How certain was Mac?

[Jonathan H]

One of the persistent modern myths of the Jack the Ripper 'mystery' is that Anderson was the only senior policeman to claim he had actually solved the case, or words/notion to that effect, eg. a definitely, ascertained fact.

But there are a number of primary sources which arguably disprove this paradigm of several secondary sources, including Mac's own words from 1913 -- such as the following:

Sunday Independent
June 8, 1913

Column by J.H. Cox

'... Sir Melville is a sherlockholmeslikeman ... the secret as to the real identity of Jack-the-Ripper will perish with him. He could tell the whole history of that fascinating personage. But he won't. He said to the reporter--"Jack the Ripper was a maniac. I have a very clear idea of who he was and how he committed suicide. But that with other secrets will never be revealed by me.'

[Jonathan H]

'... came to me subsequently ...'

Or this found by Chris Scott:

Pittsburgh Press
6 July 1913

'Following out his observation regarding the necessity of the ideal detective "keeping his mouth shut," Macnaughton (sic) carried into retirement with him knowledge of the identity of perhaps the greatest criminal of the age, Jack the Ripper, who terrorized Whitechapel in 1888 by the fiendish mutilation and murder of seven women.
"He was a maniac, of course, but not the man whom the world generally suspected," said Sir Melville. "He committed suicide six months before I entered the department, and it is the one great regret of my career that I wasn't on the force when it all happened. My knowledge of his identity and the circumstances of his suicide came to me subsequently. As no good purpose could be served by publicity, I destroyed before I left Scotland Yard every scrap of paper bearing on the case. No one else will ever know who the criminal was - nor my reasons for keeping silent."

Note the proprietorial claim he makes to the Ripper's identity. He alone knows on the Force, and he takes the knowledge with him. Whereas the rest of the 'world' are on quite the wrong track (Anderson? Forbes Winslow? 'The Sun'?)

In his memoirs, Macnaghten claims to have started at the Met on June 1st 1889. Give or take a day, that is just about exactly six months after Druitt drowned himself, rather then the near seven months he implies in his Report(s), and hustled to Griffiths and Sims.

That word 'subsequently' is the first public hint of a posthumous revelation, not one already on file about this suspect. This aspect, obvious from the primary sources between 1888 and 1891, was explicitly confirmed by Mac's memoirs the following year.

[Hunter]

Jonathan,

We really don't know if Macnaghten got any information from 'primary sources' or not. He seemed to not get any primary source information about Cutbush and his relations.

[Jonathan H]

To Hunter

I would counter-argue it this way: Mac always wrote for effect and never made any 'errors'.

It is very unlikely that a competent, hands-on, compassionate police administrator, one know for his incredible memory and obessed with the Ripper case, would not have sought first-hand information from the Druitt family, or a Druitt.

That Mac the 'action man' would not have checked out the MP's tale for himself.

Macnaghten's dilemma was that he agreed with the family.

What then ...?

Druitt could never be arrested but he was, as far as you can be sure about a dead person, Jack the Ripper.

I think that Macnaghten knew that since the story had partially leaked once, in 1891, it could do so again and he prepared a document of state -- because of 'The Sun' articles -- though never sent and only archived, which tried to do many things at once.

To cut the know to 'keep everyone satisfied'.

One of those things was to try and debunk Inspector Race as a man with a grudge who was libelling the family of a retired and distinguished polcie officer, Cutbush.

Mac experimented with a cheeky lie: that Cutbush was related to the the un-named madman in 'The Sun' to sufficienly frighten the Liberal govt; that this tarbaby might be headed for the libel courts.

Mac even claimed that Cutbush was 'well-known' and implied that the cop had been the de-facto father of the poor, ill boy.

As it was, this was a trigger never pulled.

Only the cronies and family saw this deceitful reference in the alternate version, itself deceitfully different, where it didn't matter.

[Jonathan H]

The Secret of the Suicide?

More primary sources on Mac's certainty:


Washington Post (Washington, D.C.)
4 June 1913
FATE OF JACK THE RIPPER

Retiring British Official Says Once Famous Criminal Committed Suicide
London Cable to the New York Tribune
The fact that "Jack the Ripper", the man who terrorized the East End of London by the murder of seven women during 1888, committed suicide, is now confirmed by Sir Melville Macnaughten (sic), head of the criminal investigation department of Scotland Yard, who retired on Saturday after 24 years' service.

Sir Melville says:

"It is one of the greatest regrets of my life that "Jack the Ripper" committed suicide six months before I joined the force.

That remarkable man was one of the most fascinating of criminals. Of course, he was a maniac, but I have a very clear idea as to who he was and how he committed suicide, but that, with other secrets, will never be revealed by me."


And:


‘The Colonist’, July 25th, 1913:

'Sir Melville Macnaghten, the retiring head of the Criminal Investigation Department of Scotland Yard, has imparted the interesting information to an interviewer that he knows the identity and the fate of “Jack the Ripper”. That “fascinating criminal”, as Sir Melville calls him, with professional partiality, committed suicide for a reason which he knows but has determined to keep secret. Up to the present we had been under the belief that “Jack the Ripper” had been identified with a criminal lunatic who died in Broadmoor a good many years ago. From his reticence as to the identity of the criminal, we conclude he was not the Jewish butcher he was believed to be, but some maniac of superior position.’

What is the secret reason that the un-named Druitt committed suicide?

Surely, it is not a secret that the fiend must have been tormented, especially if you have read Griffiths and Sims and the reproductions of that notion in the popular media (eg. Frank Richardson, Ford Maddox Ford, et. al.)

eg. Did he not kill himself immediately after the horror of Miller's Court?

Perhaps not, for in 1913 and 1914 Macnaghten claimed that the murderer had taken his own life on Nov. 10th, which is twenty-fours later. In his memoirs Mac hinted that it might have been even longer.

Was the secret the confession to a priest, a detail which never appears in any Mac document, but arguably a veiled version does perhaps appear in Sims: a Mac source-by-proxy.

[Jonathan H]

George Sims' Drowned Doctor Super-suspect

I am here comparing Sims' largest piece on the Ripper, his 'Who was Jack the Ripper?' for the prestigious 'Lloyds Weekly' magazine on Sept. 22nd 1907.

What we see here between this source and Mac's 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper' seven years later is the same certainty, a judgement constrained only by the lack of due process for the sucided Super-suspect (Mac goes even further by elimiating all other suspects).

Both of these sources, arguably, derive from Macnaghten and his 'Aberconway' document, with additional material (eg. the Jewish suspect worked in a Polish hospital; the Russian doctor suspect was in an asylum abroad, the English doctor had a trim beard and walked back to his home, six miles away, after each murder; the other major suspect was an American medico) which all must have been given verbally to Sims' for his various writings in the Edwardian Era, including this one.

But what we also see is that Macnaghten pulled back and even debunked certain notions he he had anonymously disseminated to the public via his famous writer/chum.

Here is the most significant example, though there are several:

Sims, 1907:

'It would be impossible for the author of the Miller's-court horror to have lived a life of apparent sanity one single day after that maniacal deed. He was a raving madman them and a raving madman when he flung himself in the Thames.'

Mac. 1914:

'On the morning of 9th November, Mary Jeanette Kelly... was found murdered in a room in Miller's Court, Dorset Street ... I incline to the belief that the individual who held up London in terror ... committed suicide on or about the 10th of November 1888 ...'

That is a single day.

[Cogidubnus]

So Sims has to have been "fed" by McNaghten...let's be honest, what other logical source is there? So far, so good...(though why do I get the feeling I've been at this point before?)...

Let's be up-front Jonathan (says he naively but not unkindly)...Where are we going with this thread, that we haven't been in the past few weeks?

Best wishes

Dave

[Stephen Thomas]

So Sims has to have been "fed" by McNaghten...let's be honest, what other logical source is there?

Jonathan seems not to be able to factor into his theory the notion that MM could possibly have not been telling the truth and had simply used Druitt as a (conveniently dead) fall guy.

[Jonathan H]

To Dave

What I am doing is amassing textual evidence that Macnaghten is pointedly debunking what Sims wrote, specifically in 1907.

A source we know, moreover, that Mac contributed an unsolicited note to regarding the names and dates of the victims.

I am seeking debate on this point, that Mac, publicly and under his own name, subtly backed away from the murder and self-murder within hours.

For the old paradigm asserted that this timing was both why Mac thought Druitt was likely the fiend, and therefore being wrong about the timing discredited both this police chief and his Ripper suspect.

I quite understand if you are sick of it. That's fine. I am driven by a larger historical purpose; to revrese a train which has been going in the wrong direction for decades (excluding competing Expresses about Aaron Kosminski and Frances Tumbelty).

Before I receive another slamming, I'm being ironic.

To Stephen Thomas

In fairness to myself I have factored this in, over and over, and put a counter-argument to it, which I think is stronger. You have every right to disagree. Most do.

Look, I'm already in trouble with Dave for repeating myself -- though the Sims' quote and Mac's quite, in counterpoijnt, are new -- and so you will have to take my word for it that there are earlier posts by me that do address your perfectly, plausible theory (of the unreliablility of a slyly dissembling primary source).

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Jonathan

I quite understand if you are sick of it. That's fine. I am driven by a larger historical purpose; to revrese a train which has been going in the wrong direction for decades (excluding competing Expresses about Aaron Kosminski and Frances Tumbelty).

No I'm not by any means sick of it...far from it...just wondered if there'd be a fresh twist, and there is...

Hi Stephen

Jonathan seems not to be able to factor into his theory the notion that MM could possibly have not been telling the truth and had simply used Druitt as a (conveniently dead) fall guy.

Well whether so or not, (and I can understand strong feelings either way), I still feel it's interesting trying to reconstruct what MMs been up to!

Best wishes all

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

What's in a day?

So, probably I'm misunderstanding, and if so please correct me...

In 1907 or thereabouts MacNaghten was still feeding Sims the old line regarding the killer's mind being so disturbed by the excesses of 9th November 1888 that he throws himself into the Thames immediately: "It would be impossible for the author of the Miller's-court horror to have lived a life of apparent sanity one single day after that maniacal deed" etc

By the time of "Days of My Life" in 1914 he's quoting a one day interval: "I incline to the belief that the individual who held up London in terror ... committed suicide on or about the 10th of November 1888"

So the progression in debunking Sims has opened up the time interval from less than a day, to a day...Perhaps I'm a little thick, but whilst I suppose it represents a small shift, it's not THAT much of a debunk factor yet?

Or am I missing something?

Best wishes

Dave

[Jonathan H]

To Dave

It's 'Days of My Years', forgive the pedantry.

In my opinion, the shift of a day (Mac hints it might be longer?) is very significant, even definitive at puncturing the Old Paradigm.

For it renders the river suicide within hours, noticed by nobody, a nonsense; a handy, melodramatic 'shilling shocker' (Mac undoubtedly knew just from PC Moulson's Report that the body was found at Chiswick which is too far away for murder/self-murder within hours, with nobody noticing, hence that specific Thames location was never mentioned).

Just a single day blows the story to pieces.

This is because the 'shrieking raving fiend' is now compos?

Compos enough to do what? ... hide somewhere in Whitechapel, or back at Blackheath, until the next day and then make his way to the watery grave?

Jack must have been quite compos to clean himself up and pretend to be normal and innocent?

The story is ruined.

So, Macaghten is left with no choice: he has to drop the location of the killer's suicide to distant himself from Sims' well known tale, because it doesn't hang together anymore.

Macnaghten is a cheerful, colourful memoirist, with an eye for a dramatic, even melodramatic detail. The Thames end is perfect for his chapter about the un-named Druitt.

It's not there.

It had to go or else the stitches holding together this mishmash of fact and fiction about the 'Drowned Doctor' would show, would strain to bursting point (instead Mac ends on a different melodramatic flourish to cover the hole: about the Ripper ending one political career and threatening to end another).

The murder and self-murder within hours was originally a mistake by Farquharson (or the unknown person in Droset who told him) which Mac exploited because it hid Druitt, it was already in the public domain, and it was a short-hand way of pointing to an incriminating conjunction (a confession by action rather than words). It was the one detail about the MP tale he retained. Everthign else was veiled, but not the detail.

I argue because he wuicjly discoeverd in 1891 that it was not correct, but it was useful.

But in 1914 he pulled back enough, enough to make it unsustainable.

Consider that when Sims body-slams the Vicar of 1899, his clincher objection that the latter is not talking about the real Ripper is that there was no time to make a confession to a clergyman.

In his memoirs, Mac opened a gap in which:

1. the murder is compos enough not to be found wandering around, covered in blood, nothing left but a human husk screaming his guilt, a candidate for the madhouse.

and

2. a twenty-four gap, with a functioning Druitt somewhere below the radar and certainly not being hunted by police, is enough time to confes to clergyman, or sombeody.

The cleverness of making it maybe the 10th ('on or about ...') is that Mac can claim he meant the 9th (even though he is very clear that Kelly's mutilated remains were found on the morning of that date) to mollify Sims. Plus Macnaghten did not want to drop the surviving Druitts in it by revealing that it was three weeks later, on about Dec 1st.

The surgeon's son tale of 1891, repeated in Griffiths and Sims with modifications but with the incriminating conjunction firmaly intact, was now, in 1914 in a document under Mac's own name and for the public, quietly retired -- even repudiated -- though not the element of the 'awful glut' leading to suicidal self-revulsion.

It's just that the final, fatal spiral was not instant or immediate. And for the real Druitt, it wasn't.

[Jonathan H]

A single day, and the shield is lowered?

Where was the [un-named] Druitt if he did not kill himself within hours of the Kelly atrocity; after the 'awful glut'?

According to Macnaghten, in 1914, the murderer was not still lurking in Whitechapel or hiding in some bolt-hole preparing to eventually kill himself .

' ... I do not think that there was anything of religious mania about the real Simon Pure, nor do I believe that he had ever been detained in an asylum, nor lived in lodgings.'

So not a lodger -- in the conventional sense -- and not anywhere near an asylum.

Where was he?

'I incline to the belief that the individual who held up London in terror resided with his own people ; that he absented himself from home at certain times, and that he committed suicide on or about the 10th of November 1888, after he had knocked out a Commissioner of Police and very nearly settled the hash of one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State.'

I think that the 'absences' refer to the murderer having returned home (it must be his home for he lives there with 'his own people', which is true) after Millers Ct. and then been found missing as he had gone off to kill himself, though where and how is not even hinted at -- but he did not hang himself where he lived, or take poison in his bed.

It shows, arguably, Mac recalling accurately the broad outline of Druitt's final days: he killed Kelly, he returned home, and then was noticeable by his absence for he had taken his life, somewhere else, about a day and a night after that 'awful glut', or perhaps a bit longer.

[Cogidubnus]

It's 'Days of My Years', forgive the pedantry.

Of course it is, and it's fine you can't help what you are...

Seriously, I can see where you're coming from, but I don't see the shift to one day being that important...ok so he was trapped by what he'd previously fed Sims, but there were surely ways and means...

Dave

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

Where was Druitt after Mac's "awful glut" at Millers Court?

On Tuesday 27th November Montague John Druitt appeared as counsel at the Court of Appeal.

Regards,

Simon