Doctor Bluitt

[Johnr]

Finely expressed examination of secondary evidence.

Goodday Jonathan H,

I must say, I have not read your writings in Ripperologist.

But because I believe Macnaghten's thinking to be along very similar lines to you, perhaps it is natural I should applaud your fine expression.

In my opinion you voice a theory about MM which makes sense. Perhaps he might not have been as egalitarian as you feel, but there are a great number of instances of second degree evidence which seem to compliment your theory.

It appears that when the authorities began seriously considering the possiblity that JTR might have been Anglo-Saxon, and a non-Jew, the genuine JTR murders ceased, and the Fiend ceased his campaign.

So ...who discovered the evidence for this 'volte face'?

Call me silly, call me sentimental, I think it was Sergeant Steve White or someone similar.

JOHN RUFFELS.

[Jonathan H]

Thanks for that, John.

Pardon my ignorance [I'm only a 'cadet'] but what is the 'Sargeant White' theory?

Is that the much later claim that a beat cop who supposedly saw a Gentileish, youngish, Gentleman with luminous eyes hurrying from the scene of a murder, or something like that?

[Johnr]

Yes, Jonathan,

Just go to Casebook Forums> Police Officials> Sergeant Stephen White.

A warning:most long-time Ripper researchers and authors do not believe the
Dundee People's Journal article is genuine.

I am in the minority on that one! JOHN RUFFELS

[tnb]

According to this page:

http://www.britishsurnames.co.uk/surnames/BLUITT

There were 20 Bluitt's registered in the 1881 census. None in the most recent.

The only one I can locate is Joseph Bluitt, born 1815 and living in Staffordshire (UK Census Online)

Not that I disagree that Richardson's use of the name is anything more than a thinly veiled Druitt reference (in line with his usual standard of humour, it would appear).

Obviously the coroner already alluded to is likely one of the others, too.

It does suggest to me that the name was sufficiently rare (roughly 1 in every million people in the UK in 1881, apparently, same source) that if Richardson had ever met a Bluitt it was pure coincidence, I think it more likely it was an invention that 'got lucky'. Which is relevant in a way, in that it surely makes him appear fairly confident that he would avoid legal recourse, as 'it's an honest coincidence' is a pretty good defence if you're writing about a 'Mr Smith', but surely not with such a rare name?

Then again, if - IF!- Richardson had been party to the info from McNaghten (first, second, third hand or whatever) with the tantalising titbit about the 'family information' included, perhaps he could have been confident enough that the family would be unlikely to want to further, and crucially more publically, link their name to the case by pursuing Richardson for libel? They would after all likely know all too well how tenacious lawyers can be when they begin digging into family history...

Just for the record, there were 275 references (1881 again) to Bluett, still only 9 per million, 672 to Blewitt (a rather better 22 per million).

My surname is Bond, I have lived in three different permanent areas, and have come across one other family with my surname, which apparently currently occurs 433 times in every million people. A name that occurs more than 432 times less would be one hell of a coincidence.

On a slight tangent, I actually raised the 'said to be a doctor - said by whom' point about a year ago but got little response, is it perhaps time to resurrect it? We've established (I think?) that most of us believe Richardson must have heard about the Druitt suspect (and not just as Dr D) from *somewhere* - and yet as Tom points out he also seems to make the same mistake as McNaughten, but obviously not Farquharson. This has always troubled me as either Farquharson was not McNaughten's source after all (which better researchers than me believe they have proved it was) or, as I suspect, McNaughten himself knew more than F (I'm not doing a 'Dr D', I'm just fed up of spelling that name!), either from before or from investigating further once he heard of the story. Does anyone really believe such an eminent policeman would take a known tall-tale-teller at his word without checking? Perhaps this is where the 'family information' comes in, if, as has been speculated, McNaughton knew (or atleast knew of) Druitt's family, he may have sought them out to check some details (how sympathetically is a moot point). And perhaps *something* began to convince him that F may have hit on a potential solution after all. Is McNaughton, rather like the Littlechild/Sims corrospendence, nodding his cap to those 'in the know' with this phrase in the memorandum? LONG SHOT I KNOW!!! But it does appear that Richardson may have been playing the same game. Did the missing Druitt info or part of it perhaps do the rounds of the club gossip circuit?

If we believe F is the source then this, as the ONLY and surely DELIBERATE change from the source, and as such must be viewed as important. The only addition is the family info - and I think it quite likely the two are connected.

How? That's another question!!!

Ah, Stephen White. Wondered when you'd get that in John! Wait for the cavalry...

[Jonathan H]

From Mr Druitt to 'Doctor Bluitt' -- how did that happen?

A possible scenario I have proposed, for what it is worth, is that Macnaghten knew everything about Montie Druitt, from 1891 onwards, thanks initially to MP Farquharson.

I agree that Macnaghten was too responsible, and too obsessed, to just leave it that dodgy character as a source.

Therefore, he talked to a Druitt family member [perhaps his brother William, who perhaps lurks behind the mythologised 'friends' in Sims' writings, and who conferred with authorities?] and reassured him that his late brother's identity would never become known.

Nor should it since Montie had never been arrested for anything, let alone charged, and now never could be.

Nothing was filed, as nothing needed to be.

Then came the 1894 threat of a scandal via the Cutbush story in 'The Sun'. Macnaghten [and Anderson] scrambled to provide their political masters with a Report should the Home Sec. need to answer questions in the Commons.

Macnaghten knew that the Minister was not about to name Druitt [or Kosminski, or Ostrog] and so he craftily gave the impression ['said to be ...'] that this suspect was a doctor who lived at Blackheath with family, and who killed himself right after the Kelly murder. And, he kept the identity of the original source, now a Member of the Opposition [Farqy], well out of it so as not to inflame the Liberal Asquith.

Thus if the Minister had replied, to a pointed question about the Cutbush revelation of an alleged police cover-up to protect one of their own, he could say there had not been police corruption or incompetence as they had much better suspects.

A summary of the trio, minus the names, would not cause Druitt's circle to recognise him.

Macnaghten also downplayed the probability of the trio ['no shadow of proof ...'] so that it would not generate a scandal of its own; why weren't these men arrested?

This is so obvious from other sources [Macnaghten and Anderson's memoirs] and even from the Report itself. Family suspicion/alarm in the case of Druitt and Kosminsi IS 'proof's shadow'! [the hapless Ostrog, a fusion of both Druitt and Kosminski as a Slavic medico, is simply there to make a list and not look indecisive]

Thus Macnaghten could be true to his belief [it was Druitt alright], whilst protecting the family's privacy. If by some extraordinary turn of events somebody actually checked on 'M J Druitt's' identity, Macnaghten had the fallback position of 'said to be ...' as a technicality to absolve himself of inaccurate information.

It is an awesome tightrope Macnaghten treads with that Report.

And all for nothing.

There was no major scandal over Cutbush, and the Report was filed in the police archive, not the Home Office.

In 1898, Macnaghten decided to propagate his treasured belief in Druitt's guilt to the public.

Again this involved some smoke and mirrors.

He could not possibly show the archived version of his Report to Major Griffiths because the writer would see that it was addressed to nobody, it downplayed Druitt, and it had that unimpressive line about being unsure as to what this suspect actually did for a living?!

Therefore, Macnaghten rewrote the suspects section of the Report, backdating it to 1894, whilst claiming to the Major that it was a draft of a 'final' and 'conclusive' Home Office Report.

Now the suspects are beefed up: Druitt was DEFINITELY a middle-aged doctor with a train ticket which placed him within walking distance of the East End, Kosmimski was seen by a police witness, and Ostrog carried surgical knives.

In the official version the Druitts 'believed'. this was now downplayed to 'suspected'. In fact, Macnaghten and the family change places over who was certain about what exactly? Now they are a 'fairly' good family who were obviously so dim-witted that they could not tell if their member, whom they lived with, was a serial killer.

But in this altered version Macnaghten IS certain.

Now he is the believer. He wants the Major to be quite clear that Druitt is HIS suspect; he found him and he solved the mystery!

One of the clearest examples of these gentlemen, and officers of state, manipulating the profile of Druitt is that Griffiths had the 'Report' in front of him, yet changed 'family' into 'friends' for his book/scoop.

With the credulous crony George Sims, in the 1900's, Druitt morphed again thanks to, I think, Macnaghten, his puppet-master.

The 'Drowned Doctor' now lived at Blackheath, with nervous friends, as an affluent, unemployed recluse. He had not seen patients for years, because he was an invalid himself having twice resided in an asylum.

Most favourably for Scorland Yard is Sims' melodramatic claim that the super-efficient police knew about the doctor before he killed himself, and were fast closing upon him when he vanished.

Apart from great propaganda for the Yard, I think Macnaghten was having a lot of fun here with Sims' nearly successful police pursuit of the middle-aged, deviant, affluent, has-pals-only, dodgy medico.

Because Macnaghten was teasing Anderson, whom he despised, by inverting the former's Tumbelty fumble in a way which left his former superior unable to complain in public -- a very convoluted form of ruling class blackmail/revenge.

Whilst the real Druitt struggled to hold down two -- much less prestigious -- jobs his mythical counterpart, via Sims, idles his time away on buses and at cafes.

Hence Richardson's 'Dr Bluitt', which shows that Macnaghten either showed his clubby pals the 'Aberconway Version', or verbally told them Druitt's name.

When it came to his own memoirs in 1914, Macnaghten pulled right back from the myth he had set up. He was not going to b deceitful under his own name.

Thus no mention of the Ripper being a doctor, or drowned -- and the asylum detail is flatly denied [he does retain the incorrect date of Druitt's suicide as his last figleaf]. But devastatingly he admits that there was NO police dragnet inexorably closing on this suspect as his identity was quite unkown until 'some years after'.

An unhappy Sims, perhaps having been given a peview of his pal's bombshell memoirs, frantically wrote to the retired Littlechild for support -- and was given a painful glimpse into the sucker he had been played for. Sims' own memoirs of four years later still push the 'Drowned Doctor' mythos, but in a couple of cold, terse paragraphs quite unlike his previous musings.

[Scott Nelson]

Wow. Thanks Jonathan. That clears up just about everything for me.