Seaside Home?

[PaulB]

To PaulB

I think that is a generous and ecumenical summation, and much of it I agree with.

The Polish Jew was believed by the top cop(s) who was there for the entire investigation, who was himself a complex person, but one of integrity.

You also repeat elements of a paradigm, now arguably redundant.

Macnaghten was just as certain as Anderson as his memoirs show.

'Conjections' and 'I incline to the belief' and 'that remarkable man' are all Old Etonian/upper class understatement for totally convinced.

True. But he nevertheless stated it was conjectural - "if my conjectures be correct" - which Anderson didn't. But it's only one of several reasons which put Druitt atop the totem pole. That said, it is a totem pole of prioritization, not a suspect hit parade. If the researcher wants to give over their time to someone else then all power to them.

Sims wrote of the 'drowned doctor' as the one and only solution and Macnaghten did not correct him when he spoke to him, or for himself in 1913 and wrote for himself in 1914.

Sims is a secondary source who may not have been so fully informed by Macnaghten as you think because he was arguably fishing from further information from Littlechild. But it doesn't make any difference. It's all part of the "evidence" against Druitt. As said, this isn't a competition.

You can draw a straight line as strong as a main-circuit cable, regarding that theme of certainty, from the '1891 West of England' MP sources (thanks Paul), Mac's filed Report (family's certainty) 'Aberconway' (Mac's certainty) Griffiths, the Vicar, Sims, Mac's 1913 comments and the 1914 memoirs.

Also, Macnaghten was there to posthumously investigate Druitt 'some years after' via Farquharson and the family. Why wouldn't he talk to the brother? why wouldn't he, the 'action man', at the very least look up the 1889 press reports?

No reason at all. He was in a position to know the facts, albeit a good delal of it at second or third hand and reflectively, but why do you think Macnaghten/Druitt is rated so highly?

We also do have a source that, if about Druitt as seems likely, does provide us with the gist of the secret info: some kind of tormented implosion causing him to confess to a priest.

The mythical version has a confession in deed, via an insane, impulsive, penitential act of suicide, whereas the truth was much more messy and appalling: a confession in word and then a cold, clinical suicide.

Finally, Macnaghten is arguably more reliable about 'Kosminski' because he knew two very critical things about this 'suspect' which Anderson and/or Swanson did not: he was not dead and he was not sectioned soon after the final murder, but out and about for a considerable length of time.

Ah, there you go and spoil it all. Tormented implosions, mythical versions, and Macnaghten knowing more about Kosminski than Anderson. All contentious and unnecessary to your thesis.

The theory that Anderson weighed up the evidence against Druitt, or something like that, is not backed in the extent record. There is nothing to indicate that he knew anything about that suspect at all.

We have one source(s), Mac, which evaluates two suspects -- pushing for one and dumping the other -- and we have another source(s), Anderson, which pushes for only one, the one who was dumped. That arguably makes the former stronger than the latter, as an historical source.

I don't recall anyone saying that Anderson did know about Druitt, although I suggest that his fury would have known no bounds if he discovered that a subordinate officer had been withholding crucial information about the Ripper case. In some respects the idea that Macnaghten did not convey his private information to Anderson casts doubt on him and it, whereas Anderson knowing all about it and rejecting it in favour of his own conclusion is well in-keeping.

And sadly I have to strongly disagree with your final paragraph. Simply because Macnaghten chose to name three suspects and pushed his favoured candidate means little. Similarly, why does Anderson's reference to one suspect, Kosminski, preclude him having given full consideration to other ones? The point is that if any weight is to be attached to the three named suspects, that is to say if they were more than just more likely to have been the Ripper than Cutbush, then there were many circs which made Kosminski a good suspect. The fact that Macnaghten gave greater weight to Druitt isn't really surprising. We can't tell whether he was right to do so or not.

[harry]

Water off a duck's back,Trevor.

[Jonathan H]

To PaulB

I think that is a generous and ecumenical summation, and much of it I agree with.

The Polish Jew was believed by the top cop(s) who was there for the entire investigation, who was himself a complex person, but one of integrity.

You also repeat elements of a paradigm, now arguably redundant.

Macnaghten was just as certain as Anderson as his memoirs show.

'Conjections' and 'I incline to the belief' and 'that remarkable man' are all Old Etonian/upper class understatement for totally convinced.

Sims wrote of the 'drowned doctor' as the one and only solution and Macnaghten did not correct him when he spoke to him, or for himself in 1913 and wrote for himself in 1914.

You can draw a straight line as strong as a main-circuit cable, regarding that theme of certainty, from the '1891 West of England' MP sources (thanks Paul), Mac's filed Report (family's certainty) 'Aberconway' (Mac's certainty) Griffiths, the Vicar, Sims, Mac's 1913 comments and the 1914 memoirs.

Also, Macnaghten was there to posthumously investigate Druitt 'some years after' via Farquharson and the family. Why wouldn't he talk to the brother? why wouldn't he, the 'action man', at the very least look up the 1889 press reports?

We also do have a source that, if about Druitt as seems likely, does provide us with the gist of the secret info: some kind of tormented implosion causing him to confess to a priest.

The mythical version has a confession in deed, via an insane, impulsive, penitential act of suicide, whereas the truth was much more messy and appalling: a confession in word and then a cold, clinical suicide.

Finally, Macnaghten is arguably more reliable about 'Kosminski' because he knew two very critical things about this 'suspect' which Anderson and/or Swanson did not: he was not dead and he was not sectioned soon after the final murder, but out and about for a considerable length of time.

Right on both counts.

The theory that Anderson weighed up the evidence against Druitt, or something like that, is not backed in the extent record. There is nothing to indicate that he knew anything about that suspect at all.

We have one source(s), Mac, which evaluates two suspects -- pushing for one and dumping the other -- and we have another source(s), Anderson, which pushes for only one, the one who was dumped. That arguably makes the former stronger than the latter, as an historical source.

[Trevor Marriott]

Well big men tell big lies.Only ever met one person who I believed would never lie.His comment was that he would if the occasion demanded it.As to the identification,comments suggest other police than Anderson and Swanson attended,and as Trevor has pointed out,police procedures were such that written reports would undoubtably have been submitted.I would also,a ccepting Trevor's police experience over those without.was that a police silence on what was the biggesr story in years, was very unlikely to have remained the years it has.

Thank you for beliveing in a common sense approach but now stand back and wait for the barrage of usual comments i.e well all of these reports could have been "lost stolen or destroyed"

and I say again why didnt anyone directly involved talk about it or discuss it over the ensuing years ?

[Jeff Leahy]

You'd have to check hotels existing there in 1891 and I doubt any of them would have hotel registers going back that far, but one never knows!

The Grande Hotel Brighton was built in 1864. It was designed for the well to do.

How many Hotels existed in Brighton at this time? Well we probably require a local Historian.

Yours jeff

[harry]

Well big men tell big lies.Only ever met one person who I believed would never lie.His comment was that he would if the occasion demanded it.As to the identification,comments suggest other police than Anderson and Swanson attended,and as Trevor has pointed out,police procedures were such that written reports would undoubtably have been submitted.I would also,a ccepting Trevor's police experience over those without.was that a police silence on what was the biggesr story in years, was very unlikely to have remained the years it has.

[PaulB]

Thats an interesting point. Has anyone ever checked the Grande Hotel register?

Probably teaching grand mother here but I could drop them an email an see if it still exists?

Thanks for clarification

Yours Jeff

You'd have to check hotels existing there in 1891 and I doubt any of them would have hotel registers going back that far, but one never knows!

[PaulB]

OK, I'll be more precise.

The conventional wisdom is of course not monolithic.

There are different camps.

Which falls into two streams: credible and plausible followed by the incredible and ludicrous.

In the first category are Aaron Kosminski, David Cohen, 'Dr.' Tumblety and George Chapman.

In the second, to name only a few, are Matter's vengeful medico, Le Queux's de-facto novel about the Czarist Secret Service (thanks Rasputin!), all the convulsions of the Royal Watergate, the hoax diary (and hoax watch) and the brilliant though sleazy artist-as-killer.

And then there's Montague Druitt, a suspect 'debunked', to differing degress depending on the secondary source, because the only police chief who seems to know about him knows hardly anything accurate about him -- so that takes care of that.

These different camps, therefore, are in a loose alliance that Macnaghten is not a reliable source, to put it mildly for some. That he cannot be accepted at face value regarding his 1913 comments and 1914 memoirs (both sources often excluded) that he had 'laid' to rest the 'ghost' of a long-dead fiend who was -- professionally speaking as a sleuth -- 'remarkable', and 'fascinating', and 'Protean'.

The identification of Farquhrason was an extraordinary breakthrough, as it bridged the 1889 obits with his reappearance in Mac's Report, therefore 'belief' in Druitt as 'Jack' precedes Macnaghten -- whether he was later sly or forgetful.

Jonathan,
Whilst appreciating that Kosminski sits atop the suspects totem pole and occupies the position once held by Druitt, Druitt still occupies second place and snaps at Kosminski's heels. But neither need have been Jack the Ripper and the cynical among us probably feel that neither of them were. What distinguished Kosminski, however, is not so much Macnaghten's reliability as the fact that Anderson apparently gains corroboration of sorts from Swanson, and Anderson is definite whilst Macnaghten is conjectural (although I suspect they were both conjectural). Now, in saying that anyone is at the top of the totem pole, what we mean is in terms of prioritisation of time and resources. Thus a statement of fact (irrespective of it ultimately probably being conjectural) based on presumed evidence and a claimed positive eye-witness identification, tacit probable corroboration from another source, and both sources being senior, informed officers active in the investigation at the time, must inevitably put it ahead of a policeman who was senior and informed, but not active in the investigation, who was openly conjectural, and was basing his conclusion on second-hand information received from an unknown source.

But that doesn't undercut Macnaghten or diminish Druitt. As I repeatedly say, we don't really know the evidence on which either conclusion was based, so we can't assess it. In that respect they are equal suspects, both worthy of investigation. There is no competition. A argument that Druitt was Jack the Ripper does not depend on eradicating Kosminski first. Or vice cersa.

[Jeff Leahy]

OK, I'll be more precise.

The conventional wisdom is of course not monolithic.

There are different camps.

Which falls into two streams: credible and plausible followed by the incredible and ludicrous.

In the first category are Aaron Kosminski, David Cohen, 'Dr.' Tumblety and George Chapman.

In the second, to name only a few, are Matter's vengeful medico, Le Queux's de-facto novel about the Czarist Secret Service (thanks Rasputin!), all the convulsions of the Royal Watergate, the hoax diary (and hoax watch) and the brilliant though sleazy artist-as-killer.

And then there's Montague Druitt, a suspect 'debunked', to differing degress depending on the secondary source, because the only police chief who seems to know about him knows hardly anything accurate about him -- so that takes care of that.

These different camps, therefore, are in a loose alliance that Macnaghten is not a reliable source, to put it mildly for some. That he cannot be accepted at face value regarding his 1913 comments and 1914 memoirs (both sources often excluded) that he had 'laid' to rest the 'ghost' of a long-dead fiend who was -- professionally speaking as a sleuth -- 'remarkable', and 'fascinating', and 'Protean'.

The identification of Farquhrason was an extraordinary breakthrough, as it bridged the 1889 obits with his reappearance in Mac's Report, therefore 'belief' in Druitt as 'Jack' precedes Macnaghten -- whether he was later sly or forgetful.

Theres also a fourth camp which excepts that McNaughten had private info and may well have believed that Druitt was JtR. They have no reason to doubt MM.

However they cant figure out how a man travelling to Cannon Street Station would only kill in Whitechapel and how he managed to play cricket by 11 Oclock having just killed Annie Chapman.

The main arguements against Druitt being teh Ripper simply have nothing to do with McNaughten.

Yours jeff

[Jonathan H]

OK, I'll be more precise.

The conventional wisdom is of course not monolithic.

There are different camps.

Which falls into two streams: credible and plausible followed by the incredible and ludicrous.

In the first category are Aaron Kosminski, David Cohen, 'Dr.' Tumblety and George Chapman.

In the second, to name only a few, are Matter's vengeful medico, Le Queux's de-facto novel about the Czarist Secret Service (thanks Rasputin!), all the convulsions of the Royal Watergate, the hoax diary (and hoax watch) and the brilliant though sleazy artist-as-killer.

And then there's Montague Druitt, a suspect 'debunked', to differing degress depending on the secondary source, because the only police chief who seems to know about him knows hardly anything accurate about him -- so that takes care of that.

These different camps, therefore, are in a loose alliance that Macnaghten is not a reliable source, to put it mildly for some. That he cannot be accepted at face value regarding his 1913 comments and 1914 memoirs (both sources often excluded) that he had 'laid' to rest the 'ghost' of a long-dead fiend who was -- professionally speaking as a sleuth -- 'remarkable', and 'fascinating', and 'Protean'.

The identification of Farquhrason was an extraordinary breakthrough, as it bridged the 1889 obits with his reappearance in Mac's Report, therefore 'belief' in Druitt as 'Jack' precedes Macnaghten -- whether he was later sly or forgetful.

[Jeff Leahy]

Personally, if this has any bearing whatsoever on the identification, and we don't know that it it does, and I would recommend caution before assuming that it does, I would imagine that Swanson and any other senior officials would have either returned to London or been accommodated at a hotel. It could refer to Kosminski and a companion; allowing all caveats and concerns about the danger of having him there, a bunch of convalescent policemen would probably have provided the most secure environment outside a prison cell. Or the witness. As said, though, it may have no bearing on the identification at all.

Thats an interesting point. Has anyone ever checked the Grande Hotel register?

Probably teaching grand mother here but I could drop them an email an see if it still exists?

Thanks for clarification

Yours Jeff

[PaulB]

Coming up with a theory is what you are supposed to do on a case in which a legal and forensic solution are beyond us.

I am challening the entrenched conventional wisdom that Anderson is 1) the most reliable police source and 2) that he is the only one who claimed that the identity of the Ripper was known.

On both counts a strong argument can be mounted that this secondary source paradigm is fallacious -- if all the primary sources by Macnaghten, about Mac, and by his proxies are examined together.

Look, if I had proof that the 'North Country Vicar' was definitely talking about Montague Druitt, would that change your opinion of this 'restoration' theory?

Jonathan,
I don't think it is the "conventional wisdom" that Anderson is the most reliable police source, or, if it is, that it is "entrenched". Anderson's reliability has come under attack pretty consistently for the last 15-years or more and he's been accused of almost everything from being a liar through geriatric wishful thinker to an egocentric self-deluder. Everything short of bed-wetting.

[PaulB]

Hello Paul,

The list tells me that Chief Superintendant Donald Swanson hìmself did not visit there, so the indications, to me, are

1) Swanson himself did not visit the Home. OR
2) IF he did he was one of the '2 other visitors'
3) in those days, would a one day round trip be feasble?


Kindly

Phil

Personally, if this has any bearing whatsoever on the identification, and we don't know that it it does, and I would recommend caution before assuming that it does, I would imagine that Swanson and any other senior officials would have either returned to London or been accommodated at a hotel. It could refer to Kosminski and a companion; allowing all caveats and concerns about the danger of having him there, a bunch of convalescent policemen would probably have provided the most secure environment outside a prison cell. Or the witness. As said, though, it may have no bearing on the identification at all.

[Phil Carter]

First Annual Report. Since its opening until March 1891 the Home had received 102 visitors, 1 ex-superintendent, 9 inspectors, 11 sergeants,74 constables, 5 ex-police officers, "and 2 other visitors admitted by special request". This detail should be noted, but no special significance attached to it.
Paul

Hello Paul,

The list tells me that Chief Superintendant Donald Swanson hìmself did not visit there, so the indications, to me, are

1) Swanson himself did not visit the Home. OR
2) IF he did he was one of the '2 other visitors'
3) in those days, would a one day round trip be feasble?


Kindly

Phil

[Jonathan H]

Coming up with a theory is what you are supposed to do on a case in which a legal and forensic solution are beyond us.

I am challening the entrenched conventional wisdom that Anderson is 1) the most reliable police source and 2) that he is the only one who claimed that the identity of the Ripper was known.

On both counts a strong argument can be mounted that this secondary source paradigm is fallacious -- if all the primary sources by Macnaghten, about Mac, and by his proxies are examined together.

Look, if I had proof that the 'North Country Vicar' was definitely talking about Montague Druitt, would that change your opinion of this 'restoration' theory?