Did Anderson Know

[Scott Nelson]

A polish jew cobbler nicknamed "Leather Apron"...

[Chris]

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.

Howells and/or Skinner subjected the Aberconway version to quite a thorough investigation when they were researching "The Ripper Legacy" in the 1980s. That included examining the pages under ultra-violet light to try to date the paper. It would be surprising if they hadn't at least taken a photocopy at the time.

Moreover Paul Begg (The Facts, pp. 319, 320) quotes a phrase from the earlier section of the Aberconway draft describing the murders. Although it's the same phrase that Sugden had quoted, Begg adds the page number, so it seems he had separate access to a copy or transcript.

But in any case, one would hope that the original document wouldn't have been lost by the family since in the 1950s, even though two generations have passed away since then.

This is surely the most important known source document relating to the murders that remains unpublished. A comparison with the official version could be very informative.

[Jonathan H]

I totally agree, Chris.

If the paper can be dated, and dated to 1894, then my theory of an 1898 rewrite is wrong, and that's that.

[Jonathan H]

PS

Chris, in my copy of Begg's 'The Facts' there seem to be two transcription errors from the Aberconway version.

Begg, or the copyist, has the date Montie is pulled from the Thames as Dec 31st in the Aberconway, when Cullen claims it was Dec 3rd -- and so does a photo of the document [where if you squint it seems to be Dec 3st?]. Begg als has the word 'fairly' from Aberconway dropped, in terms of 'fairly good family'.

I don't have the book in front of me so if I am misremebering these tiny details then I stand corrected in advance and apologies to Begg, but I am pretty sure that is correct.

[Jonathan H]

I've now checked my copy of Begg's JACK THE RIPPER -- THE FACTS (2004).

Reproducing the Druitt section of the Aberconway Version it reads, on p. 321:

'Mr M J Druitt, a doctor of about 41 years of age and of good family who disappeared at the time of the Millers Court murder, and whose body was found floating in the Thames on 31 Dec :ie. 7 weeks after the said murder.'

In Cullen's AUTUMN OF TERROR (1965) on p. 219 his version of the same document reads:

No. 1 MR M. J. DRUITT, a doctor of about 41 years of age and of fairly good family, who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder, and whose body was found floating in the Thames on 3rd of December, ie. seven weeks after the said murder.'

These are seemingly tiny differences, probably proofreading errors, ones easy to miss in reproducing two documents which are so similar: the different date and the dropping of the word 'fairly' before 'family' -- but I regard them as significant if they really were in the original.


Macnaghten in the version he showed Griffiths is trying to downplay the family's certainty and elevate his own. It also fits in with neutralizing the possible query from Griffiths as to why the police did not more vigorously pursue this suspect in 1888 -- if he was the best bet to be the Ripper?

Downgrading the family -- whom the suspect seems to live with now at Blackheath -- is a way for Mac to convince the Major that they were not that 'good', as in not that reliable or observant as to notice that a person they lived with was a multiple murderer. Therefore not the Yard's fault that they did not get onto this suspect on time before the absolute truth 'lay at the bottom of the Thames'.

In the official version Mac and the Druitts swap places about their opinion of as to the suspect's guilt. In the 1894 version the police chief is far, far from certain -- arguably here Druitt is a minor suspect -- whilst this 'good family', unqualified here, were very sure of their member's guilt as they 'believed'. And, it is not an allegation, as it is in Aberconway, that Montie was a sexual maniac -- it is treated as established fact.

[Natalie Severn]

Jonathan,
Another interpretation regarding Macnaghten"s later "adjustment" of the "of good family" phrase is that the Druitt family actually had a history of severe mental illness. Druitt"s mother having been placed in Chiswick asylum and suffering from hallucinations about people "executing" her through electricity*Druitt"s sister committing suicide like Druitt , then considered a criminal offence.
"Of good family" meant " respectable and well heeled"---well heeled perhaps but not all that respectable , particularly in Macnaghten"s day, with at least three of its members mentally ill,
Best
Norma

* Is it possible Mrs Druitt was receiving an early form of electric shock treatment , though, to help her with depression? Its still in use in some institutions to help with depression but has been the subject of much criticism as a therapy.

[Jonathan H]

Natalie,

Yes that is possible for sure.

On the other hand, it flies in the face of Macnaghten's other writings where he is very generous to English people of all classes. That word 'fairly' jars quite noticeably by comparison. If he meant they were all as mad as March Hares, he would say so -- and be compassionate about such a tragedy. It also is not backed by the official version, where not only are the Druitts simply 'good' they also are 'believers'.

People have completely missed that there is a thematic integrity to the Aberconway Version about Druitt.

An integrity which would impress a writer, if not two -- the reason for its creation.

The official 1894 version has a number of internal contradictions.

One of the most glaring is that if this M J Druitt 'was sexually insane', and the family 'believed' that he was the Ripper, then that is 'proof's shadow'.

In that version Macnaghten claims that nobody ever saw the Ripper, when the police treated Lawende in 1891 and 1895 as a vital witness who was 'confornted' with Gentile suspects, Sadler and Grainger, respectively.

In the Aberconway version Lawende is eliminated as completely as Winston Smith would replace un-people in the records of the Ministry of Truth. He becomes an un-named beat cop, presumably a Gentile, who sees a Jew with Eddowes.

So, now there IS a witness but not, take note, of 'M J Druitt' the preferred Gentile suspect of Macnaghten in this document, but some unlikely Polish Jew named 'Kosminski' -- if it was Kosminski who was spotted.

When you actually check this story in the primary sources you instantly discover it is inside-out. The witness was a Jew and the suspect was probably a Gentile -- described as looking like a man who could at least generically match the school photos of M J Druitt.

Is that really just a coincidence?

Is that really just poor memory which has obscured a suspect whose family could sue if they recognized their late member in Griffiths and Sims?

Wow, what luck!

Just blind luck, hey, that a profile was disseminated to the public which enhanced the Yard's reputation AND protected the Druitts?

[This story enhanced the Yard's rep by falsely claiming that the un-named Druitt was a contemporaneous suspect. Sims has a Super-efficient dragnet closing around the suspect just as he vanishes into the Thames. What is that? Another bit of luck?]

Just consider if Macnaghten had supplied the truth to Griffiths and Sims, and they subsequently published that an un-named, young, Thames-drowned barrister was the prime suspect, and that he bore a striking resemblance to the man seen by the prime witness, a Jew, chatting with a victim dressed as a sailor.

The shocked bourgeoisie circles in which the Druitts moved would have recognized their late Montie, and so would the family -- who would have exploited the draconian libel laws to take legal action for defaming them as being 'accessories' to the killer.

Even with Druitt disguised as a middle-aged doctor, even with 'Jack the Sailor' turned into a mad Jew, even with Mac's failed attempt to obscure the date his body was recovered, a nervous Griffiths took no chances of exposing himself to a libel action and thus changed 'family' into 'friends'.

Is this really all just luck and poor memory fortuitously making everybody winners; the police, the family, the writers, their publishers, eventually Assistant Commissioner Macnaghten?

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Jonathan,
Its quite possible, all of it.Moreover its great to see someone tussling with such an enigma of a suspect .
I look forward to the further unravelling of this mystery!Some plausible scenarios so far.
Cheers
Norma

[Trevor Marriott]

"Tussling"

"I would say more like trying to make a silk purse out of a sours ear"

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Trev,
Well you must at least admit it brings a bit of balance back to the boards.At least Pirate is taking a well earned rest at the moment -though no doubt ready to spring into action at a moments notice ,if anyone so much as whispers the "k" word!
No, the Druitt egg has been a long time hatching.......lets see what emerges---hope its not Frankenstein!

[Jonathan H]

Thanks Natalie.

Trevor, it is not myself who turned the 'sour's ear' of Montague John Druitt into the 'silk purse' of a Dr Jekyll figure for Edwardians, but rather puppet-master Macnaghten via his safe, literary puppets Griffiths and Sims.

The mystery for me is why?

What is it to deliberately disguise Druitt because everybody, including Anderson in his memoirs, is wary of the English libel laws? That Macnaghten had made an extensive investigation, met with the family, and had Druitt's confession in his hand?

Or, because Big-Mouth Henry Farquharson was so panicked about Macnaghten's private query that he deflected the truth about Druitt with fictitious details and hoped -- correctly -- that the hopelessly amateur CID deputy would not go near the family, and thus learn that the middle-aged doctor was really a young barrister, and so on?

Or, because it was a way of projecting Dr. Tumblety into the public realm without providing a trail back to the real contemporaneous, middle-aged, sexually 'deviant', medico suspect who had been examined by Scotland Yard in 1888 -- and was perhaps rumoured to have suicided?

A fusion/inversion which Littlechild brutally shredded for Sims in 1913 -- and which the great 'criminologist' publicly, at least, ignored.

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks Natalie.

Trevor, it is not myself who turned the 'sour's ear' of Montague John Druitt into the 'silk purse' of a Dr Jekyll figure for Edwardians, but rather puppet-master Macnaghten via his safe, literary puppets Griffiths and Sims.

The mystery for me is why?

What is it to deliberately disguise Druitt because everybody, including Anderson in his memoirs, is wary of the English libel laws? That Macnaghten had made an extensive investigation, met with the family, and had Druitt's confession in his hand?

Or, because Big-Mouth Henry Farquharson was so panicked about Macnaghten's private query that he deflected the truth about Druitt with fictitious details and hoped -- correctly -- that the hopelessly amateur CID deputy would not go near the family, and thus learn that the middle-aged doctor was really a young barrister, and so on?

Or, because it was a way of projecting Dr. Tumblety into the public realm without providing a trail back to the real contemporaneous, middle-aged, sexually 'deviant', medico suspect who had been examined by Scotland Yard in 1888 -- and was perhaps rumoured to have suicided?

A fusion/inversion which Littlechild brutally shredded for Sims in 1913 -- and which the great 'criminologist' publicly, at least, ignored.

Jonathan

I have said before i admire you tenacity and enthusiasm but i think you need to take a step back.

Just to pick up on a couple of points you mentioned.

As far as Druitt is concerned my understanding is that the only info Magnachten had on the Ripper is what he obtained from Druitts family who for some reason suspected their son to have been The Ripper. Thats why there is nothing or there ever was anything recorded in writing at Scotland yard on Druitt. So why cant you just accpet the fact that there is no evidence at all against Druitt or the dreaded "K". and stop trying to find what isnt there to be found.

There is also nothing other than Littlechilds opinion that Tumbelty was ever a
Ripper suspect and that opinion he kept to himself for almost 20 years. So Tumbelty was never catapulted anywhere between 1888-1894 unless of course he took a job in a circus.

[Natalie Severn]

Wow Trev...you just scored a hat trick! A quick swipe and all three were out!

[Trevor Marriott]

i am like a coiled spring tonight !

Someone needs to put an end to this.

[Jonathan H]

Hatrick?

You've got to be joking!?

'Someone needs to put an end to this'

Yep, that sums up the closed mind better than I could.

Though I put the case for AND AGAINST Macnaghten/Druitt [which predictably you have missed] I still get told to shut it down as if you are the self-appointed guardian of the reductionist dogma?

One last try ...

Trevor, you are confusing legal and forensic evidence with historical analysis.

Senior policemen [among them Littlechild whom you seem to be under the mistaken impression was some deadbeat nobody?] accused, or pointed the finger, at different suspects.

They cannot all be right, and perhaps none of them were. Measuring the values and limitations, the bias and context of these sources, is a legitimate form of historical inquiry.

That is the Jack the Ripper mystery, like it or lump it.

If it does not interest you, then simply skip my revisionist takes and thus avoid apoplexy at seeing the 'conventional wisdom' challenged.