Tweet
No point in discussing ANYTHING with you Jonathan as you appear to have become deaf to reason or any other view but your own.
-
-
Erotic Pleasure From Violence
Jonathan,In 1894, Macnaghten put it on file that Druitt was 'sexually insane' not a homsexual; that he definitely gained erotic pleasure from violence (in his case against harlots).
Where does MacNaghten say that Druitt:
'definitely gained erotic pleasure from violence (in his case against harlots')?
If that statement exists, I'm most intrigued.
Regards, Bridewell.I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.Comment
-
Paris?
Whatever interpretation is put on the phrase 'gone abroad', why would anyone think that MJD was specifically in Paris, as opposed to anywhere else?why did he not think Montie was in Paris?
Regards, Bridewell.I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.Comment
-
Hey, why woudn't you go to Paris?
I am fusing together three sources: Macnaghten's official version of his Report where Druitt was definitely sexually insane, his memoirs where he compares the Ripper to Nero but who could appear normal, and his proxy Sims, who writes over and over that the 'mad doctor' had an insane compulsion to savage not just anybody but specfically street harlots.
It is incredible that Mac put it on file that Druitt was a man who gained erotic pleasure from ultr-violence and there it was no wonder his family believed their memebr was Jack; they believed he was Jack because he acted like Jack ...Comment
-
Jonathan,
Sorry, but that doesn't really answer the question:
Where does MacNaghten say that Druitt:
'definitely gained erotic pleasure from violence (in his case against harlots')?
which I asked in response to:
Did MacNaghten himself ever state this?In 1894, Macnaghten put it on file that Druitt was 'sexually insane' not a homsexual; that he definitely gained erotic pleasure from violence (in his case against harlots).
Regards, Bridewell.I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.Comment
-
From the filed version of his Report where Druitt is nearly nothing, but better than Cutbush, but who did apparently -- and paradoxically? -- enjoy erotic pleasure from violence (against unfortunates.)
(1) A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor & of good family -- who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder, & whose body (which was said to have been upwards of a month in the water) was found in the Thames on 31st December -- or about 7 weeks after that murder. He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer.
From 'Days of My Years' explaining the meaning of sexual mania and alluding to it as Druitt's illness-condition:
CHAPTER IV.
LAYING THE GHOST OF JACK THE RIPPER.
' ... The man, of course, was a sexual maniac, but such madness takes Protean forms, as will be shown later on in other cases. Sexual murders are the most difficult of all for police to bring home to the perpetrators, for motives there are none ; only a lust for blood, and in many cases a hatred of woman as woman. Not infrequently the maniac possesses a diseased body, and this was probably so in the case of the Whitechapel murderer ...'
From p. 100 to 101 of 'Days of My Years', referring to other murders (who are not homosexuals):
'Both of these murders were committed by sexual maniacs--by men who killed for the joy of killing ...'
and,
'Students of history, however, are aware that an excessive indulgence in vice, in certain cases, leads to a craving for blood. Nero was probably a sexual maniac ... The disease is not as rare as many people imagine. As you walk the London streets you may, and do, not infrequently jostle against a potential murderer of the so-called Jack the Ripper type ... itis intensely interesting.'
And in Sims, his proxy source:
'The third man was a doctor who lived in a suburb about six miles from Whitechapel, and who suffered from a horrible form of homicidal mania, a mania which leads the victim of it to look upon women of a certain class with frenzied hatred. ... The horrible nature of the atrocity committed in Miller's-court pointed to the last stage of frenzied mania. Each murder had shown a marked increase in maniacal ferocity. The last was the culminating point. The probability is that immediately after committing this murderous deed the author of it committed suicide. There was nothing else left for him to do except to be found wandering, a shrieking, raving, fiend, fit only for the padded cell.
Consider that when Mac calls a man a 'sexual maniac' it is because he is known to have killed for sexual pleasure, and the Emperor Nero is reported -- at least in Suetonius -- to have done just that; to have killed for his amusement.
In the filed version of his 'Report' Mac pulled back from all the vivid melodrama of the 'Aberconway' version -- whichever order they were composed -- and recorded that Druitt might, or might not have been a doctor, and might, or might have not been from a good family, and might, or might not have been upwards of a month a rotting corpse in the Thames.
So, we would expect that he would write exactly the same as in the sexed-up version: that the Druitt family only suspected their member of being a sexual maniac -- of being Jack. That it was merely an 'allegation' from only a 'fairly' good family.
Instead, for file, he pointedly claimed that M. J. Druitt was sexually insane, no doubt about it, and that his family did indeed 'believe', not suspect, him of being Jack.
It's like saying, because he was Jack the Ripper they believed that he was Jack the Ripper.
No wonder he did not send it to the Home Office because the strain of trying to have it both ways shows.
For all he had to do was write that the family only suspected.
Yet Macnaghten did no such thing; he ratcheted up the status of this suspect as a man believed by his nearest and dearest to gain erotic pleasure from ultra-violence.
I think he feared that the Cutbush story of 1894 would dislodge the surgeon's tale -- the true story, or so Mac believed -- from Dorset, and so he wanted some insurance that the police were aware that this dead man did have disciples to his Jack status yet they could not arrest him because there was no proof, not even it's shadow (rather than put on file the bald and embarrassing truth: the police had never heard of Druitt until 'some years after' he drowned himself).Comment
-
In my previous post I argued that in the filed version of his 'Report', which some argue and not without merit must be the definitive statement on the Ripper and Druitt by Macnaghten because it is official and on file, he pulled back from this supect being anything that special.
It was not clear hwther he was doctor, or from a good family, or that his body was upwards of a month in the Thames.
Then in a stunning paradox or reversal or bit of bureaucratic insurance Macnaghten escalated this suspect's status by writing that since M. J. Druitt gained erotic pleasure from sadism, or at least ultra-violence his family -- understandably, even inevitably -- 'believed' he was Jack the Ripper.
(1) A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor & of good family -- who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder, & whose body (which was said to have been upwards of a month in the water) was found in the Thames on 31st December -- or about 7 weeks after that murder. He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer.
I can see why some secondary sources have, over the years,worked themselves into all sorts of pretzel-like contortions trying to make it that Mac meant gay, becuause the alternative is that he was saying that since he was Jack the family believed he was Jack.
There are two deceptions about Druitt in the document.
One is that he disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder.
This is false. therefore if it was read-mentioned in the House of Commons in 1894 people who knew the Druitts would not recognise their tragic Montie in the doctor who killed himself in early Nov. even with the Thames detail.
Secondly the impression is given, also quite false, that Druitt was a suspect at the time of the 1888 murders:
'It will be noted that the fury of the mutilations increased in each case, and, seemingly, the appetite only became sharpened by indulgence. It seems, then, highly improbable that the murderer would have suddenly stopped in November '88, and been content to recommence operations by merely prodding a girl behind some 2 years and 4 months afterwards. A much more rational theory is that the murderer's brain gave way altogether after his awful glut in Miller's Court, and that he immediately committed suicide, or, as a possible alternative, was found to be so hopelessly mad by his relations, that he was by them confined in some asylum.
No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer; many homicidal maniacs were suspected, but no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one. I may mention the cases of 3 men, any one of whom would have been more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders:Comment
-
erotic pleasure from sadism
Making it up as you go along now are you Jon?Originally posted by Jonathan H View PostallisvanityandvexationofspiritComment
-
You're having trouble with my correct name ..?
And no, this aspect of the 'case disguised' theory occurred to me in 2008 and I have incorporated it into several publihed articlesComment
-
Get real, JonathanOriginally posted by Jonathan H View Post
By all means formulate a theory but don't just make stuff up.
That weakens the theory. I'm trying to do you a favour here.allisvanityandvexationofspiritComment
-
Of course I'm grateful for the favour, but being thick I don't know what the phuck you're talking about?
So, unless you explain what you think I'm making up ...?
In his memoirs Mac explains that 'sexual mania' means to gain erotic pleasure from either watching or committing acts of ultra-violence. He says that [the un-named] Druitt was a 'Protean' sexual maniac.
In the official version of the 'Report', although Druitt is supposedly a minor suspect about whom the police were sure of very little -- eg. what he did for a living, the respectability of his family, how long his body had been rotting in a river -- they were sure he was a sexual maniac.
That's a paradox.
Except in certain corners of RipperLand where the issue, the puzzle, does not exist at all or it refers to Mac thinking that Druitt was gay.
The official version seems to be pouring cold water on the more flamboyant and colourful [so-called] 'draft' version.
Yet in the latter the only 'fairly good' family merely suspect their member of being Jack and it was only an 'allegation' that he was a sexual maniac.
What I noticed in 2008 is that these lines are, thematically, in the wrong versions, so to speak -- in fact jarringly so.
Mac wanted this very incriminating aspect about this supposedly almost-nothing suspect, Druitt, eg. definitely a sexual maniac and not an allegation -- on file.
In the version he showed cronies for public dissemination, Mac is pretty sure that Dr. Druitt is the fiend whereas his useless family only suspected.Comment
-
In 1894, Macnaghten put it on file that Druitt was 'sexually insane' not a homsexual; that he definitely gained erotic pleasure from violence (in his case against harlots).
Jonathan, I have still seen no simple answer to this straightforward and important question. Where does MM explicitly state that?
In his memoirs Mac explains that 'sexual mania' means to gain erotic pleasure from either watching or committing acts of ultra-violence. He says that [the un-named] Druitt was a 'Protean' sexual maniac.
In other words you are amking assumptions about what MM believed, and constructing logic on the basis of multiple statements taken out of context. That might be speculation, but it does not make it true. Perhaps you can explain.
Except in certain corners of RipperLand where the issue, the puzzle, does not exist at all or it refers to Mac thinking that Druitt was gay.
Which is not untenable, I think as an alternative explanation based on what we KNOW of druitt, as against posthumous comments about him which are unsupported by facts.
The official version seems to be pouring cold water on the more flamboyant and colourful [so-called] 'draft' version.
Key word here is "seems" - it is therefore an assumption, not definitely ascertained fact.
What I noticed in 2008 is that these lines are, thematically, in the wrong versions, so to speak -- in fact jarringly so.
BUT they ARE in the versions they are in!! We cannot as historians go around saying "this line from Macbeth ought to have been in Much Ado" without EVIDENCE. Thematic analyses by YOU are insufficient.
Mac wanted this very incriminating aspect about this supposedly almost-nothing suspect, Druitt, eg. definitely a sexual maniac and not an allegation -- on file.
How do you KNOW he "wanted" it? That again is an assumption based on your reading of the material. I wish you would flag up such speculation for what it is - your view.
I recognise that you utterly believe what you say Jonathan, but your hypothesis is visibly cracking under the weight of all you impose on it. Cannot you see that?
Please accept that I am not "getting at you" here, just pointing out things from my perspective.
Phil HComment
-
Abbreviating Names
Jonathan,Originally posted by Jonathan H View Post
I can't believe you're having a go at Stephen for abbreviating Jonathan to 'Jon', when you constantly refer to Sir Melville MacNaghten as 'Mac'!
Regards, Bridewell.I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.Comment
-
Believe it, Bridewell.
I have never been called 'Jon' in my life, though I was not being particularly serious -- always a mistake here where the detractors always lurk probing always for the soft underbelly (still no response to my counter-argument I see) -- and yet you can believe that I am making it up as I go along.
Whereas Sir Melville Macnaghten was nicknamed 'Mac' at Eton, according to his daughter Christabel.
Unless you're being as factious as myself?Comment
Comment