Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Did Abberline think MJD was a Doctor?

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Patrick S View Post
    I've always attributed it to the frailty of human memory. Abberline was speakign 20+ years after the murders and he may have confused his professions. Doctor, rather than lawyer. He may have confused the father with the son: Druitt's father was a doctor. His memory may have been influenced by the fact that many believed the killer was a medical man, thus making Druitt "a doctor" in this telling.

    Just my thoughts.
    Hi Patrick.

    I was really thinking about McNaughten's incorrect description of Druitt's occupation which was only six years after the murders, not Abberline's response in the PMG.

    Even though I think your points still hold true, how many of us really remember well people who we hear about at work, but never meet six years earlier?

    There does seem many possible reasons for the confusion and I somehow doubt it started with McNaughten, just that his is the earliest surviving documented example of it we know about.

    I think it may be the case both Abberline and McNaughten's recollection of the information may have been correct as it was told to them.
    Last edited by DirectorDave; 07-14-2017, 03:44 PM.
    My opinion is all I have to offer here,

    Dave.

    Smilies are canned laughter.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by DirectorDave View Post
      If anyone is reading this then it means after a few years of trying to post this I've finally plucked up the courage to hit "submit reply".

      Does anyone else think there is a possibility Druitt's initials "MD" could be a contributing factor to him being incorrectly said to be a Doctor?

      Even more silly I know, but MJ Druitt the name sounds like it should be a Doctor's name?

      Feel free to call me daft...I don't care I've finally said it.
      Writing years after the even it is possible.

      Or that the "private information" got confused.

      You see Mm Doesn't say "His family believed him to be the killer" but rather along the lines of "From private information I have received his family believed him to be the killer".

      So what if the information came from a third party who said something like
      You know Melville, Montie Druitt's folk believe he was Jack the Ripper, now I know his dad, a doctor down Dorset way, thinks so because of some things he found after the lad died in the Thames.

      To be honest I have no trouble with MM then thinking Montie was either also a doctor or simply getting confused about who was being referred to as a doctor.
      G U T

      There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

      Comment


      • #18
        You can state most emphatically," said Mr. Abberline, "that Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago. It is simple nonsense to talk of the police having proof that the man is dead. I am, and always have been, in the closest touch with Scotland Yard, and it would have been next to impossible for me not to have known all about it. Besides, the authorities would have been only too glad to make an end of such a mystery, if only for their own credit."

        Abberline is saying he is not stupid or out of touch.


        "Yes," said Mr. Abberline, "I know all about that story. But what does it amount to? Simply this. Soon after the last murder in Whitechapel the body of a young doctor was found in the Thames, but there is absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him. A report was made to the Home Office about the matter, but that it was 'considered final and conclusive' is going altogether beyond the truth. Seeing that the same kind of murders began in America afterwards, there is much more reason to think the man emigrated. Then again, the fact that several months after December, 1888, when the student's body was found, the detectives were told still to hold themselves in readiness for further investigations seems to point to the conclusion that Scotland Yard did not in any way consider the evidence as final."

        So.. For several months detectives waited for orders to investigate Druitt further but nothing ever came of it. Perhaps the only information police ever had on Druitt was from that initial flawed report. It must have been decided Druitt was not important enough to warrant further investigation. Perhaps he was not a viable suspect or a better suspect was found.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Leather_Apron View Post
          You can state most emphatically," said Mr. Abberline, "that Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago. It is simple nonsense to talk of the police having proof that the man is dead. I am, and always have been, in the closest touch with Scotland Yard, and it would have been next to impossible for me not to have known all about it. Besides, the authorities would have been only too glad to make an end of such a mystery, if only for their own credit."

          Abberline is saying he is not stupid or out of touch.


          "Yes," said Mr. Abberline, "I know all about that story. But what does it amount to? Simply this. Soon after the last murder in Whitechapel the body of a young doctor was found in the Thames, but there is absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him. A report was made to the Home Office about the matter, but that it was 'considered final and conclusive' is going altogether beyond the truth. Seeing that the same kind of murders began in America afterwards, there is much more reason to think the man emigrated. Then again, the fact that several months after December, 1888, when the student's body was found, the detectives were told still to hold themselves in readiness for further investigations seems to point to the conclusion that Scotland Yard did not in any way consider the evidence as final."

          So.. For several months detectives waited for orders to investigate Druitt further but nothing ever came of it. Perhaps the only information police ever had on Druitt was from that initial flawed report. It must have been decided Druitt was not important enough to warrant further investigation. Perhaps he was not a viable suspect or a better suspect was found.
          Its a question of who do you believe and why do you believe them?

          Abberline was there and directly involved in the investigation at the time of the murders so his knowledge of the case and all matters connected to it are second to none.

          Macnaghten was not even in the police service at the time of the murders and prepared his questionable memo 6 years after the death of Druitt from information presumably which was on file, much of which may have been hearsay or even malicious.

          You have to remember that even today when these type of offences occur today the police receive many reports from the general public along the lines of "I think it is ............. or "Perhaps you should look at................... but all are looked at but very few of these reports have any foundation. I think researchers are placing too much importance on what MM wrote simply because of who he was. After all, he was not the only senior officer who we now know was not totally correct in their writings in later years.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Leather_Apron View Post
            So.. For several months detectives waited for orders to investigate Druitt further but nothing ever came of it. Perhaps the only information police ever had on Druitt was from that initial flawed report. It must have been decided Druitt was not important enough to warrant further investigation. Perhaps he was not a viable suspect or a better suspect was found.
            Did the detectives hold themselves ready for further investigations of Druitt after his death, or for investigating other suspected men, or both?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Leather_Apron View Post
              You can state most emphatically," said Mr. Abberline, "that Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago. It is simple nonsense to talk of the police having proof that the man is dead. I am, and always have been, in the closest touch with Scotland Yard, and it would have been next to impossible for me not to have known all about it. Besides, the authorities would have been only too glad to make an end of such a mystery, if only for their own credit."

              Abberline is saying he is not stupid or out of touch.
              On the contrary, I detect a slight hint of indignation in those few lines.

              Abberline had been retired some 10 years by the time of this interview. He may have kept touch with old friends within the department though we know from surviving records that different high officials always had a variety of personal theories. Macnaghten never said the department as a whole investigated Druitt, so even if we knew Abberline's close friends, they may not have been close friends of Macnaghten.

              How do you think Abberline came up with his own personal suspicions about George Chapman?, it was not from any so-called 'evidence'.


              "Yes," said Mr. Abberline, "I know all about that story. But what does it amount to? Simply this. Soon after the last murder in Whitechapel the body of a young doctor was found in the Thames, but there is absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him. A report was made to the Home Office about the matter, but that it was 'considered final and conclusive' is going altogether beyond the truth. Seeing that the same kind of murders began in America afterwards, there is much more reason to think the man emigrated. Then again, the fact that several months after December, 1888, when the student's body was found, the detectives were told still to hold themselves in readiness for further investigations seems to point to the conclusion that Scotland Yard did not in any way consider the evidence as final."
              Abberline had been out of service for a decade, so confusing the barrister with a doctor is not an insurmountable problem.
              What I find odd is how easily Abberline resorts to speculation in order to justify the escape of JtR (murders in America?).
              The fact he acknowledges the police were still on the alert several months following the suicide only confirms what I supposed Macnaghten to have said, that Druitt only came under suspicion long after the suicide, not immediately after.
              It took many months for the whole story about Druitt to surface.


              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment

              Working...
              X