Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by MrBarnett 26 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Did Mary Kelly meet the Bethnal Green Botherer? - by Wickerman 45 minutes ago.
Torso Killings: JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful. - by Batman 3 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Did Mary Kelly meet the Bethnal Green Botherer? - by Wickerman 4 hours ago.
Torso Killings: JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful. - by Trevor Marriott 4 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by Sam Flynn 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - (91 posts)
Torso Killings: JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful. - (31 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: distances between kills.odd - (19 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Did Mary Kelly meet the Bethnal Green Botherer? - (11 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - (9 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: The Christie Case - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Police Officials and Procedures > Littlechild, Chief Inspector John George

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #121  
Old 12-04-2011, 10:49 PM
Stewart P Evans Stewart P Evans is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,994
Default Statement

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Well I thought as you know a thing or three you would know seeing as you mentioned that he had.
...
I didn't make that statement, someone else did. But at least I know that I know a bloody sight more about the case than you do.
__________________
SPE

Treat me gently I'm a newbie.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 12-04-2011, 10:55 PM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,254
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stewart P Evans View Post
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.
Thank you for your answer it was most helpful

Perhaps the authors were ahead of me then but they seem to have fallen behind of late.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 12-04-2011, 10:58 PM
lynn cates lynn cates is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 13,841
Default clarification

Hello Simon. I meant that, just as it was convenient for WHH, the darling of the Tories, to avoid a perjury trial by being warned and disappearing, so also it would not do for the WCM investigation to get too close to Red Jim. (If it had, the fact that he was in British pay might arise. Given his role in certain dynamite plots, that fact could prove embarrassing.) Hence, a good "theory" for the WC murderer needed to be found. Farqy "found" it.

Cheers.
LC
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 12-04-2011, 11:01 PM
lynn cates lynn cates is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 13,841
Default vote

Hello Simon. Lovely find. Permit me to cast a vote for MJK.

Cheers.
LC
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 12-04-2011, 11:04 PM
lynn cates lynn cates is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 13,841
Default Sir Charles

Hello Mr. Evans.

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

Thanks for pointing this out. Sometimes Sir Charles' view gets lost in the shuffle.

Cheers.
LC
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 12-05-2011, 12:39 AM
Fleetwood Mac Fleetwood Mac is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,230
Default

Seems the problem is twofold, Stewart:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stewart P Evans View Post

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.
At no opportunity I have said Tumblety was not a suspect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stewart P Evans View Post

Taking into account all the other 1888 sources and information I should have thought that it was obvious that he was a suspect.
Hawley asked for opinions based solely on the letter, although he has moved the goalposts since, granted.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 12-05-2011, 12:39 AM
Jonathan H Jonathan H is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 2,329
Default

To Stewart

We will just have to agree to disagree on that one.

Browne says that these chiefs disagreed but Mac did not disagree about Browne missed, possibly because he misunderstood the import of Mac's memoirs. He was certainly ignorant of the Mac Report official version, and thus ignorant altogether about Druitt whom Mac believed, rightly or wrongly, was the fiend 'some years after' he took his own life..

To Lynn

I think that in early 1891 Mac met with Farquy, shut him up, and then moved on to a discreet meeting with William Druitt. He was thus handed the entire tale, and it was one he found totally, painfully and perhaps unexpectedly convincing.

As the M.P. titbit implies, to merely hear the story is to be impressed, even to be convinced.

The titbit even hints at a confession, which is what I believe the 'North Country Vicar' tale pivots on.

The gentleman murderer confessed to an Anglican priest. Sims creates a mythical version, with the 'mad doctor' confessing his urges to physicians in an asylum -- prior to the murders.

Mac's temperament was to be charming and reassuring, to get Montie off the hook as a fellow Gentile gentleman. To get the family to see that they were mistaken somehow; that their anguish and 'belief' was unjustified -- for whatever reason. Perhaps grief and hysteria has led to this ludicrous conclusion?

Instead Mac did no such thing.

Rightly or wrongly he agreed with their terrible belief and their posthumous diagnosis of sexual mania.

His dlilemma, from an official point of view, was what then to do about this bombshell knowledge 'which came to me subsequently' (Mac, 1913) ...?

To Simon

That's right 'Remarkable Fiction', with the 'son of a surgeon' element nervously and awkwardly air-brushed into 'the son of a father with homicidal mania.'

You just don't get it, do you?

They were hedging their bets because the libel implications were so frightening -- so you call it fiction.

What the title 'Remarkable Fiction' confirms is my 'case disguised' theory; fictionalising is exactly how the Druitt tale will be dealt with seven years later when the story is relaunched by Mac via Griffiths and then Sims as the 'drowned doctor'.

Remarkable fiction indeed, in fact a classic work of fiction was borrowed for this libel-proof profile: 'The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde'!

Or, as the unidentified North Country Vicar so astutely sums it up: 'substantial truth under fictitious form'.

And ...

The allegedly dodgy dates, you asserted about Sims and Abberline in 1903?

Still no response on that have you ...?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 12-05-2011, 12:53 AM
mklhawley mklhawley is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Greater Buffalo, New York
Posts: 1,902
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post
Seems the problem is twofold, Stewart:



At no opportunity I have said Tumblety was not a suspect.



Hawley asked for opinions based solely on the letter, although he has moved the goalposts since, granted.
Oh, contraire Mr (or Mrs) Mac,

You started that right on your first post.

Quote:
I'm surprised anyone needs a survey.

The following is clear from the letter:

1) He was a suspect in Littlechild's mind.
2) He was a very likely suspect in Littlechild's mind.
3) Dr T was up near the top of the pile, but not alone, there were other 'favoured suspects'.
4) He goes on to explain why he feels he's a very likely suspect.
5) And the reasoning is weak, extremely weak, nowhere near enough to be convincing.

The following is not clear from the letter:

1) Whether or not 'amongst the favoured suspects' means this is his own opinion, or the consensus within police corridors.

Evaluating DR T's status from that letter alone:

1) He was among Littlechild's favoured suspects.
2) The reasoning is shockingly poor, and suggests the logic of a by gone age, which I suppose it was.
Your rhetoric is boring.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 12-05-2011, 01:00 AM
Simon Wood Simon Wood is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,604
Default

Hi Jonathan,

I'm sorry. I didn't know a response was called for.

I merely thought it strange that Sims' remarks about Abberline and the drowned doctor theory came out a few days before Abberline's words appeared in print.

Any thoughts about the Ripper theory which appeared a month before Farquharson?

Regards,

Simon
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 12-05-2011, 01:39 AM
lynn cates lynn cates is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 13,841
Default meeting

Hello Jonathan. Thanks.

"I think that in early 1891 Mac met with Farquy, shut him up, and then moved on to a discreet meeting with William Druitt. He was thus handed the entire tale, and it was one he found totally, painfully and perhaps unexpectedly convincing."

Wish we knew more about this.

Cheers.
LC
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.