A Halloween Mystery: The Monro Standpoint

[Pierre]

^ Keith Skinner is a trained professional researcher and genealogist, a member of their professional association. What's coming next, Pierre, aspersions about Philip Sugden, who was an historian? Excellent that you're so superior about men like Evans and Skinner, who have a proven track record and are published authors on JTR. It will make the unveiling of your theory, whenever it is, all the better!

Hi Rosella,

Sugden attended a university so he is not "coming next".

The "superiority" is your own interpretation. I disagree.

I am sure Skinner and Evans have made interesting work on Jack the Ripper but it cannot be discussed from a standpoint of scientific validity or reliability since they do not use scientific methods.

Of course you can ignore scientific methods and enjoy your reading anyway. That is, if you like Jack the Ripper and ripperology as mere intertainment or as a tourist attraction.

And I guess that´s what most people would like it to be. Now there is even a Jack the Ripper museum in London.

But I say no to that. If I have found him, the museum will have to close down because people will not appreciate it. (Not that my aim is to see museums close down in London, on the contrary).

Regards Pierre

[curious4]

I have wondered if this could have anything to do with the questioning of Packer?
Abberline was away and Henry Monro had to write a letter on 4th October explaining himself as to why Packers statement should have been in the 2nd edition of the Evening News News on October 4th. Packer was taken to Warren, P.S. Smith had to go to C.O. to explain himself. The letter talks of telegrams sent. It seems there was confusion.
Could this have rendered Packer unsuitable as a witness as his evidence was reported in the press? Could his evidence have nailed Jack?
Seems there was a bit of a power struggle going on?

Pat

Read Scotland Yard Investigates - it'll be quicker lol

C4

[Hakeswill]

I'm can't think of too many things connected to the case that can addressed using a scientific approach. Historical, literary, social and cultural evidence remain open to us, and should not be dismissed too lightly.

[Rosella]

^ Well, it's clear that they are unfortunately being dismissed. I have no idea why!

[Paddy]

Read Scotland Yard Investigates

I shall if I knew who wrote it?

Thanks
Pat....

[Paddy]

Dont worry just found it ...Pat

[curious4]

I shall if I knew who wrote it?

Thanks
Pat....

Hello Pat,

Sorry, Evans and Rumbelow (don't know where I got Skinner from but I did have the flu!)

Best wishes
C4

[Jason]

I do believe that Skinner and/or Evans got laid once ........beat that

[Craig H]

Melville Macnaghten as a suspect

Pierre’s opening questions in this thread are interesting. He is bringing together links about Monro replacing Warren, Monro’s comments that “the Ripper should have been caught” and that Monro’s theory was a “hot potato”.

On other threads he asked “who would be your worst or least favourable suspect” and explored about “saving face”.

These all seem to lead to Melville Managhten as a suspect.

I know this has been previously discussed on Casebook, and Sophie Herfort released several books about this a few years ago, but it is probably worth revisiting.

Macnaghten had a clear motive. Macnaghten uprooted his family from India to move to London based upon a job offer from his close friend James Monro. However, Monro was humiliated when Warren over-ruled this appointment. There have been several Casebook posts describing the conflict within the Police executive.

The first killing (Nichols) happened just after Warren over-ruled the appointment; and the last killing (Kelly) happened just before Warren resigned, to be replaced by Monro who then appointed Macnaghten.

This could suggest the killings were done to embarrass the policeforce, and Warren in particular.

Herfort suggests that the Ripper letters (“Dear Boss”) were to ridicule Warren.

The other main reasons supporting Macnaghten as a suspect is that he destroyed evidence and documents about the Ripper. It is hard to find a motive to justify this action.

What was the “hot potato” which created secrecy ? It can’t have been been to protect the privacy of Druitt’s family, and the case against Druitt was not strong. It can’t be the fears of unleashing a Jewish backlash if the Ripper was a Jew.

Herfort suggests that the “hot potato” was that the Ripper was actually a senior Police official and this knowledge would create major distrust in the institutions.

I don’t want to appear as an advocate for Herfort’s theory, as I’m sure there are holes in it. However, I do think it does address some of the questions Pierre has been asking in recent months.

Craig

[Pierre]

Pierre’s opening questions in this thread are interesting. He is bringing together links about Monro replacing Warren, Monro’s comments that “the Ripper should have been caught” and that Monro’s theory was a “hot potato”.

On other threads he asked “who would be your worst or least favourable suspect” and explored about “saving face”.

These all seem to lead to Melville Managhten as a suspect.

I know this has been previously discussed on Casebook, and Sophie Herfort released several books about this a few years ago, but it is probably worth revisiting.

Macnaghten had a clear motive. Macnaghten uprooted his family from India to move to London based upon a job offer from his close friend James Monro. However, Monro was humiliated when Warren over-ruled this appointment. There have been several Casebook posts describing the conflict within the Police executive.

The first killing (Nichols) happened just after Warren over-ruled the appointment; and the last killing (Kelly) happened just before Warren resigned, to be replaced by Monro who then appointed Macnaghten.

This could suggest the killings were done to embarrass the policeforce, and Warren in particular.

Herfort suggests that the Ripper letters (“Dear Boss”) were to ridicule Warren.

The other main reasons supporting Macnaghten as a suspect is that he destroyed evidence and documents about the Ripper. It is hard to find a motive to justify this action.

What was the “hot potato” which created secrecy ? It can’t have been been to protect the privacy of Druitt’s family, and the case against Druitt was not strong. It can’t be the fears of unleashing a Jewish backlash if the Ripper was a Jew.

Herfort suggests that the “hot potato” was that the Ripper was actually a senior Police official and this knowledge would create major distrust in the institutions.

I don’t want to appear as an advocate for Herfort’s theory, as I’m sure there are holes in it. However, I do think it does address some of the questions Pierre has been asking in recent months.

Craig

Hi Craig,

and thanks for this, perhaps first, serious post in this thread and the interesting reading about Macnaghten.

Also it was interesting that someone actually thought he was a suspect (but not mine) and that he destroyed sources in the case. Do you know what the source is for the assumption that he actually did that?

Regards Pierre

[Hercule Poirot]

...I am sure Skinner and Evans have made interesting work on Jack the Ripper but it cannot be discussed from a standpoint of scientific validity or reliability since they do not use scientific methods.

Of course you can ignore scientific methods and enjoy your reading anyway. That is, if you like Jack the Ripper and ripperology as mere intertainment or as a tourist attraction....

...Regards Pierre

Pierre, maybe you should open a new thread and explain what you consider to be the scientific method all of us need to use. Let's not forget we are relying upon different domains when it comes to the Ripper case: history, psychology, forensic science, law, just to name a few. Each domain has its research method standards and interweaving them in such cases as the Ripper one involves coming up with a certain degree of compromise regarding some key elements such as gathering and selecting data, data analysis and interpretation, validity tests, drawing conclusions, peer review. The degree of confidence when making these compromises sometimes varies depending on by whom, how and why they were made. What should be the quantitative degree of confidence in these multi-domain cases? As far as I'm concerned, a review of the litterature regarding this question has shown me it has never been answered scientifically.

You would be certainly welcomed to enlighten us.

Cheers
Hercule Poirot

P.S.: Did I mention I too have a few university degrees and am currently studying archeology here in Mexico? Oh, I however don't consider myself as an expert.

[Pierre]

Pierre, maybe you should open a new thread and explain what you consider to be the scientific method all of us need to use. Let's not forget we are relying upon different domains when it comes to the Ripper case: history, psychology, forensic science, law, just to name a few. Each domain has its research method standards and interweaving them in such cases as the Ripper one involves coming up with a certain degree of compromise regarding some key elements such as gathering and selecting data, data analysis and interpretation, validity tests, drawing conclusions, peer review. The degree of confidence when making these compromises sometimes varies depending on by whom, how and why they were made. What should be the quantitative degree of confidence in these multi-domain cases? As far as I'm concerned, a review of the litterature regarding this question has shown me it has never been answered scientifically.

You would be certainly welcomed to enlighten us.

Cheers
Hercule Poirot

P.S.: Did I mention I too have a few university degrees and am currently studying archeology here in Mexico? Oh, I however don't consider myself as an expert.

Hi Hercule,

well, if you reed my post again you might see that I´m referring to Skinner and Evans.

And of course we can´t use ordinairy quantitative significance tests in this case.

The problem as I see it is that old thinking rules within ripperology. If you read the texts of Macnaghten for instance, his thinking is still the thinking of a lot of ripperologists.

Perhaps they believe they can believe "the experts" but that´s wrong.
Experts are really bad sources for valid and reliable research. They are stuck within their fields and have to apply the point of view of their time.

So if you ask me about a sufficient method to start with, I sould say that historical source criticism is the most important one in this case.

And I feel sorry for the poor sods who read the so called Macnaghten Memoranda and then write a book on a shawl or things like that. It´s a waste of time.

Regards Pierre

[Craig H]

Hi Pierre

Thanks for your email. It’s always interesting to read your posts.

Macnaghten made the statement in an interview in the Daily Mail on Monday 2 June (1913),

“Of course he was a maniac, but I have a very clear idea who he was and how he committed suicide, but that, with other secrets, will never be revealed by me. I have destroyed all my documents and there is now no record of the secret information which came into my possession at one time or another”

Some would claim he did that to protect the reputation of Druitt’s family, assuming this is who he is referring to.

However, I don’t think that is enough of a reason to destroy documents, and for Monro’s children to say their father described his Ripper theory as a “hot potato”.

Instead, I support the view that there was a lot of conflict in Police executive then, and Monro was humiliated by Warren’s over-ruling of his appointment.

Macnaghten’s memoirs “Days of my Years” also provide some support why he may be a suspect.

The memoirs show his close relationship with James Monro, back to their time in Bengal.

Macnaghten also talks of his hunting experiences in India. In particular jackal hunting including the phrase whether we could “catch the jack”. He must have been competent in skinning animals.

Finally, twice Macnaghten refers to the Ripper victors as “the dregs of humanity”. This may reflect what was a common phrase at that time, or it may reflect he did not value their lives highly.

I’ll email these documents to you.

You asked some interesting questions to start the thread. What are your responses to the same questions ???

Rgds,

Craig

[Pierre]

Answering my own questions

Hi,

Halloween is coming up and why not spend it trying to solve one of the biggest questions in ripperology?

The question I have chosen is intimately connected to Jack the Ripper and James Monro.

I call it The Monro Standpoint (his own word).

I know that various aspects of The Monro Standpoint have been debated in the forum earlier. But debaters often change and develope their views.

And the question of how the standpoint should be interpreted has no solution yet. It remains a mystery.

The Monro Standpoint relies on very sparse data. But this also gives us a great chance to discuss the meaning of it and perhaps find valid and reliable answers.

(We tend to sometimes have to much data from 1888. We have to make choices along the way which lead us away from good answers. We don´t se the answer for all the data. But not in this matter.)

So here we go.

First of all I´d like to disconnect the standpoint of Monro from Macnaghten and from the so called Macnaghten memoranda. The disconnection is based on the fact that Macnaghten did not join Scotland Yard until after the canonical murders.

Once we have disconnected the sparce sources of Monro from the later source of Macnaghten we can begin to analyze The Monro Standpoint by reading the following short text about Monro from the Casebook

(If someone has a link to the original sources not mentioned in this text, that would naturally be most valuable):

"We may not know what his theory was but we do know he had one because in 1890 he told Cassells Magazine he had "decidedly" formed a theory and "When I do theorise it is from a practical standpoint and not upon any visionary foundation." His grandson Christopher remembers him saying "Jack the Ripper should have been caught." Even more exciting, he was supposed to have left his eldest son Charles some papers relating to the case. If these ever existed they were probably destroyed by Charles Monro but he told a younger brother Douglas that their father's theory on the case was "a very hot potato."
What could have been Monro's theory?"

(http://www.casebook.org/police_officials/po-monro.html)

And from our analyze of the text we can pose the following (and more) questions:

A) What can ”Jack the Ripper SHOULD have been caught” mean?

1. Does the text have a strong meaning, saying that they did not catch him even if they actually COULD have done so? (Should is then interpreted as could - but they chose not to do so). If yes/no – why/why not?

Comment: This source is very unreliable. We don´t know if and when Monro said this and we don´t know his grandsons motive for referring it. So this source could mean anything.

2. If the text (hypothetically) is correctly interpreted as having this type of strong meaning; could the commentary that Monros standpoint was ”a very hot potato” mean that the interpretation of ”should have been caught” as strong is the right interpretation? If yes/no – why/why not?

Comment: Taken together, the sources could imply a higher reliability for a hypothesis of some aspect of the Monro standpoint and especially if you consider these two toghether with his statement of "practical standpoint", which can imply that he has some realistic view that he relies on, i.e. his practical experience from working with the case.

3. What is the best ”objective” (not connected to the Monro Standpoint) interpretation of the expression ”a very hot potato”?

Comment: I think the best interpretation is that you have to put this statement in perspecitve with his statement of a "practical standpoint" and with the other (not very reliable) statement of his grandson. When you do, you could hypothesize that Monro could have had knowledge about the Whitechapel murderer that he could not share with others. Who these others could have been is a question per se.

4. Could we use a dictionary for instance and say that the best interpretation could be something like

”A problem that is so controversial or sensitive that those handling it risk unpleasant consequences”

(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hot+potato)
(I´n not very interested in using dictionaries but it can be a starting point for discussions)

If yes/no – why/why not?

Comment: Yes. Because that could perhaps have been the reason why Warren had to resign. (And that is only a starting point for discussons if there were to be any!)

B) What does a ”practical” standpoint mean?

1. Could it for instance mean:

”relating to experience, real situations, or actions rather than ideas or imagination”
(http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...lish/practical)

If yes/no – why/why not?

Comment: Yes. Because Monro said something like that himself.

2. Could we interpret a ”practical” standpoint as a standpoint taken from Monros experience? That is, did he have his own experience of the Whitechapel killer? If yes/no – Why/why not?

Comment: Yes. Because his silence about the Whitechapel murderer could have implied as much.

3. If yes; how?

Comment: He would have been among the first to get information on the murders on the table.

C) Can we understand Warren´s resignation in the light of Monro´s standpoint? If yes/no – why/why not? If yes, how can we understand it?

Comment: Yes. Because Warren and Monro might have had different views on the matter. We already suppose that they did disagree on some things. So this might also have been the case if they had some knowledge about the Whitechapel killer. And since the case was very problematic for the police, Warren could have gotten one problem to many with that knowledge.

Concearning this question, this source may be of interest (Boston Daily Globe, 13 November 1888):

(A journalist asking Warren
”"Is there any trouble with the police?"

"No, that is all nonsense. No feeling such as has been represented exists. I think you will find that the metropolitan police are more contented now than they have been for years."

"You did not resign on account of the last Whitechapel murder?"

Sir Charles adjusted his glasses and smiled.

"No," he resumed, emphatically,"no, I sent in my resignation before the Kelly murder, on the 8th of this month, and immediately after Mr. Matthews's statement in the House of Commons in reference to my article in Murray's Magazine. The resignation was accepted yesterday.

(http://forum.casebook.org/archive/index.php/t-4545.html)

1. How can we interpree the assertion of Warren that he ”sent” his resignation ”before the Kelly murder, on the 8th of this month”?

Comment: That he wanted to get out of a situation really fast perhaps.

2. What meaning has the word ”SENT”? Did he send a telegram? A letter? Do we have a reliable source for this?

Comment: Yes, we think so. But it could have been dated one or two days later, we don´t know.

3. And what meaning has the phrase ”on the 8th”? Was it at noon? Was it 5 minutes before midnight? Do we have a reliable source for the actual time?

Comment: I don´t know. I haven´t researched this source but I´m sure someone else knows.

D) Is there any reason to hypothesize that the replacement of Warren with Monro had anything to do with the "hot potato"?

Comment: The reasons would be the haste of Warrens resignation, Monros statement about a "practical standpoint" and his grandsons statement that Monro thought that the killer "should have been caught". But if Monro replaced Warren and was in favour of catching the killer but didn´t do it - what was the conflict? This could make the reliabilty of the source with his grandsons statement lower.

If yes/no – why/why not?

Comment: I could answer no to this question. Because if Monro knew who the Withechapel killer was and wanted to arrest him - why didn´t he do that? I could also answer yes: If someone above Warren decided the police should not arrest the killer, Monro could have done nothing about it. And then one can understand such a statement as "should have been caught" - but could not. Then we have the hypothetical situation of Warren resigning when he finds himself without the powers of arresting the killer and Monro accepting to step in, doing nothing.

E) Which (types of) suspects would definitely NOT be a matter of a "hot potato"? Why not?

Comment: Artist, painters, musicians. Common people. Because as long as they had no connection to the political system, they were no threat to the government.

Which ones would? Why?

Comment: Anyone with a high position connected to some important institution in Britain. Because it would undermine the trust in such institutions.

Wishing you all a Happy Halloween,
Pierre

Above!

[Abby Normal]

Hi Craig,

and thanks for this, perhaps first, serious post in this thread and the interesting reading about Macnaghten.

Also it was interesting that someone actually thought he was a suspect (but not mine) and that he destroyed sources in the case. Do you know what the source is for the assumption that he actually did that?

Regards Pierre

OK its not Macnaughten then. So its Warren?