder might that have been?

Regards,

Simon

[Stewart P Evans]

Jonathan

To Stewart
My counter is that Browne seems to be quoting not from classified files as has been speculated, but simply from retired cops' memoirs.
This is my most important point which you are not addressing.
If Browne had really read Macnaghten's he would know and note that Mac changed his mind -- if Mac ever really did entertain the notion of Jack the Terrorist -- but Browne does not mention this salient fact. He gives the reader the wrong and misleading impression that Mac and his successor disagreed on the identity of the fiend as a suicide -- which broadly they did not.
Far from being convoluted about this sub-issue I argue that I am being simpler: Browne has misunderstood Mac's memoirs, which seems more reasonable that the bizarre alternative: that Mac thought plotters against Balfour were mixed up with the Whitechapel murders?
No other source backs up this up, and historical methodology asks for great caution about very unique and seemingly aberrant sources.
Woodhall made the same kind of mistake -- whether Browne read Woodhall or not does not matter.
That's my opinion, and I have thought it the moment I saw the full page the notorious quite comes from.

Jonathan, it's pretty obvious, in my opinion, that Browne had read Macnaghten's book. Not least of all because it appears in his bibliography. The fact that he quotes from the official files is not under question. As the A To Z authors state, 'Browne had access to the Scotland Yard and Home Office files on the Ripper at least 20 years before they were opened to the public and presumably saw documents which have since gone missing.' This could well be the case and he may have seen a document (probably Special Branch) suggesting some Irish plotter or other as the Ripper.

Macnaghten's words as to his own preferred Ripper suspect, in his 1914 book, are that he 'committed suicide'; 'in all probability, put an end to himself soon after the Dorset Street affair in November 1888'; 'his brain gave way altogether and he committed suicide'; he 'was a sexual maniac'; 'resided with his own people, and that he committed suicide on or about the 10th of November 1888'. He added to that (incorrectly) the fact that it resulted in Warren's resignation and almost caused Matthews to resign.

None of the conclusions about the Ripper in Macnaghten's memoirs need clash with his claims possibly made in an official document about an Irish suspect. And all Browne states is that 'Sir Melville Macnaghten, appears to identify the Ripper with the leader of a plot to assassinate Mr Balfour at the Irish office.' This is particularly significant in view of the fact that an Irish plot to assassinate Balfour was revealed in early August 1888 coinciding with the start of the Whitechapel murders.

And why is this so bizarre? Warren's own theory was that a secret society (such as the Fenians) was responsible for the murders.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Lynn,

Sorry, I don't see the connection.

Regards,

Simon

[Stewart P Evans]

Stance

I find this fascinating.
We have Hawley asking for opinions on the letter and on receipt of said opinions he proceeds to change the basis of the survey.
Then we have yourself, Stewart, who labels someone a Tumblety naysayer because I don't agree with your conclusion. Take it from me, I couldn't care less who Jack The Ripper was; I'm one of those people who prefers the process to the outcome - in all walks of life. So, put that one to one side. Just as well there are some people on this board who focus on what is being put forth rather than label someone a naysayer; otherwise, you wouldn't have a board of any note, Stewart.
Out of interest, how on earth do you find it 'patently clear'?
"Amongst the suspects" could possibly mean among the police, or it could mean in his own mind. But, on balance Stewart, as there is no mention of the police in the letter, a wise person would use this simple logic:
1) Does he mention the police?
2) No.
3) Therefore the probability is that it was his view alone.

I find your stance very strange. It is well known that my own opinion is that the identity of 'Jack the Ripper' will never be established. Indeed, I go further than that to say that it cannot be established. There is no hard evidence against any suspect.

I don't 'label someone a Tumblety naysayer' simply because they don't agree with my conclusions. That would be stupid. Those I label as 'Tumblety naysayers' are those who seek, at every opportunity, to say that he was not a suspect at all. And this is what you appear to be doing, for you are saying that you think that it was only Littlechild who did. Taking into account all the other 1888 sources and information I should have thought that it was obvious that he was a suspect. We have Anderson's reported request for samples of Tumblety's handwriting, we have Andrews reported quest (albeit on the back of a funded trip to Canada), we have Tumblety's own interview admitting it, and we have all the other references made in the US press as to the suspicion surrounding him.

Sims has obviously questioned Littlechild in view of the high ranking police status he held. Littlechild also states the 'general belief at Scotland Yard' as to the identity of the writer of the 'Dear Boss' letter. Littlechild is careful to say of Tumblety that he was 'amongst the suspects', which means, I should have thought, obviously, the police suspects. Otherwise he would not be suggesting to Sims that he had been mistakenly referred to by Sims' source as a 'Dr. D'. Also the qualifier that he was 'to my mind a very likely one' was added by Littlechild as a personal opinion. You have reached your own conclusion which I disagree with, but think what you like.

You are entitled to your own opinion as I am to mine. And if I see statements posted (by apparently sensible posters) that I have difficulty in seeing to be correct I address them, whatever the topic. As to the quality of the boards, well that is down to the quality of the posters and what they say. At present they appear to be in the doldrums.