Reasons why?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The fact that he mentions blood stained clothing is clearly inaccurate. People often add colour to a sensational story….it doesn’t prove the story false.

It suggests he made the story up.

The fact that he has Druitt committing suicide almost immediately after the murder of Kelly is also inaccurate.

I suppose that is also some 'added colour to a sensational story'.

Such sensational stories, with so much added colour, are invariably made-up.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It suggests he made the story up.

The fact that he has Druitt committing suicide almost immediately after the murder of Kelly is also inaccurate.

I suppose that is also some 'added colour to a sensational story'.

Such sensational stories, with so much added colour, are invariably made-up.

You have nothing to back up that statement.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You have nothing to back up that statement.

I have already given examples of other made-up stories, complete with inaccuracies and colourful additions.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have already given examples of other made-up stories, complete with inaccuracies and colourful additions.

None of which in any way have a bearing on what Macnaghten said unless you believe that Macnaghten simply heard an invented story in 1891 and chose it at random to provide a third name for his list. That’s up to you of course.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

None of which in any way have a bearing on what Macnaghten said unless you believe that Macnaghten simply heard an invented story in 1891 and chose it at random to provide a third name for his list. That’s up to you of course.

Of course he heard an invented story - invented by Farquharson.

That is why both Macnaghten and Farquharson claimed that Druitt committed suicide almost immediately after the murder of Mary Kelly.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course he heard an invented story - invented by Farquharson.

That is why both Macnaghten and Farquharson claimed that Druitt committed suicide almost immediately after the murder of Mary Kelly.

Opinion stated as fact.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Opinion stated as fact.

Both Macnaghten and Farquharson claimed that Druitt committed suicide almost immediately after the murder of Mary Kelly.

Both were wrong.

Macnaghten was in a position to know that that was not true, yet believed it to be true.

Those are all facts - not opinions.

The inescapable conclusion is that he had been fed wrong information by the person who first told the fiction about the timing of Druitt's suicide.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Both Macnaghten and Farquharson claimed that Druitt committed suicide almost immediately after the murder of Mary Kelly.

Both were wrong.

Macnaghten was in a position to know that that was not true, yet believed it to be true.

Those are all facts - not opinions.

The inescapable conclusion is that he had been fed wrong information by the person who first told the fiction about the timing of Druitt's suicide.

Opinion stated repeatedly as fact.

I don't come to the same conclusion therefore it isn't 'inescapable.' It's only 'inescapable' if you begin from a position of dogmatic certainty. Which you do.
'Almost immediately' isn't quantifiable by the way and Macnaghten was writing about an event that occurred 6 years previously after all. It's easy to dismiss anything if you deliberately set the bar at a level that precludes human error or an absence of knowledge of specific points. Your anti-Macnaghten crusade is pointless.

[Abby Normal]

There are strong indications that Farquharson - the person who mentioned the 'suspect' three years before Macnaghten did so - made up the story about Druitt, including the 'private information', and fed it to a receptive Macnaghten.

Farquharson had the strange habit of telling stories about people who had been expelled or dismissed from schools for serious (possibly sexual) offences:

. . . . The defendant [Farquharson] was accused of maliciously saying to Mr. St. John Brodrick, M.P., that Mr. Gatty was expelled [from] the Charterhouse School, or was compelled to leave the school for a serious offence. . . .

(The Morning Post, 17 June 1893)

Witness [William Druitt] heard from a friend on the 11th of December that deceased had not been heard of at his chambers for more than a week. Witness then went to London to make inquiries, and at Blackheath he found that deceased had got into serious trouble at the school, and had been dismissed.

(Acton, Chiswick & Turnham Green Gazette, 5 January 1889)


Both Farquharson and Macnaghten repeated the erroneous idea that Druitt committed suicide very soon after the murder of Kelly:

I give a curious story for what it is worth. There is a West of England member who in private declares that he has solved the mystery of 'Jack the Ripper.' His theory - and he repeats it with so much emphasis that it might almost be called his doctrine - is that 'Jack the Ripper' committed suicide on the night of his last murder... He states that a man with blood-stained clothes committed suicide on the night of the last murder, and he asserts that the man was the son of a surgeon, who suffered from homicidal mania.

(The Bristol Times and Mirror, 11 February 1891)


A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor & of good family -- who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder ...

(Macnaghten Memorandum, 1894)


... he committed suicide on or about the 10th of November 1888 ...

(Macnaghten, Days of My Years, 1914)


Farquharson’s liking for manufacturing fictitious stories and passing them off as fact is revealed in a letter to a friend who was a keen collector of historical artefacts:

You ought to write a short magazine article on it, not referring to your discoveries but based on them, a little fiction mixed in, on which to base your tale.

(letter from Farquharson to General Pitt-Rivers, 1892)


This seems to suggest that Farquharson exhibited an established pattern of behaviour where he told outlandish stories and then manufactured ‘proofs’ to support them.

...Farquharson broke into Browning’s study to steal his own exercises and had his friends lie about where he had been that morning.

What is interesting about all three stories is Farquharson seems to have deliberately set out to damage the reputation of a man who he considered to be socially beneath him, and (certainly in the cases of Browning and Gatty and possibly in the case of Druitt), rumoured to be a homosexual.

The purpose of this article has been to illustrate that there are links between the lies Farquharson told about Oscar Browning while at Eton, the stories he spread about Charles Gatty in 1892, and his claim that Montague Druitt was Jack the Ripper.

(Henry Richard Farquharson, M.P. The Untrustworthy Source of Macnaghten’s ‘Private Information’?
By JOANNA WHYMAN, Ripperologist 166 March 2020)


As I have argued previously, it is most unlikely that Druitt's relatives would have suspected him, and for two reasons: first, there is evidence that his brother had not been in contact with him for a considerable time, at least weeks, and, secondly, if they had known of his movements at the time when the series of murders began, they would have known that he was in Dorset.

There would have been no reason to suspect that he was even in Whitechapel, let alone eviscerating women there.

Furthermore, Macnaghten mistakenly thought that Druitt lived with his relatives:

I incline to the belief that the individual who held up London in terror resided with his own people ...

(Melville Macnaghten, Days of My Years, 1913)


It is that error on his part that enabled him to believe the private information he received:

A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor ... He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer.

(Melville Macnaghten, Memorandum, 1894)


Macnaghten was not even aware that Druitt's brother had to be informed that he was missing, having evidently been unaware of his movements for some considerable time.

The whole story about Druitt was invented.

how could farquharson make up the whole story about druitt, when druitts own brother found out that he had gotten in serious trouble at the school and been dismissed?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Opinion stated repeatedly as fact.

I don't come to the same conclusion therefore it isn't 'inescapable.' It's only 'inescapable' if you begin from a position of dogmatic certainty. Which you do.
'Almost immediately' isn't quantifiable by the way and Macnaghten was writing about an event that occurred 6 years previously after all. It's easy to dismiss anything if you deliberately set the bar at a level that precludes human error or an absence of knowledge of specific points.Your anti-Macnaghten crusade is pointless.

I am not stating opinion as fact.

I am not on a crusade.

I do not 'begin from a position of dogmatic certainty'.

If I wanted to, I could retort that those are all opinions on your part, presented as fact.

I do not preclude human error on Macnaghten's part, but he made rather too many mistakes, especially when you consider that he had access to the files on the cases about which he was writing.

In this case, however, - and I note that you repeatedly failed to address this point - he repeated an error already made by someone else, even though he was in a position to establish the true facts.

You claim that 'almost immediately after' is not 'quantifiable'.

Of course it is.

It means 'very soon after'.

Farquharson claimed that Druitt 'committed suicide on the night of his last murder'.

Macnaghten claimed that Druitt

'disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder' and 'committed suicide on or about the 10th of November 1888'.

I do not understand why you are disputing that.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

how could farquharson make up the whole story about druitt, when druitts own brother found out that he had gotten in serious trouble at the school and been dismissed?

I was not referring to the undisputed facts about Druitt's dismissal, disappearance and suicide.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am not stating opinion as fact.

I am not on a crusade.

I do not 'begin from a position of dogmatic certainty'.

If I wanted to, I could retort that those are all opinions on your part, presented as fact.

I do not preclude human error on Macnaghten's part, but he made rather too many mistakes, especially when you consider that he had access to the files on the cases about which he was writing.

In this case, however, - and I note that you repeatedly failed to address this point - he repeated an error already made by someone else, even though he was in a position to establish the true facts.

You claim that 'almost immediately' is not 'quantifiable'.

Of course it is.

It means 'very soon afterwards'.

Farquharson claimed that Druitt 'committed suicide on the night of his last murder'.

Macnaghten claimed that Druitt

'disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder' and'committed suicide on or about the 10th of November 1888'.

I do not understand why you are disputing that.

I was simply stating a fact. ‘Almost immediately,’ as a phrase, isn’t quantifiable. You describe it as ‘very soon afterwards,’ which also isn’t quantifiable. They are phrases used in the absence of an exact time. When an exact time isn’t known. I went out this morning ‘very soon after’ I received a phone call at 10.00. So what time did I leave the house PI? 10.05? 10.10? 10.15? I know. You don’t. Because ‘very soon after’ isn’t quantifiable.

Farquaharsen said that Druitt committed suicide on the 9th (the day of Kelly’s murder) This was wrong of course. Does this mean that Druitt didn’t commit suicide? No. It simply means that he knew that Druitt committed suicide sometime after the last murder but made an incorrect assumption. Macnaghten however suggested “on or about the 10th.” So the day after or possibly even a day or so later. So there’s no exact agreement or Mac would have said that he committed suicide on the 9th. But he didn’t did he?

You are alighting on two errors where 2 different people, 3 years apart named two different days. And you appear to believe that this conveniently makes Macnaghten a liar? And in taking this line you completely ignore any reasons put forward pointing out the extreme unlikeliness of Melville Macnaghten plucking Druitt’s name out of thin air to name a respected Barrister and schoolteacher, with no record of violence or criminality, and who came from an extremely prominent family as a potential Jack the Ripper. This isn’t believable. Stick to that line if you want to though PI, you’re fully entitled to an opinion, as we all are, but you should be wary of trying too hard to dismiss Druitt because it can’t fail but to make it look like you are on some kind of crusade. Most people who feel Druitt to be a poor suspect simply leave it at knowing that he cannot be dismissed on evidence. You appear to be unable to do that. I don’t know why Druitt is so important to you?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I was simply stating a fact. ‘Almost immediately,’ as a phrase, isn’t quantifiable. You describe it as ‘very soon afterwards,’ which also isn’t quantifiable. They are phrases used in the absence of an exact time. When an exact time isn’t known. I went out this morning ‘very soon after’ I received a phone call at 10.00. So what time did I leave the house PI? 10.05? 10.10? 10.15? I know. You don’t. Because ‘very soon after’ isn’t quantifiable.

Farquaharsen said that Druitt committed suicide on the 9th (the day of Kelly’s murder) This was wrong of course. Does this mean that Druitt didn’t commit suicide? No. It simply means that he knew that Druitt committed suicide sometime after the last murder but made an incorrect assumption. Macnaghten however suggested “on or about the 10th.” So the day after or possibly even a day or so later. So there’s no exact agreement or Mac would have said that he committed suicide on the 9th. But he didn’t did he?

You are alighting on two errors where 2 different people, 3 years apart named two different days. And you appear to believe that this conveniently makes Macnaghten a liar? And in taking this line you completely ignore any reasons put forward pointing out the extreme unlikeliness of Melville Macnaghten plucking Druitt’s name out of thin air to name a respected Barrister and schoolteacher from an extremely prominent family as a potential Jack the Ripper. Stick to that line if you want to PI, you’re fully entitled to an opinion, as are all of us, but you should be wary of trying too hard to dismiss Druitt but it can’t fail but to make it look like you are on some kind of crusade.

'Sticking to a certain line' does not constitute being 'on some kind of crusade'!

The fact that Farquharson claimed that Druitt committed suicide on 9 November but Macnaghten had the suicide taking place on or about the following day does not imply any disagreement; 'on or about the 10th of November' includes 9 November.

I did not state that I 'believe that this conveniently makes Macnaghten a liar'.

Anyone familiar with the case knew or knows that Druitt did not commit suicide until more than three weeks after the last murder.

For a Member of Parliament to start spreading a story that the suicide took place within hours of the murder is not just an error.

For a senior policeman, with all his resources, to repeat the mistake takes some explaining.

They were not 'alighting on two errors'; it was the same error.

As I stated, the inescapable conclusion is that the policeman got his wrong information from the member of parliament, who had started spreading the story three years before.

There is the further coincidence that the member of parliament claimed that Druitt's family suspected him of having committed the murders, knowing - presumably by some means of divination - that he had had blood stained clothing on the night of the murder, and the senior policeman claiming that Druitt lived with his family - which he did not.

As for your argument about 'the extreme unlikeliness of Melville Macnaghten plucking Druitt’s name out of thin air', he did not do so.

He plucked Druitt's name based on the misinformation he had received about him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

'Sticking to a certain line' does not constitute being 'on some kind of crusade'!

The fact that Farquharson claimed that Druitt committed suicide on 9 November but Macnaghten had the suicide taking place on or about the following day does not imply any disagreement; 'on or about the 10th of November' includes 9 November.

The point is that you are you are linking Farquaharsen’s story and MacNaghten’s memorandum. My point is that if Mac was simply echoing Farquaharsen wouldn’t he have simply repeated that Druitt committed suicide on the 9th? But he didn’t.

I did not state that I 'believe that this conveniently makes Macnaghten a liar'.

So you believe that he was telling the truth then?

Anyone familiar with the case knew or knows that Druitt did not commit suicide until more than three weeks after the last murder.

And you’ve stated that because….?

For a Member of Parliament to start spreading a story that the suicide took place within hours of the murder is not just an error.

It’s either true or an error. We know that it’s not true. So that leaves…?

For a senior policeman, with all his resources, to repeat the mistake takes some explaining.

Im glad you used the phrase PI because it allows me to repeat the point that you consistently ignore……why would a senior policeman like Macnaghten (with all his resources) who could have chosen from any number of dead criminals or lunatics, have selected an upper class Barrister and Schoolteacher who was related by marriage to one of his best friends? Where on the scale between ‘unlikely’ and ‘no chance’ should we place that?

They were not 'alighting on two errors'; it was the same error.

Its was the same form of error but it was different in detail.

As I stated, the inescapable conclusion is that the policeman got his wrong information from the member of parliament, who had started spreading the story three years before.

Which is you yet again stating your opinion as fact. It’s getting to be a habit.

There is the further coincidence that the member of parliament claimed that Druitt's family suspected him of having committed the murders, knowing - presumably by some means of divination - that he had had blood stained clothing on the night of the murder, and the senior policeman claiming that Druitt lived with his family - which he did not.

He said….with his people. Not family.

As for your argument about 'the extreme unlikeliness of Melville Macnaghten plucking Druitt’s name out of thin air', he did not do so.

He plucked Druitt's name based on the misinformation he had received about him.

And you finish with a bit of opinion stated as fact. Again.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

And you finish with a bit of opinion stated as fact. Again.

People are entitled to express an opinion - especially on a forum.

So you believe that he was telling the truth then?

Of course not.

He was repeating the misinformation first spread by Farquharson.


It’s either true or an error. We know that it’s not true. So that leaves…?

It is neither; it is misinformation.


Its was the same form of error but it was different in detail.

It was in essence the same error.


Which is you yet again stating your opinion as fact. It’s getting to be a habit.

I am in the habit of drawing the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence.


He said….with his people. Not family.

What kind of people do you think he had in mind?

I do not see how you can claim that Farquharson and Macnaghten independently made what is in essence the same mistake.

What would have been their sources?