Farquharson's Theory

[lynn cates]

well done

Hello Jonathan. Thanks. I think you've done a remarkable job trying to trace the various strands that have been woven together into the "Jack" story.

I certainly agree that Mac accepted Farqy's tale and subsequently polished the story to spare Monty's family.

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

The Farquharsons and Druitts were county neighbours and probably sensitive to any possible family scandals.

Why, then, if there was any truth to the Ripper suicide story, would Farquarson go to the press before taking his inside information to Scotland Yard?

Regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

letter

Hello Jonathan. Found a Farqy letter. This is from "Fair Trade" September 7, 1888.

Cheers.
LC

[Jonathan H]

Thanks

To Lynn

Thank-you very much for your positive words and support.

And thank-you for posting that Farquharson source. I have never seen his words like that before. That's terrific!

To Simon

My reading of the 'West of England' MP story of Feb 11th 1891, 'Bristol Times and Mirror', is not that the MP has gone to the press.

It is that he has enthusiastically blabbed to his ten best friends, eg. 'a good many people' who 'believe it', and, inevitably, one of them has told a reporter.

It has leaked.

The new source found by Begg, of the MP a few days later still 'adhereing' to his Ripper opinion, suggests that this time [the un-named] Farquharson has told a reporter directly, though not necessarily.

I do not think this information comes from the Druitts directly, despite being a few miles down the road from the Farquharsons, for two reasons.

Firstly, the politician has hardly been sworn to secrecy.

Secondly, he has basic information wrong. Druitt did not kill himself the 'same evening' of the last murder, though this does suggest that a confession-in-word has been telescoped in the whispered re-telling to become the confession-in-deed.

My theory is that the confession to a priest is the trump card of the tale, but becxause this was Montie's cousin, Charles, all newspapers regarded this as too dangerous to print; that it would make the papers vulnerable to the libel laws if the Rev. simply denied it -- and sued.

That the Farquharsons and Druitts were near-neighbours as you say, and that they were Tories suggests that the tale has leaked along the local constituency grapevine.

Farquharson is a remarkably arrogant and obtuse politician to spread such a tale, in which 'Jack' is, originally, one of his constituents and perhaps still, at the time of the murders and his own suicide, a card-carrying member of the Conservative Party.

Macnaghten, himself a Tory gentleman, and a fellow Old Etonian, would have known the strengths and limitations of Henry Farquharson as a source and I do not think he would have relied upon him alone for such a story.

A scoop that did nothing to help the image of Scotland Yard! Much better for it to be debunked.

Within a few years Macnaghten, anonymously, relaunched the tale deftly libel-proofed, eg. with every element fictionalised.

Except ... the murder and self-murder 'the same evening'.

That stayed. I think because in moving onto the Druitts, or a Druitt -- or just the 1889 press accounts -- Macnaghten discovered that Montie killed himself three weeks after Kelly.

He kept that detail because it was convenient short-hand for a pentitential breakdown and because it was already fiction.

In his memoirs Mac extended the gap from a few hours to a loose day and night, perhaps longer?

[Jonathan H]

Ti Simon

Sorry. And the second part of the your question, about why Farquharason woudl not go to the police, as he seemed not to have?

Again, there was nobody to arrest.

But he may have also grasped that this was not a happy outcome for the police or the Tory Party and so he was going to be discreet -- which fell apart when he could not resist telling people because he knew.

He was so certain that it was characterised as his 'doctrine'.

He was so certain that when a few days later 'Jack' killed another harlot -- and the police mobilized as if it was the fiend's unwelcome return -- the MP knew that it was not a murder by the same maniac, because he was long gone.

[lynn cates]

keep at it

Hello Jonathan. The pleasure was all mine. And keep up the good work.

Cheers.
LC

[Roy Corduroy]

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

I don't follow you. You're saying Macnaghten manipulated a newspaperman to print Farquharson's name?

Unless I am totally mistaken and the name Farquharson in regards to the Ripper rumor was printed before this. Before the date of the Western Mail piece.

edit: Excuse my ignorance, maybe I am missing something very basic.

The 11 February 1891 edition of The Bristol Times and Mirror contains the following:

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. I can't give details, for fear of a libel action; but the story is so circumstantial that a good many people believe it. 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. I do not know what the police think of the story, but I believe that before long a clean breast will be made, and that the accusation will be sifted thoroughly

Would anyone in Britain in 1891 who read or heard of this news story say "Oh yes, the West of England member, Henry Farquharson."

I'm confused over this point. In other words, by printing "West of England member" is the identity of Henry Farquharson made known, the same as printing his name?

So that the Western Mail printing his name a year later is no big deal. Everybody already knows it was Henry Farquharson.

(Everybody but me)

HELP

[Jonathan H]

Not my knowledge?

The 'West of England' MP is not identified in the various versions of the tale which appeared in early 1891, including the new, post-Coles murder article found by Paul Begg.

Then a year later the 'Western Mail', co-owned by another Tory backbencher, made the claim that Coles was officially a 'Jack' murder, and thus the 'remarkable theory' of Farquharson (herein named) had been 'naturally exploded'.

Furthermore it claims that the police have been watching 24-7 a prime suspect and though no arrest has been made, this blanket surveillance has, nevertheless, prevented further deaths.

This article is very hyperbolic and unconvincing.

I argue that this is either Macnaghten and MacLean just making stuff up to quash the notion of a sucided Ripper who had been quite unknown to the police, or, if Mac is not involved here, then what it shows is that the 'police' may have rejected Farquarson's 'remarkable theory' but Mac did not -- for the rest of his life.

In 1898, six years later, Macnaghten relaunched the MP's tale but it was an impenetrable mixture of fact and fiction (and now with the MP out and the location and method of suicide in).

[Roy Corduroy]

Thank you for the reply Jonathan. I was editing my post and our posts crossed.

In my ignorance, I don't know if people knew who Farquharson was when the 1891 article quoting a "West of England member" printed. So a year later, isn't the big scoop that his name is given? Farquharson.

Maybe hs name was given in the interim already. In an article we don't know of.

Otherwise, if you want to squash his story, why give his name? For the first time in print. Paint me very confused here.

Roy

[lynn cates]

surveillance

Hello Jonathan. You know, that story about constant surveillance, is so persistent and pervasive it becomes a refrain.

Wonder if there was an archetype for it?

Cheers.
LC

[Jonathan H]

Yes, a handy cliche.

Didn't Sagar make some sort of claim about watching a suspect ...?

It's in 'Scotland Yard Investigates', but I do not have it with me, where I am.

That is what Macnaghten used, if it was Mac who orchestrated the 1892 piece.

This element also ends up in the Marginalia. eg. we knew it was him, we watched him 24-7 -- thus preventing more murders -- and then he was sectioned, and then thankfully dead. A near-triumph.

[Roy Corduroy]

if it was Mac who orchestrated the 1892 piece.

And if he did orchestrate it, why have Farquharson's name printed.

Roy

[Jonathan H]

To Roy

I think that is an excellent counter-question.

Why do that?

Why risk identifying the MP if he had not been previously named?

I can only think that if you don't do that then it leaves it open that the 'London correspondent' is not all that well-informed.

Whereas, if you publish the name it gives credence to the rest of the piece about the real suspect whom police are so vigilant about watching, and preventing more murders, eg. we know it all.

It could also be that the Liberals knew of this tale. They were favoured to return to power that year -- and did -- and therefore it gives the impression that an impartial Scotland Yard have checked out this pseudo-Tory government theory -- and it's rubbish. Nothing to see here, move along -- no need to revisit any of this once you return to the Treasury benches.

Those Liberals probably knew, in Whitehall, that it was loose-lipped Farquharson and thus seeing his name published -- in a Tory paper -- could mollify them into thinking that it was all kosher; that the MP's tale was nothing (for one thing there was another 'Jack' murder a few days later, right?).

For me this kind of manipulative candour; this hiding in plain sight echoes Macnaghten having Thomas Cutbush be falsely linked by name and blood as the defacto 'son' of a retired policeman, in both versions of his 'Report'.

To potentially mollify a Liberal government into believing that Inspector Race (official version, we now know that he does not appear in 'Aberconway') might be carrying out some ghastly guilt-by-association, which could be headed for the libel courts if the whole tale came out (Mac also disposes of Race, as a common thief for keeping a piece of evidence: a ballyhooed knife).

However, this trigger was never pulled: the official version was never sent, and the significantly different version seen by cronies later, with the stuff about Cutbush being related, would not matter by then and it didn't (and they saw a version in which Race does not appear).

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

Sorry, I can't buy any of this. It's far too tortuous.

By the way, do you happen to know if the 18th Feb 1891 York Herald article has been correctly transcribed, because the second sentence makes absolutely no sense.

Regards,

Simon

[Jonathan H]

All the Way with LBJ

To Simon

Fair enough.

But then don't go near the convoluted theories, and sub-theories as to how LBJ ended up running with JFK?!

I mean, both were major Democrats; a Catholic from the North-East and a Protestant South-Westerner creating a balanced ticket -- which very narrowly won.

Surely it was simple to put that together, right?

Wrong.

Primary and Secondary sources disagree on whether Johnson was chosen sincerely, or out of courtesy. Whether it was JFK's notion or his brother's, whether Johnson blackmailed his way onto the ticket, whether Kennedy wanted him all along, and so on. Robert Caro has 'The Passage of Power' coming out in April, his fifth volume on LBJ's life, and so we await perhaps a definitive answer. I doubt it will be.

One of the weakest aspects of secondary sources regarding this subject is their naive faith in officials and official records, let alone memoirs. When all sources are infused by personalities, agendas, egos, what is left in, what is left out, the immediate context, the need to be seen in the best light, and so on.

Even to mention the word 'self-serving' is to be accused of heresy by some?!

Yes, the new source is transcribed correctly.

It took me a while of re-reading the second sentence to work it out.

My interpretation is that the MP is certain that Coles was not murdered by 'Jack the Ripper', even if the sailor is cleared. Yet the police do not agree. If Saddler (sic) is cleared they have no good reason for thinking that the Whitechapel fiend is deceased (but we know that Macnaghten, alone mong significant police figures, did indeed agree at this time).