Days of my years

[Jonathan H]

To Bev'

I would round it off this way.

Sir Melville Macnaghten's memoirs 'Days of My Years' (particularly the preface and Chapter IV: 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper') is the critical primary source regarding this police chief's investigation into a posthumous suspect whom he regarded, rightly or wrongly, as conclusive.

Sir Melville also learned, second hand, about other significant Ripper suspects like Tumblety (arguably Tom Sadler and Aaron Kosminski came to his attention, the latter in terms of being permanently sectioned, while he had already been on the Force for nearly two years).

Sir Melville claimed to be just as certain as Sir Robert Anderson, and yet the former agreed with the posthumous, familial -- and extraordinary -- accusation against a fellow Englishman, Anglican, Gentile and Gentleman, therefore going totally against his expected nationalistic, class, institutional (eg. the solution was no help to the Yard) and sectarian prejudices.

I argue that a secondary source on the Jack the Ripper subject can be excellent, well-researched, informative and fascinating yet I sincerely think incomplete if it does not include and analyse these memoirs. Furthermore, analyse them in conjunction with Mac's 1913 revealing retirement comments, plus his anonymous briefing of both information and disinformation to Major Griffiths and George Sims -- as his proxies to the public -- and with the 'West of England' MP articles which show that belief, rightly or wrongly, in Druitt's culpability originated before Macnaghten-sources, either by him or on his behalf.

That's my final two cents.

[Scott Nelson]

Somehow I doubt that, Jonathan. But post #14 above was pretty good.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jonathan,

Well, I must say that I find it incredible that a man with an 'elephantine' memory should recollect so poorly in his Memorandum. The argument that he deliberately injected mistakes into his presentation is not a very strong one, especially if that document was meant for Home Office eyes above him, which I find difficult to believe as it wasnt addressed to anyone anyway. Neither is ip an official document as it has never been stamped as received into the files, nor dated as such and only written on police paper. We do not know when he, or anybody else for that matter, put it there...

Either the man had an elephantine memory or it, the document shows he had a poor one in this instance.
If he deliberately wrote mistakes in, for whatever reason of his own, the strength of officialness and the intention of passing it on upwards is severely weakened. I suggest that a man in his position would have no reason good enough to deliberately mislead the Home Secretary. Even if he DID know the Druitt family personally.

Days Of My Years therefore, I suggest, does not strengthen the memoranda importance, but the opposite. However, we are no doubt in friendly disagreement here. Lol

best wishes

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

Shattering the paradigm

Hi Phil

Far be it from me to argue Jonathan's case for him, (if for no other reason than my lacking his erudition), but I think he'd argue, (as he has in the past), that rather than just a rough draft, and a submitted final document, there were a number of subtly differing versions of the MM, each purporting to be the final word, each distinctly aimed at fulfilling a different purpose via a different readership...

Furthermore what we regard as the rough draft, may in fact be a later version aimed at distribution to the very widest field via Sims...

Doubtless he'll leap out and tell me if I've got that wrong!

All the best

Dave

[Jonathan H]

Sorry, Dave, I missed this.

You put my theory very well, in fact much better than I do.

I would just ask you, and those few interested, to consider that a through-line can be drawn between these three primary sources, one I see as much more problematic trying to do the same regarding the Anderson-Swanson-'Kosminski' theory:

Acton, Chiswick & Turnham Green Gazette
United Kingdom
Saturday, 5 January 1889
FOUND DROWNED. — ... William H. Druitt said he lived at Bournemouth, and that he was a solicitor. The deceased ... had stayed with witness at Bournemouth for a night towards the end of October. Witness heard from a friend on the 11th of December that deceased had not been heard of at his chambers for more than a week. Witness then went to London to make inquiries ...

and,

Sims as Dagonet, 'The Referee' Feb 16th, 1902.

" ... At the time his dead body was found in the Thames, his friends, who were terrified at his disappearance from their midst, were endeavouring to have him found and placed under restraint again."

and,

Mac in 'Laying the Ghost ...' 1914

"... I incline to the belief that the individual who held up London in terror resided with his own people ; that he absented himself from home at certain times, and that he committed suicide on or about the 10th of November 1888 ..."


Macnaghten knew that Druitt was absent, eg. missing, not immediately after but 'soon after' the Kelly horror, and that a brother (and friend) were concerned about his disappearance -- and that they are all veiled as 'friends'.

True, Druitt did not live with his family, though the school community where he did live broadly qualifies as his 'own people'. And they certainly noted his absence.

Once you realise, morover, that information is being revealed and with-held by Mac -- and been reshaped by him like plastecine for twenty years -- then you can see the essential point being made which matches the original 1889 source, though untraceable back to Montague Druitt and relations.

That Druitt's brother, with whom Montie had briefly stayed with and worked with as barristers (plus a worried friend) were desperately trying to find the 'absented' Montie, and that this search was based on them believing that he was not just AWOL, or mad, but also the Ripper (confirmation that this belieforiginated with them and not Macnaghten is that it leaked in Dorset where the first cousin lived and was picked up by the local MP).

[Roy Corduroy]

That Druitt's brother, with whom Montie had briefly stayed with and worked with as barristers (plus a worried friend) were desperately trying to find the 'absented' Montie, and that this search was based on them believing that he was not just AWOL, or mad, but also the Ripper (confirmation that this belieforiginated with them and not Macnaghten is that it leaked in Dorset where the first cousin lived and was picked up by the local MP).

But just because this belief did not originate with Macnaghten, it doesn't mean it was a true belief. I could easily see how a rumor of this type got started. Yes William Druitt was concerned about his brother, Montague Druitt gone missing. Shortly after the tragedy at Millers Court. Yes their mother is institutionalized during the autumn of terror. As it turns, out, Montague Druitt takes his own life by suicide. And just like that, a rumor begins. In Dorset, Monty's hometown. And it becomes entrenched, and for Mr. Farquharson, bless his heart, it becomes, of all things, his doctrine.

Yes we can trace the connections to Farquharson, we can also consider the vicar tale of ten years later. But the fact that Montague's cousin, Charles Druitt was a clergyman, and Montague's friend John Henry Lonsdale was too, doesn't make it any more likely that Montague Druitt 'confessed' to them. In fact, it makes it just as likely that because those men exist, a sub-rumor developed out of the initial one.

Again, Jonathan, I like your theory. If, and I say if there really was some tangible evidence that Macnaghten picked up on, then your approach comes the closest I've seen to working through the anomolies of what he wrote at various times.

But after all, rumors can take on a life of their own.

Roy

[Jonathan H]

To Roy

I think that is an entirely fair dissent.

I would just counter that if it was just a rumour without any solid foundation I beieve that, of all policemen, Sir Melville Macnaghten would have happily quashed it.

For example, by easily discovering from newspaper articles that Montie did not kill himself 'the same evening' as the final murder as Farquharson wrongly asserted to the press.

Furthermore, debunking such a 'rumour' would have suited Macnaghten, temperamentally, as he would have found it ghastly that the maniac was a cricketer, an Oxonian, and a school master ('that remarkable man').

It also would have suited him institutionally that the Yard had not been embarrassingly chasing a phantom for over two years.

It also would have suited his compassionate nature to be able to reassure an anguished family that their 'belief' was mistaken, or so unproven as to be worthless.

Instead this competent, hands-on police administrator accepted this unlikely and awkward suspect as the real Jack, and then took certain discreet steps and calculated risks to 'keep everyone satisfied'.

You say from the 21st Cenruty that there was nothing to the Druitt tale which leaked out of Dorset in 1891. You might be right. But if Mac could have got the dead Montie off the hook -- and the family -- he would have, and yet he judged that he could not.

Though we only have glimpses, nevertheless, the notion of Druitt as the Ripper does not happen after his death but before -- and it came from his own lips in some form of self-incrimination.

Most families of monsters are not convinced their member is a vicous kller even with DNA, witnesses, a jury's verdict, and an execution. Because it is too painful and horrifying. Yet the drutit, or some of them, embraced this extraordinary and nightmarish belief without pressure from the state or police or anybody.

After the Mckenzie, Pinchin St. and Coles murders they still believed it ...

[Jonathan H]

On the other site -- the one I am banned from -- there is a discussion about Harry Cox, with one poster grasping that a secondary source has omitted key lines which thus makes it a better fit for the Aaron Kosminski/'Kosminski' theory. That book has a number of those sort of omissions.

The same policeman, Cox, thought that Frances Coles was the final victim.

He had obviously not caught up on the revisionist notion, beginning with Griffiths in 1898, that Kelly was the final one, and why should he have?

Why would he take seriously the 1895 to 1912 claims of Anderson's [persistent implication] that the police knew at the time that Kelly was last (after a suspect had been 'safely caged', their hideous career 'cut short' having obviously absorbed Mac's fiction that this madman had been sectioned in early 1889). Anderson was claiming that the 'police' had in fact arrested, or taken him into custody, no less than the true Jack the Ripper but were let down by a treacherous Jew.

News to Cox!

Whereas Macnaghten, in 1914, remained fully aware of the true length of the investigation, though he tried to pass the [un-named] Coles murder onto a press beat-up.

Yet the very title of his chapter gives the game away:

CHAPTER IV.

LAYING THE GHOST OF JACK THE RIPPER.

I'm not a butcher, I'm not a Yid,
Nor yet a foreign Skipper,
But I'm your own light-hearted friend,
Yours truly, Jack the Ripper."
ANONYMOUS.

THE Above queer verse was one of the first documents which I perused at Scotland Yard, for at that time the police post-bag bulged large with hundreds of anonymous communications on the subject of the East End tragedies. Although, as I shall endeavour to show in this chapter, the Whitechapel murderer, in all probability, put an end to himself soon after the Dorset Street affair in November i888, certain facts, pointing to this conclusion, were not in possession of the police till some years after I became a detective officer.

At the time, then, of my joining the Force on 1st June 1889, police and public were still agog over the tragedies of the previous autumn, and were quite ready to believe that any fresh murders, not at once elucidated, were by the same maniac's hand. Indeed, I remember three cases - two in 1888, and one early in 1891, which the Press ascribed to the so-called Jack the Ripper, to whom, at one time or another, some fourteen murders were attributed-some before, and some after, his veritable reign of terror in 1888.

[robhouse]

On the other site -- the one I am banned from -- there is a discussion about Harry Cox, with one poster grasping that a secondary source has omitted key lines which thus makes it a better fit for the Aaron Kosminski/'Kosminski' theory. That book has a number of those sort of omissions.

First of all, if you are going to accuse me of something, you might be man enough to actually refer to me directly, or mention the name of the "secondary source" you mean. Second, I would like you to back up your accusation that I intentionally omitted things in order to make a better fit for my theory. You suggest the "book has a number of those sort of omissions." What are they?

The same policeman, Cox, thought that Frances Coles was the final victim.

"The next and the final crime of the series did not take place till the 9th of November, when Mary Kelly was done to death in Dorset Street" - Henry Cox, Dec 1, 1906.


RH

[Jonathan H]

From the Girlie-Man.

Arguably what Cox has done is shown the messy memory that Coles was thought to be the last victim at the time.

'Jack the Ripper and the Case for Scotland Yard's Prime Suspect' by Rob House which, inadvertently, showed that the 'case' can only be made to seem strong by omitting -- consciously or unconsciously -- what does not fit.

The thesis being that any rational person who simply reviews the sources can see that it is all quite straight-forward. Not there is absolute proof, of course not, but that 'Kosminski' is the strongest police suspect.

But the layperson would have no idea reading House's book about the following:

- the Cox shambles has bean dealt with on the other site.

- 'Mysteries of Police and Crime' is not an article but a big book in which Major Griffiths, clearly writing from 'Aberconway', sided with Macnaghten that the best bet was the drowned doctor.

- that Sir Robert Anderson in his 1908 interview confused pipes and Liberal and Tory Home Secretaries showing a potentially fading and flailing memory about the Ripper.

- that Macnaghten, who incidentally became Assistant Chief Commissioner of Crime too, had never written that Druitt was 'a doctor and of good family'. That what he actually wrote is '... said to be a doctor & of good family' for the official file. The missing ellipses seem trivial but in the overall scheme it is a subtle way of dismissing his opinion because it makes it seem -- quite falsely and unfairly -- that he definitely believed that Druitt was a medical man and that this opinion was official and for the record.

- that Macnaghten, while he did write that an alternative to a suicide was that a family had sectioned their Ripper relation, the lines about 'tempted to exonerate' Kosminski and Ostrog are gone from 'Aberconway'. Those suspects are also completely dropped from his memoirs, an indication of how little he took these suspects seriously. Or that his memoir specifically rejected the notions of the Ripper being identified early, or that he was Jewish, or that he was sectioned, or that there was a witness identification.

- that while Stewart Evans had written an essay speculating about the Seaside Home identification being real, he and Don Rumbelow in a more recent opinion (eg. their great 2006 book) had offered the provisional theory that Aaron Kosminski was never confronted by a Ripper witness.

- that George Sims from 1899 to 1917 always made it clear that he believed that the Ripper was a mad doctor who drowned himself in the Thames. In 1907 he did write about the Polish Jew suspect. But what the lay person would not know from House's book is that he also wrote in that same article is that the 'two theories' among the highest authorities involved the English medico and the other was a young, American, medical student. Tat the Polish Jew is minor sideshow according to him.

- that almost certainly Joseph Lawende confronted Tom Sadler and said no.

- that modern FBI profiler John Douglas switched from Aaron Kosminski to Cohen, or a figure very like him.

- that Macnaghten knew that 'Kosminski' was alive yet Anderson and Swanson do not know this thinking quite wrongly that he was deceased.

Need I go on ...?

I honestly believe that Rob House thinks he was being completely objective and was not deliberately torturing the sources. He keeps accusing me of accusing him of manipulating the sources consciously when people do it unconsciously all the time, without realizing that the forest is being lost for the trees.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

The same policeman, Cox, thought that Frances Coles was the final victim.

That's far from clear.

"It is only upon certain conditions that I have agreed to deal with the great Whitechapel crimes of fifteen years ago."

I understand that 1906 - 15 = 1891 and what that implies. Coles.

But as Rob has said on How's site : "The next and the final crime of the series did not take place till the 9th of November, when Mary Kelly was done to death in Dorset Street."

The two statements are at odds with each other.

[robhouse]

Basically, amongst other things, you are suggesting that I omitted other people's theories from my book. I am not going to respond to your entire laundry list, as I have answered most of these points countless times already.

"- the Cox shambles has bean dealt with on the other site."

No it hasn't actually. I responded to it in its entirety. And if I was going to redo the book, I would probably leave out the same stuff I left out before.

"'Mysteries of Police and Crime' is not an article but a big book in which Major Griffiths, clearly writing from 'Aberconway', sided with Macnaghten that the best bet was the drowned doctor."

I am not particularly interested in who preferred which theory. What I am interested in is the two men who were at the head of the actual Ripper inquiry. Macnaghten was in no way involved with the Ripper inquiry. Plus, I note in my book:

"Macnaghten disagreed with Anderson’s theory, since he claimed to have received “private information” that convinced him the number one suspect was one of the other men described in the memo—specifically a barrister named Montague John Druitt, who committed suicide shortly after the murder of Mary Kelly. So despite the fact that Anderson was apparently convinced of the Ripper’s identity, there was no consensus about the matter within the C.I.D. "

As I have written numerous times, it is natural for different police officials to prefer different suspects, and have different theories.

"that Sir Robert Anderson in his 1908 interview confused pipes and Liberal and Tory Home Secretaries showing a potentially fading and flailing memory about the Ripper."

Confusing a pipe is a small detail, as is confusing who was Home Secretary at a certain time. I have spoken with people who study memory and the brain at MIT. In general, and not surprisingly, people tend to forget small details that are not terribly important. You will not forget things that you consider to be major life events... like discovering the Ripper. Anderson may have forgotten a few small details... I think you will find errors like this in any memoir if you dig enough.

"- that while Stewart Evans had written an essay speculating about the Seaside Home identification being real, he and Don Rumbelow in a more recent opinion (eg. their great 2006 book) had offered the provisional theory that Aaron Kosminski was never confronted by a Ripper witness."

I don't think this theory is valid or particularly interesting at all. Nor did I see any need to discuss it in my book.

"- that George Sims from 1899 to 1917 always made it clear that he believed that the Ripper was a mad doctor who drowned himself in the Thames. In 1907 he did write about the Polish Jew suspect. But what the lay person would not know from House's book is that he also wrote in that same article is that the 'two theories' among the highest authorities involved the English medico and the other was a young, American, medical student. Tat the Polish Jew is minor sideshow according to him."

What Sims believed does not interest me. What does interest me is that Sims provided extra information about Kozminski that is not included in any source. And that is the ONLY reason I mentioned him at all in my book.

"- that almost certainly Joseph Lawende confronted Tom Sadler and said no. "

I have responded to this before. I have admitted that I should have probably included this, and thought I did include it. I am quite certain that I deleted it at some point. In any case, as I have also said countless times, I do not see that this detracts from the theory of Kozminski as a suspect in the case. And I am not going to explain it again.

"- that modern FBI profiler John Douglas switched from Aaron Kosminski to Cohen, or a figure very like him."

And why was that? Fido told Douglas all about Aaron Kozminski. He basically convinced him to change his mind, and support his (Fido's) suspect in Fido's suspect book. And what did Fido tell him? Among other things he told him that Kozmisnki was an imbecile... as Fido writes: "no sexual serialist had ever been an imbecile." As I demonstrated quite clearly in my book, Kozminski was not an imbecile. So I am not going to include a conclusion (Douglas's) that is based on incorrect information supplied by a person who is trying to undermine Kozminski as a suspect. Also, I spoke personally with Roy Hazelwood who also worked on the FBI profile, and his opinion did not change on Kozminski's viability as a suspect. In fact, I tried to contact Douglas, but he never responded to me.

"that Macnaghten knew that 'Kosminski' was alive yet Anderson and Swanson do not know this thinking quite wrongly that he was deceased."

I am not going to respond to this again.

RH

[Jenni Shelden]

Whilst I dont agree with Rob's conclusion that Kosminski is the Ripper. One thing I can say with certainty is that a Ripperologist with more integrity than Rob, particular with regards to those writing suspect Ripperology - I think you would be hard pushed to find.

I read Rob's book recently and found it very interesting. One thing I like about Rob and his book is that he tells you when he is speculating, he tells you the source of his information and why he thinks it is relevant, he sticks to things that are based on solid sources and does not speculate on speculation. He says I think Kosminski is the most viable suspect and was the Ripper and here's why and he doesnt tell you to think it to.

In relation to the Cox angle I found Rob's section on this very clear and easy to follow. I was under no illusion as to what he was saying about it and what he wasnt. it seemed clear to me that he was simply saying that Cox seemed to back up the idea that the City Police were undertaking surveillance of a suspect after Kelly's murder and from the details Cox gives it could be the case that it was Kosminski they were looking into.

I would think any accusation that he has in someway deliberately tried to mislead is totally and utterly wrong. I am almost tempted to state that anyone who makes such an accusation better get ready to apologise.

One might suggest that someone who's suspect is Druitt needs Kosminski to not be JtR - but this would probably be unfair, wouldnt it? After all if Druitt is the first best suspect, it surely follows Kosminski is the second best.

Jenni

[Cogidubnus]

I speak in sorrow, as one who has sparred with Jonathan and always enjoyed the exchanges...but I have to say that I too found Rob's book to be an outstandingly honest appraisal of the available evidence, of course as he found and interpreted it (which book isn't?)...moreover as Jenni contends, Rob, unlike many authors, does clearly signpost when he's about to leave the "paths of righteousness".

I'm not saying he's 100% right, mind you...just that in my opinion it's a bloody good book, an honest book, and it doesn't deserve the sort of criticism that Jonathan's giving it....sorry Jonathan...

All the best

Dave

[Jonathan H]

To manipulate sources can be done unconsciously, it's done all the time. You favour this and not that.

House's book is standard for that kind of thing but it means that the lay person will be misled into thinking that this is all completely objective, and so on.

This is the big problem with a buff site.

To criticise the methodology utilised is to offend the fragile etiquette of some in RipperLand, or JFK-ConspiracyLand, or LochNessLand or whatever sub-world of true believers.

If the Buff-author is a person of 'integrity', then to even suggest that their work is severely biased means pistols at twenty paces.

It's like the 'straw man' that Rob House uses against Anderson's modern detractors (who agree with his contemporaneous detractors); that either he was a liar or senile.

It's pathetic.

Now it's either Rob was being honest or he was being dishonest?

Another straw man which shifts the goal posts away from the real criticism.

The late Ted Kenney made mistakes in his recent memoir and, despite having brain cancer, nobody sugested he was senile -- just that he had mis-remembered. The same with Tony Blair warning Diana about Dodi, before she had begun dating him -- a faulty memory not deceit or senility.

Sir Robert Anderson was, acording to what we have, an inccouptible and honest public servant. He also can be shown to be likely not an anti-Semite and yet also quite egocentric -- and that his memory was failing him by the late 1900's, exactly the time the positive witness identification enters the extant record.

Interesting you mention Druitt. For that's the real issue here, for which I should apologise isn't it?