How Are The Mighty Fallen

[Jonathan H]

Actually Montie Druitt was not a convenient suspect, he was extremely INCONVENIENT, because the excruciating implication was that the police had been chasing a phantom for over two years -- and covering themselves with egg over Sadler mere days after the real, very dead, Ripper surfaced in the 'West of England MP' titbit.

This is what is meant by Macnaghten's chaptyer title: 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper', about which -- so far as I know -- nobody has ever, ever commented on the meaning of this allusive title

Being such an inconvenient suspect generated the need of Mac to redact Druitt BACK INTO THE 1888 investigation, via Griffiths and Sims, disguised as a real-life Dr Jekyll.

Mac came close to admitting all this was fiction in his memoirs, not that some people on these Boards will read, or re-read them.

Perhaps that is Mac's ultimate comeuppance?

These cliches which swirl around RipperLand are just so hopeless, so lame, so dogmatic, and removed from common sense, except, of course, that they are a way of not facing 'the unbearable'; that it could be the original suspect after all.

Macnaghten had no reason to choose Druitt and every reason to exonerate a fellow Gentile Gentleman, to rescue him perhaps from hysterical family gossip.

It's possible that Mac was a dunderhead who let himself be fooled by his old Etonian pal Farquharson, another dunderhead.

Yes, that is possible.

Macnaghten may have thought he knew what he was talking about, but he didn't.

Yes, that's certainly possible.

But what so many people here cannot deal with is that the opposite is possible too.

That Macnaghten had in MP Henry Farquharson a source who knew perfectly well who Montie Druitt was, and what he had done for a living, and his correct age, and so on.

Here was a politician who could have uniquely believed that Jack the Ripper had voted for him?

Therefore, the police chief may have known everything. He may have seen evidence, from the Druitt family, which overwhelmed his own prejudice against the Ripper being 'one of us', and which he later destroyed.

That's possible TOO.

But for some people here that the entire amateur inquiry could be turn full circle back to what ... 1965, then back to 1959, and before that 1898 when the un-named Druitt first appeared before the public, in garbled form, and then to 1891 when the case was solved to the satisfaction of the Deputy Head of CID, later the Assistant Commissioner. One, unlike Anderson, who was never associated in the public mind with the police failure, and thus with no known axe to grind, and nothing to prove.

[Steven Russell]

Steven,

But it seems that Mac found Druitt to be a convenient answer so far after the fact. There is no real evidence that he knew anything.

Mike

I agree. All I am saying is that the "bottom of the Thames" comment clearly refers to Druitt, an assertion which previous posters have disputed.

Best wishes,

Steve.

[The Good Michael]

Steven,

But it seems that Mac found Druitt to be a convenient answer so far after the fact. There is no real evidence that he knew anything.

Mike

[Steven Russell]

Surely, Macnaghten's reference to the truth lying at the bottom of the Thames is a clear indictment of Druitt? While I do not believe MJD was the Ripper, it seems to me that Macnaghten certainly might have.

Best wishes,

Steve.

[Phil Carter]

"Criminal Reform" 1904.

Hello Mike,

Indeed it is. I just came across this from 28th December1904 from the same source. It has the title "Criminal Reform" I found this interesting and relates to Sir Robert Anderson's views on criminals. Apologies to all if seen before.

best wishes

Phil

[The Good Michael]

Chris,

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

Mike

[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.

[robhouse]

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

Thanks.

Rob H

[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?

[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]

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.

[jason_c]

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

[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.

[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 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.