Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Druitt/Bluitt

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

  • #31
    To Stewart

    Ahh, I see what you are asking.

    I meant only that Macnaghtne wrote a document which was his attempt to 'cut the knot' of the various countervailing pressures upon him, and the Yard, over the Ripper case, triggered by the Cutbush so-called scoop.

    But he also had to factor in the surgeon's son tale rearing its head again?

    By 'political masters' I did not mean that Macnaghten was sending the report, personally, to Asquith as Home Sec. over the heads of his superiors.

    I meant that he would be factoring in the political implications, what with a Liberal government now in power with the potential to make trouble for the Tories over this case.

    Mac did not send this document, and I do not believe that Bradford or Anderson, or anybody knew of its existence. It was filed, eg. 'mothballed'; it had no impact on anything.

    In 1898, an alternate version was shown, or verbally communicated, by Mac to Major Griffiths and, later, George Sims as being the 'Home Office Report', and the definitive document of state regarding this case.

    I do not believe that Sims would have written about it so effusively if Macnaghten had not misled him to believe that this was its bureaucratic status.

    As we know, it was nothing of the kind.

    Comment


    • #32
      Don't quite understand

      Originally posted by Jonathan Hainsworth View Post
      ...
      Eg. this is [Mac via] Sims in 1907:
      'The mutilations were in all the cases, except one in which probably the murderer was interrupted, ghastly and revolting, and in one case an internal organ had been removed in a manner which showed almost beyond the shadow of a doubt that the miscreant was a person of anatomical knowledge.
      Maniacal as was the fury with which he hacked and ripped his unhappy victims, the instance in which he skillfully removed and carried away with him this internal organ must be borne in mind when discussing the identity of the monster.'
      ...
      Actually, Mac kept tabs on Ostrog's comings and goings for years. He arguably knew that the Russian thief was in a French prison/asylum at the time of the murders, a fact which he turned into the following for Sims in the same 1907 piece:
      'The second man was a Russian doctor, a man of vile character, who had been in various prisons in his own country and ours. The Russian doctor who at the time of the murders was in Whitechapel, but in hiding as it afterwards transpired, was in the habit of carrying surgical knives about with him. He suffered from a dangerous form of insanity, and when inquiries were afterwards set on foot he was found to be in a criminal lunatic asylum abroad. He was a vile and terrible person, capable of any atrocity.'
      If you knew that Ostrog was abroad allegedly soon after the murders, how could you not know that he was really in French confinement during the same crimes?
      I do not think that an efficient, hands-on administrator and Ripepr obesessive could not know.
      Ostrog appears nowhere else in the extant record, albeit an incomplete one, as a Ripper suspect -- because he never was one.
      When Mac wrote a few years later to an English asylum about him, he did not warn the relevant medico authorities that they might have a dangerous murderer in their midst.
      Because he knew they didn't.
      ...
      What I don't quite understand his how you can assume that everything written by Sims in his articles about the Ripper were quotes of Macnaghten's and not errors or embellishments by Sims himself.

      Comment


      • #33
        But...

        Originally posted by Jonathan Hainsworth View Post
        ...
        Mac did not send this document, and I do not believe that Bradford or Anderson, or anybody knew of its existence. It was filed, eg. 'mothballed'; it had no impact on anything.
        ...
        But this is patent surmise and nonsensical.

        Why write an official memo giving information such as this with no intention of submitting it to your superior officers? That it was submitted is indicated by the fact that it remained on file at New Scotland Yard.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by SPE View Post
          But this is patent surmise and nonsensical.

          Why write an official memo giving information such as this with no intention of submitting it to your superior officers? That it was submitted is indicated by the fact that it remained on file at New Scotland Yard.
          Hi Stewart and Jonathan

          I would expect that the memorandum was sent to the Home Office as well. However, if so, why isn't there any trace of it in the Home Office files?

          Best regards

          Chris
          Christopher T. George, Lyricist & Co-Author, "Jack the Musical"
          https://www.facebook.com/JackTheMusical/ Hear sample song at https://tinyurl.com/y8h4envx.

          Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conferences, April 2016 and 2018.
          Hear RipperCon 2016 & 2018 talks at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/.

          Comment


          • #35
            You won't find my answers any more plausible, Stewart, sorry.

            There is no reference in the extant record to this document.

            Anderson never made a comment on Druitt which has survived -- nothing --from which I believe that he knew nothing about him.

            Otherwise he would have debunked the preferred suspect of his despised second-in-command.

            When Anderson read about the suicided doctor in Sims, if he did, he made the same mistake as Littlechild: that this was a garbled reference to Tumbelty -- the less said about the better.

            The reason I do not think that it is Sims who is embellishing the extra 'drowned doctor' material in his writings, that it comes from Macnaghten, is that they were close pals. At any point, Macnaghten could have reigned in 'Tatcho', and asked him not to repeat such 'errors'.

            He could have corrected him, and he did not. Because they originate with him. For example the Druitt family becoming 'friends' which began with the Major.

            Nothing like that happened, right up to 1917.

            The detail about the frantic friends searching for the doctor comes from somebody who knew the full story about Druitt.

            We have a 1907 brief letter from Mac to Sims in which he -- to me -- leads his pal well away from digging up 'Ripper' murders after Kelly.

            The reason Macnaghten did not submit his 'Report' is that he knew it contained a range of deflections and deceptions, the most dodgy of which was the one about Cutbush and Cutbush being related.

            On the other hand, if he did not at least put Druitt on file, and subsequently the entire, embarrassing story spilled out of Dorset ...

            Comment


            • #36
              What reference...

              Originally posted by Jonathan Hainsworth View Post
              You won't find my answers any more plausible, Stewart, sorry.
              There is no reference in the extant record to this document.
              Anderson never made a comment on Druitt which has survived -- nothing --from which I believe that he knew nothing about him.
              Otherwise he would have debunked the preferred suspect of his despised second-in-command.
              ...
              What reference should there be 'in the extant record to this document', a mere internal memo submitted for information?

              Anderson would, obviously, have known about the 'drowned doctor' theory, but chose to ignore it. Why should he write about other theories? He was concerned only with his own, which dismissed all other theories anyway - most emphatically.

              Comment


              • #37
                Simply do not know...

                Originally posted by Jonathan Hainsworth View Post
                ...
                The reason I do not think that it is Sims who is embellishing the extra 'drowned doctor' material in his writings, that it comes from Macnaghten, is that they were close pals. At any point, Macnaghten could have reigned in 'Tatcho', and asked him not to repeat such 'errors'.
                He could have corrected him, and he did not. Because they originate with him. For example the Druitt family becoming 'friends' which began with the Major.
                Nothing like that happened, right up to 1917.
                The detail about the frantic friends searching for the doctor comes from somebody who knew the full story about Druitt.
                ...
                You simply do not know this, you assume too much.

                Macnaghten might well have said to Sims that he hadn't quite got it right, and Sims could have replied along the lines that it was only minor and the readers wouldn't know the difference, or that it didn't matter. Macnaghten may well have been cavalier over it anyway.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Implausible

                  Originally posted by Jonathan Hainsworth View Post
                  ...
                  The detail about the frantic friends searching for the doctor comes from somebody who knew the full story about Druitt.
                  We have a 1907 brief letter from Mac to Sims in which he -- to me -- leads his pal well away from digging up 'Ripper' murders after Kelly.
                  The reason Macnaghten did not submit his 'Report' is that he knew it contained a range of deflections and deceptions, the most dodgy of which was the one about Cutbush and Cutbush being related.
                  On the other hand, if he did not at least put Druitt on file, and subsequently the entire, embarrassing story spilled out of Dorset ...
                  Your reasoning is contrived and implausible. The fact that Druitt's friends had missed him and that his brother searched for him was reported in the newspapers at the time.

                  Macnaghten's 1894 memo is very obviously written in response to the Sun's allegations concerning Cutbush. His memo was put on file and remained archived at New Scotland Yard from where it was transferred to Kew in the 1970s. And reports that have been filed may be seen by anyone accessing the old files. Whatever reason would Macnaghten have for leaving an erroneous report on file if he was the only one who had seen it? He could, at any time, have modified or replaced it with a different version. Especially after he had replaced Anderson as head of the CID.

                  The memo was obviously submitted for the information of the Chief Commissioner (Bradford) so that he could respond to the Home Office if the necessity arose. It didn't and the then unrequired memo was simply filed. It would have no stamps or marking as an information only internal memo - which it was.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    So, this is the sudden addition to the Old Paradigm: like a Tyrannosaur, roaring and uncomprehending, as it sinks into the tar-pit.

                    Sloppy Mac meet Sloppy Tatcho ...

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Now just consider, Stewart, what you wrote for a moment.

                      That William Druitt was searching for Montie appears in one newspaper article, which we know about, and then is fictionalised by Sims in the 1900's.

                      If you have access to that article which mentions this detail, then you would know that Druitt -- though he is not named in that article -- was a barrister, and that he killed himself in early December, and that he was 31 (and that his body was found with a season rail ticket between Blackheath and London)

                      Then how come Macnaghten begins fictionalising Druitt, and the Druitt family by them becoming 'friends' in Griffiths and this is maintained in Sims.

                      I am guessing that you will say, well, to protect their privacy.

                      Since the 1889 articles about Druiott's suicide clearly shows that he was a young barrister, how do you know that Macanghtenb was not engaged in a bit of deceit to protect the privacy of the family, and their deceased member by also turning Montie into a middle-aged doctor?

                      Isn't a poor memory on the part of Macnaghten, a police chief famous for his retentive memory, also a pretty big assumption ...?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        No...

                        Originally posted by Chris G. View Post
                        Hi Stewart and Jonathan
                        I would expect that the memorandum was sent to the Home Office as well. However, if so, why isn't there any trace of it in the Home Office files?
                        Chris
                        No, it is an internal memorandum, hence the fact that it is usually referred to as that. As such it would be submitted by Macnaghten to Bradford (probably via Anderson) for his information. Macnaghten did not report directly to the Home Office, Bradford did.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Fact

                          Originally posted by Jonathan Hainsworth View Post
                          Now just consider, Stewart, what you wrote for a moment.
                          That William Druitt was searching for Montie appears in one newspaper article, which we know about, and then is fictionalised by Sims in the 1900's.
                          If you have access to that article which mentions this detail, then you would know that Druitt -- though he is not named in that article -- was a barrister, and that he killed himself in early December, and that he was 31 (and that his body was found with a season rail ticket between Blackheath and London)
                          Then how come Macnaghten begins fictionalising Druitt, and the Druitt family by them becoming 'friends' in Griffiths and this is maintained in Sims.
                          I am guessing that you will say, well, to protect their privacy.
                          Since the 1889 articles about Druiott's suicide clearly shows that he was a young barrister, how do you know that Macanghtenb was not engaged in a bit of deceit to protect the privacy of the family, and their deceased member by also turning Montie into a middle-aged doctor?
                          Isn't a poor memory on the part of Macnaghten, a police chief famous for his retentive memory, also a pretty big assumption ...?
                          I was indicating the fact that a search for a suicide victim in the Thames was reported and was hardly unlikely or unknown. As a journalist in 1889 Sims might well have remembered reading something about a suicide in the Thames and that the body had been about a month in the water undiscovered.

                          I do not know that 'Macnaghten was not engaged in a bit of deceit to protect the privacy of the family' any more than you know that he was. But the fact is that the errors in the memorandum exist when there should be no need whatsoever for any deliberate falsification of Druitt's details in that document.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            But...

                            Originally posted by Jonathan Hainsworth View Post
                            So, this is the sudden addition to the Old Paradigm: like a Tyrannosaur, roaring and uncomprehending, as it sinks into the tar-pit.
                            Sloppy Mac meet Sloppy Tatcho ...
                            But press reports and personal memoirs are noted by historians for their unreliability.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              No, I don't think so Stewart.

                              I think it is you who are making assumptions, ones which fly in the face of the more likely explanation.

                              That the Druitt story is clearly unknown to Sims, except for what he gets from Macnaghten -- beginning in 1899.

                              Macnaghten had every reason to fear the Druitt revelation, a Tory Ripper, for the Yard with the Liberal-Radical jackals.

                              On the other hand, if the story re-emerged out of Dorset it would be better if they had soemthing on file, but with Druitt only as a minor, hearsay suspect who may, or may not have been a medical man.

                              As for the unreliability of memoirs?

                              You are right, in general, but wrong about Macnaghten's.

                              Because he is reliably candid up to a point about the un-named Druitt, and when exactly the 'police' actually learned of the [probable] Ripper's identity.

                              Eg. some years later ...

                              That goes against the expected bias of such a source.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                I am sure...

                                Originally posted by Jonathan Hainsworth View Post
                                No, I don't think so Stewart.
                                I think it is you who are making assumptions, ones which fly in the face of the more likely explanation.
                                That the Druitt story is clearly unknown to Sims, except for what he gets from Macnaghten -- beginning in 1899.
                                Macnaghten had every reason to fear the Druitt revelation, a Tory Ripper, for the Yard with the Liberal-Radical jackals.
                                On the other hand, if the story re-emerged out of Dorset it would be better if they had soemthing on file, but with Druitt only as a minor, hearsay suspect who may, or may not have been a medical man.
                                As for the unreliability of memoirs?
                                You are right, in general, but wrong about Macnaghten's.
                                Because he is reliably candid up to a point about the un-named Druitt, and when exactly the 'police' actually learned of the [probable] Ripper's identity.
                                Eg. some years later ...
                                That goes against the expected bias of such a source.
                                I am sure that the Druitt as the Ripper theory was unknown to Sims, probably at least until the publication of Griffith's 1898 work. That still wouldn't mean that he didn't recall a suicide of 1889 that had appeared in the newspapers.

                                You think that Macnaghten had reason to fear 'the Druitt revelation', but why? He continued to espouse, and push, the idea of the 'drowned doctor' in the Thames and it really wouldn't have taken a genius to do a little research and find that the only Thames suicide candidate fitting the essential criteria was Druitt, who was named as the appropriate suicide in the January 1889 press.

                                Macnaghten made demonstrable errors, but you seem to choose selectively what he said and assign deliberate deceit in order to mislead on his part, rather than admit the most likely explanation.

                                It has always been obvious that Druitt was a retrospective suspect, and was not suspected in 1888/89.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X