How Are The Mighty Fallen

[Trevor Marriott]

I am keeping up but having trouble seperating the wheat from the chaffe so far not much wheat to be found !

Thanks Caz, much appreciated.

Sorry to repeat myself yet again.

1. The person from whom Macnaghten probably learned about Montie Druitt is the Tory MP Henry Farquharson, in 1891. This line of argument can be found in two secondary sources; 'The West of England MP -- Identified' by Andrew Spallek, and 'The Man Who Hunted Jack the Ripper' by Evans and Connell.

"Probably" what sort of an answer is that and 3 years after the crimes ceased. You base all of your arguments on what someone probably said. We should only be interested in primary sources and then only with corroboration.

2. Ostrog's inclusion is a puzzle, for sure. I subscribe to the theory that Macnaghten put him there because he knew he was NOT the Ripper. He was a straw man, one in no position to sue, to make up a short list for the Liberal Home Sec. Macnaghten knew that to have just Druitt and Kosminski would look indecisive, or that there was a split at the top of CID -- which there was. But add a third 'unlikely' suspect and you have camouflage. Moreover, a suspect who combines features of Druitt and Kosminski: a foreign doctor. For that reason Ostrog is also a stand-in for a genuine contemporaneous 'unlikely' suspect and dodgy, foreign medico: Dr Tumblety. [an honest list would have been Tumblety, Pizer and Sadler -- but that was not Tory Macnaghten's potential agenda before a Liberal govt.]

Are you for real ?

3. Macnaghten began disseminating the un-named Druitt into the public domain in 1898 via his pal, crony, and fellow officer of state, Major Arthur Griffiths. In that account -- and in Sims' various writings from 1899 to 1917 -- the un-named Kosminski and the un-named Ostrog are written off. In Macnaghten's memoirs of 1914 they are not even bothered with even to debunk. There was only one chief suspect and he had been dead for years before Macnaghten discovered -- outside of normal police channels -- that Druitt was probably the Ripper.

Well the police were investigating the murders not someone outside of normal police channels. How would someone else know, and besides even if someone did come forward with any information those facts would have to be checked surely otherwise every undetcted crime would be open to abuse by writers.

If I had the time and the resources -- and I don't -- I would be scouring whatever primary sources have survived involving the Conservative Party from 1891 to 1894. To see if the sudden emergence, and then just as sudden submergence, of a 'Jack the Tory' scandal/tremor created by Farquharson/Druitt is reflected in any diaries, letters, internal party correspondence, and so on?

Well If you are going to keep championing your cause I am afraid thats what you need to do as you have come up very short with anything to substantiate any of your claims.

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

I agree with Trevor, that it is most unlikely for only the very top brass within the establishment of the police force to be within the know UNLESS the issue was mighty sensitive. The "secrecy" about a poor, Polish Jew lunatic just doesn't fit. Likewise Druitt, likewise Ostrog.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Definitions and defining quotes.

Hello all,

In my opinion, the real value of these comments from the senior officials is shown in MacNaghten's line....

" "....although very many homocidal maniacs were at one time or another, suspected." (my emphasis in bold type)

Would somebody please explain to this writer the meaning of "very many", and where the "very many" are listed, or even noted at all?
That isn't just 3, it isn't 5..very many is upward of that..and these "very many" are all walking around the vicinity of Whitechapel. Err... why in blazes name, if they WERE Homocidal maniacs were they not locked up anyway?

And why, as they were SUSPECTS, isn't there any reference to any of them from the top brass themselves? According to what we know of the missing suspects file seen by the BBC, there aren't "very many" homocidal maniacs listed there either!

Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog, the three listed, WERE NOT homocidal maniacs. Not one of them had committed murder. So they cannot be labled as such.Therefore they cannot be included in any list of "very many"

The definition of the word "homocidal" is, according to wikipedia

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/homicidal

"Of or pertaining to homicide, and particularly to one who commits such a crime as with a homicidal maniac"

Even princeton only list this meaningingful adjective as...

# S: (adj) homicidal, murderous (characteristic of or capable of or having a tendency toward killing another human being ) "a homicidal rage"; "murderous thugs"

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=homicidal

Here, the words "capable of" and "tendency toward killing another human being" are used.

Druitt? Ostrog? Kosminski? Tendency toward? Capable of?
I'm sorry, MacNaghten must have incredible intelligence and knowledge of psycologically imbalanced would-be murderers to be able to define and put these three into that catagory!

He continues...

"Personally, after much careful & deliberate consideration, I am inclined to exonerate the last 2, but I have always held strong opinion regarding No.1, and the more I think the matter over, the stronger do these opinions become. The truth, however, will never be known, and did indeed at one time lie at the bottom of the Thames if my conjections (sic) be correct."

He then lists Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog.

Hang on a minute. First he says he is inclined to exonerate Kosminski and Ostrog, and opines towards Druitt, THEN says that "the TRUTH however, will never be known, and did indeed, at one time lie at the bottom of the Thames"

That means "the truth" isn't Druitt, Kosminski nor Ostrog.

best wishes

Phil

[Jonathan H]

Thanks, Mike


In my opinion, people are are missing that the Mac Report, official version, was a politically-driven document.

You are quite right to question how Macnaghten can say that suspects were homicidal maniacs anyhow, especially since -- officially -- none of them had killed anybody, or been accused of such crimes, except maybe Ostrog trying to dangerously flee from a cop to whom he was handcuffed.

The imperative was to nullify the Cutbush potential-scandal. Plus, Mac did believe that Druitt was the Ripper, and Anderson believed the same of Kosminski [perhaps backed by Swanson].

Look at the way, in the same document, Macnaghten deals with Coles and Sadler. You would never know from his 1894 Report that this sailor was being looked at seriously for the Ripper murders. He makes it seem as if this is all just a tabloid beat-up. That's just not true. A Ripper witness, probably Lawende, was wheeled in to 'confront' Salder and said 'no'.

We would expect Mac not to mention this embarrassing detail -- and he doesn't.

The Aberconway rewrite from 1898 is a media-driven document.

It's purple prose had one purprose: to convince the two writers, Griffiths and Sims. It's an awkward juggle. Kosminski and Ostrog are major suspects -- except they are not. Druitt was the fiend alright -- except if he wasn't?

Macnaghten had to give the impression of an efficient police hunt which had not quite got to Druitt in time. That's why the unreliable 'fairly good' family seem to live with Druitt at Blackheath, yet only 'suspect' his guilt?! Mac is trying to have it both ways; that the 'police' knew, and yet didn't quite know -- but not our fault the swine avoided justice.

It worked.

In Griffiths' book the Ripper murders are excluded from the chapter on police failures. The Major also changed 'family' into 'friends' to avoid a libel suit, just as Macnaghten had already changed the 'son of a surgeon' into 'said to be a doctor', and then simply 'doctor', for the same reason.

To Phil Carter

In my opinion, Druitt and Kosminski were twin, too-late chief suspects. That is why there are two of them, favoured by different police chiefs. It is why Macnaghten carefully veiled this factor from first the Home Office [never sent] and then his literary cronies.

Whereas, Mac's memoirs admitted that the un-named Druitt was not a contemporaneous suspect, to the 1888 investigation -- exactly the opposite of what he claimed in the two versions of his slippery Report.


That is just a theory, but it is one I argue which makes sense of all the contradictory bits and pieces, without loose ends. Of course a new source could be unearthed, today, which torpedoes this paradigm ...

[Trevor Marriott]

Jonathan

Your theories seem to make sense with you but it seems no one concurs with you.

You have to accept that if either Coles of Mackenzie were Ripper victims then you theory goes up the swanee river and is lost for ever.

Anyone dismissing either murder outright is very naieve and foolish to many similarities.

[Jonathan H]

To Trevor

I agree I'm alone in RipperLand. Not necessarily outside of it. Try and appreciate that I realise that what I write is considered by many on these Boards to be pure heresy.

That is not the case outside it, where I have been with people who look at the surviving sources and can see that there are strong, though forever inconclusive, arguments which can be mounted for Druitt, Kosminski and Tumblety as the Ripper.

That does not make them right and you wrong. Just that I am not alone, for what this is worth, quite as much as you assume.

I also agree that if Coles is a Ripper victim then that's the end of the road for Druitt, Tumblety and Kosminski -- and should be.

Furthermore, the Coles murder and the police hopes about catching the Ripper at last, points to the excruciating INCONVENIENCE of Druitt as Macnaghten's chief suspect. The tragic barrister obviously could not have killed Coles and -- much worse -- the police were embarrassingly chasing a phantom for over two years.

It would have been so much easier just to have dismissed the Druitt family's terrible 'belief' as inaccurate and hysteria-driven and ridiculous.

About a fellow Gentile Gentleman?!

Instead Macnaghten, rightly or wrongly, totally committed himself to Druitt, and thus decided, as a shrewd player of the Whitehall game, to bury that humiliating time lag for political and public consumption, until he was safely retired -- and even then his admission was ignored.

It is mostly ignored to this day.

That is why in the Edwardian Era, Abberline, Reid and Smith are so perplexed and dismissive of the 'rubbish' that is coming from George Sims, not realising that behind the famous writer's claims of this non-existent hunt for a 'Drowned Doctor' Super-suspect is none other than the current Assistant Commissioner, discreetly pulling the strings.

Also, you criticised me for sighting only secondary sources about the MP story, and not a primary source? But they are, in turn, both citing a primary source: 'The Bristol Times and Mirror' from Feb 11th 1891, which Stewart posted a pic of, for the first time, on the Druitt thread.

[Phil Carter]

The truth, the whole truth, ....

Instead Macnaghten, rightly or wrongly, totally committed himself to Druitt, and thus decided, as a shrewd player of the Whitehall game, to bury that humiliating time lag for political and public consumption, until he was safely retired -- and even then his admission was ignored.

It is mostly ignored to this day.

Hello Jonanthan,

This is EXACTLY what I am saying, quoted again below...it has been ignored for years and years...

First he says he is inclined to exonerate Kosminski and Ostrog, and opines towards Druitt, he THEN says that "the truth however, will never be known, and did indeed, at one time lie at the bottom of the Thames"

That means "the truth" isn't Druitt, Kosminski nor Ostrog.

(my emphsis in bold type, and underlined)

The use of the word, however, is crucial here. He is telling us that he has thought more and more and more, but ..."the truth, however...." shows us he is saying that none of these three are the Ripper. (see post 633)

Here, I refer also to my point about homocidal maniacs....and refer also to Martin Fido's assertion that neither Anderson nor MacNaghten were prone to lying nor boasting...

Excuse me, but from what I have just read, MacNaghten is telling us that there were "very many homocidal maniacs suspected at one time or another". Yet this is another example of a comment without evidence or proof!

So if this piece of information isn't true, then by sheer definition, he is lying.

It cannot be seriously argued that MacNaghten was telling the truth... and it cannot be argued in all common sense that he honestly had proof of very many homocidal maniacs in the vicinity of Whitechapel either!
If he was...I ask again, why the blazes weren't these known killers locked up then? (as suspects, they would be known, would they not?) and why in blazes is there no written proof of such a statement? Ever? By anyone?

There is no way around this. Put it together with Anderson the spymaster, and the total lack of proof for his comment about the Polish Jew, and what conclusion do you come to? It stinks.

What was really going on, we are not yet privy to. I maintain we are getting much closer...as long as we ignore some of the hogwash said by these two men being claimed to be the truth. Because Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog aren't the truth. MacNaghten told us that, in his own words.

Did we get the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth from Anderson and MacNaghten? "No way, Pedro", as "Del Boy" would say.

best wishes

Phil

[Jonathan H]

To Phil Carter

I see what you are getting at, but I think the stronger argument is that Macnaghten wrote this version of his Report for a tiny audience: his literary cronies.

You have to measure the Aberconway version against how they responded to this document, especially as they must have had Macnaghten's verbal contributions supporting what he wrote, now long lost to us.

They did not see it as ambiguous.

For example, Griffiths did not include the Ripper amongst Scotland Yard stuff-ups, and Sims thought this was the Ripper, 'undoubtedly a doctor', as the famous writer thought he had access to the content of the 'Home Office Report', one which was 'definitive', 'exhaustive' and 'final'.

I agree: Macnaghten was lying about much of this, though I think -- on balance -- he was sincere about Druitt's guilt.

One of the strongest arguments against Macnaghten being so certain of Druitt is put by Stewart Evans. That whatever [self-appointed police propagandist] Macnaghten might tell credulous cronies, or claim via self-serving memoirs, in the official version of his Report, Feb 1894, Druitt is a minor and unlikely suspect against whom there is no proof whatsoever -- not even its 'shadow'. That this opinion carries more weight being on the official record.

[jason_c]

Does anyone have a link to the Aberconway version of the memorandum?

[Jonathan H]

Tragically the original primary source has been lost, and perhaps even more tragic is that to my knowledge no complete copy of it exists.

In secomdary sources, Cullen and Farson and Begg [with a couple of tiny errors] and Evans and Rumbelow -- and even Knight -- we have the suspects section, and its Druitt-driven preamble.

[Chris]

Tragically the original primary source has been lost, and perhaps even more tragic is that to my knowledge no complete copy of it exists.

We discussed this before, didn't we?

As far as I know, there's no reason to think it has been lost. It was certainly seen in the late 1980s, an unpublished part of it was quoted in 1994 by Philip Sugden, and Paul Begg wrote in 2004 that it was still in the possession of the family.

[Jonathan H]

Then let me put it this way, I have never seen the Aberconway Version in its entirety, and do not know who has it -- for certain -- to be able to analyze it in its entirety?

[robhouse]

Does anyone know the exact month of Anderson's retirement? I am having trouble finding it.

Thanks.

Rob H

[Chris]

Does anyone know the exact month of Anderson's retirement? I am having trouble finding it.

According to the report below, from the Otago Witness of 3 July 1901, he "retired in May, on attaining his sixtieth birthday". And according to Adrian Morris's dissertation (http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...lincastle.html) his birthday was 29 May.

[The Good Michael]

Chris,

That New Zealand newspaper website is a great resource. It's pretty huge.

Mike