I would argue that the 'West of England' MP sources have nothing to do with Macnaghten and thus provide independent confirmation that Druitt's 'own people' believed, rightly or wrongly, that their deceased member was the fiend -- and that subsequent murders and arrested suspects did not shake them, or Farquharson, from this horrendous belief.
I would also argue that the 'North Country Vicar' source of 1899 also has nothing to do Mac (though its mixing of fact and fiction closely parallels his m.o.) and is likely about Druitt too -- and explains the source of the belief in his culpability.
I would also argue that Mac's 1914 memoirs are far more important and accurate than his politically-driven Report(s), only one of which impacted on public opinion, eg. 'Aberconway'. In the memoir, the de-facto 'third' version of his Report, he concedes that Druitt was not a suspect whilst alive -- for years -- that he was not sectioned, and did not kill himself instantly in a state of non-compos.
On the other hand, as you say, the Ripper was more likely to be Dr. Tumblety and Mac knew this, and went to great lengths to obscure it.
I would also argue that the 'North Country Vicar' source of 1899 also has nothing to do Mac (though its mixing of fact and fiction closely parallels his m.o.) and is likely about Druitt too -- and explains the source of the belief in his culpability.
I would also argue that Mac's 1914 memoirs are far more important and accurate than his politically-driven Report(s), only one of which impacted on public opinion, eg. 'Aberconway'. In the memoir, the de-facto 'third' version of his Report, he concedes that Druitt was not a suspect whilst alive -- for years -- that he was not sectioned, and did not kill himself instantly in a state of non-compos.
On the other hand, as you say, the Ripper was more likely to be Dr. Tumblety and Mac knew this, and went to great lengths to obscure it.
Comment