|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| |
Thread |
Last Poster |
Posts |
Pages |
Last Post |
  | Archive through May 11, 2003 | Jeffrey Bloomfied | 25 | 1 | 5-11-03 3:29 pm |
| |
 Closed: New threads not accepted on this page |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Sergeant
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 42
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 11, 2003 - 4:00 pm: | 
|
Sorry to write three in a row here, but now that
I have seen the web site that Chris Phillips
gave about Bertram Russell, I can say that
the Earl Russell who was convicted of bigamy
in 1901 by the House of Peers was Francis Stanley
Russell. He later served in the second Labor
Government of Ramsay MacDonald of 1929 to 1931.
And now that my bearings are sharper, I am aware
that the philosopher's family had a murder victim
in the 19th Century. Lord Bertram's grandfather,
the Prime Minister Sir John Russell, was the
nephew of Lord William Russell, who was murdered
in his bed (his throat was cut) by his valet,
Francois Benjamin Courvoisier, in 1840. Courvoisier's trial is still studied, because of
an interesting legal ethics problem. His attorney, Charles Phillips, had based the defence
on suggesting the culprit was a maid in the
household. Suddenly a new witness who had received stolen property (she was a pawn broker)
from Courvoisier turned up. Phillips had a discussion with Courvoisier about the new evidence, and said he supposed the valet would
like to plead guilty now. Courvoisier acknowledged his guilt, but insisted that Phillips
conduct the same spirited defence as before.
After trying to get some guidance on the matter
(including from the judge), Phillips did exactly
that. It led to a great deal of negative comment
in newspapers and legal periodicals. Courvoisier
was convicted, and executed.
Jeff |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Sergeant
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 43
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 5:38 am: |
|
Morning All,
Some car's horn woke me up prematurely, but I
will add this. Regarding Edward Oxford. It is
from Frederick Boase, MODERN ENGLISH BIOGRAPHY,
Volume II: I - Q, Col. 1297:
"OXFORD, EDWARD (3 child of Mr. Oxford, the best
gold chaser in Birmingham, who d. 10 June
1829, his widow kept a coffee house in the
Borough road, London. b. Birmingham, 19 April
1822; discharged two pistols at queen Victoria
and prince Albert as they were driving up
Constitution hill, London, in an open phaeton
10 June 1840, tried at the Old Bailey 10 July
1840, found to be insane, sent first to
Bethlehem hospital, and then to Broadmoor,
Surrey; released from Broadmoor Nov. 1867,
but not permitted to live in the United
Kingdom. Reports of state trials in 498 -
555 (1892); W.C. Townsend's Modern state
trials i 102-50 (1850); L.Benson's Book of
remarkable trials (1871) 528 - 45;
A. Griffith's Newgate ii 285-9 (1884); The
Reginacide (1840).
Note - The pistol with which he shot at the
queen is in the criminal museum at the
convict office, New Scotland Yard, Victoria
embankment, London."
Boase is always a useful source for starting some
Victorian research. But he is not flawless.
Fortunately, although I lack those trial sources
or "THE REGINACIDE" [which sounds very rare,
indeed] I do possess volume two of THE CHRONICLES
OF NEWGATE by Major Arthur Griffiths. I looked up
the cite last evening, and found some interesting
background on the case, which I will mention later. For our purposes, Griffiths mentions that
Oxford was not released from Broadmoor until 1878.
I am inclined to believe Griffiths' date is more
correct than Boase (pending someone double-checking it), because Anderson was in Ireland in
the 1860s, and was not brought into England until
the 1870s. He would have no reason to be visiting
Broadmoor at all until he came to England. As
an official involved in investigating plots (by
Fenians, usually) against the Government and the
Royal Family, he would be introduced to Oxford,
(the first man to attempt to assassinate the Queen
in her reign) if the Government was planning to
release Oxford. So my guess is they met in the
late 1870s - somewhere between 1875 and 1878.
The Oxford case is (despite the number of cites
by Boase) under-examined. Surprisingly little
has been written about the seven assassination
attempts against Queen Victoria. Griffiths tries
to rosy-color his account, saying the Queen was
enjoying great popularity in 1840, the third year
of her reign. Actually, although her marriage to
Prince Albert was greeted with popular acclaim,
she was not too well liked that year. Her treatment of one of her Ladies-in-waiting, whom
she snubbed because she thought her illegitimately
pregnant (the poor woman turned out to be dying of
a large tumor) cost Victoria much public sympathy.
The marriage with Albert was the start of her
repairing her public image.
Griffiths gives a background to Oxford, whose
family had insanity (through his father). Edward
was a potboy and bartender in a pub, but resigned
in April 1840, and began going to shooting ranges
to train for his use of his pistols. When arrested, he had numerous papers on his person and
in his home, suggesting a widespread conspiracy
of a group called "Young England", with secret
names like Hannibal, Justinian, and Gowrie [talk
of a mysterious conspiratorial name - the "Gowrie
Mystery" is a very odd incident in the career of
King James I, when he was still King James VI
of Scotland and heir apparent to Queen Elizabeth]
One of the papers purported to be from the Kingdom
of Hanover, with orders from "the Master" to
Oxford.
Griffiths does not go into details, but this
paper became known as "THE HANOVER LETTER", and
shook up the public a little. Victoria was now
expecting a baby (the future Princess Vicky, who
became Empress of Germany and mother of Kaiser
Wilhelm II), and her premature death in 1840,
before the birth of a new heir, would have meant
that the throne would have gone to her unpopular
uncle, Ernest Duke of Cumberland, and now King of
Hanover [Hanoverian law did not permit female
rulers]. Ernest was a reactionary, and a cynic.
He was also widely suspected of murdering his
valet, De Selis, in St. James Palace in 1811 -
although it looks like the valet actually attacked
the Duke with a sabre before committing suicide.
His ascension to the English throne might not have
been too widely liked.
Once the "Hanover" letter was disposed of, as
another figment of Oxford's overactive imagination, it was easy to send him to an asylum. Everyone was satisfied, but Victoria.
She felt he deserved regular imprisonment at
hard labor. She forced Lord Melbourne to get the
law changed so that future unsuccessful assailants did not get off as easily (no use for
any insanity pleas). Although several of the
six future assailants were probably as mad as
the Mad Hatter, they all went to prison.
Oxford may have had a bit of influence on Irish
history (another reason for Anderson's meeting
with him). In 1846 a movement began that led to
a brief "revolt" in 1848 in Ireland, and several
treason trials. The movement, originally a reform movement, was called "Young Ireland", because it's leaders were young men like Charles
Duffy and John Devoy. They were trying to
differentiate themselves from the now elderly
Daniel O'Connor (who having achieved Catholic
Emancipation did not seem bent on further reform).
The title "Young Ireland" may have been influenced
by Oxford's imaginary "Young England".
A heady amount of history this - sorry about it.
Jeff |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Sergeant
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 46
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 12:47 pm: |
|
Final word on the Russells and their "Ripper
Connection" - I have a copy of the first volume
of Lord Bertram's Autobiography. While in Paris
in 1894, he records meeting "Miss Belloc" and
having an enjoyable conversation with her. "Miss
Belloc" is Mrs. Belloc Lowndes, author of THE
LODGER. However the conversation does not pertain
to current or recent crimes, according to Russell,
but to mutual acquaintances.
Jeff |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 176
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 6:20 pm: |
|
This extraordinarily detailed account again refers to a suspect being committed to Broadmoor. It was published in a Canadian newspaper called the Qu'Appelle Progress and is dated 28 March 1894. What connection this has to Anderson's suspect I will leave you to decide!
CS
   |
Chris Phillips
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 63
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 6:42 pm: |
|
This is referring to the Sun's allegations against Cutbush, I think. These are the allegations in 1894 that prompted Macnaghten to compose his famous memoranda.
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 177
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 19, 2003 - 6:43 pm: |
|
Many thanks - Chris
I will post a link in the Cutbush thread |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 218
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 6:08 pm: |
|
Hi all
I have found in the Washington Post of 15 May 1910 details from a letter from Forbes Winslow refuting the claims about the capture of Jack. This is presumably the Broadmoor article. Although the version of it heading this thread is dated July 1910, I have found published version of it from March of that year. One claim made by Winslow is that the police confirmed that the writing in the Ripper sent to him was the same as in the Goulston Street message - I had not seen this claim elsewhere
Washington Post 15 May 1910
"RIPPER" NEVER CAPTURED
London Doctor Says Notorious Murderer Effected His Escape
Special Cable to the Washington Post
London, May 14.
An extrenely interesting revival of the excited interest once felt in the "Jack the Ripper" tragedies has been brought about by the publication of the following letter in the Daily Telegraph from Dr. Forbes Winslow:-
"I beg to challenge the observations which have appeared during the last few days relative to the announcement that "Jack the Ripper" was captured. If there is any one who should know as to this I claim to be that person. The last murder committed was that of Alice Mackenzie on July 17, 1889. On August 30 of that uear I obtained a clew which I carefully worked up.
I traced the man from lodging to lodging; in fact, where he had stayed the night of the individual murders. I had feathers from the hats of the woman which he left in the individual lodgings which were handed to me by the proprietors of the rooms. I had a pair of Canadian snowshoes he left behind him at some lodgings, which were stained with blood.
I knew his haunts, his ways of living, and his habits. He was religious, homicidal monomaniac. Every Sunday morning he was to be seen on the stepd on St. Paul's Cathedral. I took the police into my confidence. I offered to catch the man provided they would render me the assistance I asked.
The red-tapeism surrounding Scotland Yard prevented their doing this. I was told by one of them that my clew was a very good one, but as a public body they could not help a pribate individual in his investigations. I warned them of what I should do. Receiving no help as requested, I published my clew. From that time to the present day no more "Jack the Ripper" murders have been committed.
Though I did not avtually capture the man, my intervention and action frightened him away. I have in my possession the actual letter sent me by "Jack the Ripper", the same writing as to which Sir Robert Anderson alludes to being found under the arches, and which the police rubbed off. One of the force identified the writing on my letter as being the same to which I am alluding.
It was a keen disappointment to me that the police did not act in cooperation with me. I cannot, however, allow the statement to be made that he was ever captured. What became of him after I had frightened him away remains a mystery which will never be afthomed."
|
Chris Phillips
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 70
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 6:23 pm: |
|
I have found in the Washington Post of 15 May 1910 details from a letter from Forbes Winslow refuting the claims about the capture of Jack. This is presumably the Broadmoor article. Although the version of it heading this thread is dated July 1910, I have found published version of it from March of that year.
That's interesting - if you've found another article making similar comments about Anderson's claims, from March, it would be very interesting to see what exactly it says - particularly as Anderson's letters to the Times that year (on the "Parnellism" issue) were in April.
If I remember correctly, Anderson's claims about Jack the Ripper were published in the March issue of Blackwood's Magazine.
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 219
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 6:34 pm: |
|
Further to Wisnlow's refutation of Anderson's claims, I found this article in the Wichita daily Times of 18 August 1910:
      |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 220
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 6:45 pm: |
|
Hi Chris
This is the relevant part of the March article - from 21 March 1910 Washington Post:
The Washington Post 21 March 1910
MANY ODD STORIES BEHIND BROADMOOR PRISON WALLS.
By A Veteran Diplomat.
Sir Robert Anderson, for more than 30 years chief of the criminal investigation department of the British government, and head of the detective bureau at Scotland Yard, has at length raised the veil of mystery which for nearly two decades has enveloped the identity of the perpetrator of those atrocious crimes known as the Whitechapel murders.
Sir Robert establishes the fact that the infamous "Jack the Ripper", as the unknown slayer had been dubbed by the public, and at whose hands no less than fourteen women of the unfortunate class lost their lives within a circumscribed area of the east end of London, was an alien of the lower, though educated class, hailing from Poland, and a maniac of the most virulent and homicidal type - of a type recorded, by reason of its rarity, in medical treatises, but one with which the owrld at large is not familiar.
But the most important point of all made by Sir Robert is the fact that once the criminal investigation department was sure that it had in its hands the real perpetrator of the Whitechapel murders it procured from the secretary of state for the home department a warrant committing the man for detention "during the kings's pleasure" to the great asylum for the criminal insane at Broadmoor five or six years ago.
Consigned to An Asylum.
"Jack the Ripper" was consigned to Broadmoor by virtue of a warrant of the secretary of state for the home department, acting in the name of the sovereign, and not by means of any judicial process.
In Great Britain the guiding pronciple of the state in connection with the criminal insane is that its first and most important obligation is the protection of the citizens from harm, and that in all instances where through defective legislation or legal technicalities the courts are unable to furnish this protection, it should be supplied by the government.
In order to illustrate how this scheme works out in actual practice, let me explain what would have been the fate of Harry Thaw if the crime laid at his door had been perpetrated on yonder side of the ocean instead of in the United States.
Until the enactment of the trial of lunatics law in 1883 he would, on the ground of the evidence produced, have been, as here, held guiltless, on the ground of irresponsibility. But if tried subsequent to the passage of that act of parliament, he would have been adjudged "guilty but insane."
Few regain Freedom.
No matter whether there be a conviction of this character or an acquittal on the score of insanity, the presiding judge gives orders that the prisoner "be detained during his majesty's pleasure." This means the consignment of the prisoner to the great penal asylum ar Broadmoor, one of the most remarkable institutions of the kind in the world, which is situated near Crowthorne, in the fairest portion of the county of Berks.
In 99 cases out of 100 the court of criminal appeal, should it be called upon to try the prisoner anew, will merely confirm the decree of "guilty but insane," and then the prisoner returns to Broadmoor, to share the fate of those acquitted on the score of insanity. He, like them, passes beyond the jurisdiction of the courts of law and into the power of the sovereign, acting in conjunction with his secretary of state for the home department. He remins at Broadmoor "during his majesty's pleasure" and can only be freed from thence by the warrant of the secretary of state.
The secretary of state is very chary about the grant of such warrants, and when in doubt usually follows the excellent rule of refraining from exercising the royal prerogative.
Several other classes of prisoners are kept in custody at Broadmoor, subject to the orders of the home secretary. There are, first of all, the men and women who have lost their reason while serving terms of hard labor or penal servitude.
Still another category of patients, and perhaps the most interesting of all, are those who are sent there in order to avoid bringing the stigma of crime and felony upon the escutcheon of some great house.
Behind the walls of Broadmoor are hidden away in this fashion some of the grandest names of the United Kingdom and terrible secrets affecting the old houses of nobility, which are known to few save the officials of the home department in London and perhaps to some of the superior officers of the London police force. Prisoners of this class seldom, if ever, procure their liberation. Their entire existence is passed behind the walls of the asylum, and they are classed among those graphically described by Lord Rosebery in a public address some time ago as "intellectually dead."
Although strict secrecy is observed with regard to the names and identity of the inmantes, I can remember during my several stays at Broadmoor as the guest of the late Dr. Meyers, who was its first director, and a very old and dear friend (he had been an associate of Florence Nightingale in the organization of the hospital service at Scutari in the Crimean war), to have seen and talked with a number of prisoners possessed of a certain amount of historical interest.
|
Chris Phillips
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 71
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 4:04 am: |
|
Chris Scott
Thanks for posting that extract from the Washington Post from 21 March 1910.
Obviously several paragraphs are identical with those you posted earlier from the Elyria Evening Telegram, 12 July 1910. But I don't think the Elyria version is just a copy from the Washington Post, as it inserts the crucial paragraph attributing the revelations to "an article over his signature in one of the leading London reviews and supplemented by a letter in the London Tomes", which isn't in your extract from the Washington Post.
The section starting "Behind the walls of Broadmoor" also differs between the two, and it's interesting that the Washington Post lapses into the first person - "I can remember during my several stays at Broadmoor" - whereas the Elyria E.T. has "Sir Robert recalls during his several stays..."
If anyone has the section of Anderson's Blackwood's article dealing with his Broadmoor reminiscences, it would be interesting to know whether the Washington Post is quoting verbatim. I suppose it's too much to hope that these other statements about the Ripper being in Broadmoor are buried in Blackwood's, and have been missed by previous researchers?
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 222
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 6:05 am: |
|
Hi Chris
The March article is subtitled By A Veteran Diplomat
It would be interesting to know who he was! The first person references might apply to him
Out of interest, it relates in the later section of the article that the Dr Meyers referred to, director of Brodamoore, was killed by an inmate.
Regards
Chris |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 223
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 6:40 am: |
|
Hi Chris
Here is the rest of the March article which I have now transcribed. Again it mentions Edward Oxford and Mrs Brough but again lapses into the first person when recouting this. Also it gives an account of the death of Dr Meyers.
Tried to Shoot Queen
Chief among them was Edward Oxford, who in 1849 attempted to shoot Queen Victoria with a double-barreled pistol when she was driving with the prince consort back from Hyde Park down Constitution Hill to Buckingham Palace. Oxford, when I saw him, was an old man, apparently in good health, and showed more signs of insanity then the director of Broadmoor.
There, too, was detained that extraordinary "Boy Jones" (when I met him an elderly and respectable looking man) who one night just as Queen Victoria was getting into bed was found concealed under a lounge in her bedroom at Buckingham Palace, one of his feet peeping out attracting the attention of one of the queen's dressers. To this day nobody knows how the boy got there, or what his object was in thus concealing himself in her majesty's bedroom. Such elaborate precautions were were and are always adopted to prevent the intrusion of any stranger, and so strictly is Buckingham Palace guarded by the police and the military, that it seems inconceiveable that the boy, who was unarmed and who refused to give any account of himself , should have been able to make his way unnoticed to the queen's bedroom. Nor would he ever afford any explanantion of the object of his intrusion or of the methods which he had employed to reach the private apartments of the queen.
King's Nurse an Inmate.
Anothr strange inmate of Broadmoor was old Mrs. Brough, who had been the nurse of King Edward, who, in spite of what has been said, was not nursed by his mother, the queen. Mrs. Brough, as a reward for her services to the heir apparent, was accorded a cottage in the grounds of the royal palace of Claremont (now the home of the Duchess of Albany), her husband being employed as one of the gardeners on the place. King Edward spent much of his boyhood there, owing to the fact of its being within reach of Windsor castle. When he was about 14 years of age, and while he was staying at Claremont House, a terrible tragedy took place.
Mrs. Brough, having quarreled with her husband to such an extent that he left the cottage vowing never to return, became, during the following night, afflicted with homicidal mania, and before morning she cut with a razor the throats of all her six children, subsequently making a vain attempt to kill herself.
Mrs. Brough was put on trial for this sextuple murder, acquitted on the score of insanity, and ordered to be detained during his majesty's pleasure at Broadmoor, where I remember her as a kindly looking old woman of 82, who, save for that one night of homicidal mania, had never suffered from a moment of dementia in her life.
Dr. Meyers himself was killed by one of the inmates of the asylum, who one Sunday during divine service rose from the place where he was kneeling, and, using his handkerchief as a sling, hurled a large and sharp flint at the head of the kneeling doctor, striking him with great force on the temple.
The man was regarded as sufficiently sane to be permitted to work in the extensive gardens of the doctor, and later on to assist him in secretarial duties, being much liked and even trusted by Mrs. Meyers and her children. He was an Oxford graduate and a most intellectual and cultivated man. Yet he was confined at Broadmoor for having coolly hacked off the head of his aged mother with a carving knife.
To cap matters, he had put the head on a dish and covered it with a silver cover, engraved with the family crest and coat of arms. Then he placed it on the table before his wife and sisters, who had until that moment been in total ignorance of the fact that there was anything the matter with his mind.
Dr. Meyers, in reply to an appeal from this prisoner, pointed out to him that he could not be set at liberty without a warrant from the secretary of state for the home department and that the latter would probably be reluctant to take any such step in view of the unfortunate incident what had led to his being confined at Broadmoor. Whereupon the man exclaimed:
"Oh! You mean that little affair with my poor dear mother? She did not mind it a bit!"
It was the refusal of the doctor to take any steps toward his liberation which probably exasperated the man into killing him.
|
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 224
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 7:57 am: |
|
Here is the transcription of the Wichita article about Forbes Winslow. Does anyone know who the "poor demented Irish student" refers to who she asserts had been charged in connectiopn with the crimes?
Wichita Daily Times 18 August 1910
Discovers Identity of Jack the Ripper
(New York Times)
London, Aug. 16.
For the last few months the identity of "Jack the Ripper", whose crimes in Whitechapel, London during 1888-89 filled the world with horror, has concerned certain London papers. This revival of the gruesome subject has been stimulated by the publication of a book by a former chief of police, in which it is stated that "Jack the Ripper" had been actually apprehended and incarcerated in an insane asylum. This has been denied by Dr. Forbes Winslow, who reproduced the correspondence that he had with the police at the time, in which he offered to point the criminal any Sunday morning morning at the door of St. Pauls'a church - an offer which the police, for reasons never explained, declined to accept.
Dr. Winslow has now received a letter from a married woman in Melbourne, giving a history of the man past and present, which coincides he says entirely with his views. Portions of this letter omitting the names mentioned have been gievn for publication. It begin.
Letter from Melbourne.
"You challenge is more than justified in "Jack the Ripper." You indeed frightened him away for he sailed away in a ship called the Murrumbidgee, working his passage to Melbourne, arriving here in the latter part of 1889."
This is after the last of the "Jack the Ripper" crimes, Dr. Winslow points out. Then follows the man's history:
"He is a native of Melbourne, Victoria. He was educated at the Scotch college here. The late Dr. ______ was a great friend of the family, and it was from him he gained his surgical knowledge, the doctor taking him to post mortems. When he arrived in Melbourne he married Miss _____, who lived only a little over a year.
His wife, the letter continues, died from natural causes. It was shortly after her death that Dr. Forbes Winslow's correspondent met "Jack". He told her he had had a hard time in London and he was then buying the papers that contained the fullest reports of crimes. She asked him why he bought these papers and the letter proceeds:
Alleged Confession.
"He said "I want to see how things are in London." Then he began reading the trial of a man named James Canham Reade. This man married and deserted several women and finally killed one, for which crime he was hanged. When he had finished reading, I said, "What a fearful fellow!" He said, "Yes." I then said, "What about Jack the Ripper?" He said, "Strange, those crimes ceased once I left England.""
This remark astounded her, especially as she knew he had been living in that part of London where the crimes had been committed. She tried, however, to banish the thought from her mind, but several times afterward she referred to it, and at last he told her he did commit the murders. She asked him for an explanantion and he first said revenge and afterward that research had made him guilty. The letter continued:
"I wrote to Scotland Yard telling them all. Sir Robert Anderson answered my letter, but as I had told them all I had to say, I did not write again till last year, but I have heard nothing from them. It is my opinion they all bungled this matter up and do not like owning up to it.
"I even gave him up in Melbourne in 1894. The police examined him. He told them he was in Melbourne in 1890, so they found this was true, and without asking him where he was in 1880 they let him go. He laughed and said, "See what fools they are. I am the real man they are searching the earth for, but they take me in one door and let me out of the other." I even gave one detective a letter of his, but he only laughed. I asked him to have the writing compared with that at home signed "Jack the Ripper", but he did nothing. Now I have burned his letter long since."
One Coincidence.
The writer goes on to give Dr. Winslow the man's name, to say that he is still called "Jack" by his relatives and friends and that at the present time he is in South Africa. She suggests a means of getting into communication with him in order to obtain a specimen of his handwriting again.
The writer then mentions that he often used to attend St. Paul's in London - and that he always carried an ugly sheath knife in his belt.
"What I regret most," she adds, "is that any one should think that that poor, demented Irish student should have been guilty of this man's crimes. I did not know till this week that any one was charged with those crimes, or I should have made a great deal more noise than I have done, knowing as I do the real culprit. I am certain as I am writing that he is your man."
Dr. Winslow, commenting on the letter said that he knew "Jack the Ripper" had left England and that he had neither been captured nor committed suicide. He intends to follow up the present clue, and if Scotland Yard desires any information he will at once place every fact and name of which he is possession at their disposal.
|
Chris Phillips
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 72
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 10:01 am: |
|
Does anyone know who the "poor demented Irish student" refers to who she asserts had been charged in connectiopn with the crimes?
The only demented Irish student with a Ripper connection who springs to mind, is Reginald Saunderson, who cut the throat of a prostitute in Kensington in November 1894, apparently causing something of a Ripper "flap". His father lived near Dublin at the time, and his uncle was an Irish MP.
But he was said to have just turned 21 at the time, so it seems unlikely that anyone could have seriously suspected him of committing the Ripper crimes 6 years earlier.
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 226
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 11:50 am: |
|
Hi Chris
I thought of him but the tone of the article from 1910 suggests that the letter from the woman was much more recent and she says she only heard about someone (the Irish student) being charged "This week"
Chris
|
Wolf Vanderlinden
Sergeant
Username: Wolf
Post Number: 21
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 2:36 pm: |
|
The "poor demented Irish student" was William Grant Grainger. Grainger's solicitor, George Kebbel, in response to Anderson's memoirs, stated in the Pall Mall Gazette , (15 April, 1910), that Anderson was totally wrong and that his client, Grainger, was in fact the Ripper. This caused a minor attack of apoplexy in Forbes Winslow who also wrote to the Pall Mall Gazette, (19 April, 1910), and stated that both Anderson and Kebbel were wrong and that he, Forbes Winslow, knew who the real Ripper was. This produced an on going slanging match between Winslow and Kebble carried out in the press.
Becoming almost unhinged Winslow proclaimed that he had taken up the cause of Grainger, whom he called William Grant, and proceeded to make a nuisance of himself, trying various official avenues, with Grainger in tow like some small child, to clear Grainger's name.
Wolf. |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 54
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 11:04 pm: |
|
Hi all,
An interesting selection of newspaper reports. I
find it interesting that Winslow's "Melbourne"
suspect took such an interest in the 1894 case of
James Canham Read, for the murder of Florence
Dennis at the village of Prittlewell, near Southend. Read, a married man with eight children, was a 19th Century lothario who had several affairs. He had romanced Florence's sister Mrs. Ayriss before he turned to Florence.
But Florence became pregnant,and when she began
to demand what Read was going to do about it,
Read decided to commit a perfect murder. He kept
arranging correspondences with Florence through
what he thought were indirect (i.e. untraceable)
means through letter drops. He also concocted a
scheme to lure Florence to a town where they were
not known, without anyone knowing they were going
to meet (Read was a great believer in what we would call wishful thinking - he kept telling
Florence not to tell anyone about their correspondence or meeting, and he believed her
when she said she did what he told her). Read
also hoped, after shooting Florence in an isolated
spot, that he could get back to his home in London
to establish an alibi. He got lost walking in the
dark, and stopped several people (including a
curious police constable) for directions. But he
maintained his innocence to the end.
If the man in Melbourne was the Ripper, he was
probably amused by the ineptness of Read in trying
to commit one perfect murder, and the fact that
Read was able to flee the police for some time,
hiding in a cottage with one of his unsuspecting
girl friends. The Yard could still look foolish
six years after Whitechapel. But they did finally catch Read.
By the way, Read liked to write letters to the
newspapers. In 1889 he sent a letter denouncing
the coverage of the trial of Florence Maybrick, because it had a bad effect on the moral upbringing of children. He was more than a little
bit of a hypocrite.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 228
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 31, 2003 - 6:15 am: |
|
Hi Jeff and Wolf
many thanks for the useful comments. The info about Read was very interesting because I knew no details about that yet till now.
Personally I think the articles above say more about the psychology of Forbes Winslow than the suspect. He is in his own way a fascinating character in that he was obviously a man of greater status (in Victorian terms) and professional knowledge than most "cranks". His position as head of a private asylum, the fact that many reports I have read detail his being invited to speak at or even chair important international meetings on medico-legal subjects, all point to him being a well known and respected professional. Yet with regard to the Ripper he is "driven", to the point of obsession over a long period of years. In these articles above, which we must remember date from 22 years after the murders, he is still chasing the Ripper, metaphorically if not actually, or at the least still seeking credit for identifying him and stopping the murders.
What is also important is the inconsistency of Winslow's alleged identification over the years. If we look at the details of G. Wentworth Bell Smith, the insane medical student supposedly caged in an asylum and the Australian suspect above whom Winslow appears to be latching onto they are, in my opinion, mutually exclusive, and so at the end of the day just which of these individuals (if any or all of them existed) did Forbes Winslow definitively identify as the Ripper? Of course, any investigator had the right (indeed the duty) to change his mind in the light of new evidence, but the later articles by Forbes Winslow make it clear that he is still crediting his original identification as the true Ripper even though later details he gave are incompatible.
The alleged correspondent from melbourne mentions the St Pauls link which certainly fits in with the original story about Bell Smith. But in Forbes Winslow's original account Smith was Canadian and returned to Canada - indeed he worked for a Canadian company. Suddenly this switches to an Australian who returns to Australia - some geographic leap!
I am working on a longer article about Forbes Winslow and his theories and I hope to be submitting this to the site before too long
Regards
Chris S |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 229
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 31, 2003 - 3:14 pm: |
|
I found a long article about Forbes Winslow in the Washington Post of 26 June 1911 entitled INSANITY EXPERT DESCRIBES MURDERERS HE HAS KNOWN. This is a LONG article and as well as a section on Jack (posted below)also mentions Neil Cream and Florrie Maybrick! Almost like a suspects convention!
Two things of note:
1) Winslow describes scouting round Whitechapel the week after he receieved his Ripper letter
2) he makes the astonishing concession that the letter may have been from a friend of his.
I'll be posting the full article when it is transcribed
Washington Post 26 June 1911
INSANITY EXPERT DESCRIBES MURDERERS HE HAS KNOWN
From the New York Times
Dr. Forbes L. Winslow was the founder of the British Hospital for Mental Disorders in London. He is vice president of the Medico Legal Congress, New York and chairman of the psychological department.
..............
"But no crime, I believe, has brought me sych a succession of thrills as the notorious "Jack the Ripper" murders. Scores of correspondents advised me to wash my hands of the affair, but I was too fascintaed to listen, and I honestly believe that had I been rendered the requisite assistance, I should have captured "Jack" on the steps of St. Paul's Cathderal. He was a religious maniac.
Do you remember the famous threatening letter I received? "This week," it read, "you will hear from me. Signed Jack the Ripper."
It was an exciting week. My pockets were picked in Whitechapel twice, and I am wondering still who were the two men who insisted on dogging my footsteps while I was trying to dog the murderer's. And the woman, too, who implored me to minister to here sick child. Who was she? She hadn't a child at all.
Was she in league with my shadower? And were the three in league with the "Ripper" and was it really "Jack the Ripper" who wrote to me, or was the writer a poor, deluded friend of mine?
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 55
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 31, 2003 - 3:40 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
Thanks for the comments on Read, whose story is a fascinating one, but one that has not been written up as much as it should be - his trial was not of sufficient interest to British jurisprudence to get a volume in the Notable British Trials series, or any other for that matter. A good, recent account is in MURDER BY
GASLIGHT by Leonard Piper (New York: Gallery
Books, 1991).
Given his obsession with the Ripper Case, Forbes
Winslow could have been the subject of a psychiatric observation. However, his concentration on a subject with a Canadian or Australian background is interesting. Two of the
actual killer-suspects (Fred Deeming and Dr. Neill
Cream) are multi-continent killers, the former
committing murders in Liverpool and Melbourne (where the unknown suspect resided - though after
Deeming was hanged there), and the former in
Ontario, Chicago, Illinois, and London. Winslow
may have been infected by the rumors circulating
about Deeming and Cream, or his own ruminations and theorizing (if he discussed them) may have
helped spread the rumors about Deeming and Cream.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 168
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 31, 2003 - 5:30 pm: |
|
Hi, all:
In regard to the ship mentioned in the letter from the "married woman in Melbourne" that was received by Forbes Winslow, I have uncovered some interesting information. As posted above, the woman wrote to Winslow, "You indeed frightened him [the suspect] away for he sailed away in a ship called the Murrumbidgee, working his passage to Melbourne, arriving here in the latter part of 1889."
It appears that according to a list of ships of the Blue Anchor line, the Murrumbidgee was only in service 1887-1893, when she was sold to Portugal and renamed the Peninsular. According to the website, the Murrumbidgee was one of a number of ships of the steamship line that followed the following route: "The outbound voyages were to Australia with passengers and cargo, thence northbound in ballast to China where tea was loaded for the homeward passage." The route taken was, "London - Tenerife - Capetown - Adelaide - Melbourne - Hobart - Launceston - Sydney." Possibly a look at the crew list for the Murrumbidgee during its passage to Melbourne in late 1889 might reveal the man's name considering he was apparently only on board for the outbound passage.
Best regards
Chris
|
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 230
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 31, 2003 - 6:41 pm: |
|
Hi Chris
I have found the Inward passenger list for the Murrumbidgee for 1889 and am attaching below. The Apr and Sep refer to the two stops it made in Victoria, one in April 1889 and one in September 1889:
Index of Inward Passengers on MURRUMBIDGEE for 1889 (Victoria, Australia)
Barratt, Ellen aged 40 Sep
Barratt, Ellen aged 17 Sep
Barratt, William aged 43 Sep
Barratt, William aged 16 Sep
Barry, Arthur aged 26 Apr
Bartley, Alexander aged 42 Apr
Bartley, Alexander aged 19 Apr
Blyth, Alfred aged 6 Apr
Blyth, Alice aged 11 Apr
Blyth, Elizabeth aged 42 Apr
Blyth, Isabella aged 14 Apr
Blyth, Thomas aged 42 Apr
Blyth, Thomas aged 13 Apr
Bond, Samuel aged 27 Apr
Broadley, Arthur aged 23 Apr
Coston, William N aged 22 Apr
Cox, John aged 22 Apr
Dann, Edward J aged 26 Apr
Dann, Emma aged 27 Apr
Dann, James W aged --- Apr
Donnelly, L aged 22 Apr
Gilbor, Harris aged 40 Apr
Horn, John aged 37 Sep
Horn, John aged 11 Sep
Hughes, Jesse aged 36 Apr
Hughes, Maurice aged 36 Apr
Hughes, Robert aged 27 Apr
Hughes, Tommy aged 10 Apr
Humphries, Adelaide aged 5 Sep
Humphries, Agnes aged --- Sep
Humphries, Albert aged 13 Sep
Humphries, Arthur aged 11 Sep
Humphries, Berty aged 3 Sep
Humphries, Cornelius aged 7 Sep
Humphries, Harry aged 16 Sep
Humphries, Jane aged 41 Sep
Humphries, Priscilla aged 9 Sep
Humphries, William aged 46 Sep
Johnson, Margaret aged 22 Sep
Johnson, Peter aged 32 Sep
Johnson, William aged 2 Sep
Macrone, Arthur aged 19 Apr
McGee, Ann aged 36 Apr
McGee, Ann aged 3 Apr
McGee, Frederick aged 7 Apr
McGee, Helen aged --- Apr
McGee, James aged 10 Apr
McGee, John aged 11 Apr
McGee, William aged 37 Apr
McGee, William aged 6 Apr
Megsin, Reulin aged 56 Sep
Parkman, James aged 50 Apr
Pilkington, Arthur aged --- Sep
Pilkington, Arthur R aged --- Sep
Shaw, Thomas aged 16 Apr
Smith, Thomas aged 32 Apr
Souter, Arthur aged 23 Apr
Thompson, Frank aged 9 Apr
Thompson, Kate aged 12 Apr
Thompson, Leonard aged 10 Apr
Thompson, Lizzie aged 15 Apr
Thompson, W aged 50 Apr
Wood, John aged 22 Apr
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 58
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 01, 2003 - 1:19 pm: |
|
Hi all,
The Blue Anchor Line, that the Murrumbidgee belonged to in 1888, was the same line that owned
the ill-fated Waratah, which was lost in a storm
off the Cape of Good Hope (with no survivors) in
1909.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Chris Phillips
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 80
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 23, 2003 - 12:36 pm: |
|
A postscript to the discussion about the interesting articles on Anderson which Chris Scott found in American newspapers.
Looking at these again a few days ago, it seemed fairly obvious that the Elyria Evening Telegram has taken the Washington Post article, and has placed its correspondent's Broadmoor stories in
Anderson's mouth (whether by accident or design).
That doesn't really help us to decide where the Washington Post got its story about the Ripper having been committed to Broadmoor, but I think it is clear that the accompanying reminiscences are nothing to do with Anderson.
Chris Phillips
|
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 657
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 06, 2005 - 7:19 pm: |
|
Let me get this straight; this guy identified Jack the Ripper and then refused to testify against him and the response was 'okay have a nice weekend'? Give me a break! |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 115
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 06, 2005 - 9:53 pm: |
|
Hi Stan,
You made an excellent point. Under the circumstances, human nature tells me that the police would have used every means available to "persuade" him to testify.
c.d. |
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 660
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 06, 2005 - 10:36 pm: |
|
Hi c.d.,
Yes, why wasn't he charged with obstruction of justice, accessory after the fact or aiding and abetting? Why wasn't he subpoenaed to testify and, if he refused or changed his story, charged with contempt of court and/or perjury? Anderson couldn't have been the only other person in the room so they all could testify the man identified the killer and thus there would be more than one man's word against the other. The bit about 'the only person to have gotten a good look at the killer' bothers me too. Unless the witness actually saw a murder, how could he know that he'd seen the killer?
Stan
(Message edited by sreid on December 06, 2005) |
Andrew Spallek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 1012
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 12:44 pm: |
|
A few thoughts:
The phrase 'the only person to have gotten a good look at the killer' I think implies an underlying assumption. I doubt that the witness actually saw a murder being committed. He probably saw a suspicious character moments after (or before) a murder was committed and it was assumed that this was the murderer. Without physical evidence it is doubtful that such testimony would result in a conviction, hence the police would not be anxious to press the matter. Also, think about it. All the witness would have to do in court is say, "After thinking about it some more I'm not so sure this is the man I saw." I'm sure that happens all the time. You can't prove willful obstruction of justice in a case like this.
I find more puzzling Anderson's passing mention of the "City PC" witness. I think that must be the result of faulty memory.
Andy S.
(Message edited by aspallek on December 07, 2005) |
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 661
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 5:19 pm: |
|
Hi Andrew,
If what you say about "the killer" is true, and it may well be, then the choice of words was quite self serving.
If the testimony wouldn't convict anyone, then what was the witness worried about?
Yes, the witness could have changed his story but why didn't the police force the issue to see if he actually would? They had nothing to loose since just letting him slide gave us the same worst case result. He could have been pressed to keep his story straight by releasing his statement to the press and showing him to be an "enabler of the killer" if he wimped out on the identification.
This Anderson/Swanson tale just doesn't pass the smell test. In fact, it stinks to High Heaven. The least Swanson could have done was to come up with a full name for the killer. That right there tells us that he was just covering his a--.
We may disagree but I hope I don't sound disagreable. I'm just stating my thoughts.
Best wishes,
Stan |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 116
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 9:00 pm: |
|
Hi Stan. Hi Andy,
Actually I think you are both right. As Andy said, all the witness would be doing would be identifying a suspect who was seen right before the victims death. Not enough for a conviction. But as you said Stan, then why would he be hesitant? You are also right in saying that this doesn't pass the smell test. Couldn't the police have found a Rabbi to convince the witness that what he would be doing was in accordance with Jewish law? They could have offered to up the reward. Threatening to publish his refusal to identify the "murderer" would also be effective. Tell him that his name and address would also be published. So, it seems like the police had a number of weapons at their disposal and chose not to use them. This really seems to take a lot away from Anderson's credibility on this issue.
c.d. |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1225
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 07, 2005 - 10:05 pm: |
|
Andy is correct....there was no collusion on the part of the mystery Jew witness..
C.D....
A couple of ideas here:
There's a book by a Jewish writer named Chaim Bermant....in which he is said to support the idea that a Jewish witness would not testify against a Jewish perpetrator,when it involved a non-Jew.
I don't have this book, but allow me to ramble on here...
Does this mean that there was some sort of precedent in London of Jewish witnesses not coming forward and being responsible enough to testify in capital offenses against the Goy?? If there had been, why didn't Anderson specify ONE case when he was able to ? I challenge anyone to show one case with documentation to prove otherwise.
Does this mean that this Jewish witness was oblivious to the ramifications of a "leak" by the authorities ? "Oh, we have the Ripper here in a cell...its just that a Jew wouldn't do his duty and testify against him....You know those Yids.."
Does this mean that career policeman Anderson forgot to mention that the suspect wouldn't be hung or sentenced to capital punishment, even if this Jew did testify?
Does this mean that of all the cases involving capital murder,that this case was NOT unique ? There are other cases where Jews clammed up when a non-Jew was slain...and Jewboy witness failed to do his duty? Yeah??? Name one !
The claims by Mr.Bermant that support Saint Bob might be likely in cases that involve nicking a few apples from Mr. O'Sullivan or Mrs. Read..
Anderson was a pisspoor cop to NOT have used the wiles [ did he have any?] accumulated over that long career to NOT try shakedown tactics to induce this loyal Jew to testify against a fellow Jew who would not have been executed anyway...
Anderson's witness must have been very stupid to not understand the difference between testifying and not testifying...If he felt it was another potential pogrom heading in the direction of the Jews and the catalyst of a riot against them...then Anderson was twice as stupid for not manipulating this golden opportunity.
A beat cop in Podunk,Iowa would have been better in Anderson's shoes. |
Andrew Spallek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 1015
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 12:30 am: |
|
If the testimony wouldn't convict anyone, then what was the witness worried about?
Stan, you don't sound disagreeable at all.  But come on now, you wouldn't be a bit frightened to identify a suspect in court if that suspect were then acquitted and out on the streets? It seems to me that would be something to be frightened about!
Andy S. |
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 668
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 08, 2005 - 1:55 am: |
|
Hi Andy,
But I don't see why the cops wouldn't have put the squeeze on him anyway. What did they care as long as got their man.
If the guy was worried about retaliation, he should have been smart enough to keep his mouth shut in the first place.
Stan |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
