Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

**J.S. Walsh The Invincible**

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    oops

    Hello Debs. Thanks. Think I missed one. It IS the other chap. Regrets.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Lynn Cates View Post
      Hello Debs. Thanks for posting that.

      Interesting to see Captain John McCafferty's name come up. I have been pursuing him for some time. There are some rumours that he was given to violent behaviour.

      Do we know whom the informant was?

      Cheers.
      LC
      Hi Lynn
      Which informant?

      Comment


      • #18
        Two John Walsh's

        John Walsh of Middlesborough and John Walsh of Balla. Both Fenians and both mentioned separately in the following links.

        https://news.google.com/newspapers?n...,2704677&hl=en (under the heading of P.J Foley,MP)

        https://books.google.com/books?id=OX...0balla&f=false (John W Walsh of Balla is Michael Davitt's cousin) (Beginning of Chapter 3 in the book)

        https://books.google.com/books?id=FR...0balla&f=false (This has John J Walsh but I think is same as Davitt's cousin with the Balla and John Nally reference.)

        https://books.google.com/books?id=i0...enians&f=false (This has both names and clearly separate individuals)

        It's confusing trying to sort this out. Is John Walsh from Middlesborough the Land League organizer in England and plotting to kill Balfour and John W Walsh the Fenian arms supplier? I wasn't aware of two John Walsh's until now.

        Comment


        • #19
          I subscribe to the theory that Macnaghten was not talking about any Irish terrorist leader as a probable Ripper.

          It is simply a mistake by Browne, and a ludicrous one.

          If you view the whole page in Browne's book you can see that he is writing about three top cops' memoirs: Anderson, Macnaghten and Thompson on the Ripper.

          Browne claims they all disagree when, in fact, the last two did agree that the Ripper was a suicide.

          It is sloppy work.

          I think that the author, who was finishing a book he had not started, did not read "Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper'' properly (if at all, perhaps relying on notes) and assumed that the final, hyperbolic lines of Macnaghten's about Jack knocking out a Police Commissioner and nearly 'settling the hash' of a minister of state was a reference to Balfour being the target of in 1888 an aborted assassination plot.

          A single source, and a secondary one at that, which jars with other sources--and other primary sources--needs to be treated with great caution.

          For example, there are people who dismiss the Littlechild Letter and Tumblety because they assert--with much tiresome aggression--that it does not fit the other sources from 1888 (a contestable claim) for example surviving official records, e.g. it needs to be treated with great caution because it is alone.

          Yet from the same quarter we see the Browne anomalous source about the much maligned Macnaghten treated as gospel even though it too is at odds with every other extant source about Macnaghten on this matter, and sources by him, and sources by his proxies on his behalf.

          Is this not inconsistent? If the Browne source is credible, why not Jack Littlechild, a [late] primary source, writing that Tumblety was a very likely suspect to have been the fiend?

          Comment


          • #20
            I would love to read Wolf's April 2014 article. Is anyone able to email me a scan of it please?

            Comment


            • #21
              Hi Debs. I've sent you a p.m.

              Jonathan.

              I subscribe to the theory that Macnaghten was not talking about any Irish terrorist leader as a probable Ripper.
              It is simply a mistake by Browne, and a ludicrous one.
              Two things. First, Browne had access to official files (apparently the Home Office files rather than Scotland Yard's) when he completed The Rise of Scotland Yard. The section dealing with the Ripper murders proves this.

              Second, you ignore the fact that Clutterbuck found the same information that Browne wrote of when he, Clutterbuck, read the Special Branch ledgers. In other words, the information discovered by Browne existed in at least two different Whitechapel Murders files, H.O. and Special Branch, and likely in the Scotland Yard files as well.

              Like it or not, Macnaghten DID, at one time, believe in an Irish extremist, likely Walsh, as Ripper suspect and he probably held this view as late as 1891.

              Wolf.

              Comment


              • #22
                Like it or not, Wolf, it is a ludicrous theory based on taking Browne's single line out of context. He is clearly referring to a succession of post-1888 memoirs, not classfiied files.

                And Clutterbuck--as a secondary source whose sources we cannot assess--in fact does no such thing.

                You do not know what Macnaghten believed up until 1891, but from early that year we can reconstruct whet he did believe until the day he died, rightly or wrongly, and it is that the Ripper was a suicide--exactly the reverse of what Browne had written about these ex-chiefs disagreeing in their memoirs.

                If Browne was writing about an earlier theory of Mac's he would have wrriten that: Sir Melville had believed one thing (a terrorist leader) and then later believed another (a "Simon Pure" suicide).

                But Browne does not write that, because, a little sloppily, he knows of no such thing when he shpuld (e.g. Macnaghetn and Thompson did not disagree about the fiend's fate). Browne has obviously misinterpreted and literalized "... nearly settled the hash of one of Her Majesty's principal secretaries of state".

                Or else ... that is some coincidence, those lines matching so well!

                Actually Browne did not know much about Macnaghten or his long-standing public relations schtick.

                For example, elsewhere he criticises Mac for suggesting that another terrorist leader, the so-called Peter the Painter, was just a myth--and that nobody else agreed with him.

                The author does not grasp is that this was an attempt by the super-smooth ex-chief to improve the image of Scotland Yard, as in we did not miss catching him--there was nobody to capture (he also has Mrs Pearcy accidentally smother the baby of the wife she killed, rather than expose the reader to the full horror of infanticide).

                Comment


                • #23
                  secret society

                  Hello Wolf. Thanks for posting that.

                  I wonder if any of this coincides with Sir Charles' musing that a secret society was likely behind the killings?

                  Cheers.
                  LC

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Hi Lynn.

                    Yes, it's possible, of course. We do know that there was a belief that the murders might have had a connection with political extremists and we also know, from Clutterbuck, that Special Branch was asked to keep an eye on various Irish suspects in connection with the Whitechapel Murders.

                    There is even a Metropolitan Police crime register index which has an entry, under the headings "CRIME" and "General" which states "Whitechapel Murder Suggested complicity of Irish Party." This suggests that the Irish Parliamentary Party, or elements within it, were apparently thought to be connected with the Whitechapel Murders. This seems, however, like an attempted at throwing suspicion at Parnell and the Home Rule movement, possibly at the time of the Parnell Commission.

                    Jonathan.

                    I know you have appointed yourself as the great expert on all things Macnaghten but you are clearly wrong on this point. Even a casual reading, by an unbiased observer, of Browne and Clutterbuck clearly proves that they, using two different sources, are talking about the same thing:

                    Sir Melville Macnaghten, appears to identify the Ripper with the leader of a plot to assassinate Mr. Balfour at the Irish Office.
                    Douglas Browne, The Rise of Scotland Yard; A History, 1956, George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd. page 5.

                    an outline could “be constructed of an intriguing story involving an extreme Irish nationalist who is suspected of being ‘Jack the Ripper,’ an alleged plot to assassinate the Secretary for Ireland, Balfour, and the activities of a private detective agency.
                    Lindsay Clutterbuck, An Accident of History?, June, 2002, Doctoral thesis, University of Portsmouth, page 264.

                    If your really want to dismiss Clutterbuck by simply waiving him away with the trite comment that he is "a secondary source whose sources we cannot assess," then this is just typical of your methodological bias. If a source supports your personal views then it must be correct. If it doesn't, then it can simply be ignored.

                    You do not know what Macnaghten believed up until 1891, but from early that year we can reconstruct whet he did believe until the day he died, rightly or wrongly, and it is that the Ripper was a suicide--exactly the reverse of what Browne had written about these ex-chiefs disagreeing in their memoirs.
                    Then explain this:

                    "The much lamented and late Commissioner of the C.I.D., Sir Melville Macnaghten, received some information that the murderer had gone to America and died in a lunatic asylum there. This perhaps may be correct, but after this news nothing was ever heard of any similar crime being committed."
                    ex-Chief Inspector Tom Divall, Scoundrels and Scallywags (And Some Honest Men), Ernest Benn Ltd., 1929.

                    This isn't Druitt but it does fit Walsh: the extreme Irish nationalist; the leader of a plot to assassinate Balfour while at the Irish Office; the man a private detective agency (Pinkertons) was keeping an eye on in America for Scotland Yard; the man who had gone to America and died in a lunatic asylum there in March, 1891.

                    But, then, you probably think Chief Inspector Divall is merely a secondary source whose sources we cannot assess.

                    Wolf.
                    Last edited by Wolf Vanderlinden; March 25, 2015, 04:36 PM. Reason: clarity

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Jonathan Hainsworth View Post
                      (he also has Mrs Pearcy accidentally smother the baby of the wife she killed, rather than expose the reader to the full horror of infanticide).
                      Hi Jonathan,

                      Some of the details in Macnaghten's account of the Pearcey case are a bit iffy, but he's in the right area here. The baby died either from smothering or exposure ... in simple terms, either because it couldn't breathe when its mother's body was placed on top of it in the perambulator, or when it was left in the open air behind a hedge in north-west London. I can go so far as to say that Mary Pearcey may have thought or suspected or hoped that the baby would die if a woman's body was placed on top of it, but there is no solid evidence to show that she intentionally smothered it. Indeed, she may not even have succeeded, if it died later of exposure. I don't think Macnaghten was protecting anybody's sensibilities in this example.

                      The piano-playing and compulsive chanting are out, though.

                      Regards,

                      Mark
                      I bet your Ripper feels better now.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        To Mark

                        Very well counter-argued.

                        To Wolf

                        As usual, you are wrong, as you often are. and of coyurse rudeness has quickly crept in because somebody is disagreeing with you.

                        And I'm a Palmer crony, so not worth debating at all. I'm luckly you have deigned to even reply to such a worthless heretic.

                        Clutterbuck is a secondary source. you can call that trite in your bitchy way, but it is true. Yet you treat him as gospel? Why?

                        Because he agrees with your views.

                        Tom Divall is a primary source about Macnaghten's views on the Ripper, because he was there and he knew the chief. He is a critical source, in fact, because we further glimpse Macnaghten directly reshaping the material to hide Druitt in Dr. Tumblety. We see this in Littlechild too, writing that he had been told, probably by Mac, that Tumblety killed himself in France.

                        I will say it one more time: the quote in Browne makes sense when you see what surrounds it on the same page. If Browne had understood Macnaghten's ultimate position--the Ripper as a suicide--he would have written as such. He did not.

                        Otherwise that is quite a coincidence?!

                        I think Browne has taken literally the ex-chief's last, hyperbolic lines about a Simon Pure who was virtually omnipotent against the forces of the state, but who self-destructed due to post-mortem horror. For Macnaghten--in pointed opposition to the loathed Anderson and his ego-driven memoirs--only the Ripper could stop the Ripper.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          thinking

                          Hello Wolf. Thanks.

                          It would be interesting to know what, precisely, Scotland Yard DID think.

                          Cheers.
                          LC

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            It probably thought it was great that they didn't have a lot of grass to mow.

                            Now the White House...its probably wondering where the British army is when it needs them... Kind of like many Southerners now feel about Sherman's army and Atlanta. Where's Sherman when you really need him?
                            Best Wishes,
                            Cris Malone
                            ______________________________________________
                            "Objectivity comes from how the evidence is treated, not the nature of the evidence itself. Historians can be just as objective as any scientist."

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Jonathan.

                              Clutterbuck is a secondary source. you can call that trite in your bitchy way, but it is true. Yet you treat him as gospel? Why?
                              Because he agrees with your views.
                              Actually, I believe in what Clutterbuck has written because he was a serving Special Branch officer who was writing his doctoral thesis using Special Branch materials. If you can prove to me that he lied about what he had found in the SB ledgers, then please do so. If you can't do that, then perhaps you can provide a rational reason why he would lie.

                              Tom Divall is a primary source about Macnaghten's views on the Ripper, because he was there and he knew the chief. He is a critical source, in fact, because we further glimpse Macnaghten directly reshaping the material to hide Druitt in Dr. Tumblety. We see this in Littlechild too, writing that he had been told, probably by Mac, that Tumblety killed himself in France.
                              Would you be so kind as to provide actual proof, rather than wild conjecture or irrational speculation, that Macnaghten "directly" reshaped "the material to hide Druitt in Dr. Tumblety." A list of your sources would also help here.

                              Also, could you please explain why you find that hack writer Guy Logan's work of fiction is somehow a trustworthy, let alone plausible, source of information regarding Macnaghten while dismissing the works of both Douglas Browne and Lindsay Clutterbuck.

                              Thank you in advance.

                              Wolf.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                To Wolf

                                Your flailing aren't you. That is easily your worst and most shallow response, even for you.

                                You're so desperate, you are actually going to go with the 'straw man', of the either he was a liar or he was telling the truth.

                                How shameless. I have said no such thing.

                                In your brittle, defensive world there are only two kinds of people: those who tell the truth and those who do not. The concept of an honest mistake or competing, equally valid, interpretations about limited and contradictory data --e.g. real life and real people--data does not exit. Cannot exist!

                                I suppose you have to go this low route since, for a second time, you have ignored the textual analysis of Browne's page.

                                Or is that you are so ignorant you misunderstand secondary for second-rate.

                                And the second passive-aggressive bit of b.s. is show me your sources. As in I can't because, supposedly, I have none. Plus the false manners of 'thank-you in advance'.

                                And suddenly Guy Logan appears out of nowhere.

                                You assumed I would use that didn't you, so you had to quash it in advance? That tells me that you may understand it's significance, by dismissing it as a work of fiction. It's actually a mixture, and says so, and sure enough gets certain details about Druitt absolutely correct. Yet he is hidden too, as I had argued for years and then Bondeson found it in 2013 and it confirmed my theory--and how that must stick in your throat.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X