Farquharson's Theory

[Mike Covell]

Andy Aspallak probably already has this snippet, but I thought I would share it anyway.

Western Mail (Cardiff, Wales), Friday, February 26, 1892

[Jonathan H]

Not only does Andy know about this vital source he discovered it, or at least was the first researcher to publish an article, analysing it, in 'Ripperologist':

'The West of England MP -- Identified'

This excellent 2008 piece can be accessed in 'Dissertations' and should be accessible in the Druitt section of 'Suspects'.

The identification of Henry Farquharson was a remarkable breakthrough, in my opinion, right up there with the Littlechild Letter, the Tumblety interview, Kosminski's medical data, and the Swanson Marginalia, and so on.

This is because for the first time the MP story could provide the missing link between the primary sources on Druitt's suicide, which have nothing to do with the Ripper mystery, and Macnaghten's Report, offficial version 1894 -- in which he veils from readers whom the source is of the family fears about Montie [eg. 'from private information ...'].

Farquharson was a near neighbour of the Druitts in Dorset, and was an old Etonian contemporary of Macnaghten.

It's significance is that Farquharson knew Montie Druitt, and knew that he was the 'son of a surgeon' and not a doctor himself.

That means Macnaghten originally had a reliable source of biographical information about this this suspect. Whether Mac's imperfect memory morphed the doctor and son together to create the middle-aged doctor of the 'Aberconway' version of his Report, or deliberately veiled Druitt from the Home Sec., and his literary cronies, is a matter of conjecture.

The MP's identification is also of tremendous significance, I argue, because it perfectly matches Mac's claim in his 1914 memoirs that [the un-named] Druitt only came to full police attention 'some years after' June 1889, which matches the MP story -- which appeared in the 'Bristol Times and Mirror' in 1891 [though Andy disagreed with this interpretation in his article].

[Mike Covell]

Thanks Jonathan, I am aware of Andy's research into Farquharson, I helped him after we spoke about it on the rippercast a year ago tomorrow! I was posting this as it was a different slant on Andy's research into Farquharson and his theory.

[Jonathan H]

Sorry Mike, I misunderstood the impetus of your post.

What do you think of the theory of this being the 'missing link' source between the drowned barrister and the Ripper as drowned might-be-a-doctor of Macnaghten's singular police opinion?

[Johnr]

Might thisrticle itself be a police ploy?

Following along the line of Jonathan H's creative thinking.

That is, that individual senior Scotland Yard police were capable of indulging in Macchievellian manouevres to tweek the public's view of JTR investigations.....

I wonder if anyone else thinks the favoured treatment this Western Mail correspondent received from an anonymous senior Scotland Yard man, seems certainly exceptional. Privileged even.

I wonder if that SY official is seeking to draw public attention away from the Farquharson Suspion of Druitt? Perhaps, because of feared legal proceedings?

After all, Farquie expressed fear of prosecution in his initial mention in the media.(As discovered by Reverend Andy).

What I find intriguing, is how these curious backgrounding interviews are given to regional reporters and the SY official remains anonymous.

Or, are they, like ' The People's Journal " ' scoop' . Allegedly, all made up?

As the Matron in " Carry On Nursing" might say:-

" And what....is going on here, nurse ?".

JOHN RUFFELS.

[Jonathan H]

The 'West of England MP' -- A New Source

Paul Begg found this before Christmas, 2011, and was kind enough ot pass it on to me. It forms the basis of an article I have in issue #3 of 'The New Independent Review'.

I am placing it on here for anybody interested to read and assess.

In my opinion, it is a major find and further strengthens the historical case for Druitt as the paramount suspect.

From 'The York Herald' and 'The Yorkshire Herald', Feb 18th 1891:

'The member of Parliament who recently declared that 'Jack the Ripper' had killed himself on the evening of the last murder, adheres to his opinion. Even assuming that the man Saddler [sic] is able to prove his innocence of the murder of Frances Coles, he maintains that the latest crime cannot be the work of the author of the previous series of atrocities, and this view of the matter is steadily growing among those who do not see that there is any good reason to suppose that 'Jack the Ripper' is dead. So far as Saddler is concerned, there is a strong feeling that the evidence will have to be very much strengthened against him by next Tuesday, if he is to be committed for trial. His manner in the Thames Police-court was consistent with any theory.'

[Cogidubnus]

It strengthens the grounds for belief that Druitt might well have been one of the genuine contemporary subjects, (rather than a fortuitous afterthought), but I'm afraid I don't see how it can do more than that...

Interesting though!

All the best

Dave

[Supe]

Cogidubnus,

but I'm afraid I don't see how it can do more than that...

Perhaps if you read Jonathan's entire article you would have a different opinion.

Don.

[Cogidubnus]

I'm sorry if I've misread, but there appears to be no link to further info...is there more somewhere?

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Ah... I see "basis for an article" but not the subject of "placing on here"

apologies

Dave

[Supe]

Dave,

You can go directly to http://newindependentreview.com/ or check out the New Independent Review Issue 3 thread in the Periodicals section of Casebook.

Don.

[Jonathan H]

Alone again, naturally

I just want to make it clear that I am not suggesting that Paul Begg and I agree about the meaning of this source, or any other for that matter regarding the subject of 'Jack the Ripper'.

We have come to very different [provisional] conclusions.

[Jonathan H]

In a nutshell, I would make the following argument for the new source's confirmation of Druitt as 'Jack the Ripper', at least according to his family, the MP, and Macnaghten:

'The member of Parliament who recently declared that 'Jack the Ripper' had killed himself on the evening of the last murder, adheres to his opinion.'

Despite another harlot murder in Whitechapel, the un-named Henry Farquharson remains totally convinced that Druitt is the deceased murderer. He correctly anticipateds what will become official police opinion: that Sadler is not the Ripper, and Coles was not killed by 'Jack'.

This theme of certainty is reflected by Macnaghten in a number of late Edwardian sources. In his memoirs he conceded that information about the un-named Druitt only came to him 'some years after' he killed himself. He is obviously referring to the MP's tale, after the terrible secret of the family had leaked, probably along the Tory constituent grapevine in Dorset.

Yet by the time the story has reached the M.P. the date of Druitt's self-murder has been telescoped to the same evening. Macnaghten will repeat this mistake in his Report(s), and to what he fed George Sims. Then in 1913 and 1914 he lengthened the time between the Kelly murder and the un-named Druitt's self-murder to a loose twenty-four hours. That's too long to not be noticed staggering bloodily to the Thames, and so Mac dropped the method of suicide, and the location. Yet he was making it clear that while there is a conjunction between the two events, they did not happen almost simultaneously -- and they didn't. The MP may not have had first hand information about Druitt, but Mac did..

'Even assuming that the man Saddler [sic] is able to prove his innocence of the murder of Frances Coles, he maintains that the latest crime cannot be the work of the author of the previous series of atrocities, and this view of the matter is steadily growing among those who do not see that there is any good reason to suppose that 'Jack the Ripper' is dead.'

The police accept that the case against Sadler may be weak, but they do not have reason to believe that the Ripper is deceased. That's no ddoubt true of Anderson, Swanson, Smith, Reid, Abberline, Littelchild et. al.

But we know that Macnaghten did have a 'good reason to believe', privately and from this time, and did so for the rest of his life, though only admitting that this was his belief in 1913 and in 1914.

'So far as Saddler is concerned, there is a strong feeling that the evidence will have to be very much strengthened against him by next Tuesday, if he is to be committed for trial. His manner in the Thames Police-court was consistent with any theory.'

The date of the article is the same as the one which alluded to the confrontation between the un-named Lawende and Sadler which was a disappointment. That's a Jewish witness saying no to a suspect after the murder of a pretty, young prostitute. Sound familiar?

[Bridewell]

Proceedings?

I wonder if that SY official is seeking to draw public attention away from the Farquharson Suspicion of Druitt? Perhaps, because of feared legal proceedings?

After all, Farquie expressed fear of prosecution in his initial mention in the media.(As discovered by Reverend Andy).

JOHN RUFFELS.

Hi John,

What kind of legal proceedings are you thinking of? Presumably not libel, as it is not possible (in law anyway) to libel a dead man - as Druitt was.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Jonathan H]

To Bridewell

In my new article I argue that Macnaghten was in cahoots with the un-named London correspondent and co-owner, James McKenzie MacLean, another Tory backbencher.

The 1892 'Western Mail' article was created to bury the MP's 'son of a surgeon' tale, until it was resurrected, on Mac's terms, in 1898 via Griffiths and then Sims -- and shrewdly rendered unrecognisable.

There was even a further change between 'Aberconway' and Griffiths' book: changing 'family' into 'friends'.

As the original 'West of England' MP article in 'The Bristol Times and Mirror' of Feb 11th 1891 bluntly says the libel laws are looming menacingly, if the whole story is told.

This suggests that living people might sue, eg. Druitt's family (Anderson alludes to the libel laws in 1910, and he also thought, wrongly, that his suspect was deceased).