Macnaghten knew about Druitt being a barrister?

[Jonathan H]

Paul Begg, among others, argued very cogently in 'The Facts' that Sir Melville Macnaghten, in both versions of his Report, seems to be relying almost entirely on PC Moulson's Report about the Druitt's body's recovery, and perhaps a newspaper article which mentioned that the corpse looked about 40and that the dead man seemed to live with family.

That's pretty much what is in the Mac Reports, especially in the Aberconway version -- the draft or backdated rewrite -- including, for example, the tiny but correct detail about the season train pass.

Why on earth Macnaghten thought Druitt was also a doctor Begg could not fathom, speculating --very sensibly -- that perhaps some confusion over the third missing medical student has entered the equation.

However, I am challenging this paradigm for two reasons.

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.

[Adam Went]

How is this any different to what you've already been bleating on about over on JTR Forums?

Let's simplify things. There are only 2 options here:

1.) Your theories are correct and the complex web has finally been untangled, finally proving Druitt to be the killer.
2.) Macnaghten was an ill-informed, self-important fool, and Druitt is an innocent man.

No prizes for guessing which is the correct answer.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Jonathan H]

What a rude and mean-spirited post, typical of you whenever your doctrinaire attitude is challenged.

You won't even read the MP story which is a brief paragraph, let alone the primary sources which show that Druitt did have a successful legal career.

If you read the former you would actually learn something.

For example, that even though Druitt was dead the newspapers were still fearful of being sued for libel by the man's family.

Instead you parade yourself as the expert on Druitt who knows for an absolute fact that he was innocent.

It's the classic buff response: arrogant, insulting and dismissive -- but never actually deals with the issue raised.

Oh, and by the way, the two options you present are, as usual, wrong.

Macnaghten could have known the late Druitt well and yet the latter be completely innocent in a ghastly mistake made by his family, the MP and the police chief.

Or, Macnaghten could be a self-important fool and Druitt be guilty.

[Adam Went]

Jonathan:

I cannot believe what I continue to read, you take offence to posts like that and yet you are quite willing to try and implicate an innocent man as a serial killer?

I don't know how many times i've said before that I don't consider myself to be a Druitt expert, and certainly not a Macnaghten one, far from it, but I know enough and have done enough of my own research to be able to form an opinion on the matter. Not satisfied with the dwindling interest on JTR Forums, you're trying to move the discussion over here - now Jonathan, clearly you know your stuff, would your spare time not be better served on something a bit more productive and realistic?

You talk about Sims and Farquharson - a JOURNALIST and a POLITICIAN. When was the last time that either of those two professions told the complete truth about anything?

The hoops that have to be jumped through to even give Druitt a remote chance of being the killer should be an immediate red flag to his candidacy.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Jonathan H]

Don't kid yourself, Adam.

It is by no means just me who finds your posts offensive in attitude and manner, on both sites, and that's a fact.

Also, I love the way to be the Lone Druittist -- to use a simplistic term -- is to be anathema, for some, on two sites dedicated to Jack the Ripper, for simply seeking debate on the man who arguably was ... Jack the Ripper?

The strength of a theory about a contentious historical event, or series of events can be measured, partly, by the abuse, the lack of reason, essentially being told to **** off, and so on -- the strking of a nerve aaginst an entrnched, bitterly defended paradigm -- shows you must have struck gold.

[Adam Went]

Jonathan:

Frankly it would be impossible for me to care less about what people think of my posts when it comes to defending those who are no longer here to defend themselves. I happen to know that the same goes for you - and I still find it amusing that you would mock my Druitt expertise whilst attempting to expand your own, and yet freely admit elsewhere that you do not own a copy of Howells & Skinner's "The Ripper Legacy", one of the main books on the subject, which I purchased for $8 a while back.

But this is all besides the point. The question is this:
Outside of all this theorising about Macnaghten, Sims, Farquharson, etc etc, what evidence do you actually have which ties Druitt to any of the JTR murders? Can we see some actual solid, factual proof rather than theory?

Cheers,
Adam.

[Jonathan H]

No, people other than myself think that you are being rude, which you are.

Evidence of Druitt's guilt? Of anybody's?

But that is not what the Ripper mystery is about?

That is not what History is about.

You are asking for a legal and forensic evidence which may have been impossible then and is certainly impossible now.

You are talking about a trial and a conviction -- and how how safe would that be anyway?

There can never be such 'evidence'? Say a confession by Druitt turned up -- what would that absolutely prove?

You have the wrong mystery.

As for Druitt he is such an unlikely suspect that for a police chief to have oince known about him in detail, and to have subsequently committed himself for the rets of his life in beleivibng he was probably the one, then that is as close as we can get.

The controversy has been: did this police chief know his suspect well?

I have put afformative arguments, the last one a breakthrough with has gone unanswered. Certainly not by you, who does not understand Jack the Ripper, or history, or manners.

[Adam Went]

Jonathan:

"No, people other than myself think that you are being rude, which you are."

If that's the case, so be it. It's a murder case, not a tea party.

"You are asking for a legal and forensic evidence which may have been impossible then and is certainly impossible now.

You are talking about a trial and a conviction -- and how how safe would that be anyway?"

Not at all, I ask for nothing quite so conclusive. But can you prove that Druitt was absent from Mr. Valentine's and in the area of the murders on any of the nights in question? Can you find first hand sources from the supposed family (or friends) of his who held suspicion of him? Can you show that his cricketing and other commitments would not have hampered his ability to have been available to commit any of the murders?

The point is that all this theorising which circles back around Macnaghten is all well and good, but it's useless if it doesn't translate back into actual evidence in support of the suspicion against Druitt.

"As for Druitt he is such an unlikely suspect that for a police chief to have oince known about him in detail, and to have subsequently committed himself for the rets of his life in beleivibng he was probably the one, then that is as close as we can get."

A police chief not even involved in the original investigation who was receiving all of his information from second, third, fourth hand sources. Somebody who, in later years and specifically upon his retirement, did the very childish thing and essentially said "I know who Jack the Ripper was, but i'm not telling you, neh neh!". You see, self-important.

Druitt was absolutely a convenient suspect. He dies at the end of 1888, which, if there was knowledge that he was the killer, is completely at odds with contemporary suspicion that Alice Mackenzie and Frances Coles were also victims of the killer. He was having some issues in his life, decided to end it - this paralleled with the idea that the killers mind must have snapped and thus Macnaghten just plucks his name out - to be coupled with two other men, both of whom were incarcerated, both of whom were from the lower classes and both of whom, though still alive, were not in a position to defend themselves.....

"Certainly not by you, who does not understand Jack the Ripper, or history, or manners."

Oh and I'M the one who's rude?

Cheers,
Adam.

[Jonathan H]

I am defending myself.

People write to me and say don't get in the gutter with Adam.

Well, there's a limit ...

You dismiss Macnaghten, and you don't like him -- and yet you slavishly follow his propagandized version of 1888.

How ironic!

Especially since, like your own [arrogant] claims about yourself, Macnaghten went to elaborate lengths to shield a dead murderer who could no longer defend himself.

Look, why not try Bigfoot ...?

[Adam Went]

Jonathan:

Yes, I wouldn't mind betting that I know exactly who those people are too. Not to worry - if they exist and they prefer to pussyfoot around in private messages and e-mails rather than say it in public, or to me personally, then they are not worth worrying about.

You've avoided every single one of my questions in the previous post, which was in fact an attempt at some sort of civilised discussion, and instead retorted with insults - do you have an answer for them or not?

I don't follow any particular version of Macnaghten's memorandum (though I find it interesting that a private memorandum which never even reached its intended destination would need to be 'propagandized' in the first place), have you seen the press interviews with him upon his retirement in 1913?

As I've stated before, if Druitt had commited suicided in 1898 rather than 1888, then you can be virtually certain that his name would never have even been raised in relation to the case.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Jonathan H]

To be fair, I do need to thank-you, Adam, for making yourself useful to me.

I realise that you do not know much about History, and do not know much about the Ripper, but within those limitations you have been of use, and that is not nothing.

[Adam Went]

Jonathan:

You're very welcome. I only hope that you enjoy my fifth Ripper article when it gets published before too long (especially since it relates to Druitt), and I certainly look forward to reading yours when you get around to it.

I must also take your lack of response as a sign that you indeed have no response to offer, which is unfortunate, but to be expected as there is no case to be made against Druitt, and all being well his name will finally be cleared once and for all sooner rather than later.

Be sure to give us a buzz if you're ever down Tassie way, eh? We can catch up for a beer. I'm sure we'd get along well.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Jonathan H]

Of course, as we are Australians and so if the dispute it not about whose shout it is, then it is not really about anything vital, is it?

And the same goes for Adelaide.

What is the gist of what you are arguing about Druitt, I mean in particular?

[The Grave Maurice]

Time, gentlemen, please. Yer scarin' the 'roos.

[Adam Went]

Jonathan:

Of course, as we are Australians and so if the dispute it not about whose shout it is, then it is not really about anything vital, is it?

Exactly - at least, it shouldn't be.

What is the gist of what you are arguing about Druitt, I mean in particular?

What in particular do you want to know?
My argument is that all this theorising around Macnaghten is interesting and all, but it still has to translate back somehow to solid evidence against Druitt to aid his candidacy, and as things stand right now, there is not one scrap of evidence that could link Druitt to any of the murders - basically, you're digging around trying to find the empty cartridges, but they are no use without the gun that fired them.

I don't believe there's any truth in the story that Druitt's own family suspected him, especially when there's a conflicting account on that front as well, which says it was his "friends" - even though we know there can't have been too many close associates as nobody noticed he was missing for several days. Likewise, I don't believe Druitt was dismissed from Mr. Valentine's, at least not for anything serious like being missing on the nights of the murders or for molesting the children - I believe it's more likely that, for whatever reason, he resigned his position.

He has no criminal record, he has no motive to kill prostitutes - presumably when his chambers were searched there was never a suspicious looking knife found, or bodily organs, or half of Catherine Eddowes' apron - what became of them? I still think the cricket match on September 8 is close enough to proof that he couldn't/wouldn't have been in Spitalfields at 5.30 AM the same morning.....

Put simply, there's so much to be said in favour of his non-candidacy, and so little to be said in favour of his candidacy. He was a victim of circumstance and mis-information, and I believe it's a great injustice that the name of this poor man, who had a pretty tough run of things as it is, should still have his name linked to the Ripper case.....

Cheers,
Adam.