|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 673
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 02, 2003 - 12:05 pm: |       |
This clipping below is from an Australian paper dated 12 November 1888 but the dateline from London is Nov 9, the day of Kelly's murder. It has obvious resonances of the Cleveland Street scandal but that was the year after. Any info about this incident will be gratefully received.
Thanks
Chris
 |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1158
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 03, 2003 - 10:54 am: | |
Chris, a financial scandal? Perhaps something to do with the Panama Canal?
Robert |
John Ruffels
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 149
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 4:51 am: | |
Very important find Chris, from a Victorian/Edwardian London historical perspective.
Does Montgomery Hyde touch on this earlier sensation in his THE CLEVELAND STREET SCANDAL?
This is the first I have ever heard of it.As Robert Charles Linford queries above, perhaps it was a financial 'scandale'.
But surely this type of thing would have been grist for the slow-grinding yellow press of Paris or New York?
Chris, there will be more mention elsewhere. mark my word. |
John Ruffels
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 150
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 4:54 am: | |
And a Post Script. I note the agency supplying the cabled news is the United Press Association.
This suggests other newspapers outside England, particularly in the colonies. would have taken it up too. |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 151
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 4:59 am: | |
And even a POST, Post Script:
Surely the list of Officers resigning their commissions in November 1888 should be readily accessible.
Even the sudden departure of numbers of peers and 'honorables', to reside abroad would have prompted some discreet remarks in the better London broadsheets?
And just what do the MEPOL records show of "prepared warrants" which were not proceeeded with? |
Natalie Severn
Sergeant
Username: Severn
Post Number: 25
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 12:46 pm: | |
Have only just spotted this intriguing find from Chris.What about U.P.Montreal or Toronto?I happen to have been in both these offices in the past but wouldn"t know how to approach this.It could be a very important find.U.P.was small compared to Reuters but suuplied a significant amount of news to Canada.Natalie |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 147
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 01, 2003 - 1:33 pm: | |
To read an excellent article on West End clubs in Victorian times go to www.geocities.com/williamarthurs/club22.htm |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 152
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 5:30 am: | |
Thanks Diana, a very informative and interesting essay.
I have recently remembered reading somewhere in the JTR morass, about a Senior Scotland Yard detective of the 1880's/1890's claiming to have intervened to save the reputations and inheritances of several "respectable" titled families, when their eldest sons were drifting into dangerous gambling habits in the London Clubs.
I possibly read this in an examination of the role of Abberline or Munro in the Cleveland Street Scandal of 1889, or of the alleged establishment cover-up of Royal derring-dos in the streets of Whitechapel.
Can anyone else help track down this reference?
It might show the above scandal to be gambling. |
Chris Phillips
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 138
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 03, 2003 - 9:24 am: | |
Thanks to Chris for sharing the details of another interesting discovery, and to John for pointing out a possible connection with another episode recounted in the Ripper literature.
The detective intervening in the gambling club sounds like Monro, extracts from whose memoirs were printed by Howells and Skinner, The Ripper Legacy (p. 108 of my 1988 paperback edition). He recounts how he raided The Field Club, in the West End, and "captured" various noblemen. A Lady Dudley had entreated that something should be done to save her son, and Lord Bateman had begged Monro to intervene, as he had had to mortgage some of his estates to pay his sons gambling debts. But the "Conservative papers" never forgave Monro for raiding the club and embarrassing those concerned, rather than quietly putting a stop to it.
The Dudleys concerned sound like the widow and son of the Earl of Dudley who died in 1885, and clearly it would have taken place before Monro's departure for India in 1890. A couple of chance references in The Complete Peerage seem to imply that these families were financially embarrassed around that time - the 2nd Lord Bateman (d. 1901) at some point sold "the fine estate of Kelmarsh, Northants, the paternal inheritance of the Hanbury family for considerably more than 200 years" [vol. 2, p. 15], and in 1889 the Earl of Dudley sold one of the jewels of his father's art collection - Turner's "Grand Canal of Venice" - for £20,000.
Even so, I wonder whether this is really the incident described in Chris Scott's article. It sounds as if the "Conservative papers" expressed their indignation at Monro's action, rather than suppressing it. And isn't the language - "horrible scandal" etc - a bit strong to describe illegal gambling?
It would be interesting to know for sure, as a suppressed homosexual scandal in November 1889, perhaps involving the "Cleveland Street Set", could obviously have significant implications for more than one Ripper suspect.
Chris Phillips
|
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 153
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 5:49 am: | |
Thanks Chris,
Yes, that mention from Munro's memoirs in Howells & Skinner's THE RIPPER LEGACY,was the reference I was thinking of.
Elsewhere, I have seen listed the noble sons who "hung out" with the Prince of Wales, attending race meetings, gambling dens and theatre green rooms. There was an imputation that some peers were notorious for an inability to pay debts and an ability to sponge on other, more gullible titled persons with money.
Thomas Dutton sounds like someone on the fringe of this crowd.
But I agree with Chris, the coloured language and the use of "horrible" suggests a scandal less common than the peerage's "Gambler's Anonymous".
"Foul deeds shall rise,
Though all the world o'erwhelm them
To men's eyes".
(Hecate to the Three Witches): "Macbeth". |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 154
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 6:01 am: | |
Natalie,
Excuse my not acknowledging your post before.You ask might not United Press' present day offices provide some clues.
I wonder if you could find out if there was a list of newspapers which took United Press Association cables back in 1888? Perhaps now in UP
archives.
Just a wild shot. But back in the Victorian era,
just about everything was listed in a publication.
Perhaps other cable-takers revealed more.That is
overseas cable clients. |
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 743
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 10:41 am: | |
Hi all
Glad the club scandal find has proved interesting
One thing I'm not sure about- the specific mention of "Hebrew financiers" - how common would Jewish members of such private clubs been in the 1880's?
Any info welcome
Chris S |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1484
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 11:02 am: | |
Hi
The wording of the article puzzles me. It speaks of a list of offenders, and about the offenders having fled, but also says that warrants will not be executed provided certain people leave the UK.
Were the Dukes etc the people who had already fled? Or were they the ones who were expected to flee? And if the offenders had already fled, where do the warrants come in? I'm confused!
Robert |
John Savage
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 123
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 05, 2003 - 12:16 pm: | |
Hi Chris
I am not sure if the gentlemens clubs of the time had any policy regarding religion, but there were of course wealthy Jews like the Rothschild family, and don't forget Disraeli was jewish; and I bet they were members of some club or other. Also if the nature of the scandal was sexual then I would suppose it did not matter who you were as long as you could pay.
Regards,
John Savage |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 176
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 3:08 pm: | |
Hi all,
Re: "Hebrew financiers" club members:
I know little about clubland, but there are degrees of acceptance in one age that a previous age might not have tolerated as well. In (say 1800)a club in London would not have had anyone who was an active member of a synagogue as a member. But if someone with a Jewish background, who had converted to a Protestant sect (not Catholicism yet), and was known for prominent reasons (like the Quaker, member of Parliament, and well-respected economist David Ricardo)was offered for membership, he'd probably get passed. By the middle years of the 19th Century,
to be Jewish was still a handicap, but slowly accepted. Disraeli's father, Isaac D'Israeli, had converted to Anglicanism in a squabble with
his synagogue, and converted his family as well.
So Benjamin was actually a practicing Church of
England member - but because of still existing
anti-Semitism he could not (and would not) reject
his Jewish heritage. His choice of both literary and political careers, unfortunately, invited very nasty comments (not only from political enemies, but literary ones - Thackeray
loved to lampoon Disraeli: see his "Codlingsby
by D'Shrewsbery", in one of a series of spoofs of
popular writers of the 1840s*). But he managed by
grit and genius to become master of the Tory party
of his day - nobody was going to blackball him after 1855 without worrying about retaliation. In
1855 it was finally allowed for a Jew who had not
converted to become a member of the House of Commons. The first one was Mr. Lionel Rothschild.
He would later become the first sitting Jewish member of the House of Lords. A Rothschild would have no danger (probably earlier than Disraeli) at membership in some clubs, because of their financial power. But how many "Rothschild" style
Jewish financiers were there in 1887/88? Maybe
a handful. Think of the banking houses of England in that period - Barings, the Glyns, and
the rest. They are mostly Protestants. It is not impossible for a member of a club in 1887 to be a financier of a Jewish background, but it is not as large a number of possibilities as one would think.
[*The spoof, being by Thackeray, is mean spirited, but one must admit it's funny. Disraeli had used his novel, CONINGSBY, to present his views on the English political world
(it is possibly the first intelligent English
novel on politics), but Harry Coningsby is mentored, in part, by Sidonia, a Jewish financier in England. Disraeli has Sidonia give a number of speeches in the novel about how wonderful for mankind that Jews influence finance. One of them has Sidonia visiting the finance ministers of every European power, and finding they are all Jews (or of Jewish ancestry). This, of course would not fully sit well with anti-Semites, and
Thackeray has fun with it (his version of Sidonia talks like a second-hand clothes dealer). Thackeray attacked other writers (his spoof on
Sir Edward Bulwer-Lytton is equally funny). He
does one of James Fenimore Cooper too (THE SCARS AND STRIPES, or THE LAST OF THE MULLIGANS). Disraeli read the spoofs, and bided his time. He respected Thackeray's talents, so he did not strike back until after the latter's death in 1863. In his last completed novel, Disraeli portrays a popular novelist named St. Barbe, who is perenially jealous of a better, more popular
novelist named "Gushy". It is take-off on Thackeray's feelings about Charles Dickens.]
Best wishes,
Jeff |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 155
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 5:22 pm: | |
Very interesting background on "Jewish financiers" in London, Jeff.
I seem to remember there being a surge of Jewish members of parliament and peers in the days of the Prince of Wales.(1880's & 1890's).That is, their more public acceptance into the corridors of power.
The transplanting of poor Russian Jews via Whitechapel to Turkey and the Middle East (I think I have read on these boards) was effected by wealthy London Jewish patrons - was one Baron Hirsch?
Anyway, the point of this thread:the writer of the above cable is obviously pointing to a London club which embraced amongst its number, Jewish financiers. What clubs did Baron Rothschild and Baron Hirsch etc belong to?
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 179
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 06, 2003 - 8:18 pm: | |
Hi John,
I am not sure what clubs the various members of the Rothchilds belonged to. Baron Hirsch was a Hungarian Jewish Baron, who was interested in the
immigration of Jews from central Europe to South America. His monument is the nearly half a million Jewish settlers in Argentina to this day.
It is one of the largest Jewish populations (with the U.S. , Russia, Israel, South Africa, Britain, and France) in the world. Baron de Hirsch was well known in railroad and financial circles, and would have belonged to some London clubs, but he
was more likely to be a member of clubs in Vienna,
Budapesth, and Paris.
As the Rothschilds, and Disraeli, were Tories, they probably were members of the Carleton Club, but that is just a guess, and only because the Carleton was a Tory Party club.
I was trying to think of other wealthy Jews of the period in London. Sir Moses Montefiore died in 1885, so he would be out of the picture at the time of that clipping. Baron Julius Reuther (of the newsgathering service) was alive, but I don't know what his political views were. Several figures from the gold fields and diamond fields of Cape Town and Johannesburg (Barney Barnato, the Beit brothers) were building up there fortunes, but they were considered too raffish (particularly Barnato, an East Ender, and ex-amateur boxer) for social acceptability in London. I am not sure about the social position of the Sassoon Family in 1887.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 157
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 5:28 am: | |
The first Baron, Nathaniel Rothschild of Tring, was created thus in 1885.
My 1886 Debretts shows him as a member of Brook's. His two brothers, Alfred Charles, (a Director of the Bank of England; and Leopold, a Deputy Lieutenant for London, were both members of the Marlborough Club.
Crockfords and Turf both seem to be gambling/sporting clubs.
In September 1890, Sir William Gordon-Cumming was
accused of cheating at a country house baccarat game. He called fellow house-guest, the Prince of Wales as his witness.( The "Baccarat Case" began at Tranby Croft,Yorkshire ). The case was damaging for the way it shed light on the Prince's profligate life-style.
It is interesting that this gambling case was not kept out of the papers, but the Cleveland Street Scandal - involving a homosexual brothel-was to a large extent, a cover-up.(Just as in Chris's news item above, a couple of vital witnesses fled abroad).
I think it was because of James Munro's forthright conduct in such cases, he felt THE TIMES accusing him of '" indiscretion" was a wounding, and unfounded slur.
And probably led to his resignation and retreat into a life with missionaries in India.
I wonder if this cable might not refer to earlier, and unpublicised attempts to prosecute
the principal parties in the 1889 Cleveland Street Scandal?
If only celebrity solicitor George Lewis had written his memoirs! |
Natalie Severn
Sergeant
Username: Severn
Post Number: 41
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 7:23 am: | |
John thanks for your reply above.I"m having problems at the moment with this machine which keeps switching itself off[its going in for repair in a few days]but I keep missing the thread [!] of things as a result.I don"t know anyone now in U.P. or Reuters and wouldnt know how to go about it .I will though try to find a bit more out when this is fixed.Best Natalie |
John Savage
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 125
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 7:50 am: | |
Hi John
Thanks for the information from Debrett's, and I am sure there will have been other jews in other clubs. Regarding the Tranby Croft affair, it was of course meant to be a cover up, but turned more into a c*ck up.
Regards,
John Savage |
John Savage
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 126
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 1:04 pm: | |
Hi All
It seems that there must have been more than one male brothel in the Cleveland Street area, as the following extract suggests. I wonder if this could have had anything to do wish the scandal of 1888
Boys’ Club Work - St Christopher’s Boys’ Club 39 Fitzroy Square, W1. The club was ‘in every sense a West-end effort, being situated in Fitzroy Square and supported by the Dowager Countess of Pembroke and other aristocratic ladies’ (Eagar 1954: 228). According to Eagar, it began in 1894 when Warwick Guy Pearce brought together around 50 working boys in part of a hall belonging to the West London Mission. (For a history of the mission see Bagwell 1987). The area to the north of the Square and stretching across to Kings Cross was seen as pretty ‘rough’ at the time and the house that the Club occupied was said to have been a male brothel at one time. Indeed, on several occasions people had to be ejected who thought that the building was still offering the same services.
Regards
John Savage |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 183
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 5:22 pm: | |
Hi John,
The reason that Tranby Croft became a public relations disaster was due to one man: Sir William Gordon-Cummings. When confronted with the accusation that he cheated at baccarat whilst
playing with the Prince of Wales (who was banker) and others, Gordon-Cummings panicked. He made the mistake of signing a pledge never to play cards socially again. Subsequently, word of the event got out and Gordon-Cummings was being socially snubbed. At this point he decided to bring the action against those parties who he claimed defamed him by saying he cheated.
Despite a great barrister (Sir Edward Clarke - the one who won acquittal for Adelaide Bartlett in 1886, but who lost Oscar Wilde's defamation suit against Lord Queensbury in 1895), Gordon-Cummings lost this case. The actual evidence of
the card cheating (supposedly he fiddled with his
markers/chips in the wagering)was not conclusive by itself. The witnesses were not very good on the stand in sustaining what they saw or did not see. The subpoenaing of the Prince (his second legal appearance in a case) showed he was not so much dissolute (everyone knew that) but that he
was breaking his country's laws - playing illegal gambling games. Unfortunately for Gordon-Cummings, he did not know how to explain that written pledge away. If he hadn't been cheating, why didn't he tell his accusers to go to blazes?
Signing it was like an admission.
So Sir William lost his suit. His social ruin was complete, as his key to the high social world was his chumming around with Bertie. Now that Bertie had been humiliated due to him, that was over. Fortunately for the Prince, he regained his nation's affections by being a gifted diplomat and monarch.
Compare this to Cleveland Street, where none of the members of the club were revealed, except for Lord Arthur Somerset, master of the Queens horses.
Lord Arthur was tipped off, and fled to France (where he lived comfortably for the rest of his life). Later, Ernest Parkes the newspaper editor was sued for slander by naming the Earl of Euston as a member of the Club. The mistake was that Euston could not be shown to be a member, and could show he had gone into the Club on one occasion only because he wanted to see some advertised "pose plastiques" only to discover inside what the Club was actually for. At least, that was his story, and the jury believed him. Parkes served a brief prison term.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 158
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 5:39 am: | |
Hello Natalie,
Sorry you can't help further with UPI.Thanks for responding.
John S.,
Very interesting information about the St Christopher's Boy's Club of Fitzroy Square.It just goes to show that 1889 was not the only year.
Someone even mentioned the "Chelsea Bugger's Ball"
Chris, is that date of November 1888 a definite? No possibility of the original transcrbers making an error?
And thanks Jeffrey for that excellent encapsulation of the Cleveland Street scandal.
Wonder what the police records showed? |
Chris Phillips
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 139
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 11:15 am: | |
John Ruffels wrote:
Chris, is that date of November 1888 a definite? No possibility of the original transcrbers making an error?
I have been looking at H. Montgomery Hyde's book, The Cleveland Street Scandal (1976), and wondering the same thing. The newspaper report certainly has a lot of points of contact with the Cleveland Street affair, although in a more exaggerated form.
Those rumoured to be involved at Cleveland Street certainly included the heir apparent to a Duke (the Earl of Euston) and the younger son of a Duke (Lord Arthur Somerset). I don't see any other peers mentioned, but several MPs were alleged to be involved, together with a number of other army officers. As for "Hebrew financiers", it's interesting that one Hugh Weguelin, a stockbroker, at one point advised that Lord Arthur Somerset should return to England and try to borrow miney from Leo Rothschild "or someone like that" to assist the defence (though there's no explicit implication that Rothschild had a personal or family interest in the affair).
Finally, Lord Arthur Somerset had finally fled the country on 18 October, and the Earl of Euston was alleged to have fled to Peru, though he later successfully sued for libel in respect of this and other allegations.
I don't see any statement that others apart from Somerset resigned their commissions, but the timing of his resignation would fit particularly well if the report came from 9 November _1889_, as the resignation was published on 5 November, and a warrant was issued against him on 12 November.
Although court proceedings against the non-aristocratic participants had been briefly reported, the other allegations had been largely kept out of the newspapers at this point, though rumours were circulating freely in the London clubs.
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 750
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 2:11 pm: | |
Hi guys - just shows how important it is to check sources!!!
Sorry for the incorrect info- my mistake entirely - the article from which I took the "Club Scandal" piece is the Marlborough Express (A New Zealand, not Australian paper) dated November 12th 1889.
Sorry for any inconvenience cause - I have put the record straight as soon as I checked source material
A good object lesson!!!
Chris |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 470
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 2:59 pm: | |
Hi, Chris
Thanks for the clarification that the piece on the "Club Scandal" was in the Marlborough Express (a New Zealand, not Australian paper) dated November 12th 1889 and not 1888 as you earlier stated! That was something that occurred to me but I figured that since it was the reliable Chris Scott who posted the information, it had to be 1888!  Indeed, you are quite correct, that this is an excellent object lesson that we should check and re-check our sources when doing historical research!
Best regards
Chris George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info  |
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 751
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 3:08 pm: | |
Hi Chris
Thanks - it was entirely my error - don't even have anyone else to blame!
I must either do less transcribing late at night or get a new set of fingers!!!
Regards
Chris
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1540
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 5:23 pm: | |
Never mind, Chris. It's not often you make a mistake.
Robert |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 442
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 6:02 pm: | |
Hi Chris
I wouldn't give an inadvertent error a second thought. I've typed things and then gone back later and re-read them and couldn't figure out what the hell I was going on about.
All The Best
Gary |
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 443
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 6:10 pm: | |
And I don't even drink. |
Chris Phillips
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 140
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 6:11 pm: | |
Chris
Thanks for clarifying the date. This does make more sense; otherwise it looked as though we were in the odd position of an uncannily similar, but actually much more serious, scandal having occurred the year before the Cleveland Street affir, but having been successfully suppressed.
Chris Phillips
|
Lord Oakley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 8:50 pm: | |
Very interested to read the comments from Chris about Lord Bateman asking that Monro should intervene to save his son from the gambling dens of London.
This obviously had no effect, as the son, The 3rd Baron Charles Stanhope Melrose Hanbury Bateman, continued his gambling habits even after his father had sold the Kelmarsh Estate to cover the debts accrued. By 1920 C.S. Bateman was bankrupt and the estate of Brome hall,Comprising 7500 acres in Suffolk was sold off in 1921 to the tune of £69,500....A fierce amount of money at the time. This sum still fell short of clearing the debt so, 6 months later the "Oakley Park Estate" was put up for auction consisting of 40 farms and 6500 acres of land.
This sale did very badly, only 9 lots being sold. Eventualy, after a furthur 3 sales the estate was sold, but the mansion failed to reach it's reserve and was demolished.
Riches to rags in one generation. |
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 247
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 7:20 pm: | |
Hello all,
This article is rather interesting, particularly in that it mentions several important people were caught and either fled or 'resigned their commissions'. What makes this interesting is that this news apparently broke the day after Warren resigned.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1012
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 9:19 am: | |
Hi Tom
If you read the entire thread you will see that Chris found that he was mistaken in the date of the news article. In fact, the piece on the "Club Scandal" was in the Marlborough Express (a New Zealand, not Australian paper) dated November 12th 1889 not 1888 as he first posted.
Best regards
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 249
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 8:29 pm: | |
Ah! Thanks for pointing that out. I did attempt to read the whole thread, but got lost pretty quickly and just skimmed down to the bottom. 
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
