Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Farquharson named and another suspect detailed - Feb 1892

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

  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris G. View Post
    Jonathan Hainsworth insists that....
    BINGO!

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris G.
    replied
    Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
    Thanks Chris. But what I was trying to suggest is that while the drowned man undoubtedly referred to Druitt, all the other details referred to Smith. They were both barristers, but Druitt was turned into a doctor for some reason.
    If Druitt was meant by Macnaghten, he might have confused the fact that Druitt came from a medical family and made him a doctor as well. If Newland Smith's information got mixed in there, as you think, that doesn't speak well of Macnaghten either. Jonathan Hainsworth insists that Macnaghten was trying to "hide" the facts about a suicided English gentleman, i.e., Druitt. But in either case, in my view, whether it is Druitt or it is Druitt plus Smith it would seem the Scotland Yard man was not on top of the facts of the case or cases and didn't know much about what he was writing about.

    Best regards

    Chris

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    Thanks Chris. But what I was trying to suggest is that while the drowned man undoubtedly referred to Druitt, all the other details referred to Smith. They were both barristers, but Druitt was turned into a doctor for some reason.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris G.
    replied
    Hi Scott

    I don't have much faith in the pronouncements of Sir Melville Macnaghten or Sir Robert Anderson as to the answer to the Whitechapel murders. I hear the arguments for both theories from various writers on the case which mostly rest on the notion that being men in authority at Scotland Yard the men must have had access to information on the murders that others did not have. However, I think that there's a measure of ego involved and the desire to wrap up an untidy case with contrasting solutions to the vexing mystery. With due respect, however, Scott, your theory that Macnaghten's drowned man theory pertained to Newland Smith rather than Druitt equally demands a leap of faith.

    Best regards

    Chris

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    Metropolitan Superintendent James Butcher would have been the Chief Constable had not Macnaghten's friend James Monro named him (Mac) to the post in 1889. Butcher had spent many years with the force, liasoned with the Home Office, and likely gave Macnaghten the information he learned about Druitt, but only in passing as a suspicious suicide. Macnaghten mixed the details of Smith with Druitt's suicide.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scott Nelson
    replied
    Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
    Scott seems to be saying that both Farquaharson's suspect and the Detective's suspect are Newland Smith, so is he reading it that both suspects are the same man except the reporter is making it known that the suspect didn't kill himself as Farquaharson theorised but is still alive... but is essentially the same suspect.
    Yes, that's what I was saying. Farquaharson's source was likely a clergyman, either Newland's father or an associate of his father. Druitt got mixed into the story because both were barristers and Druitt committed suicide at the "right time". But the actual suspect (Smith) didn't die after the murders. He was watched continuously until he was confined for the second time (permanently) in the asylum.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    "They were specifically begging letters and blackmail isn't mentioned, How"

    Sorry about that Debs...you'd already pointed that out.

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Originally posted by How Brown View Post
    Gotcha,Debs....

    Kind of hard to imagine the police keeping someone under surveillance after February 13, 1891 ( date of Coles murder) through 1893, isn't it ?

    On a side note, not to divert....Neill Cream also sent blackmailing letters to individuals of prominence. His goose was cooked in 1892.
    They were specifically begging letters and blackmail isn't mentioned, How.
    It will be someone like Headley Jones who used to send them regularly to MPs asking for money and giving a sob story or claiming to be collecting for charity. The scam was a common one. All the begging letters are mentioned for is because the reporter writing the article is trying to illustrate the fact that criminals do get off with their crimes sometimes but quit once they know the police are on to them but can't convict them...just like the ripper suspect he mentions first, who was watched day and night and didn't commit anymore murders as a consequence. The article doesn't say what happened to that particular ripper suspect other than he quit after knowing he was being watched.
    It's about a year with the surveillance Feb 1891 to the report in Feb 1892, and they did suspect he might be the ripper!
    Its just odd that it is a familiar story but slotted into a different place in the timeline. Unless the last murder mentioned is meant to be the Kelly murder and not Coles? And it is just being reported very late in time in 1892 to counter reports about Deeming being the ripper etc.?

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Gotcha,Debs....

    Kind of hard to imagine the police keeping someone under surveillance after February 13, 1891 ( date of Coles murder) through 1893, isn't it ?

    On a side note, not to divert....Neill Cream also sent blackmailing letters to individuals of prominence. His goose was cooked in 1892.

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Originally posted by How Brown View Post
    Debs:

    You're referring to the individual mentioned by Det. Harry Cox, correct ?
    Yes, How. But the surveilance story moved on from after the murder of MJK to after the murder of Frances Coles?

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Debs:

    You're referring to the individual mentioned by Det. Harry Cox, correct ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    And the other 1892 suspect leak sounds curiously like the Polish Jew suspect? Being watched day and night and no more murders occcuring as a consequence of that surveillance.

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris G. View Post
    Hi Deb and Maria

    The truth is that the Ripper continued to be newsworthy. As you are hinting, these may not be actual leaks but the newsmen making something out of nothing, conjuring up a detective who supposedly had leaked information. We have a number of instances of the meddling of the press in 1888 and it's probable that such shennanigans continued. And we know of writers closer to our own day who were not averse to concocting a Ripper story or two, don't we also?

    Chris
    That can't be right though, Chris. Specifically, one of these leaks in March 1892 was definitely about a known criminal, Charles Le Grand, a man never previously mentioned in connection before 1892.
    There definitely must have been some leak from Scotland Yard on that one but was it someone involved in the actual investigation or was is just Sgt James leaking his pet theory? (which we know he might have had from him pointing out Le Grand as the Ripper to Jabez Balfour, in prison, in later years.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris G.
    replied
    Hi Deb and Maria

    The truth is that the Ripper continued to be newsworthy. As you are hinting, these may not be actual leaks but the newsmen making something out of nothing, conjuring up a detective who supposedly had leaked information. We have a number of instances of the meddling of the press in 1888 and it's probable that such shennanigans continued. And we know of writers closer to our own day who were not averse to concocting a Ripper story or two, don't we also?

    Chris

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Thanks, Caz, How and Maria for the replies. I was more thinking about these two 1892 'leaks' in particular and the motivation behind them? It's almost as if there was some sort of panic after Coles' murder?

    Maria, I'm not be too sure about Sadler.In 1891/2 his wife complained several times to police about his behaviour and the threats he had made on her life, so, perhaps they were watching him for that reason?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X