Cutbush and Cutbush?

[caz]

Thank you for your interesting retort.

The debacle surrounding MacNagthen lays in the perception of what exactly his motivations were and what his intentions were in terms of his desired end game.

Within the context of Druitt being the Ripper, it would seem apparent that MacNagthen wasn't really trying to "protect" anyone; but rather, he was trying to cover things up.

And for a senior police officer to deliberately manipulate, conceal and withhold critical information regarding a murder case; Magnagthen should have been heavily reprimanded by the law.

In other words; if Druitt was the Ripper and MacNagthen knew he was, then it makes MacNagthen the primary antagonist in the case, other than Druiit himself.

A shameful display by a man who should have known better.

A "Conspiracy" or "Cover up" are simply 2 sides of the very same coin


But I don't buy any of it.

All of this talk of MacNagthen and Druitt, is just a rabbit hole to nowhere.



I think there's nothing of value to be found from casting MacNagthen as an intricate cog in the Ripper case.

I don't think MacNagthen was necessarily responsible for anything untoward.


I believe he was just ineffective and wholly irrelevant; his role in the case becoming redundant as time went on.


He comes across as a man who really wanted to sound more knowledgeable and important than he really was.

MacNagthen likely wouldn't have known the Ripper, if he'd have interviewed himself.


But all that said, I do appreciate the appeal that MacNagthen and Druitt have to some of the more long standing followers of the case.

It's feels rather romantic.

Druittists (Druittites?) do indeed favour a suspect with a more clean and classier tone,
Something that's often lacking with some of the more guttural Ripper candidates.

Hi Rookie,

If there was ever any hard evidence against Druitt, I wonder how many individuals would have been privy to it, and why it was decided best to bury it, only to leave smoke and mirrors for the curious historians of the future? If I had known who Jack the Ripper was, beyond reasonable doubt, but was unable or unwilling to spell it out for whatever reason during my lifetime, I'd like to think I would have put it all down, warts and all, in a formal document to be read, scrutinised and investigated fully after my death, so history would not be short changed by the rumour, gossip, speculation and creative solutions it has been 'gifted' instead.

It can't have been out of loyalty to the family and friends, surely, or a need to protect their good name, when Druitt did get named by Macnaghten in a formal document, but with only that damned reference to 'private information' since destroyed, which has had the effect of destroying Druitt's reputation, but without the evidence that could have justified it. To my mind, that's a pretty rough way to do justice, because Druitt was first deprived by his own hand of the ability to defend himself, and deprived a second time when he topped Magnaghten's list for unknowable reasons.

Love,

Caz
X

[mklhawley]

We, the Hainsworths, theorise that Macnaghten felt under acute pressure in 1894 and had to commit Druitt's name to a file and prepare propaganda for the public - a plan not implemented fully until 1898 with Griffiths' big book on crime and crime-fighters.

Montague Druitt was effectively hidden until in 1959, Dan Farson's researcher, Jan Matos, utilising the 'Aberconway' version of Macnaghten's report tried to find him. Due to the misdirection about his age it was difficult, but finally she did. Yet Druitt's name was still withheld from the public out of deference to Christabel, the Lady Aberconway' s wish for discretion. That's exactly what her father had done when he composed the document for public consumption. In 1965, the Marxist, American reporter, Tom Cullen, published the name as he was not intimidated by, as he saw it, the sensibilities of a genteel relic of the establishment.

Had Macnaghten destroyed both versions of his report we would not have Druitt's name. The suicide in the Thames at Chiswick would have been eventually noticed by posters on this site and other on. They would have strenuously insisted that this drowned barrister could not be Mac's middle-aged surgeon - too young, wrong job, killed himself too late.

And as usual they'd have been dead wrong.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Rookie,

If there was ever any hard evidence against Druitt, I wonder how many individuals would have been privy to it, and why it was decided best to bury it, only to leave smoke and mirrors for the curious historians of the future? If I had known who Jack the Ripper was, beyond reasonable doubt, but was unable or unwilling to spell it out for whatever reason during my lifetime, I'd like to think I would have put it all down, warts and all, in a formal document to be read, scrutinised and investigated fully after my death, so history would not be short changed by the rumour, gossip, speculation and creative solutions it has been 'gifted' instead.

It can't have been out of loyalty to the family and friends, surely, or a need to protect their good name, when Druitt did get named by Macnaghten in a formal document, but with only that damned reference to 'private information' since destroyed, which has had the effect of destroying Druitt's reputation, but without the evidence that could have justified it. To my mind, that's a pretty rough way to do justice, because Druitt was first deprived by his own hand of the ability to defend himself, and deprived a second time when he topped Magnaghten's list for unknowable reasons.

Love,

Caz
X

There's also the chance that Druitt himself was silenced and made the scapegoat for a high ranking corrupt police official or officials.

Interestingly, I believe that the eerily strange note allegedly found in a house in Bradford around the time of the boy John Gill being butchered, may have been a reference to Druitt.

The author knowing that Druitt was in the water already, and emphasising the word...


"SUICIDE"


The issue is that Druitt never had a voice, and that makes him an easy target for Ripperologists and the man behind the "Canonical" 5.

I believe that MacNaghten was more likely to have been the Ripper than Druitt.

[caz]

We, the Hainsworths, theorise that Macnaghten felt under acute pressure in 1894 and had to commit Druitt's name to a file and prepare propaganda for the public - a plan not implemented fully until 1898 with Griffiths' big book on crime and crime-fighters.

Montague Druitt was effectively hidden until in 1959, Dan Farson's researcher, Jan Matos, utilising the 'Aberconway' version of Macnaghten's report tried to find him. Due to the misdirection about his age it was difficult, but finally she did. Yet Druitt's name was still withheld from the public out of deference to Christabel, the Lady Aberconway' s wish for discretion. That's exactly what her father had done when he composed the document for public consumption. In 1965, the Marxist, American reporter, Tom Cullen, published the name as he was not intimidated by, as he saw it, the sensibilities of a genteel relic of the establishment.

Had Macnaghten destroyed both versions of his report we would not have Druitt's name. The suicide in the Thames at Chiswick would have been eventually noticed by posters on this site and other on. They would have strenuously insisted that this drowned barrister could not be Mac's middle-aged surgeon - too young, wrong job, killed himself too late.

And as usual they'd have been dead wrong.

This sounds a little like the reverse of the argument that Lechmere lied by deliberately concealing his real name and calling himself Cross. In giving his home and work addresses, he none the less allowed himself to be positively identified as the first person to see Nichols dead.

In Druitt's case, Macnaghten could have claimed almost anything about him that wasn't true - and evidently he did - but the name on file was sufficient to identify the right person as his ripper suspect regardless, so Mac wasn't really hiding anything, was he? Was he the kind of person who would have felt under acute pressure from anyone to commit his suspect's name to paper when he did? I don't know, but it's certainly an intriguing theory.

Love,

Caz
X