Druitt in the confessional?

[sauniere]

In my opinion, druitt definetely was not the ripper. The only reason he's been fingered is because he killed himself soon after the murders finished, a spurious connection to say the least. The poor man has been slandered as being the ripper.
W.H Bury and james kelly are much more likely suspects to me.

[aspallek]

In my opinion, druitt definetely was not the ripper. The only reason he's been fingered is because he killed himself soon after the murders finished, a spurious connection to say the least. The poor man has been slandered as being the ripper.
W.H Bury and james kelly are much more likely suspects to me.

I realize you are new to the boards and I don't wish to be unkind but your response is extremely simplistic to the point of naiveté.

There were many other suicides in Greater London from November 1888 through January 1889. There is no indication that the police ever suspected any of them. Clearly Druitt's timely suicide is not the primary reason he was suspected, let alone the "only" reason.

Furthermore, you are correct in your implication that Druitt seems an unlikely person to be suspected of murder. But don't you see that this unlikelihood is precisely what makes him such a compelling suspect? Surely Macnaghten knew that Druitt was a gentleman with no known criminal history or history of violence and in spite of this knowledge Sir Melville suspected him.

I have no idea whether Montague Druitt was guilty of the Whitechapel Murders but I am certain that Macnaghten had good reason to suspect him.

And if you want to talk about suspects with no known conncetion to the Whitechapel murders, Bury and Kelly fall into that category.

[Ben]

Hi Sauniere and welcome,

The only reason he's been fingered is because he killed himself soon after the murders finished

Of immediate interest here is the fact that Abberline subscribed to the same view; that there was nothing beyond the fact that he died at that time to incriminate him. If there was anything of "incriminating" value beyond that coincidence of timing, it would mean that Macnaghten kept Abberline out of the loop with regard to the relevant details. Personally, I consider it more likely that Abberline was aware of the salient facts (i.e. facts besides the nature and date of death), but only considered the timing factor to be of "incriminating" value.

Best regards,
Ben

[Mayerling]

Professor Bell

Fascinating little note Chris. Congradulations in finding it.

But due to the issue of the confessional another point at the end of the article is being ignored. It is the reference to Professor Bell who claim he spotted the Ripper.

That is Professor Joseph Bell of Edinburgh, the well known medical expert in many Scottish murder trials (with Professor Harvey Littlejohn he was involved in the 1877 Chantrelle Poisoning Case and the 1894 Monson Case ("the Ardlamont Mystery"). Professor or Dr. Bell is best remembered as the teacher of Arthur Conan Doyle, and the model (in his ability to look a person over and immediately know their whole history) for Sherlock Holmes.

The interesting thing is that Irving Wallace, in his book THE FABULOUS ORIGINALS (the chapter was also in his later collection, THE SUNDAY GENTLEMAN) had discussed Bell's work with the police, and included a discussion of how he and Littlejohn both were invited (supposedly) by the authorities in London to investigate the Whitechapel Case, and both (again supposedly) solved it. I have not seen any report supporting Wallace's account before now. Apparently he did talk about an involvement in the case (if the reference to Bell in the article you found is true).

Best wishes,

Jeff

[aspallek]

Good point, Jeff. It would be interesting to know just what Bell's opinions on the Whitechapel murders were. It is also interesting to note that the article says Bell "used to declare" that he had definitely "spotted" the culprit.

Bell was very much alive in 1899 (d. 1911), why the past tense? Did Bell reverse himself later in life? Or does this simply mean that Bell once made a habit of telling about his conclusion but now (in 1899) no longer speaks about it? And what does Bell mean by "spotted" the Ripper? The quotation marks around this word in the original article might indicate that it is not to be taken literally, as in a literal sighting. On the other hand, the quotation marks might be indicating that Bell actually used the word "spotted" in talking about his knowledge of the Ripper. There are a lot of unanswered questions here.

[Chris Scott]

Hi Jeff
many thanks for the note about Joseph Bell
I was interested in your comments:
The interesting thing is that Irving Wallace, in his book THE FABULOUS ORIGINALS (the chapter was also in his later collection, THE SUNDAY GENTLEMAN) had discussed Bell's work with the police, and included a discussion of how he and Littlejohn both were invited (supposedly) by the authorities in London to investigate the Whitechapel Case, and both (again supposedly) solved it. I have not seen any report supporting Wallace's account before now. Apparently he did talk about an involvement in the case (if the reference to Bell in the article you found is true).

It may be of interest that the correspondence and research notes of Wallace for this book still exist as a collection in the archives of the University of Southern California. Unfortunately these are not available on line.
Details are at:

http://www.usc.edu/libraries/archives/arc/libraries/collections/records/145home.html#top

Folks might also like to see this archived thread to which you contributed

http://forum.casebook.org/archive/index.php/t-114.html

The Ely Liebow referred to in this thread wrote a book about Bell which is available online at Google Books

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&id=i5nb6TywMIQC&dq=%22Ely+Liebow%22&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=jL898gvR6f&sig=wGtY4vWBIPT8EJ2N-fzgRshRz9s&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPP1,M1

The section about his identification of the Ripper starts on page 167

http://books.google.co.uk/books?ct=result&id=i5nb6TywMIQC&dq=%22Ely+Liebow%22&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&sig=ACfU3U186c_xUasIxyhq-ZBwtZARMJJkJw&q=ripper#PPA167,M1

According to Liebow, Bell may have been instrumental in having the following story published:

The Scotsman
10 October 1888

THE LONDON MURDERS
Detectives on a "New Scent"

The sudden disappearance of a man from a hotel in which he left a black bag, and is represented to have contained some articles of a compromising character. This man came to London from Scotland ten years ago. He is a duly qualified surgeon, but has lost his standing through dissipation. Since he began to slide the scale, his father has been in the habit of sending him remittances. The sums have been squandered among the class of women who have fallen victim to the murderer's knife, and on one occasion he was robbed of a case of surgical instruments by them. Since then, he has, it is said, harboured intense hatred against them.

[c.d.]

Had a clergyman heard Druitt's confession as it related to the murders, it is an interesting ethical question as to what his responsiblity would be. Does he inform the police in order to prevent more murders or does he uphold the confidentiality of the confessional?

c.d.

[aspallek]

Had a clergyman heard Druitt's confession as it related to the murders, it is an interesting ethical question as to what his responsiblity would be. Does he inform the police in order to prevent more murders or does he uphold the confidentiality of the confessional?

c.d.

Having conducted the rite of ordination myself a number of times in my denomination I can tell you that our rite, which I believe is based upon the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, includes the pledge "never to divulge the sins confessed to you."

This from the Oxford Dictionary of the Christan Church s.v. "Seal of Confession":

The absolute obligation not to reveal anything said by a penitent using the Sacrament of Penance. The obligation includes not only the confessor, but interpreter, bystander, eavesdropper, persons finding and reading lists of sins obviously drawn up for the purpose of the confession and indeed everyone except the penitent himself. It covers all sins, venial as well as mortal, and any other matter the revelation of which would grieve or damage the penitent, or would lower the repute of the sacrament. The obligation arises from a tacit contract between penitent and confessor, from its necessity for the maintenance of the use of the sacrament by the faithful, and by canon law. The obligation covers direct and indirect revelation, e.g., unguarded statements from which matters heard in confession could be deduced or recognized, and admits no exception, no matter what urgent reasons of life and death, Church or state, may be advanced. (Emphasis added.)

The interesting thing here is that it is clear from this definition that the death of the penitent is not license to break the seal of the confessional since the intent is not only to protect the reputation of the penitent but also to protect the integrity of the rite. This integrity would surely be compromised by the breaking of the seal even after the death of the penitent.

[c.d.]

Hi Andy,

I am afraid that I did not phrase my question as well as I should have. I am aware of the obligation of the clergyman hearing the confession. My question was more of a musing on human nature. Despite the obligation, there would be an enormous temptation to reveal to the police what he had been told. There is no way of knowing whether a particular clergyman would have kept the faith (no pun intended).

c.d.

[aspallek]

Hi c.d.,

Your question is more from a practical standpoint and is rather hypothetical and, as you say, there is no way to tell what a particular clergyman would have done.

The practical interpretation given in my seminary days was that in such a case if the penitent did not turn himself in to the authorities this raises sufficient question as to the sincerity of the confession that the confessor might be justified in divulging information to the authorities. However, I realize this conflicts with the above definition.

I believe the implication here, though, is that final murder, confession, and death of the suspect occurred in short order and thus there was probably little opportunity for the confessor priest to notify authorities before the suspect's death. Subsequent to the death of the penitent, the only compelling reason I can imagine for divulging the information to authorities would be to prevent the arrest of a different suspect.

But in the story related by the newspaper article at the head of this thread, the seal is clearly broken by the confessor priest, who divulged information to the North Country vicar, and by the North Country vicar, who once he possess such information passed it on in veiled form to the public.

[Mayerling]

Hi Jeff
many thanks for the note about Joseph Bell
I was interested in your comments:
The interesting thing is that Irving Wallace, in his book THE FABULOUS ORIGINALS (the chapter was also in his later collection, THE SUNDAY GENTLEMAN) had discussed Bell's work with the police, and included a discussion of how he and Littlejohn both were invited (supposedly) by the authorities in London to investigate the Whitechapel Case, and both (again supposedly) solved it. I have not seen any report supporting Wallace's account before now. Apparently he did talk about an involvement in the case (if the reference to Bell in the article you found is true).

It may be of interest that the correspondence and research notes of Wallace for this book still exist as a collection in the archives of the University of Southern California. Unfortunately these are not available on line.
Details are at:

http://www.usc.edu/libraries/archives/arc/libraries/collections/records/145home.html#top

Folks might also like to see this archived thread to which you contributed

http://forum.casebook.org/archive/index.php/t-114.html

The Ely Liebow referred to in this thread wrote a book about Bell which is available online at Google Books

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&id=i5nb6TywMIQC&dq=%22Ely+Liebow%22&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=jL898gvR6f&sig=wGtY4vWBIPT8EJ2N-fzgRshRz9s&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPP1,M1

The section about his identification of the Ripper starts on page 167

http://books.google.co.uk/books?ct=result&id=i5nb6TywMIQC&dq=%22Ely+Liebow%22&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&sig=ACfU3U186c_xUasIxyhq-ZBwtZARMJJkJw&q=ripper#PPA167,M1

According to Liebow, Bell may have been instrumental in having the following story published:

The Scotsman
10 October 1888

THE LONDON MURDERS
Detectives on a "New Scent"

The sudden disappearance of a man from a hotel in which he left a black bag, and is represented to have contained some articles of a compromising character. This man came to London from Scotland ten years ago. He is a duly qualified surgeon, but has lost his standing through dissipation. Since he began to slide the scale, his father has been in the habit of sending him remittances. The sums have been squandered among the class of women who have fallen victim to the murderer's knife, and on one occasion he was robbed of a case of surgical instruments by them. Since then, he has, it is said, harboured intense hatred against them.

Hi Chris,

I used to have a copy of THE SUNDAY GENTLEMAN. I'm going to try to find it and copy out the bit of business regarding Bell, Littlejohn and the possible Ripper investigation. Wallace tries to make it sound far more successful than his actual information merits.

Interesting about the story from THE SCOTSMAN. It almost is reminiscent (though not thoroughly) of the odd lodger in the story Sickert used to tell his friends about.

Jeff

[Stewart P Evans]

The Sunday Gentleman

From The Sunday Gentleman by Irving Wallace, London, Cassell, 1966, pp. 402-403 -

[Chris Scott]

Many Thanks, Stewart, as always

[Mayerling]

Thanks Stewart - you saved me a look into my closets.

Jeff

[Johnr]

Verrr-rry Inter-esting....

Thanks Chris, Stewart and Jeff ( and others),
I would love to discover if either Dr Bell's papers or Professor Littlejohn's, still survive in Edinburgh University.
Thanks Chris for the details of the University of Southern California holdings.
Does anyone have any inklings about just who at Scotland Yard invloved Dr Bell? And does any recordsurvive in the MEPOL or Home Office records to compliment our knowledge of this aspect?
I gained the impression Dr Bell's involvement was after the last murder occurred ( despite the mention of the doctor-suspects death).Particularly since the Griffith suspects are included.
JOHN RUFFELS.