Macnaghten knew about Druitt being a barrister?

[Phil Carter]

Phil! Scott! We seem to have stumbled into an antipodean time warp where Druitt is still being discussed seriously as a suspect. Run for your lives!!

Hello GM,

As snow has fallen here for the first time, running is out of the question. The roads are iced up, so driving is a temporary nightmare.

You are quite correct of course, this is exactly what this site is about.

I was going to throw a spanner in the works mentioning Stephen Knight's deconstruction and dismissal of Farson and Cullen's Druitt theories, but thought against it, as I too am enjoying the current disussion to derail or sidetrack it.

best wishes

Phil

[Adam Went]

Jonathan:

The other way that the killer might have decided to end his life outside of his mind snap after the Miller's Court murder was if he knew the police were on his tail and about to arrest him any day - somewhat like Jack the Stripper in 1960's London - there is, however, nothing to suggest that this was the case for Druitt, and that supposition is strengthened by the fact that if he was a genuine suspect in 1888, the police would have been keeping an eye on him and certainly would not have allowed more than a week to pass before anybody was made aware that he was missing. You touch on this yourself in your previous post, so it should be quite clear cut that Druitt was a suspect after the fact, not in 1888, when he was still alive - unlike some other suspects.

I know we've been over the memorandum before but the worrying thing for me still remains his need to hide the truth about Kosminski and Ostrog as well, if he felt the need to hide the complete truth about Druitt - in fact, why he felt it necessary to even include them on the list in the first place, given that in his press interviews, specifically after his retirement in 1913, his statement was that he knew who Jack was and he had died in 1888 - not that he had narrowed the field down to three and his preferred suspect had died in 1888.

Many police officers published their memoirs in later years, and they were also inaccurate in some ways - not intentionally, just faded memories - yet Macnaghten was among the earlier ones to express his views and as such, you would expect them to be the more reliable ones. Not so.

In any case, I have to thank you for your summing up of my argument, I couldn't have put it better myself. I do feel it is an injustice and should I be able to afford the time to put into it in the not too distant future, I would like to take Druitt's case up properly, see what more can be learnt from it and see what more can be done to permanently clear his name.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Jonathan H]

Actually Mac's memoirs are later than others: Anderson, Smith, Littlechild, and his Ripper comments of 1913 are much later than Swanson, Anderson, Reid and Abberline, et al.

Until Mac spoke of the mystery in 1913 he was never publicly associated with the case, arriving 'too late', but we know that, behind-the-scenes, he was active since 1898 in shaping information about the semi-fictionalised Druitt via Griffiths and Sims.

His 1914 memoirs are by far the most accurate account in that they concede that the un-named Druitt was unknown to police until 'some years after' he killed himself, matching the primary sources that the police hunt stretched from 1888 to early 1891.

My theory is that Druitt confessed to an Anglican priest and from that moment the clock was ticking to incarceration, fleeing, being hanged or topping himself; whichever the cat was out of the bag.

Macnaghten did not know why Druitt stopped, or claimed not to know. He was speculating that since the murderer suffered from a terrible mania, one which affected both his mind and body, he finally suffered some kind of melodramatic collapse. That his 'protean' ability to maintain a 'Simon Pure' facade of normality reached breaking point after what he had done to Mary Kelly.

The overall point Mac was making is that his suicide had nothing to do with the authorities, whereas he had falsely/mistakenly told Sims that the police were onto 'Dr D' before he killed himself.

To Jason C

I don't think Druitt's implication in the Ripper mystery is an 'historical miscarriage of justice'??

At all!

I am the only person -- effectively or ineptly, rightly or wrongly, intriguingly or tediously -- who is arguing that a strong historical argument can be mounted for the Drowned Not-a-Doctor as the leading suspect.

I was simply summarising Adam's argument as best I could, and as best I understood it -- without intruding upon it. Adam has posted that I have done this with fairness and accuracy.

But it is not my opinion. Adam and I are diametrically opposed.

[Johnr]

Antipodea IS a time-warp!

Goodday Grave Maurice,

You can include me in the Antipodean Time Warp too.
Pleased to be here.

Here's a couple of Ferrinstances:
That letter which emerged in the London press of 1891 quoting the Hymnal or Biblical reference to:

"He is not dead but Liveth"

surely alludes to the statement by Mr Montagu MP, that the Ripper murders were over, because the Ripper had killed himself.
Might Mr Montagu have been chatting to fellow MP Farquharson about his favourite "hobby horse" - indeed his "doctrine" even, that JTR had killed himself by drowning?
Interesting Mr Farquharson's "doctrine" also saw the light of day that same year...

There seems to have been huge panic in the Metropolitan Police force when both the Coles murder and Mackenzie murders occurred.
People have used that refreshed allocation of police funds and officers, to suggest it was proof the police "powers-that-be" were not convinced the Ripper had killed himself. And therefore Druitt was 'out of the frame'
But surely, sound tactics would have been to take no chances, and try once and for all to finally capture this maniac?

Secondly, Commissioner James Monro was highly regarded as a quietly hardworking honest policeman. Who did he think the murderer was?

Though, having said that, if the murderer was never caught, what does it matter? All of the chiefs seemed to know as much as the indians.

And whilst Grave Maurice points out this thread is a time warp; I'm sure he is only referring to the 'deja vu' and not phases in fashion in different suspects.

I like his sense of humour: those West Canadians sound like Australians...
JOHN RUFFELS.

[The Grave Maurice]

John,

Try restating your point sometime when you're sober.

TGM

[D'Onston]

The C of E Vicar

Hey All, Is there any source for Druitt's supposed confession to a Vicar? Doesn't the C of E maintain the same rules on Confession as the RC: a priest cannot reveal anything given under the Seal of Confession.

That's not to say that a Vicar or Priest wouldn't do it, only that such a revelation is considered a very, very grave ecclesiastical offense; perhaps, one of the most serious.

Anyway, if it did happen, is there any source or scrap of evidence to substantiate it's occurrence? And, if so, could you post it?

Best Wishes, Mike

[Jonathan H]

To D'Onston

I am pretty confident in saying that I am the only person who asserts this as a theory as to why Druitt was considered by his family, or family member, of being the Ripper, a tale which subsequently convinced people on just hearing its details, including a Tory MP and the a police chief.

But it has to be said, up front, that Macnaghten, in all his bits and peices, and what he fed Sims, does not even allude to such an idea.

Nevertheless, it is my firm opinion based on the following extraodinary source put on the Druitt thread on this site by Chris Scott, a couple of years ago:

The highlights are mine.

Western Mail
19 January 1899

WHITECHAPEL MURDERS
DID "JACK THE RIPPER" MAKE A CONFESSION?

We have received (says the Daily Mail) from a clergyman of the Church of England, now a North Country vicar, an interesting communication with reference to the great criminal mystery of our times - that enshrouding the perpetration of the series of crimes which have come to be known as the "Jack the Ripper" murders. The identity of the murderer is as unsolved as it was while the blood of the victims was yet wet upon the pavements. Certainly Major Arthur Griffiths, in his new work on "Mysteries of Police and Crime," suggests that the police believe the assassin to have been a doctor, bordering on insanity, whose body was found floating in the Thames soon after the last crime of the series; but as the major also mentions that this man was one of three known homidical lunatics against whom the police "held very plausible and reasonable grounds of suspicion," that conjectural explanation does not appear to count for much by itself.
Our correspondent the vicar now writes:-
"I received information in professional confidence, with directions to publish the facts after ten years, and then with such alterations as might defeat identification.
The murderer was a man of good position and otherwise unblemished character, who suffered from epileptic mania, and is long since deceased.
I must ask you not to give my name, as it might lead to identification"
meaning the identification of the perpetrator of the crimes. We thought at first the vicar was at fault in believing that ten years had passed yet since the last murder of the series, for there were other somewhat similar crimes in 1889. But, on referring again to major Griffiths's book, we find he states that the last "Jack the Ripper" murder was that in Miller's Court on November 9, 1888 - a confirmation of the vicar's sources of information. The vicar enclosed a narrative, which he called "The Whitechapel Murders - Solution of a London Mystery." This he described as "substantial truth under fictitious form." "Proof for obvious reasons impossible - under seal of confession," he added in reply to an inquiry from us.
Failing to see how any good purpose could be served by publishing substantial truth in fictitious form, we sent a representative North to see the vicar, to endeavour to ascertain which parts of the narrative were actual facts. But the vicar was not to be persuaded, and all that our reporter could learn was that the rev. gentleman appears to know with certainty the identity of the most terrible figure in the criminal annals of our times, and that the vicar does not intend to let anyone else into the secret.
The murderer died, the vicar states, very shortly after committing the last murder. The vicar obtained his information from a brother clergyman, to whom a confession was made - by whom the vicar would not give even the most guarded hint. The only other item which a lengthy chat with the vicar could elicit was that the murderer was a man who at one time was engaged in rescue work among the depraved woman of the East End - eventually his victims; and that the assassin was at one time a surgeon.

Nobody agrees with me but this one of the most important sources we have, and yet it is considred little more than a minor, tabloid curiousity.

Perhaps it is?

Yet the Vicar's Ripper is written about in the same breath as the Major's and found wanting.

And why?

Because the cleric is providing an openly fictitious fiend.

What is so incredible about this comparison in the Vicar's disfavour -- who is being honest about his 'substantial truth in fictitious form' -- is that Griffith's version of Druitt is also semi-fictional!?

That the 'Drowned Doctor' was also a bit sleight-of-hand was, of course unknown to the readers, unknown to anybody except Macnaghten, the Druitt family and the Vicar, if the latter's Ripper is the same deceased person -- and it may not be? [Griffiths did know that it was really the 'family' who suspected the 'doctor' as he himself changed this detail into 'friends', no doubt out of fear of libel]

Consider that this fragmentary profile is arguably closer to the real Druitt than Major Griffiths' 'Drowned Doctor' Super-suspect:

- a man of good position, eg. a barrister or teacher
- he killed himself after the last murder, after he had time to confess. Druitt indeed killed himself three weeks after the final murder.
- this figure is presumably an Anglican and a Gentile, like Druitt.
- he has died very conveniently after the Kelly murder, and after a confession; suggesting suicide [no natural reason is offered for his demise].
- the man visited the East End for good works, so he did not reside or work there, as Druitt did not.
- the final murder is not Coles, as everybody believed in 1891, bur rather Kelly all the way back in 1888?!
- 'at one time a surgeon' is such a peculiar, awkward line, the first-cousin of 'said to be a doctor' in the official version of the Mac Report. The Vicar may be making this up to? Therefore he is saying his dead fiend might not really be a physician, just as Druitt turns out not really to be a doctor either.

I think that Macnaghten knew that the Vicar's revelation was coming and he sought to head it off with the unofficial version of his Report, coming out in Griffiths a few months ahead of the Vicar. The latter was then ambushed and traduced by another Mac crony, George Sims, in 1899 -- and his version of what the clerical sphinx was claiming is nothing like the truth.

I think that the Vicar's story is one of the reasons that Macnaghten forever locked-in the detail about Druitt killing himself the night of the Kelly murder --no time to make a confession to anybody/

Why do all that?

Because Macnaghten, believing that this really was the Ripper, did not want further appalling publicity for the Yard, and so created a counter-myth in anticipation of the Vicar's openly veiled version of the same story. One in which the police are onto the doctor, only hours away from arresting him.

It worked a treat.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

I'll trade you a C of E clergyman for a Catholic priest, seven years' earlier on January 2nd 1892–

"It is understood that the death of a Catholic priest in the East End of London has placed some important revelations in the hands of the police. There can be no doubt that the priest, under the seal of confession, died possessed of information that might have led to the arrest of the murderer or murderers of the wretched women known as "Jack the Ripper's" victims. That the priest had qualms of conscience regarding the sanctity of confession, even in connection with such atrocities, is evinced by the sealed packet he left behind him addressed to Sir Edward Bradford, chief of London's police department. On the package was inscribed, in the dead priest's handwriting, 'This is to be opened after my death - my lips must never reveal it.'

"Beyond the above, carelessly mentioned by a garrulous official who has since been severely reprimanded for his indiscretion, no further information can be obtained from the police. Whether it will lead to the detection of the Whitechapel fiend is a problem difficult to solve . . ."

Regards,

Simon

[Jonathan H]

To Simon

Yes, I have seen this too.

Very interesting, but I doubt it is connected.

It might be nothing, or it might be a garbled version of the real [Anglican?] cleric who may have worked in the East End and passed away in 1892.

On the other hand, a theme of the Vicar story is that the fiend, and the fiend's demise, have nothing to do with the police.

Macnaghten seems to have kept knowledge of Druitt very close to his chest. I do not see the story clumsily leaking from him into the press in 1892?

Unless it is a letter held by Macnaghten alone, which perhaps he destroyed in 1913?

It would be interesting to know the deaths of both Anglican and Catholic priests whose parishes were in the East End near that date?

[Adam Went]

Jonathan:

Though you will probably bite my head off for it, I was of course referring to Macnaghten's private memorandum(s) from the 1890's and the fact that it was written before the memoirs of other officers involved with the case.

Now the idea that Macnaghten hid the identity of the killer, for whatever reason, is an interesting one but he was still not averse to giving away clues....i've come across numerous newspaper reports from 1912/1913, before his memoirs were published, and ironically the same period of time when George Sims, supposedly involved in the private information against Druitt, was corresponding with J.G. Littlechild regarding a completely different suspect and theory in Francis Tumblety! In these newspaper articles, Macnaghten states that the killer committed suicide in 1888, and i've even seen drowning mentioned....now obviously the killer was still alive on November 9th when he killed Mary Kelly, so that means that the person Macnaghten was referring to, named or not, had to have been a male who drowned himself in London between November 10th, 1888, and December 31st, 1888. Now how many people would fall into that category? I have no idea, but I would imagine that it wouldn't be very many.

Anybody who wanted to delve deeper could well have found Druitt's name and connected the dots. It's just Macnaghten's way of big-noting himself.

Similarly in these articles, he doesn't say "I know who the killer was", he says Scotland Yard as an entirety knew of the identity, which means they all knew Druitt was the killer by that point.....yet in the preceding few years you had Abberline stating that Scotland Yard knew nothing more than they did in 1888, Anderson writing his memoirs and giving an entirely different version and, as previously stated, Littlechild conversing with Sims about Tumblety - not to mention the other officers who published their memoirs later - much later - and naming other suspects, as well as giving different versions. So either Macnaghten was telling fibs about Scotland Yard's knowledge of the killer, or other officers who had worked on the case were being kept in the dark. Kept in the dark to keep the identity secret from their organisation, while Macnaghten was stating in a NEWSPAPER - actually, multiple newspapers - that they all knew who he was and he'd committed suicide in 1888! How on earth does that work? It just makes no sense.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Chris]

We seem to have stumbled into an antipodean time warp where Druitt is still being discussed seriously as a suspect. Run for your lives!!

I am authorised to post this photo showing research actually in progress during the Golden Age of Antipodean Ripperology in the 1970s.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

The sheer unlikeliness of the North Country vicar story plus its January 1899 timing leads me to conclude it was nothing more than a smart advertising gimmick to promote the December 1898 publication of Major Griffiths' two-volume "Mysteries of Police and Crime".

Regards,

Simon

[Hunter]

Firstly, the Tory MP Farquharson knew Druitt, and knew Macnaghten, therefore originally the Etonian Super-cop almost certainly did have access to an accurate source on Druitt in 1891.

Confirmation of this theory comes from George Sims' writings which have tended not to have been thoroughly analysed as probable insight into Macnaghten's further, and/or fading knowledge of Druitt.

In the article about the inquest it emtnions William Druitt's frantic attempts to find his brother. By 19103 and 1907 , in Sims, this has become frantic friends who are trying to locate the 'doctor' after he has vanished from where he lives. [A doctor who has been recently in a madhouse.]

This detail is not in PC Moulson's report.

Also, the Druitt parents have seemingly been subsumed into their son; the father a doctor and the mother being in a madhouse.

Is that really just a co-incidence?

This is, I argue, further confirmation that either Mac began to forget the facts about Druitt, and jumble them up in later years, or he was deliberately jumbling them up to be discreet. Either way, Macnaghten originally knew more than just the Bobbie's report on the contents of the water-logged corpse's pockets.

Hi Jonathan,

I've gone back through Sims' writings and I just can't find any evidence through them that Mac knew Druitt was a lawyer. Instead, the doctor idea seems to be reinforced... as quoted from Sims below:


'The mutilations were in all the cases, except one in which probably the murderer was interrupted, ghastly and revolting, and in one case an internal organ had been removed in a manner which showed beyond the shadow of a doubt that the miscreant was person of anatomical knowledge.

Maniacal as was the fury with which he hacked and ripped his unhappy victims, the instance in which he skilfully removed and carried away with him this internal organ must be borne in mind when discussing the identity of the monster. '

This seems to be part of the reason why Druitt was suspected; and being a doctor would be the only way it would fit. Instead of Mac knowing the truth, it could be that Farquharson could have been feeding Mac a line instead.

Sims also dispells the Vicar story... and his reason was clear. Jack the Ripper killed himself immediately after the Kelly murder and had no time to make such a confession. Yet, you consider that story to be a vital link to Druitt. And, your reasoning for all the discrepancy is so the real killer is not found out. In other words, when things hit too close to home ( like the 'Lodger' story confronted in Mac's memoirs) You theorize that Mac throws them off the scent so Druitt remains a secret. It just seems to me that if Mac was worried about any implications, he would have indeed let the 'Ghost of Jack the Ripper' lay dead by not even delving into it at all.

Bottom line... the reasons that Mac makes for Druitts candidacy - doctor, in a lunatic asylum(via Sims), committed suicide after last murder because his mind gave way, friends/relatives suspected him - all are erronious except possibly the last one; which we know nothing about its veracity, much less that it was - at least - second hand information possibly from an MP whose credentials are less than stellar.

Yes, he gets some things right in his report and his other version... Druitt's name, that the family was looking for him and the tickets found in his coat. That's enough for anyone with a curious mind to put the puzzle together.

If (as you've reasoned) Druitt's name was only meant for the Home Office - with the understanding that they would be discrete about that part - the fact that his suicide was narrowed to Nov/Dec 1888 leaves few other possibilities (as Adam pointed out).

If this was a shell game, Mac needed to take some lessons from a qualified illusionist.

[Jonathan H]

To Simon

Fair enough, but I don't agree because the 'gimmick' story was the same as what Macnaghten was promulgating via Griffiths [how would they know that?] and closer to Druitt than the allegedly 'non-gimmicky' story [how would they know that?] -- too big a coincidence for me.

To Adam

When Mac says 'the police' he is being deceitful, to give the impression that Druitt was hunted whilst alive. Since this was not true, all the other significant police figures are bewildered? It was really just Macnaghten.

A suicide from 1888, in the Thames, camouflaged with misleading details was enough to protect the Druitt family. We know this is true because it worked. So well, that no serious Ripper researcher -- and there were hardly many -- ever stumbled upon Druitt until Dan Farson was handed his name. Even then his team initially had trouble finding him as they were searching for a 41 year old doctor.

You write that there is a Ripper comment by Macnaghten in 1912?

Can you elaborate?

[Jonathan H]

To Hunter

An excellent counter-argument.

I particularly agree with you that a panicked Farquharson may have fed Macnaghten a line to divert him away from the real Druitt. Or, that the MP was just repeating the most appalling constituency gossip and it lodged in Mac's mind, growing there over the years into his own pet theory.

With Aberconway perhaps coming second we can actually see the evolution of a minor hearsay suspect into his Sherlock solution, by the time he is briefing his literary cronies.

But is this likely ...?

The counter-counter is that Mac originally knew that the family was searching for their missing member. That means he had access to the story of the inquest, at least, which means he had it right in front of him that Druitt was a 31year old barrister who killed himself three weeks after Kelly.

Sims quashes the Vicar, but the former is incorrect about the timing of the un-named Druitt's suicided and the cleric is correct.

That's the whole point. That's why its quashed.

In his memoir, Mac makes no reference to the idea of the killer having anatomical knowledge. You would never know from that source that he was ever 'said to be a doctor'.

Also, Sims had written that the 'doctor' had been an asylum veteran.

Presumably he got this from Macnaghten, and yet the latter debunks this detail in his memoir. I think he got the idea from Druitt's mother, as he got the idea of the Ripper's profession from Druitt's father; he subsumed the parents into their son.

The version of the dead Druitt in Griffiths and Sims was impenetrable. The train ticket was not mentioned directly. Nor was any 'family' mentioned looking for him -- this was changed into 'friends' in one of the clearest examples of gentlemanly subterfuge from Mac to the Major.

If is was a ruse it worked, and worked brilliantly.

I find the argument against weaker than the argument for, for what that is worth.