Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • #31
    Thank you both so much. Any chance that any information on additional files might have come out of the correspondence with Tom Tullet?
    Best regards,
    Maria

    Comment


    • #32
      Many thanks to Monty and SPE for their additional information/insight.
      To Join JTR Forums :
      Contact [email protected]

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Maria Birbili View Post
        Thank you both so much. Any chance that any information on additional files might have come out of the correspondence with Tom Tullet?
        No. He died in 1991. My correspondence was a long time ago.

        Comment


        • #34
          Catherine Eddowes...

          Given her circumstances when released from jail, drunk or sober- or somewhere in between- a case can be made that she would have done exactly what she did do. Her situation was the same and her recourse follows an unfortunately familiar skien.

          Certainly, if she had remained in the calaboose for the rest of the night or maybe a few more hours, she wouldn't have fallen prey to this killer on this night. But once released, it was her actions that led to a rendezvous with her killer and I doubt that her level of sobriety would have changed that. She expected to get a fine hiding for what she already had done. Byfield and Hutt figured she wouldn't be able to obtain any more alcohol.

          In hindsight, I'm sure that Byfield and Hutt had considerable remorse, but the only person who is at fault is the one who ended her life.
          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


          • #35
            From within Dave Gates' article...some more observations :




            To Join JTR Forums :
            Contact [email protected]

            Comment


            • #36
              Regarding the first observation, I think it might require a vote from amongst the Forums members on this one....as I believe people living in the Western Civilization are far more blase' ( there's that word again,Supe !) when a skein of serial murders occur, even in their own city, somewhat less disturbed when a serial killer eludes capture , and frankly far less concerned when prostitutes are murdered....far less so than in the LVP.

              Regarding the first comment in the second paragraph, I dispute the usually liberal contention that society felt women deserved a beating or worse if they were involved in prostitution. The patron saints of feminist-oriented, academic Ripperology, the Walkowitz's and so forth, perpetually overlook (either intentionally or not ) the remarkable fact that many women involved in the flesh business did so because it was easy money and they were lazy from the word go. The newspapers from the period contain numerous known ( not counting the obviously large number of unreported cases ) examples of women well versed in the ways of extricating money from male clients and they weren't necessarily the Chapmans and Nichols, on their last legs, but recividist criminals, often the unfortunates that ditzy liberals make dashboard statues out of unnecessarily.
              That most academicians confuse an attitude of condoning deserved violence with one of indifference ( actually the closer of the two mindsets) is pretty amusing considering the amount of money it cost to go to college.
              Most, if not all, of us on the Forums as well as out there in the mean ol' world are just as indifferent to prosses in 2011 as they were in 1888 and will be 100 years from now. And none, I dare say, of us condone violence to a single one of them.

              I can't recall a single instance of a prostitute being arrested for causing mayhem in a bakery or a chandler's shop.
              That women undertook prostitution due to the harshness of life in the LVP is undeniable and tragic.
              The primary reason they took to selling themselves, however, wasn't for a jam and a currant bun....it was alcohol.
              To Join JTR Forums :
              Contact [email protected]

              Comment


              • #37
                Thanks Stewart, for those supportive words.

                Yes, it could be that Browne saw information which was, and is, classified and that did indeed refrer to Macnaghten believing a plotter against Balfour was also a prime Ripper suspect.

                That's possible for sure.

                Especially when we consider that Macnaghten, when he finally shohroned hismelf onto the Met, comes across as gung-ho to get into the thick of the Ripper action, like a possessed man costantly looking over his shoulder at the 'autumn of terror' he missed.

                So, the idea of Mac ravenously devouring any file he could, fits, as does the plotter, or at least some kind of Irish figure fitting -- broadly speaking and only by surmise -- Frances Tumbelty (I appreciate that I have brought this up, not you) as I think Macnaghte knew eveything about this suspect too, and my thesis is that he was fused with Druitt to create the 'Drowned Doctor' of the Edwardian Era.

                Therefore even if I am mistaken -- and could well be, of course -- it would still fit my theory of Macnaghten thinking it was Tumbelty, or somebody else, before switching 'some years after' to Druitt based on what he learned about the extraordinary story which unexpectedly emerged out of Dorset in early 1891.

                What nags at me, is that in the page of Browne's book from which the line is taken, he juxtaposes Macnaghten and Bradford as examples of disagreement about the best suspect, with the latter plumping for a suicide.

                There is no cognition on Browne's part that that is exactly the same suspect, or the same kind of suspect, that Macnaghten ended up with.

                Browne quotes from William Stewart to quote from 'Laying the Ghost ...' The 'New Independent Review' has made it's own transposition error (or I did not make it clear, or I missed this too in the proofing stage) in that footnote six is not my footnote, but Browne's quoting Stewart, to use the opening ditty from Mac's chapter.

                This is what got me thinking that since Browne seems not to have read 'Laying the Ghost ...' at first hand, but second hand, he may not have realised that Mac definitely goes for a suicide suspect.

                Also, Browne seems never to have stumbled upon the official evrsion of Mac's 'Report' which includes, as a minor suspect, the suicided M.J. Druitt.

                This got me thinking that he had absorbed the mistake of Woodhall that Mac's memoir chapter literally refers to a Ripper bashing a police commissioner, and literally threatening a Sec. of State, especially if he was relying on the meaning of those words at second hand.

                However, another possibility is that Browne thought that the Irish plotter has taken his own life; something like the 'mistake' (note the quotation marks) Littlechild makes about Tumblety taking his own life. That Browne did not therefore think that Mac had changed chief suspects at all?!

                But still there is the nagging doubt that Browne never realised that Macaghten did believed in a sucided suspect and not one who tried to literally 'settle the hash' of a sec. of state.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Hi Jonathan and Stewart,

                  But doesn't Jonathan's simple explanation make more sense - that Browne misinterpreted Mac's 'settling the hash' comments as being about a plot to kill Balfour, as opposed to some document referring to an actual plot (and I still don't understand how this could be twisted into referring to Tumblety)?

                  What exactly is the argument AGAINST Jonathan's hypothesis?

                  Yours truly,

                  Tom Wescott

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Hi Tom

                    Thanks for your kind words about the article.

                    I enjoyed yours too.

                    I tried to put the argument againt my position, about Browne's comment, in the previous post.

                    Browne writes that Mac thought that he was the leader of some kind of Irish assassination plot -- a referene which stands out like a sore thumb!

                    But, for all we know, perhaps Druitt led a triple life?

                    What we do know is that Browne had access to files on terrorism, that we do not.

                    Perhaps he uncovered an original theory of Macnahten's, not realising that the police chief later changed it to the drowned barrister, as he did not read Mac's memoirs at first hand.

                    Nevertheless, I stand by what I provisionally theorised; to try and make a sore thumb be healed back, so to speak, into an ordinary finger.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      OK, i'd like to thank everybody who has commented and given feedback on the first instalment of "According to Adam" so far, it has been much appreciated. I am very pleased that at least it has caused some discussion.

                      Monty:

                      Ah yes. I could see your response coming from a mile away, almost word for word - even warned you about it, didn't I?!

                      It's not my desire to derail this thread dedicated to the first issue of NIR as a whole with an Eddowes debate, but I will try and give an abbreviated answer to some of your points:

                      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.

                      Thinking back to high school, Monty (which wasn't all that long ago) it was compulsory that we all took part in a First Aid course, and gained our certificates in that - an element of which included learning the tables for intoxication and the amount of time it took for alcohol to leave the system and how best to treat drunks and so on. While I can't claim it to be a medical opinion as such, it assisted greatly in the understanding of how alcohol leaves the system which I outlined in the column, and which, given the time that had elapsed between arrest and release, verses the condition of Catherine when she was arrested, leaves little - in fact, I would say no doubt that she was still considerably under the influence of alcohol at 1 AM.

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

                      Indeed. Did I mention to you that I met Ben Hilfenhaus at the pub a couple of weeks back? Would have invited him outdoors for a net session if it hadn't been dark.

                      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.


                      Absolutely correct, and again, I said as much in the column - alcohol affects different people in different ways for different lengths of time.

                      However, I don't know of anyone, no matter how fit and how good of a metabolism they have, who can be so drunk that they can't stand up, and then a few hours later be perfectly capable of taking care of themselves.

                      This is made worse in Kate's case by the fact that she was middle aged, had led a pretty rough life and was clearly not in peak medical condition. Heavy intoxication would have had a worse effect on her than it might have to others.

                      You are also quite right that she may have seemed sober to the officers at Bishopsgate, but nobody ever claimed that those under the influence couldn't be convincing actors, especially when there was no such thing as a breatho machine in 1888. Even those who are heavily under the influence of alcohol can often feign sobriety for a few minutes if they wish to do so. Asking what time it is, alluding to a flogging and saying good night is hardly an indication of her sobriety! It's not my contention that she was still so drunk that she couldn't string a coherent sentence together!

                      Kate may well have believed that she was fine to go - but there's no question that there would still have been a considerable amount of alcohol in her system. Those who have been drinking often don't even realise it - again, it's why those who have been drinking aren't allowed behind the wheel of a car, for instance. It's why the coppers often catch people still drink driving the afternoon after their big bender, let alone the same night. It affects your judgement, slows down your reflexes and can make you behave quite irrationally - which would explain a lot of what happened over the 45 minutes following her release!

                      I wish to make it clear that I don't think Kate was still trashed, she had enough time to get past that stage, but not past the stage of still being tipsy and having her judgement impaired.

                      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.

                      Well that's your own interpretation shining through there, that Kate had the intention of using Mitre Square in the absense of Morris, who she was aware would be absent - we've only recently had that same discussion and disagreed.

                      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.

                      But this was no ordinary situation, Monty. Jack the Ripper was on the loose and the police knew it. Women were being warned to stay indoors at night time, especially those of Kate's standing, and generally not put themselves in harm's way. Once the police took Kate in, regardless of who came in afterwards, it was their responsibility to see to it that she stayed until she was in perfect condition to take care of herself - even if she had to stay there all night, at least she would be safe in the morning. You just don't take risk in a situation like that, even if you have to double or triple up the normal capacity of the cells. Instead, she really was let out to the wolf and it didn't take him long.

                      Let me be perfectly clear about this: I believe that, overall, the police of 1888 did a commendable job with the resources they had at their disposal. But, let's be honest, they dropped the ball on the night of the Double Event and it ended up costing Kate her life. And as I said in the column, who knows what to believe about their testimony afterwards, as the had every reason to make the release of a woman like Kate onto the streets at that hour of the morning look the least damning to them and their embattled comrades as possible.

                      As to being "selective", you may in fact also notice that I actually deliberately extended the time of Kate's time in the hands of the police - she was actually supposedly picked up at around 8.30 pm, but I rounded that back to 8 pm for the sake of the argument and to not risk being too narrow with my time margins - god knows i've had enough of the bloody time margins after the Berner Street/Fanny Mortimer saga that goes on and on..... so actually, if we wanted to be really technical and selective, we could say that her sobering up period was actually 4.5 hours rather than 5, which makes it even more hopeless for her chances.

                      The beauty of an opinion column is just that - it gives the opportunity to provide opinions on a subject which often does not get discussed at all, or not thoroughly enough in any case, and gets into the nitty gritty that you can't quite make a full length article out of.

                      Thanks once again for your response and comments, Monty.

                      Cris:

                      Thanks also for your comments.

                      Certainly I agree with much of what you say - and if it hadn't been Kate, it probably would have been some other unfortunate in her place. It's not my wish to play the blame game, as that is unfair on everybody with the benefit of hindsight, but as i've just stated to Monty, the actions of the police that evening leaves much to be desired, in my view, and was certainly a contributing factor in what would happen later on that morning.

                      But it's true enough to say that it all ultimately comes back to Kate and the lifestyle she was leading at the time.

                      Cheers,
                      Adam.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Sure...?

                        Originally posted by Jonathan Hainsworth View Post
                        Thanks Stewart, for those supportive words.
                        ...
                        Browne quotes from William Stewart to quote from 'Laying the Ghost ...' The 'New Independent Review' has made it's own transposition error (or I did not make it clear, or I missed this too in the proofing stage) in that footnote six is not my footnote, but Browne's quoting Stewart, to use the opening ditty from Mac's chapter.
                        ...
                        Are you sure that you are getting this right? I am fully aware of what is in Browne's book, I have owned it for the past twenty-odd years.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          No...

                          Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                          Hi Jonathan and Stewart,
                          But doesn't Jonathan's simple explanation make more sense - that Browne misinterpreted Mac's 'settling the hash' comments as being about a plot to kill Balfour, as opposed to some document referring to an actual plot (and I still don't understand how this could be twisted into referring to Tumblety)?
                          What exactly is the argument AGAINST Jonathan's hypothesis?
                          Yours truly,
                          Tom Wescott
                          No it doesn't. Also are you saying that Browne, writing a serious history of Scotland Yard, is more likely to have read Woodhall's pulp paperback nonsense than Macnaghten's autobiographical memoirs? Who says it refers to Tumblety? It merely refers to 'the leader of a plot to assassinate Mr Balfour at the Irish Office.'

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Browne

                            Originally posted by SPE View Post
                            Are you sure that you are getting this right? I am fully aware of what is in Browne's book, I have owned it for the past twenty-odd years.
                            Apropos of which -

                            Click image for larger version

Name:	brownemm.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	297.8 KB
ID:	551604

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Stewart,

                              Please bear with me, but I am now quite confused as to what exactly we are debating here?

                              Yes, that is the page.

                              I used it in the article. There are two errors. One is my own transposition of the words about the Ripper being a plot 'leader'. The other is that, accidentally, Browne's footnote has become my own in 'A Pair of "Jacks"'.

                              The footnote which I argue suggests Browne is utilizing Macnaghten's memoirs at second hand, or else why not quote the ditty directly?

                              There is Browne suggesting that Bradford and Macnaghten disagreed about a suicided suspect -- which is just not true after 1913/14.

                              In fact there is another bit I, arguably, could have used.

                              Browne mentions a 'West End doctor' as yet another theory. If he had access to the official version of the Mac 'Report' would that not have told him that perhaps this police chief also thought this physician was a legit suspect ('Mr. M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor ...')

                              Maybe somebody else could join the debate and help us out?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Misleading

                                Originally posted by Jonathan Hainsworth View Post
                                Stewart,
                                Please bear with me, but I am now quite confused as to what exactly we are debating here?
                                Yes, that is the page.
                                I used it in the article. There are two errors. One is my own transposition of the words about the Ripper being a plot 'leader'. The other is that, accidentally, Browne's footnote has become my own in 'A Pair of "Jacks"'.
                                The footnote which I argue suggests Browne is utilizing Macnaghten's memoirs at second hand, or else why not quote the ditty directly?
                                There is Browne suggesting that Bradford and Macnaghten disagreed about a suicided suspect -- which is just not true after 1913/14.
                                In fact there is another bit I, arguably, could have used.
                                Browne mentions a 'West End doctor' as yet another theory. If he had access to the official version of the Mac 'Report' would that not have told him that perhaps this police chief also thought this physician was a legit suspect ('Mr. M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor ...')
                                Maybe somebody else could join the debate and help us out?
                                I think you will find that Browne's words (or style?) are a bit misleading, but I shall break this down in order for you to better understand what I am saying.

                                First you should be aware that footnotes and sourcing in the fifties were not what they are today. In fact sometimes, in non-academic works such as this, you were lucky if you got them. The footnote in question here, 1, clearly refers to the part of the text where it states ...'and even a midwife', a midwife, of course, being William Stewart's proposed theory (op. cit. opere citato - in the work quoted).

                                Now, if you look at the footnote it clearly refers to Stewart's midwife theory. Then, in the same footnote, it slips in, for no apparent reason (other than to illustrate the many suspect types), the anonymous verse, giving Macnaghten's book, Days of My Years, as the source.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X