"5 victims and 5 victims only"

[Phil Carter]

To Stephen

I think that Macnaghten lied about many things, because he felt forced to by unusual circumstances.

Until 1898, and Griffiths' big book, Coles was the final victim of the Ripper. Mac's belief -- rightly or wrongly -- changed this to Kelly.

To Phil C

I base my theory partly on this source found by Chris Scott:

Illustrated Police News
28 January 1899

IDENTITY OF "JACK THE RIPPER"
A SECRET OF THE CONFESSIONAL

To the long list of "solutions" of the great "Jack the Ripper" mystery, there is now added another - possibly the final one, possibly not.
It comes from a clergyman of the Church of England, a north country vicar, who claims to know with certainty the identity of the most
terrible figure in the the bloodstained annals of crime - the perpetrator of that horrible series of East end murders which ten years ago startled the whole civilised world.
The clergyman in question declines to divulge the name of the culprit, being unable to do so without violating the secrecy of the confessional. He states, however, that he obtained his information from a brother clergyman to whom the murderer made a full and complete confession.

It was this information-confession which was posthumously passed onto Macnaghten, in 1891, establishing for him and later for everybody (not Reid) the so-called conical five.

Hello Jonathan,

The thing that strikes me here is that there were very many who "confessed" to being the murderer. Mostly by walking into a police station and making the claim or in a pub, etc.

IPN is an excellent source, I agree. To get this particular idea into print in that newspaper presumably shows that there is some merit to the story, I grant you.

best wishes

Phil

[Scott Nelson]

The clergyman in question declines to divulge the name of the culprit, being unable to do so without violating the secrecy of the confessional. He states, however, that he obtained his information from a brother clergyman to whom the murderer made a full and complete confession.[/I]

When did the brother clergyman receive this confession from the murderer? When did the clergyman tell of this confession to the other clergyman?

The events from late 1888 to 1891 as influencing notes written in February 1894 on Druitt are separated by 5 years, until a new information emerges in 1899. Couldn't there be no connection between the 1891-1894 stuff and the 1899 account, the latter referring to somebody else who had just died?

[EddieX]

How could MM KNOW there were 5 victims only whilst the case was stillongoing?

That seems to me to be a question which admits only of the answer, he couldn't.

[Simon Wood]

A Surplice of Priests

Hi All,

Rocky Mountain News [Colorado], 17th January 1892.

“London, Jan 2.”

"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."

Regards,

Simon

[Michael W Richards]

Someone already stated the facts, but its clear he couldnt have known the identity of the killer when the files were still opened, and therefore could have no real sense of how many victims to assign to "Jack".

So the proclamation is about as valued and valid as Bonds, because Bond made his without seeing first hand, 4 of the 5 Canonicals actual wounds.

Since that section is obvious drivel, then what is to make of the rest of it?

Cheers

[Phil H]

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.

So does that packet still exist somewhere in the files, or in private hands purloined by someone from the archives? Maybe an FOI request would be in order!!

On the other hand, the last line of the report,

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.

could well indicate that ther whole thing was made up out of whole cloth. Certainly a package addressed to the then Commissioner, can hardly be described (as MM does IIRC) as private information, can it?

On the five victims, without a confession by the murderer himself (and second hand would be no enough for me without some convincing context) I cannot see how such a firm conclusion could be reached.

I have speculated elsewhere that, in the absence of a conviction, the police continued to play out each successive murder from Mckenzie to Coles as if a JtR crime, to allay any public concerns. To do otherwise without something specific to say publicly would have put them in a questionable and potentially embarrassing position.

Phil H

Phil H

[Jonathan H]

Overt vs Covert?

To Scott Nelson

For sure, it may not refer to Druitt at all, to some other death soon after Kelly, or to nobody -- the whole thing made up.

On the other hand, consider that Druitt, albeit un-named, surfaced in Dorset in 1891, then again -- and again un-named -- in 1898, in Griffiths, on the very eve of the Vicar's revelation.

By then the surgeon's son had become a surgeon, but this was not true.

Exactly as the Vicar calls it: 'substantial truth in fictitious form'.

What an amazing coincidence if they are not connected; not talking about the same suspect (' a man of good position ... of unblemished record', an Anglican, who visited the East End for charitable purposes, who 'died soon after' the Kelly murder).

A police chief is mixing fact and fiction covertly (eg. 'family' into 'friends') and a Vicar, just a few weeks later, is doing exactly the same -- overtly. The latter is admitting it.

The coincidence continues as Sims, a few days after the Vicar, body-slams that story as rubbish, yet gets it wrong. The Vicar was not claiming to have heard a death-bed confession but to be passing on a story from a brother priest.

Sims' clincher is that the real Ripper who killed himself could not have confessed to a clergyman or anybody else because there was no time; he killed himself immediately unable to function normally even for 'a single day'.

We know that the person behind the 'drowned doctor' is Druitt who had up to three weeks to confess to anybody he pleased ('Since Friday ...') and yet this is the reason the Vicar is wrong: a detail of the cleric's incomplete profile which better matches Druitt -- yet we know Griffiths-Sims are writing about a disguised Druitt.

From 1902, Sims even agreed with the Vicar that the mad doctor was only 'at one time a surgeon', and had not had patients for years.

In his 1914 memoirs, Macnaghten extended the gap between the final murder and self-murder by 'a single day', by twenty-four hours -- perhaps it was longer he hints -- which is time to confess to a clergyman, or somebody.

The Vicar's piece, unpublished, was called 'The Whitechurch Murders'. Druitt's first cousin was Charles, a Rev. whose parish was Whitchurch, and the story about Montie leaked from Dorset in 1891, not Bournemouth or London.

It's quite a cluster of coincidences.

I thnk what happened is that Macnaghten learned from the brother and/or cousin in 1891 that Montie had confessed to a priest, and his confession checked out. Before he could be sectioned he killed himself.

But to the priest he had made him take a vow to reveal the truth in ten years.

Mac knew he was facing a deadline: the story, though veiled, was going to come out in 1898/9 and it was one which would do no favours for Scotland Yard.

The Chief Constable got in first with his own Yard-friendly 'substantial truth in fictitious form', eg. we were about to arrest the mad doctor -- who had no time to confess to a cleric -- quashing the Vicar who was quickly forgotten.

In that confession, Druitt named the five women he had murdered and that cemented for Macnaghten -- rightly or wrongly -- the so-called C-5.

[Scott Nelson]

OK, thanks Jonathan. Your post above is clear now. I'm now convinced it was probably all about Druitt. Why couldn't you make the story more cohesive without going into all the tangents before? It is rather complicated, though.

[Jonathan H]

You asked, what I took to be a straight question and you received a straight answer, or theory.

[Phil Carter]

Someone already stated the facts, but its clear he couldnt have known the identity of the killer when the files were still opened, and therefore could have no real sense of how many victims to assign to "Jack".

....

Since that section is obvious drivel, then what is to make of the rest of it?

Hello Mike,

So ok, back to the nitty gritty here.

It seems pretty obvious that MM cannot play God. He cannot possibly know who Jack the Ripper was and at the same time know that the case was still ongoing when he wrote the Memoranda. Neither can he know how many victims were "Jack's" because of the same reason. It just isn't possible to give a finite number of victims to an unsolved case that develops into the possible inclusion of more victims.

Now I have a suggestion that may not be liked by some.. but it may just help a little.

The Memoranda is NOT OFFICIAL. It is NOT stamped as received into the files at any point, by anyone, ever. Therefore, it has never been recorded as an OFFICIAL document relating to the police investigation of the case. Furthermore, it is not adressed to anyone either. That simply means that there is no indication on the Memoranda itself what the intention or whom the intended receiver is or was to be. We can assume, presume, and suggest ideas.. but we just do not know.
In other words, it is a private man's opinion, that just happens to be from MM himself. It is written on Met Police paper. Whoopee. I am sure that MM had a ton of the stuff lying around both in the office and at home. And THAT is what I wish to concentrate upon.

There is a possibility that at some point between MM taking office and MM retiring, he filed that document. Others may or may not have been privy to it, in all probability, quite a few people were shown it. This may have happened at home, and it may have happened at work..depending on who MM liked to discuss things with, and where.

People actually being aware of the Memoranda's details, does not preclude the document itself from being placed into the files at Scotland Yard at a later date than 1894..if from work, until MM retired..if written and left at home, it can have been placed there right up until the man died..at any time on a visit to Scotland Yard. Nobody is going to stop MM wandering around his old department and looking through what he wants to look through.

It was in 1966 I believe that Robin Odell found the Original Copy of the Memoranda whilst he had permission to borrow some files. So we know that the Memoranda was placed there some time between 1894 and 1966. Remember...it was never STAMPED as RECEIVED into the files.....

Now consider, if you can.. the fact that it IS impossible to state a finite number of victims in an unsolved case, as per 1894. It is obvious to everyone that putting such a document, although dated 1894, into the files, or submitting it into the files whilst the case was still open and ongoing, could not be done, because MM isn't actually writing any report that pertains to the investigation of the case itself.. he is writing a personal summary of sorts up to and including 1894, probably in connection with the recent newspaper articles.

But this summary would never have been regarded as Official stuff anyway...it could not be, because the case wasn't over.... so when was the material actually put into the file?

Then we have the other side of the coin as it were...the possibility that MM had surmised this "5 victims and 5 victims only" statement...and surmised other parts as well.. or as Stephen said, "what else did he lie about?..Or as Mike said.." Since that section is obvious drivel, then what is to make of the rest of it?"

Something here is painfully not what it should be.

The Swanson sheet of paper I have referred to previously makes out more victims than the Memoranda. Swanson was at the heart of the case almost from the word go. Now strangely. THAT piece of paper isn't in the OFFICIAL files either. It sits, I believe, with the Swanson family in their collection, loaned, again I believe, to the authors of Scotland Yard Investigates, whereon it was published for the first time.

Strange coincidence that both the Memoranda, an unofficial document with a copy (the Aberconway version) provided by MM's own family turns up and the Swanson Copperplate sheet is also provided by his family.
Without seeing the Copperplate written sheet again I cannot say whether it was ever stamped and received as an official document with document number or not (I am not currently in the near vicinity of said book)... but if it IS an official document... what is it doing outside the files? And when did that disappear? If it isn't officially stamped...how much weight can be put on the contents of the sheet of paper if it is just another personally written opionion, by DSS?

If it IS an offical document, then MM's Memoranda really is in trouble.. because his Memoranda ISN'T official...and THAT is the key to this "5 victims and 5 victims only" veracity.

If the Swanson sheet ISN'T Official (someone please tell me either way), then we have two people telling us totally different things and we are supposed to rely on one or both for our source material. It certainly would make both of these gentlemen's accounts, all of them, to be viewed with greater degrees of scepticism.


It simply isn't possibly that MM COULD know in 1894 "5 victims and 5 victims" only was a truism in an ongoing and open investigation. Especially as the person in the middle of investigating the crimes is still looking for The Whitechapel Murderer after that time, and has a list of MORE than 5 victims to his name.

So one, or both, are talking poppycock. THAT'S why this is important. Ripperology, modern Ripperology is BASED on the statements of these two people.

Get the rake out and start weeding, I say.


best wishes

Phil

[Bridewell]

Statement of Fact

I don't see how Sir Melville MacNaghten, or anyone else, could ever make a factual statement that the Ripper had "5 victims and 5 victims only".

Even if, for the sake of argument, it was accepted that the individual making this statement knew the identity of the killer and had interviewed him, it would be a pretty gormless police officer who took the unsupported word of a serial killer as to exactly how many victims he was responsible for.
"5 victims and 5 victims only", as a statement of fact, is an impossibility IMHO. At best it's an educated guess.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Stephen Thomas]

mum's the word

I have given this some thought. You are quite correct. It isn't possible for an unsolved murder case to have a finite and stated number of victims.
Not without the murderer being known and the certainty of both the murderer's name and the number of his victim's is openly known by many, I'd wager. There is no room for variation between DSS and MM on the matter, nor between MM and anyone else. It MUST have been known throughout the force otherwise the case remains uncertain and open.

Hi Phil

Well I wouldn't have said that the idea that JTR had been caught before the MacKenzie murder in mid 1889 (which is what MM is implying in 1894) would have been known throughout the force. The higher ups would have been told this fact, if it were indeed a fact, and to publicly deny any knowledge of it.

[Stephen Thomas]

I don't see how Sir Melville MacNaghten, or anyone else, could ever make a factual statement that the Ripper had "5 victims and 5 victims only".

Well they could if it was true.

If it wasn't, why would MM state that?

This is the question being asked here.

[Bridewell]

Denying the Fact

The higher ups would have been told this fact, if it were indeed a fact, and to publicly deny any knowledge of it.

Hi Stephen,

Why would the 'higher ups' deny knowing the killer's identity if they knew it? The press had been merciless in its criticism of their failure to identify the Whitechapel Murderer. The notion that they did identify him, but kept quiet about it through a perversely misguided sense of decency is one of the more unlikely scenarios, to my mind.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Stephen Thomas]

Why would the 'higher ups' deny knowing the killer's identity if they knew it? The press had been merciless in its criticism of their failure to identify the Whitechapel Murderer. The notion that they did identify him, but kept quiet about it through a perversely misguided sense of decency is one of the more unlikely scenarios, to my mind.

Well that's what seems to me to have happened, Bridewell

But each to their own.