Announcement

**pearlyanna** · 02-26-2008, 08:37 PM

Mrsperfect
25th May 2007, 03:56 AM
[quote=aspallek;85837]Eileen, as I have repeatedly said, there is no reason to presume Druitt was a homosexual. The term "sexually insane" referred to virtually any perceived sexual aberration in Macnaghten's day. While it could refer to homosexuality, it could also refer to a dozen other things. It is quite general. We must interpret Macnaghten's use of the more general "sexually insane" in light of the more specific "sexual maniac" in his autobiography. "Sexual maniac" referred to someone who carried out violent sexual tendencies.

The gist of what you are saying is true. Of course, there is the possibility that Druitt might have done or said something to incriminate himself had he lived.
quote]

I stand corrected Andy,

Perhaps he was the only 'sexally insane' suicide floating in the river at that time?

There is the possibility that Druitt may not have done anything to incriminate himself also, had he lived? It sounds at though he was guilty, until proven innocent!

Regards,

Eileen

aspallek
25th May 2007, 05:57 AM
[quote=aspallek;85837]Eileen, as I have repeatedly said, there is no reason to presume Druitt was a homosexual. The term "sexually insane" referred to virtually any perceived sexual aberration in Macnaghten's day. While it could refer to homosexuality, it could also refer to a dozen other things. It is quite general. We must interpret Macnaghten's use of the more general "sexually insane" in light of the more specific "sexual maniac" in his autobiography. "Sexual maniac" referred to someone who carried out violent sexual tendencies.

The gist of what you are saying is true. Of course, there is the possibility that Druitt might have done or said something to incriminate himself had he lived.
quote]

I stand corrected Andy,

Perhaps he was the only 'sexally insane' suicide floating in the river at that time?

There is the possibility that Druitt may not have done anything to incriminate himself also, had he lived? It sounds at though he was guilty, until proven innocent!

Are you starting that again!

Once again, the presumption of innocence is guaranteed only in a court of law. There is no such presumption when a senior police official is naming suspects or when we are discussing a case 100+ years on.

But, yes, you've hit it on the head when you suggest that Druitt was the only "sexually insane" suicide at the time! What you are saying is that Macnaghten, or whoever first identified Druitt as a suspect, realized that this suicide victim in some way fit the bill for sexual, or quasi-sexual, serial killer. And his family suspected him on top of that! What you suggest confirms what I've been saying all along: it was much more than just Druitt's "convenient" suicide that made him a good suspect.

And yes, had Druitt lived and not done anything to incriminate himself later on -- and if he was Jack the Ripper -- he would probably never have been caught. But if he had started to act suspiciously, that would be another matter.

jason_connachan
25th May 2007, 10:07 AM
Don't you just hate it when that happens?

Chris Phillips

I just noticed. Thank you for pointing out my mistook.

jason_connachan
25th May 2007, 10:17 AM
"Professional and educated Macnagthen may have been, he was irrefutably inexperienced in police matters at the time he penned his original Druitt-related suspicions. I went to Tonbridge School, an English public school very similar to Eton, and as intelligent and "educated" as many of my contemporaries were, I'd say most of them were far better equppied for the business acumen necessary for successful tea-planting than they were for Matters Policing, especially into serial murder."

Ben,

So your qualifications to write about the Ripper are what?

I assume MacNaghten had some critical faculty to rely on when looking at the evidence.

Ben
25th May 2007, 11:30 PM
Hey Andy,

"As to Abberline, if he were still so "in the loop" why did he pick such a poor suspect himself in Klosowski, a suspect no one else seriously suspected?"

As competent and experienced a police officer Abberline may have been, he had no real knowledge of either the behavioural patterns of serial offenders or SK investigations. His "organ-collecting Klosowski" theory says more about the ignorance of the era than the incompetence of the man, and the same is true of Macnaghten's "awful glut" hypothesis. Few others shared Abberline's views, but the same is true of most other police officials who were very much "in the loop".

Best regards,
Ben

PerryMason
25th May 2007, 11:48 PM
Hi all,

I think with Abberline at least we have someone who had demonstrated competence in identifying local gangs and troublemakers from his years working various divisions around the East End,... he may not have been a Sherlock Holmes, but he knew the lay of the land there. And he was respected by his peers and the community prior to that Fall anyway. I dont think the same can be said of Macnaughten.

I admit I feel similarly about Bond and his categorical assertions about victims he never saw, or wounds he never viewed, and definite conclusions that defied those that had done the "footwork".

My best regards all.

aspallek
26th May 2007, 03:07 AM
We're going a bit round about in circles here so I'll drop out after this unless the discussion takes a different turn. There were serial killers before Jack the Ripper, and certainly serial criminals. Abberline shouldn't have been so naive as to think it likely that a slasher would turn to domestic poisoning. I think his suspicion of Klosowksi means he was no longer well informed. He also makes mistakes in describing Kosowski's movements and alleged crimes.

Once again, with regard to Macnaghten, all he had to do was gather and filter information. He did not have to be Sherlock Homes. As a well-educated businessman, he should have been well-equipped to do that much.

DYLAN
26th May 2007, 01:07 PM
Hi All.

Andy is right in having nothing more to do with abberline's claims about Klosowski. It should be remembered that Abberline's position in the Ripper case has been overrated. He was not in overall charge of the the investigation, and was only brought in to co-ordinate matters on the ground, due solely to his previous service, experience, and knowledge of Whitechapel.

Abberline's memory played tricks on him after his retirement, most notably in claiming to have "closely questioned" Lucy Baderski about Klosowski's movements on the nights of the Ripper murders, when in fact Klosowski and Baderski had not even met until the following summer of 1889.
Abberline was not in a position to be privy to information at the highest level at the time of Druitt's suicide, which Macnaghten most certainly was.

Macnaghten's opinions regarding Druitt, certainly carry more weight than the ageing Abberline's ramblings about wife-poisoner Klosowski, a totally different kind of personality to the mutilating Ripper.

All the best.
DYLAN

Glenn L Andersson
26th May 2007, 02:54 PM
Excellent post, Dylan (and I agree with Andy here too).
One of the best descriptions of Abberline's limitations and abilities I've seen in a long time.

However, I for one wouldn't pick one before the other. As for Macnaghten, his memorandum clearly show that he was ill-informed and it must also be noted that he was not connected to the Ripper case when the crimes actually occurred. Sure, he undoubtadly had access to the information he needed when he later became in charge, but fact remains that he wasn't there when the murders happened. And his memorandum is in itself evidence of his lack of knowledge and ill-founded suggestions, maybe even sloppiness, since it contains numerous errors that are difficult to understand for anyone who even have a slim knowledge of the Ripper case. His references to Ostrog in this context, to pick one example, is totally erronous and irrelevant. And I would say the large portion of errors in connection with his mentioning of Kosminski and Druitt speaks for themselves. I wouldn't say Macnaghten is a trustable source.

All the best

cgp100
26th May 2007, 03:23 PM
And I would say the large portion of errors in connection with his mentioning of Kosminski and Druitt speaks for themselves. I wouldn't say Macnaghten is a trustable source.

This is probably the wrong place to ask, but how many errors do you count in his treatment of Kozminski? Assuming it's fair to judge his accuracy on the official version rather than the Aberconway draft, I can see only the reference to March 1889 as the date of Kozminski's committal to the asylum. Admittedly that does look like an error - and a rather strange one - but it's not impossible it refers to something we don't know about.

Chris Phillips

Glenn L Andersson
26th May 2007, 04:36 PM
Actually, when I said 'a large portion of errors' I also incorporated Macnaghten's data regarding Druitt in this, as I hope my post made perfectly clear. The errors concerning Druitt are of a larger number and of more serious character than those of Kosminski/Kosminzki.

But yes, the date of incarceration in March 1889 is the error regarding Kosminski I refer to. But of course, also Macnaghten's claims that Kosminski had a 'hatred of women' and had 'homicidal tendencies' are to this date completely unverified by any medical or institutional records. If those are errors, mix-ups or fabrications is another question, but they have no basis in facts. In any case, Macnaghtens memoranda reveals his tremendous lack of factual knowledge regarding details of the case.

All the best

cgp100
26th May 2007, 05:15 PM
If those are errors, mix-ups or fabrications is another question, but they have no basis in facts.

I'm sorry, but you really can't say they have no basis in fact. We don't know what basis they have.

It's reasonable to say we should be cautious about accepting Macnaghten's statements without independent confirmation, but it doesn't follow that they are baseless just because we don't have that confirmation.

Chris Phillips

PS I wouldn't claim that Jacob Cohen's statement to Dr Houchin justifies these claims by Macnaghten. But at least we do have an official record that he threatened a woman with a knife, which is more than can be said for many (most?) Ripper suspects.

Glenn L Andersson
26th May 2007, 06:04 PM
Chris,

I really can't see why you are defending Macnaghten, who made numerous obvious errors in his marginalia that all more or less defies logic. It's true that we don't know if non-existing evidence exists regarding kosminski that in some way explains Macnaghten's claims, but fact remains that no KNOWN information does in any way confirm them. (If the one sole incident where Kosminski is supposed to have threatened his sister with a knife would have been enough for Macnaghten in order to lable him as having 'strong homicidal tendencies' that actually even further reduces Macnaghten's credibility rather than supports it.)

And considering that he also listed Druitt's occupation as 'doctor' when he in fact was a barrister is just one of those many errors that confirms that Macnaghten either was sloppy with information or had a very milited knowledge of what he was talking about. Not to mention the totally erronous stuff that he garbled in connection with Ostrog, who was a trickster and impersonator and not a dangerous homicidal character, plus forgetting that he probably was in prison in France at the time. And so on and so on.

Those who treat Macnaghten as a serious source of information, surely has a lot to learn as far as source evaluation is concerned.

All the best

jason_connachan
26th May 2007, 06:22 PM
"forgetting that he(Ostrog) probably was in prison in France at the time"

A criticism too far in my opinion Glenn. The fact he was probably in prison is not relevant. In fact MM states Ostrog's whereabouts could not be ascertained, which if anything, gives some credence to MacNaghten. Not the likelihood of Ostrog being the killer of course, simply that Ostrog could not be found at that time.

cgp100
26th May 2007, 06:23 PM
I really can't see why you are defending Macnaghten, who made numerous obvious errors in his marginalia that all more or less defies logic.

I'm not defending him, I just think it's important to be factually accurate when evaluating what he wrote.

What are these "numerous obvious errors" you refer to? If we work from the official version, I can see:
(1) "removed to a lunatic asylum about March 1889" [Kosminski] and
(2) "said to be a doctor" [Druitt; my emphasis].

To those you can add that Druitt disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder, when in fact it was some four weeks later.

Maybe there are others I've missed (I'm not very well up on Ostrog).

But it's clearly circular to take everything else he said that we don't have independent confirmation of, assume it's false because Macnaghten made two or three other mistakes, and then conclude that he's unreliable because there are so many errors in his memoranda.

Chris Phillips

Glenn L Andersson
26th May 2007, 07:03 PM
Jason,

Ostrog's whereabouts in 1888 wouldn't have been difficult to ascertain in 1894, so of course it's relevant. Fact is, besides the fact that the exact timing for Ostrog's arrest in France would have been easy to check out by Macnaghten, it's a mystery why Macnaghten would even include Ostrog in his list of three suspects, especially since his description of Ostrog is totally incorrect since Ostrog never had been arrested for any violent crime that fits Macnaghten's odd claims. Again, this can only be ascribed to how badly uninformed Macnaghten was in some areas.

----------------------

Chris,

Macnaghten's memoranda is interesting because of his opinions regarding Cutbush and the analysis of the 'the 4 additional murders ascribed by the writer in the Sun to the Whitechapel fiend', which appears reasonable.
But as far as his list of three suspect is concerned, there are just as many errors (and most of them highly serious and important) as there are accuracies. And I am afraid his statements in that regards can be regarded relaible for anyone who knows anything about the case. The errors are more than 'two or three' but although they may not be many as such, they were indeed pretty important. Macnaghten's mistake of labelling Druitt as a doctor, for example, was probably one of the most important reasons for why he ever suspected him. Unfortunately that proved false and it would have been easy for Macnaghten to consult the facts and actually find that Druitt was a barrister and nothing else. Nor is there any evidence of that Druitt was 'sexually insane', just as little as there are evidence of that Ostrog was a 'homicidal maniac' (which he of course wasn't, according to any crime record where he appears).

That Macnaghten phrased the info about Druitt as 'said to be a doctor' is not really important since it is irrelevant information anyway - Druitt was a barrister, period, and there wouldn't really had been any need to even mention the 'doctor' connection if Macnaghten knew it. As we know, Macnaghten seems to have favoured Druitt as Jack the Ripper so one would think he would have read up upon him and consulted the facts. Which he obviously didn't. The worst thing with his memoranda, is that - although a couple of his suspects may be interesting and worth investigation in other regards - Macnaghten mentioned them as 'more likely than Cutbush' for all the wrong reasons and based on erronous facts.

The only conclusion is, that Macnaghten was badly informed about his suspects and wrote his repsonse to The Sun without consulting the facts. Because if he had, many of those obvious, rather simple but important errors would never had happened.

All the best

cgp100
26th May 2007, 07:59 PM
But as far as his list of three suspect is concerned, there are just as many errors (and most of them highly serious and important) as there are accuracies.

I keep asking you what these "many" errors are.

In your message, you've pointed out one more - rather than saying Ostrog was "subsequently detained in a lunatic asylum as a homicidal maniac", he should have said simply "subsequently detained in a lunatic asylum", because though he was threatening suicide he was not considered dangerous to others.

But, again, it is not fair to claim "sexually insane" as an error just because we don't have independent confirmation of it - any more than it was fair to claim the unconfirmed details about Kozminski as errors.

So I count three definite errors (counting the one about Druitt committing suicide sooner than he did), and one instance where Macnaghten says - I would guess accurately - that Druitt was "said to be a doctor", but where you say that he should have taken the trouble to find out whether he was a doctor or not.

That is grounds for caution, and shows that Macnaghten got some details wrong. But I really think it is overstating things to say that he made "numerous obvious errors", and can therefore not be treated as a "serious source of information". Of course his document can be treated as a source of information, in the same way that we treat any other historical document - with a due awareness of its likely limitations and with appropriate scepticism about its reliability.

Chris Phillips

DYLAN
26th May 2007, 08:11 PM
Hi Glenn & Chris.

I seem to have set the cat among the pigeons here.

I accept that you two guys are probably more knowledgeable and experienced on this case than I am, but I don't put a great deal of vital importance on a couple of Macnaghten's errors. His words, "said to be a Doctor", indicates that he received this error from another source. As the Druitt family were steeped in medical & surgical history, it would be an easy mistake for this source, or Macnaghten, to assume that Montague would also be in the profession.

The error in age was a simple one too, 41 instead of 31. It would have been far harder to accept if it had been something like 39 instead of 27 for example.
The important things however, are out of our reach, as it seems that the private information that Macnaghten spoke of, contained the evidence that convinced him of Druitt's guilt. Certainly he expressed no doubt that Druitt's own family believed him to have been the killer.

New suspects keep being put forward every other week. Even half of the witnesses are now being accused. But as far as I personally am concerned, Druitt still remains the best of the bunch.

All the best.
DYLAN

Dr. John Watson
26th May 2007, 08:29 PM
As I pointed out in an earlier message on another thread, for a police officer to mistakenly describe a 31-year-old barrister as a 41-year-old physician, in an official report, is evidence enough that the officer's credibility must be questioned. MacNaghten's "private information" likely amounted to nothing more than second-hand opinions, theories and heresay. If he had simply availed himself of the newspaper clipping of Druitt's inquest, he could have gotten his facts straight. Hiding behind unidentified sources, he slandered the name of the Druitt family. He is not one to be trusted. Period.

I ask again: Would you buy a used car from someone who gave you the wrong year and model and wouldn't tell you where he got it?

Glenn L Andersson
26th May 2007, 09:13 PM
Chris,

Combine the errors Macnaghten committed with Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog together and they are substantial enough in order to make Macnaghten a very dubious source.

Dylan,

I disagree. The errors Macnaghten made are very simple one, which he easily could have checked out. The possibility that he may have received the info about Druitt being a doctor from a second hand source is actually not in his favour - on the contrary. Of course it is important if Macnaghten thought Druitt to be a doctor since this appears to have been one of the major reasons for him to suspect him in the first place. But as a high police official and writing a response to a newspaper, he shouldn't 'assume' anything - he should know the facts.

The evidence of the memoranda is clear: Macnaghten didn't have a clue about what he was talking about and didn't bother about checking his sources.

As for Druitt, not one single piece of information about him reveals him as a possible candidate of being Jack the Ripper. The only thing that is interesting about him is that he died conveniently a few weeks after the Kelly murder but that is clearly not enough in order to suspect him of being Jack the Ripper. As for the 'private information', I would assume this came from friends or relatives and this is certainly not unusual in high profile murder cases. In fact, it is quite common that relatives see a connection and exaggerate it, so this is not at all a very singular aspect that in any way means something of importance for Druitt's candidacy. Such 'private information' is almost to a 100% false leads and a result of people who knows the suspect reading too much into things and gets carried away.

All the best

robert
26th May 2007, 09:36 PM
One thing that worries me about Macnaghten, is his statement that Thomas Cutbush and Supt Cutbush were nephew and uncle. I cannot find any evidence for this.

You would have thought that Macnaghten would have got a police Supt's family details right.

Robert

Glenn L Andersson
26th May 2007, 09:37 PM
Robert,

I obviously missed that one.

All the best

aspallek
26th May 2007, 09:56 PM
The error in age was a simple one too, 41 instead of 31. It would have been far harder to accept if it had been something like 39 instead of 27 for example.

Back for a moment just to remind that an early press report of Druitt's death indicated that the victim (not named but obviously Druitt) was in his early forties. I'm surprised more hasn't been made of this. Mistaken first impressions die hard.

cgp100
26th May 2007, 10:15 PM
Back for a moment just to remind that an early press report of Druitt's death indicated that the victim (not named but obviously Druitt) was in his early forties. I'm surprised more hasn't been made of this. Mistaken first impressions die hard.

And of course, between the Aberconway draft and the final version this estimate of Druitt's age was removed entirely, and "doctor" changed to "said to be a doctor".

Chris Phillips

davida
26th May 2007, 10:34 PM
Hello All-
It was not uncommon for teachers at Public schools to be referred to as 'doctor'.
Dylan - The 'private information' refers to the Druitt familys fears that Montague might have been the killer. According to MacNaghten he, 'some years later' received evidence of a 'factual nature' which confirmed these suspicions. We should differentiate between these two things.
We are told that the private info refers to the Druitt familys fears. It is the evidence of a factual nature about which we know nothing....yet.
Best Wishes
David

Ben
26th May 2007, 10:44 PM
Hi David,

I'm not sure we should differentiate "private information" from "evidence of a factual nature". They probably amounted to the same thing, only Macnaghten was being less cautious with his terminology with the latter. Certainly, we've no evidence that his source for the "family suspicion" originated directly from a family member, and the likelihood is that it didn't.

Cheers,
Ben

davida
26th May 2007, 10:57 PM
Hi Ben,
I did not suggest that the private info came directly from a Druitt family member. Though it could possibly have done so.
MacNaghten implies that the, later, evidence of a factual nature confirmed the Druitt family fears. ie that Druitt was the killer.
Best Wishes
David

Glenn L Andersson
26th May 2007, 11:22 PM
Ben,

Although we have no evidence of that the 'private information' came from a family member, I would say it is very likely that it did or from someone who were close to the family. As I said, this is very common in connection with high profile murder cases and for the most part it leads nowhere and is based on paranoid fears from people who knows the suspect and believe they have put two and two together, mostly from the suspect's behaviour, the significance of certain dates that coincides with a murder etc.

All the best

cgp100
26th May 2007, 11:33 PM
I did not suggest that the private info came directly from a Druitt family member. Though it could possibly have done so.
MacNaghten implies that the, later, evidence of a factual nature confirmed the Druitt family fears. ie that Druitt was the killer.

I'm a bit confused by these references to 'evidence of a factual nature'.

Is this a paraphrase of 'certain facts, pointing to this conclusion' in Macnaghten's memoirs, or am I missing one of his statements about Druitt?

Chris Phillips

**pearlyanna** · 02-26-2008, 08:38 PM

PerryMason
27th May 2007, 12:10 AM
Hi all,

Not to steer this away totally from Druitt, some interesting comments, but back on the credibility aspect of Mr M....is anyone else concerned that absolute statements were made by this official, despite the fact he came on board the year after the cases themselves and had no active hand in the investigations during the Fall of 88?

I guess anyone can read reports, but not all would state something imperical based on them without actually having the first person knowledge. I blame him more than anyone for the C5 concept,.... its limited the scope of peoples studies for years.

My best regards all.

jason_connachan
27th May 2007, 01:46 AM
With regards to Ostrogs whereabouts.

This was long before EUROPOL. Criminals habitually gave false name to the authorities. The Bertillon system had reduced misidentification of criminals but it was still patchy. I'd give MM the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Dr. John Watson
27th May 2007, 02:09 AM
Ask yourself, if a member of Druitt's family really did suspect him, would they risk subjecting the family to shame and embarassment by voicing their fears to the police or anyone else once he was dead? And didn't MacNaghten write, "I have little doubt," as a preface to his claim that the family suspected Druitt? Doesn't this admit at least some uncertainty in MacNaghten's mind? Private information, as used by MacNaghten, could just as easily refer to off-the-record comments by another police official, perhaps a magistrate, even a newspaperman.

Mrsperfect
27th May 2007, 03:08 AM
This is an excellent post Dr Watson!

If we are asked to believe MacNaughten destroyed information to protect the family (which came from the family), why would they give it to him in the first place if Druitt was already dead?

I doubt any of the experts here would have made such a cockup as MacNaughten did with relaying information, (so many years after the event)...........and with a lot less information at their disposal too!

Regards,

Eileen

dougie
28th May 2007, 01:00 PM
I must admit macnaughtons phrase "said to be a doctor" has always puzzled me.It could be interpreted several ways.I t might appear to mean that Macnaughton knew druitt wasnt a doctor ,but others thought he was,if so who? It could also mean that Druitt had posed as a doctor at various times for whatever purpose,therefore said to be a doctor,the emphasis being on the word SAID..It seems plain Macnaughton knew druitt wasnt a doctor otherwise he would have written M.j. Druitt, doctor 41 years of age etc instead.The usual explanation is that because of Druitts familys medical background ,macnaughton assumed this....that ,to me is the least believable "excuse".T he phrase he chose is odd and out of place,or is it?To me it implies something more than people have assumed up to now.

cgp100
28th May 2007, 02:08 PM
It seems plain Macnaughton knew druitt wasnt a doctor otherwise he would have written M.j. Druitt, doctor 41 years of age etc instead.
...
T he phrase he chose is odd and out of place,or is it?To me it implies something more than people have assumed up to now.

The thing is, though, that in the Aberconway draft, he did call Druitt "a doctor" without qualification.

It seems likelier to me that subsequently he went through the text and deleted some things (including Druitt's age) that he wasn't sure of, and that he added the qualification "said to be" then.

It is interesting that, in contrast, he removed the qualification "it was alleged" from the part about Druitt being "sexually insane".

Chris Phillips

aspallek
29th May 2007, 06:48 PM
Ask yourself, if a member of Druitt's family really did suspect him, would they risk subjecting the family to shame and embarassment by voicing their fears to the police or anyone else once he was dead? And didn't MacNaghten write, "I have little doubt," as a preface to his claim that the family suspected Druitt? Doesn't this admit at least some uncertainty in MacNaghten's mind? Private information, as used by MacNaghten, could just as easily refer to off-the-record comments by another police official, perhaps a magistrate, even a newspaperman.

That's one reason why I think it is unlikely Macnaghten received his "private information" directly from the Druitt family. I think it more likely he received it from a mutual friend. I have identified Rev. John Henry Lonsdale as a possibility since he keeps cropping up in close proximity to Montague Druitt and the Druitt family in Dorset, and we have documentary evidence that he probably knew Charles Druitt personally -AND- because Lonsdale was a classmate of Macnaghten's at Eton and the family of Lonsdale's wife apparently once lived in Chichester where Macnaghten's wife (a clergyman's daughter) was from. Lonsdale may have run into his old classmate at a reunion or some other function, or may have just taken the initiative to send him a letter, and detailed the Druitt family suspicions to him in confidence. After many years had passed and with no chance of any further legal action and no other evidence having surfaced to "prove" the case, Sir Melville probably exercised a bit of discretion and destroyed the documentary "evidence." After many years living at Warwick Square, Macnaghten apparently moved from there prior to his death. Perhaps in preparing for the move he was keen to rid himself of such items (I don't know whether he was still living at Warwick Square when he wrote of destroying the evidence).

The thing is, though, that in the Aberconway draft, he did call Druitt "a doctor" without qualification.

It seems likelier to me that subsequently he went through the text and deleted some things (including Druitt's age) that he wasn't sure of, and that he added the qualification "said to be" then.

It is interesting that, in contrast, he removed the qualification "it was alleged" from the part about Druitt being "sexually insane".

The Aberconway version is usually treated as a "draft" of the "official" Scotland yard version. It's always interesting to see how an author changes things between draft and final form. (Check out some of Paul McCartney's hand written scribbles at the British Library and compare them to the lyrics we all know so well!). It's always a bit hazardous to guess at why certain changes were made. I do agree that the deletion of Druitt's age and the qualification of his profession indicate some uncertainty probably in Macnaghten's sources which, on his second thought, prompted him to be less assertive in these areas. Remember, an early press report had Druitt's age as in his early forties. Clearly there was confusion at one time about this prior to Macnaghten. As to the deletion of "said to be" on the "sexually insane" part -- my hunch is that Sir Melville felt he couldn't hedge about everything. Whatever "evidence" he had heard or seen was apparently strong enough that he felt comfortable compensating for his earlier "said to be" (with regard to Druitt's profession) by deleting the qualifier here. Why? We simply don't know.

caz
31st May 2007, 05:53 PM
Hi All,

I'd like to ask why people think Macnaghten destroyed his Druitt information.

I might understand if it was to protect the individual source(s) of that info, but it certainly didn't serve the Druitt family name well.

After all, what could have been that much worse for Monty or his family in the long run, once he had been fancied by a top cop, in an official document, to be sexually insane and Jack the Ripper?

Nobody would be too happy if one of today's ripper authorities put forward a new suspect, claiming to have private information that he was sexually insane and that his family suspected him, and then calmly informed us that they had destroyed, or intended to destroy their material unpublished.

Love,

Caz
X

cgp100
31st May 2007, 06:13 PM
After all, what could have been that much worse for Monty or his family in the long run, once he had been fancied by a top cop, in an official document, to be sexually insane and Jack the Ripper?

Well, quite possibly Macnaghten didn't foresee that his memoranda would ever be made public, and was trying to ensure that Druitt's name didn't become public through the documents in his possession (though in that case he should also have destroyed the Aberconway draft, which would probably have delayed the release of Druitt's name for 20 years or so).

In any case, he seems to have considered the material in his possession incriminating, and destroyed it for that reason. He couldn't recall the memoranda, but he could do that.

As it is, people like Caroline Morris are able to argue that Macnaghten's suspicions about Druitt were simply ill-informed speculation. If we knew the evidence they were based on, they might not find that so easy.

Chris Phillips

cd
31st May 2007, 06:46 PM
It is an interesting question, Caz. Here are a few scenarios I was able to come up with:

1. He has concerns about his own mortality. A recent health scare perhaps and realizes that he does not want the evidence falling into the wrong hands after his death.

2. He is tempted to produce the evidence for whatever reason but destroys it to eliminate the temptation.

3. At some point, he reacesses what he has and comes to the conclusion that maybe it is not as strong or as damning as he once thought and thus destroys it so that he will not appear to look the fool if if ever comes out.

c.d.

caz
1st June 2007, 01:31 PM
Hi c.d,

Thanks for your suggestions.

As it is, people like Caroline Morris are able to argue that Macnaghten's suspicions about Druitt were simply ill-informed speculation. If we knew the evidence they were based on, they might not find that so easy.

Chris Phillips

Indeed, Chris. I would be able to argue that. That's what happens when material used to form opinions, and alluded to when making a case for something, is destroyed. It must be a real pain for anyone trying to build on a case made in that way.

But I don't believe you will find me putting it as strongly or as negatively as you do here yourself. Other posters to this thread may have dismissed Macnaghten's suspicions as 'ill-informed speculation'. But as you know, I'm happy to let Macnaghten's own words be my guide on this one: '...if my conjections be correct'.

Have a good weekend. At least I won't be a pain to you over the weekend, because I'll be in the East End.

Love,

Caz
X

Mrsperfect
1st June 2007, 03:37 PM
It is an interesting question, Caz. Here are a few scenarios I was able to come up with:

1. He has concerns about his own mortality. A recent health scare perhaps and realizes that he does not want the evidence falling into the wrong hands after his death.

2. He is tempted to produce the evidence for whatever reason but destroys it to eliminate the temptation.

3. At some point, he reacesses what he has and comes to the conclusion that maybe it is not as strong or as damning as he once thought and thus destroys it so that he will not appear to look the fool if if ever comes out.

c.d.

4. There was no evidence and he lied about having it in the first place?

Perhaps he thought he might be credited with solving the case, after his death, (with Druitt dead also) nothing more could be done.

Regards,

Eileen

aspallek
1st June 2007, 06:26 PM
We know Macnaghten lived at Warwick Square for many. many years. We know he died at a different location. His reason for destroying the "evidence" may have been nothing more sinister than a purging of memorabilia prior to such a move. As nothing could be proved, anyway, he may have seen no reason to move such materials. Perhaps Mrs. Macnaghten (a clergyman's daughter from Chichester) may have finally put her foot down and said "Melville, you are NOT bringing that Ripper stuff to our new home!"

Mrsperfect
2nd June 2007, 12:45 AM
G'day Andy,

That's one explanation, but I wonder why he didn't pass it on to the rightful owners, the police? It could then be housed in the police files. Was the case officially closed at the time of this move?

I believe any evidence in connection with a crime is automatically the property of the police, since witholding it is an offence, I believe.

I am still inclined to believe that there was no evidence!

Regards,

Eileen

aspallek
2nd June 2007, 04:35 PM
G'day Andy,

That's one explanation, but I wonder why he didn't pass it on to the rightful owners, the police? It could then be housed in the police files. Was the case officially closed at the time of this move?

I believe any evidence in connection with a crime is automatically the property of the police, since witholding it is an offence, I believe.

I am still inclined to believe that there was no evidence!

Hi Eileen,

I don't know exactly when Macnaghten's move took place and I don't know when he destroyed the material, whether before or after. All I'm saying is that we have no idea why he destroyed it and very little idea what it was, so speculation is very hazardous.

To my knowledge, the case has never officially been closed. Active investigation stopped a year or two after the murders but certainly as late as Coles there was still official interest in the case.

As to whose property such material is, that depends entirely upon its nature. If it was material relating specifically to Druitt, no trial was possible so there could be no "evidence" in the legal sense and no justice to obstruct. If the material was indeed Macnaghten's "Private information," then it was just that: his private property.

As I've said numerous times, I don't believe Sir Melville, or anyone else, ever possessed evidence that proved Druitt guilty -- nor did anyone ever make such a claim to our knowledge. What Sir Melville destroyed was our opportunity to evaluate the evidence he had and to evaluate the case against Druitt.

robert
3rd June 2007, 02:09 PM
Just a small point : if I'd been Macnaghten, and possessed evidence tending to point in the direction of one particular man (to put it at its bare minimum) I wouldn't have destroyed such evidence while there remained the possibility that an innocent man might be convicted instead (extremely remote chance, I know, but I still wouldn't want to take that chance).

Robert

Mrsperfect
3rd June 2007, 02:45 PM
Hi Eileen,

What Sir Melville destroyed was our opportunity to evaluate the evidence he had and to evaluate the case against Druitt.

This alone sums up my opinion of MacNaughten as a police officer! Either he lied about actually having evidence or he destroyed it! I suspect the former.

Regards,

Eileen

Graham
3rd June 2007, 09:46 PM
G'day Andy,

That's one explanation, but I wonder why he didn't pass it on to the rightful owners, the police? It could then be housed in the police files. Was the case officially closed at the time of this move?

I believe any evidence in connection with a crime is automatically the property of the police, since witholding it is an offence, I believe.

I am still inclined to believe that there was no evidence!

Regards,

Eileen

Actually, Eileen, you have an exceedingly valid point there. Any evidence in any police-investigation is, or should be, public property. I suppose you could argue that if there was evidence stored in MM's personal files, then it was in the possession of the police (or, more correctly, the Home Office) and in destroying it he could possibly be guilty of perversion of the course of justice (or something - I ain't no expert in these matters). Otherwise, he either decided that the 'evidence' was worthless, or the old school tie took over.
I think on the whole that I agree with you and that there was no 'real' evidence, and that Sir Melville, nice bloke though he doubtless was, was in reality just another tweedy old wind-bag, a nose-tapping 'I know who did it but I ain't telling you' type.

There does seem to be some evidence that certain of his contemporaries, although willing to assert MM's 'clubbability', were at the same time not too certain about his qualifications to be a high-ranking police-officer.

Cheers,

Graham

aspallek
4th June 2007, 05:25 AM
This alone sums up my opinion of MacNaughten as a police officer! Either he lied about actually having evidence or he destroyed it! I suspect the former.

Oh, Eileen, you just don't get it!

What Macnaghten destroyed was not forensic evidence, of that we may be sure. If he had destroyed legal evidence, i.e., evidence that belonged to the case file, he certainly never would have admitted it. What he destroyed must have been his personal property. It was probably some convincing documentation pointing toward Druitt, certainly enough to convince him of Druitt's probable guilt and probably enough to convince others as well. But not legal evidence sufficient to convict or exonerate anybody.

Could Sir Melville have lied about the information he had regarding Druitt? Certainly it is within the realm of possibility. However, I see no reason to assume that he did or even seriously to entertain that possibility absent any indication to that effect. Unless, of course, one decides a priori that Druitt is not a viable suspect.

Mrsperfect
4th June 2007, 10:51 AM
G'day Andy,

So.............. if I read you correctly, the evidence MM destroyed was not forensic evidence, not legal evidence, but probably some convincing documentation pointing towards Druitt being the killer?

This information being enough to convince MM of Druitt's probable guilt and probably enough to convince others as well?

Oh well,

That's okay then!

he he hehe he he he heeh ehe heeh eh heeh heehe heh ehe he eh eheh!

Regards,

Eileen

P S As I said Andy, MM may have lied/destroyed documents to give the impression that he had solved the case! A priori is a red herring here!

Ben
4th June 2007, 01:03 PM
Hi Andy,

"Could Sir Melville have lied about the information he had regarding Druitt?"

No, but he could have exaggerated the significance of what was contained within the "private information" he allegedly destroyed. If the information contained something appreciably more incrminating that what was already in the public domain, I consider it doutbful in the extreme that he'd be so clandestine about the matter.

Best regards,
Ben

monty
4th June 2007, 01:13 PM
All,

I think it is important to remember that Macnaghten stated that Druitt, Ostrog and Kosminski were more likely that Cutbush to be Jack.

Not that any one of the 3 was Jack.

Monty

aspallek
4th June 2007, 03:56 PM
I don't know why this is so difficult to understand.

1. Macnaghten made it quite clear that he believed Druitt was the Ripper. This is evident from the Aberconway version of the memorandum and from his autobiography. This doesn't mean that he was certain, it only means he was convinced in his mind that Druitt was the killer. Let's not play with semantics here. I think I'm being very clear.

2. It is a safe assumption that whatever Macnaghten destroyed was his private property. It was not property of Scotland Yard nor any sort of forensic evidence. If it was he certainly would never have admitted to destroying it. It was also not sufficient evidence to convict or exonerate anyone. We know this because Sir Melville said that there was no such evidence.

3. It's entirely possible that Macnaghten could have lied about the information or documents that he had. But there is no reason to presume this is the case and really no reason even to suspect that it might be the case -- unless one has already decided that Druitt is not a viable suspect.

4. Ben, I'm not sure what your statement means. He reason for being "clandestine" was ostensibly to protect the reputation of the Druitt family. The puzzling thing to me is that there was enough in the public domain already with details provided by Griffiths and Simms for anyone with a few connections and some initiative to identify Druitt by name. Yet nobody seems to have done so publicly. Victorian scruples.

5. We have to remember that Macnaghten had no way of knowing that the Ripper case would be so big 100+ years on. He had no way of knowing that his actions would arouse the suspicions of amateur sleuths in the 21st century. He did what his Victorian scruples told him to do: he destroyed documentation that could be embarrassing to a prominent family in a case in which there could be no justice due to the death of the primary (in his mind) suspect.

Ben
4th June 2007, 06:15 PM
Hi Andy,

All I meant was that the circulation of potentially incriminating evidence should have over-ridden his desire to protect the reputation a prominent family. If it didn't, and the evidence was of a very serious nature, and went sigificantly beyond what we know already, then I'm afraid serious doubts ought to be entertained about Macnaghten's priorities, irrespective of the era in which he lived.

I don't entertain any such doubts, however, on the grounds that Macnaghten's private info probably didn't contain any startling revelations beyond what we know already.

Best regards,
Ben

aspallek
4th June 2007, 07:39 PM
I don't entertain any such doubts, however, on the grounds that Macnaghten's private info probably didn't contain any startling revelations beyond what we know already.

This I agree with and, in fact, is what I've been saying all along. There was no "smoking gun," no evidence that could convict or exonerate in a court of law. There was only "information" that pointed Macnaghten to a conclusion regarding Druitt. How far that "private information" went beyond the facts we already know is uncertain but I believe you are right in implying that it didn't go far beyond when we know. It probably identified the source of the private information and detailed the Druitt family suspicions and maybe went into Druitt's "sexual insanity." It's information we would love to have and it would be useful to us but I don't think there was any startling information there.

aspallek
4th June 2007, 09:09 PM
I want to make a slight correction to something I said earlier. I said that an early press report of Druitt's death described him as being "in his early forties." The article actually said that the victim (i.e. Druitt) was "about forty years of age." As I said, mistaken first impressions die hard.

Thames Valley Times
United Kingdom
Wednesday Evening 2nd January 1889 BODY FOUND IN THE THAMES OFF THORNEYCROFT'S On Monday the body of a gentleman was found by Henry Winslade, waterman, in the Thames, off Thorneycroft's Wharf, and has since been identified by a season ticket and certain papers. Deceased was not a resident of the district, and the body had been in the water nearly a month. Deceased was about forty years of age, and the brother of a gentleman living at Bournemouth. The Coroner was acquainted with the fact that the remains had been removed to the mortuary, and an inquest will be held today.

Mrsperfect
5th June 2007, 10:01 AM
Ask yourself, if a member of Druitt's family really did suspect him, would they risk subjecting the family to shame and embarassment by voicing their fears to the police or anyone else once he was dead? And didn't MacNaghten write, "I have little doubt," as a preface to his claim that the family suspected Druitt? Doesn't this admit at least some uncertainty in MacNaghten's mind? Private information, as used by MacNaghten, could just as easily refer to off-the-record comments by another police official, perhaps a magistrate, even a newspaperman.

G'day Andy,

Contrary to your belief that I don't read your posts thoroughly, I will now confirm that not only do I read them all, but often more than once accompanied by strong liquor!

I sometimes wonder if the reverse is true (excluding the alcohol, that is?)

It serves no purpose to reiterate them since I believe you express yourself very well, as I'm sure most others would agree.

I guess what I'm rattled with is the notion that MM had a job that he apparently didn't earn, (I think coming up through the ranks is preferable and it removes any doubt that the guy knows what he's doing).

So I am asking what this man may have been thinking, when he put pen to paper, to record his thoughts. I think we should question every aspect and not take anything for granted.

There are various things that may lead us astray (ie; how well informed was he by his men, did he have all the information available etc).

I would like to know whether Dr Watson's question above could be addressed as I think it's the most important and might well remove the excuse MM used to destroy his personal documentation.

Regards,

Eileen

**pearlyanna** · 02-26-2008, 08:40 PM

Mrsperfect
5th June 2007, 02:53 PM
Hi Andy,

"Could Sir Melville have lied about the information he had regarding Druitt?"

No, but he could have exaggerated the significance of what was contained within the "private information" he allegedly destroyed. If the information contained something appreciably more incrminating that what was already in the public domain, I consider it doutbful in the extreme that he'd be so clandestine about the matter.

Best regards,
Ben

G'day Ben,

I've been thinking about your post this evening and I was wondering why you seem so certain that he wouldn't have lied?

I was also wondering what was in the public domain to incriminate Druitt? If the answer is nothing, then MM was being clandestine about the whole matter?................wasn't he?

Regards,

Eileen

aspallek
5th June 2007, 06:31 PM
Eileen,

It's not that I don't think you read my posts thoroughly. It's just that I get frustrated when it seems people believe that I think there is or was some sort of legal evidence to incriminate Druitt. Of course there wasn't. Sir Melville said as much. That does not eliminate him as a serious suspect, however.

We must make certain assumptions about Macnaghten and how he gathered his information. If we can't make assumptions, we can't proceed at all. Good assumptions are based on known facts. Let's look at some of the underlying assumptions I am making:

1. Macnaghten was a capable administrator who could gather information and reach reasonable conclusions. This much should be clear from his career track record. His suspicion of Druitt was not the result of his own police or detective work (for which work he was not trained) but merely the result of gathering existing information and reaching a conclusion.

2. Macnaghten had a keen interest in the Ripper case and would have talked at length with those who investigated it. His interest is documented fact.

3. Macnaghten had knowledge of something beyond what is now in the public domain regarding Druitt, something we cannot evaluate. Exactly what that was is not known. I believe it probably is not startlingly new information but rather something that would solidify things that are now sketchy.

4. Macnaghten's reasons for destroying the private materials he had were very probably benign and likely stemmed from a desire to protect the Druitt family.

As to what was in the public domain about Druitt -- no nothing to incriminate him beyond his being identified as Macnaghten's primary suspect.

PerryMason
5th June 2007, 07:01 PM
Hi Andy,

I know you have a preferred suspect, as do others here, but I think we all need to really assess what we are told regarding investigators suspicions on suspects, because thats all they are. Suspicions.

It's not that I don't think you read my posts thoroughly. It's just that I get frustrated when it seems people believe that I think there is or was some sort of legal evidence to incriminate Druitt. Of course there wasn't. Sir Melville said as much. That does not eliminate him as a serious suspect, however.

With all due respect, there are no grounds for suspicion other than Macnaughtens words, so how can he, or anyone else on the suspect list be classified as a "serious" suspect.? None are. They are all Persons of Interest, with Circumstantial Evidence or Criminal Profiling Characteristics to support the interest....I dont feel you can call any of them "serious", even after all these years of trying to.

1. Macnaghten was a capable administrator who could gather information and reach reasonable conclusions. This much should be clear from his career track record. His suspicion of Druitt was not the result of his own police or detective work (for which work he was not trained) but merely the result of gathering existing information and reaching a conclusion.

In other words, he makes a guess...arguably educated. If he had access to any real evidence from somewhere or someone else, it would be available to us from that original source, even when his is destroyed. What he based his guess on may remain a secret, but we know it didnt come from official files anyway. At least ones we know about, or that werent detroyed themselves.

2. Macnaghten had a keen interest in the Ripper case and would have talked at length with those who investigated it. His interest is documented fact.

I think many of the investigators fall into that category, yet most have very different views on who is a likely killer of the C5. Could anyone know more about Whitechapel and the crimes than Abberline? And he does not endorse Druitt.

3. Macnaghten had knowledge of something beyond what is now in the public domain regarding Druitt, something we cannot evaluate. Exactly what that was is not known. I believe it probably is not startlingly new information but rather something that would solidify things that are now sketchy.

We can only assume that Macnaughten had some real evidence to support his contention...because we cannot prove it was more than guesswork, despite his claim he had "certain information".

4. Macnaghten's reasons for destroying the private materials he had were very probably benign and likely stemmed from a desire to protect the Druitt family.

Or, they contained suppositions so libelous that he feared he would be sued...or they were proven to be so incorrect he destroyed them to protect his image and credibility...or they contained information which showed himself, or other senior investigators as sloppy or inefficient, or....there are a ton of possible reasons for his destroying the notes.

As to what was in the public domain about Druitt -- nothing to incriminate him beyond his being identified as Macnaghten's primary suspect.

And that last bit is the most pivotal,... only the suggestion by a senior official that Druitt was the killer has been enough all these years to keep Montague on this suspects list....with no proof of any kind to support it.

Im not trying to denounce your beliefs Andy, only pointing out that to argue from the suspect angle is hopeless....because there is a very good chance that you now know all you ever will about Druitt and this "guess" by Macnaughten...and you know that so far its a dead end street.

My best regards Andy.

aspallek
5th June 2007, 07:27 PM
Greetings, Michael.

We've been round and round on this and I'm not going to quibble about the distinction between a "suspect" and a "person of interest."

No, Macnaghten did not make a "guess." He gathered information and came to a conclusion based on that information. A "guess" is when you predict beforehand whether a tossed coin will land "heads" or "tales." Others came to different conclusions because they either had access to different information or they interpreted the same information differently.

I don't presume at all that what Macnaghten has was "real evidence" in the sense of any "proof." I think what he had was documentation that clarified what he only alluded to in extant writings. It would be useful to know what this documentation contained so that we could better evaluate his conclusions but I don't suppose we will ever find out.

I also don't believe for a moment that we know all we will ever know about Druitt. These are very exciting times. Newspaper archives are being digitized and made available on-line, as are libraries and other archives. Whether anything Ripper-related will be discovered regarding Druitt, I don't know. But I can almost assure you that much more will be found out about the relevant portion of his life.

PerryMason
5th June 2007, 07:32 PM
Hi Andy,

And I think with the passion you have for this you may well be the one that finds out some of the missing pieces...and Ill assure you, if you ever find anything that is incriminating on this dejected suicide victim, I will be the first to congratulate you.

My best Andy.

Glenn L Andersson
6th June 2007, 12:01 PM
I think it is relatively clear from the factual nature of the memoranda that Macnaghten did NOT use any kind of documentation when he wrote it. The errors clearly indicate that he wrote from memory and didn't access any facts at hand.

Not that he necessarily 'guessed' but he certainly didn't sit with any papers or documentation in front of him when he penned the memoranda.

All the best

aspallek
6th June 2007, 04:36 PM
I think it is relatively clear from the factual nature of the memoranda that Macnaghten did NOT use any kind of documentation when he wrote it. The errors clearly indicate that he wrote from memory and didn't access any facts at hand.

Not that he necessarily 'guessed' but he certainly didn't sit with any papers or documentation in front of him when he penned the memoranda.

Yes, but the memorandum is a reflection of information that he had gathered over the 4.5 years he had been at Scotland Yard. At some point he had some documentation, since he wrote that he destroyed it.

Glenn L Andersson
6th June 2007, 05:20 PM
True, but time quickly makes the memory faulty and facts all muddled up and confusing, as the memoranda clearly illustrates. We see this also in posthumous statements by other officials like Anderson, Abberline and Swanson.

Personally, I don't think Macnaghten made anything up (there probably is some truth in some of the things he states), but that his factual errors derives from confusion and sloppy factual research combined with a bad memory capacity, factors that made him mix things up and come up with things that didn't hang together. It shall also be noted that Macnaghten was never a Yard official during the actual Ripper murders and therefore based his ideas on information collected in retrospect, which never can be regarded the same as having actually been there and worked with the actual information when the crimes happened.

And for those reasons, Macnaghtens memoranda, which I consider to be a very flimsy and confusing document, has to be regarded as a source of questionable factual value as far as more detailed accuracy is concerned.

All the best

Mrsperfect
6th June 2007, 05:41 PM
G'day Gentlemen,

I'd like to thank all those posters that supported the notion that perhaps I may have a point here. I am not trying to cause trouble, merely question certain facts. (By the way Andy, do you believe Druitt did it?)

Is it a fact that Macnaughten was given this information about Druitt, by his family? Was the information oral, (as I suspect...... and noted down by MM) or written documentation? Was Druitt alive at the time the family did this? If not, then why did they do it? MM came on board in 1889, so how long had he known Druitt's family?................................ Was there any information at all? We'll never know!

If I wrote something down and showed it to another officer saying this is what the family believed about Monty, that would put more weight behind it, wouldn't it? Which of the other officers were also convinced by this documentation? If other officers had access to 'different information' why wasn't it passed on to MM?

It would appear that MM wasn't too good at simply confirming/collating evidence either. There were a number of errors in his memorandum. In fact I see no evidence that MM was particularly good at anything! I understand he was born into the family plantation business and knew someone in the force. He appeared to know Druitt's family also, (although I don't know from what date), so he was obviously well connected!

MM was brave to write his memorandum from memory, I have experienced a few nasty shocks whenever I've written on Casebook threads without the actual fact/quotes in front of me!

I think it's possible that information may surface about Druitt, but highly unlikely. I would be very surprised if that happened.

Let's toss a coin? (Aussies are famous for 'Two up')

Regards,

Eileen

P S Steve Powell has a keen interest in the Ripper case also!

Glenn L Andersson
6th June 2007, 05:51 PM
Hi Eileen,

As far as I know, it is not a fact that the source was anyone from Druitt's own family. It is not an uncommon occurrence, however, that family members or friends reveal such personal information to the police about a relative they suspect - this happens all the time, often because they are afraid of the person in question or fear that more murders will happen.

What could be problematic in this case, is that Druitt was already dead, so there would be little point for the family members to blacken their own name by giving this information. But apart from that, it can't be ruled out.
But it is not a fact.

What is a fact, is that we not know whi was the source, nor do we know if the information was oral or written (unless I've missed something). And we do not know the nature of the content of that information.

So it's all pretty much a basis for speculation.

All the best

dougie
6th June 2007, 06:01 PM
just wondering .....if Druitt hadnt committed suicide (when the police were looking for him alive ,when they found him found dead.according to arthur griffiths) then maybe the evidence regarding druitt might have become available,at least within the police files,if not in public.Adead man obviously cant answer any charges ,and maybe for that reason no evidence, suspivcions etc have remained on file.I believe there have been other instances of this in british legal history. I dont think anyone can truly believe that Macnaughton didnt genuinely regard druitt as a prime suspect,the fact that we dont know why,is to a degree irrelevant....and surely speaking several years after the event,he had time to come to a more measured judgement than others in "the thick of it" in 88-89.

Glenn L Andersson
6th June 2007, 06:22 PM
I dont think anyone can truly believe that Macnaughton didnt genuinely regard druitt as a prime suspect,the fact that we dont know why,is to a degree irrelevant....

Well, actually the same can be said about Abberline, Anderson, Littlechild and Swanson, but their 'suspects' haven't proven to be more credible than others. I can't see why Macnaghten would have been more 'genuinely' believing in his suspect than others. Surely they all did in one way or another and Macnaghten was not unique in that respect.

and surely speaking several years after the event,he had time to come to a more measured judgement than others in "the thick of it" in 88-89....

Well, that is of course a matter of opinon but I disagree with it.
It shall be noted, however, that also other officials who gave their opinions many years in retrospect were not free from errors, either. But it is my belief that those who actually were there when it happened and analysed the material in the thick of it knew better what was going on and had a better overall picture than someone who had to collect the information in retrospect.

All the best

dougie
6th June 2007, 06:43 PM
hi glen,
I wasnt trying to say that Macnaughtons belief was "more" genuine than andersons,littlechilds etc, merely that his belief WAS genuine,so its rather obvious that there was a reason for that.Now we know why anderson,littlechild etc believed in their suspects,and judging by their words we can understand ,at least ,WHY they thought as they did.The problem is we dont know fully why macnaughton believed as he did.
I think its rather fanciful to think, based merely on a family members supposed suspicion that he would become convinced of druitts guilt....there must have been something else.
As for the "measured opinion" issue versus the "in the thick of it" issue. It stands to reason that Macnaughton writing several years later could and probabley would have had access to "facts" not available to the officials in 88-89.Again, i guess wed also have to know which of the characters ..macnaughton,anderson and the rest would have had the keener "criminal brain" and ,even to what extent which of the named officials had access to all the relevant data and not just to part of it.

dougie
6th June 2007, 06:50 PM
Also i feel too little attention is paid to griffiths words,if true the the police were indeed looking for him before his suicide,and that obviously means that macnaughton wasnt the only one who had suspicions or dare i say it ....evidence?
kind regards

aspallek
6th June 2007, 06:52 PM
(By the way Andy, do you believe Druitt did it?)

Oh boy! Sorry to be so exasperated but I don't know how many times I have said this on this forum and also in print. I believe the chances of any particular known suspect (including Druitt) being the killer are considerably less than 50%. That's how little we know of the crimes and of the suspects. I believe that Druitt is among the most likely of the known suspects. The most likely scenario is that JtR was someone completely unknown to us.

Is it a fact that Macnaughten was given this information about Druitt, by his family? Was the information oral, (as I suspect...... and noted down by MM) or written documentation? Was Druitt alive at the time the family did this? If not, then why did they do it? MM came on board in 1889, so how long had he known Druitt's family?................................ Was there any information at all? We'll never know!

Some things we will never know. I believe we can regard it as a fact that Macnaghten was given private information by someone regarding the suspicions of Druitt's family, i.e. that they suspected him of being the Ripper. (This suspicion, in itself, is rather bizarre). If this is not a fact, then Sir Melville must have been lying, and I see no reason even to entertain that as a likelihood. The private information may have come from a family member or from an acquaintance. I believe it is slightly more likely that it came from an acquaintance as the suspicion itself would be an embarrassing revelation for the Druitt family.

If I wrote something down and showed it to another officer saying this is what the family believed about Monty, that would put more weight behind it, wouldn't it? Which of the other officers were also convinced by this documentation? If other officers had access to 'different information' why wasn't it passed on to MM?

It was private information. Sir Melville had no authority to share it with others at SY or elsewhere, especially since the suspect could not be brought to justice. Other officers did pass on different information. That is surely how Ostrog and Kosminski made Macnaghten's list.

It would appear that MM wasn't too good at simply confirming/collating evidence either. There were a number of errors in his memorandum. In fact I see no evidence that MM was particularly good at anything! I understand he was born into the family plantation business and knew someone in the force. He appeared to know Druitt's family also, (although I don't know from what date), so he was obviously well connected!

It all depends on what you regard the memorandum to be. Yes, there were some errors. It's difficult for us to tell whether these were a result of failed memory on Sir Melville's part or whether he was given incorrect data. But you are right in pointing out that he did not check them out well enough to correct them. Is this incompetence? It depends. I don't check all the facts in every document or memo I write. If the memorandum was an official document that MM expected would be studied down through the ages, yes he was incompetent. If, however, the memorandum was something in the nature of "talking points," i.e. advice passed along to others concerning the (lack of) relationship between Cutbush and the Ripper crimes, such precision may not have been needed. In fact, it is a paradox that minor inaccuracies sometimes lend believability to a statement, as they make it sound less "rehearsed," though I'm not suggesting Macnaghten's errors were intentional. Since the memorandum bears no marks of an addressee, we can't know who it was intended for. Macnaghten's 20+ years at and near the top of Scotland Yard more than attest to his competence.

MM was brave to write his memorandum from memory, I have experienced a few nasty shocks whenever I've written on Casebook threads without the actual fact/quotes in front of me!

I don't think bravery entered into it at all. I think Macnaghten was requested to write a memo about the Sun's accusation concerning Cutbush. I think Macnaghten probably didn't want to mess with it but wrote something out anyway -- largely from memory since it was a bother to him. The general tone of the memorandum suggests this to me.

I think it's possible that information may surface about Druitt, but highly unlikely. I would be very surprised if that happened.

I don't think it's unlikely at all. Newspaper archives are being digitized and made available online all the time. Wait until the Dorset papers' archives are digitized. We may find out that Druitt was away from London when one of the murders was committed. Then we can put it to rest once and for all!

Let's toss a coin? (Aussies are famous for 'Two up')
As long as the Cubs win, I'm happy!

**pearlyanna** · 02-26-2008, 08:41 PM

Mrsperfect
7th June 2007, 02:54 AM
[quote=aspallek;87748]What he destroyed must have been his personal property. It was probably some convincing documentation pointing toward Druitt, certainly enough to convince him of Druitt's probable guilt and probably enough to convince others as well. But not legal evidence sufficient to convict or exonerate anybody.

quote]

I'm confused Andy,

Are you saying that MacNaughten actually didn't show anyone the private information he had about Druitt?

Your latest post states:

It was private information. Sir Melville had no authority to share it with others at SY or elsewhere, especially since the suspect could not be brought to justice. Other officers did pass on different information.

So can I assume that it is your opinion that it may have been enough to convince other police officers................and that he never actually showed it .....................to anyone?

Regards,

Eileen

aspallek
7th June 2007, 04:53 AM
I'm confused Andy,

Are you saying that MacNaughten actually didn't show anyone the private information he had about Druitt?

Your latest post states:

It was private information. Sir Melville had no authority to share it with others at SY or elsewhere, especially since the suspect could not be brought to justice. Other officers did pass on different information.

So can I assume that it is your opinion that it may have been enough to convince other police officers................and that he never actually showed it .....................to anyone?

No, Eileen, I said nothing of the sort. To be honest with you I never gave the question of whether Macnaghten showed the private information to anyone the slightest bit of thought. I don't know whether he did or not. If he did, it would have been shared in the strictest confidence. Yes, I suspect it would have been enough to convince some other officials -- if he shared it with them.

Mrsperfect
7th June 2007, 05:28 AM
And that last bit is the most pivotal,... only the suggestion by a senior official that Druitt was the killer has been enough all these years to keep Montague on this suspects list....with no proof of any kind to support it.

After reading your last post Andy, I now believe that MacNaughten was the ONLY police officer to read this private information and deduce that Druitt was guilty.

Is this the way you see it?

I re-read MacNaughten's various promotions last week and thought, well, he's certainly 'earned his stripes' since the original jobs for the boys posting and then I wondered, "Were these additional promotions offered in the same vein'? Was Munro watching his back by having MM around him? Was MM occupying the seat of an otherwise possible ally to Munro's disliked colleague?

I have seen people 'promoted' during my employment history, (sometimes sideways) in an effort to get them out of harm's way! Can we assume MM wasn't?

Regards,

Eileen

davida
7th June 2007, 02:03 PM
Hello Eileen,

We should also consider MacNaghtens later comments.
He told the Daily Mail "...I have a very clear idea who he was and how he committed suicide.."

MacNaghten later tells us, in his autobiography, 'Days Of My Years' 1914.

"Although..the Whitechapel murderer, in all probability, put an end to himself soon after the Dorset Street affair in November 1888, certain facts pointing to this conclusion, were not in possession of the police till some years after I became a detective officer."

What MacNaghten is telling us is that he originally received private information suggesting that Druitts family believed Montague to be the killer. And that some time later he/the police received certain facts that their fears were justified. He is clearly referring to Montague Druitt, and, more significantly he does describe him as 'the Whitechapel murderer'.

Best Wishes
David

Ben
7th June 2007, 02:17 PM
Hi David,

"What MacNaghten is telling us is that he originally received private information suggesting that Druitts family believed Montague to be the killer. And that some time later he/the police received certain facts that their fears were justified"

I honestly don't believe Macnaghten was describing two different "sets" of information here. What he's trying to say is that the cessation of the murders can be explained away, in his opinion, on account of the perpetrator probably committing suicide, and then he then received cetain facts about Druitt, a man hitherto unknown to him (timely suicide, family inherited mental instability, rumours of family suspicion etc) that might lend credence to his original theory for the apparently abrupt termination of the killings.

Best regards,
Ben

davida
7th June 2007, 02:24 PM
Hi Ben,
No. The private info, reflecting the Druitt family fears is quite different from the much later 'FACTS' which support the theory that the Whitechapel murderer committed suicide.
Best Wishe
David

Ben
7th June 2007, 02:33 PM
I really don't think so, David.

He did not, at any stage, state that he received certain facts that bolstered the private information he already posessed. He's saying he received facts that lent credence to his theory as to why the killings stopped, i.e. the information he alluded to in the memoranda. "Some years" after he became a detective officer would surely be consistent with the earlyish 1890s.

Cheers,
Ben

davida
7th June 2007, 03:59 PM
Hi Ben
I am going on what MacNaghten actually said and not what I think he meant.
I am making the precise point that the much later factual information was not related to the Druitt fears mentioned in his 1894 memo. I am referring to MacNaghtens statement, published in 1914, that he/the police had, subsequent to the memo, certain facts which pointed to the conclusion that the Whitechapel murderer, ie Montague Druitt had committed suicide.
Best Wishes
David

Ben
7th June 2007, 07:33 PM
Hi David,

"I am referring to MacNaghtens statement, published in 1914, that he/the police had, subsequent to the memo"

Could you direct me to where Macnagthen mentioned anything about receiving factual information "subsequent to the memo"? Because, at present, all indications are that he was referring to precisely the same "evidence" he alluded to in the Memoranda, albeit in different terminology, and that there were not two different "sets" of information. Unless I'm missing something huge, nowhere is any reference made to the recepit of facts "much later" than 1894.

All the best,
Ben

davida
8th June 2007, 12:27 AM
Hello Ben,

I can only repeat the sources as above.
It is clear that, in 1894 when MacNaghten prepared his memo for the Home Secretary, he had very little on Montague Druitt. He knew that he was dead. He also had some private information, from whatever source, which suggested that Druitts family suspected him of being the killer. He appears also to have some information, possibly from the same source, that Montague was 'sexually insane.' If, at that time, ie 1894, MacNaghten had any other evidence(?) against Druitt he would have included it in the memo.
It was twenty years after the memo when he claimed, in his autobiography, and in a Daily Mail article relating to his biography, that certain facts, relating to Druitt had come to light some years after he had become a detective officer. The fact that no mention was made of these facts in the 1894 memo strongly suggests that the factual information had not yet reached him by the time he penned it.
Best Wishes
David
David

cgp100
8th June 2007, 12:53 AM
Could you direct me to where Macnagthen mentioned anything about receiving factual information "subsequent to the memo"? Because, at present, all indications are that he was referring to precisely the same "evidence" he alluded to in the Memoranda, albeit in different terminology, and that there were not two different "sets" of information.

Apart from the fact that Macnaghten's opinion of Druitt as a suspect hardened after the time of the memoranda (which might just be attributable to the same process by which our prejudices are confirmed as we grow older), he does give an indication that his information about Druitt had been received in more than one "set":

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.

[Daily Mail, 1913. Often quoted, but I don't have a note of the exact date of the report. It must be known, though ...]

Chris Phillips

Ben
8th June 2007, 12:54 AM
Hi David,

"The fact that no mention was made of these facts in the 1894 memo strongly suggests that the factual information had not yet reached him by the time he penned it"

But he did mention them.

There is little doubt that Macnaghten exhibited a clear preference for the "suicide" theory as the most tenable explanation for the cessation of the crimes, hence his "in all probability" remark in "Days of my Years". The certain facts pointing to that conclusion (i.e. that the ripper committed suicide) were almost certainly the facts he referred to in 1894:

- That Duitt committed suicide shortly after the Kelly murder, and that no ripper-attributed killings occured thereafter.

- That there were indication of mental instabiliy in the family.

- That rumours abounded that his family entertaind certain doubts about him.

Inadequate as they now seem in isolation, they still come under the heading of "certain facts" pointing towards the conclusion that the killer had committed suicide. All he's doing is altering the terminology a little by 1914.

Moreover, the early 1890s would be entirely consistent with "some years after (Macnaghten) became a detective officer." Had he claimed to have received additional facts after writing the 1894 memo, I'd agree with you, but this just isn't intimated.

In both writings, the essence of what he was saying was pretty much the same; that he subscibed to the suicide theory, and he found a suspect whose "facts" appeared, on the surface, to fit the bill.

Best regards,
Ben

Ben
8th June 2007, 12:58 AM
Hi Chris,

That's true, and thanks for the reminder.

The impression conveyed by MM's "one time or another" comment was that the thee essential "facts" I've enumerated above may not have arrived at the same time, but probably predated the memoranda.

Best,

Ben

cgp100
8th June 2007, 01:13 AM
The impression conveyed by MM's "one time or another" comment was that the thee essential "facts" I've enumerated above may not have arrived at the same time, but probably predated the memoranda.

Not all at the same time - yes, that's the obvious implication of "at one time or another".

Predating the memoranda - no evidence either way (except that Macnaghten's opinion as to Druitt's guilt hardened after the time of the memoranda).

Chris Phillips

davida
8th June 2007, 01:31 AM
Hi Ben
It is clear that we will not agree on this. It is possible to interpret the events as you have if you ignore MacNaghtens claim to have received certain facts since MacNaghten does not refer to any factual evidence in his memo or in the drafts thereof.
It is perfectly conceivable,and suggested by MacNaghtens own words in 1914, that the facts may not have been known at the time he wrote the memo.
There is no more reason to suppose that MacNaghten was in, 1894, in possession of any other facts, relating to Druitt, other than that which he refers to in the memo.
It is perfectly conceivable that MacNaghten learned more about Druitt in the twenty years between the memo and his autobiography.
Best Wishes
David

Ben
8th June 2007, 03:02 AM
Hi David,

"since MacNaghten does not refer to any factual evidence in his memo or in the drafts thereof.

He doesn't refer to them as facts, no, although that's obviously what they were. Druitt's "timely" suicide was a fact, and it was presumably a fact that rumours existed concerning family suspicions. Then there's the fact that mental illness existed within the family, and possibly inherited by Druitt himself. All constitute facts which could be construed as bolstering the conclusion MM subcribed to regarding the termination of the murders - they just weren't referred to as such in 1894. Writing in 1914, he was understandably less guarded and cautious about his terminology.

Nowhere, at any stage, does Macnaghten give the impression that he acquired additional incriminating facts after penning his 1894 memo. I'm not saying it didn't happen, just that it wasn't borne out in any of his memoirs.

His suspicions may have crystallised over time, but even then it pays to heed his wording: 'I have always held strong opinions regarding him, and the more I think the matter over, the stronger these opinions become.

Very different, as I'm sure you'll agree, to "the more evidence I accrue, the stonger these opinions become"

All the best,
Ben

aspallek
8th June 2007, 03:31 AM
Ben and David,

I think either of you could be correct. On the face of it, the private information seems to be different from the certain facts because the private information appears to have come only to Macnaghten while the certain facts were apparently possessed by the police as a whole. On the other hand, I think this may be parsing Macnaghten's words a little too closely. Macnaghten was part of the police department so anything in his private police file would be in possession of the police. I think this one is just about a toss-up.

But David, there is no indication that the Macnaghten memorandum was addressed to the Home Secretary. The fact is that we can only guess at whom it was intended for.

davida
8th June 2007, 10:12 AM
Hello Andy -
Yes I agree that we still dont know for sure for whomthe memo was intended. However, given that 'The Sun' had only recently published their articles suggesting that Cutbush was the killer it is quite likely that the memo was intended for the Home Secretary in the event that he should be questioned about the 'Suns' allegations in the Commons. It is unlikely to have been written for the benefit of the newspapers or for subordinate officers.
MacNaghten claims that he had destroyed his evidence and no trace of it remained. It is curious that he did not destroy the memo.

Its worth recalling that Monro also apparently had some papers -the 'hot potato' papers which were kept highly confidential and were destroyed upon his death (coincidentally in Chiswick - 15 Bolton Road) in 1928.

Of course we dont know what the evidence was since MacNaghten claims he destroyed it all. This alone tends to distinguish it from the memo which survived.
Best Wishes
David

ps - Who are The Cubs?

Ben
8th June 2007, 01:13 PM
Hi Andy and David,

If we consider the strong possibility that it was the "private information" that Macnaghten ultimately destroyed, then it was touched upon in the 1894 memo, thus providing a further indicator that no distinction existed between the facts alluded to in 1914 and the contents of the memoranda.

If he received more incriminating facts against Druitt after penning the memo - facts which went significantly beyond those contained in the memo - then there's almost no escaping the conclusion that Macnaghten was extremely negligent to destroy it.

But I doubt he was, because the chances are he was describing the same evidence in different terms.

Best regards,
Ben

PerryMason
8th June 2007, 01:22 PM
Hi all,

I am not as well informed on these issues as others here, but I am working to correct that....and it seems to me that Mr Macnaughten's frequent confusion about details in his writings, his firm convictions despite not having first hand knowledge of events, and his suggestions about Druitt for example, that cannot be substantiated despite many researchers attempts to do so, make his opinions and reminiscences less than authoritative. In my opinion of course.

I also feel he shares that dubious distinction with characters like Dr Bond.

My best regards all.

aspallek
9th June 2007, 04:52 AM
Yes I agree that we still dont know for sure for whomthe memo was intended. However, given that 'The Sun' had only recently published their articles suggesting that Cutbush was the killer it is quite likely that the memo was intended for the Home Secretary in the event that he should be questioned about the 'Suns' allegations in the Commons. It is unlikely to have been written for the benefit of the newspapers or for subordinate officers.
MacNaghten claims that he had destroyed his evidence and no trace of it remained. It is curious that he did not destroy the memo.

Its worth recalling that Monro also apparently had some papers -the 'hot potato' papers which were kept highly confidential and were destroyed upon his death (coincidentally in Chiswick - 15 Bolton Road) in 1928.

Of course we dont know what the evidence was since MacNaghten claims he destroyed it all. This alone tends to distinguish it from the memo which survived.
Best Wishes
David

ps - Who are The Cubs?

Yes, it is curious that he didn't destroy the draft of the memo, that which has come down to us as the "Aberconway version." This makes me further think that Macnaghten may have destroyed the papers for some rather banal reason.

The Cubs? Oh come now. The Chicago Cubs, baseball team. One of the most famous baseball teams in history. I should have thought even a Brit would know the Cubs.

After all, I know Manchester United.

caz
11th June 2007, 11:51 AM
On the face of it, the private information seems to be different from the certain facts because the private information appears to have come only to Macnaghten while the certain facts were apparently possessed by the police as a whole. On the other hand, I think this may be parsing Macnaghten's words a little too closely. Macnaghten was part of the police department so anything in his private police file would be in possession of the police. I think this one is just about a toss-up.

Hi All,

Regarding the question of who else knew what Macnaghten knew, and whether they were similarly struck by the information, I am reminded of Grey Hunter's words back in February over on one of the Druitt threads:

It must be remembered that the 'Macnaghten Memoranda' was an official document and was retained in an official file. Anderson, Macnaghten's immediate supervisor, would certainly have been aware of it and with the prominent attention that Macnaghten pays Druitt I am sure that Anderson would have made it his business to know all that Macnaghten knew of this suspect.

Love,

Caz
X

cgp100
11th June 2007, 12:34 PM
Regarding the question of who else knew what Macnaghten knew, and whether they were similarly struck by the information, I am reminded of Grey Hunter's words back in February over on one of the Druitt threads:

But obviously Grey Hunter was referring to what Macnaghten knew at the time he wrote the memoranda.

Perhaps you missed the discussion above of the possibility that additional information reached Macnaghten after that time. And perhaps you also missed the same point on every occasion it was made to you previously. Sometimes these discussions feel very much like "Groundhog Day"!

Chris Phillips

Ben
11th June 2007, 01:26 PM
Hi all,

In the absence of any definite proof to the contrary, it must always remain a possibility that Macnaghten received additional information subsequent to his penning the 1894 memo. What doesn't exist, unfortunately, is any evidence that this occured - certainly not from anything Macnaghten said. His Druitt-suspicions may have crystallised over time, most probably as a result of "thinking the matter over" as his comments suggest, rather than acquiring more evidence that he kept to himself.

All the best,
Ben

davida
12th June 2007, 02:02 PM
Hi Ben, and All
The idea, that MacNaghten did receive 'factual' evidence after the 1894 memo, is suggested by his own words from his much later, autobiography '..certain facts..some years after I became a detective officer'. And, my reasoning is, that since MacNaghten actually refers to very little actual factual information, regarding Druitt,in the memo, the 'certain facts' might possibly have come to him as he says '...some years after..'
You will have noted that I prefer to use the expression 'possibility' in most of my posts, as opposed to the more definite 'probability' favoured by some other posters.
It's worth remembering that MacNaghten had closed the file, on the case,in 1892 two years before the memo and one year after the publication of the 'Bristol Times and Mirror article' regarding the West of England MP.
It is only brainstorming after all but its how we put the pieces together that makes it worth while.
Best Wishes
David

Ben
12th June 2007, 02:35 PM
And very admirable brainstorming, David. I agree, incidentally, that we should be discussing in terms of "possibility" rather than probability, and I'll cheerfully concede the possibility that further evidence was obtained by Macnaghten.

I just disagree with the inferences being drawn from Macnaghten's remarks. For instance, I'd urge caution when contemplating that "some years after" reference. As you note, the sentence continues "...after I became a detective officer" which is perfectly compatible with the early 1890s. At the penning of the memo of 1894, it was already "some years" after he became a detective officer, and if he received these certain facts some time previously, it stands to reason that the "certain facts" referred to 1914 were synonymous with the details he expounded in 1894.

Had Macnaghten wrote: "I received certain facts some years after I acquired the first wadge of Druitt material alluded to 20 years ago", I'm sure we'd be singing from the same hymn sheet.

All the best,
Ben

aspallek
12th June 2007, 03:28 PM
It's worth remembering that MacNaghten had closed the file, on the case,in 1892 two years before the memo and one year after the publication of the 'Bristol Times and Mirror article' regarding the West of England MP.

Hi David,

I don't want to nit-pick but I don't believe the file was ever officially closed. I think Stewart made that point rather strongly in his recent book.

Regards,

davida
12th June 2007, 03:35 PM
Hi Andy,
I was informed by letter from Scotland Yard in 1972 that, due to the hundred years rule, the case papers would not be open for scrutiny until 1992 having been closed in 1892. I would not cross swords with Stewart over this but I believe Rumbelow too has claimed that the file was 'officially' closed in that year.
Best Wishes
David

aspallek
12th June 2007, 04:01 PM
Hi David,

Splitting hairs again but did Scotland Yard actually tell you that they closed the case in 1892 or just that the 100 years would be up then? I think Stewart's claim is that the 100-year clock started running in 1892 because that's when active investigation ceased. Rumbelow co-authored the book with Stewart, but then I know the two didn't agree on everything the book contains.

davida
12th June 2007, 04:23 PM
Hi Andy,
Yes it is a very thin hair too.
My recollection is that I was left in no doubt that MacNagten had closed the file in 1892. That would also be implied by the fact that it was closed, for 100 years until 1992. In reality it was made available before 1992.
Best Wishes
David

vBulletin v3.6.0, Copyright �2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Announcement

Macnaghtens Credibility (Recovered)

Macnaghtens Credibility (Recovered)

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment