Upon what basis did the Druitt family suspect Montague?

[Cogidubnus]

Re how common was it for policemen to go an entire career without promotion, Stewart will know.

Hi Robert - per the thread below and the rather interesting Work-Life History that Phil Carter came across, between 20% and 25% of Constables failed to achieve promotion.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=6082

All the best

Dave

[Jonathan H]

Jack the Oxonian?

To Roy

I agree. Strong shades.

I think the Vicar was exasperated by the journalist calling the Ripper evil, and so on, and the cleric wanted to partially defend the un-named montie by saying that he was ill -- and went to to the East End to help the Unfortunates.

Realizing he should not have said this, the Vicar hastily retreated to the fictitious bit from the Major's book -- Jack had been a doctor. He could not simply say was a doctor, full stop, because his written version had said he was a man of 'good position', and a doctor-surgeon is a great one.

Later of course, Sims who had trashed the Vicar, adopted this very same element: an ex-surgeon.

A Jack without family or patients.

He was a great, great writer, Tom Cullen, but one of his mistakes, with a long legacy, is that he accepted [his rival] Farson's all-too-hasty assumption that Macnaghten made errors of memory in the 'Aberconway' version -- without pausing to consider that the same source does not make the same errors in his memoirs of a decade later.

As a Marxist it did not interest Cullen that Druitt was a barrister, rather than a doctor, the point being that he was an Oxonian gent and potentially influenced, like other graduates by the Rev. Samuel Barnett's sermons at the uni, to go and help the poor in the East End.

If we compare what we know of Druitt -- eg. not much -- with what the Vicar says then you get the following bits of data:

VICAR'S JACK: 'The Whitechurch Murders'

1. a man of good position (a barrister and teacher are 'good' positions).
2. an Anglican -- a Gentile.
3. an otherwise unblemished character.
4. suffered from a mental illness which drove him to repeatedly commit bestial murder.
5. at one time a surgeon, but no longer.
6. died shortly after the last victim.
7. the last victim is Kelly in 1888, not Coles in 1891.
8. had enough time and with the wherewithal to make a confession to a clergyman.
9. not a resident of the East End.
10. he went there to help prostitutes.
11. his crimes, and confession and death are nothing to do with the police.

A) TRUE OF DRUITT

1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8., 9.

B) MIGHT BE TRUE OF DRUITT

8. (eg. actually making a confession), 10., 11.

C) FICTION?

5., the title of the piece, (eg. Whitechurch) that the Vicar is from the North, that the Vicar's name reveals the murderer's, that the Vicar did not hear the confession himself.


My theory is that the Vicar heard the confession himself, as Sims bluntly puts it, and that Montie made him make a solemn vow to reveal the truth in a decade. He agreed, and felt honour-bound to do it.

Later when he met Macnaghten, the latter smoothly convinced him,for everybody's sake, to make the revelation a candid mixture of fact and fiction which partly suited the cleric who did not -- and does not -- want to reveal that the murderer took his own life.

In anticipation of this fact-into-fiction tale arriving on the [approx.] tenth anniversary of Montie's funeral, Macnaghten got in first with his sly own mixture of fact-into-fiction. He experimented with it in 1894, but that document was never sent and never read only archived for insurance purposes.

Then came the 1898/9 deadline and Mac orchestrated the Griffiths-Sims pincer.

How well did this shell game work? Hardly anybody takes the Vicar source seriously in 2013. Some believe it is a hoax (and they ought to know).

[Roy Corduroy]

"The only other item which a lengthy chat with the vicar could elicit was that the murderer was a man who at one time was engaged in rescue work among the depraved woman of the East End - eventually his victims;"

Shades of Tom Cullen years later when proposed Montague Druitt might have worked at Toynbee Hall. But he didn't know of the vicar story, did he.

Roy

[Roy Corduroy]

Police Constable George Moulson, 216 T

Jeff, it stood for T Division of the Metropolitan Police. See the T in this map. Body brought ashore at arrow and the local police constable took charge of it.



(click) to see entire map of the Met Police Divisions then. courtesy Colin R (blue )

[Jonathan H]

Hoaxers are such a pest!

To Simon

I respect that opinion, one that is predictably of a piece with your overall theory -- a deeply if cheerfully cynical interpretation -- that they are all self-serving charlatans.

I appreciate that I have to tread carefully here since I am myself arguing that Mac took a persistent thief of his beloved school, who was a minor Whitechapel suspect -- and whom he knew was later cleared -- and for propagandist reasons ('Aberconway' via Griffiths-Sims, then the public) turned him into the insane Russian doctor capable of murder and God knows what else, the filthy, bloody swine!

And that he partly did this to amuse himself; a very adolescent for of revenge.

Even somewhat pathetic?!

To Caz

As usual you do not deal with the core of my argument -- two competing Jack-the-Surgeons one overtly fictionalized and one covertly, yet the former is a better fit for Druitt and yet the latter is, we know, about Druitt -- but that's your right of course.

I understand why you do not, because it is my strongest point and so it is to be ignored at all cost.

I find it remarkable that you, of all people, are so quick to dismiss the North country Vicar as an hoax to drum up sales?!

Be careful, pal, that could turn out to be a very slippery slope.

Plus the argument I was using for the authenticity of the Vicar -- that his tale is so ludicrous that if it were false it would be better written -- is exactly the one you, and others, have made for the dog's breakfast surrounding the provenance of 'Diary'.

I was actually on your side on that one and you could have ... oh well.

On the Cricket Club board was apparently William Valentine, the brother of George. Are we to believe the brothers did not confer on their mutually missing Montie?

The club would not dismiss a man if they thought that he was in such a state of mental distress that he had killed himself.They would not use the phrase gone abroad if they feared he was deceased.

The official minutes arguably back up the supposedly wrong dating of the 'Acton, Chiswick ...' primary source: the reasonable assertion that the dating of Montie's dismissal is really meant to Nov 30th, not Dec 30th.

What is tiresome is that it is accepted as a fact b y some here.

It is not a fact. It is a theory which may be correct and then again may not be. Orthodoxy, we know, will not permit the second possibility.

If Montie left word with all of his places of work/home that he was abroad then it would make sense why he was dismissed from two of them, and why the brother was so late in getting to the school eg. after Christmas.

Montie was abroad so he was not missing entirely.

So why did William Druitt become alarmed?

What was he told and or what did he find which caused him to hightail it to London, and to Blackheath?

In the veiled version in both Sims and Macnaghten (which is really both Mac) 'his own people' noticed that he was 'absented' and they associated this being AWOL with his being Jack the Ripper. In Sims this is because the 'mad doctor' had told other doctors he wanted to savage harlots.

What Sims is saying, Caz, is that the real Ripper could not have confessed to a clergyman -- whose existence he does not question -- for two reasons: he had neither the time nor did he have the mental ability to function to do any such thing.

The real Druitt, we know, had both the time and the mental facility.

Another aspect to consider is that Farquharson's mistaken timeline created the confession in action not a confession of words.

But the theme remains exactly the same: Druitt 'confessed' after Miller's Ct.

It is, furthermore, a very satisfying tale: the tormented gent gazes down at what he has done to poor Kelly and some sliver of a civilized conscience breaks through and he is overcome with suicidal revulsion. He has just enough compos functionality to stagger to the river and hurl himself into his watery grave.

In his memoirs, Mac, typically, tries to have it both ways. He extends the timeline by a day and a night (and perhaps another day, and perhaps another night?) which ruined the Farquharson-Sims double bang and so he had to drop the Thames finale.

That just have hurt. He had to exaggerate the Ripper's responsibility for getting rid of Warren to try and compensate

Yet Mac still wanted it both ways. To read his account is still to be somewhat misled that this 'Simon Pure' confessed by his action of suicide so close in time to the Kelly horror.

Is it that close?

In Mac's account Mary Kelly is killed in the early hours of the morning of Nov 9th. That leaves the rest of the day for [the un-named] Druitt to get away from the East End, presumably to go home to his people.

That night he does what? Sleeps on what he has done?

The next day is Nov 10th. Did he kill himself while he was shaving with a razor?

No, his people find him 'absented'. So he left to go where?

Does he kill himself at midday, or is it the night of the 10th? Is it perhaps the 11th ...

Sims will clarify Mac's memoir in 1915 in 'Pearson's Weekly'. He will write that the 'mad doctor' lived with his people and they noticed, he implies, that their man was absent at the time of each of the murders: eg. 'absented' [I]plural[/I: at certain times.

This fits with Sims' tale of the wealthy, unemployed recluse who lives with friends (really?) and they of course believe he is the Ripepr because he is out and about only when the Unfortunates are savaged. He had been sectioned before over these dark desires. The only mystery is why it took the pals so long to alert the police -- who apparently already knew and were about arrest the doctor.

Although there are implausibilities in this tale it, nevertheless, makes for a good tale. A satisfying 'shilling shocker'.

Whereas the Vicar's account does not make a for a good tale (until rewritten by Sims a few days later) just as Mac's 1914 account falls disappointingly flat.

I believe that the awkwardness of their tales is because Mac and the Vicar are mixing genuine fact with veiled fiction (though arguably the chief has stripped the mishmash right back in his book) and so these sources are today ignored.

By trying to both reveal and conceal, to his premature grave, Macnaghten cost himself posterity's recognition as the cop who identified the Ripper, albeit posthumously. His adoring second daughter, much later, arrested this lack of recognition for a few years until her father's reputation slumped back into obscurity again. Worse a number of secondary sources have rendered him an incompetent cypher.

[mklhawley]

By the way, MacNaughten says in one of his statements that he believed that the secret to the case once laid at the bottom of the Thames. Usually we consider that this refers to Montie's corpse (most likely it does) but could it not also refer to some item that MacNaughten thought Montie might have had on him that did not turn up?

How intriguing!

Sincerely,

Mike

[Robert]

Hi Jeff

Just to say that I don't know whether Moulson did attain the rank of sergeant between 1901 and his retirement.

Re how common was it for policemen to go an entire career without promotion, Stewart will know.

Re Monty's inquest record, I don't think there's anything suspicious about its absence - it's not as though there's a nice bundle of inquest papers from which Monty's has been taken away.

[Mayerling]

George Moulson was born in 1863 in Brighton. He is stationed in west London in 1891 but by 1901 has been transferred to the police station in Hackney.He is still a constable. By 1911 he is a police pensioner, and has now acquired a wife and daughter. He dies in Oxford in 1928 leaving £35.

Hi all,

Fascinating discussion so far - and thanks about Stephen Wade's new book. I have been looking at the website.

Query: I know that police constables or policemen are "a dime a dozen", but is it normal for a constable on the force at least from 1888 - 1911 never to get promoted beyone P.C. to "Sergeant" by test of police action?

I also am curious at the growing amount of items now said to be missing regarding Montie Druitt:

1) The photograph of his corpse from the Thames (the River police had been photographing these for a number of years by 1888 according to George Dilnot).

2) The complete actual record of the inquest (not the snips we gather from less than seven news paper filler pieces.

Is it possible all material on Montie was put together in some file by MacNaughten that was relabled something like "Suspects: White.")? I'm beginning to wonder.

By the way, MacNaughten says in one of his statements that he believed that the secret to the case once laid at the bottom of the Thames. Usually we consider that this refers to Montie's corpse (most likely it does) but could it not also refer to some item that MacNaughten thought Montie might have had on him that did not turn up?

[RivkahChaya]

I agree entirely. [Regarding poor narrative structure not proving a story is true.] It's a point that would have been better addressed to Jonathan, not me.

Love,

Caz
X

Sorry. It wasn't really addressed to you-- more "to the room."

[Simon Wood]

Hi Caz,

Merely to confirm the reprint of Major Griffiths' November 1898 book, here is Cassell's La Belle Sauvage colophon from the January 1899 edition—



Regards,

Simon

[Simon Wood]

Hi Caz,

Thank you,

Yep, you got it in one.

"Jack" was a story to be bought and sold ad infinitum.

But never solved.

Regards,

Simon

[caz]

Hi Simon,

And it's a good case.

One clergyman breaks the rules by telling all to a fellow clergyman, who is certain this proves who the ripper was. He then breaks the rules himself by blabbing to the Daily Mail and provides his own name, but asks the paper not to publish it because it could lead to the murderer's identity being discovered. How, one wonders?

It's all about selling newspapers, books and magazines, as usual.

Love,

Caz
X

[Simon Wood]

Hi Caz,

We should take a closer look at this North Country vicar.

Western Mail, 19th January 1899—

WHITECHAPEL MURDERS: DID "JACK THE RIPPER" MAKE A CONFESSION?

We have received (says the Daily Mail) from a clergyman of the Church of England, now a North Country vicar, an interesting communication with reference to the great criminal mystery of our times - that enshrouding the perpetration of the series of crimes which have come to be known as the "Jack the Ripper" murders. The identity of the murderer is as unsolved as it was while the blood of the victims was yet wet upon the pavements.

Certainly Major Arthur Griffiths, in his new work on "Mysteries of Police and Crime," suggests that the police believe the assassin to have been a doctor, bordering on insanity, whose body was found floating in the Thames soon after the last crime of the series; but as the major also mentions that this man was one of three known homidical lunatics against whom the police "held very plausible and reasonable grounds of suspicion," that conjectural explanation does not appear to count for much by itself.

Our correspondent now writes:-

"I received information in professional confidence, with directions to publish the facts after ten years, and then with such alterations as might defeat identification.

"The murderer was a man of good position and otherwise unblemished character, who suffered from epileptic mania, and is long since deceased.

"I must ask you not to give my name, as it might lead to identification, meaning the identification of the perpetrator of the crimes."

We thought at first the vicar was at fault in believing that ten years had passed yet since the last murder of the series, for there were other somewhat similar crimes in 1889.

But, on referring again to Major Griffiths's book, we find he states that the last "Jack the Ripper" murder was that in Miller's Court on November 9, 1888 - a confirmation of the vicar's sources of information. The vicar enclosed a narrative, which he called "The Whitechapel Murders - Solution of a London Mystery." This he described as "substantial truth under fictitious form." "Proof for obvious reasons impossible - under seal of confession," he added in reply to an inquiry from us.

That's two unashamed plugs for Major Griffiths' book.

The Western Mail continued—

Failing to see how any good purpose could be served by publishing substantial truth in fictitious form, we sent a representative North to see the vicar, to endeavour to ascertain which parts of the narrative were actual facts. But the vicar was not to be persuaded, and all that our reporter could learn was that the rev. gentleman appears to know with certainty the identity of the most terrible figure in the criminal annals of our times, and that the vicar does not intend to let anyone else into the secret.

The murderer died, the vicar states, very shortly after committing the last murder. The vicar obtained his information from a brother clergyman, to whom a confession was made - by whom the vicar would not give even the most guarded hint. The only other item which a lengthy chat with the vicar could elicit was that the murderer was a man who at one time was engaged in rescue work among the depraved woman of the East End - eventually his victims; and that the assassin was at one time a surgeon.

So we now have two blabbermouth clergymen, both having played secret squirrel with the mystery of the century.

Can it be mere coincidence that this story emerged on the appearance in January 1899 of the reprint of Major Griffiths' book, "Mysteries of Police and Crime", published by Cassell's, which featured a redacted verion of the Macnaghten Memorandum?

Four months later, on 7th May 1899, the Daily Mail published a four-and-a-half column review of Major Griffiths' book. The reviewer was Max Pemberton.

From 1896—1905 Max Pemberton was the editor of Cassell's Magazine.

I rest my case.

Regards,

Simon

[caz]

To Caz

The Vicar wants to see the Ripper as an ill man, rather like a family member would, one who does not want to see Jack as evil.

So I ask you once again: why on earth would he go blabbing to the Daily Mail ten years down the line, giving them information about himself that could lead them to discover the identity of the poor sod who confessed to the murders back in 1888? To what end would a bona fide vicar do that?

How well did this muddying the waters work by the cleric who would not compromise?

But there would have been no waters to muddy if your cleric had kept his trap shut instead of offering them to the Daily Mail.

RipperLand in the 21st Century rejects the 'North Country Vicar' source as being about Druitt, or of any significance whatsoever.

Even if the source of the Vicar's Tale had Monty in mind, and believed he was the ripper because he had made a confession to that effect, it would only support what Sims said about many lunatics making false confessions to being the ripper. Monty may have been one of them because clearly he was suffering from some kind of mental trauma or breakdown in his final days. But few serial killers commit suicide unless they are convinced the game is up, and even fewer confess from any feeling of remorse. If they do confess it's usually to brag about what they did.

'Gone abroad' obviously means that the club thought Montie was overseas and so he had to be dismissed. They would not have done this if his any suicide notes had been discovered.

It's just common sense, whether they meant the phrase literally or euphemistically they would not have written it into the official minutes of their club's records if they knew by the 21st of Dec. that Montie was missing and had left a message that he was off to do harm to himself.

This suggests that the primary source is correct: a worried William did not arrive until the 30th of Dec. because Montie was not missing until that moment -- he had left word that he was suddenly abroad, specific location unknown.

Nobody is suggesting the cricket club had been informed about any suicide notes or plans when those minutes were written. If all they knew was that Monty hadn't shown up and couldn't be contacted for an explanation, that is what would have been reflected. There were no 'apologies for absence' - the usual phrase when a club member has 'left word' that he is unwell or has had to go away somewhere; he had let them down by not leaving word about why he was absent, hence the rather tetchy 'gone abroad' to reflect the fact that he had buggered off God knows where without a word to anyone.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I guess I'm still not sure whether the checks were written to Druitt, or from him, but if they were to him, couldn't a family member bank them? I guess I would think he'd leave them with the note, but I suppose maybe he didn't check his pockets carefully. It's hard for me to imagine, but I suppose back them, people wore pants over again without laundering them, and stuff might end up at the bottom of a pocket.

Hi Rivkah,

If the cheques represented Monty's final salary and severance pay from the school, for example, I expect he put them in his pocket when Valentine gave them to him on his dismissal and didn't think about them again. He had more pressing concerns if he wanted to leave those two suicide notes among his things to be found when his absence from chambers and the cricket club was noticed.

As far as arguments that a story must be true because if it were fiction, it would be a better story, with fewer loose ends, that just strikes me as stupid.

I agree entirely. It's a point that would have been better addressed to Jonathan, not me.

Love,

Caz
X