No announcement yet.

'Jack's' health in 1888

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 'Jack's' health in 1888

    So as not to pollute the parliamentary report threads, I have opened this new thread to see what information is available on Littlechild's health in 1888.
    Littlechild admits that for 18 months from late 1887 he has not been well, this resulting in an eventual nervous breakdown; arguments have been made that Littlechild was obviously working during that period, citing cases he was involved in; but despite that I do notice that after July of 1888 there are no reports of his work or activities in the press, or elsewhere - but there is always the chance I have missed them - that is until December 13th 1888 when he suddenly resurfaces again.
    One also notes that in the cases he is involved in immediately prior to July 1888 it appears that witnesses are being brought to him at Scotland Yard, rather than him going to them, and this could well be an indication of his failing health.
    RJP's suggestion that long term sick leave could have resulted in Littlechild's dismissal from the force is of course now't but fiction. He should really read his parliamentary reports better, for the facts are contained in the document he has possessed for two years.
    From Dr Mackellar in the same report:

    'A man may be on the sick list for a period of 56 days, but after 56 days he must have detached leave. At any period during those 56 days he may have sick leave. Sick leave is only granted for a specific purpose, usually to go to a convalescent home, or to have a change in the country. Sick leave would not be given to a man unable to leave his house. If he were unable to leave his house and were ill for a period of 56 days, then detached leave would be given to him.'

    The good doctor further affirms that 'on sick leave the man would lose 1s a day, detached pay would incur a loss of one-fifth of the salary.'

    Hey, RJP, what price you pay for a Littlechild in a Police Seaside Convalescent Home in 1888?
    July through to December.
    That award you mentioned was a previous, totally unrelated to the Whitechapel Murders, eh?

  • #2
    And one musn't forget that Littlechild was actually arrested during this period of ill health, and whether this might have had a bearing on his nervous breakdown?


    • #3

      God knows I love you,my man.

      Before it becomes an article of can we ascertain that Littlechild actually had what would be described medically as a "nervous breakdown" ?

      I have opened this new thread to see what information is available on Littlechild's health in 1888.
      Littlechild admits that for 18 months from late 1887 he has not been well, this resulting in an eventual nervous breakdown--My beloved A.P.

      Carry on old bean.


      • #4
        Well, How, Littlechild thought he had, in his own words:

        'I regret to say that I broke down myself two years ago; my nervous system broke down. It is only in the last three or four months that I have been building myself up again. I was off in my health for 18 months.'

        I should think that when someone's nervous system broke down they generally had a nervous breakdown.
        Being arrested by one of one's own officers never really helps.


        • #5
          Dear A.P.

          Well thats a horse of a different color then. I did not see the reference to "nervous system " or perhaps overlooked it previously. My mistake and I apologize..

          If there is any way to get SPE over here to discuss what A.P. is referring to...and maybe we can get both "sides" to converse, that would be very nice.

          I also total objectivity....that the fact that Littlechild recalls Tumbelty being charged in Marlborough Street 25 years after the fact does appear to indicate that Littlechild may not have been incapacitated. Just an opinion,nothing more.

          Again,A.P., I am sorry for overlooking the nervous system reference and making you post it twice.


          • #6
            And this, my dear How, is the very concept that I struggle verily with; that a senior police officer from Scotland Yard - nay, let us not be negligent of the truth of the matter, the most high-profile senior police officer from Scotland Yard whose name and image were splattered sensationally all across the media in 1886, 1887 and early 1888 - would have been allowed or permitted to carry out his normal duties in the throes of a nervous breakdown?
            I think not, my dear fellow.
            As I have already stated, I do find a paucity of reports on Littlechild between the months of August and December of 1888, but prior and after these months there are a flurry of reports.
            It is also interesting to note that one of the last cases Littlechild was involved with - prior to his sudden disappearance from the records - does seem to indicate a distinct lack on his part of correct judgement, etiquette and good common sense, in that he attempted to bribe a doctor with a fiver after the doctor had been falsely arrested as an Irish terrorist.
            This caused a series of sensational headlines in the press about 'Scotland Yard Blunders'; and Littlechild's somewhat foolish attempt to bribe the wronged doctor by offering him a fiver to keep quiet certainly back-fired on him in the press.
            One wonders whether a similar reaction was also displayed by his immediate superiors at Scotland Yard and the Home Office; and that it was felt perhaps better for all concerned if Littlechild was to retire from the scene gracefully for a few months, until he was well enough again to perform his duties in his usual competent manner?
            I think so, my dear chap.
            His eventual return to duty in December of 1888 appears to be a gentle easing into that duty and position, for rather than dealing with his usual Fenians, Irish MP's and anarchists, Littlechild found himself dealing with a case involving a postal scam involving cats and dogs.
            Oh dear... my dear chap.


            • #7
              The following from the 'Birmingham Daily Post' of May 29th 1888 is the report concerning the 'fiver'.
              The Dog report is too large to post, but is from Lloyd's of December 23rd 1888.