How Brown
03-20-2009, 05:14 PM
The Forums thanks Mr. Wood for his responses to these questions:kiss:
*******************************
Question 1: Are you entirely convinced at this point in time that the death of Montague Druitt was a suicide? If not...please describe your alternative scenario.
No, I am not. On a simplistic note, suicides don't buy return rail tickets. Also, why travel to Hammersmith to commit suicide when there was a perfectly good stretch of river two minutes walk from No. 9 King's Bench Walk? On a more complex note, were it not for Macnaghten we wouldn't give MJD a second thought. In fingering Druitt, Macnaghten appears to have been recycling gossip or hearsay rather than hard facts. Note in his memorandum how he carefully absolves Scotland Yard from any official suspicion of MJD being JtR—"from private information I have little doubt that his own family believed him to have been the murderer." Who was the source of this private information? Stephen Ryder's dissertation on the Crawford letter makes an eloquent case for it being Emily Druitt, who suspected her cousin Monty of possibly being JtR. And this is understandable. LVP sensibilities were fragile. Sexual deviation [or homosexuality, as mastered in ancient Greece and finally perfected by the English public school system] was looked upon as a symptom of madness—something which, if you weren't careful, could be caught, like flu, and infect the whole family. Andy Spallek is doing wonderful work investigating MJD. I like to think that in the end he will be able to completely absolve Monty and allow the poor man to finally rest in peace.
Oh yes, my alternative scenario. I think MJD may have been murdered "for his own good".
Question 2: A number of Ripperologists are of the opinion that the statements made by Sir Robert Anderson regarding the identification of the Polish Jewish suspect as being the solution to the Whitechapel Murders case is less than plausible. If you are of that opinion, what specifically makes you think twice about Sir Robert's determination?
Robert Anderson was an accomplished liar. It was part of his job description. I wouldn't have trusted him to tell me if it was raining or not. Look at the double coincidence of Monro's resignation, and Anderson swanning off to Switzerland "for his health" on the day of Annie Chapman's murder, thus isolating the hapless Warren. The two men were scheming to save Perfidious Albion's arse at the forthcoming Parnell Special Commission. During the Autumn of Terror they had far more important things to think about than the murders of five dollymops. Also, Anderson liked to be seen as the go-to guy when it came to inside information. Winston Churchill put it best—". . . he has been so anxious to show how important he was, how invariably he was right, and how much more he could tell if only his mouth was not what he was pleased to call closed."
Question 3: What is the most important document that we have in our possession as a community in terms of "being on the right track" if any? This also may include any letter which is available as well.
I don't believe that any documents currently in our possession put us "on the right track", and here I put special emphasis on police reports/memos/social correspondence etc., which all contain too many inaccuracies, omissions and unlikelihoods to be taken seriously. I think that Dear Boss and Saucy Jacky were written by someone in official authority, and I also agree with Tom Wescott that the Lusk letter and accompanying body part was a fund-raising exercise [they did sell the story to the Evening News before going to Scotland Yard] by the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee.
Question 4: Which of the murders, from Nichols to Kelly, has less interest to you....if in fact you delineate the murders for investigative purposes? They're all part of the skein, to be sure....but does one grasp your attentions less than the other?
They are all as individually interesting as each other. Nichols' murder, which appears to be the least complex, has hidden depths, as per my Ripperologist article "Deconstructing Jack". And the testimony at the Stride inquest [and she was not even a "Ripper" victim] tells us so much about mythical "Victorian family values". To paraphrase the immortal CD, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times . . ." Private vice, public virtue.
*******************************
Question 1: Are you entirely convinced at this point in time that the death of Montague Druitt was a suicide? If not...please describe your alternative scenario.
No, I am not. On a simplistic note, suicides don't buy return rail tickets. Also, why travel to Hammersmith to commit suicide when there was a perfectly good stretch of river two minutes walk from No. 9 King's Bench Walk? On a more complex note, were it not for Macnaghten we wouldn't give MJD a second thought. In fingering Druitt, Macnaghten appears to have been recycling gossip or hearsay rather than hard facts. Note in his memorandum how he carefully absolves Scotland Yard from any official suspicion of MJD being JtR—"from private information I have little doubt that his own family believed him to have been the murderer." Who was the source of this private information? Stephen Ryder's dissertation on the Crawford letter makes an eloquent case for it being Emily Druitt, who suspected her cousin Monty of possibly being JtR. And this is understandable. LVP sensibilities were fragile. Sexual deviation [or homosexuality, as mastered in ancient Greece and finally perfected by the English public school system] was looked upon as a symptom of madness—something which, if you weren't careful, could be caught, like flu, and infect the whole family. Andy Spallek is doing wonderful work investigating MJD. I like to think that in the end he will be able to completely absolve Monty and allow the poor man to finally rest in peace.
Oh yes, my alternative scenario. I think MJD may have been murdered "for his own good".
Question 2: A number of Ripperologists are of the opinion that the statements made by Sir Robert Anderson regarding the identification of the Polish Jewish suspect as being the solution to the Whitechapel Murders case is less than plausible. If you are of that opinion, what specifically makes you think twice about Sir Robert's determination?
Robert Anderson was an accomplished liar. It was part of his job description. I wouldn't have trusted him to tell me if it was raining or not. Look at the double coincidence of Monro's resignation, and Anderson swanning off to Switzerland "for his health" on the day of Annie Chapman's murder, thus isolating the hapless Warren. The two men were scheming to save Perfidious Albion's arse at the forthcoming Parnell Special Commission. During the Autumn of Terror they had far more important things to think about than the murders of five dollymops. Also, Anderson liked to be seen as the go-to guy when it came to inside information. Winston Churchill put it best—". . . he has been so anxious to show how important he was, how invariably he was right, and how much more he could tell if only his mouth was not what he was pleased to call closed."
Question 3: What is the most important document that we have in our possession as a community in terms of "being on the right track" if any? This also may include any letter which is available as well.
I don't believe that any documents currently in our possession put us "on the right track", and here I put special emphasis on police reports/memos/social correspondence etc., which all contain too many inaccuracies, omissions and unlikelihoods to be taken seriously. I think that Dear Boss and Saucy Jacky were written by someone in official authority, and I also agree with Tom Wescott that the Lusk letter and accompanying body part was a fund-raising exercise [they did sell the story to the Evening News before going to Scotland Yard] by the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee.
Question 4: Which of the murders, from Nichols to Kelly, has less interest to you....if in fact you delineate the murders for investigative purposes? They're all part of the skein, to be sure....but does one grasp your attentions less than the other?
They are all as individually interesting as each other. Nichols' murder, which appears to be the least complex, has hidden depths, as per my Ripperologist article "Deconstructing Jack". And the testimony at the Stride inquest [and she was not even a "Ripper" victim] tells us so much about mythical "Victorian family values". To paraphrase the immortal CD, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times . . ." Private vice, public virtue.