|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Mitch Hannah
Police Constable
Username: Mitch
Post Number: 2
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 12:04 am: | 
|
The Times on October 4, 1888 mentions an American who was arrested on suspicion by the police and refused to give his name. He had threatened a woman by saying he would "rip her up." The article on October 5, 1888 says he had been released. Could this have been Tumblety |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 295
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 12:18 pm: |
|
It could have been anybody.
In 1888 there were an exceptional number of Americans in London, a lot of them had come over with Buffalo Bills Wild West show and stayed on after it left.
My personal belief is the only time Tumblety was connected with JTR in the papers is when he personally leaked the story to them.
Bob |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2029
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 12:56 pm: |
|
Not sure but I think this is probably the American song and dance man who had been threatening a famous female singer of the time.
Somewhere on another thread his name is mentioned.
As I said, not sure. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 1:45 am: |
|
Hi Mitch,
I feel Tumblety could have been the suspect. I think there is a thread dedicated to the American suspect that you mention. Another American suspect was arrested soon after the Kelly murder. I believe he also was Tumblety. We know Tumblety was a suspect at the time of the murders but his name was kept out of the British papers. The American and Canadian press exposed his name. I think Tumblety was suspected as early as October. Hear is my theory. He was watched. No murders happend in October and then the Kelly murder occured. Tumblety was on the minds of the detectives. He was arrested two days before the Kelly murder and then George Hutchinson came forward with the discription of the man he had seen with Kelly. The discription Hutchinson gave matched Tumblety. Not in age or in height but in his manner of dress. Tumblety was suspected for a reason. They did not pick his name out of a hat.
Your friend,Brad |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 814
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 2:59 am: |
|
Okay, lets look at this logically
What we know of this man:
He was arrested in Cable Street after trying to solicit the services of a prostitute and threatening to "rip her up" if she did not go with him. The police were unable to ascertain his identity until the following morning.
What we know of Tumblety:
He was homosexual. He was being tailed by Special Branch detectives.
So what evidence are we left with that this man was Tumblety:
They were both American. (Actually, Tumblety wasn't, but he was regarded as being, so we'll leave that).
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me" - Hunter S. Thompson (1939-2005)
Visit my website - http://www.ashbooks.co.uk/
|
Malta Joe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Malta
Post Number: 95
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 2:59 pm: |
|
You can find out more about this story by going to the "Suspects" topic on these message boards. Just click into "General Discussion" and then "American Suspect" to find it. Chris Scott posted this story over two years ago.
If I were looking for Tumblety during the first week of Oct 1888, I wouldn't be on London's Cable Street. I'd be on a train to Liverpool like the personnel from the CID were.
Hey CB, if you're in England can you contact me at maltajoe940@yahoo.com Thanks! |
Mitch Hannah
Police Constable
Username: Mitch
Post Number: 4
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 4:26 am: |
|
Thank you for all of the responses. I am not an advocate of any particular suspect. My aim is simply to eliminate the implausible. And Tumblety likely is implausible.
Mitch
"On the plains of hesitation lie the blackened bones of countless millions, who, at the dawn of victory, sat down to rest, and, resting, died."
Anonymous c. 1900
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 174
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 4:35 am: |
|
Mitch,
May I offer an answer?
SJR |
Mitch Hannah
Police Constable
Username: Mitch
Post Number: 6
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 4:47 am: |
|
Hello Stan,
Certainly. I'm inclined to agree with your points of view in our previous communications. In fact, I'm more and more inclined.
Mitch
"On the plains of hesitation lie the blackened bones of countless millions, who, at the dawn of victory, sat down to rest, and, resting, died."
Anonymous c. 1900
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 175
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 4:58 am: |
|
Mitch,
That's what tends to happen when one is willing to listen and use an open mind, without thinking that the case has some personal stake for them.
If you really read the Littlechild Letter, it actually exonerates Tumblety, a point often missed by people.
As far as Tumblety having been this arrested suspect. The answer is emphatically not. And here's why
On November 7th they arrested Tumblety on four acts of gross indecency, going back to July 27th, 1888, with one actually occurring on August 31st, 1888, an important date of sorts. Having this information on Tumblety meant that they were investigating him, obviously. It's almost impossible to think they would know about an act of homosexuality on July 27th, August 31st, October 14th and November 2nd, and with who each time, but not know he was arrested on October 4-5. Since they never mentioned this arrest, but knew his recent history, one should be able to state this was not Tumblety.
Hope this helps.
SJR |
Mitch Hannah
Police Constable
Username: Mitch
Post Number: 7
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 5:17 am: |
|
Stan,
You have a valid point there, and had I looked further I should have seen this. As to the reference to Tumblety's homosexuality in a previous post I don't KNOW that would disqualify him. I feel inclined to believe it would, but that basis would be in cases of homosexual serial killer's. Their victims do tend to be same sex.
We actually had a serial killer here around 25 years ago. He had no preference as to the sex of his victims. He was a killer simply for the sake of killing itself. He simply killed persons who crossed his path and way of thinking. There are some serial killers who I have difficulty in accepting as heterosexual, yet they killed persons of the opposite sex.
Mitch
(Message edited by mitch on May 05, 2005)
"On the plains of hesitation lie the blackened bones of countless millions, who, at the dawn of victory, sat down to rest, and, resting, died."
Anonymous c. 1900
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 177
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 5:33 am: |
|
Mitch,
Sorry about that. His homosexuality is not what's disqualifying him. It's the fact that the police knew of those four ridiculously common accounts of gross indecency, enough to arrest him on November 7th. It's too much to ask in good faith that they wouldn't have known about or recorded an arrest of Tumblety on October 4th.
SJR |
Mitch Hannah
Police Constable
Username: Mitch
Post Number: 8
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 5:52 am: |
|
Stan,
Oh yes. I see what you mean. You are of course correct. The dates certainly would eliminate him, or the police were ignorant. I don't, even fleetingly believe that. The previous incidents alone could in all likelihood have put a constable on him any time he set foot on the street.
Mitch
"On the plains of hesitation lie the blackened bones of countless millions, who, at the dawn of victory, sat down to rest, and, resting, died."
Anonymous c. 1900
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 178
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 5:59 am: |
|
Mitch,
Let's be clear. While I seriously doubt Tumblety could have committed any of these murders while under the constant watch of the Special Branch in 1888, I can not 100% eliminate him.
A researcher must leave room for the improbable. Remember, in June of 1888 would anyone have thought it likely or even possible that someone could murder at least 5, probably 6 women in London, escape detection and become a legend for over 116 years? Not at all, and that has happened.
But I do think logically that Tumblety was both not the murderer or the man arrested in this Times report.
SJR |
Mitch Hannah
Police Constable
Username: Mitch
Post Number: 9
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 6:33 am: |
|
Stan,
Certainly not at the time would anyone have thought that. Considering the resources available today in the field of crime scene investigation, and comparing that to technology widely used in 1888 its a small miracle that serial homicide wasn't rampant at that time in our view.
In the view of the average English person at that time, oh no, they certainly would not have believed such a thing to be possible. Victorians considered, and were probably justified, Scotland Yard to be the finest and greatest investigative organization in the world. The press often portrayed and still do portray police in a bad light, but the popular opinion has throughout the centuries often been at variance from the opinion of the press.
Mitch
"On the plains of hesitation lie the blackened bones of countless millions, who, at the dawn of victory, sat down to rest, and, resting, died."
Anonymous c. 1900
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 452
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 8:36 am: |
|
Murphy's Law makes it quite possible that one section of the Met could have arrested Tumblety for sexual offences and never told the people concerned with the Whitechapel case. Why should they?
In the days before computers with many case papers and records still handwritten, it is far from implausible to believe that information exchange was less than efficient.
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 453
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 8:39 am: |
|
Sorry folks double post - nothing to see here. Please move on by.
(Message edited by Phil on May 05, 2005) |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 180
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 8:58 am: |
|
Phil,
You're making this way too easy.
I'll handle the Murphy's Law part last because its the most ridiculous.
One section of the Met? First, the Met was filled with Special Branch officers, in case you did not spend the time to look into that. Anderson, who may have been on sick leave at the time of the arrest, was the assistant Commissioner of the Met, and oh yeah he was Special Branch. Abberline, running the ground investigation into the murders, he was Special Branch. Moore, most likely in charge of handling the papers, he was Special Branch. Andrews, who appears for one day, the day of Nichols murder, then is gone until Decemeber, he was Special Branch. So you see the Special Branch was all over the case working with the Met. Some might say running the Met, with the help of Home Secretary Henry Matthews, who always favored James Monro over Charles Warren. By the way, in case you didn't know, Monro was the officer in charge of The Special Branch, and had been since the middle of 1887.
Second, Tumblety was arrested for four acts of gross indecency. No mention of any connection to 'JTR' has ever appeared in the files or documents with regards to this arrest. As they knew of his activities as far back as July 27th, along with requesting samples of his handwriting from San Francisco some time before the beginning of August, which they received in late October, it is illogical to think that Tumblety was arrested, refused to give his name, and then was let go without Monro, who had an officer or officers actively searching for information about him, having been notified.
We're talking about four or five days after the double murder here. Do the police really need a computer to realize someone they are actively seeking information against has just been arrested?
Information exchange? You are not talking about the City versus the Met. You are actually talking about the Met versus the Met now. To assume that the Met would not share arrest information of a troublesome person, refusing to give his name, arrested five days after the double murder, with their own officers who were running two simultaneous investigations, is an absolute expedition into ridiculousness.
Murphy's Law? I can't and won't dignify this feeble comment with a response.
Is it possible? Sure. Although you seem to selectively view when things are plausible and possible. Such as your comments, for example, that it is impossible for Lewis Carroll to have been the murderer, without the requisite proof to thoroughly eliminate him as a suspect, yet you will carelessly use something such as Murphy's Law to answer an honest question from someone who wants to know more about a newspaper report. It's comical, and more than that it's plain bad analysis.
And I said I wouldn't comment on the Murphy's Law thing, but it was just so darn bad it needed a beat down.
SJR |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 456
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 9:13 am: |
|
Stan, if you have time to waste giving thought to Barnardo and Carroll - get a job!! I have better things to do and a life.
I can readily dismiss both men, as I can WE Gladstone, Dr Gull, Queen Victoria and Mr Maybrick because there is NO EVIDENCE against them - not a shred.
As for police joined-upness, do some reading on the C19th.
By the way, in case you didn't know, Monro was the officer in charge of The Special Branch, and had been since the middle of 1887.
Munro, at the crucial time in 1888 was working for HO, not the Met.
I certainly do not rule out the possibility that Special Branch, in it's various guises was involved in the Ripper case. I am more than intrigued by the Fenian possibilities. But to say that, "the Met was filled with Special Branch officers" is stretching a point.
Not that that would bother you over much!! |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 182
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 9:52 am: |
|
Phil,
See to me its not wasting time, the actual processes of thought. But I think we all know that thought is a waste of time for you, as you've just indicated again.
See I have a job - I'm a writer - and right now my job affords me the time to set the record straight for people who might be duped into believing the actual crap that comes out of your mouth, or that you actually put any real effort into discovering it.
Actually right now I'm working on my 3rd book. it's a book on the elimination of phobias. i do have varied interests, but right now I'm kind of busy putting an arrogant effitte snob in his place, showing the public how wrong he is at every turn. But in the interim I write about my 4 step process to eliminating phobias, which you, well not you, but others will see one day in bookstores or online available for them to buy.
Sure dismiss everyone. In fact I'll give you a name - Montague John Druitt. Give me one shred of evidence against him. Just ONE SHRED. Not real fair to poor ol' Monty huh Phil? Or perhaps it might be prudent to take a couple of moments out of your obviously super busy life to look for another possible solution, seeing as how that whole thing in the late 50's, entire 60's and early 70's pushing Druitt thing didn't really work out. Remember that whole Murphy's Law thing you were preaching about? Time to cower under the cover of that piece of garbage. It only applies when Phil wants it to apply huh?
First of all, it was Monro, not Munro, but that could just have been a typo so no harn no foul. And if you want to believe that Monro wasn't actively involved at the Met during the time of the murders be my guest. There's loads of documentation to show you are wrong again, such as the September 22nd memo from Matthews to Ruggles-Brise (Ruggles-Brise was Matthews private secretary in case you didn't know, and Matthews was the Home Secretary) that stated Monro did know crucial information regarding the Whitechapel murders, and would share this if necessary, just to name a kind of important one. So you can say HO if you like, but you are wrong. James Monro ran the Special Branch, and had much much more power than Warren ever did, enough to get Anderson, who never served one day of his life in a police uniform, placed in the second highest ranking police post at the Met. I guess you'll just chalk that up to Murphy's Law, the luck of the draw huh?
To say that "the Met was filled with Special Branch officers" is stretching a point? Okay. Abberline - SPECIAL BRANCH.
Moore - SPECIAL BRANCH
Anderson - SPECIAL BRANCH
Andrews - SPECIAL BRANCH
Monro - SPECIAL BRANCH
I've just named five key officers in the 'JTR' investigation, all of whom were in the Special Branch. Name another officer, outside of Inspector Reid, who worked directly under Abberline, who was more active on the case? You could try and say Swanson, but you're going against your majority rules theory, as Swanson is mainly seen as a desk jockey now, who handled papers on the case for ... oh yes ... Anderson (STAN QUIETLY WHISPERS SPECIAL BRANCH TO PHIL)
See you keep trying and you keep failing. but keep at it. By Murphy's Law I'm bound to make some mistake soon right? And you'll be there to jump on it, because it will make your decade, and the decade more than half over. And that's okay, because I have many interests outside of showing the public how full of crap you really are Phil, so life for me will go on, and that's if I actually make a mistake you can catch me on. It doesn't seem to be working out lately, does it Phil?
SJR |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 458
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 11:21 am: |
|
And if you want to believe that Monro wasn't actively involved at the Met during the time of the murders be my guest. There's loads of documentation to show you are wrong again, such as the September 22nd memo from Matthews to Ruggles-Brise (Ruggles-Brise was Matthews private secretary in case you didn't know, and Matthews was the Home Secretary) that stated Monro did know crucial information regarding the Whitechapel murders, and would share this if necessary, just to name a kind of important one. So you can say HO if you like, but you are wrong. James Monro ran the Special Branch, and had much much more power than Warren ever did, enough to get Anderson, who never served one day of his life in a police uniform, placed in the second highest ranking police post at the Met. I guess you'll just chalk that up to Murphy's Law, the luck of the draw huh?
It's not what this effete arrogant snob believes, sonny, it is a matter of fact. Munro had transferred to the HO from the Met. HE DID NOT WORK for the Met but for Matthews.
I don't know whether you have ever been to the UK or know much about the way our Government works now, or in 1888? But The Met and the HO are completely different, though related organisations.
It was suggested to Ruggles-Brise (PS to Matthews) that Munro might "give a hint". But that actually reinforces the fact that the latter was not working with or at Scotland Yard.
You confuse, in your usual chaotic and careless way, the important details, and the clear separation of dutues that existed. Influence and line management, chains of command and responsibilities, policy and execution are different things. Not a lump.
One of the five men (out of hundreds) in the met you name, Monro, was not working there at the time, so you are at least 20% wrong.
Messy boy aren't you Stan. oh and thanks for the complement, I have never been called "effete" before!!
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2343
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 11:41 am: |
|
Oh come along now guys,
Jenni |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 184
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 12:14 pm: |
|
Phil,
Actually Monro put his resignation of assistant Commissioner in the beginning of August. I bet you didn't know that, because that's really of no importance to you.
What you also don't know is that between September 1st and September 7th, Monro, Matthews and Anderson met on a consistent basis to discuss political matters and matters directly connected to the CID, which as you also may not know, was in charge of working the 'JTR' murder case. This is a documented fact, documented by Rumbelow, 1987, page 70, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence; Fido, 1988, page 135, 1st paragraph, entirety; Evans and Gainey, 1995, page 186 1st paragraph.
In fact, this last reference, made in the excellent Evans and Gainey book, is worth entering here:
"It has been suggested by Paul Begg in Jack the Ripper: The Uncensored Facts that the Secret Department (Special Branch) would have been especially closely involved, as its administrative chief, James Monro, was specifically recommended by the Home Office to liaise with the Whitechapel murders enquiry team. The Special Branch men would also, as a matter of course, have maintained surveillance on potential subversive centres in the East End, such as the International Working Men's Institute adjacent to the Stride murder site. many of these clubs were merely fronts for anarchist organizations.
Evans and Gainey use this information to assess Littlechild's worth upon the case.
This paragraph was not for you Phil, but for the other people who want to actually learn the truth about the facts of the case. If you did read it Phil, you'll realize you're wrong again.
Well the information provided by Paul Begg and used by Stewart Evans and Paul Gainey to further advance knowledge and make a logical deduction based on, kind of blows your entire 2nd paragraph to holy hell. see that's what real researchers do Phil, they read all the relevant material, and then before simply regurgitating it they try to add to it, offering those who are interested new ideas and concepts about this murder case.
You are wrong again. It was Matthews who suggested to Ruggles-Brise, not the other way around as your (PS to Matthews) indicates.
'Monro might be willing to give a hint to the CID people if necessary', indicates to me that he knew more than they did, so he must have been working on some aspect of the case. How else do you think Monro would have known enough to give a hint to CID if necessary? There's that bad word - think. Let me restate that Phil, by his own admission, does not think. He leaves that up to philosophers and madmen.
Your 4th paragraph - Well if I've confused chain of commands then so has Paul Begg, Stewart Evans, Paul Gainey, Martin Fido, Donald Rumbelow and many others, who actually chose to read the relevant documentation, rather than reading an article about police chain of commands, which it obviously appears that you did. Newsflash - the Special Branch, and Monro in particular, were involved in the Whitechapel murder investigation.
Your 5th paragraph - Well we know Monro was involved, or every leading Ripper researcher is wrong. Let me think - Phil right? Or every leading researcher who have actually made a lasting contribution to the case right? Call me crazy but I'm gonna go with every leading researcher. I'm not sure why you haven't, since your main job is to regurgitate popular opinion, but then again this was something that needed a little insight, which you don't have.
As far as out of hundreds - you can include the PC's like PC Edward Watkins and PC Thomas Coram if you like as part of your Ripper hunter team of hundreds. I choose to look at the important officers involved in the investigation of the case, most or all of which were Special Branch men.
Messy, well I do need to clean my apartment.
Compliment - where I come from effete is about one of the worst things you can say to someone. It's a person you wouldn't spit on if they were on fire because they are full of themselves, without merit, and aren't worth a damn in the long run. Fits you perfectly Phil.
SJR |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 185
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 12:20 pm: |
|
Jenni,
I stated clearly in a post, in another thread, that this was what needed to happen. I also apologized for it, but in all honesty, it needs to be done.
Phil can keep coming after me with his "stuff", and I'll keep batting it down, like I just did above.
This is a good lesson for those new to the boards. Just because you have read a book or regurgitated some basic information, do not think you are better than anyone else, because there will be someone to come along to put you in your place. Not because that someone is better than you, but because that someone understands putting this type of person in their place is ultimately a positive for this case, versus the negative of not saying anything and allowing that person to continue without any checks or balances.
SJR |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2345
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 12:27 pm: |
|
Stan,
Ok, Ok -
i'll butt right back out of this conversation!
Jenni |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 186
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 12:40 pm: |
|
Jenni,
Absolutely not. You, or anyone else are more than welcome to comment, or add, or do anything. These boards aren't for me and Phil, they are for everyone, and for people to learn about the case. What better way for them to learn than to see someone who knows the case, and can back it up with factual and relevant documentation and sources, show someone, who can not, how wrong they are?
SJR |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2346
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 12:49 pm: |
|
Stan,
no really i have nothing useful to add.
Jenni |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 414
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 12:59 pm: |
|
Hi Stan,
I am a bit confused here, can you just clear up a point for me?
You mention a PC Thomas Coram in the post before last - I am interested in finding out about any Coram's in the area at the time, obviously because it is possible that they are distant relatives of mine.
I am aware of course of the Thomas Coram that found the knife in Liz Stride's case, who was a street vendor, but I hadn't come across a PC with the same name.
I ran a search on the board and only came up with the one Thomas Coram.......
Can you clear it up for me?
Thanks
Jane
What really made me laugh was that practically every other entry was for me! I'm getting worried.
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 187
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 1:06 pm: |
|
Jane,
You are right. I mistook Thomas Coram for PC Thomas Drage, because those were the two who were involved in finding the knife.
My bad. Sorry
SJR |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 188
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 1:07 pm: |
|
Jane,
and even worse I've gotten the PC's name wrong. it was Joseph Drage.
And nothing is directed at you. Please feel free to ask me any question you like.
SJR |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 415
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 1:14 pm: |
|
HI Stan,
Now I am upset, I thought that I had found another one to investigate, and someone a bit more interesting than a coconut seller.
Oh well back to the drawing board. At least I might have some claim to fame.
And I am up on the search list more times than anyone else on the board!!!
I'm wanted!
Jane |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 815
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 1:26 pm: |
|
Stan
Not to butt in, but you are missing two very important words from Matthews memo to Ruggles-Brice. What it actually says is "Absente Anderson, Monro might be willing to give a hint..." which changes the whole meaning. Basically what Matthews was saying was that while Anderson was away, and thus the CID were without leadership, their former head might be willing to lend his experience. Or that's how I read it anyway.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me" - Hunter S. Thompson (1939-2005)
Visit my website - http://www.ashbooks.co.uk/
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 189
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 1:27 pm: |
|
Jane,
I'm sorry. I rushed it in my post, to show someone that just because hundreds of officers worked the case, only a handful are really important to the future research and investigation.
If it makes you feel any better, you could look my name up on Google. I think there's a guy from Indiana with my name who does stuff with electric power. Sounds exciting huh? LOL.
SJR |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 460
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 1:35 pm: |
|
Conversation, Jenni? That takes two.
As this thread indicates, Stan doesn't need anyone else he just drones on getting his facts wrong and thinking that shouting and bullying will cow people and make it alright.
It really is a shame.
Anyway it was diverting for an hour or two but the moronic drivel he produces post after post wears you down after a while.
I'm outta here - not that I'm needed anyway!!
Nice to see ya Jane - hugs.
Phil |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 190
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 1:45 pm: |
|
Alan,
1st, like I told Jane, everyone is welcome. do not feel you are butting in.
And yes you are correct about those two words, Absente Anderson. Here is the problem though, that I see: Prior to Anderson leaving for Switzerland, Monro, Matthews and Anderson are meeting every day to discuss the case, as I stated and sourced earlier. Whatever Anderson knew Monro knew, and without Anderson there to run the CID, with Swanson kind of looking after things, but in all reality Abberline, a Special Branch man, really controlling the investigation, what hint could Monro give the CID? There has to be some connection between the political matters of the Special Branch and the whitechapel murders. This is verified in 1956 by Browne and Strauss who saw a document where MacNaghten has a link between 'JTR' and the assassination attempt on Balfour.
So when one starts to put things together, is it really leadership that the CID needs, or a hint that the murders are somehow connected to a fenian assassination plot?
There is room for debate on this issue, and I assure you that my opinion is just that, an opinion. It does however explain a lot of strange goings on within the case, related to Tumblety, the Special Branch, MacNaghten's link between 'JTR' and a Balfour plot, which curiously is left out of his memorandum in 1894.
I see that they are all interconnected. I could be wrong, but it should be remembered, that if it really was leadership the CID needed, why did Monro never step into that leadership role, but rather Anderson was called back from sick leave? It is a point to ponder.
SJR |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 191
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 2:13 pm: |
|
Phil,
Conversation? That does take two. And we seem to be lacking in that all needed second party to fulfill his obligations of backing up his statements.
Facts wrong? Please please please please tell me what facts I have gotten wrong Phil. Outside of mistaking Thomas Coram, who found the knife, for PC Joseph Drage, who Coram showed the knife to, I dont seem to see anything you have shown me that's wrong. Or at least anything that you can back up Phil.
It seems to me that I'm the only one here showing the public who is wrong, and doing it by citing accurate sources, to back me up. Where is your source information Phil? Doesn't matter because you can't show where I am wrong, because I am not. Your opinion on these matters doesn't count, as you have said to me many times. Back it up Phil. What don't you get about that?
Bullying? Again? Strength in one's statements, as well as backing them up, apparently has a new term. It's called bullying.
Moronic drivel? Interesting that a genius such as yourself, so high and mighty and proud to be effete, can't call me on my drivel. Of course I did point blank show you source information to prove it is accepted fact, but why would that count? More new terminology from Phil.
It should wear you down Phil. I've beaten you on every single post, and then you come back with more bogus info, and I pound that. How'd that whole Monro thing work out for you? You know, where you insisted I was wrong a number of times about Monro working on the Whitechapel murders, and then I quoted an entire passage from a leading book showing you how wrong you were, again. How'd that work out for you?
I'd say it's a smart move to go Phil, because you obviously know nothing, and when you try to challenge an actual authroity on the case you get your hat handed to you. In terms you might understand, you lose every which way possible, on every single thing you say.
But how can we be sure you'll really go Phil? See you've lied in the past. Remember that whole "end of exchange for me" thing? You kind of dropped the ball on that one, cause you kept at it after posting that. So I had to keep showing your your erroneous ways.
Of all the things you've said this is by far the closest thing to the truth - "You are not needed". You can stay if you like, and post as much as you like. That's your right. But you are most definately not needed, as is obviously apparent to anyone who has been following our debate, or should I say one-sided thrashing, which hopefully returned a little honor to the case, even if it had to be done in a tough love way.
So keep coming back, or not. That's up to you. Just know after the way you've acted, your better than everyone else attitude, I'll be right here to put you in your place, just like I have been doing for the past 16 hours.
SJR |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1879
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 2:46 pm: |
|
Stan,
-Not to intrude either -
- interested in your quote about the Berner Street Club being under surveillance!I have once or twice in the past suggested that this might be the case.I know I read somewhere that the Imperial club in Mitre Square was under surveillance re mtgs. between sympathetisers of the "troublesome" Jewish activists.I have wondered too whether these two clubs were deliberately targeted by JtR on the night of the double event.But if so Why?
This period 1887/88/89 was the hottest
ever politically in terms of an establishment shaken by huge, successive, strikes and demonstrations and desperately trying to keep control of the situation.
It wasnt just the fenians that were giving them trouble,so were the local sweatshops, the dockers,the gas workers,the Jewish workers and radical organisations.
Natalie |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 194
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 3:13 pm: |
|
Natalie, AND EVERYONE ELSE
IT IS NO INTRUSION.
Well the Special Branch was not just limited to Fenian surveillance, but rather to the surveillance of any possible terrorist organizations, which in those days included anarchist and even socialist clubs.
Well the Imperial Club is not a socialist or terrorist organization that I can verify was under the watch of the Special Branch, but it is a very interesting assessment.
You are absolutely right that the year 1887 was filled with political terrorist activity. 1888, on the other hand, was much slower, with specific regards to the Fenians. There are a number of fantastic books, one is a biography of John Devoy, that explains the lack of Fenian terrorist activity, stating two reasons for this. One - there was so much infighting among the American factions that they could not work together. Two -because of the upcoming Parnell Commission, which would show in no uncertain terms that the information provided by Robert Anderson to articles in The Times during 1887 were filled with libelous errous and outright slanderous lies against Charles Parnell, the main concern of the Fenian and IRB (Irish Republican Brotherhood) was to clear the name of Parnell, from these awful and false charges.
So if 1888 was such a slow year for Fenian and IRB terrorism, why is the Special Branch investigating Tumblety, political matters and the Whitechapel murders all at the same time? It seems logical to believe there was some connection, or a connection in the eyes of the Special Branch.
As far as the Berner Street Club was concerned, it is a matter of record that they were under some type of surveillance, verified by Paul Begg, and later used by Evans and Gainey.
So let's say for one moment 'JTR' was responsible for sending some threatening letter to the Special Branch, prior to murdering these women
It's not that great a leap as three separate policeman have verified the existence of such a letter, MacNaghten, cited by Browne and Strauss in 1956, Monro, in his recently rediscovered memoirs and also Swanson, who in his own personal copy of Anderson's memoirs mentions "Ch.Const. Macnaghten, who vexed Anderson by making undue fuss over a threatening letter".
Now, taking it one step further, still eliminating Tumblety as a suspect for a moment, due to the fact that he was under constant watch, one would think that 'JTR', if he had murdered Stride, which I believe he did, had some specific gripe against the Special Branch, and had such a gripe against them that he made it a point to murder her directly under their noses.
What suspect or suspects had a gripe against the Special Branch?
SJR |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2044
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 5:06 pm: |
|
I noted that Inspector Reid was mentioned in this lively exchange, so for the record would just like to point out that Inspector Reid was actually employed by the 'Thames Police'. |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 858
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 5:14 pm: |
|
Hi A.P.
I thought Reid was with H Division, CID. And one terrific aeronaut 
Dave |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2045
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 5:39 pm: |
|
He might have been on loan.
I gotta search through the thousands of notes I got here to confirm it, but Reid was Thames Police rather than pure Met.
I agree with your comment though, an aeronaut with a bit of soul. |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 196
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 5:56 pm: |
|
Inspector Edmund Reid, at the time of the murders, was the head of the local CID, which was H Division, covering Whitechapel. He assumed this post after Inspector Abberline was promoted to the Special Branch in late 1887.
Reid headed the investigation into the Tabram murder, including taking Mary Ann Connolly on at least two trips to view Grenadier Guardsmen.
He was replaced hours after the murder of Mary Ann Nichols, when 3 Inspectors mysteriously showed up on the scene, again only hours after the murder of Mary Ann Nichols. One of these Inspectors was Abberline, whose knowledge of the murder scene and region (Whitechapel) landed him the position of running the ground investigation of the murders. Inspector Reid worked alongside him, or under him, or in collaboration with him. They worked together basically.
As far as the Thames Police, it's a new one to me. I have it that Reid remained as the Head of the local CID until his retirement in 1896.
I of course could be mistaken.
SJR |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 859
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 5:58 pm: |
|
I think that it was Inspector Reed and Inspector Willow who were with the Thames Police?
Dave |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2047
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 05, 2005 - 6:14 pm: |
|
Was that the wind in the willows, Dave?
I will dig out the reference, but it is late and that tarnished brandy bottle is waving at me again.
What really disturbs me though when I start checking back through references and sources is that I find things that I didn't even know I had found.
Like this:
'Interesting little death in the Blackfriars Road. September 13th 1888. Georgina Byrne, aged 34.'
Although I must have found this a long time ago, I now haven't a clue what it is all about.
I have thousands like this.
So forgive me when I falter. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1718
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 3:49 am: |
|
Hi Nats,
I have wondered too whether these two clubs were deliberately targeted by JtR on the night of the double event.But if so Why?
To make the police think JtR was Jewish? The apron piece left at the entrance to the Jewish dwellings plus the graffito could have been his attempt to press the message home.
Love,
Caz
X |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1615
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 6:15 am: |
|
Guys,
The apron piece could have been left anywhere in the Whitechapel area and still be within yards of a building with Jewish connections.
Just something that I feel should be considered.
Cheers,
Monty
Doc-tor? The Doc-tor??? - Dalek
|
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 76
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 7:30 am: |
|
Stan,
Might some thought be given to the term'Surveilance',as it figures quite a bit on this thread.
There are of course many types of surveilance,and to those not aquainted with the physical needs associated with the term,may be left with a completely wrong impression.
It does not require that a person under surveilance neccessarily be watched 24 hours a day,and every movement reported.Sometimes a surveilance will be very intermitent over an extended period of time,and each period of watching of very short duration.
In the Ripper investigation,the types of surveilance would probably consist of fixed and foot surveilance.It may,in some cases,have only needed a constable on the beat to pay special attention to places of interest,as he passed by on patrol.Therefor such places would get a bare minimum of scrutiny.However in reports it might give the impression that there was a constant watch on these premises and the persons within.
Only if the actual serveilance reports are availabe,will one be able to assess what attention was given to a particular person or premises'.A suspect might have,in 1888,almost complete freedom of movement,yet reading of it today,we could be fooled into thinking that he was under constant watch. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1616
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 9:43 am: |
|
Harry,
You sound like a man who has spent many an hour filling out a RIP 1 form !
Nowadays surveillence has to be proportionate. You have to have a bloody good reason to watch someone. Like I say, thats today...in 1888 would Human rights be considered?
What also needs to be considered is the impact the surveillence would/could have on the area. Could you get away with a person, a stranger (or stangers) in Berner street watching the club for a period of time? Would that arouse local suspicion? How observant are the locals? Packer for example would have no doubt clocked such activity.
Like you mention, obs doesnt have to be a 24 hour job, infact Ive never heard of a case that has been contiuous. You can watch someone for an hour one day and comeback the next day or the day after that at a different time and conduct another hours obs. Its a slow steady and laborious job where you build up a picture of a persons movements.
My view is that if the club in Berner street was being watched, then I find it very hard to believe that they would have watched this building constantly. It seems that the locals were very observant and aware.
As a side note Harry, if Special Branch were on obs in Berner Street I dont think the beat PC would have been notified prior to the start of the operation. That said, He may have been notified if he had picked up on them.
Just my 2 penn'th
Monty
Doc-tor? The Doc-tor??? - Dalek
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1883
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 12:19 pm: |
|
Monty-I like the bit about Whitechapel and the Jewish connections!Quite so-Spitalfields in particular but most of Whitechapel probably was mostly very largely Jewish.
Stan-Very interesting about the way surveillance worksed-and has probably changed!
Caz,
I guess this is a very distinct possibility
although you are giving Jack a down to earth
political intention apart from his murders.To be attempting to stir up racial tension on the night he is thought to have committed two murders in half an hour-with some deranged mutilating thrown in--seems to me to be giving Jack a sort of Napoleonic set of ambitions.
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2050
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 2:06 pm: |
|
Sorry, so sorry, I cover myself in ashes and old frock coats, and beat myself soundly with an empty brandy bottle.
I just checked again in detail and find that my Inspector Reid has the first name George and not Edmund.
My Inspector Reid was an Inspector of the Thames Police and an Officer of Customs in the 1880's, but when I first found him he was mentioned in a court case along with Abberline, and there was my confusion.
My sincere apologies and I shall continue to empty brandy bottles all night and then beat myself black and blue with the empties. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
