Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

**J.S. Walsh The Invincible**

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

  • Jonathan Hainsworth
    replied
    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).

    Leave a comment:


  • Wolf Vanderlinden
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • Jonathan Hainsworth
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Jerry Dunlop
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Lynn Cates
    replied
    oops

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

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
    Lynn:
    Is John McCafferty the same person as the Edward McCaffrey in the article Debs posted ?
    Two different surnames and two different first names....
    How, it's a memo written by Mallon taken from HO files -not an article- but yes, I'm confused about Lynn mentioning John too. I thought I was missing something.

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    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,
    I'm confused-where does John McCafferty's name come up?

    Edward McCaffrey is also Edward McCafferty in some sources.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lynn Cates
    replied
    different

    Hello Howard. Thanks.

    No, McCaffrey was a different bloke and involved in Phoenix Park. I think Molony has a photograph of him.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Lynn:
    Is John McCafferty the same person as the Edward McCaffrey in the article Debs posted ?
    Two different surnames and two different first names....

    Leave a comment:


  • Lynn Cates
    replied
    informant

    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Irish World
    New York City
    March 15, 1890
    ************

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Paul:
    Thanks for the correction....and the additional information !

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X