Littlechild Ltr Survey Complete - Absent Bias?

[Jonathan H]

What a surprise -- you already knew the answer to your own question.

It's a shame you know so little about historical methodology.

You approach this subject as if you are Jack Webb on 'Dragnet', which is hopelessly off-track.

The belief in Druitt's culpability does not begin with Macnaghten's 'twitterings' but with the Ripper's people in Dorset, n the West of England' MP story of 1891.

And Mac's 1914 memoirs are not 'error-ridden', though that concept is claimed by Macnaghten himself in his preface -- where championship cricket, Jack the Ripper, and alleged inaccuracies are suggestively juxtaposed.

Can't you see you are being taken for a ride?

I guess not, as the implications are just too horrendous to contemplate.

Nevertheless, you should read Mac's Chapter IV some time as they match what others said of this police sleuth at the time: hands-on, discreet and affable to a fault.


I take it you screwed up about the dates involving Sims and Abberline too, and that is why you do not address my question?

Pity.

[mariab]

Many thanks to Jonathan Hainsworth for quoting from Douglas Browne's The rise of Scotland Yard. Most obviously this is misunderstood nonsense.

Hi Mariab,
Reread my reasons why it was the Pinkerton Agency. To suggest otherwise is to deny the obvious connections. A statement about an uncorroborated rumour is weak compared to this.

Oh, I'm not in the least denying the Pinkerton connection, which I'd be even interested in attempting to research in Chicago. What I was referring to is that Trevor Marriott claims that there are NO references whatsoever to the Pinkerton agency in the SB ledgers, but (apparently?) a reference to a “Nielson of Wealdstone“. As far as I know, this is still unresearched.

[Stewart P Evans]

Much as...

...
Littlechild offers nothing of any note, in the letter, to engender confidence in Tumblety as a decent suspect; nor does he make it clear that Tumblety was suspected by someone other than him.
...

Much as it pains me to become involved in 'debates' such as this I must comment on this one.

Littlechild makes it patently clear (unless you don't wish to see it) that Tumblety must have been suspected by others when he states, clearly, "...but amongst the suspects...was a Dr. T.", which unequivocally shows that Tumblety was one of the 1888 suspects of the police, not just Littlechild. Littlechild then qualifies the suspect 'Dr. T' with his own opinion "to my mind a very likely one".

Now these words may not suit the Tumblety naysayers (such as yourself) but, nonetheless they are there and cannot be gainsaid. And this is the problem with trying to dismiss Tumblety out of hand. For they are the words of one of the five Chief Inspector heads of department at Scotland Yard in 1888.

[Stewart P Evans]

Convoluted

...
A few weeks back Stewart Evans challenged this revisionist interpretation of the Balfour bogey as quite mistaken -- even a bit silly. As I understand Stewart's argument, he is saying that my claim of Browne misunderstanding Mac's memoirs -- to such an extreme -- is just not credible.
...
'Sir Melville Macnaghten appears to identify the
Ripper with the leader of a plot to assassinate Mr.
Balfour at the Irish Office.’
(Begg, Fido & Skinner, p. 439, 2010)
...
The following is Browne's citation of Mac's memoirs at the bottom of his page:
(1.) W. Stewart, op. cit. Sir Melville Macnaghten, in 'Days of my
Years', quotes the following anonymous verse received at Scotland
Yard:
I’m not a butcher, I’m not a Yid,
Nor yet a foreign Skipper.
But I’m your own light-hearted friend,
Yours truly, Jack the Ripper.”
Browne is clueless that Macnaghten did not
disagree in his memoir with his successor’s notion of
a suicided fiend!? Notice that Browne quotes 'Days of
My Years' at one remove, via William Stewart’s 'Jack
the Ripper: A New Theory' (London: Quality Press,
1939). Macnaghten’s chapter is devoted solely to the
un-named Druitt but whose demise in the Thames is
withheld.
So how does a plot against Arthur Balfour, Chief
Secretary for Ireland between 1887 and 1891 (later an
Edwardian, Tory Prime Minister) get shanghaied into
this account?
...
Far simpler and more likely is that Browne is
making the same mistake regarding the literary
flourish with which Macnaghten ended his chapter on
the un-named Druitt: ‘Laying the Ghost of Jack the
Ripper’ with the ‘Protean’ maniac almost omnipotent
against the un-named Assistant Commissioner, Sir Charles Warren, who resigned, and the un-named Home Secretary, Henry Matthews, who nearly did too:
'I incline to the belief that the individual . . .
committed suicide on or about the 10th of November
1888, after he had knocked out a Commissioner
of Police and very nearly settled the hash of one
of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of
State.'
(Macnaghten, p. 62, 1914)
[Emphases added].
Browne has, I argue, absorbed the mistake of
ex-policeman turned theorist, Edwin T. Woodhall, in
his 'Jack the Ripper: Or When London Walked in
Terror' (London: Mellifont Press, 1937) which
conflates those last lines of Macnaghten with Dr. Holt,
the so-called ‘White-Eyed Man’. Woodhall’s Snidely
Whiplash of a ‘suspect’ was supposedly arrested, then
dramatically escaped by literally punching a
Commissioner and threatening a Minister, and who
ends up satisfyingly mangled in the wheels of a
paddle-boat sailing on the Thames.
Browne has misunderstood the import of
Macnaghten’s memoirs — having not seen them at
first hand perhaps — and assumed that a ‘principal’
Secretary of State really was a target for the
Whitechapel fiend. Knowing of only one plot that
could fit the time-frame of late 1888, that against
Balfour which was aborted, Browne came up with,
well, nonsense. Anybody looking at the internal
version of Macnaghten’s Report — if you knew of its
existence — or carefully reading the same police
chief’s memoir, would realize the mistake (like
Odysseus, Macnaghten is also his own ‘No Man’ figure
whose memoirs were neglected then and are neglected
now).
...
'The New Independent Review' – Issue 1
I would also add that the men involved in the plot against Balfour hardly seem capable of being Ripper suspects, and nobody else claims that they were in the extent record.
On the other hand, I would add this qualification of my own theory.
Macnaghten is a slippery customer and I think he spent some of his time trying to figure out how to obscure Druitt, and this may have been an early experiment with such deflection.
More likely, Browne on a page devoted to memoirs has misundertood Mac's. He was not the first and he will not be the last.

I have to hand it to you Jonathan, your arguments and theories certainly are convoluted, and very subjective.

This one, however, involves your contention that Douglas G. Browne did not actually read, or use, Macnaghten's Days of My Years (1914) as a source when writing his The Rise of Scotland Yard (1956), for which he had access at New Scotland Yard not only to the official records but also their extensive library which contained a copy of Macnaghten's book. As the authors of The Jack the Ripper A To Z point out, quite rightly, Browne's words on Macnaghten have to be taken seriously for the very reason that he had this official access, and his words actually show that he was quoting from these records.

You, Jonathan, are telling us that Browne, with all this official access, failed to even read Macnaghten's (a retired head of the CID) memoirs when writing a history of Scotland Yard! The Select Bibliography at the end of Browne's book includes the following entry 'Macnaghten, Melville L.: Days of My Years (E.Arnold, 1914). Not only that, on page 290 of Browne's book he dismisses Macnaghten's theory that 'Peter the Painter' had nothing to do with 'the Houndsditch Sidney Street affairs' and was not even in the country at the time. This theory Macnaghten propounds on page 252 of Days of My Years.

The plot to assassinate Balfour was taken seriously (Balfour took to carrying a revolver around) and came to light in August 1888. It is not suggested that the identification 'of the Ripper with the leader of a plot to assassinate Mr. Balfour' was Macnaghten's only, or final, take on the matter. Merely that at some stage Macnaghten may have written that in an official report, perhaps in a now lost Special Branch file. Woodhall's pulp paperback Jack the Ripper: or When London Walked in Terror (1937) was a total nonsense and proposed the silly 'Olga Tchkersoff' as the midwife Ripper and to suggest that Browne would have used this trash as a source for his history is untenable. And, needless to say, Woodhall does not appear in Browne's bibliography.

[Stewart P Evans]

I suggest...

Many thanks to Jonathan Hainsworth for quoting from Douglas Browne's The rise of Scotland Yard. Most obviously this is misunderstood nonsense.
...

I suggest that you read Douglas G. Browne's The Rise of Scotland Yard, London, George G. Harrap, 1956, for yourself, before you dismiss it as 'misunderstood nonsense' on the strength of the words of a third party.

[Stewart P Evans]

Just the facts...

...
You approach this subject as if you are Jack Webb on 'Dragnet', which is hopelessly off-track.
...

'Just the facts Ma'am'...

[Stewart P Evans]

Pinkerton Agency

...
Simon Wood is absolutely correct, the highlighted part is written nowhere, neither in Clutterbuck nor in the ledgers. A uncorroborated rumour circulating states that the detective agency mentioned in the SB ledgers pertains to a “Nielson of Wealdstone“.

The Pinkerton Detective Agency, by 1888, had been working with the London police forces for years, supplying them with information on the movements of Fenian, and other, suspects. There was regular correspondence on the subject.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Much as it pains me to become involved in 'debates' such as this I must comment on this one.

Littlechild makes it patently clear (unless you don't wish to see it) that Tumblety must have been suspected by others when he states, clearly, "...but amongst the suspects...was a Dr. T.", which unequivocally shows that Tumblety was one of the 1888 suspects of the police, not just Littlechild. Littlechild then qualifies the suspect 'Dr. T' with his own opinion "to my mind a very likely one".

Now these words may not suit the Tumblety naysayers (such as yourself) but, nonetheless they are there and cannot be gainsaid. And this is the problem with trying to dismiss Tumblety out of hand. For they are the words of one of the five Chief Inspector heads of department at Scotland Yard in 1888.

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.

[Jonathan H]

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.

[lynn cates]

scenario

Hello Jonathan. I am beginning to see your point of view. Still, one more question.

Suppose the family thought MJD "Jack." Suppose further that they contacted Sir MLM with their suspicions; but, instead of "sexual insanity" they attributed his condition/motive to "family melancholy."

Would Sir MLM have taken the allegation seriously or merely pooh-poohed it?

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

The Select Bibliography at the end of Browne's book includes the following entry 'Macnaghten, Melville L.: Days of My Years (E.Arnold, 1914). Not only that, on page 290 of Browne's book he dismisses Macnaghten's theory that 'Peter the Painter' had nothing to do with 'the Houndsditch Sidney Street affairs' and was not even in the country at the time. This theory Macnaghten propounds on page 252 of Days of My Years.
The plot to assassinate Balfour was taken seriously (Balfour took to carrying a revolver around) and came to light in August 1888. It is not suggested that the identification 'of the Ripper with the leader of a plot to assassinate Mr. Balfour' was Macnaghten's only, or final, take on the matter. Merely that at some stage Macnaghten may have written that in an official report, perhaps in a now lost Special Branch file.

Thank you so much for clarifying about the above, and I'm most definitely planning on ordering Douglas G. Browne's The Rise of Scotland Yard (London, George G. Harrap, 1956) per intra-library loan. I apologize for having referred to Browne quoting Macnaghten as “misunderstood nonsense“, as it was clearly myself who had misunderstood the situation.

The Pinkerton Detective Agency, by 1888, had been working with the London police forces for years, supplying them with information on the movements of Fenian, and other, suspects. There was regular correspondence on the subject.

I know about this, but not the details. I need to read your Lodger/First American serial killer book and to re-read the Vanderlinden/Palmer articles (which interpret the sources contrastingly), as well as Mike Hawley's upcoming articles.

[auspirograph]

Another Drexel Distraction

More correctly, the Special Branch ledgers mention the names of some people who were thought to have some involvement in the murders or were suspected at one time or another of having a link to the crimes. That's quite different from saying Special Branch actively investigated the Whitechapel murders. I don't believe they did. It's more that in doing their work investigating the Irish nationalists some suspects in the Ripper case came under their notice.

Best regards

Chris

Chris George,

You really should stick to writing musicals because this is a gross distortion of late Victorian British secret service. There is here a blissful ignorance that Special Branch also investigated the Dr. Cream murders case. This department of Scotland Yard CID, headed by Littlechild and Anderson and administered by the Chief Constable, was not then like you see it on T.V.

In this instance, your beliefs are immaterial to the discussion on an unbiased appraisal of primary sources on Tumblety which includes the Littlechild letter. You appear to have been swayed by the interpretations, that are not set in stone, of Anderson apologists Begg and Fido.

There is much reading to catch up on before an informed opinion can be expressed that has any conviction or demonstrates that attacks upon new research is not a defensive position.

You may like to start with reading my book, Jack the Ripper and Black Magic: Victorian Conspiracy Theories, Secret Societies and the Supernatural Mystique of the Whitechapel Murders, as it outlines these points and their historic background in a comprehensive way. That is, it does not focus on a solitary point or piece of evidence relating to the Special Branch investigation of the murders but rather cross references where others do not.

If you and your 'experts', who are so easily excited by Drexel drivel are to be applauded for taking a sincere interest in this subject, then perhaps a more open acceptance of what is found distasteful in progressive trends on the Whitechapel murders might yet become relevant.

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Spiro

Thanks for expressing your views which I will take on board. I'll seek out your book.

Chris

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

Ah! The West of England MP story.

Lloyds Weekly News published it under the sub-heading "Remarkable Fiction."

The most interesting thing about Farquharson's story is its timing, coming as it did just one month after the arrival of a wholly different theory from just as impeccable a source.

Regards,

Joe Friday

[lynn cates]

Farqy

Hello Simon. Another interesting aspect of Farqy is that he was a good Tory and Primrose League member. And with all the rumours flying about concerning "Red Jim" it would never do IF it were discovered that Red Jim were in government pay.

That might have led to guilt by association.

Cheers.
LC