McNaughten's Notes

[Writerboy]

Why exactly did McNaugten write his famous memo about the murders? According to the 1973 BBC series it was in response to the Sun claiming they could name the Ripper. But McNaughten never released his paper so why write it down: was it purely for the benefit of future criminologists?

[Jonathan H]

I agree with the long-standing opinion that Melville Macnaghten, as Assistant Chief Constable of CID, prepared the Report in case it was needed by the Commissioner to brief the Home Sec. -- in this case the Liberal H H Asquith.

Scotland Yard were under pressure over the tabloid allegations, as it seemed that the police knew Jack the Ripper was a maniac in a home for the criminally insane, yet had not informed the public.

In the end the Report was never sent, and so far as we know never requested.

On the other hand, an alternate version of this report --either a draft or a rewrite -- was dissiminated to the public by Macnaghten via a Tory, Major Griffiths and his epic 'Mysteries of Police and Crime' (1898) and then by the more widely-read journalist, playwright, poet, novelist, and 'amateur' criminologist, George R. Sims, a Liberal Radical (who pushed the 'Drowned Doctor' suspect from 1899 to 1917).

The main difference in the two versions of the Report is that in the official version Druitt is a minor suspect, amonst other minor suspects -- yet his family believed in his guilt. In the version seen by the writers, nicknamed 'Aberconway' (after the Baroness Aberconway the police chief's second daughter who preserved this document) Macnaghten believes in Druitt's guilt, whilst the family only suspect. They have swapped places.

Macnaghten's memoir chapter, 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper' (1914) is clearly an adapation of the Aberconway version, and the only time the content -- altered again -- was placed before the public under his own by then knighted name. Therefore this defacto 'third' version is arguably the most reliable.

[Phil H]

My view is as follows:

The Cutbush articles published in the "Sun" were potentially embarrassing to the Met, because young Cutbush had a senior police officer as a relation.

Melville Mcnaghten (MM) took the opportunity to write an outline brief (I assume as the basis of defensive briefing for the Home Secretary in the event the issue was raised in the House). He essentially offered three names as more likely than Cutbush to have been JtR.

Three copies of the memorandum have been reputed to exist - two are extant.

a) rough notes last reported in India(?) among papers of Gerald Donner (a descendant of MM) which I would suggest may have been MM's preliminary outline;

b) the version which Farson and Cullen wrote about which was typed out by Lady Aberconway (MM's daughter) and which I believe was MM's first formal draft. MM appears to have retained this among his personal papers - as a "souvenir"?;

c) the file copy - which reflects some changes from the Aberconway version, and seem to remove (to generalise) some of MM's personal feelings.

I base my analysis of the drafting and rationale for the memo on almost 40 years experience as a civil servant. That is still the way a civil servant would work (even allowing for word processors, paperless offices etc etc).

Where the controversy enters - at least as I understand it - is in interpreting MM's motives for writing the memorandum. Above I have taken the motivation at face value, but other interpretations could include:

i) a "political" will to distract attention from the "real" JtR - whether Cutbush, someone from "society", a Fenian involvement etc;

ii) a personal wish to conceal the identity of MJ Druitt - hence the wrong profession/age etc.

Whether you accept these interpretations depends on ones own prejudices and assumptions, for instance about MM's gentlemanly integrity; whether the errors are genuine mistakes/lapses of memory, or deliberate obfuscations, etc.

With MM (as with Sir Robert Anderson) my own view is that we have to accept that they were men of their time when direct "lying" would have been a social indiscretion of some weight if discovered. However, that does not mean that they might not deliberately mislead or misdirect if professional requirements so demanded. I do not know how one finds one's way out of the conundrum, unless additional papers emerge (as i believe they might).

The other anomally, is that while MM mentions "Kosminski" as a suspect, his preference is for MJD. On the other hand, Anderson and DSS appear to agree that "Kosminski" was the suspect (and they were involved in the case at its height, when MM was not) -so what is going on here? organisational politics and cliques or something deeper?

Given MM's factual errors about MJD (whatever their reason) it is odd that his third suspect - Ostrog - does not appear to bee a man inclined to murder and who was imprisoned in France at the time. So was his name a mistake for someone else - Le Grand? Or are all three of MM's names knowingly false? (He does not for instance mention Tumblety, whereas we know that Littlechild thought him a period suspect and there is evidence of police interest in him.

So, to sum up by answering your question - why did MM write the memo? I think it was probably with perfectly resonable and professional aims - to provide an outline defensive brief for a Minister (if needed). On the other hand, I am open to the idea that that aim was salted by other aspirations (to conceal/mislead) for various possible reasons.

Phil

[glyn]

My view is as follows:

while MM mentions "Kosminski" as a suspect, his preference is for MJD. Phil

Seems more than merely a "preference" by Macnaughton as regards Druitt,to me anyway.More like a near certainty in Macs mind.I dont think that can be ignored.
But of course ,if Macnaughton wrote the memo to mislead in some way or another,then who is to say Anderson,Swanson werent doing the exact same thing?
As for trying to conceal Druitts identity,if that be the case ,why mention his name at all?
regards

[Phil H]

glyn
I have no axe to grind on this issue. If I understated MM's preference for MJD - sobeit - but what my post was trying to emphasise that we just don't know what MM's intention was. I have personally never argued, or believed, that MM was trying to protect MJD - where is the evidence? all the links are supposititious only. But it has been argued, so it seemed fair to include it in my answer.

If MM HAD a motive in writing his memo when he did, then I think it may have been political, but I have no evidence for that - Fenian-related?

It also always interests me that, at least as he originally conceived his memo, MM was specifically not naming JtR - he was simply putting forward three names "more likely than Cutbush" to have been JtR - there is a difference there that MM's skills as a civil servant would have recognised, and which remains the stock in trade of his successors.

The key is to examine closely and rigorously, MM's use of words and how they changed from draft to draft. This is something I might make a "project" when I retire.

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

But of course ,if Macnaughton wrote the memo to mislead in some way or another,then who is to say Anderson,Swanson werent doing the exact same thing?
As for trying to conceal Druitts identity,if that be the case ,why mention his name at all?
regards

Spot on you have hit the nail firmly on the head I am in total agreement.

Now you have to get the tin hat out ready for the bombardment which always follows when a poster gets anywhere near to the truth.

[Trevor Marriott]

glyn

The key is to examine closely and rigorously, MM's use of words and how they changed from draft to draft. This is something I might make a "project" when I retire.

Phil

Which ever way you look at them or interpret them they dont stand up to close scrutiny so they cannnot be relied upon end of story

[glyn]

glyn
I have no axe to grind on this issue. If I understated MM's preference for MJD - sobeit - but what my post was trying to emphasise that we just don't know what MM's intention was. I have personally never argued, or believed, that MM was trying to protect MJD - where is the evidence? all the links are supposititious only. But it has been argued, so it seemed fair to include it in my answer.


It also always interests me that, at least as he originally conceived his memo, MM was specifically not naming JtR - he was simply putting forward three names "more likely than Cutbush" to have been JtR - there is a difference there that MM's skills as a civil servant would have recognised, and which remains the stock in trade of his successors.

The key is to examine closely and rigorously, MM's use of words and how they changed from draft to draft. This is something I might make a "project" when I retire.

Phil

Phil,Sorry if it sounded as though I suggested you had an axe to grind,in a medium such as this words,or meanings can be easily misunderstood.
Trevor,
Tin Hat? bombarded? What did I say? Surely its a bit more civilised here than in Pub talk?Slugs dont emigrate very far from their Home bases do they?

[Trevor Marriott]

Phil,Sorry if it sounded as though I suggested you had an axe to grind,in a medium such as this words,or meanings can be easily misunderstood.
Trevor,
Tin Hat? bombarded? What did I say? Surely its a bit more civilised here than in Pub talk?Slugs dont emigrate very far from their Home bases do they?

Tick Tock Tic Tock sit back its only a matter of time ammunition being loaded

[Phil Carter]

Three copies of the memorandum have been reputed to exist - two are extant.

a) rough notes last reported in India(?) among papers of Gerald Donner (a descendant of MM) which I would suggest may have been MM's preliminary outline;

b) the version which Farson and Cullen wrote about which was typed out by Lady Aberconway (MM's daughter) and which I believe was MM's first formal draft. MM appears to have retained this among his personal papers - as a "souvenir"?;

c) the file copy - which reflects some changes from the Aberconway version, and seem to remove (to generalise) some of MM's personal feelings.

Hello Phil,

One question I have for you that perhaps you would be so kind as to explain?. Thank you. My sincerest apologies if I have misunderstood/misremembered the event.

b) Was it not that Lady Aberconway who typed out the version shortly after her father's death and gave him(Farson) that copy when he visited? In which case, it must have been referred from either a) or c).. and as a) was not, as far as we are aware of, in existance at that time (after her father's death) and in India at the time (or so we are told) of Farson visiting, then it must have been c).. which means the original version was handed in to SY after the copy was made, possibly even after Farson's visit? It was (the original) first discovered I believe by Robin Odell in the mid 1960's, was it not?

With MM (as with Sir Robert Anderson) my own view is that we have to accept that they were men of their time when direct "lying" would have been a social indiscretion of some weight if discovered. However, that does not mean that they might not deliberately mislead or misdirect if professional requirements so demanded. I do not know how one finds one's way out of the conundrum, unless additional papers emerge (as i believe they might).

Here, if I may ask.. on what basis or knowledge to you suppose additional papers will emerge? And from where? And when?

I am intruiged by this possibility you mention.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil,

In addition, it may be important to recall that the original notes were NOT addressed to anybody either, neither do they have a stamped "rec'd" mark, not a dated "rec'd" mark of the Met police upon them as with other official documents, which seems to indicate them being unofficially placed into the files, does it not?

best wishes

Phil

[Phil H]

Which ever way you look at them or interpret them they dont stand up to close scrutiny ...

Which assumes of course that you have closely scrutinised them? ironic what?

Any document can benefit from a close examination of its context, relationship to other documents/versions and of its internal evidence.

No one writes anything with no aim whatsoever - even aimless scribbles (or Trevor's posts?) must have some motive - even if boredom or an inability to do anything more mature. (joke)

MM went through two (likely three) drafts of his memorandum which was also to appear on and remain on an official file. He might be asked about it, and thus would have needed to understand both what it ostensibly said (and assuming there was one) its hidden agenda. I can assure you that writing something which aims to be superficially open but actually seeks to conceal information, is not easy. (Not that I have ever done it personally, naturally.)

Because we do not know the position MM took and thus cannot clearly see what he meant, or how the individual elements stack up, does not mean that we cannot or may not discover that standpoint/perspective in due course.

Willfully to rule out certain interprtations - for instance, because they do not fit with an individual's pet theory - will, of course always lead to things not stacking up. So, if MM erred because he relied on memory, this will not seem reasonable to someone who's theory demands a cover-up.

But, of course, having a theory and forcing the facts to fit, is not good history, or the way historians work. It is the approach of the amateur, the charlatan and the peddler of substandard goods. The historical method is to take the facts and see where they lead, to follow the individual leads maybe in divergent directions, assessing things against other available evidence.

So I say again, I believe a close scrutiny of the memorandum (in its various versions) might yield much fruit.

Phil

[Jonathan H]

To Glyn

What an excellent question -- why mention Druitt if you are trying to hide him?

It seems a hopeless paradox or, more pointedly, that the theory of 'case disguised' must be a logical impossibility.

But consider the following:

The 'West of England' MP story of Feb 11th 1891 is the moment in the extant record that the late Montague Druitt, as a Ripper suspect, first surfaces albeit un-named (see the breakthrough essay in Dissertations on this site: 'The West of England MP--Identified' by Andrew Spallek).

Before that moment Druitt was entirely unknown to the constabulary except as a tragic sucide, nothing whatsoever to do with Whitechapel.

This is confirmed by the primary sources between 1888 and 1891, and most critically by Macnaghten's memoirs of 1914 which are a perfect fit for the MP story; Mac concedes that it was not known for some years that the Ripper was deceased. That they were chasing a phantom, hence the evocative title of his memoir chapter. He is also saying, with gentlemanly modesty, that he is the police chief who laid to rest this ghost which haunted them and the poor wretches of the East End for years after this 'protean' madman had topped himself in the Thames.

Thus back in 1894, Macnaghten -- and perhaps he alone among the police -- knew that whilst the "Sun" articles about the un-named Cutbush were a 'black eye' for the Yard, though untrue, the real story was an even bigger shocker.

For the Ripper had been an omnipotent maniac who stopped because he suffered some kind of implosion of self-disgust. The police were never close to catching him, and did not even know he was deceased for years. And knowledge about Druitt had been passed along the Tory grapevine, originating with his own family in Dorset, reaching the affable yet very secretive Macnaghten, and I think he had swiftly shut down that humiliating story by having a quiet word with the loose-lipped MP, Henry Farqhuarson, a fellow Old Etonian.

In 1894 the Liberals were in power and its Radical wing was sniffing around the Cutbush story looking for something else to embarrass the Tory Party with, now in Opposition, and embarrass the Yard which was seen by the Left as being little more than the police arm of the Conservatives (just as the Church of England was seen as the Tory Party at prayer).

You see, if Macnaghten simply omitted Druitt's name from a briefing document, and then the story once more spilled out of Dorset, the Yard would look incompetent. On the other hand, to put on file that Cutbush was not the Ripper because Mac knew, or believed that he knew, the fiend was Druitt, would be to concede what he did only in his memoirs from the safe distance of a generation later: we had never heard of him -- alive or dead.

Thus Mac whose administrative style was to try and keep competing interests happy -- to keep 'everybody satisfied' as Fred Wensley puts it -- tried to have it both ways.

In both versions he makes Druitt a contemporaneous suspect of 1888 (untrue) but a minor one (also untrue, at least in Mac's mind). So minor a suspect the police did not know exactly whar he did for a living? (ludicrously untrue) If that was read out in the House of Commons, by Asquith, then the Druitt name would be omitted. It would simply be a Gentile Gentleman doctor. If that triggered a response from Dorset, or from the Tory backbench -- hardly likely -- then CID could claim that they were onto him, but at arm's length. It was an honest mistake that surgeon's son had been misunderstood as a surgeon himself. If nothing happened after Druitt's semi-fictional profile was mentioned in Parliament, then the poor family's privacy would be respected and protected.

Of course the report was not needed and lay in the Scotland Yard archive, completely unknown in the extant record until 1966.

The bland, conventional wisdom of half a century, which has the dutiful, honest-to-a-fault bureaucrat, Macnaghten, writing an entire draft, one full of colourful and inappropiately opinionated details, and then thinking, hey, I'd better re-write the whole thing again this time with Druitt as next to nothing but with the family now sure of his culpability is, I argue, untenable.

It under-appreciates the political context, it misreads Macnaghten's wily 'man of action' character, and it ignores his memoirs which despite being twenty-three years later dovetail perfectly with the MP story of 1891 (in fairness this extraordinary source only became available 100 years later, though it has had limited impact on secondary sources).

Incredibly this redundant line of argument does not even grasp that Druitt is nearly everything in 'Aberconway' whereas in the official version he is just one of three unlikely suspects -- but all better than Cutbush.

Druitt cannot be both nothing and everything.

Either Mac was being deceitful in the official, or in the unofficial version. This is because he disseminated the contents of the latter, the so-called 'draft', to the public, never correcting his cronies that they had, you know, gone too far.

Quite the contrary, in his memoirs the un-named Druitt is literally the whole show, the other two sidekick suspects dropped altogether. They are nothing.

In the extant record there is nothing which links Aaron Kosminski and Michael Ostrog to the Ripper investigation, quite the opposite! And the Polish Jew suspect was not propounded by Anderson until the year after this slippery, deflective report was written by his second-in-command, whom his chief loathed right back.

Who is pulling whose chain?

Far more likely is that 'Aberconway' is a rewrite in 1898, not a draft. Mac freely adapted his official report and altered elements in order for it to be a scoop for his writer pals, ecumenically balanced between a Tory (Griffiths) and a Liberal (Sims). He also misled them into believing that were being exposed to a defiitive 'Home Office Report' when it was nothing of the kind.

Perhaps feeling by the turn of the century that the coast was clear, and that his despised boss, Anderson, was saying silly, ego-driven things about a semi-fictional suspect, 'Kosminski', of his own creation, Mac launched, quite unexpectedly, the story of the un-named Druitt onto the public.

It was, in theme, the truth as he was rubbing the noses of the 'better classes' in an unwanted revelation -- 'Jack' was one of 'us', not one of 'them' -- though it shamelessly claimed that the super-efficient police were about to arrest the doctor (news to Abberline and Reid?)

Except that now Druitt, the un-named 'son of a surgeon' in the MP titbit, was completely unrecoverable behind the mask of a middle-aged, affluent, unemployed, family-less, asylum veteran who took his own life within hours of the Kelly atrocity (Sims, 1899, 1902, 1903, 1904, 1906, 1907, 1911, 1915, and 1917)

Due to Mac's sunny disposition everybody is a winner: the Yard, the Druitts, the Jews, the despised Anderson -- even the fiend seems to have regained something of his Christian conscience and done the honourable thing.

Thus everybody was satisfied?

[Chris]

In addition, it may be important to recall that the original notes were NOT addressed to anybody either, neither do they have a stamped "rec'd" mark, not a dated "rec'd" mark of the Met police upon them as with other official documents, which seems to indicate them being unofficially placed into the files, does it not?

Surely it would only need a "Received" stamp if it originated outside the Met?

[glyn]

Jonathan,
Phew!...Theres quite a lot of interesting info/theory to digest in your post.I need to study this.
Many thanks