A statement of 1913

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

As PC E489 Richard Brown allegedly shot himself in Hyde Park on 16th November 1888—just a few days after a meeting with Robert Anderson—I don't understand how he might fit into the Druitt mythos.

Chris George's article is highly recommended.

Regards,

Simon

[Chris Scott]

Here is an account of the inquest into Brown's death.

Lloyd's Weekly
25 November 1888

[Natalie Severn]

Simon,
I think quite a few people topped themselves actually, who had in some shape or form been connected with the case.I think of poor old ex Supt Charles Cutbush who must have gone through the mill over 'nephew" Thomas's exposure in "The Sun" in 1894 with Macnaghten desperately trying to deflect attention from Thomas in his memo.Then there was Richard Pigott and Dr Bond.
I didnt know PC Brown had had an interview with Anderson a few days before topping himself.Are you sure?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Norma,

It wasn't an interview. Brown appeared before Anderson on a disciplinary matter [see Chris Scott's cutting above]. The Star said Brown was "guilty of not going on parade for night duty at a quarter to ten . . ." And the Daily News reported that the "Assistant-Commissioner . . . allowed him to resign in order that he might preserve his testimonial."

Why this simple disciplinary matter wasn't handled at Divisional level is a mystery.

Regards,

Simon

[Johnr]

Jingies, there goes Anderson picking on Jews again..

I've no idea why Assistant Commissioner Anderson decided to intervene in the disciplining of poor Constable Brown.

But at least he wanted to " preserve his testimonials".

Psssst. Jonathan H. Do you know where Sir Melville Macnaghten went the year before he retired?

A recuperative sea voyage to Australia on the "Mongolia".With Lady Mac of course.

Did you know the Macnaghtens had a son in Sydney?

(You can read all about the son in the Australian Dictionary of Australia - its Online).

And... did you know that Army Mad Macnaghten junior was close pals with another Scottish Australian Army man named MacLauren whose mother was a relative by marriage of...Archdeacon Thomas Druitt?

My papers are packed up at the moment, and guess what Jonathan?

Given Sir Melville's assurances he would never write his memoirs, and given the much vaunted " private information" he claimed to possess about his Druitt suspect, he returned with firm resolve to publish his life story and
strengthened in body and determination that the suiceide suspect was JTR.
AS reflected in his book.

Did he pick up any stories from the New South Wales Druitts ?

I wonder....JOHN RUFFELS.

[Johnr]

Hang On A Minute...

Hey! Wait a minute.

Did that American article quote Sir Melville as saying: " seven murders.." ???

A bit different from: "Jack the Ripper had five victims and only five victims.." A la the Macnaghton Memo.

JOHN RUFFELS.

[jason_c]

Hey! Wait a minute.

Did that American article quote Sir Melville as saying: " seven murders.." ???

A bit different from: "Jack the Ripper had five victims and only five victims.." A la the Macnaghton Memo.

JOHN RUFFELS.

It's the journalist who gives the number of murders as seven.

[Johnr]

How Do We Know ?

O.K. Jason,

You are correct. There are no quotation marks round that bit.

So, do you think Mr Keen was as punctilious in quoting Sir Mel
throughout the whole article?

JOHN RUFFELS.

[jason_c]

O.K. Jason,

You are correct. There are no quotation marks round that bit.

So, do you think Mr Keen was as punctilious in quoting Sir Mel
throughout the whole article?

JOHN RUFFELS.

John


I dont know the answer to that.

As with any other newspaper story I take it with a pinch of salt. The reason for this is not only the reliability of the journalists in question but also the person being interviewed. MacNaghten may have been in a devious mood the day of the interview, or he may have been giving the interview with the intention of garnering headlines.

I wouldnt read too much into every word used by MacNaghten during every newspaper interview.

[celee]

John


I dont know the answer to that.

As with any other newspaper story I take it with a pinch of salt. The reason for this is not only the reliability of the journalists in question but also the person being interviewed. MacNaghten may have been in a devious mood the day of the interview, or he may have been giving the interview with the intention of garnering headlines.

I wouldnt read too much into every word used by MacNaghten during every newspaper interview.

I think that Macnaughten thought he knew the identity of the Ripper and that he recieved information he thought was conclusive.. The question I have is could Mcnaughten had kept such information from other Detectives such as Abberline and Anderson and if Macnaughten had recieved his information from the obvious choice Monro Would Monro been able to keep private information from other police officials and why would he?

Your friend, Brad

[Jonathan H]

I believe that because the information came to Macnaghten in early 1891, via the 'Old Boy Net' of an Etonian chum who was a Tory MP and a near neighbour of the Druitt family, he had no intention of sharing such information with anybody -- besides Anderson.

Why on Earth would Macnaghten? There was nobody to arrest, and the investigation had been wound down [until briefly with Grainger as a suspect in 1895].

See the breakthrough piece: 'The West of England MP-- Identified' by Andrew Spallek, first published in 'Ripperologist' in 2008, in the Dissertations section.

[DVV]

Even after he supposedly received "private information", Macnaghten didn't know Druitt's trade and age.
Which tells a bit about the reliability of his sources.

Amitiés,
David

[Jonathan H]

Didn't he?

That's a theory not a fact.

A very reasonable theory.

Yet I subscribe to an alternate theory that because Macnaghten's source, MP Farquharson, did know perfectly well the biog details of the 'son of a surgeon', Montie Druitt, that the police chief must be playing a game.

Macnaghten disguised Druitt as a real life Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde figure to avoid the possibility of a libel suit, to head off Anderson's sectarian mischief, to enhance the reputation of the Yard as super-efficient by making it seem that Druitt was a contemporaneous suspect, to protect the privacy of the Druitts, to needle Anderson over the Tumblety embarrassment by by making Druitt more like the American suspect, and to make it clear to the late Victorian and Edwardian public [via Griffiths and Sims and his own memoirs] that the fiend was a Gentile gentleman not Jack the Jew.

The image of the Ripper as a top-hatted gentleman with a medical bag was ascendant until the 60's when it all fell into decline with the revelation that the police seemed to have it all wrong about the drowned not-a-doctor Druitt.

In the official version of his Report Mac implies that M J Druitt might not be a doctor after all [which he wasn't], does not mention his age or where he lived, and implies that he may have killed himself weeks after Kelly was murdered [which he did]. Though supposedly a minor suspect Mac does make it clear that the family knew he was a sexual maniac and 'believed' he was the fiend.

In the unofficial version which he rewrote in 1898 for Major Griffiths and George Sims, Mac altered it so that he was sure it was Druitt, who was now definitely a middle-aged doctor who lived at Blackheath with family. It was imperative that Druitt's city office within walking distance of the East End be obliterated. He told the Major that this was a copy of a 'definitive' and 'final' Home Office Report when it was no such thing. To protect the family he downgraded their belief into a suspicion -- as he knew tey did not libve with him at all -- and had Griffiths further protect themselves by changing 'family' into 'friends'.

In the 1900's Mac fed Sims even more fictional details about 'Dr D'; that he was an asylum vet, that he had no patients for years, that he was unemployed yet very affluent [very Tumbletyesque], that he had no family only concerned chums who contacted the police -- who already knew about this suspect because they were so brilliant!

In the 1913 interview he admits that the world has not quite the right idea about the fiend -- thanks to him. He says he will never reveal why he kept it all secret. It was partly because Druitt was a too late suspect about whom they could do nothing, which he does admit in his memoirs. It was also partly to avoid a scandal involving the Liberals and the Tories over Druitt being portrayed as a Conservative whom the Tory government may have covered up. All rubbish, but at the time unscrupulous tabloids might have had a field day, hence the need in both versions of the Report to bury Farquharson's contribution.

Mac's 1914 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper' admitted some of the truth and dropped the myth about an asylum vet and a doctor -- and that the un-named Druitt was a contemporaneous suspect. But he made sure that Druitt was unrecoverable to journalists and researchers as he had all along, only making the long-term mistake of not destroying the Aberconway version of his internal Report.

[Tom_Wescott]

Didn't he?

That's a theory not a fact.

It's a matter of written record.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DVV]

I agree, Tom.

But you've quoted Jonathan's words, not mine.
How you achieved this is beyond me, technically speaking.

Amitiés,
David