New Vicar/Druitt Source Found

[David Orsam]

To David

No, you don't understand primary and secondary sources, and so you do not understand my argument about the vicar or Logan. The latter is a wonderful Edwardian source confirming my theory -- as a theory -- because its open mixture of fact and fiction contains details about Druitt that could only have been known by people (behind Logan) who also knew Druitt was a barrister and not a doctor.

On that, in the official version of his report, the one filed, the one his superiors might have seen, Macnaghten was careful to write "said to be a doctor". He pulled back from his draft (if it was a draft) and carefully claimed that Druitt's vocation was only unconfirmed hearsay (surely inviting a complaint of incompetence). He might have been a doctor, or he might not have been (and he wasn't of course). But in the same section Mac ramps up the evidence against the same man -- he was, no ifs or buts, sexually insane (e.g. he gained erotic pleasure from violence) and his own family "believed", not "suspected" that he was the killer. For he official file the chief pulled back from one element (a doctor?) and yet he amplified his guilt ("He was sexually insane ...".

That's your worst nightmare, David: a critical primary source that is deliberately ambiguous for all sorts of reasons and pressures (and was never sent, addling another layer to consider). To understand it needs careful comparison with other ambiguous sources. For you, it is a world of pain unless you ignore it's complexity -- and you show that you do.

And that's a fact.

I'm baffled by the claim that I don't understand primary and secondary sources but I think there have been enough debates on that subject on this forum so let me move over to the point about Mac's note.

Yes, Mac's note includes the statement that Druitt was "said to be a doctor" which I interpret as meaning that Mac has been told that Druitt was a doctor but has no personal knowledge of this.

Yes, I'm conscious that Mac's note never appears to have been sent but if it was a memo for the file, why would he be effectively lying to himself in it? It's far more of a layer for you to consider than me because it's not a topic of much interest to me.

Just to add that an ambiguous primary source is not my worst nightmare in any shape, size or form. It is, again, baffling to me that you think you are in a position to make such a statement.

[David Orsam]

What David found (though he does not agree and has every right not to) is a primary source from 1899 that shows that people then -- and not just people now -- equated the Vicar's Ripper with the Drowned Doctor suspect of Major Griffiths' scoop. In fact it is the only source so far found that does this -- many others at the time that comment on the Vicar's tale do not make this connection -- and it involves Scotland Yard.

The Western Mail article – which does not become any more reliable by you calling it a primary source – does say that the vicar's suspect drowned in the Thames but there is no indication in that report that the Western Mail's London correspondent had spoken to the north country vicar or done any more than read the Daily Mail report (which refers, confusingly, to Griffiths' suspect who drowned in Thames, which must be what has confused him) and then seek a police response. If you think that the police response, which denied the truth of the vicar's story, is helpful to you then I'm glad to have been of some assistance.

[David Orsam]

Either it is Macnaghten being deceitful or he is deceitful with some of his underlings by omission. Either way, the result was the same: the Vicar has nothing. Within days the same message came from Sims: the Vicar has nothing. Exactly as I theorized in my book, an attempt to wedge and crush this source which was potentially embarrassing for the Yard and ruinous for the dead killer's relations -- because they are all actually talking about the same suspect.

So the vicar's suspect is the same as Griffths' suspect, and Mac and Sims crush the embarrassing vicar's unnamed suspect but promote the non-embarrassing unnamed Griffiths suspect even though it's exactly the same person.

I wish I could understand such elevated thinking.

[David Orsam]

For the reasons I outlined at the beginning of this thread I think it is a major find which supports the 'case disguised' theory, as outlined in my book, "Jack the Ripper-Case Solved, 1891", and will be in the second one (with David Barrett fully credited in the body the text for finding it, plus the disclaimer that he does not agree with my interpretation. His off-track point about the exact date of the Vicar's tale, though it makes no difference whatsoever to its significance for me, will be duly included too so that readers can make up their own minds).

My "off track point" about the exact date of the Vicar's tale?

It's amazing that, having congratulated you for admitting to your mistakes in a previous post, you now can't seem to admit to this one. You got the date of the Daily Mail report wrong in the OP and thus got the date of the vicar's tale wrong too. It's not my "point" it's a factual correction.

I have a copy of the Daily Mail report. It was published on 18 January 1899. The Western Mail article I found was published on 19 January 1899. You don't need to attribute this "point" to me in any edition of your book, just note the correct dates. (If you are uncertain about the correct date of the DM report let me know and I will prove it to you).

All the Western Mail article does is include a police disclaimer about the vicar's story which had been reported in the previous day's Daily Mail but inaccurately summarized by the Western Mail journalist. If you think that is a "major find" then I'm perfectly happy to take all the credit.

You might, however, want to note that my surname is spelt "Barrat" (and I appreciate on this occasion that it's a genuine error).