Many thanks, Chris Scott. You are quite right. How I missed the significance of the phrase "as I have already said" I don't know. Ernest Thompson was neither a City PC (per Macnaghten's witness) nor was he a PC in 1888. Thus I will now have to agree that you are correct in that Sir Basil believed Ernest Thompson was the Mitre Court PC witness.
1. Sir Basil reads in Griffiths of a Mitre Court PC-witness.
2. Sir Basil knows of only one PC sighting of the murderer, that being Ernest Thompson's connected to the Coles murder.
3. Sir Basil assumes Thompson to be Griffith's (in actuality Macnaghten's) PC-witness.
4. Sir Basil apparently assumes Mitre Court to be near Swallow Gardens.
This begs more than a few questions, however. For example, what about the PC sighting on Berner Street by PC Smith I believe it was? Clearly Sir Basil believes Stride to be a Ripper Victim.
Also, Sir Basil indicates that there were five Ripper murders with a possible sixth. The sixth must be Coles. But the fact that he considers the Thompson sighting to be a firm Ripper-sighting would imply that Sir Basil really believes Coles to be a genuine victim. This would eliminate the "drowned doctor" (Druitt-like) suspect, yet Sir Basil dutifully lists him among the suspects. There appears to be massive confusion and conflation going on.
The one very significant detail here, however, is that there may indeed have been a sighting in Mitre Court and that this specific information had to come from a non-Aberconway source since the Macnaghten-Aberconway memo says only "near Mitre Square." That is , unless this is just a weird goof that coincidently happens to make sense geographically.
edit -- On page 335 Sir Basil says that "in the beginning of 1889" there was another murder of the Ripper kind but that the police considered it to be a copy-cat killing. Indeed, Sir Basil states that it was the "belief" of the police that the Druitt-like suspect was the Ripper. Earlier (p. 190), Sir Basil had implied that the police suspected the Druitt-like suspect while he was still alive but there was insufficient evidence to detain him. This information he seems to be carried over from Sims or from Sims's source. Perhaps the "early 1889" murder is a conflation of McKenzie (July 1889) with Coles (February, i.e. "early", 1891).
1. Sir Basil reads in Griffiths of a Mitre Court PC-witness.
2. Sir Basil knows of only one PC sighting of the murderer, that being Ernest Thompson's connected to the Coles murder.
3. Sir Basil assumes Thompson to be Griffith's (in actuality Macnaghten's) PC-witness.
4. Sir Basil apparently assumes Mitre Court to be near Swallow Gardens.
This begs more than a few questions, however. For example, what about the PC sighting on Berner Street by PC Smith I believe it was? Clearly Sir Basil believes Stride to be a Ripper Victim.
Also, Sir Basil indicates that there were five Ripper murders with a possible sixth. The sixth must be Coles. But the fact that he considers the Thompson sighting to be a firm Ripper-sighting would imply that Sir Basil really believes Coles to be a genuine victim. This would eliminate the "drowned doctor" (Druitt-like) suspect, yet Sir Basil dutifully lists him among the suspects. There appears to be massive confusion and conflation going on.
The one very significant detail here, however, is that there may indeed have been a sighting in Mitre Court and that this specific information had to come from a non-Aberconway source since the Macnaghten-Aberconway memo says only "near Mitre Square." That is , unless this is just a weird goof that coincidently happens to make sense geographically.
edit -- On page 335 Sir Basil says that "in the beginning of 1889" there was another murder of the Ripper kind but that the police considered it to be a copy-cat killing. Indeed, Sir Basil states that it was the "belief" of the police that the Druitt-like suspect was the Ripper. Earlier (p. 190), Sir Basil had implied that the police suspected the Druitt-like suspect while he was still alive but there was insufficient evidence to detain him. This information he seems to be carried over from Sims or from Sims's source. Perhaps the "early 1889" murder is a conflation of McKenzie (July 1889) with Coles (February, i.e. "early", 1891).
Comment