Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jack the Ripper : The Macnaghten Memoranda

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

  • #76
    Thanks Simon,
    to which one can only add---well they would say that wouldnt they?

    Comment


    • #77
      Hi AP and Natalie,

      I agree. The MM is as bent as a nine-bob note.

      The whole argument about CHC being retired at the time of the Sun articles is so much moonshine. The important thing is that in March 1891 he was at Scotland Yard, with six months to go before his retirement.

      I'm certain you've worked in a big organization and know the dynamics of inter-office politics/gossip. At the time of THC's arrest what's the bet that Anderson, Swanson, Littlechild, Abberline or even Macnaghten himself didn't sidle up to Uncle Charles, nudge him in the ribs and say something along the lines of, "Fess up, Charlie, what's your family been up to?"

      At the time of THC's arrest all the top brass at Scotland Yard would have made it their business to know whether or not he was related to Superintendent Charles Cutbush.

      Comment


      • #78
        Simon,
        Thats how it has always looked to me,actually.That office gossip spreads like wild fire----as did Fleet Street gossip come to that!

        Comment


        • #79
          Hi All,

          When did the police first arrive at the conclusion that neither Druitt, Kosminski nor Ostrog was Jack the Ripper?

          It must have been at some time prior to February 1891, otherwise they wouldn't have asked Joseph Lawende if he could identify James Sadler as the man "seen with Eddowes" in Church Passage.

          Yet three years later, in February 1894, Macnaghten named these three non-starters in his now-famous memorandum.

          Go figure.

          Regards,

          Simon

          Comment


          • #80
            Good point Simon..very good point if I may say so.

            It might just be that Macnaghten was oblivious to the 1891 attempt to finger Sadler for the Coles murder when they used Lawende. They even used Lawende again AFTER 1894 to size up Grainger...

            My guess...just one of a few because I've been trying to focus on the document's purpose after reading about Inspector Race in SPE's latest book...would be that Macnaghten simply selected three names from a number of men's names should the belief in a need to respond to the Sun series of articles materialize....or something along those lines. The MM is becoming more of a curiosity than a powerful document as time goes by to me in regard to what they hoped to accomplish with its fabrication. I doubt that they could use the names of the men...Ostrog wasn't even around...and I get this weird feeling that the MM was a haphazardly constructed document ( errors on Druitt, Ostrog's name even being on it ) that was sort of like a rough draft which wouldn't have been used if the time came for someone to use it as a form of official response to the series in the paper.

            We now know that someone from Scotland Yard did respond to Inspector Race's comments on the individual at Dartmoor ( which in fact was Broadmoor), without providing other names of men, in the Morning Leader on February 16th,1894. The response was succint and to the point and made in almost a casual,amusing manner...as if what Race presented to the press in violation of police policy was nothing to get upset about in the first place. Thats my view of everyone getting all wound up about Cutbush and the subsequent Macnaghten memoranda...just a whole lot of hot air.
            To Join JTR Forums :
            Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

            Comment


            • #81
              The 3B rule

              Hi Howard,

              Thanks. I'd completely forgotten about the 1895 William Grant Grainger identification.

              It makes even more nonsense of the Macnaghten Memorandum.

              Never forget the 3B Rule — Bullshit Baffles Brains.

              Regards,

              Simon

              Comment


              • #82
                Useful

                Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                Hi Howard,
                Thanks. I'd completely forgotten about the 1895 William Grant Grainger identification.
                It makes even more nonsense of the Macnaghten Memorandum.
                Never forget the 3B Rule — Bullshit Baffles Brains.
                Regards,
                Simon
                It might be useful here to see the actual wording of the May 7, 1895 Pall Mall Gazette article on this alleged identification -

                Added to these circumstances there is one person whom the police believe to have actually seen the Whitechapel murderer with a woman a few minutes before that woman's dissected body was found in the street. That person is stated to have identified Grainger as the man he then saw. But obviously identification after so cursory a glance, and after the lapse of so long an interval, could not be reliable; and the inquiries were at length pulled up in a cul-de-sac.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Interesting to Note

                  Originally posted by SPE View Post
                  It might be useful here to see the actual wording of the May 7, 1895 Pall Mall Gazette article on this alleged identification -
                  Added to these circumstances there is one person whom the police believe to have actually seen the Whitechapel murderer with a woman a few minutes before that woman's dissected body was found in the street. That person is stated to have identified Grainger as the man he then saw. But obviously identification after so cursory a glance, and after the lapse of so long an interval, could not be reliable; and the inquiries were at length pulled up in a cul-de-sac.
                  It is interesting to note the actual wording of this report of this identification of Grant [Grainger]. It further bolsters my contention that the alleged attempted identification of 'Kosminski' was a means to an end rather than being carried out with any idea of actual value in a prosecution.

                  For here, we see, there was apparently a positive identification by the 'Ripper witness' (presumed to be Lawende) but no further action was taken on it. Thus, as I stated with regard to the 'identification' described by Anderson and Swanson, the police probably hoped that if the suspect (in this case Grant) realised he had been identified they might obtain a confession. The positive identification obviously failed to elicit any such confession and no further action was taken (the identification actually being forensically useless for the reasons described, i.e. the brief witness sighting and the length of time that had elapsed).

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Hi All,

                    Logic dictates that the attempted identification of Thomas James Sadler in 1891 as the man seen by Lawende at the end of Church Row rules out any official belief that Druitt or Kosminski was the "Ripper". If either were seriously suspected, why not drop the subject?

                    But with the case of Reginald Traherne Bassett Saunderson, arrested for murder in December 1894, logic flew out of the window.

                    Democrat Standard [Ohio], 1st February 1895—

                    "Jack the Ripper Dead?

                    "In connection with young Saunderson's insane crime and the Kensington stabbings the authorities have been extremely alarmed lest another Jack the Ripper scare should seize upon the popular mind. This led them recently to make the important announcement that they have reason to believe that the author of the Jack the Ripper crimes has been several years in his grave—London Correspondent."

                    Aaron Kosminski died in 1919, so according to the above press account he couldn't have been the "Ripper". Druitt died in December 1888. This puts him back on the short-list. It is not known when Thomas Sadler died.

                    Eleven days later William Grant [Grainger] was arrested in Spitalfields, and the "Ripper" had returned from the grave. Druitt and Kosminski were in the clear.

                    The "Herald" [US], 12th February 1895—

                    "The London police are of the opinion that at last they have got safely under lock and key the long-sought assassin known as 'Jack the Ripper', whose series of atrocious murders and mutilations, principally at Whitechapel, have extended over a period of years . . ."

                    Pall Mall Gazette, 7th May 1895—

                    "Since the cessation of the Whitechapel murders there has been no lack of theories accounting for the disappearance of the author of those crimes, "Jack the Ripper," as he is called, in consequence of a series of letters so signed, purporting, rightly or wrongly, to come from the murderer.

                    "The theory entitled to most respect, because it was presumably based upon the best knowledge, was that of Chief Inspector Swanson, the officer who was associated with the investigation of all the murders, and Mr. Swanson believed the crimes to have been the work of a man who is now dead."

                    The key word here is "presumably".

                    The Pall Mall Gazette continued—

                    "Latterly, however, the police have been busy investigating the case of William Grant Grainger, who was caught in the act of wounding a woman in the abdomen, in a street close by Buck's-row, the scene of the first of the real series of Whitechapel murders . . ."

                    "The theory entitled to most respect" was that of Chief Inspector Swanson, who believed "the crimes to have been the work of a man who is now dead . . ."

                    Aaron Kosminski, banged up in an asylum, still had twenty-four years to live. So he's off the radar.

                    Montague John Druitt may well have been the "Ripper". But, if that was the case, why for the past seven years had the police so diligently protected the reputation of a [possibly gay] minor barrister and smalltime Blackheath schoolteacher by investigating other "suspects" in his stead?

                    This brings us to the Swanson Marginalia.

                    The annotations on Page 138 of Anderson's TOSOMOL are perfectly understandable. All Swanson did was pencil in his remembrance of remarks from Anderson's Blackwoods article which did not appear in Anderson's book.

                    Check it out.

                    Swanson's end-paper annotations are something completely different. Here we are dealing with an entirely unknown somebody trying to screw with history.

                    Regards,

                    Simon

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Oh man, where to begin? Nah, forget it. Who's the one screwing with history?

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        A means to an end?

                        Stewart,

                        I bow to your knowledge but ive never come across such an identification.

                        Has this kind of thing happened before?

                        Monty

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Following

                          Originally posted by Monty View Post
                          Stewart,
                          I bow to your knowledge but ive never come across such an identification.
                          Has this kind of thing happened before?
                          Monty
                          Neil, are you following me (or my posts) around??? Talk about a cyberstalker!

                          The identification would have been carried out as a normal one. If the confession followed there would have been no problem with the fact that the quality of the identification was not very good. As the identification failed, and given that there was no other good evidence, then no further action (i.e. charge) would have followed regarding the Ripper murders (as we see it didn't, despite the fact that the PMG article states that the identification was positive). It is this that leads me to suspect that the police were hoping for a confession, but in the event didn't get one.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Stewart,

                            Gotcha. Many thanks for explaining.

                            So, in the context of procedure, would this failed ID have been recorded in the casefile?

                            Cheers
                            Monty


                            PS I like the fluffy bunny slippers...not that Im hiding under your desk or anything

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Records

                              Originally posted by Monty View Post
                              Stewart,
                              Gotcha. Many thanks for explaining.
                              So, in the context of procedure, would this failed ID have been recorded in the casefile?
                              Cheers
                              Monty

                              PS I like the fluffy bunny slippers...not that Im hiding under your desk or anything
                              Obviously there would have been records at the time, e.g. the record of detention, the i.d. procedural papers, pocket book entries, daily occurrence records and so on. These would have been destroyed many years ago I should think. The i.d. in this case (Grant) related to offences not connected with the charge that he was under arrest for, therefore there would be no need for inclusion on the actual casefile.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Stewart,

                                Again, many thanks.

                                I needed clarification as there is so much misinformation, assumption and lack of knowledge of this procedure that it rather clouds the reality.

                                Cheers
                                Monty

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X