Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

**New Independent Review : Issue One September 2011**

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

  • #16
    David Gates

    David Gates choses topics not previously tackled by writers and therefore his research can be invaluable, such as the 'fixed point' constables piece in this issue. I can see this becoming a reference mainstay in articles and books for years to come. I still have some reading to do, such as his other article this issue, but I'm already looking forward to what else he might come up with in the future.

    As for the 50-page part 3 of Jonathan's monster mini-book, that would need a thread of its own to discuss it properly. But I'm glad he included his observation, posted some time back on the Casebook, that I personally feel is THE solution to the source of the 'plot to assassinate Balfour'. So simple and sensible that it has to be the truth. And yes, it's buried deep within the article, so you'll need to read the WHOLE THING to find it.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Comment


    • #17
      Don:

      Never fear...we ain't blase over here. I beat 'em if they start down that road.

      I have some points to debate with Dave Gates over the premise of his article regarding the most violent entity in London or the East End during the AOT.

      I perceive Dave minimalizing the actions (of the majority) of those who were murdered by the Ripper.

      I see more of a balance at work and wondered if Dave might want to comment on some issues.
      To Join JTR Forums :
      Contact [email protected]

      Comment


      • #18
        I'm always glad to see something about Backert Tom

        I wasn't belittling your article in any way - I really enjoyed it and definitely recommend it

        The letters, lodgers and witness stories that Backert comes up with are just a personal favourite of mine so I would have liked to have seen your analysis of them

        I found I had to read all about him to cover Forbes Winslow as their stories intermingle somewhat

        Bachert definitely lied through his teeth at times in order to link himself with the Ripper case

        Bachert' story in the Three Tuns for example, as well as the description matching that of Goldstein which you mention in your article, contains elements of a suspect who prearranges a meeting with his victim, something that was mentioned previously in the press in relation to the MO of JtR, at the time of the Chapman killing if I remember correctly

        I'm absolutely convinced it was a totally concocted story

        There are links between Bachert's stories and letters and those of Forbes Winslow

        Winslow isn't innocent as he was definitely lying also and changed dates on documents willy-nilly, but it's unclear who the letter author(s) were

        Some of Winslow's letters are "erroneously" linked with Bachert, the "true" ones received before Kelly & McKenzie, though this appears to be a mistake by the reporter as Bachert elsewhere only compares the writing in his letter (and the chalk writing I think) to those of Winslow (the true ones)

        Bachert would be a good origin for Winslow's letters and stories

        Some or all of Winslow's letters and witness statements, the boots and the like, may have been originally "supplied" by Bachert (&Co) IMO, a connection being made when Winslow tramped the East End in his Ripper hunt

        Comment


        • #19
          'The New Independent Review'

          I'd like to thank Don publicly for allowing me the opportunity to print an article which is so long, and advocates a contrary point of view.

          I thank Paul, Debra and Adam for their kind words, and would just like to add that I thought that Adam's piece, in the same issue, was excellent. For somebody so young he is a very talented wordsmith.

          Comment


          • #20
            Hi Jonathan, I agree about Adam. It was nice to see him use his column space to discuss an area of the case (Eddowes) that really never gets discussed. I hope to see him continue in this vein.

            Yours truly,

            Tom Wescott

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
              Hi Paul. This essay was actually written prior to my old Le Grand essay for Casebook Examiner, so it was written a long time before the new A-Z came out. Only now that you mention it does it occur to me that I should have updated the article with the new information in A-Z.

              It was originally part of my article that appeared later in Casebook Examiner, Berner Street Rogues Gallery, where I discussed a number of suspicious characters relating to the Berner Street murder. I got so interested in the Bachert stuff, and it got so long, that I decided to make it a 'part 2'. Little did I know at the time that Examiner would fold, so now I guess it's a stand alone in NIR.

              Naturally, not everyone is as well-read on Bachert as you, Nemo, and Chris Scott, so I'm glad it appeared in an issue available to everyone, and might spark new interest in him. I don't think Bachert was a murderer, but it still seems there's something about him that still eludes us.

              Thanks to all for taking the time to read it.

              Yours truly,

              Tom Wescott
              It was a good article and, as ever, well-written, and hopefully introduces that odd man to a wider audience. One thing the Ripper story does is throw up a lot of strange and interesting people. Keep 'em coming, Tom, and if you get the chance to do the same with your Le Grand material it would be very welcome. Not to preempt your book, of course.

              Comment


              • #22
                Excellent Production

                Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                ...
                As for the 50-page part 3 of Jonathan's monster mini-book, that would need a thread of its own to discuss it properly. But I'm glad he included his observation, posted some time back on the Casebook, that I personally feel is THE solution to the source of the 'plot to assassinate Balfour'. So simple and sensible that it has to be the truth. And yes, it's buried deep within the article, so you'll need to read the WHOLE THING to find it.
                ...
                Tom Wescott
                An excellent production containing excellent articles. To be recommended to all.

                However, apropos of the above comment by Tom I have to ask however can he conclude that 'it has to be the truth' in relation to the 'plot to assassinate Balfour' remarks in Browne's book? On the contrary, that interpretation cannot be correct.

                Comment


                • #23
                  According to Adam.

                  OK,

                  Seeing as it is expected of me.

                  PC Hutt judged her to be sober and able to take care of herself, so she was allowed to go

                  A petty point, but one which needs clarification. As Station Sergeant, it was Byfield who made the final decision on the ability of Eddowes to look after herself and discharged her. Hutt would merely judge who he deemed was able to look after themselves but it was Byfield who made the call, And this is clear in the inquest testimony.



                  I’ll keep it brief and to the point: there is absolutely no way — medically, physically or logically — that Catherine Eddowes had miraculously transformed herself from a hopeless drunk to a perfectly sober woman, completely in control of all her faculties, in the space of under
                  five hours.


                  I would have liked to see the factual evidence here. Medical preferably. Of course Adam is judging from when Robinson picked Eddowes up and not from the timing of her last drink (which will never be known). This is personal opinion and not ascertained fact.



                  I’ll unashamedly put my hand up and say that I’m among those, and I can categorically state from personal experience that this sort of recovery just doesn’t happen — if only it did!

                  Yes, Australias crushing defeat at the hands of the English during the last 2 Ashes would drive a young Australian to drink.

                  Seriously, the fact is we are all indeed different and all have differing tolerances to drink. Alcoholics have operated quite competently in all various aspects of life from the Police Force, to Journalist, to what ever. Whilst its questionable is they could maintain such a lifestyle the fact is they can function adequately.

                  Now, I am not stating Eddowes was an alcoholic, I am stating that recovery rates vary. I myself have experienced it, and Im sure many of you have a similar story. Unless Adam wishes to provide fact that it is impossible to recover with 5 hours.



                  Indeed, using that scale, and bearing in mind the five hours that had passed between her being picked up on Aldgate High Street at 8 PM and her release from Bishopsgate at 1 AM, we would need to presume that in order for her to be “sober”, which the police on duty claimed she was, she’d consumed no more than five standard-sized and standard-strength drinks, and that she’d spaced them out in a responsible fashion.

                  We need to clarify 'sober' here. Sober simply means not under the influence of alcohol, not alcohol free. This needs to be made clear.



                  When Catherine Eddowes was released from Bishopsgate Police Station, despite what seems to have been a worthy acting performance, perhaps combined with some indifference from the police on duty (which I will address in a moment), I suspect she was still semi-intoxicated. Her thinking was impaired. She wandered off with no clear idea of where she was going or what she was going to do next.

                  This is pure out and out speculation passed as fact. Her thinking was impaired? She asked pertinant questions, such as the time. She engaged Hutt in lucid conversation, and even bantered with him. Hardly the actions of an unclear thinking semi drunk.

                  Her location in Mitre Square is a very clear indication of where she was going. If Lewande is correct, her engaement in conversation with a man in Church Passage tell us exactly what her intentions were.



                  I believe PC Hutt and his fellow officers knew that Catherine was still affected by alcohol at the time, but of course they wouldn’t admit to it later on. The police were already under enough intense pressure from all sides – the last thing they needed in the wake of a double murder was the confession of their own officers that they’d released the most recent victim and put her in harm’s way whilst she was still under the influence of alcohol. It could well be that self-preservation came into the equation, for both the individuals and the organisation as a whole.

                  Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and makes it very easy for outsiders to be judgemental. However, in my opinion, the simple facts are that irresponsibility and neglect played a part in the events that took place on the infamous night of September 29/30, 1888.


                  The questioning of Police Procedure during this case has been numerous and often valid. However it is often done via a modern perspective and with a lack of understanding of said procedure and the time period, both of era and date, we are referring to.

                  Eddowes was taken to the cells for being drunk and disorderly. As a norm, drunks would have been left to the own devices, the Police simply didnt have the room to accomodate all drunks, they still dont. However, in Eddowes case she was taken in because a crowd had gathered around her, she was causing disorder. Once at Bishopsgate, if she had continued with the disorder I suspect she would have been charged, however she didnt. She slept.

                  Now this is where we must consider the time period. Its coming to late Saturday night, early Sunday morning. A traditional time for drunken brawls and serious misdemeanours. The Police would have been very aware of this and would start clearing their cells of those deemed able fit enough to look after themselves. Clearly Eddowes was one of these. The fact Hutt checked her numerous times during the night indicates she was under constant assessment. He engaged her in coversation, a tactic used for assessment. And Hutt was no green. He had been in this situation many times and had the experience to make such descisions.

                  It is completely inaccurate and utterly unfair to suggest the Police were irresponsible and neglectful in their duties. Whilst Adam does indeed present a good article, I find it either selective in its contents or not thoroughly researched. His evidence is personal opinion, as stated in the title, and leads the reader to one conclusion rather than let them draw there own views, this due to the lack of balanced evidence.

                  That said, it subject is indeed thought provoking and Adam has a great knack of asking questions which are pertinant yet seem to dip under the radar. It makes a freshing change to discuss Kosminski and the colour of his sisters dogs eyes.

                  Monty


                  PS, Whilst my comments seem to hold an alternate view, I genuinely commend all on their imput, including Adam. I look forward to a long life with regards this publication. It certianly impresses.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Further to...

                    Originally posted by SPE View Post
                    An excellent production containing excellent articles. To be recommended to all.
                    However, apropos of the above comment by Tom I have to ask however can he conclude that 'it has to be the truth' in relation to the 'plot to assassinate Balfour' remarks in Browne's book? On the contrary, that interpretation cannot be correct.
                    Further to this comment I should, perhaps, also direct the reader to Jonathan's incorrect rendering of Browne's words, which were actually:

                    'A third head of the CID, Sir Melville Macnaghten, appears to identify the Ripper with the leader of a plot to assassinate Mr Balfour at the Irish Office.' In Jonathan's version the words in bold are omitted.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      To Stewart

                      Guilty as charged. It's a transposition error, which I missed. I am sure there are other errors and they should all be pointed out.

                      But I stand by my interpretation of that particular bit.

                      Browne does not seem cognizant that Macnaghten did not disagree with his successor that the Ripper was a suicide.

                      Nor does he seem to have read 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper', or else he would have known this -- but he cites Mac's memoirs at one remove via William Stewart.

                      On the other hand, the word 'leader' seems very specific, and suggests a plot of more than one person; at least two people for example. If not more.

                      Then again perhaps he meant by 'leader' the leading assassin? Who knocked out a Commissioner and very nearly settled the hash of a principal sec. of state.

                      My overarching point is that if Browne had written that Macnaghten must have changed his mind -- moving from the Balfour plotter to a drowned gentleman -- then the interpretation that Macnaghten originally had a different suspect would be a more compelling interpretation.

                      In my opinion, of course.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Ah, opinion...

                        Originally posted by Jonathan Hainsworth View Post
                        To Stewart
                        Guilty as charged. It's a transposition error, which I missed. I am sure there are other errors and they should all be pointed out.
                        But I stand by my interpretation of that particular bit.
                        Browne does not seem cognizant that Macnaghten did not disagree with his successor that the Ripper was a suicide.
                        Nor does he seem to have read 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper', or else he would have known this -- but he cites Mac's memoirs at one remove via William Stewart.
                        On the other hand, the word 'leader' seems very specific, and suggests a plot of more than one person; at least two people for example. If not more.
                        Then again perhaps he meant by 'leader' the leading assassin? Who knocked out a Commissioner and very nearly settled the hash of a principal sec. of state.
                        My overarching point is that if Browne had written that Macnaghten must have changed his mind -- moving from the Balfour plotter to a drowned gentleman -- then the interpretation that Macnaghten originally had a different suspect would be a more compelling interpretation.
                        In my opinion, of course.
                        Ah, opinion, that most fragile aspect of our writing.

                        An easily made error Jonathan, we all make them. However, I would point out the important difference between the phrases 'appears to identify the Ripper with a plot to assassinate Mr Balfour' and 'appears to identify the Ripper with the leader of a plot to assassinate Mr Balfour', the second, of course, being very much more specific than the first.

                        The reason that I have said that Tom's enthusiastic statement that 'it has to be the truth' is incorrect is because it is incorrect. The already published explanation, by the authors of the A-Z all those years ago (1991) still holds true today as the most probable explanation for Browne's words.

                        If you will recall they said, "The late Douglas G. Browne wrote in The Rise of Scotland Yard, 'A third head of the CID, Sir Melville Macnaghten, appears to identify the Ripper with the leader of a plot to assassinate Mr Balfour at the Irish Office'. This extraordinary claim, unsupported by any extant writing of Macnaghten's, cannot be casually dismissed. Browne had access to the Scotland Yard files and Home Office files on the Ripper at least twenty years before they were opened to the public and presumably saw documents which have since gone missing."

                        This, in my opinion, remains the most likely explanation for those words, far more likely than your hypothesis. This for various other reasons also. Ergo, Tom's words cannot be correct. But you are to be congratulated on your usual enthusiastic, reasoned and careful marshalling of the facts coupled with some very thought provoking and individual interpretation of the material. A well written and enjoyable read.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Sorry...

                          Originally posted by Jonathan Hainsworth View Post
                          To Stewart
                          ...
                          But I stand by my interpretation of that particular bit.
                          Browne does not seem cognizant that Macnaghten did not disagree with his successor that the Ripper was a suicide.
                          Nor does he seem to have read 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper', or else he would have known this -- but he cites Mac's memoirs at one remove via William Stewart.
                          ...
                          Sorry, I do not agree with that interpretation.

                          It's a while since I read Stewart's book, so I would appreciate chapter and verse on where Browne 'cites Mac's memoirs at one remove via William Stewart.'

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Might I inquire if Douglas Browne is deceased, and if anyone has discussed with him the Scotland Yard and Home Office files to which he has had access? Did Browne attempt at all to consult the SB ledgers? (He's generally not mentioned in relation to the latter.)
                            Best regards,
                            Maria

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Maria Birbili View Post
                              Might I inquire if Douglas Browne is deceased, and if anyone has discussed with him the Scotland Yard and Home Office files to which he has had access? Did Browne attempt at all to consult the SB ledgers? (He's generally not mentioned in relation to the latter.)
                              Yes, no (though I exchanged correspondence with Tom Tullet, a co-author), and not that I know of.

                              Paul

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Douglas G Browne

                                Originally posted by Maria Birbili View Post
                                Might I inquire if Douglas Browne is deceased, and if anyone has discussed with him the Scotland Yard and Home Office files to which he has had access? Did Browne attempt at all to consult the SB ledgers? (He's generally not mentioned in relation to the latter.)
                                Douglas Gordon Browne (1884-1963) was originally a painter but at the age of 27 began writing detective novels. He was the son of Gordon Browne, R.I., R.B.A., and grandson of Hablot K. Brown, who enjoyed celebrity as 'Phiz'.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X