Druitt: Suspect At What Time?

[Howard Brown]

Unfortunately,I deleted forever the posts which were found on the Ripper Notes thread that dealt with the question of whether M.J. Druitt was a suspect to the police in 1888-1889 OR perhaps afterwards and emanating from the Mcnaghten Memoranda....:cry:

I would like to bring this point up again here.....

What are your feelings or rather your interpretation of the timing of Druitt's acceptance as a suspect?

Thank you....and again,I am sorry for my mistake in deleting the posts.:banghead:

[Tom_Wescott]

There's no proof that Druitt practiced Black Magic, therefore he's not a suspect.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stan Russo]

Answer - end of 1890/ beginning of 1891.

[Tom_Wescott]

Over here we've got 'Druitt wasn't a contemporary suspect!', over there it's 'Tumblety wasn't a contemporary suspect!', and meanwhile Howard is dismantling D'Onston as we speak. Soon, Jennifer Pegg will be exposing the Swanson Marginalia as a hoax and we'll have to reach the conclusion that the police investigated NOBODY during the Ripper murders. The Star was right!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stan Russo]

This case should really break into factions. I'm not being facetious at all.

There is not one report that states Druitt was a suspect until 1894's memo. I date it at 1890/1891 because of the known history of the case.

The response is that standard over reaction to someone challenging someone's hardened ideas that are based on nothing more than what that person believes.

Anyone need a tissue?

Stan

[Tom_Wescott]

So, what Stan's saying is that Druitt, in his view, WAS in fact a contemporary suspect? Keep the tissue, give me some clarity. :)

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stan Russo]

1890/1891 is whatever you would like to call it. Call it chocolate if you choose.

What gets me is how the case was never solved at the time to any definitive conclusion yet there are people out there who think only suspects mentioned at the time are real suspects.

The logic of that scenarion is what some would call bass ackwards.

[Tom_Wescott]

I couldn't agree more, Stan.

[Howard Brown]

Stan:

Thanks for your posts...

There is no question that Druitt is a suspect or that Stephenson is a suspect...now. All we are looking for here was at what point did he become one,since some folks might think he was a police suspect in say,early 1889.

Lets look at this for a second...

Albert Bachert claims that he heard from some official in the police dept. that the Ripper drowned in the Thames in early ( March ) 1889. This predates 1890-91....but with the warning that it emanated through McCormick via Doctor Dutton....

In addition,The Bristol Times and Mirror of February 11th,1891 reported an unnamed MP declaring someone who appears to have been Druitt and a match to the Macnaghten inference,fitting the bill.

So,where does the 1890 come from out of curiosity or was that a ballpark guess ?


Thanks buddy !:thumbsupbud:

[Stan Russo]

How,

Bachert or Backert's story comes from McCormick. Nuff said. If it's not "nuff", then here goes.

There is a difference between three separate sources claiming the same thing without documentation, versus one man claiming three separate sources, all of which have never been traced or never been verified by any other person. McCormick invented stuff as he went along and actually wrote books under his pseudonym, Richard Deacon, to back up his stuff written as Donald McCormick. All this stuff is on record. ( How's note...please refer to The Russian Quadrangle,by Stan Russo...on site, for further discussion of the pseudonymously written material)

As far as 1890 goes - it is known that during 1890 MacNaghten was in trouble at the Met and was on the verge of being transferred. This is directly out of the A - Z + the Swanson Marginalia indicates that MacNaghten constantly "vexed" Anderson about a threatening letter. We know that MacNaghten was infatuated with the 'JTR' case. We know that MacNaghten connected the 'JTR' murders to an Irish assassination attempt on Balfour (Douglas C. Browne and Ralph Strauss - 1956 - The Rise of Scotland Yard (guesstimating at the actual title)) and to use just an ounce of detective work it would appear that these two events were related.

All of a sudden (according to A-Z, and I believe The Uncensored facts - 1988), MacNaghten is back in favor with the Met and that Bristol Times of 1891 is later written.

From testimony by Philip Loftus, coming from Gerald Melville Donner, MacNaghten's grandson, MacNaghten's 3 original suspects were Druitt, although he got his first name wrong, a Polish Jew Cobbler nicknamed Leather Apron and a feeble minded man who stabbed girls with nail scissors.

The third suspect appears to be Cutbush. This would explain why MacNaghten of all people was chosen to write his INTERNAL memo in 1894 clearing Cutbush. If he suspected Cutbush as one of his early three, and the point of the memo was to exonerate Cutbush internally, he would be the logical choice to do so. Now a third suspect, Mikheal Ostrog is added. the tone of the MacNaghten memo, both versions, does not put too much emphasis on Ostrog.

The Polish Jew Leather Apron is more than likely John Pizer. We know, or should know that John Pizer was proved innocent of the murders of Nichols and Chapman, and therefore not 'JTR'. Eventually, the Polish Jew Leather Apron turned into Kosminski. We know that Kosminski was Anderson's suspect. We know that more than likely since Kosminski was Anderson's suspect and since Kosminski appears in the 1894 memo that Anderson consulted MacNaghten about him. Analyzing MacNaghten two different versions of the 1894 memo show that his own version really favors Druitt and kind of adds Kosminski as another one, while the Scotland Yard version, which more than likely went through Anderson, emphasizes Kosminski more than the Lady Aberconway/draft memo.

Therefore, if MacNaghten was on the verge of a transfer and suddenly tided things over, as the A - Z and other books state, it could have been as easy as MacNaghten finally stopped hounding Anderson, or "vexing" him as testified to by Swanson, which occurred at the end of 1890 / beginning of 1891.

Thus a date of late 1890 / early 1891 for Druitt's first connection to the case seems logical and is backed up by peripheral evidence.

As far as who gave MacNaghten the info on Druitt, I always believed it was one of my suspects, but I almost believe it was Anderson now. No proof, as there never would be. I do get the feeling that Anderson would have wanted to throw MacNaghten off the Irish scent and may have handed him Druitt.

Analyzing the memo, you can eliminate Druitt's family from being MacNaghten's "private info". He clearly states that from "private information I have little doubt that his own family suspected this man of being the Whitechapel murderer ...". MacNaghten was a boob,but not even he was dumb enough to get information from someone in Druitt's family that they believed he was 'JTR' and word it the way he did.

To state that it wasn't Anderson who gave him the name Druitt is clinging to a belief in something because of one's own feelings on the case, not intellectual decision making. Anderson may not have given him the name Druitt, but he certainly gave him Kosminski. Why would it be such a stretch for him to have given him Druitt as well. The evidence indicates that Anderson wanted MacNaghten off his back. Give him someone and get him off his back. It at least got MacNaghten off the Irish scent.

Stan

[Stan Russo]

To all,

I apologize for the long a$$ post. The problem with this case is that there are no two line answers. Every question is an in depth analysis of a lot of peripheral evidence. If you are looking for one or two line answers this is the wrong case. my opinion.

Stan
________________________________-


Stosh:

No need to apologize for a good explanation. There is never a cause for you to apologize for presenting your views.

[Tom_Wescott]

Stan,

That was an excellent post and by no means too long. If anything, you once again displayed your enviable ability to pack a lot of information into a small space while maintaining coherency. Of course, you're right on the mark by stating outright that this unfounded hearsay "evidence" attributed to Bachert is in no way evidence.

To all,

As Stan suggested - while it would be nice if everyone could stand in agreement on such things as Druitt's candidacy as a "contemporary suspect", in the end it becomes a matter of personal opinion. For the record, I have absolutely no problem at all in stating my opinion that Druitt was, in fact, a contemporary suspect.
As Stan also pointed out, the fact alone that someone was suspected contemporaneously to the crime does not automatically - in and of itself - place them to the top of the heap. What if if suspicious, or even damning, evidence surfaced against a suspect many years after the murders? Surely, that would place him in the fore of such discredited "contemporary suspects" as Pizer, Ostrog, Deeming, etc. What such a status does do for the modern theorist is give them an automatic foundation upon which to build their argument. Even if you're not quite certain why a suspect was suspect, such as in Druitt's case, being able to show that your suspect was one of historical interest bestows a certain amount of credibility in the eyes of most people and thus protects the theorist, to some degree, from accusations of being overly imaginitve. No doubt the theorist putting forth a 'new' suspect has the cards more firmly stacked against him.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Dude, don't know what happened. The site got goofy and my last post appeared 3 times!

[SirRobertAnderson]

Carried over from The Mr Poster Gets Hisselfs a New Sig thread, as it appears an actual suspects discussion has broken out. Not to mention it revives a 3 year old thread with some interesting and insightful comments from Stan the Man Russo !

Do we know why he was there??? Any reason given on the MM report?


None whatsoever. .

I'm not trying to split hairs, Sam, but I think MM did give a reason. He had "private info". We're obviously unable to judge the quality of it , but he decided to keep private info, well......private.

Also, he isn't definitively saying Druitt was a doctor. "Said to be a doctor" is obviously less conclusive than "He was a doctor".



(1) A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor & of good family -- who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder, & whose body (which was said to have been upwards of a month in the water) was found in the Thames on 31st December -- or about 7 weeks after that murder. He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer.

[Mr. Poster]

Ho ho Sir Bob

He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer.

Probably their polite way of saying he had told them that he had killed some whores and was going to top himself.

I reckon.

p

[Sam Flynn]

I'm not trying to split hairs, Sam, but I think MM did give a reason. He had "private info".He didn't give a reason for Druitt being in London - which is what prompted my answer quoted above - other than that he mentions being Druitt's being hooked out of the Thames. It's clear that the "private info" wasn't of such good quality that MM knew about Monty's (tenuous?) links with legal chambers in the City - a device used by much more recent commentators to give Monty a reason for being near Whitechapel. If he had known about the chambers, Macnaghten wouldn't have made the elementary error of believing that his suspect was a doctor in the first place.

[SirRobertAnderson]

Macnaghten wouldn't have made the elementary error of believing that his suspect was a doctor in the first place.

"Said to be a doctor" is not the same as a definitive statement that Monty was a doctor. Again, not trying to torture the data to get it to confess, but there's wiggle room here. MM makes it clear - IMHO - that he is getting this info second hand. He's been told MD was a doctor; he doesn't know it first hand.

Does that mean his "private info" is garbage ? I dunno. But I think MD's family would have known his profession, so the doctor bit didn't come from them

Now, all kinds of questions spring(heeled Jack) to mind, such as if MD was a leading suspect, you'd think MM might have bothered to really look into the matter before writing an internal memo.

[SirRobertAnderson]

Its possible that MM made a mistake in 1894 on an event or data from 1888 in regard to Druitt....in my view.

Its not as if MM made 10 mistakes on the data...and we don't know whether he was working from his memory alone, either.

Good points. In fact, we don't even know what the data was, really. There's something "private" that had to come, at least tangentially, from Monty's family. Family obviously covers a lot of ground. Close family, distant relative ? Blood relations ?

And unless one believes that Monty's family didn't know his profession, the info that he was a doctor came from another source.

We are working with so little information here that to toss a suspect out of consideration seems unwarranted. That one of the coppers regarded him as a leading suspect, in my mind, keeps MD on the list.

[Howard Brown]

Its nice how this thread has resurfaced. Even nicer how the chain of thought leads to some new ideas on MJD.

First of all, if MM made a mistake on a 1894 memo from an event in 1888, I think we could agree that it would be possible to do so. I just made a post stating my view on that elsewhere on the boards. Bad case of proofreading ? Its not like MM was writing a Ripper related book for THIS community,where we would cut him a new one for the mistakes he made....such as MJD's profession and the following error.

This is the preface to "Days Of My Years"
http://books.google.com/books?id=R7cOAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=melville+macnaghten#PPR9,M1

MM has more to say in the book...on page 62...about the " November 10th" suicide by the Ripper.

I tend to agree with Stan Russo on Macnaghten being "fed" Druitt around the time ( 1890-1891) Stan intimates.

I agree that the mistakes made in the 1894 memo make MM seem less conclusive than we would desire...especially the part about "said to have been a doctor" which Sir Bob has already mentioned. Yet anyone can be fed bad information, repeat it in a book ( Days of My Years)... and the memo in 1894...and look out of whack on everything.

Druitt may have been, for all we know, checked into by Scotland Yard in 1888 or early 1889...how would we know?

That he was concievably "fed" to MM to put into the Memoranda doesn't necessarily mean he was still a viable suspect at the time of the drafting of the Memoranda in 1894...and yet it doesn't mean that sometime after Druitt's death in 1888, information couldn't have come across some SY desk or in one of their ears and for this reason he may have been , only briefly perhaps, someone whom SY did investigate and either cleared or kept him on the back burner up to the time of the creation of the Memoranda.

[Howard Brown]

Its not as if MM made 10 mistakes on the data...and we don't know whether he was working from his memory alone, either--Me

Yet...I also tend to think as Stan Russo does that he was fed the information on MJD.

This is an example of how convoluted one's thinking can become in regard to the documents we have available from the WM.

In one scenario, I think MM could be given the benefit of the doubt as to not recieving the best possible information or minimal information at best and simply trying to do the best he could to explain what he had picked up on 5 years prior to 1894's memo.

Yet, I do agree with Stan's position. It makes sense to me in a way that the former position doesn't.

Sorry to ramble, but I needed to clarify what appears to be two different brains in one body ( mine) with my previous post.

[SirRobertAnderson]

Just to make life even more exciting, we must not forget that there is more than one version of the MM.

The Lady Aberconway version states MJD was a doctor. The Scotland Yard variant downgrades it to "said to be a doctor".

Why the difference? Clearly he's trying to be more cautious in the latter version, but why ?

MM doesn't say MJD was a medical doctor.

In the States we have J.D.s : Juris Doctor .

Is there any chance that MM is confusing such a title with a medical degree ?

[SirRobertAnderson]

For MM to say "my greatest regret etc etc etc" doesnt sound to me to be a statement from a man who wasnt absolutely sure.
He fiurther states he destroyed evidence a bare faced lie? if so why? some have suggested MMS memoranda etc was written to protect the cutbush family...why? why not ,if that was the case heap more suspicion on kosminski for example, a ready made suspect, why throw Druitt into the mix if there was no reason to?

Well, a lot of people have indeed suggested the MM was written to pretty up Cutbush.

Why, A.P. ? Why a cover up years later, if indeed that's what happened ?

[Sam Flynn]

"Said to be a doctor" is not the same as a definitive statement that Monty was a doctor.
Agreed, Robert - but it boils down to "I've heard that he was a doctor", which is tantamount to a belief in the same. I still see no indication that the "private information" was of good enough quality to suggest Druitt's connection with legal Chambers in the City - which would have cast strong doubt on the "doctor" rumour as soon as it was imparted.

More significantly, perhaps, there's not even so much as a hint that Druitt was "said to be a teacher" either. Even the most dodgy "private informant" really ought to have been able to get that bit right, at least.

I'm afraid that MM's source(s) on Druitt seem to have been based on 2nd or 3rd-hand gossip, and nothing more.

[Currerbell]

I thought the only reason he was/is a suspect is he was 'said to be a doctor' and he killed himself shortly after the Kelly murder...

Why didnt they go to Kings Bench Walk and search the house?

[Sam Flynn]

I thought the only reason he was/is a suspect is he was 'said to be a doctor' and he killed himself shortly after the Kelly murder...

Why didnt they go to Kings Bench Walk and search the house?Probably because nobody made the connection at the time - and, to be honest, why should they have done so? Here was just another tortured soul who did away with himself. A few years after the event, of course, such people become interesting - especially among those who were of the opinion that the ending of the Whitechapel Murders was contingent on the Ripper being taken out of the equation by incarceration or suicide.

[Currerbell]

Fair enough Sam, I see where you are coming from, but if they saw him as a major suspect, regardless of his suicide (which if the Ripper did commit suicide, it still doesnt mean he should be sympathised) they still could have checked the house for clues...

[Sam Flynn]

Fair enough Sam, I see where you are coming from, but if they saw him as a major suspect, regardless of his suicide (which if the Ripper did commit suicide, it still doesnt mean he should be sympathised) they still could have checked the house for clues...This doesn't appear to have happened - in fact, I don't see that the police would have had cause to have any contemporary suspicions at all. If they had, then Macnaghten would surely have got more of his facts straight, and would not have had to have relied on "private information" to advance his suspect into the spotlight. Indeed, we would arguably not have needed to wait until 1894 until Druitt - pardon pun - floated to the top of the pile.

[Currerbell]

I wish we knew where the info came from esp the private info...Id really like to know why Druitts family thought he was a suspect, not every nice is it?

I wouldnt like it if my family believed I was a serial killer....

[dougie]

The so called suicide letter,the complete document that is, might be the reason.
Why the whole letter is only partially decribed is distinctly odd isnt it? Especially as the suicide note would be surely the main piece of evidence as to whether Druitt committed suicide or not,as opposed to being pushed in the Thames.
There might have been much much more in said suicide note....and if there was then the Druitt family would obviously have known of it.....hence private info. There truth regarding surviving druitt family members was not told at the inquest,so id imagine a confessional suicide note would have been hushed up too.....And if we believe MM about the evidence he (MM)supposedly destroyed,what better evidence than a confession in the form of a suicide note signed by the killer himself? Indeed it seems difficult tio imaginw what MMs physical evidence could have been ..other than the note.

[Currerbell]

Is the Druitt inquest available anywhere to read?

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho

Id really like to know why Druitts family thought he was a suspect, not every nice is it?

I reckon he told them he had killed someone, or that he was going to or that he would really like to.

Its not the first time a respectable family didnt snitch on a family member, especially when all he was doing was killing a few "of that type". Then when hes dead...let on to the cops by some means of other that perhaps their dearest had been a bit ....odd.

p

[dougie]

Is the Druitt inquest available anywhere to read?

Maybe Currerbelle ..but the complete suicide note has never surfaced to my knowledge....odd considering that it would be the most compelling piece of evidence needed to aid the inquest in its verdict of suicide,accidental death or murder.

[Currerbell]

Thought provoking stuff that, I wonder if the letter is with some family members now, lost, in a file somewhere, or destroyed...

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho

Its probably one of teh few things really worth getting a look at.

Its abscence is probably because it was a part confession or something. Hastily destroyed by the family to cover their secrte (if it ever existed).

p

[Currerbell]

True...theres a good chance that could have happened...these family secrets are truly terrible at staying secret!

[dougie]

Trouble is Currerbelle if the note finally surfaced, Then the druittists would hail it as a major breakthrough,the anti druitts would argue the toss about provenance issues and nitpick the meanings of commas and apostrophes maintainig that a semi colon here or a comma there changes the complete complexion of the note and therefore the meaning of the note is the complete opposite of what it actually says.
We would have Sam saying melville macnaughton wrote it (keep your hair on Sam,Im only joshing you):)
And the Diarists saying IT WAS definitely in Maybricks hand writing. It would be analysed and every meaning squeezed out of it until eventually it would resemble a freshly squeezed lemon.

[Currerbell]

We still wouldnt know who the Ripper was tho would we?!

[SirRobertAnderson]

(1) A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor & of good family -- who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder, & whose body (which was said to have been upwards of a month in the water) was found in the Thames on 31st December -- or about 7 weeks after that murder. He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer.


Agreed, Robert - but it boils down to "I've heard that he was a doctor", which is tantamount to a belief in the same.

I really don't agree with this, Sam. "Heard that" or "said that" are more along the lines of "people say". There is at least the implication that the info might be less than 100% accurate.

More significantly, perhaps, there's not even so much as a hint that Druitt was "said to be a teacher" either. Even the most dodgy "private informant" really ought to have been able to get that bit right, at least.

OK - it's becoming clearer to me what the heart of the disagreement is about.

I think that the "private info" deals with the suspicions of his family, and those beliefs only. Sir M is not saying "From private info I have learned that this doctor's family believed him to be the Ripper".

See the difference ?

I'm not trying to pick an argument over split hairs, Sam. There's a lot here that smells to high heavens, but what we are debating at the moment is whether or not Sir M's private informant(s) fed him the erroneous supposition about Monty's career.

[Sam Flynn]

I really don't agree with this, Sam. "Heard that" or "said that" are more along the lines of "people say". There is at least the implication that the info might be less than 100% accurate.... which Macnaghten seems to have been happy to "roll" with. Says a lot about his critical faculties, I'd say.There's a lot here that smells to high heavens, but what we are debating at the moment is whether or not Sir M's private informant(s) fed him the erroneous supposition about Monty's career.I've little doubt that they did, Rob. Whether the informant(s) knew that it was duff information, I don't suppose we'll ever know. I suspect that they, too, were as much victims of misinformation/gossip as Sir Melville himself.

Tell you what it reminds me of a little: Wynne Baxter at the Chapman inquest, giving his personal theory about the "American doctor" an airing. There's a distinct whiff of clubhouse tittle-tattle, or at least Chinese Whispers, about the whole thing - but then, that's just an impression I've formed.

[SirRobertAnderson]

..I've little doubt that they did, Rob. Whether the informant(s) knew that it was duff information, I don't suppose we'll ever know.

What I am having a hard time understanding - and again, I'm not trying to be obstinate for the sake of an argument - is why you feel so certain that the "private information" source or sources was the same place where Sir M obtained the belief that Monty was "said to be a doctor" ?

The MM isn't written in a way that makes that a certainty. It just doesn't read that way. In fact, I think it reads in a matter that indicates two separate sources, one of which seems to have been close to Monty's family, if not the family themselves.

The only thing that Sir M seems completely confident in is that Monty was "sexually insane".

It's basically meant IMHO to be a talking paper for someone in officialdom to explain why the Sun was wrong in their claims that Cutbush was the Ripper, and not a definitive answer as to whom the Ripper actually was.

It is interesting how everything in this case is built on quicksand. Nothing is straightforward, not even a simple paragraph taken out of the MM.

[Howard Brown]

Bob:

There's a good chance if not the most likely chance that the information on Druitt's "condition" came from MP Henry Farquarshon. I refer to the findings of Andy Spallek in 2008.

If this is true...then the theory that SRA may have been responsible for feeding Druitt to MM is lessened to some extent....but it also means the chances increase that someone outside the Constabulary was responsible for Druitt's name appearing in the MM.

Its like a Hungarian picnic Bob...all big eaters and no one able to cook on a grill.

[SirRobertAnderson]

There's a good chance if not the most likely chance that the information on Druitt's "condition" came from MP Henry Farquarshon. I refer to the findings of Andy Spallek in 2008.


Last year was my "holiday" from Ripperology, unfortunately. Where was Mr. Spallek's finding published ?

[Currerbell]

Can we come to any conclusions on Druitt from this conversation at all guys?

[Sam Flynn]

What I am having a hard time understanding - and again, I'm not trying to be obstinate for the sake of an argumentI know you're not, Bob.is why you feel so certain that the "private information" source or sources was the same place where Sir M obtained the belief that Monty was "said to be a doctor" ? Even the few newspaper reports we have from the time of Monty's suicide didn't make the mistake of calling him a doctor, therefore one must assume that not only was MM's information obtained later, but that it is very unlikely to have come from anything like an official source.

Howard has already alluded to Andy Spallek's splendid work in tracking down a candidate for this "private information". Andy's article in Ripperologist 88 revealed this nugget, from the Bristol Times & Mirror, of the 11th February 1891:I give a curious story for what it is worth. There is a West of England member who in private declares that he has solved the mystery of "Jack the Ripper". His theory, and he repeats it with so much emphasis that it might almost be called his doctrine, is that "Jack the Ripper" committed suicide on the night of his last murder. I can’t give details, for fear of a libel action, but the story is so circumstantial that a good many people believe it. He states that a man with blood-stained clothes committed suicide on the night of the last murder, and he asserts that the man was the son of a surgeon, who suffered from homicidal mania.
The story was also carried by the Pall Mall Gazette on the same day, albeit slightly edited:There is a West of England member who in private declares that he has solved the mystery of Jack the Ripper. His theory, and he repeats it with so much emphasis that it might be called his doctrine, is that Jack the Ripper committed suicide on the night of the last murder. I cannot give details, but the story is so circumstantial that a good many people believe it. He states that a man with bloodstained clothes committed suicide on the night of the last murder and he asserts that the man was the son of a father who suffered from homicidal mania.
Interestingly, albeit in tortured (and possibly confusing) English, both articles seem to suggest that the suspect had a recent family history of psychiatric problems - in this instance, it was the father; in Monty's, of course, it was the mother. Perhaps this shows that the "West of England MP" in question based his theory on some memory of the Druitt case.

As How says, Andrew Spallek made a strong case for identifying the source of this story as Henry Farquharson MP. Whether Farquharson himself may have imparted the info ("privately", of course) to Macnaghten or his associates, I'm not sure. What's clear to me is that the essence of the Druitt story recounted by Macnaghten was present in a claim by Henry Farquharson that he'd solved the case sometime before February 1891.

[Currerbell]

Its deeply sad that so many of his family suffered from mental illnesses, makes me wonder what of his family were left that said they thought he was the Ripper...being of sound mind of course....

[A.P. Wolf]

Sir Robert
I think we must be absolutely clear on one point to begin with, and that is that Druitt's suicide in the Thames in late 1888 was incidental to the Whitechapel Murders, for as I have often pointed out a London fireman also drowned himself in the Thames at the same time but nobody has ever accused him of being the Whitechapel Murderer.
Killing yourself is hardly a good or solid indication of a serial killer... killing others would be more the norm.
It's just fluff; and when I'm sober I'll reply.

[Currerbell]

That was pretty good considering you suggest you are influenced by the drink!

I wonder how many others killed themselves in that late period before xmas, November, December, like you say...

[SirRobertAnderson]

from the Bristol Times & Mirror, of the 11th February 1891:[INDENT][INDENT] He states that a man with blood-stained clothes committed suicide on the night of the last murder, and he asserts that the man was the son of a surgeon, who suffered from homicidal mania.

And of course MJD was the son of a surgeon.

A lot of the official documents we have post-1888 remind me of the old game of telephone, where by the time the last person in the line gets the message it barely resembles the original. Son of a surgeon >> surgeon >> doctor and so forth.

BTW earlier in the thread I asked about the British equivalent of a J.D. , a Juris Doctor which is the graduate degree for lawyers in the States. Any chance that somebody confused something like that with a medical degree ?

[Sam Flynn]

BTW earlier in the thread I asked about the British equivalent of a J.D. , a Juris Doctor which is the graduate degree for lawyers in the States.I don't think the equivalent appellation exists in the UK, Bob - they're just called "lawyers" or "barristers". There is certainly a degree of "Doctor of Laws" (LLD) in Britain, but it is not achieved as a matter of course, it requiring significant academic achievement in legal studies. Even then, I can't recall an LLD being referred to as a "doctor" - only as a barrister, judge, QC etc.

Druitt, as we know, had a BA and an MA from Oxford, which, if I read Wikipedia correctly, doesn't award its equivalent of an LLD to anyone other than a Head of State!

[Currerbell]

Bit of a daft question - MM didnt confuse the son with his father, and meant the father was a suspect did he??????!!!

[Robert Linford]

Unfortunately the memorandum contains numerous errors, and not just about Druitt. I think that Stewart has said that Macnaghten wasn't a bad policeman on the whole, so let's just say that the memorandum wasn't his finest hour.

[SirRobertAnderson]

Let's not lose sight of the fact that the prime purpose of the MM was to answer why the Sun's charges against Cutbush were erroneous; it wasn't to declare with any certainty who the Ripper was.

That doesn't excuse the evident sloppiness applied towards MJD, but MJD was not to be the focus of the memo.

[Chris G.]

I don't think the equivalent appellation exists in the UK, Bob - they're just called "lawyers" or "barristers".

Hello Gareth

I don't know what such legal entities are termed these days in Britain, because I have not lived in the country for 41 years, but when I was growing up the designations were "solicitor" and "barrister".

The barrister was the one "called to the bar" to argue a case at the Old Bailey or other crown courts, while the solicitor prepared the brief for the barrister or did other legal work, in other, lesser courts.

So in other words, "solicitor" = "lawyer" in American terms. So I suppose my question is, has "lawyer" replaced "solicitor" in the UK or are both terms used with equal frequency?

Thanks for clarification.

Chris

[Chris G.]

Let's not lose sight of the fact that the prime purpose of the MM was to answer why the Sun's charges against Cutbush were erroneous; it wasn't to declare with any certainty who the Ripper was.

That doesn't excuse the evident sloppiness applied towards MJD, but MJD was not to be the focus of the memo.

Quite true, Bob. Sir Melville took pride in not having kept a notebook. One has to wonder if he was referring to any files or notes prepared by underlings when he wrote the memorandum or if it was all from memory and off the top of his head.

Chris

[Robert Linford]

The thing is, Macnaghten made errors about Cutbush himself - the focus of the memorandum.

[Chris G.]

The thing is, Macnaghten made errors about Cutbush himself - the focus of the memorandum.

Well we've all heard about Good Cop - Bad Cop. :nono:

[Simon Wood]

Hi Robert L,

You mention Stewart Evans stating that, on the whole, Macnaghten wasn't a bad cop.

Do we know on what his assessment is based?

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

So in other words, "solicitor" = "lawyer" in American terms. So I suppose my question is, has "lawyer" replaced "solicitor" in the UK or are both terms used with equal frequency?On the contrary, Chris - I should have used "solicitor" as my example in the first place. "Solicitor" probably still outweighs "lawyer" in terms of popular usage in the UK, although the latter term is probably used more than it used to be.

[Robert Linford]

Simon, I think it was based on his knowledge of Macnaghten's whole career.

[Chris G.]

On the contrary, Chris - I should have used "solicitor" as my example in the first place. "Solicitor" probably still outweighs "lawyer" in terms of popular usage in the UK, although the latter term is probably used more than it used to be.

Thanks, Gareth... that's kind of what I assumed but wasn't sure. Probably it's American influence if the term "lawyer" is creeping in. . . due to years of the British public being subjected to "Perry Mason," "Boston Legal," "Law and Order" etc.

Chris