If the Macnaghten Memorandum had been used?

[Cris Malone]

Presumably, Chief Constable Macnaghten wrote his now famous document in response to a series of articles, published in the Sun, about Thomas Cutbush and his contention as a suspect in the Whitechapel Murders. Memorandums such as this are compiled to offer a solid background for reference, if needed- in this case, to counter the Sun's assertions.

My question is this... what do you think would have happened if Scotland Yard or the Home Office had decided to publicly challenge the Sun and Macnaghten's document was used- in whole or part- as a basis for that challenge?

[How Brown]

Cris:

Wouldn't there be the likelihood of libel if those three men's names were mentioned publicly ?
I'm thinking of what happened with Pizer only 5 1/2 years before.

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

The Liberal Home Sec. H H Asquith, would not have used names, especially for men who were never going to be charged with the Whitechapel murders.

Asquith would have said that expert advice assures him that the murderer was in such a wretched state after what he had done to Mary Kelly that 'Jack' fell apart. for example, was found over-indulging in 'solitary vices' and thus carted off to the madhouse by his nearest and dearest -- as with the Polish Jew suspect incarcerated around March 1889.

Or, he was already a madman, in this case a Russian doctor who should never have been let out of a madhouse and has thankfully returned to one abroad.

Or, he killed himself immediately after the Miller's Ct. slaughterhouse, as with the English doctor suspect who drowned himself in the Thames.

Those suspects all broadly fit the 'awful glut' criteria of a blasted mind, whereas the madman in Broadmoor whom 'the Sun' has appallingly dredged up, does not.

After Asquith sat down the nervous Tories on the Opposition benches would have said 'hear, hear' and then held their breath for two reasons.

Firstly, the Whitechapel murders were a debacle during their last time in government, and so they would not want claims of a cock-up and a cover-up to be pursued.

Secondly, those among the Tories who knew about Farquharason and his 'doctrine' would not wanted that bombshell leak again -- ever. Asquith's comments might even trigger the whole Dorset story to rear its ugly and unwanted head again.

After all, that's who the 'drowned doctor' actually is ...!

Quietly, some members in-the-know would have hoped that Macnaghten, good ol' Mac -- one of their own -- would have successfully managed to 'cut the knot' to keep everybody happy.


In 1898, with the born-to-rule Tories safely back in power, the 'drowned doctor' tale now was propagated proudly both through a Tory worthy, Major Griffiths, and, cunningly -- in a politically ecumenical touch -- by a famous Liberal too: George R. Sims.

Now the Ripper tale of 1888 was apparently a near-success.

(I argue that the MP story resurfacing briefly in 1892, by another Tory member, James McKenzie MacLean, was an attempt to strangle this leak for good. That article by MacLean claims that Farquharson' remarkable theory has surely been discreditted by a Scotland Yard leak -- who by? -- that the police have been watching some suspect, night and day, and that their surveillance has prevented any more murders. Your taxes working for you.)

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

P.S.

In case it is not obvious, Asquith's description of the trio better than Cutbush would not have been recognizeable to people and/or press and/or families and/or friends who knew, or knew of Montague Druitt, Aaron Kosminski and Michael Ostrog.

Presumably the Druitts would have known that the 'drowned doctor' was their Montie.

[Cris Malone]

Cris:

Wouldn't there be the likelihood of libel if those three men's names were mentioned publicly ?
I'm thinking of what happened with Pizer only 5 1/2 years before.

I believe Jonathan is right about the names of the suspects not being mentioned. But tell me, How... you have a good understanding of the contemporary press... What do you think men like Ernest Parke would do with the explanation that Jonathan outlined?

[Adam Went]

In short, the JTR murders were still freshly in the minds of people and a relatively hot topic - should it all have gone public, somebody, somewhere, would have spilt the beans about the names - and if they hadn't done it outright, it wouldn't have been hard to work out who was being referred to.

Somebody is always willing to take the consequences for breaking a story as big as that.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Paul]

The underwhelming response to Adam Wood's announcement may suggest that it passed unnoticed, so I'll just give Ripperologist a necessary plug by mentioning it here:

"I'm pleased to announce that after lengthy discussion with Christopher McClaren, the document's owner, and Keith Skinner the Aberconway Version of the Macnaghten Memoranda will be published in full (scan and transcript) in issue 124 of Ripperologist magazine, January 2012.

Best wishes
Adam"

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

I agree with Adam, up to a point.

I think that Macnaghten felt completely safe with fictionalised versions of Aaron Kosminski and Michael Ostrog as they weren't ever Ripper suspects.

They had to be real men, because the names sent to the Home Sec. could not be made up, but their profiles as would have been briefly outlined by Asquith in the Commons, sure were.

Macnaghten, the frustrated actor, was playing with archetypes and public prejudices felt towards them: eg. the Jewish, local, poor lunatic (shudder!) and the mad Russian (eg. half-animal -- shudder again!). some kind of anarcho brutalist no doubt.

But the Kosminskis (or Abrahams, I should say) would not recognise their Aaron because he had been out and about for over two years after Kelly, before they sectioned him.

He does not fit the 'awful glut' criteria anymore than Cutbush

The luckless Michael Ostrog had an iron clad alibi, was not really a Russian doctor -- but no doubt would love to have sued the authorities if he had been so identified as a Ripper suspect.

But again why would he recognise himself in what Asqutih would have said?

The exception is the Druitt family, who would have nervously awaited to see if a doctor who drowned himself in the Thames immediately after the Kelly murder, say Nov 10th, got them off the hook.

Presumably it would have.

But Adam is right. An 'enterpirzing' reporter might have really started trawling for that mad medico, and found no such death registered at the Royal College of Surgeons.

Or found Farquharson, though he would hve been under strict instructions from Party Whips not to go shooting off his mouth again about his 'doctrine'.

It would be an assumption that the 'drowned doctor' was English, as he had not been identified as a swarthy, swinish foreigner like the other two?

For Tories in-the-know it would be quite a moment to see if the Dorset tale was pried open again by the Cutbush scoop (though he too was not named, and nor was Race). Macnaghten had to put Druitt's name on file, though down-played: as a minor, hearsay suspect, in case of such an eventuality, and what the Liberal-Radical, unscrupulous scoundrels might do with a Jack-the-Tory 'scandal' if he was filed as, 'in all probability', Jack the Ripper (as the un-named Druitt is in Mac's memoirs).

If the whole story became known -- very unlikely -- then Mac could have claimed that he was mis-informed regarding Druitt a doctor's son, being a doctor himself.

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

To Paul

Of course I think it's fantastic!

Especially as I thought that the document was long lost.

A big thanks to all concerned.

I just didn't want to upset the applecart, as happened last time.

[Maria Birbili]

The underwhelming response to Adam Wood's announcement may suggest that it passed unnoticed
It most certainly didn't pass unnoticed, we were just trying to stay discrete. ;-)
I just didn't want to upset the applecart, as happened last time.


I think that Macnaghten felt completely safe with fictionalised versions of Aaron Kosminski and Michael Ostrog
Believe me, I'm trying to figure this out, and working on obtaining a copy of the
Macnaghten Banstead letter.

[SPE]

Presumably, Chief Constable Macnaghten wrote his now famous document in response to a series of articles, published in the Sun, about Thomas Cutbush and his contention as a suspect in the Whitechapel Murders. Memorandums such as this are compiled to offer a solid background for reference, if needed- in this case, to counter the Sun's assertions.
My question is this... what do you think would have happened if Scotland Yard or the Home Office had decided to publicly challenge the Sun and Macnaghten's document was used- in whole or part- as a basis for that challenge?

I really do think that people look at this document in the wrong context.

Yes, it was written as a result of the series of articles in the Sun newspaper alleging that the unnamed Cutbush was the Ripper. But, it was written for the information of the Chief Commissioner, Sir Edward Bradford, and not for onward transmission or publication. I have explained all this before, and the nature of the document and the fact that it remained on file in the New Scotland Yard archives supports this contention. A knowledge of the police hierarchy and how they operated is also useful.

The articles in the Sun were undoubtedly another pop at the top police officers and written in a sensational way. Obviously Bradford would be aware of this latest anti-police sensation, probably knew nothing of Cutbush, and wanted to know what it was all about and how much validity attached to Cutbush as a suspect.

The Chief Commissioner had regular (probably daily) briefings from his CID chiefs (Anderson and Macnaghten) and would have asked for a summary of how Cutbush rated as a suspect in order to respond to an anticipated query from the Home Office as to if (and if not, why not?) Cutbush had been considered by the senior police as a good suspect when one of their own detective inspectors thought he was.

The series of articles in the Sun raised the spectre of a public inquiry and quoted Labouchere and it was this, I think, that prompted Bradford's request and the response by Macnaghten. In the event no such public inquiry was raised and the matter 'died a death' thus making the need for any written response to the Home Office unnecessary. Quite possibly Bradford verbally updated the Home Secretary at one of their regular briefing sessions of the official police line on these articles (I really cannot imagine they weren't discussed) and that sufficed when the newspaper sensation died away almost without a whimper.

[SPE]

The underwhelming response to Adam Wood's announcement may suggest that it passed unnoticed, so I'll just give Ripperologist a necessary plug by mentioning it here:
"I'm pleased to announce that after lengthy discussion with Christopher McClaren, the document's owner, and Keith Skinner the Aberconway Version of the Macnaghten Memoranda will be published in full (scan and transcript) in issue 124 of Ripperologist magazine, January 2012.
Best wishes
Adam"

I think that everyone is aware of this Paul and are all very excited by it. It's a great way to make the document public and should silence the verbose, and mistaken, critics. I am seeing Keith today and no doubt we shall discuss it, after all, he deserves the credit for his great work in this area of research.

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

To Stewart

We essentially agree about Macnaghten preparing a briefing doc. for Bradford.

I would just add that there is no evidence, in the extant record, that Macnaghten necessarily revealed his hand to his superiors in 1894.

He wrote and archived a 'Report' which he addressed to nobody. Mac even wrote two quite different versions -- for quite different audiences I would argue.

Suggestively Macnaghten, unlike Anderson and/or Swanson knew that 'Kosminski' was still alive in the madhouse, while both the former thought he was dead 'shortly after' the 'final' murder.

Where we fundamentally disagree is that based on what Macnaghten wrote in his memoirs -- and previously propagated to the public via cronies -- I think he sat there with Bradford (and Anderson) believing that he knew who the Ripper was, rightly or wrongly.

That he had known the fiend's identity for three years -- as the 'draft' version shows -- but what was he to do with such a personal, professional, and political tar-baby?

And what was Mac to do now with that nuclear hot information in the wake of 'The Sun's rubbish?

Especially when faced with contemptible swine of the likes of Labouchere, his kind always rudely probing the ruling class Establishment's soft underbelly.


In the wake of the William Grant dead-end just the following year, for the firtst time Anderson revealed to Griffiths that he now had a 'plausible theory' about a locked-up lunatic being the likely murderer.

Aso in 1895, Swanson mentioned that an alleged chief suspect was deceased.

I would argue that for the first time Scotland Yard's top people seemed to be on top of the case, or claimed to be -- quite serene ever after. In the aftermath of what might have been their biggest disappointment?! Unlike Sadler, Grant had been caught in the act of violence against a prostitute in Whitechapel, and had been -- apparently -- positively affirmed by, presumably, Lawende, and still it all went nowhere.

Yet out of the ashes of Grant rose the beginning of, arguably, 'Kosminski' which leads me to believe that this was the first time Anderson (and Swanson?) had been informed of his existence.

The clincher for Anderson was that this fictional version of Aaron Kosminski fitted a pet theory of his -- known to Mac -- about low-life Polish Jews.


I realise that you do not wish to debate this view with me, and that's understandable and fine, but I am committed to this revisionist paradigm.

If that makes me a fool, then I'm a fool.

God knows this 'mystery' has a peculiar siren-song capacity to beguile legions, who duel with windmills and are misled by mirages to gulp down sand ...

[SPE]

Jonathan, first let me say that I do not think that you are a fool (far from it), I have never thought that you were a fool and I doubt that I shall ever think that you are a fool. Your posts are thoughtful, innovative, plausible and should be ignored by no one.

The evidence that exists does, however, indicate that the report prepared by Macnaghten (and known as the 'Macnaghten memorandum') was written for the information of the Commissioner. It is ridiculous to think that the sensational reports in the Sun raised no questions with the police and the Home Office and the document, and my explanation for it, answers all the questions raised as to its purpose. Another point that also supports this is the absence of any other document or comment by police or Home Office on this subject, either officially or in public.

The fact that the press 'furore' quickly died away and that there was no public inquiry and no more attacks were suffered also supports the contention. I should think that at this time, and subsequently, the senior police officers cringed when the press raised questions as to the Ripper's identity and used it as a vehicle to snipe at them. Undoubtedly each senior officer had his own ideas on the identity of the unknown murderer. But there was no consensus.

I should just like to point out here that it could be misleading to accept all that the popular press printed on this subject as totally correct and with hidden meaning. But it's fine to have your own interpretation and theories, after all that is the name of the game that Ripperopogists play. And we shall never know the true identity of the Ripper, so what else is there?

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

Thanks Stewart

Actually, it is the 'draft' version which Mac called a 'memorandum', not the official version which presumably Bradford would have seen, or might have seen, or would have seen had he asked for it, and so on.

I would just add the followwing:

In 1894, Melville Macnaghten began fictionalizing these three suspects, none of whom match his 'awful glut' criteria, which supposedly make each a better suspect than Cutbush.

The alternate version, the one called a memo and communicated to literary cronies in 1898/9, show the same three suspects even more 'sexed up'.

The critical question for us remains were these alterations to Mr. M. J. Druitt, 'Kosminski' and Michael Ostrog an accident due to poor memory or by self-serving design?

[Adam Wood]

I think that everyone is aware of this Paul and are all very excited by it. It's a great way to make the document public and should silence the verbose, and mistaken, critics. I am seeing Keith today and no doubt we shall discuss it, after all, he deserves the credit for his great work in this area of research.


Hi Stewart,

Indeed; if it wasn't for Keith's research skills, dedication and generosity a lot of what we know about the Ripper case, not just this topic, would never see the light of day.

All the best
Adam

[SPE]

Thanks Stewart
Actually, it is the 'draft' version which Mac called a 'memorandum', not the official version which presumably Bradford would have seen, or might have seen, or would have seen had he asked for it, and so on.
...
I would just add the followwing:
In 1894, Melville Macnaghten began fictionalizing these three suspects, none of whom match his 'awful glut' criteria, which supposedly make each a better suspect than Cutbush.
The alternate version, the one called a memo and communicated to literary cronies in 1898/9, show the same three suspects even more 'sexed up'.
The critical question for us remains were these alterations to Mr. M. J. Druitt, 'Kosminski' and Michael Ostrog an accident due to poor memory or by self-serving design?

I usually call the official report of 23 February 1894 just that, a report. However, popular 'Ripperological' usage has resulted in it being referred to as 'the Macnaghten Memorandum' (or 'Memoranda') which is then sub-divided into 'the Scotland Yard version' and the 'Aberconway version'.

It is, probably, the most important official document referring to suspects that we have. Although it is, today, rightly treated as such, I don't think that so much importance attached to it when it was written. It is also important to remember that it does not reflect the views of 1888, but those of some six years later.

Most of the dispute or discussion has always revolved around the differences in the various versions of Macnaghten's material that have been published over the years.

[Paul]

I think that everyone is aware of this Paul and are all very excited by it. It's a great way to make the document public and should silence the verbose, and mistaken, critics. I am seeing Keith today and no doubt we shall discuss it, after all, he deserves the credit for his great work in this area of research.

Indeed he does deserve the credit, and not just for that. I don't think many people realise just how big his contribution to Ripper studies has been. I'll be meeting up with him early next month, but pass on my best.

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

Macnaghten seems to have told Griffths and Sims, or at least Sims, that the 'Aberconway' version -- which calls itself a mere memo -- was the much more elevated and important sounding 'Home Office Report', and that it was definitive document of state no less!

Which it wasn't. It was not even an accurate reproduction of the document which lay dormant in the Scotland Yard files.

Obviously, I answer my own question by asserting that of course Macnaghten is manipulating data to 'cut the knot' in his own way and keep 'everyone satisfied.'

For the Liberal Government, Druitt was a minor suspect about whom they had not even bothered to learn if he was a doctor or not?

To the cronies,and through them the public, Druitt was a medical madman, the best suspect, a real-life Henry Jekyll -- the likeliest solution.

Great scoop that for Major Griffiths and for Sims, the pal, an even bigger one -- 'Dr. Druitt' had confessed to physicians that he wanted to kill harlots when he was several times in the madhouse.

You see what I mean ...?

It's too coincidental to be a coincidence, to quote Yogi Berra.

[SPE]

Macnaghten seems to have told Griffths and Sims, or at least Sims, that the 'Aberconway' version -- which calls itself a mere memo -- was the much more elevated and important sounding 'Home Office Report', and that it was definitive document of state no less!
Which it wasn't. It was not even an accurate reproduction of the document which lay dormant in the Scotland Yard files.
...


You say, 'Macnaghten seems to have told Griffiths and Sims...'

But this 'seems to have told' is actually your own interpretation of what you have read in their articles. Personally, and knowing how these men tidied up and enhanced their material for publication I simply cannot accept such an interpretation. It is far more likely that Macnaghten told Sims that the source of his material was an official report he had compiled, for the information of the Home Office without explaining that it was compiled for the information of the Commissioner in order to answer the Home Office. Macnaghten would also be bound to enhance his own preferred suspect.

In writing it up it is likely that Sims would have tidied it up, and simplified it, for his readers by stating (in 1903), 'It is perfectly well known at Scotland Yard who "Jack" was, and the reasons for the police conclusions were given in the report to the Home Office, which was considered by the authorities to be final and conclusive.' After all, the point of his piece was to dismiss the recent claim (by Abberline) that Chapman and the Ripper were one and the same.

Sims definitely has this wrong as the report was not 'final and conclusive' as witness the various and conflicting views of the senior police officers. Nor was such a view held at the Home Office. Unlike the police reports, the Home Office material has not been pillaged or lost and no such report is known to exist. Sims was as capable as the next man (journalist) of gilding his material to his own end (and belief).

[How Brown]

I believe Jonathan is right about the names of the suspects not being mentioned. But tell me, How... you have a good understanding of the contemporary press... What do you think men like Ernest Parke would do with the explanation that Jonathan outlined?- Cris

Cris:
I really can't answer that question about what Parke would do, but I do recall what happened in the British press when the murder skein was still fresh ( late 1888 ) and the herb doctor galloped off for New York. Nothing. Although a totally different set of circumstances and scenario than what you've asked, it did, nonetheless, pertain to a suspected or suspicious character...and nothing happened.
I really don't know Cris. I'll think about it a little more since you've asked me.:tea:

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

Yes, Stewart, that is possible -- but not very likely.

For what about 'Dr Druitt' having been 'twice' in an asylum, a clincher detail which so differentiated the 'drowned doctor' from the real Druitt as it rendered him an unemployed recluse -- and a detail which Mac specifically denied in his memoirs?

Was that also a Sims' error, one which played so conveniently into the hands of the Druitt family, in terms of protecting their privacy?

We already know that Griffiths had fictionalised the Druitt family in 1898, from 'Aberconway', by turning them into the anomic 'friends'. And that not only did Mac not correct this in Sims' subsequent writings, he added the bit about the pals frantically trying to find the missing doctor -- which is correct about William Druitt though veiled.

If the family were disguised would not their member who is supposed to be the fiend ...?

To me it is far more likely that it is Macnaghten who is manipulating the information, quite successfully I might add.

[SPE]

Yes, Stewart, that is possible -- but not very likely.
For what about 'Dr Druitt' having been 'twice' in an asylum, a clincher detail which so differentiated the 'drowned doctor' from the real Druitt as it rendered him an unemployed recluse -- and a detail which Mac specifically denied in his memoirs?
Was that also a Sims' error, one which played so conveniently into the hands of the Druitt family, in terms of protecting their privacy?
We already know that Griffiths had fictionalised the Druitt family in 1898, from 'Aberconway', by turning them into the anomic 'friends'. And that not only did Mac not correct this in Sims' subsequent writings, he added the bit about the pals frantically trying to find the missing doctor -- which is correct about William Druitt though veiled.
If the family were disguised would not their member who is supposed to be the fiend ...?
To me it is far more likely that it is Macnaghten who is manipulating the information, quite successfully I might add.

Sorry Jonathan, you have formulated your theory, convinced yourself that you are right and accordingly interpret everything to mean what you want it to.

In your opinion there is no gilding the lily, no simple errors and everyone is operating to an agenda. So yes, I can see why, in your opinion, there was a great conspiracy to shield the Druitt family. I'm sorry I just don't, and cannot, agree.

[Stephen Thomas]

Sorry Jonathan, you have formulated your theory, convinced yourself that you are right and accordingly interpret everything to mean what you want it to.

In your opinion there is no gilding the lily, no simple errors and everyone is operating to an agenda. So yes, I can see why, in your opinion, there was a great conspiracy to shield the Druitt family. I'm sorry I just don't, and cannot, agree.

And so speaks the very greatest auththority on such things directly to
you, young Jon
.
And as the phrase says, 'don't bite the hand that feeds you'.

Stewart likes you. Listen carefully to what he says

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

To Stephen

God, how creepy and condescending? Plus I'm 48 ...

To Stewart

It is the sources which convince me that this is the best theory, but it is a theory -- which could be upended by the discovery of a new source today.

Whenever I show this material to disinterested parties they are fascinated by a family who 'believed' that their deceased member was -- of all things -- a serial killer, then had to nervously endure reading about him in the 'definitive' writings of a famous reporter less than a generation later.

Yet the same widely-disseminated profile hides him and them.

Therefore was this fortutious disguising of Montie Druitt by accident or by design? This is the key question?

If by accident then the old paradigm, ironically set in motion by Cullen, staggers on.

But if by design then all bets are off about what Macnaghten arguably knew or allegedly did not know, or remember. His memoir's claim to have 'laid to' rest the 'ghost' of the Ripper 'some years after' he took his own life is, arguably, reintstated as the likely solution.

Le Queue and Matters ignored this solution as it was too late, too oblique and too self-serving and promoted their own fictional Jack-the-Doctor 'suspects'.

But I am not making any claims to 'a great conspiracy'.

Not at all.

It's just Macnaghten -- the lone fictionaliser.

We know he changed 'family' into 'friends', so why not the rest?

It's not a big stretch ... except here, among the 'community', where it is deeply shocking and wrenching because it would mean an excruciating winding back of the clock of 'Ripperology' to 1959/1965 -- which is, arguably, not true anyhow because Tumblety, redscivered only in 1993, was obviously the police suspect of 1888.

Which reminds me that there is a fascinating article by Edward Jay Epstein in 'The New York Review of Books', available online, about how Strauss-Khan may well have been the victim of a set-up.

Among many interesting works and opinions, Epstein exposed the Warren Commission as, well, less than open-minded about Oswald's potential conspiratorial connections, and he correctly picked top G-Man, W. Mark Felt as 'Deep Throat' (if there was such a super-source?) in 1975.

http://media.nybooks.com/strauss.html

[Adam Went]

Hi Jonathan,

Our discussions and debates over the journey have taken up quite a few pages of Ripper websites as it is, and so I don't wish to do it all over again, but i'll say simply this:

It seems to me that Macnaghten was playing it safe. I won't include Druitt in that for the sake of this argument, but if he was truly convinced that he was the killer, then he was playing it safe with Kosminski and Ostrog. If they are there solely to make up the numbers, or as back-up options (and why would they be that if he was so certain?) then Macnaghten has chosen wisely, because we know that aside from Druitt's death (which is in my view a necessary element to his being even vaguely considered as a viable suspect) Kosminski was in an asylum and Ostrog was a known criminal, constantly either locked up or on the run under the cover of some alias or another.

So had the memorandum and the suspect descriptions/names ever gone public, then due to those very facts, there's not much for Macnaghten to fear. Had he chosen another popular suspect from other senior police officers, such as a Tumblety or a Klosowski, it might have been a different story, as in the mid-1890's they were still free and supposedly innocent man. The backlash would be immediate and strong.

Macnaghten is far from being the only officer to do this - most of them named or suggested at suspects after they were beyond the reach of the general public - but for the purpose of this discussion and the theories surrounding it, I think it's an important factor to bear in mind.

But then again, maybe i'm just cynical... ;)

Cheers,
Adam.

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

To Adam

I think you make a very pertinent point.

The list should be Pizer, Tumblety, and Sadler (the latter in 'Aberconway' is claimed to be the murderer of a harlot, maybe two?)

But none of them qualify for the 'awful glut' litmus test: a mind turned to mush so that it cannot function. The maniacal murderer is left either raving its way to a watery death, or masturbating like there's no tomorrow.

According to that criteria Montague Druitt, Aaron Kosminski and Michael Ostrog don't qualify as Ripper suspects, anymore than the first three, whom we know really were suspected (to what degree is a mastter of ongoing debate).

Mac may have strongly favoured Druitt over the other two -- in 'Aberconway', in Sims, and in his own memoirs -- due to the erroneous notion that Druitt killed himself not just after Kelly, but immediately after that most horrific murder -- within mere hours.

A confession in deed, rather than word. That he is the greatest suspect because his mind was the most fatally tormented after Kelly.

It is a notion about Druitt which is completely wrong.

I also agree that it is not a coincidence that Mac chose, or exploited 'suspects' who could neither be recognised, nor fight back against such slander if they were; one dead, another sectioned, another in jail or sectioned.

Since Macnaghten can easily be shown to be a deceitful and manipulative source, an argument can be mounted that nothing he contributes to this case should be accepted at face value, not unless you have very persuasive, independent corroboration.

PS

I also agree with everything you wrote about Meatloaf ...

[Maria Birbili]

I also agree that it is not a coincidence that Mac chose, or exploited 'suspects' who could neither be recognised, nor fight back against such slander if they were; one dead, another sectioned, another in jail or sectioned.


It seems to me that Macnaghten was playing it safe. {...} Macnaghten has chosen wisely, because we know that aside from Druitt's death (which is in my view a necessary element to his being even vaguely considered as a viable suspect) Kosminski was in an asylum and Ostrog was a known criminal, constantly either locked up or on the run under the cover of some alias or another.
So had the memorandum and the suspect descriptions/names ever gone public, then due to those very facts, there's not much for Macnaghten to fear. Had he chosen another popular suspect from other senior police officers, such as a Tumblety or a Klosowski, it might have been a different story, as in the mid-1890's they were still free and supposedly innocent man. The backlash would be immediate and strong.
We agree again, Adam, and with what Jonathan Hainsworth mentions above. It wouldn't have been possible for Macnaghten to mention the name of a suspect under investigation OR the name of a suspect under arrest about whom not hard evidence existed but the suspect was well-connected, unlike Kozminsky and Ostrog.
And I'm still investigating the parallels between Ostrog's and another known suspect's bio.

[SPE]

To Stephen
God, how creepy and condescending? Plus I'm 48 ...
...


A mere slip of a boy then.

[SPE]

Jonathan, I'm fond of you, I really am.

But I am a dinosaur and quite incapable of the innovative thinking that you bring to the case. Your posts really are thought provoking and very interesting. They create much discussion, unlike my cynical views.

Age brings cynicism and so, unfortunately, does police work, along with a great dollop of reality and practicality.

Please ignore me, I'll only wind you up.

[Adam Went]

Hi Jonathan,

I'm pleased to see that we seem to be in some sort of relative agreement.

Of course maybe it is just the cynical mind speaking and Macnaghten really did believe Kosminski and Ostrog were the next two strongest suspects, but this seems very unlikely, especially in the case of Ostrog, who was many nasty things but not a serial killer.

The other point as well is that Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog are so vastly different as individuals and suspects in their own right that it is difficult to see whether Macnaghten was following a specific line of thought or whether he was just plucking at straws in order to make up the numbers in the memorandum.

I don't think Pizer would have been featured in the suspect list unless it was being written in 1888, he, like Ostrog, was a dodgy character but not a serial killer. And Sadler was really only under suspicion for the Coles murder, who the general concensus says JTR did not kill, but it's true that it wouldn't have been out of the question for him to make the list. The one constant is Tumblety, who was known to the police at the time and also had some pretty bizarre vices.

But, this was 1894, and Tumblety still had 9 years of freedom left.... ;)

Cheers,
Adam.

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

Thanks Stewart.

I am very moved. Of course you won't be ignored. Defending the intellectual rigour of a theory is decidedly not cynical.

I do think, though, that the revival of the Macnaghten-Druitt theory is long, long overdue, as it is so fascinating to the general public.

As an aside, did you know that Mac in his memoirs has Mary Kelly's murder discovered, wrongly, on Nov 9th and the killer doing himself in -- how he did this is not mentioned -- on the 10th, or maybe later?

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

To Adam

This is where we disagree in our interpretation.

I do not see Macnaghten as cynical, at all, but as an over-grown schoolboy prankster who believed his motives were pure because he was making the 'better classes' face the unpalatable: the fiend had been 'one of us', not one of them.

Mac thought he knew that Druitt was the murderer, but did not want to reveal to the Liberal govt. or later his cronies -- and through them the public -- that the police had never heard of the un-named Druitt until 'some yeasr after' he had drowned himself.

So he borrowed the Tumblety fumble, inverting that debacle into a near-success of the hunt for the suicided doctor, and he created semi-fictional, window-dressing 'suspects' via the innocent Aaron Kosminski and Michael Ostrog -- though the latter was guilty of defiling Mac's beloved alma mater, Eton, hence his vengeful inclusion

Mac's Report(s) pivot on concealing the embarrassing fact that Druitt was totally unknown to the police in a Ripper context. But he 'fessed up in his memoirs -- which had no impact.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jonathan,

A question ior two for you to peruse.

In the new Ripperologist (No.123) the claim of a now resealed letter showing that Druitt and PAV had a homosexual relationshiop (amongst other claims) has been aired. The source apparently comes from a now retired Scotland Yard man. Apparently an "unimpeachable source".

Whilst I, amongst others I might add, believe the story holds no water without any sort of proof and is therefore just no better than heresay, I would like to know what your thoughts on this are, in relation to Druitt, who, it is also claimed, twice jumped into the Thames, the first time because PAV apparently broke off the relationship, and the 2nd time, after talking with his Uncle about the fact that he had been made aware that he was being hunted for the WM's.

How do you interpret the letter, IF it exists at all, and it's authenticity, and does it strenthen your own feelings upon Druitt being the WM?

Hope you are well?

best wishes

Phil

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

Hi Phil

Oh, that's an easy one.

The letter, if it exists at all, is an hoax.

You know, like the third-rate diary.

Socioloigcally the Maybrick tosh represented an orbiting back to the fiend as an English, Gentile gentleman; in this case a buisnessman revealed as 'Jack' -- in his own words the bastard -- in the aftermath of the pro-corporate Thatcher era.

This 'unimpeachable source' you mention is the odiferous detritus of several misleading myhs about the case, old and new, slushing past us in the gutter with the other unwanted turds.

For example, the element of Druitt being hunted by fast-closing police for the Whitechapel murders, in 1888, is from cheeky Macnaghten himself, via Sims -- though the former's memoirs unsuccessfully tried to put the toothpaste back in the tube on that one.

The whole point of understanding the 'mystery' is to grasp that Druitt was totally unknown to police, in a Ripper context, until 'some years after' he killed himself -- and even then only to Macnaghten on the quiet after breaking in the vulture press.

In 1913, Mac admitted to an American newspaper that knowledge of [the un-named] Druitt's identity came to him personally and subsequently.

The Royal Rubbish is of more recent vintage, of course, as is the ahistorical notion that Druitt was gay -- which is a first cousin knucklehead notion of him being a pederast, and supposedly sacked for such offiences (In his memoirs, Mac says that the un-named Druitt was noticeably 'absent', to his 'people', the nights of the murders. This is very cryptic, since Mac does not confirm Sims' claim that the unemployed doctor was a semi-invalid recluse, but it does match the primary source about being Druitt being let go for 'serious trouble' -- which could have meant being absent from night-warden duties?)

Whereas, Macnaghten clearly states that it was 'believed' by Montie's family that their late member got his kicks from murdering and mutilating women, specifically dirt-poor prostitutes. Based on the full story Mac was told, probably by a family member, Macnaghten agreed with this assessment.

Whether he, and they, were right or wrong Druitt's secret life had nothing to do with homosexuality.

Not according to them anyhow.

Mixing Druitt with the Royal Watergate mythos is, I believe, the central thesis of the Skinner and Howells' book of the late 80's, which I have not read.

What I have been trying to do these past couple of years is show that a case can be made that, like Anderson, we have an alternate police chief in Macnaghten who also was as certain as he could be of the Ripper's identity.

That the conventional wisdom that only Anderson made such a claim is both a semantic fallacy and historically untenable.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil

Oh, that's an easy one.

The letter, if it exists at all, is an hoax.

You know, like the third-rate diary.

Socioloigcally the Maybrick tosh represented an orbiting back to the fiend as an English, Gentile gentleman; in this case a buisnessman revealed as 'Jack' -- in his own words the bastard -- in the aftermath of the pro-corporate Thatcher era.

This 'unimpeachable source' you mention is the odiferous detritus of several misleading myhs about the case, old and new, slushing past us in the gutter with the other unwanted turds.

For example, the element of Druitt being hunted by fast-closing police for the Whitechapel murders, in 1888, is from cheeky Macnaghten himself, via Sims -- though the former's memoirs unsuccessfully tried to put the toothpaste back in the tube on that one.

The whole point of understanding the 'mystery' is to grasp that Druitt was totally unknown to police, in a Ripper context, until 'some years after' he killed himself -- and even then only to Macnaghten on the quiet after breaking in the vulture press.

In 1913, Mac admitted to an American newspaper that knowledge of [the un-named] Druitt's identity came to him personally and subsequently.

The Royal Rubbish is of more recent vintage, of course, as is the ahistorical notion that Druitt was gay -- which is a first cousin knucklehead notion of him being a pederast, and supposedly sacked for such offiences (In his memoirs, Mac says that the un-named Druitt was noticeably 'absent', to his 'people', the nights of the murders. This is very cryptic, since Mac does not confirm Sims' claim that the unemployed doctor was a semi-invalid recluse, but it does match the primary source about being Druitt being let go for 'serious trouble' -- which could have meant being absent from night-warden duties?)

Whereas, Macnaghten clearly states that it was 'believed' by Montie's family that their late member got his kicks from murdering and mutilating women, specifically dirt-poor prostitutes. Based on the full story Mac was told, probably by a family member, Macnaghten agreed with this assessment.

Whether he, and they, were right or wrong Druitt's secret life had nothing to do with homosexuality.

Not according to them anyhow.

Mixing Druitt with the Royal Watergate mythos is, I believe, the central thesis of the Skinner and Howells' book of the late 80's, which I have not read.

What I have been trying to do these past couple of years is show that a case can be made that, like Anderson, we have an alternate police chief in Macnaghten who also was as certain as he could be of the Ripper's identity.

That the conventional wisdom that only Anderson made such a claim is both a semantic fallacy and historically untenable.

Hello Jonathan,

Most kind of you to reply.
To my mind, and being the ctynic I am, it seems to me another little bit of fun and games is being played by an enterprising ex Scotland Yard man, or the claimer is, probably the latter.

For me the giveaway was the chat MJD had with his uncle before attempting suicide again.. almost as if it would be "the best thing to do old boy, don't you know.."

Keeps the pot boiling I suppose. Mustn't let the bandwagon slow down you know. Keep the engine running.. there's more mileage left in this story yet.

Cynic? Moi?.. Nah.. just fed up with the same story being recycled again and again and again and again....

Thank you for your explanation.

best wishes

Phil

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

To Phil

If we must have an hoax, why can't it have a dose of sophistication -- just once?

Instead what we get is stale, tired, and trendy -- and ludicrous: Druitt trying to kill himself twice?!

Has somebody watched Polanski's 'The Tenant' (1976) one too many times?

God, where's Ray Palmer when we need him ...?

[Adam Went]

Jonathan:

I will confess that I have not read a huge amount of Macnaghten material, based simply on the fact that every time I hear anything of the man I have an unexplainable feeling of annoyance. He seems to be quite an astute fellow and i've read several fascinating interviews with him, so it seems quite a bizarre contrast to me that he would be so lax in his descriptions of the Ripper suspects, whether it was deliberately done or otherwise.

He seemingly had no problem in referring to other criminal cases in his interview and yet would not speak candidly about Jack the Ripper and his suspicions in regards to that case.

Furthermore, it's always seemed a little odd to me that despite the memorandum being based on rumours at the time about Cutbush and the issues we know he had, he's replaced him in his suspect list with three suspects, one of whom definitely had mental issues and two others who quite possibly suffered to some extent from similar problems. Essentially, then, he's replacing one suspect for a similar style of suspect.

Regardless of whether Druitt's name was revealed 5 years after his death or 25 years after his death, there's still family members and other associates who would be heavily affected.

A prank is one thing but to pluck names out of thin air for the fun of it, without consideration for those who it could still affect, is far more serious than just a prank.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

To Adam

I think that is a really valid point and criticism of Macnagnten, or rather my interpretation of this enigmatic figure.

Yet the paradox you outline is exactly what led to my 'case disguised' theory; that he wants to both conceal and reveal; to 'cut the knot his own way' as devoted protege Fred Wensley admiringly described Mac's sly managerial m.o.

That he always tried to harmonise competing interests and keep 'everyone satisfied' (he's failed spectacularly with modern-day 'Ripperologists').

Belief in Druitt as the fiend, in the meagre, extant record, begins in 1891. This is three years prior to Mac's 'Report'(s) and therefore it is not his notion but one he learned about 'some years after' and with which he wholeheartedly agreed -- rightly or wrongly.

Mac was torn, I think.

He wanted the public to learn that Scotland Yard did know -- belatedly -- the Ripper's identity, but he did not want Druitt to be recognisable to his family's circles, let alone the tabloid swill.

For as Sims writes,. without a trace of irony, in 1917: 'for the dead cannot defend themselves' and hat the police could not point to a corpse and say here is the fiend -- exactly what Mac had been doing with Druitt for twenty odd years.

So, Druitt wasn't.

After all, consider the opposite course of action.

To tell the public that the police, eg. Mac, had no idea as to the identity of the murderer.

This would be a big, fat lie too -- at least after 1891.

Plus why shouldn't the 'better classes' face the uncomfortable truth: that it was not a Jew, and not a Russian, and not an American, and not some poor from the gutter -- it was Jack the Cricketer.

This was communicated to the Edwardian public, without Mac leaving his finger-prints on the tale. That was only discovered decades later (eg. Jack Littlechild didn't know).

In his memoirs, Mac was also remarkably candid about the police being clueless about this omnipotent 'Simon Pure', who only thankfully stopped because he imploded.

Mac has Kelly wrongly found on the 9th and the Ripper [wrongly] taking his own life on the 10th, with the Thames detail not mentioned.

With good reason as the tale would be ludicrous: a tormented maniacal murderer who takes twenty-four hours to reach the Thames -- with nobody noticing? (Mind you, Chiswick is a long way from Spitalfields ...)

This is yet another example, I argue, of Mac undermining the tale he had told his pal George 'Tatcho' Sims, right along with the Ripper never having been 'detained' in a madhouse, of him reaching the river, right away, to hurl himself in, now nothing more than a 'shrieking, raving fiend'.

If 'Jack' wasn't an invalid then maybe he was not an idle recluse either, and worked.

What then did he do?

Was he a practising doctor?

Mac omits both the age, alleged affluence, and vocation(s) of the murderer. (He had a colourful tale to tell. That of Sims' tale of the 'mad doctor' and yet Mac would not repeat it because, I believe, he knew it was not true.)

How then does it make sense that the killer's 'people', with whom 'he lived', would notice his 'absences' at night?

Surely he's not a prisoner? He's allowed to go out isn't he -- an adult gentleman of the 'better classes' who works for a living?

The suspicious 'absences' only made sense if he was a recluse, one who had previously confessed to doctors, in an asylum, that he wanted to kill harlots.

Then how did the 'friends' know, or suspect, without that rather large signpost?? (But Mac does not use the word 'friends' in his memoirs. Instead it is just the anomic 'his people' which could mean lots of things.)

It sounds like Druitt had some kind of official reason to be in at night, when he was found to be out ...

[Adam Went]

Hi Jonathan,

Well I thank you for your interesting response.

The idea of Macnagten being torn between revealing too much information or no information at all could well be a valid one, BUT the issue we are faced with is that as we know, through the course of history, the suspicion of Druitt has been linked back to Macnaghten anyway.

If he wanted to reveal information to the public without actually dropping Druitt in the hot water himself, what would have been wrong with writing a document, not as Melville Macnaghten, but as an anonymous or under a pseudonym?

In this way, he could have been more accurate in his descriptions of the suspects, without fearing that he would bring problems onto his own doorstep. To be the anonymous police officer. There's no doubt he could have had ample opportunity to do this, especially through the agency of contacts of his such as Sims.

Sims, as i've mentioned to you before, is an odd one to me, because we have him twenty years later conversing with Littlechild about Tumblety as the suspect, at around the same time as Macnaghten is preparing to release his memoirs naming Druitt as the suspect, despite the fact that Sims and Macnaghten had been involved with the suspicion against Druitt years before! It's a bizarre sort of a triangle....

Yet in the meantime you've had Abberline naming Klosowski as his suspect, for instance, and Macnaghten had nothing to say about Tumblety - at least not in his original suspicions.

And through all of that it becomes a very tangled web indeed.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

Dear Adam

Thanks for that thoughtful response.

I disagree in that I believe that doing it anonymously would have carried zero weight, plus revealing anything too much like the real Druitt carried dangers for the family.

I also believe that Mac was expressing his knowledge about Tumblety and his importance to 1888, by feeding Sims with Tumbletyesque details in the 1900's -- affluent, under-employed, no family, reclusive -- climaxing in 1907 with the claim that the other alternate theory at the Yard was a young, American medical student, who may have been a bit weird, nd who lived on long after the murders?

On the other hand, I think the anonymous Scotland Yard worthy here is Macnaghten in the following 1905 source:

http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=GRA19050714.2.2

[Adam Went]

Hi Jonathan,

Well the thought I had about making an anonymous statement would be to still claim to be a police officer or an official who knows what's going on, without actually revealing any names. "Somebody who knows" type statement.

The issue with Macnaghten always remains just how and who HIS information came from, given that he was not involved in 1888, and whether that influenced or distorted his own views in any way?

There was always going to be problems for the Druitt family regardless of whether the name came out 5 years after the murders or 5 decades, it's one of those unfortunate things in the course of any major crimes.

As for feeding details on Tumblety to Sims in the 1900's, what would be the need to do that when Tumblety was already a suspect who was known to the police in 1888? Unlike Druitt, who was not publicly recorded as being a suspect at the time, there was no fear of that in regards to Tumblety, who was.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

To Adam

What you propose -- Mac being an anonymous source at the Yard -- is what I think Macnaghten did do in 1905.

Sims in his semi-fictional version of the Druitt tale claims that the 'friends' (eg. family) were in touch with the Yard about their suspicions regarding the 'doctor', who had 'confessed' to wanting tto kill harlots when he was sectioned in a madhouse.

Why wouldn't 'action man' Mac have met with the Druitts, or a Druitt in 1891?

Forget him not being there in 1888. That's irrelevant, in terms of the Druitt tale because it did not leak until 1891. Mac had been on the Force since June 1889 by then.

The usual reason given for Mac not meeting a Druitt, inaccurate biog. detail in the 'Aberconway' version, is I think a weak and discredited theory.

Reticent and discreet Mac would never have communicated accurate info. to the public via cronies if it would potentially expose a 'good family' to shame in their circles.

Sure enough, in the 1900's Mac added semi-fictional bits and pieces to his pal Tatcho's deflective writings on this subject.

Fusing Tumblety, a genuine, major suspect from 1888, with Druitt is very clever for it neutralises two embarrassing suspects in the same profile: one fled and one dead.

It also shuts up people who knew of Tumblety, the 'other' or real suicided doctor, and who would not want to see that tar-baby reappear, eg. Anderson, who strangely never denounced the 'drowned doctor' as nothing -- like the out-of-the-loop Abberline did.

Littlechild thought that this was whom Sims must be writing about, Dr T not Dr D, therefore the theory of suspect-fusion comes from a critical primary source, not just me.

In his memoirs Macnaghten, arguably, did something similar with the Elizabeth Camp murder of 1897.

Two suspects, a young, gentleman barrister and a lower class dodgy fellow, were fused together making both obscure to the public -- and only recognisable to those who knew either man.

This composite profile is of a chief suspect who is a low-life, deranged transient -- hardly a toff barrister -- who wore a false moustache on the day of the murder, who was later sectioned in an asylum, and who maybe died soon after. But that describes two suspects merged together, and the one in a madhouse did not die there, but rather was discharged and lived on.

Sound familiar?

Mac is, I argue, yet again protecting yet another 'good family' and in this case an innocent man who was being unfairly targeted by the vulture tabloids, though not by name of course.

Somebody at the Yard told the 'Illustrated Police News', in 1897, that the likely murderer of Camp took his own life in the Thames, immediately after, in a fit of remorse.

Sound familiar?

It's like a dry-run for the mad medico suspect who was the likely Ripper, about to appear the following year in Griffiths and then Sims.

In the same memoirs, Macnaghten, I think knowing that one of the Camp suspects was a young barrister let his mind wander over to to the real Montague Druitt -- and borrowed from the Ripper.

For example, the alleged Camp murderer supposedly lived on the Thames and was found wandering around in a barely functional state in Blackheath.

In his June 1913 retirement comments Mac makes reference to both the Ripper as a maniac, whose identity and fate he knew thoroughly, and practically in the same breath to the Camp murder.

[Scott Nelson]

Macnaghten, I think knowing that one of the Camp suspects was a young barrister let his mind wander over to to the real Montague Druitt -- and borrowed from the Ripper.

What the _ _ _ _??? This was only a little less than 10 years after the murders!!!

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

I seem to have struck a nerve.

What's your ----ing point?

[Adam Went]

Hi Jonathan,

While you represent, as usual, an interesting take on events, as you know I am more of a "simplest solution is likely to be the correct one" type and as such I can't agree with you about any fusion between Tumblety and Druitt, unless it was accidental on Macnaghten's part due to a bad memory - which, if that was the case in 1894, would be even more prevalent by the time his memoirs came out 20 years later. (For the record, I don't believe Mac suffered from this problem.)

Indeed the only thing I can see in Mac's description of Druitt which could relate to Tumblety is his being a doctor - and some would debate even that point. In age, appearance, nationality, time of death, etc etc they are quite literally worlds apart. There is also the perfectly reasonable suggestion that the statement of Druitt being a doctor comes from the well known and well respected family of Druitt physicians, related to Montague - Mac hardly needed a private audience with the family to establish this.

And again, there is no reason for Mac to have to disguise his suspicion of Tumblety as the story of both he and the American doctor trying to procure organs was well circulated at the time. Dr. "Twomblety" even made the headlines.

The only reason any of this should be the case is if Mac was playing silly buggers, in which case his opinions of both the case and the suspects should be valued less than ever.

One other thing I will mention to you Jonathan is that, if you get your hands on a copy of the forthcoming issue of New Independent Review, there's a couple of Macnaghten related press clippings within it which might be of some interest to you.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

To Adam

Thanks for that heads-up about the Mac material, I will look forward to it.

On the rest, we will agree to disagree.

I would counter that Mac's memoirs show a sharp memory (he never claims the un-named Druitt was a doctor) and where it is 'inaccurate' I believe this is deliberate for reasons of discretion.

the 'drowned doctor' was promoted by Sims, not Mac, though it comes from Mac, who then largely debunked it in retirement.

That's convoluted -- but that's the convoluted reality created by a sly-boots source, not me.

Sims' Ripper is middle-aged, reclusive, very affluent, unemployed, has been twice in an asylum, and who mixed with the hoi poloi -- like Sims. He was the subject of an intense police dragnet which was closing upon him just as he killed himself.

Those details match Tumblety, not Druitt, who was young, a barrister, cricketer and teacher -- and thus far from an affluent, unemployed recluse -- and was never the subject of an intense police hunt as the Whitechapel murderer, not whilst alive anyhow.

Tumblety had actually been arrested, not about to be.

Except for the asylum detail which matches Druitt's mother (Montie's parents are sort of subsumed into their son: the doctor father, the sectioned mother)

That the doctor was English is strongly implied though not stated, and that he committed suicide obviously fits Druitt not the American.

But, and here's the rub, Littlechild claimed to Sims that it was 'believed' that Tumblety took his own life after he jumped bail and fled to France (that takes care of the Andrews' trip).

Tumblety definitely fled abroad, and was perhaps rumoured to have committed suicide, whereas in a mirror opposite Druitt was rumoured to have fled abroad, but had in fact definitely killed himself.

Tom Divall claimed, in 1929, that Macnaghten had told him that the fiend was likely a man who fled to the States and died in lunatic asylum: a fusion of Druitt, Tumblety, and 'Kosminski', and the murders abruptly stopped.

That's awfully close to what Littlechild would later claim was 'believed' or at least he was told about Dr T's fate -- by Mac, one wonders?

Oh, and Sims claimed he looked remarkably like the Ripper.

This is not true of Tumblety, for sure, but is certainly true of the younger Sims and the Druitt of Winchester, even down to the dead center parting of the hair in the 1879 pamphlet 'The Social Kaleidoscope' (the only pic we have of Sims where the hair-style exactly matches the high school pics of Druitt on this feature, as usually Sims' is off-center).

To know that Macnaghten had to have seen a picture of Druitt ...

[Chris G.]

Littlechild thought that this was whom Sims must be writing about, Dr T not Dr D, therefore the theory of suspect-fusion comes from a critical primary source, not just me.

Hi Jonathan

I think you have this wrong. Evidently Sims has enquired of Littlechild about a Dr D but Littlechild tells him instead about a Dr T, i.e., Tumblety, whom he regards as having been a very likely suspect and about whom Sims probably did not know. As does Adam, I continue to question why you find that there is a mixing up of the Tumblety story and the Druitt story.

As I have stated to you before, the Druitt candidacy does not need Tumblety at all. As a suspect Druitt is described in the writings of Macnaghten, Griffiths, and Sims without any alloying with the Tumblety saga.

I'll grant that Tumblety appears to have been regarded as a suspect in 1888 but once he had skipped bail he was out of the picture and no longer figured in the case.

Best regards

Chris

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

To Chris G

We will agree to disagree.

The reason the Druitt tale 'needs' the Tumblety overlay is to shoehorn an entirely posthumous suspect into the 1888 investigation.

It was perhaps a salve to Mac's conscience at so blatantly misleading Grffiths and Sims, by saying to himself, well, there was a doctor suspect whom the police were trying to get their hands on in 1888.

Tumblety was a middle-aged, affluent, semi-employed medical man who was arrested by Scotland Yard as the fiend, and whom a top cop was sent to Canada to do a background check.

I realise that the conventional wisdom is that the central thesis of 'The Lodger' is wrong, but I don't buy that -- at all.

Anderson was hot for this suspect, at least until the Coles murder, and Mac told Divall that the Ripper fled to the States.

From 1898, and especially from 1902, Sims informed his wide readership that the Ripper was a middle-aged, affluent, unemployed doctor who was hunted by police, but who just missed him because he drowned himself in the Thames.

Littlechild further claims that it was 'believed' that he took his own life.

Sims' profile is, to me a clear fusion of Druitt and Tumblety, and that Mac did something similar with suspects regarding the Elizabeth Camp murder.

In 1907, Sims claimed that the 'two' top theories at the Yard were not the 'drowned doctor' versus the Polish Jew, but rather the former versus the young, weird, American, medical student.

The young element matches Druitt and the weird element matches Tumblety.

Littlechild in saying that initials rhyme, is wondering if Sims has received a garbled version of Tumblety? He is also making it clear that if this 'Dr D' comes from Anderson, via Griffiths, then he is a less than reliable source because CID lost the american suspect.

On the other hand, the police had so broken Tumblety that at least he killed himself. He didn't really get away.

Littlechild never questions the chief suspect status nature of the suicided doctor, just the details: American not English; arrested not about to be arrested; T not D.

This rough-justice element again strongly echoes Sims' account of the monolithic, super-efficient dragnet closing around the neck of the 'mad doctor' who was so cornered he hurled himself into the river.

[Adam Went]

Hi Jonathan,

Well from what I have read of Macnaghten, as i've said before, he seems quite astute and, as you will somewhat see from the upcoming Mac material, had great depth of memory for cases that he had been associated with in some way over the years - however if we are referring to his memoirs specifically, I think it's a little naive to suggest that his remembrances would not have somewhat faded in the intervening 26 years since the case, 25 years since the beginning of his involvement with the force and therefore access to internal material, and 20 years since his original memorandum. That's a long time to keep every detail spot on.

As for Sims, though we've been over this before, I can only state again that I think we should be cautious with material from him or his kind, because he was first and foremost a journalist. The job of a journalist is and always has been to sell stories. There's no doubt that privately, Sims took an interest in the case, but then most people did who were around in 1888 and we know how far off some of Sims' colleagues and fellow correspondents were.

Finally, if Druitt and Tumblety were somehow fused together, then how about the equally bizarre fallacies about Kosminski and Ostrog? If Druitt was the main man and therefore there was a need to somewhat protect the identity, surely there is no need in the case of Kosminski and Ostrog to do the same, or even to mention them at all? Especially since one is in an asylum and the other is a known criminal.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

Hi Adam

But in a sense those are all my points. We disagree -- and yet we agree:

Sims was a famous reporter, that's right; the perfect vehcile for Mac's semi-fictitious version of the Druitt tale.

Macnaghten did not really rely on memory, as he so falsely claimed in his 1914 preface.

For his chapter on the Ripper he had 'Aberconway' right at his elbow.

He dropped 'Kosminski' and Ostrog -- and the American suspect -- and the implication is that they are nothing.

He ruthlessly dropped elements of the 'drowned doctor' tale he had himself told Sims: eg. that the suspect was a doctor, that he was middle-aged, that he was a wealthy recluse, that he was known to police in 1888, that he was the subject of a fast-closing police dragnet, and specifically denied that the suspect had ever been 'detained' in an asylum..

'Laying the Ghost ...' is Mac's de-facto (and I think definitive) third version of his 'Report'.

On another matter ...

I'll tell you what gets me, as a fellow Australian.

Some people act very smug here, as if these questions I am raising have been raised before, and been carefully considered and rejected.

So far as I can tell most of my theorising, whether plausible or foolish, has never been thought of before ...?

[Adam Went]

Hi Jonathan,

Well, if Macnaghten was deliberately lying about certain facts, not once but over a period of decades, then it instantly becomes very difficult to sort out the truth of what he's saying from the deliberate fabrications - the wheat from the chaff, if you like. To do so is essentially guesswork and it's very easy to then fall into the trap of accepting certain statements which suit a person's theory as the truth, and rejecting the rest - that's not to say I believe that's what you're doing, but you will surely agree that it becomes very easy to have the blinkers on at times.

What it all boils down to is the necessity to strip the case against Druitt back to the very bones, and if you do that, there's really nothing solid against him at all. Sims may or may not have shared his views but then Sims was not a police officer. A mansion has been built on quicksand.

Some people act very smug here, as if these questions I am raising have been raised before, and been carefully considered and rejected.

I can't comment on specific instances you might be referring to there but I think you'll get that with any theory you dare to expound in Ripperology, there will always be the nay-sayers.

I don't see us ever agreeing fully on much in regards to Druitt but, as i've said before, I certainly congratulate you on taking a different and fresh approach to things - even if I don't understand it half the time. ;)

Cheers,
Adam.

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

To Adam

I think your argument about Macnaghten being an unreliable source and therefore cherry-picking what a researcher wants out of him is inherently dangerous and biased is both astute and sublime.

To say that building an argument on this source is building on sand is I think a very reasonable interpretation of limited and contradictory sources.

I would only say, in defense of my theory, that the 1891 'West of England' MP titbit -- historically speaking -- arguably fits hand-in-glove with 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper' of 1914 (except the latter source has the murder and self-murder twenty-four hours apart, eg. hinting at the true reality of not being almost simultaneous).

Therefore belief in Druitt as the murderer -- rightly or wrongly -- originated with his own people in Dorset, and presumably leaked along the local Tory Grapevine.

Belief in Druitt as 'Jack' did not originate with Macnaghten, whereas 'Kosminski' and Michael Ostrog, as Ripper suspects, begin with this police chief in the surviving extant record (much may be lost, of course).

I also think that the 'North Country Vicar' tale of 1899 is probably about Druitt, and this also shows -- if it is about Druitt -- a belief in his guilt independent of Mac's machinations about the same suspect.

I think you are a brilliant writer, and I certainly could not write, as well, at your age (and no doubt there would be those who would argue that I still do not!)

What I meant before refers to my [largely ignored] question regarding the Mac-Sims' portrait of Druitt as the 'drowned doctor'; who was not young, did not work, eg. did not play cricket, and was not a barrister or a part-time school master, but was rich, and was an asylum veteran -- and who had concerned friends, and not a family.

This mostly-fictional profile effectively hid Montie and thus protected the family (and the school) in the Edwardian Era and that's an indisputable fact.

But was it by accident or was it by design?

I argue for design.

Some people act as if this question, which is so fundamental, has been considered before I raised it. Nowhere I can find ...

[Adam Went]

Hi Jonathan,

Well I thank you for your kind comments. Again I can only say that I think we are seeing the same stories and 'evidence' jere but simply interpreting them in different ways.

Perhaps I have some kind of bias towards the family suspicion of Druitt story already, being that researchers in the past such as Dan Farson have tried to link it in with the Australian connection, and, more specifically, Dr. Lionel Druitt - which is one part of the story that we both agree on I think, though I still find both him and the story surrounding him quite fascinating.

I think it's important for us to place ourselves in the mindset of a family around the time of the murders. It seems quite possible that Monty was the black sheep (oops, politically incorrect) of the family, the one who wasn't quite fitting in with the pursuits of his more illustrious family members. Then the murders happen, then Monty gets dismissed from his job and commits suicide, leaving behind a note which hints at mental issues....as it was the brother who discovered this, then it's entirely reasonable to suggest that some thought passed through his mind, and that of the family, that Monty might be the culprit.

At face value, it seems not such a bad suggestion. Maybe they mentioned it to a few close associates back at home. Who knows? I don't discount the theory that the family might have harboured suspicions at some point, but I don't believe at the same time that, after considering it, they held any convincing long term belief that they were related to Jack the Ripper. Certainly there's nothing i've seen within the family correspondence of the era that would suggest that.

Because the truth is that a lot of families suspected relatives, everybody was looking over their shoulder expecting to see the killer, everybody suspected everybody. The weird next door neighbour must be JTR. The cousin who carries a knife around must be JTR. On and on it went, it was the theme of the day.

Druitt, despite his situation in November 1888, was certainly not poor or without work.

So, on face value, there is a reasonable case to be made, but I think the Druitt case is the reverse of the norm.....that is that the further you dig into it, the less likely it seems to become that he is a viable candidate for JTR.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Jonathan Hainsworth]

No worries, Adam.

I would just counter that everything you argue about family suspicion, perhaps fueled by grief and hysteria, though plausible, is exactly what I believe that Macnaghten -- 'essentially a man of action' -- would have considered too, at the time.

Yet Mac rejected this possibility, or any other, when he thoroughly investigated the Druitt tale in 1891 (or thereabouts) which, historically speaking, is reliable because the source's inherent bias would have preferred hysteria to be the true reason for such an astonishing and an unwanted claim (the police had been chasing a dead man for years!) against a tragic chappie in no position to defend his honour.

Druitt was a school master (Mac adored his memories of Eton) and a championship cricketer (Mac also adored cricket) and was a fellow, English, respectable gentleman (as was Mac), and an Oxonian and surgeon's son (though not an Old Etonian, Mac must have sighed, thank the Lord for small mercies!)

Instead, rightly or wrongly, Macnaghten judged the evidence against Druitt as irresistible and believed that the drowned barrister, despite being such an unlikely suspect, was nevertheless 'Jack the Ripper' -- for the rest of his days.

[Adam Went]

Hi Jonathan,

I don't think anybody would argue that Macnaghten genuinely believed that Druitt was the culprit, that's one thing which is clear cut enough. The issues arise, however, when we begin to look at how and why he came to that particular conclusion, when in every direction we look there are faulty leads, missing information and downright guesswork.

What would cause some interest is if any actual correspondence between Macnaghten and a member/members of the Druitt family in the years following MJD's death were to be found. But I feel that in itself is pretty unlikely and the intermediaries such as Sims have their own outside interests to partake in.

Again, I don't wish to be cynical, but I honestly believe that Druitt needs to be considered as a suspect based on actual evidence linking him to the case in 1888, not what followed in years to come.

Cheers,
Adam.