Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Proof of Innocence?

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

  • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi Phil,

    Exactly.

    It is useful to bear in mind what Sir Basil Thomson wrote about Macnaghten in his 1922 book “Queer People”—

    “He had an astonishing memory both for faces and for names: he could tell you every detail about a ten-year-old crime, the names of the victim, the perpetrator, and every important witness, and, what was more useful, the official career of every one of his seven hundred men and his qualifications and ability.”

    Regards,

    Simon
    Sadly, as illustrated by his autobiography, that statement is proveably false. I could list the errors of names, nationalities, places, dates and times that are in error in his book but it would take too much time and effort. He thought to cover himself by writing at the start that he might make errors but the number of errors outweighs the idea of memory failure and in many cases are simply self-aggrandisement.

    Comment


    • Hi RJ,

      Too much Catullus at Eton, and not enough Basic English Reader?

      Montague John Druitt, 31 years of age. [Echo 3rd January 1889].

      The deceased was his brother, who was 31 last birthday. [Acton, Chiswick & Turnham Green Gazette, 5th January 1889].

      . . . respecting the death of Montague John Druitt, 31 years of age. [Southern Guardian, 5th January 1889].

      . . . respecting the death of Montague John Druitt, 31 years of age, who was found drowned in the Thames. [Hampshire Advertiser, 5th January 1889].

      . . . on the body of Montague John Druitt, aged 31. [Richmond and Twickenham Times, 5th January 1889].

      Stay well, my friend.

      Simon

      Comment


      • Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post

        I'll deal with your points eventually but let me just take up this one.

        Macnaghten dates the hanging to the 'end of 1899.' In reality, Massett was condemned to death at the end of 1899 but was hanged two weeks later. In the introduction, Macnaghten states that he is working from memory and he is writing in 1914.

        If you feel justified in calling a nine day error (or even a two-hour error regarding a taxi-ride) a "lie" than I dare say you will find a number of "lies" in his book.

        Yes, I did notice a number of discrepancies when I did my own study, but none so bad that I would feel justified in calling him a "serial liar."

        It doesn't strike you as a little harsh?
        Not when you consider that Masset's case was very much a cause celebre in 1900 - simply because she was the first woman hanged in the 20th century. It is unreasonable to pass off all the errors in his book as 'fallible memory' when many of them are simply there to illustrate MacN's 'excellence'. I don't believe that someone in his position would not have had records of his past that he could refer to when writing the book. In regard to the taxi - it's part of a section in which MacN appears to be pretty much the man who is in charge and who turns up first. He wasn't and he didn't. The general point being that if his book contains many such statements and is designed to push himself forward the same is almost certainly true of the memorandum. It is, as we know, full of error but it is the only place that Druitt is mentioned. I would point out, additionally, that MacN describes a number of wrongdoers in his book as 'sexually insane' for no proveable reason - just as he does with Druitt.

        Comment


        • Hi Phil,

          I was being ironic about Sir Basil Thomson.

          Regards,

          Simon

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
            Here is a newspaper account of Macnaghten from his obituary-Reynolds News, May 15, 1921:

            "Sir Melville came across a poor woman of Whitechapel who told him a story that seemed to fully collaborate a theory that he had formed while sitting in a public house in the Commercial Road. A very nicely-spoken, quiet-looking elderly man sat next to her. Conversation naturally turned upon the “Ripper” horror, and the stranger shaking his head softly, said with a pious air: “Truly in the midst of life we are in death.” He was carrying a small black bag. This he opened and produced a tract. The cover bore the words “Prepare to meet thy God.” This he presented to the woman. The tract passed into the possession of Sir Melville, and he came to the conclusion that the “Ripper” was a religious maniac with homicidal tendencies developed by a certain disease…Finally, Sir Melville narrowed down his search to a point where he was morally certain that he knew the man…Then suddenly he solved the difficulty himself. He committed suicide. A body was found in the Thames, and from certain evidence Sir Melville was able to convince the authorities that this was the man who had for so long terrorized the community. A few months later [June 1889] he was made Chief Constable."

            -Reynolds News, May 15, 1921

            This suggests Druitt was a suspicious suicide but wasn't considered a serious Ripper suspect until later.
            What I take away from this article is how - if the article reflects the truth - Macnaghten seems to have chosen a type first (religious brooder/maniac with homicidal tendencies and suffering from venereal disease, likely by way of consorting with prostitutes), and then he went looking for somebody who fit this typology. Which is very much the wrong way to go about things, since it marginalizes the factual evidence relating to the crime in favour of a prejudiced choice of the "right type" of offender.

            I could say that it is not flattering for Macnaghten as the head of the Met, but I am not sure that I really can voice that much. It hinges on the type of thinking that ruled the day in police circles, and much speaks for how it was terra firma for them to typify criminals; criminal anthropology and all that. And we act according to the "science" of the day.

            In any case, if Reynolds News were on the money, then we may add another reason to grade down Druitt in importance.
            "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
              Hi Phil,

              I was being ironic about Sir Basil Thomson.

              Regards,

              Simon
              I thought so - but there are others here who would take that view as Gospel. (At least one having written a Druitt book)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Phil Kellingley View Post

                Not when you consider that Masset's case was very much a cause celebre in 1900 - simply because she was the first woman hanged in the 20th century. It is unreasonable to pass off all the errors in his book as 'fallible memory' when many of them are simply there to illustrate MacN's 'excellence'. I don't believe that someone in his position would not have had records of his past that he could refer to when writing the book. In regard to the taxi - it's part of a section in which MacN appears to be pretty much the man who is in charge and who turns up first. He wasn't and he didn't. The general point being that if his book contains many such statements and is designed to push himself forward the same is almost certainly true of the memorandum. It is, as we know, full of error but it is the only place that Druitt is mentioned. I would point out, additionally, that MacN describes a number of wrongdoers in his book as 'sexually insane' for no proveable reason - just as he does with Druitt.
                While I agree that many of these inconsistencies are awkward for Macnaghten, I would say that a lie always has a purpose - to mislead, to gain advantages etcetera. What precise puropse do you think Macnaghten could have had to place the execution of Masset a few weeks before the true date? Or do you not agree with my interpretation of what a lie is?
                "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                Comment


                • There is a difference between lying and being mistaken. a lie is when someone knows its untrue yet still intentionally says the untruth. being mistaken means your simply wrong and unintentionally say the untruth. Mac was simply mistaken. I think he probably just over estimated his memory.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

                    I think it reads as though Macnaghten investigated the case as a private citizen and had just identified Druitt when he committed suicide (I think that part echoes one of Sims's articles). In fact it seems to read as though Macnaghten investigated the case "while sitting in a public house in the Commercial Road", but surely that can't be right!
                    This is the Sims piece I was thinking of, from 13 July 1902, which refers to the search having been narrowed (albeit to three men rather than one) by the time of Druitt's suicide:
                    Public attention has been attracted in the case of the Salamanca-place sensation by the fact that some portions of the remains had been boiled and roasted. This gave an extra gruesomeness to the ordinary
                    'Dead Body Found"
                    announcement which may be seen outside almost every police-station in the metropolis all the year round. If the authorities thought it worth while to spend money and time, they might eventually get at the identity of the woman by the same process of exhaustion which enabled them at last to know the real name and address of Jack the Ripper.
                    In that case they had reduced the only possible Jacks to seven, then by a further exhaustive inquiry to three, and were about to fit these three people's movements in with the dates of the various murders when the one and only genuine Jack saved further trouble by being found drowned in the Thames, into which he had flung himself, a raving lunatic, after the last and most appalling mutilation of the whole series.
                    But prior to this discovery the name of the man found drowned was bracketed with two others as
                    A Possible Jack
                    and the police were in search of him alive when they found him dead. In the case of this chopped-up and semi-cooked woman, the best clue to the murderer might be the establishment of the victim's identity.

                    https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/dagonet.html

                    Obviously it's a garbled version of the three suspects in the Macnaghten memorandum. I wonder what the seven suspects referred to. Could Macnaghten have shown Sims a list of seven as well, or told him about one?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

                      This is the Sims piece I was thinking of, from 13 July 1902, which refers to the search having been narrowed (albeit to three men rather than one) by the time of Druitt's suicide:
                      Public attention has been attracted in the case of the Salamanca-place sensation by the fact that some portions of the remains had been boiled and roasted. This gave an extra gruesomeness to the ordinary
                      'Dead Body Found"
                      announcement which may be seen outside almost every police-station in the metropolis all the year round. If the authorities thought it worth while to spend money and time, they might eventually get at the identity of the woman by the same process of exhaustion which enabled them at last to know the real name and address of Jack the Ripper.
                      In that case they had reduced the only possible Jacks to seven, then by a further exhaustive inquiry to three, and were about to fit these three people's movements in with the dates of the various murders when the one and only genuine Jack saved further trouble by being found drowned in the Thames, into which he had flung himself, a raving lunatic, after the last and most appalling mutilation of the whole series.
                      But prior to this discovery the name of the man found drowned was bracketed with two others as
                      A Possible Jack
                      and the police were in search of him alive when they found him dead. In the case of this chopped-up and semi-cooked woman, the best clue to the murderer might be the establishment of the victim's identity.

                      https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/dagonet.html

                      Obviously it's a garbled version of the three suspects in the Macnaghten memorandum. I wonder what the seven suspects referred to. Could Macnaghten have shown Sims a list of seven as well, or told him about one?
                      It very much sounds like they considered Druitts suicide a confession. Not a word about confirming it in any way. Such further "trouble" was something they were "saved" from by the suicide.
                      "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post

                        It very much sounds like they considered Druitts suicide a confession. Not a word about confirming it in any way. Such further "trouble" was something they were "saved" from by the suicide.
                        I hasten to add that I don't believe anything like that actually happened in 1888. I doubt the police suspected Druitt before his suicide, and I'm sceptical that they suspected Aaron Kozminski as early as 1888.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Phil Kellingley View Post
                          In order ot address the diatribe of Michael Banks I'm simply quoting his posting and putting my observations within that post.
                          I responded to your condescending and rather irate post. Strange that you find this objectionable considering you were one who waded in with…..

                          .
                          iginally posted by Phil Kellingley View Post
                          I know I'm late to this party and, firstly, I'd like to say that I think Joanna's find is significant. The same cannot be said for some of the comments...
                          Which you followed by quoting my post.

                          ​​​​​​…..

                          Roger has dealt with your ‘judgment’ that trivial errors of memory should be labelled as lies. I wonder if you’re consistent in that you apply this approach in all aspects of life or is it just for Macnaughten? Something tells me the latter. It’s ludicrous to suggest that Macnaughten should lie over such trivialities. I mean….a nine day error over something that happened 15 years before. Even the suggestion beggars belief.
                          Regards

                          Michael🔎


                          " When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable......is probably a little bit boring "

                          Comment


                          • Hi All,

                            This is from "Cricket: A Weekly Record of the Game," Thursday, 13th September 1888—

                            Click image for larger version

Name:	CRICKET A WEEKLY RECORD OF THE GAME 13 SEP 1888.jpg
Views:	107
Size:	95.9 KB
ID:	588426

                            "Saturday Last" was 8th September 1888.

                            Regards,

                            Simon

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Phil Kellingley View Post

                              My approach is simple. Not one fact has EVER emerged to place Druitt as a suspect. That MacNaghten named him as "the most likely" of three indicates nothing. Nobody has any idea where his information came from or even if it was genuine information. Unless you can come up with a fact that ties him in. I can wait.
                              No need to wait because your post is a waste of anger. I’ve never claimed that Druitt was Jack The Ripper. I’ve never even claimed that Druitt was probably Jack The Ripper. All that I’ve ever said, and for the life of me I can’t see why I have to keep repeating this fact time and time and time again, I find him and his story interesting and I personally favour him of the named suspects but I favour more the idea that the ripper has yet to be named. I might start promoting Lewis Carroll as a suspect because I’d get less aggro. It’s long been getting to the point where any discussion of Druitt is impossible. If I see a discussion thread on a suspect I think ludicrous I don’t bother posting on it.

                              Why does that very mild statement of a personal opinion annoy you so much? It’s not even as if I’ve tried promoting him or defending him tooth and nail on here. All that I’ve said is that Joanna’s excellent find in no way eliminates Druitt. Some feel that it reduces his likelihood further and that’s absolutely fine personally but I don’t. This again is simply my own opinion, posted on a Forum discussing this topic.

                              You are the one getting angry.
                              Regards

                              Michael🔎


                              " When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable......is probably a little bit boring "

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

                                I hasten to add that I don't believe anything like that actually happened in 1888. I doubt the police suspected Druitt before his suicide, and I'm sceptical that they suspected Aaron Kozminski as early as 1888.
                                Regardless, at the very least Sims launches the idea that a suicide would work as a confession. It reflects, I believe, the ideas of the era.
                                "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X