Seaside Home?

[auspirograph]

Just to clarify, as I understand it, Stewart's opinion is not quite so simple. Whilst he understandably does not accept that the identification took place as described by Anderson and Swanson, he nevertheless accepts that something nevertheless happened which gave rise to the story they tell, and a possible solution is the suggested confusion with Sadler and the Sailor's Home. This is an utterly fair and sensible suggestion given that the marginalia tells a story which runs against expected procedure and that Anderson's conclusion goes against the general received opinion that the Ripper wasn't caught. Stewart and Don have therefore advanced a theory which fits within the known facts and allows that the sources are authentic and genuine, albeit confused.

Certainly Paul,

That's how I understand Stewart's, and Don's position also. Not sure why Trev is misrepresenting it, perhaps from desperation. And it's not the first time either he spreads such misinformation that may simply be down to not understanding the evidence in the first place.

Doesn't bode well for his handling of the Special Branch material unfortunately, if as a former police officer, he cannot grasp the implications of known statements of Anderson, Macnaghten and Swanson.

[Monty]

Er, do you and I keep saying that we take the word of two officers from 1888? I'm not aware of doing so. Are you? And which two officers from the 21st century are we talking about here - Trevor and Stewart? Well, Stewart I'll listen to damned carefully any day of the week, but I am not aware that he's said anything comparable to Trevor about the marginalia. He noted the very slightly differences in handwriting and the use of different pencils and the Yard's handwriting analyst attributed this to entries being written at different times, possibly separated by several years, but apart from the usual backside-saving caveats, the handwriting was determined to be Swanson's and Stewart, as far as I know, has absolutely no disagreement with that. As for Trevor, well, as you say, his track record is pretty dismal and he has afforded us no information about his handwriting experts. We don't know whether they were forensic document examiners or time-wasting graphologists, we don't know their experience, we do know that they didn't examine the actual document, and, of course, we have no idea what their findings were. Which two are you going to side with? Well, now, that's a tough one - I'm going to stick with Stewart and the two guys from 1888.

Well yes Paul,

For Trevor to state he and Stewart are bedfellows is slightly twisting Stewarts position on the marginalia. Whilst Stewart has drawn attention to discprencies, he has never stated it is a false document, whereas Trevor has.

My point is that Trevor is NOT party to the full facts and is in NO position to state the document is indeed forged. He is viewing the case from a 120 odd year vantage point, has not taken into account the contemporary situation of 1880s/1890s and has most certainly not seen all the information Anderson and Swanson was party too.

Stewart has taken the path of common sense, questioned as any good investigator should, drawn possible scenario/s yet had not drawn conclusion. He is too wise for that.

However Trevor (with, if his press release is correct, far less experience in the case than Stewart) has drawn his and claimed its all tosh, this with a slight touch of arrogance befitting of a legend in his own lifetime.

And he places himself alongside SPE.

His method lacks, he has only part assessed (which is not entirely Trevors fault, the evidence is incomplete), and therefore his conclusions are flawed.

Yet he bellows and bleats about others incompetence and inflexability.

The irony is not lost on me.

Monty

[auspirograph]

A big statement that requires a decent explanation.

Was Anderson trying to start UK pogroms?

And, by the way, the word is 'posterity'.

Posterity if fine by me if that is what you prefer.

I agree, it is a big statement to make and it was not made lightly. It also deserves a more decent explanation than can be given here in a message post. That is why I have written a book on it where it is fully explained and supported with credible sources. I urge you to read my book Stephen if you truly are interested.

Regarding UK pogroms, well they were a credible threat during the Whitechapel murders. Don Rumbelow tells us that:

At the time of the Jack the Ripper murders in 1888 there had been the serious risk of riots in London's East End as it was popularly believed that only a Jew could have committed such murders. Anti-Jewish feeling became anti-alienism and vice-versa. A foreign news editor said of the East End at the time that just by watching the eyes of passing Englishmen as they saw the Jewish girls in their Sunday finery, with golden rings on their fingers, sitting outside in the street, already you could "discern the look - which is already half indicative of the pogrom." He went on to say, "A pogrom in Brick Lane, in the crossroads of Commercial Road can be a more bloody and terrible affair than one in the Baltic."

[PaulB]

Certainly Paul,

That's how I understand Stewart's, and Don's position also. Not sure why Trev is misrepresenting it, perhaps from desperation. And it's not the first time either he spreads such misinformation that may simply be down to not understanding the evidence in the first place.

Doesn't bode well for his handling of the Special Branch material unfortunately, if as a former police officer, he cannot grasp the implications of known statements of Anderson, Macnaghten and Swanson.

Indeed. A tad worrying for those of us who care. But isn't access still denied?

[Jonathan H]

To PaulB

In fairness to me, I did not impose the 'case disguised' theory. It grew naturally out of the sources as I studied them.

I am not saying that the theory is convincing, or even very good.

I am saying that I did not have a theory and then went about trying to make it fit. I started with Tumblety as the likely fiend, and Macnaghten and his machinations as a minor sideshow.

What began to turn me towards my theory, rightly or wrongly, was that the memoirs of Mac were quite different from what I had expected and quite different from what secondary sources had claimed about them, your own -- ironically -- being the major exception.

Your own scepticism about Abberline's 1903 comments in '-The Facts' made me go further, and theorise that he knows nothing about Druitt.

Had there been a Report he would have known that this was a young barrister. If he was relying on Griffiths and Sims, he would have seen them describing a mddle-aged medico.

Yet Abberline shifts the profile a few inches towards a young doctor/medical student which suggests that Sanders is praying upon his memory.

When Druitt was fished from the river he was not a Ripper suspect at all, and there was no reason for him to be one based on what Abberline calls the co-incidental timing of his suicide because, at the time, nobody in the police had any inkling that the 'Jack' murders were over, let alone that he was supposedly deceased.

so, the very reason he gives for the 'medical student' to be suspected, is not a reason in 1888 that he would have been suspected.

That suicide in the river only came into the frame as a Ripper suspect years later.

Abberline is quite ignorant that it was not the timing of his demise, but that his family 'believed' he was the murderer, and this secret leaked in Dorset in 1891.

Abberline in a sense has to quash the drowned man and the locked-up lunatic or else his great scoop about Chapman is a limp noodle.

I mean, Paul, he does not know that when he says 'we' he is on his own, as the ex-Assistant Commissioner, Anderson, does believe in the locked-up lunatic and the current Assistant Comm., Mac, whom he touchingly wants to brief about Chapman, does believe in the drowned suspect.

That is why I weight this source as less reliable than Macnaghten, and I came to that conclusion long before I had grasped anything else.

Then the MP in 2008 was identified and it was all over ...

The connecting relevations for me were in realising the following:

1. 'said to be a doctor' also means might not be a doctor, which is correct.

2. the Sims' profile firewalls the Druitt family. I believe this has to be by design and not a happy accident.

3. That Mac's memoirs contain neither 'drowned' nor doctor' and furthermore, pointedly debunk key elements of the tale he had written up in the 'memo' and had enlarged for Sims.

4. Mac knew that William Druitt was trying to find his missing brother, and to know that you have to know the basics of Druitt's age, vocation(s) and date of suicide.

Abberline does exactly what I would expect him to do; he flails around trying to debunk the drowned doctor and every single thing he says is wrong.

It's not his fault -- Mac never told him, never told anybody at the Yard I think.

Paul you asked why Mac would commit Druitt's name in a file if he is trying to hide him for the sake of his family? I gave an answer.

That bad, huh ...?

[auspirograph]

Indeed. A tad worrying for those of us who care. But isn't access still denied?

Yes, access is still denied but has progressed since the efforts of commercial authors Butterworth and Marriott to gain exclusive rights to their publication. The index ledgers had become redacted during this period and may not be of much use by now anyway. The Metropolitan Police are quite understandably fed up with the issue as the few entries on the Whitechapel murders are bundled up with other sensitive and legitimate confidential police data.

However, the question remains how did Marriott gain access to the unencumbered sections posted here on O'Brien and Randolph Churchill? And did he have permission to display them publicly? He has not said so and will perhaps gloat on this but it is of some concern.

He has claimed that Special Branch material will blow Kosminiski and all other suspects out of the water, but I am not aware that any such material exists or, that any further Victorian secret service material can support it. The files have been subjected to the same ravages of time and procedure as have the Whitechapel murder files. Yet a few posts back he back-peddles with claiming that the Macnaghten Memo is the document that exonerates.

The pattern, and there are other instances, is appearing as a campaign of misinformation motivated purely by commercial publishing interests. Not a situation that has not been seen before but certainly of concern in the handling of historical police documentary evidence on Jack the Ripper.

[Jeff Leahy]

I don’t know if I’m just being cynical but my guess is that having been refused access to the Marginalia, Trevor has paid a graphologist to claim it’s fake and will try and run a news paper campaign to make enough stink to try and force Nevill into having it retested.

The irony of course is that Trevor clearly doesn’t understand that there isn’t a hand writing expert in the world who can give a 100% conclusive result. The Home Office expert can only give a probability based on his experience. There is no scientific test of certainty (Like there is for DNA) that can be done on hand writing, as far as I know anyway..

That said I looked into a story a few years back about a Canadian company trying to create a computer program that would make handwriting comparisons. I don’t know if they ever succeeded, I can find nothing on line, but if there were a computer program available I might be interested in those results (i'm interested in the truth), and obviously I possess the best images ever taken of the document, good enough to put them out as Bill Board poster anyway.

But I certainly would not dream of doing anything unless I’d run it past Nevill and had his absolute help, approval and permission. The copyright belongs to the Swanson family and is in care of the Metropolitan police. The book has much deteriated over the years and any testing would need to offer something very new and something we don't already know.

Yours Jeff

[PaulB]

To PaulB

In fairness to me, I did not impose the 'case disguised' theory. It grew naturally out of the sources as I studied them.

I am not saying that the theory is convincing, or even very good.

I am saying that I did not have a theory and then went about trying to make it fit. I started with Tumblety as the likely fiend, and Macnaghten and his machinations as a minor sideshow.

What began to turn me towards my theory, rightly or wrongly, was that the memoirs of Mac were quite different from what I had expected and quite different from what secondary sources had claimed about them, your own -- ironically -- being the major exception.

Your own scepticism about Abberline's 1903 comments in '-The Facts' made me go further, and theorise that he knows nothing about Druitt.

Had there been a Report he would have known that this was a young barrister. If he was relying on Griffiths and Sims, he would have seen them describing a mddle-aged medico.

Yet Abberline shifts the profile a few inches towards a young doctor/medical student which suggests that Sanders is praying upon his memory.

When Druitt was fished from the river he was not a Ripper suspect at all, and there was no reason for him to be one based on what Abberline calls the co-incidental timing of his suicide because, at the time, nobody in the police had any inkling that the 'Jack' murders were over, let alone that he was supposedly deceased.

so, the very reason he gives for the 'medical student' to be suspected, is not a reason in 1888 that he would have been suspected.

That suicide in the river only came into the frame as a Ripper suspect years later.

Abberline is quite ignorant that it was not the timing of his demise, but that his family 'believed' he was the murderer, and this secret leaked in Dorset in 1891.

Abberline in a sense has to quash the drowned man and the locked-up lunatic or else his great scoop about Chapman is a limp noodle.

I mean, Paul, he does not know that when he says 'we' he is on his own, as the ex-Assistant Commissioner, Anderson, does believe in the locked-up lunatic and the current Assistant Comm., Mac, whom he touchingly wants to brief about Chapman, does believe in the drowned suspect.

That is why I weight this source as less reliable than Macnaghten, and I came to that conclusion long before I had grasped anything else.

Then the MP in 2008 was identified and it was all over ...

The connecting relevations for me were in realising the following:

1. 'said to be a doctor' also means might not be a doctor, which is correct.

2. the Sims' profile firewalls the Druitt family. I believe this has to be by design and not a happy accident.

3. That Mac's memoirs contain neither 'drowned' nor doctor' and furthermore, pointedly debunk key elements of the tale he had written up in the 'memo' and had enlarged for Sims.

4. Mac knew that William Druitt was trying to find his missing brother, and to know that you have to know the basics of Druitt's age, vocation(s) and date of suicide.

Abberline does exactly what I would expect him to do; he flails around trying to debunk the drowned doctor and every single thing he says is wrong.

It's not his fault -- Mac never told him, never told anybody at the Yard I think.

Paul you asked why Mac would commit Druitt's name in a file if he is trying to hide him for the sake of his family? I gave an answer.

That bad, huh ...?

"I know all about that story. But what does it amount to? Simply this. Soon after the last murder in Whitechapel the body of a young doctor was found in the Thames, but there is absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him. A report was made to the Home Office about the matter, but that it was 'considered final and conclusive' is going altogether beyond the truth."


Jonathan,
You misunderstand me. I am specifically talking about the medical students. There is absolutely nothing in the information we have about them which suggests that Abberline had them in mind when he wrote of knowing all about the drowned doctor. That Abberline had them in mind is therefore not suggested by the source, but from a problem with Abberline talking about Druitt (namely the fact that he appears to be referring to 1888, at which time we know Druitt wasn't suspected). However, Abberline is clearly talking about someone pulled from the Thames after the murder of Kelly and it is nowhere suggested that any of them were found drowned or committed suicide. Abberline could, in fact, have been referring to a routine investigation of a suicide, the police perhaps anticipating that the murderer would kill himself, or possibly talking of a retrospective investigation made at a date significantly later than the suicide (such as when the private information was received).

[PaulB]

Yes, access is still denied but has progressed since the efforts of commercial authors Butterworth and Marriott to gain exclusive rights to their publication. The index ledgers had become redacted during this period and may not be of much use by now anyway. The Metropolitan Police are quite understandably fed up with the issue as the few entries on the Whitechapel murders are bundled up with other sensitive and legitimate confidential police data.

However, the question remains how did Marriott gain access to the unencumbered sections posted here on O'Brien and Randolph Churchill? And did he have permission to display them publicly? He has not said so and will perhaps gloat on this but it is of some concern.

He has claimed that Special Branch material will blow Kosminiski and all other suspects out of the water, but I am not aware that any such material exists or, that any further Victorian secret service material can support it. The files have been subjected to the same ravages of time and procedure as have the Whitechapel murder files. Yet a few posts back he back-peddles with claiming that the Macnaghten Memo is the document that exonerates.

The pattern, and there are other instances, is appearing as a campaign of misinformation motivated purely by commercial publishing interests. Not a situation that has not been seen before but certainly of concern in the handling of historical police documentary evidence on Jack the Ripper.

A final paragraph that i as neat and concise a summary of one's general concerns as it is possible to get. And the importance of the SB ledgers lies in areas other than the Ripper, as you say. Many thanks.

[PaulB]

I don’t know if I’m just being cynical but my guess is that having been refused access to the Marginalia, Trevor has paid a graphologist to claim it’s fake and will try and run a news paper campaign to make enough stink to try and force Nevill into having it retested.

It won't be retested. At least I hope not. The fragility of the book worried me greatly and the writing is becoming fainter as it is rubbed. Also, as far as I am aware Trevor hasn't stated what fresh tests he wants undertaken and it is difficult to imagine any. I don't know that there are any tests to show when the pencil was put on the paper and the book dates from 1910 so the paper is authentic. If all Trevor wants to do is run yet another handwriting analysis, what's the point? Also, again to the best of my knowledge, he hasn't stated what qualifications his expert would bring to the table which would advance on those of Dr Davies, and if Trevor's got a graphologist, which I don't honestly don't think he'd be so dumb as to do, then whatever he or she says won't count for diddly. It's hardly surprising, therefore, that Neville's not let him near the book, the more so when Trevor wants to prove it a fake.

The irony of course is that Trevor clearly doesn’t understand that there isn’t a hand writing expert in the world who can give a 100% conclusive result. The Home Office expert can only give a probability based on his experience. There is no scientific test of certainty (Like there is for DNA) that can be done on hand writing, as far as I know anyway..

That said I looked into a story a few years back about a Canadian company trying to create a computer program that would make handwriting comparisons. I don’t know if they ever succeeded, I can find nothing on line, but if there were a computer program available I might be interested in those results (i'm interested in the truth), and obviously I possess the best images ever taken of the document, good enough to put them out as Bill Board poster anyway.

But I certainly would not dream of doing anything unless I’d run it past Nevill and had his absolute help, approval and permission. The copyright belongs to the Swanson family and is in care of the Metropolitan police. The book has much deteriated over the years and any testing would need to offer something very new and something we don't already know.

Yours Jeff

As you know, when the book was in my care I didn't let anyone else touch it and only handled it myself when wearing appropriate gloves. Invasive tests would have to be forbidden, but even so it was worryingly fragile.

[Jeff Leahy]

It won't be retested. At least I hope not. The fragility of the book worried me greatly and the writing is becoming fainter as it is rubbed. Also, as far as I am aware Trevor hasn't stated what fresh tests he wants undertaken and it is difficult to imagine any. I don't know that there are any tests to show when the pencil was put on the paper and the book dates from 1910 so the paper is authentic. If all Trevor wants to do is run yet another handwriting analysis, what's the point? Also, again to the best of my knowledge, he hasn't stated what qualifications his expert would bring to the table which would advance on those of Dr Davies, and if Trevor's got a graphologist, which I don't honestly don't think he'd be so dumb as to do, then whatever he or she says won't count for diddly. It's hardly surprising, therefore, that Neville's not let him near the book, the more so when Trevor wants to prove it a fake.
As you know, when the book was in my care I didn't let anyone else touch it and only handled it myself when wearing appropriate gloves. Invasive tests would have to be forbidden, but even so it was worryingly fragile.

Hi Paul

Yes I'm aware the book is in poor condition. I can confirm that what you say is exactly what happened, I didnt touch it, I only helped with the photography.

I'm assuming that the only test Trevor could try would be a hand writing analysis and as you correctly point out that would be utterley useless.

I think what I was saying is that if there was a test that could be done that could add anything I'd be interested in knowing what those possibilities are.

Science and Technology do move on, I'm just not aware of anything at present that could make a difference.

My fear about Trevor's position is that he might use such a hand writing test to bully and threaten Nevill. I'm sure that is something we would both deplore..

I have no problem with its authenticity but can only quote Davies 'Probably writen by Swanson' as with the current technology that is all that can be said, as far as I understand.

Another sunny day in Kent!

Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Paul

Yes I'm aware the book is in poor condition. I can confirm that what you say is exactly what happened, I didnt touch it, I only helped with the photography.

I'm assuming that the only test Trevor could try would be a hand writing analysis and as you correctly point out that would be utterley useless.

I think what I was saying is that if there was a test that could be done that could add anything I'd be interested in knowing what those possibilities are.

Science and Technology do move on, I'm just not aware of anything at present that could make a difference.

My fear about Trevor's position is that he might use such a hand writing test to bully and threaten Nevill. I'm sure that is something we would both deplore..

I have no problem with its authenticity but can only quote Davies 'Probably writen by Swanson' as with the current technology that is all that can be said, as far as I understand.

Another sunny day in Kent!

Jeff

I dont resorst to bully boy tactics unlike some on here. When my expert gave me the results I made them known to Nevill and gave him the option of having it re examined himself or allowing my expert to examine it he declined both offers.

End of story I have no intention of having any further dialogue with him on the matter. At the end of the day now its for the public at large to make up their own minds now as to the evidential value of the contents of Andersons book and The marginalia having regards to the authenticty issue, and the fact that there is no corroboration with regards to the contents of both.

And in case you cant grasp it "probably" and "conclusivley" are totally different.

As far as the SB ledgers and my work in trying to secure their release and what I did and didnt do, or did and didnt find at this time I choose not to disclose fully the full results of that three year fight to gain access.

So I would ask people not keep speculating and raising concerns and posting defamatory comments in relation to my work on this topic. I dont think anyone else could have done what I did to try to gain access. However as I have said before all was not in vain new material was obtained in many different ways and from different sources, some has been made public, the remaining material wil be released in due course as an when I feel the time is right.

As to the suggetion that I am looking to make money out of this could anyone blame me I spent mnay thousand of pounds over that three year period to try to gain access. I didnt see the likes of you or Begg or others offering to contribute. But now at the conclusion you and others are quick in attempting to highlight the flaws in all of that etc etc.

Its a funny old world !

[lynn cates]

Dna

Hello Jeff.

"There is no scientific test of certainty (Like there is for DNA) that can be done on hand writing, as far as I know anyway."

You are right about handwriting; but, EVEN DNA is not certain and is given with a certain probability attached (eg, 1/1000000; 1/10000000; etc.)

The reason for this is based on the possibility that 2 different people could have the exact same DNA. Notice that, even if such a case has never been found, that does not rule out the possibility. Compare this to all the years in which no 2 snowflakes had been found which were alike. That has now changed--2 such WERE found.

Certainty? No. Strong likelihood? Yes.

Cheers.
LC

[PaulB]

I dont resorst to bully boy tactics unlike some on here. When my expert gave me the results I made them known to Nevill and gave him the option of having it re examined himself or allowing my expert to examine it he declined both offers.

End of story I have no intention of having any further dialogue with him on the matter. At the end of the day now its for the public at large to make up their own minds now as to the evidential value of the contents of Andersons book and The marginalia having regards to the authenticty issue, and the fact that there is no corroboration with regards to the contents of both.

And in case you cant grasp it "probably" and "conclusivley" are totally different.

As far as the SB ledgers and my work in trying to secure their release and what I did and didnt do, or did and didnt find at this time I choose not to disclose fully the full results of that three year fight to gain access.

So I would ask people not keep speculating and raising concerns and posting defamatory comments in relation to my work on this topic. I dont think anyone else could have done what I did to try to gain access. However as I have said before all was not in vain new material was obtained in many different ways and from different sources, some has been made public, the remaining material wil be released in due course as an when I feel the time is right.

As to the suggetion that I am looking to make money out of this could anyone blame me I spent mnay thousand of pounds over that three year period to try to gain access. I didnt see the likes of you or Begg or others offering to contribute. But now at the conclusion you and others are quick in attempting to highlight the flaws in all of that etc etc.

Its a funny old world !

Nobody asked you to spend thousands of pounds, Marriott (as you insist on using surnames), nor, as far as I am aware, was anyone asked to contribute. I certainly wasn't. So don't come that. As for you making money, nobody blames you for that, or at least I certainly don't, but I do object to pushing yourself forward as an authority when, by general agreement it would seem, you are short on facts and accuracy.

Any answer yet on what my thinking is, and do you have those examples of Martin Fido back-peddling that you so confidently asserted he's done a few posts back?

[Jonathan H]

To PaulB

We will, as ever, agree to disagree.

I think your position is so unlikely that he knew anything about Druitt at all because Abberline could not have answered the reporter: I am puzzled by that story of the drowned man? I am not sure where it comes from? Im anot too sure about the locked-up lunatic either? But please believe me that Chapman is likely to be the killer ...

He was out of the loop but it would have undermined his argument to say so. I am not suggesting he was a deceiver. I just mean he thought that both [the un-named] Druitt and 'Kosminski' were just press beat-ups, to be swatted away.

Abberline even says, as evidence that they are nothing, that if the police knew who the murderer was they would have announced it.

Again, he does not realise that Macnaghten had done exactly this via Griffiths and Sims, and Anderson -- much more honestly and forthrightly -- had done it himself starting in 1895, to Griffiths too.

Abberline is talking about a Home Office Report, which was not definitive, about a medical student suspect who vanished from his place of residence, or so he thought.

That all matches Sanders, not Druitt.

Druitt was not a suspect at the time of the Kelly murder, or for years afterwards because the police had no notion that it was the last murder at the time. Police thought other subsequent murders might be the final one.

So how could Abberline know anything about Montague Druitt from 1888? He couldn't know, just as he did not know at the time that Kelly was the final murder -- a point he himself makes in the same interview.

What we actually see is that not only does Abberline not know about Druitt he is not even familiar with his fictional counterpart in Griffiths, who was a middle-aged physician.

Historical methodology says to map out what is similar and what is different about contradictory sources, and then try and come up with a theory as to why?

John Sanders

Ripper police suspect -- 1888
Young, medical student
rumoured to be dangerous, possibly homicidal?
Subject of a non-definitive Home Office Report
Vanished, wrongly believed to have gone abroad

Montague Druitt

Drowned himself in Thames 1888
Died soon after Mary Kelly's murder
Ripper 'police' suspect (Mac only) -- 1891
Young barrister/teacher
family 'believed' he was the murderer
Was 'sexually insane'
Not subject of a Home Office Report that gets there.
Vanished, wrongly believed to have gone abroad.

Abberline's 1903 Suspect

young doctor or medical student
drowned himself in the Thames
Died soon after [presumably] the final/Kelly murder
No other evidence whatsoever pointing to his guilt
Was the subject of a non-definitive Home Office Report

Finally, since I certainly did not originate this theory, I quote from the A to Z, p. 454:

'Some garbling of Sanders may lie behind the the frequent suggestions that Scotland Yard believed the Ripper to be a medical student ... apparently sometimes confusing him with M. J. Druitt in the suggestion that he drowned in the Thames.'