How do Suspects compare?

[Jonathan H]

'Said to be a Doctor' means might not be ...

That Macnaghten sincerely and thus mistakenly thought Druitt was a doctor is a theory about certain sources, not a fact -- and arguably a redundant one.

In the one document about the un-named Druitt for public consumption, his memoirs, Macnaghten confirms no such claim about the suicided suspect.

Nor does Littlechild say that Tumblety killed himself, just that it was 'believed' that he had done so. This suggests that somebody, who should know, had informed him of this -- and yet it was not quite a definitely, ascertained fact.

Did Macnaghten so tell him, fusing bits of Druitt with Tumblety?

From 'Scoundrels Scallywags and Some Honest Men', 1929, the ex-Chief Inspector of CID Tom Divall wrote the following:

'The much lamented and late Commissioner of the CID, Sir Melville Macnaghten, received some information that the murderer had gone to America and died in a lunatic asylum there. This perhaps maybe correct, for after this news nothing was ever heard of any similar crimes being committed.'

Anderson and Swanson, for some reason, wrongly believed that 'Kosminski' had been sectioned in early 1889, and then subsequently died. And that there were not more murders of the same kind.

That is not how the police initially treated subsequent Whitechapel murders, right up to 1891.

Surely, is it not likely that all these tales originate with Macnaghten? For that comment to Divall is like a fusion of Druitt, Tumblety and 'Kosminski': the mad, the fled, and the dead.

The giveaway Mac element is the redacted notion that the police knew at the time that Kelly was the final 'Jack' murder which he conceded in his memoirs was not true.

[Cogidubnus]

Dr D

I'm tempted to say you're nearly there...despite being on the wrong thread...but are you after all? Nice posting Jonathan!

Dave

[Wickerman]

Did Macnaghten so tell him, fusing bits of Druitt with Tumblety?

From 'Scoundrels Scallywags and Some Honest Men', 1929, the ex-Chief Inspector of CID Tom Divall wrote the following:

'The much lamented and late Commissioner of the CID, Sir Melville Macnaghten, received some information that the murderer had gone to America and died in a lunatic asylum there. This perhaps maybe correct, for after this news nothing was ever heard of any similar crimes being committed.'

Jonathan.
You have raised some interesting observations in recent posts, can I ask, if there is more detail about that quote from Divall?

The reason I ask is, Macnaghten only came into office as Asst. Chief Constable in June of 1889.
So why would he receive a communication concerning the murders of the year before?

The quote appears to suggest that after Macnaghten received this news, no more murders were committed. This tends to imply he received the news about the time of the murders, not 3-4 years later.
If he was Asst. Commissioner when he received the news, then this was after 1903, so the murders were long done by then.

Maybe Divall's story is another example of confused recollections? (1929). If there was an American suspect who died in an asylum, this must have been months if not years after the murders were done.
As it stands, it is hard to say where the confusion lies, with Divall, or Macnaghten, or someone inbetween?

Regards, Jon S.

[Jonathan H]

I agree that it is a titbit, but a very appetizing one.

To me Divall, inadvertently no doubt, pulled back the curtain to show the Wizard at the controls of his myth-making disinformation.

This is the earlier quote by the same source, from the latest edition of the A to Z, p. 139:

... 'the way the bodies were dissected showed a very skilfull knowledge of anatomy on the part of the murderer'; voiced his own opinion thast the murderer was killing in a deluded attempt to stop the spread of venereal disease and concluded, 'We have never found any trace of this man, or of any connection of his, not have we been able to ascertain definitely the end of him. the much lamented ...' Then comes the Macnaghten bit.

So, what we see is the general opinion of the police is that he was never identified, plus the empty cliche of Jack-the-Surgeon, and then Macnaghten, somewhat isolated in claiming there was a prime suspect, the timing of whose fate ended the murders -- a backdated notion.

This arguably matches other sources including the new 'West of England' MP source discovered by Paul Begg.

I argue that here is a subordinate colleague to whom Macnaghten -- good ol' Mac -- talked out of one side of his mouth, and who remembered it and recorded it, perhaps ignorant of Mac's own rather opaque 1914 memoirs and even if he had been he would not necessarily have believed that it was a different suspect.

I would argue that this is the second major myth of the case: that Macnaghten was too late for the Ripper investigation.

It was a myth started by Macnaghten once he -- via Griffiths and Sims -- backdated the hunt for the maniacal doctor to 1888 (there was no such hunt or even official investigation of Druitt -- but there was one of Dr. Tumblety).

Of course Mac was too late for the 'canonical five' but nobody knew they were the only 'Jack' murders until he found the deceased Druitt.

By then he had been on the Force for a couple of years (and was also there when Aaron Kosminski was permanently sectioned, yet backdates it to a time before he joined).

My guess is that Mac told this to Divall after he had privately investigated Druitt in 1891 (having inevitably learned of Tumblety the day he started) but was not yet sure how to re-shape the Ripper's deflective profile; eg. at this point America and an asylum stay were in.

It maybe a glimpse of the original profile Mac concocted, with the data still in flux, or maybe Divall has just got it all wrong?

By 1894, if Divall is correct, Mac had decided to split some of these details (asylum, deceased) between Druitt and 'Kosminski' with the fled-to-America element left out -- but replaced by the verbal, gossipy claim that Tumblety may have committed suicide too.

Later Mac had the 'demented doctor' (Sims, 1903) having been in an asylum confessing to wanting to murder harlots. In Sims 1907, the young, American suspect -- allegedly the other major theory of the police -- seems to be a bit of Druitt (age) a bit of Tumblety (American, prime) and a bit of Wynne Baxter's medico (specimen hunter).

No wonder a perplexed Littlechild wrote his letter in 1913 trying to untangle this mutation.

Of course Littlechild had never heard of Druitt, as he was never an official suspect and was unknown to anybody at the Yard. I think that when the middle-aged doctor, affluent, reclusive, deviant, the subject of police agitation in 1888, turned up in Griffiths and Sims people like Anderson thought this must be a garbled version of Tumblety (eg. didn't Mac say he might have taken his own life after France, or something?) and left it alone.

[PaulB]

Don.
We know that Tumblety was not arrested as a Ripper suspect because we have legitimate documentation that he was arrested for "unnatural offences".
The police are not about to arrest him twice and let him out on bail for the lesser charge, that is sheer nonsense. So, he was never arrested in connection with the Whitechapel murders.

Jon,
Littlechild does not say Tumblety was 'arrested as a Ripper suspect', he says he was suspected of being Jack the Ripper, which aredifferent things. and Littlechild specifically states that 'Tumblety was arrested at the time of the murders in connection with unnatural offences'. What is being discussed here is a statement that Tumblety was suspected.

It isn't too far of a stretch to suppose that when arrested on the indecency charges that he would have been questioned about his whereabouts at the time of the murders. In fact, it could even be argued that Tumblety was arrested on the indecency charges so that he could be questioned about the murders. In fact, one might even go so far as to argue that this is what did happen and was what gave rise to the US newspapers and Tumblety's own claim that he was arrested in connection with the Ripper crimes.

Thankyou, and a sceptical eye is not about to allow the use of such material as support in an academic argument. Until the claims can be verified, those claims within the memoirs will be left out from serious scholarly debates.

One example, Josephus is our only source for the siege at Masada.
Does he speak the truth?
1) Josephus was not present.
2) He was a Romanized Jew, not trying to create sympathy for the Jewish cause.
3) Josephus was principally writing for the Roman Emperor, to put the Romans in a favourable light.

Does this mean that when ostraca was found in the ruins painted with Jewish names that the Josephus story of the last survivors drawing lots for the genocide/suicide pact must be fact?

No academic will claim the words of Josephus are proof that lots were drawn.
No scholar would be so rash.

Regards, Jon S.

Briefly turning to your Josephus example, as you are clearly aware, Josephus does not present us with a unique problem, there being a great many instances where our knowledge of events is based on a single source. Lots of questions are asked of the source in our efforts to assess its reliability:
Who was he? Was he giving a first-hand account? What was his purpose in writing? And so on and so on. Understanding the source is one of the very first steps in source analysis and what you write about Josephus emerges from that questioning.

The argument advanced by Trevor Marriott and Phil Carter here is that a document like the Swanson marginalia is 'worthless' because the story it tells is uncorroborated in the official documents. Most of the official documents are missing, including the 'suspect's file', so the absence of corroboration is just a huge red-herring. The fact is that we apply pretty much the same 'tests' and 'controls' to the marginalia or the Littlechild letter as we do to other sources. Josephus, for example, is accepted as a hugely valuable source, particularly valued for its references to Jesus and notably his brother James. Just because we lack corroboration for some of the things we're told, doesn't mean we bin it as 'worthless'. We treat it with care, with responsibility.

The same applies to other sources.

[Jonathan H]

I agree with everything in Paul's previous post.

I just wish to add that Christian monks copied and recopied the voluminous works of Flavius Josephus partly because his two, brief references to Jesus the Christ provided non-Christian evidence of their Lord's historical existence.

In fact, the much stronger argument is that the two references are crude, Christian forgeries from the Fourth Century by Bishop Eusebius, and that Josephus never referred to Jesus (or his relations), either because the saviour was such an obscure figure (he was allegedly crucified alone unlike other rebels, such as Spartacus) or did not exist at all, or 'Jesus of Nazareth' is a myth though inspired by a real figure, such as the mad prophet Jesus Ben Ananias (who was killed by a Roman catapult during the siege of Jerusalem).

For one thing, none of the early, pre-4th Century Christian fathers, who were familiar with Josephus' works, use what we call the 'Testimonium Flavianum' in their defence of the historicity of Jesus against Pagan scepticism.

[PaulB]

I agree with everything in Paul's previous post.

I just wish to add that Christian monks copied and recopied the voluminous works of Flavius Josephus partly because his two, brief references to Jesus the Christ provided non-Christian evidence of their Lord's historical existence.

In fact, the much stronger argument is that the two references are crude, Christian forgeries from the Fourth Century by Bishop Eusebius, and that Josephus never referred to Jesus (or his relations), either because the saviour was such an obscure figure (he was allegedly crucified alone unlike other rebels, such as Spartacus) or did not exist at all, or 'Jesus of Nazareth' is a myth though inspired by a real figure, such as the mad prophet Jesus Ben Ananias (who was killed by a Roman catapult during the siege of Jerusalem).

For one thing, none of the early, pre-4th Century Christian fathers, who were familiar with Josephus' works, use what we call the 'Testimonium Flavianum' in their defence of the historicity of Jesus against Pagan scepticism.

Thanks for that. Even though it is Easter, that might not be sufficient justification for going way off topic to discuss the historicity of Jesus. Indeed, some might consider such discussion to be inappropriate! You are right that there is huge argument about the Testimonium Flavianum, as inevitably there would be, but whether it is wholly or partly an interpolation by or before Eusibus (or not an interpolation at all) is questioned, especially as Origen may have seen something relating to Jesus, albeit not the whole passage as we have it. It further illustrates the point, however, that Josephus isn't discarded as 'worthless' simply because there is questionable or even highly doubtful material in it, or, as happens quite a bit, because we don't understand what it is telling us.

[harry]

Sir Basil Thomson replaced Macnaghten in 1913,so argueably would have had access to any information,of an official nature,that had been available to those who were involved in the Ripper killings.So why,as has been reported,did he favour Alexander Pedachenko to have been the ripper?

[Jonathan H]

Did he ...?

He seems to have fused Druitt and Ostrog: a Russian medico who took his own life.

This of course, again, suggests that the Mac Report -- official version -- was unknown to officialdom, or at least a dormant document so Thompson had to rely on a flailing memory.

It is also, a consequence, I argue of Mac's too opaque 1914 memoirs.

Dr. Pedachenko was William Le Queux's Rasputin-inspired fiction, from presumably an hoax document. The significance is that this flamboyant and bombastic best-selling author rejected the memoirs of Anderson and Macnaghten, and the writings of Sims to reboot the Ripper as an unsolved mystery -- which he had solved.

He was the first to do this, and would not be the last.

[PaulB]

Did he ...?

He seems to have fused Druitt and Ostrog: a Russian medico who took his own life.

This of course, again, suggests that the Mac Report -- official version -- was unknown to officialdom, or at least a dormant document so Thompson had to rely on a flailing memory.

It is also, a consequence, I argue of Mac's too opaque 1914 memoirs.

Dr. Pedachenko was William Le Queux's Rasputin-inspired fiction, from presumably an hoax document. The significance is that this flamboyant and bombastic best-selling author rejected the memoirs of Anderson and Macnaghten, and the writings of Sims to reboot the Ripper as an unsolved mystery -- which he had solved.

He was the first to do this, and would not be the last.

Thompson wrote:
'The belief of CID officers at the time was that [the Whitechapel murders]
were the work of an insane Russian doctor and that the man escaped arrest
by committing suicide at the end of 1888.' He had earlier referred to this theory in Radio Times where he referred to the doctor as a student and the suicide as drowning in the Thames.This is clearly an amalgam of Ostrog and M.J. Druitt. So arguably Thompson was aware of the Macnaghten Memorandum or something based thereon, but I don't really see why it is necessary to suppose that Thompson had any knowledge of or interest in the Ripper case. He was busy carving out his own empire, fantasising about espionage and Thelma de Lava. Well, maybe not the latter.

[Jonathan H]

It's possible, but since both versions of the Mac Report clearly differentiate between a Russian doctor and an English doctor (or might be a doctor?) who drowned himself in the Thames, I think it is more likely that Thompson has half-remembered bits and pieces of Sims.

Probably the Le Queux mythos has also contaminated his recollection.

[PaulB]

It's possible, but since both versions of the Mac Report clearly differentiate between a Russian doctor and an English doctor (or might be a doctor?) who drowned himself in the Thames, I think it is more likely that Thompson has half-remembered bits and pieces of Sims.

Probably the Le Queux mythos has also contaminated his recollection.

Yes, it does. Although he could be misremembering and conflating names in the MM, much as what's his name remembered Cutbush named as a Ripper suspect in the MMD when the MM was written specifically to exonerate him.

[Trevor Marriott]

Mr Begg
Again you throw down the gauntlet and again I pick it up and again the sabre rattling commences.

Jon,
Littlechild does not say Tumblety was 'arrested as a Ripper suspect', he says he was suspected of being Jack the Ripper, which aredifferent things. and Littlechild specifically states that 'Tumblety was arrested at the time of the murders in connection with unnatural offences'. What is being discussed here is a statement that Tumblety was suspected.

And not forgeting any grounds for his suspicion, and I am still waiting or you or anyone else to disclose them

It isn't too far of a stretch to suppose that when arrested on the indecency charges that he would have been questioned about his whereabouts at the time of the murders. In fact, it could even be argued that Tumblety was arrested on the indecency charges so that he could be questioned about the murders. In fact, one might even go so far as to argue that this is what did happen and was what gave rise to the US newspapers and Tumblety's own claim that he was arrested in connection with the Ripper crimes.

Your post clearly shows you are so out of touch with reality and I cant be bothered anymore but if i were you I wouldnt waste anymore time on trying to prove Tumbelty was a police suspect.

I also notice that Wolf Vanderlin posted something yesterday which kicks into touch part of what you and Mr Hawley seek to rely on, and the silence from him has been deafening ever since.

I must buy Mr Vanderlin a drink when i next see him


.

[Jonathan H]

Two thoughts on the so-called Loftus version.

I subscribe to the Evans-Rumbelow theory (2006) that he's just plain wrong because the Cutbush ref. makes no sense; his memory having been contaminated by Cullen's book, and therefore an unreliable source.

The real third version of the 'memo' is Macnaghten's memoir chapter as he has obviously adapted 'Aberconway' for public consumption - and under his own name.

On the other hand Loftus might be recalling accurately?

I don't think so, but this could represent Macnaghten's raw first draft as to how to deal with 'The Sun' and the Home Office: via inlcuding Cutbush as a suspect but one of three. Plus using Pizer, a genuine 1888 suspect, and turning Montague into Michael Druitt (the first name borrowed from Ostrog?) As in, this is his first draft at mixing fiction with fact.

He thought better of it, and instead made Druitt into a might-be-a-doctor and Cutbush as definitely never a Ripper suspect.

As I say I think this is less likely as I don't believe Mac would have been so politically inept as to concede Cutbush as a suspect at all.

[PaulB]

Mr Begg
Again you throw down the gauntlet and again I pick it up and again the sabre rattling commences.

I’m not throwing down any gauntlet to you, Trevor, and all you ever find to pick up is your inflated pig’s bladder on a stick which you wave around as you prance and cavort like the unfunny court jester of the message boards that you are.

Your post clearly shows you are so out of touch with reality and I cant be bothered anymore but if i were you I wouldnt waste anymore time on trying to prove Tumbelty was a police suspect.

It is very noticeable that nowhere in this whole sentence do you volunteer any reason – any reason at all – why my perfectly sensible and reasonable observation puts me out of touch with reality. Like so much of what you say on the boards, your sentence is just verbal flatulence.

For the record, although I really shouldn't bother, I am not trying to prove that Tumblety was a police suspect. Chief Inspector John Littlechild is telling you that Tumblety was a police suspect, and Littlechild was there and was in a position to know, and if you think he was wrong then you have to prove it or at least present a good and reasoned argument, and you have done neither. Instead you claim that every source is reporting hearsay, as if that negates what they say, and because you don’t understand anything about how to treat historical source documents, because your ignorance is so profound that you can actually come here and flatulate something so asinine as claiming that historians ‘automatically accept without question as gospel what has been written in the past…’, you can’t understand why your arguments are wrong.

And whilst Mike Hawley knows a great deal more about this subject than you ever will, which God knows isn’t difficult, I haven’t sought to rely on anything he has said, and if you think I have then you can produce it and show it to everyone. All I have done is to observe that in response to Mike’s lengthy and detailed post, you wrote: ‘I give up with you people that research is not from official sources so it must be hearsay.’ To which I said, correctly, that you think hearsay diminishes a source so when you encounter anything in the sources you don’t like you dismiss it as hearsay, so ‘it’s hearsay when Littlechild says it, it's hearsay when Smith says it, and its hearsay when the newspapers say it, and self-seeking publicity when Tumblety himself says it, and the reports of Anderson requesting samples of Tumblety's handwriting is a journalistic invention because you think he would already have them.’

And whether Mike Hawley’s use of Smith may not have been correct, it’s significant that Wolf highlighted it, not you.

So go away and enjoy the day, Trevor. Give the pig's bladder a rest.