Did Anderson Know

[Jonathan H]

To Natalie

Abberline is almost certainly thinking that this 'young medical student [and/or] doctor' is the 3rd missing medical student from 1888.

The figure described by Griffiths and Sims is a middle-aged physician.

The reason the ex-detective knows nothing of the Macnaghten Report, 1894 version, is because he would hardly be saying 'we' if he knew that the Assistant Commissioner had written a Report -- about a Gentile, a Jew and a Slav -- which suggested that these might be significant suspects.

In that Report, Mac writes that the Druitt family 'believed' that he was the fiend. It is not just the timing of his suicide.

Abberline knows nothing of these machinations.

If he knew that about this Report, he could hardly fail to see that Griffiths was quoting from it, or from Macnaghten directly.

He would hardly be dissing the Commissioner's suspect and then talk about saying that he must go see Macnaghten to tell him about Chapman.

The 'Drowned Doctor' is the Commissioner's suspect -- but then who would have known this in 1903?

Similarly, Abberline also does not realize that Anderson is the chief backer of the 'locked-up lunatic' suspect.

It makes perfect sense when you realize that the Mac Memoirs, the Druitt primary sources, and the MP story all dovetail perfectly with Abberline in 1903 -- Druitt was not only not a contemporaneous suspect but knowledge about him was kept close to the CID admin vest.

And why would it not be?

What could the police say? We know who the Ripper is -- now let us trash a man who cannot defend himself, who is a fellow Gentile Gentleman, send his family down the gurgler when nobody can be brought o trial.

Of course, Macnaghten will do exactly that in disguised form starting in 1898, and that is why Abberline thinks that this must be some kind of press invention. That the mighty Sims -- whom he never names -- must be being misled by totally dodgy sources. He is completely and understandably ignorant that the Ur-source is the current Commissioner.

[Chris]

Jonathan

Yes, that's precisely it. I'm simply asking what evidence you have for your assertion - which you presented as a fact, not an opinion.

But obviously I'm wasting my time.

[Natalie Severn]

Jonathan,
It is easy to state that Macnaghten "most certainly" thought this or did that,but when you are operating with either no information or only the flimsiest information about what he did or how he thought, I dont really think it will take us very far in any pursuit of the truth here.

You are right when you suggest Macnaghten is a bit of a mystery---but we do in fact know a fair bit about him.He was born in 1853 and educated at Eton.He was the overseer of the family Tea Plantations in India from 1873 until 1887 ie 14 years experience in India running a Tea Plantation [Evans and Skinner] .He joined the metropolitan police force as Assistant Chief Constable, CID in June 1889.
We know he was a loyal friend of Monro and that it was Monro who had known him in India and suggested him for the new post in Scotland Yard.
We know Macnaghten, as a loyal friend, had alerted him to Robert Anderson , "dropping him in it" in April 1910 ,when the row blew up over what Robert Anderson had said about Monro giving the "say so" to him defaming Parnell in The Times Articles of 1887 where he labelled him a " fellow traveller in terror with the Fenians" etc etc

We know he was also friendly with George Sims and that the two of them talked about the Ripper case together.

We know Macnaghten had a "crime collection" at his home that he showed to friends-including one of the alleged "ripper letters" which he had had framed.
And ofcourse we know he wrote a draft form of the 1894 memorandum and an offical version, though we cant be 100% certain who it was intended for.

I have skimmed through a library copy, several years ago of his memoirs ,"Days of My Years" but can"t remember them as being particularly noteworthy.In any case a lot that is in all these police chief"s memoirs of the time----Anderson"s, Smith"s and Macnaghten"s seem a bit "embroidered" and imprecise.

What else do we know for a fact?

Its the hard facts we need, if we are to set store by his assertions about Druitt, the evidence that he tells us he had but set fire to and destroyed.

Ask yourself this: Why tell us anything at all ---if he was told to keep it under wraps?
and then if he was trying to "disguise who Druitt was" ---

Why bother to tell us anything? Why, in particular ,go to the bother of making yourself look a prize twit and and a careless sloppy one too ,by moving the facts round so much that nobody knows who on earth you are referring too? Especially as he had already named Druitt in the 1894 memo anyway? Why not just say in his memoirs that he had been mistaken-he didnt know? Perhaps an oblique reference to where he had once identified Druitt in the year 1894 , immediately after the Cutbush as the Ripper news flash----but nothing more.

Then you have his puzzled friend Sims , the year before the memoirs are published ,writing to Littlechild asking him if he knows who DR T is?


Macnaghten we are to believe, wanted it every which way.

he did have evidence but burnt it

and thus

not a scrap of evidence

and a suspect without a name whose statistics are deliberately skewed out of recognition

One thing for certain Jonathan is this man was not looking at posterity very wisely if he thought someday all would be revealed and it could be seen he all along knew it.People who hedge their bets like that rarely come up with any real winnings.
Cheers
Norma

[Stewart P Evans]

Good Points

I by no means agree with everything Jonathan says, but he does make some good points and he is thought provoking.

A point he makes that I feel does hold some merit is the idea that the 'Aberconway version' of Macnaghten's report may not be a draft at all but a later (post 1894) version composed for Griffiths who was writing his 1898 tome Mysteries of Police and Crime. This would be another explanation for the errors, also found in Griffiths' book, perhaps a result of bad memory.

[Natalie Severn]

I by no means agree with everything Jonathan says, but he does make some good points and he is thought provoking.

A point he makes that I feel does hold some merit is the idea that the 'Aberconway version' of Macnaghten's report may not be a draft at all but a later (post 1894) version composed for Griffiths who was writing his 1898 tome Mysteries of Police and Crime. This would be another explanation for the errors, also found in Griffiths' book, perhaps a result of bad memory.

Yes,I believe Jonathan does make some good points -----and is very thought provoking. But I still cant see Macnaghten dressing his suspect up like a dog"s dinner so that nobody will recognise him.Expecially when all he had to do was gently refer readers to a memorandum he had written in 1894 but which he now retracted.

[Jeff Leahy]

Then you have his puzzled friend Sims , the year before the memoirs are published ,writing to Littlechild asking him if he knows who DR T is?

I think you'll find Sims asked who Dr D was, it was Littlechild who suggested a Dr T.

Pirate

[Chris]

A point he makes that I feel does hold some merit is the idea that the 'Aberconway version' of Macnaghten's report may not be a draft at all but a later (post 1894) version composed for Griffiths who was writing his 1898 tome Mysteries of Police and Crime. This would be another explanation for the errors, also found in Griffiths' book, perhaps a result of bad memory.

I think I'm right in saying that the full text of the Aberconway version has never been published. I've never really understood why that is, but it would certainly be easier to evaluate its relationship to the "official version" if the full text were available.

[Jonathan H]

To Chris

Neither Cullen nor Farson bothered to publish the full version, and along with the original, their copies and the 'Aberconway Version' are sadly lost.

The reason I think it is not a memo -- as in designated as such by Mac -- is that Sims did not describe it as such. and the original version from 1894, revealed only in 1974, has no title at all.

To Stewart

Thanks for that. You put a strong counter-argument too: that it is simply a fading memory -- as there were no Druitt/Ripper file to consult -- rather than the over-arching plot I have Macnaghten hatching.

Eg.

In 1898 Mac pulled out the original Report, from 1894, and looked at his own words 'said to be a doctor' and could not remember why that was in doubt? Why had he written such a peculiar line?

In fact, by 1894, he had begun to forget that Druitt was not a doctor himself but a 'son of a surgeon' which the MP had confided to him in 1891. Three years later he hedged his bets not to conceal -- but to be honest. He just could not quite recall what Farquharson had said, but knew that 'Druitt' and 'doctor' were somehow connected?

Four years after that he could not recall what it was he could not recall, and so he unconsciously fused the father with the son turning Druitt into a middle-aged physician.

This is quite typical.

Sources often become more confident and less ambiguous -- and thus less accurate -- the further they are removed from the original event. We need look no further than Anderson to observe this phenomenon in its most vain-glorious and virulent form.

To Natalie

With all due respect you are moving the goal posts.

You wrote to me about Abberline. I provided an argument as to why I think Abberline inadvertently backs the theory of Druitt as a too-late prime suspect.

Instead of addressing it you go off on multi-tangents, all of which I have addressed before. I am not saying that my arguments should convince, merely that I have addressed them before.

look, I ask people to revisit 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper' because I think the conventional wisdom is off the mark about them.

Macnaghten, in retirement, conceded something which makes sense of all the contradictory bits and pieces; Abberline, Reid, Smith, with the two versions of his Report, with the Coles/Sadler affair, Griffiths, Sims, the Littlechild Letter, and with the MP story.

No other police memoir comes close to creating such a revelatory matrix.

and, let me also just say that Macnaghten 'received orders' from nobody. He is the prime mover in the Ripper mystery, apart from the murderer.

To Pirate

Yes, that's right. It is Littlechild who is puzzled, I think, by what Sims is pompously writing about? A suicided doctor suspect he has no knowledge of? So he, the working class ex-detective initiated the letter, as politely as possible, to alert the great, upper class 'criminologist' that somebody, somewhere, had misled him: Dr T not 'Dr D'.

Littlechild thinks it must be Anderson -- but it was, as usual, Macnaghten.

[Chris]

Neither Cullen nor Farson bothered to publish the full version, and along with the original, their copies and the 'Aberconway Version' are sadly lost.

Are you sure about that?

Sugden in 1994 (p. 406) quoted part of the Aberconway version not published by either Cullen or Farson, and Begg in 2004 (p. 318) described it as "now in the possession of Sir Melville Macnaghten's descendants".

Of course, it may be that the family doesn't wish it to be published, even if there are copies in private circulation.

[Stewart P Evans]

Aberconway Papers

I think I'm right in saying that the full text of the Aberconway version has never been published. I've never really understood why that is, but it would certainly be easier to evaluate its relationship to the "official version" if the full text were available.

Yes you are quite right Chris, it certainly would be easier if we were working from a photocopy or scan of the original Aberconway papers.

I suppose that in Farson's day things were not examined in such minute detail as they are today, photocopies were rarer, and he would have seen no need to do any more than quote them. There is a good description in the A-Z and they state that there were "seven typed and numbered quarto sheets, with two handwritten inserts, the first numbered '6A'. These are described as pencil on typed sheet 6 as 'p 6A & 6B', written in ink and attached at end'. (... following the typed heading, 'Memorandum on articles which appeared in the Sun re JACK THE RIPPER on 14 Feb 1894 and subsequent dates') are in the hand of Lady Aberconway, as (according to her son) are the insert sheets..."

So all in all this is quite unsatisfactory, and we must allow, I suppose, for transcription errors from Macnaghten's original notes which appear to have not survived.

[Chris]

Yes you are quite right Chris, it certainly would be easier if we were working from a photocopy or scan of the original Aberconway papers.

Yes, but the point I'm making is that (unless I've missed something) most of us haven't even seen a transcript of the greater part of the Aberconway draft, let alone a photocopy or scan.

[Natalie Severn]

Jonathan,
With all due respect, I see it as being you who moves the goal posts to suit your theory and you who dismisses or avoids responding to the points I have raised .
Anyway, to be honest , I simply cannot see Macnaghten as being this super clever copper you make him out to be at all quite frankly.To me he comes across as being decent ,good humoured ,loyal to his friends, but rather bland and mediocre professionally , with none of the fire or intensity of purpose of say Anderson or the crucially important experience and acumen that Abberline brought to his work. I see Macnaghten as a bit of a pobs in other words.
But you carry on.Its good to have a fresh take on things so lets see how this one develops
All the Best
Norma

[Stewart P Evans]

As I Said

Yes, but the point I'm making is that (unless I've missed something) most of us haven't even seen a transcript of the greater part of the Aberconway draft, let alone a photocopy or scan.

As I said, if we had a photocopy or scan the problem would be obviated. Has anyone seen a full transcript? I haven't.

[Chris]

Has anyone seen a full transcript? I haven't.

I see that among Sugden's acknowledgments is this:
"Keith Skinner, for generously agreeing to read my extracts from the Aberconway notes."

I'm not quite sure what that implies ...

[Jonathan H]

Chris
That's very interesting about Keith Skinner re: Aberconway version?

If only even a copy of the full version existed, of what I theorize is a rewritten version which I think his daughter understandably assumed was composed in 1894 -- and labeled it as such.

Macnaghten could not show the real 1894 version to Major Griffiths because where was the scoop? Three nothing suspects. No shadow of proof. One whom the police did not even bother to verify whether he was a physician or not?

Whereas the one the major saw was the reassuring, authoritative tale you would want as a writer and fellow officer of state: the copy of a 'Home Office Report'; the trio of suspects hyped up; the Polish Jew seen by a Bobbie; the Dr Jekyll figure the prime suspect of the CID Deputy.