Frantic Friends?

[Bridewell]

Cross Purposes

Let me assist you, pal.

You are talking about evdience in a courtroom; a legal definition of hearsay evdience.

Whereas historical evidence is quite different.

A primary source is somebody who was there -- at the time.

For example, George Sims is a primary source about the posthumous investigation into Druitt as the Ripper. He knew the police chief who had done this and published the latter's findings, though veiled.

Anderson was abroad for several Whitechapel murders, yet he is still a primary source about those crimes in 1910.

Hi Jonathan,

I think we may be at cross purposes here. I wasn't claiming that the MacNaghten Memoranda were worthless as historical evidence. I simply observed that the "private information", alluded to therein -whatever its nature - would be hearsay, something which I thought you were taking issue with. If you were arguing that it has historical evidential value, despite being, technically, hearsay, then we are in agreement. Your basic premise with regard to Druitt (in Ripperologist, I believe?) has much to commend it. If I've given the impression that I was pouring scorn on your thinking there, then I apologise for doing so as I greatly enjoyed the article.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Jonathan H]

Fair enough, we are in agreement. Thanks for the positive comments about the article.

I have two, new articles with issue #3 of 'The New Independent Review' one arguing that a new Farquharson source (found by Paul Begg) confirms that the MP was certain and, by inference, that Macnaghten alone among the cops agreed that Druitt was the Ripper. The other analysing the full 'Aberconway', in which we discover, among other things, that this 'draft' does not mention Inspector Race? Funny that.

Farquharson is a primary source on all this, even though we have nothing on this matter surviving by him. We glimpse what leaked to a reporter and what the MP seems to have told another, after Coles' murder.

He is still a primary source even though by claiming that the last murder and the self-murder took place on 'the same evening' his information is not first-hand from the family, because he would then have known that the two events happened weeks apart.

In court of course none of this would stand.

For one thing the suspect was deceased, which in my opinion is the key to everything which followed.

To my knowledge nobody before me has noticed that in his memoir Mac extended the gap to a loose 24-hours between the night of the 8th of Nov., or early morning of the 9th for Kelly's murder, and the 10th, maybe longer, for Drutit's suicide. That's too long to stagger to a river covered in blood, a shrieking automaton, without encountering any impediment.

This is historical evidence that Mac knew more accurate info. than Farquharson, and recalled it correctly at a distance of twenty-three years.

I am arguing that the primary sources show that Macnaghten was a diligent, enthusiastic, compassionate, beloved police administrator -- with a formidable memory -- who frequently left his desk to 'get his hands dirty'. It is highly unlikely that he would have relied on the MP's say-so alone about such an appalling accusation against a fellow gentleman, one in no position to defend himself and his honour.

I believe that he investigated Druitt and was shocked to his marrow to discover that, yes, he probably was the fiend!? Not a theory and not a mystery.

The next question was what on Earth to do about it ...?

The last couple of generations of 'Ripperology' is arguably an house erected on sand; on a fundamental misconception. It is that Mac did no investigation of Druitt and therefore his opinion can be discarded, or at least downplayed and sidelined -- especially compared to Anderson. In fact, not only can it be shown that he did know who Druitt was, but he knew more about Aaron Kosminski than either Anderson or Swanson.

[Bridewell]

Hi Jonathan

I am arguing that the primary sources show that Macnaghten was a diligent, enthusiastic, compassionate, beloved police administrator -- with a formidable memory -- who frequently left his desk to 'get his hands dirty'. It is highly unlikely that he would have relied on the MP's say-so alone about such an appalling accusation against a fellow gentleman, one in no position to defend himself and his honour.

This is credible as a thought process by MM. Was Druitt Catholic or Protestant, do you know? The reason I ask is that there is obviously more of a drive towards confession in Catholicism than there is in the Protestant Church. If he was a devout Catholic (to his own mind anyway) I would find it hard to credit a suicide without first confessing his sins. If (& to me it's still an if at this stage) he expected absolution & was refused - as presumably would be the case with a serial killer! - it might be that refusal which caused his suicide, rather than remorse over the murders themselves. (I'm thinking that he may have thought murder acceptable, provided that he made confession afterwards). I hasten to emphasise that I know this is not the stance of the Catholic Church, but it may have been the killer's perception!

Regards, Bridewell.

[Wickerman]

You are talking about evdience in a courtroom; a legal definition of hearsay evdience.

Whereas historical evidence is quite different.

A primary source is somebody who was there -- at the time.

For example, George Sims is a primary source about the posthumous investigation into Druitt as the Ripper.

Oh dear, Jonathan, you are on a slippery slope with this

Quite true, Sims is a Primary Source on the period, but he is a Secondary Source on the specifics.
When Sims is relating events in general he is a Primary Source, ie:

The first murder was committed on Aug.31, and the last on Nov. 9 - the night of Lord Mayor's day - therefore, five times during three months did the Ripper rise from his orgy of blood, and walk through the streets of London to his home without by his appearance attracting the attention of one single witness who could be called upon to give evidence of any value.


However, when Sims relates this tale:

The customer stood drinking his coffee, and the stall-keeper said, thinking of the murder of Sept. 8, that the Ripper had been quiet for a bit. "But," he added, "I expect we shall hear of another murder before long."
"Yes," replied the customer, "you may hear of two before many hours are over."
He put down the cup, took some coppers out of his pocket, and stretched his hand across the stall to give them to the stall keeper. The sleeve of his coat was drawn up by the action and the shirt cuff came into view. The cuff of the shirt was stained with blood.
The man saw the coffee-stall keeper's eyes fixed on his blood-stained cuff, bade him a gruff "good-night" and walked rapidly away, quickly disappearing in the darkness.

In this, Sims is a Secondary Source, simply because he was not present. He is relying on what he has been told.

So it all depends on what his writings are being used for and what the content is before anyone can claim that Sims is either a Primary or Secondary source.

Regards, Jon S.

[Jonathan H]

To Bridewell

No, Druitt was Church of England, as are the clergymen and supposed deceased Ripper of the 'North Country Vicar' story of 1899. His confession would not necessarily carry the same sacramental shield as one to a Catholic priest.

That unidentified Vicar called his piece that he sent to the 'Daily Mail': 'The Whitechuch Murders--Solution to a London Mystery'. He then apparently explained that the story contained alternations to protect people (sound familiar?) that it was 'substantial truth under ficitious form' which is why the paper would not publish it -- not without knowing which was which.

My working theory is that the Vicar meant only the bizarre title was fictitious (eg. 'under'). All the other details match Druitt without alteration. 'Whitechurch' may allude to Whitchurch-Canocorium parish which Druitt's cousin Charles was the Reverend of, and may have been the person to whom Montie confessed: a family member and a man of the cloth.

Or, Andrew Spallek was right all along in his conjecture that Druitt confessed to John Henry Lonsdale who was a Rev. and who shadows Montie at all his locations in terms of family home and work-lace in London. Therefore, he was the reverend to whom Montie confessed, and when he vanished Lonsdale was the unidentified 'friend' (see opening post of this thread) who alerted brother William.

This single friend, who knows the terrible truth and sets in motion the fruitless hunt for the missing Druitt, subsumes the family in the retelling in Griffiths, and especially in Sims -- the frantic 'friends'.

Charles died in 1900, and in 1902 Mac via Sims adopts a comment by the 1899 Vicar -- whom the famous writer had dismissed -- into his profile: 'at one time a surgeon'. Sims' Ripper becomes a doctor who has also not practised medicine for years and years.

To Wickerman

According to your own definition Sims is a secondary source about both examples, as he did not witness either.

But that is wrong too, as this is not about being a witness in a courtroom.

Sims lived at the time of all these events and is thus a primary source. How strong a primary source is a matter of argument.

Sims is arguably a strong primary source on Mac's investigation of Druitt because through this writer the police chief's conclusions were disseminated to the public. What complicates all this is that the police chief decided to provide a semi-fictional version to protect the family (and enhance the reputation of the Yard.)

Therefore the value of Sims is that he if of that era, and he knew the chief investigator of the alleged prime-posthumous suspect who confided in him.

On the other hand, the limitation of this source is that his information is second-hand (Mac) and third-hand (from the Druitts) and he is being manipulated by a self-serving source to sell a Yard-friendly version of the truth.

That is why the discovery of the 'West of England' MP sources are such a breakthrough, as they match 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper'. These primary sources are nearly a quarter of a century apart but they dovetail perfectly -- except that Mac tiptoes back from the melodramatic notion that [the un-named] Druitt killed himself on 'the same evening' (which suggests the police chief had access to more accurate information about the real mad Montie than Farquharson).

I argue that all that makes Mac a reliable primary source, whereas Anderson, also a primary source, is sincerely but hopelessly -- and self-servingly -- confused about Coles and Kelly, about the broken pipe, about which Home Sec. he was standing up to, about which suspect Lawende 'confronted', and so on.

[Wickerman]

To Wickerman

According to your own definition Sims is a secondary source about both examples, as he did not witness either.

You're beginning to slide....

Sims is a contemporary source, that is all.
When he writes about general knowledge, not from a personal perspective, he is a Primary Source.
When he relates interactions between people where he was not present, he is a Secondary Source.

There is no 3rd, 4th or 5th sources, every source which is more than arms length from Primary is commonly called Secondary.
Secondary, does not specifically mean 2nd.

Regards, Jon S.

[Jonathan H]

To Wickerman

No, that's all wrong for reasons I have already outlined. Primary does mean first and secondary does mean second, though neither definition refer to plausibility or reliability.

You're also confusing second hand with secondary.

A primary source is anything that is from the era being studied. A secondary source is one which collates together primary (and often other secondary) sources). In other words books on history, though some also function as primary sources too eg. Churchill's account of World War II

For example the diary of a British visitor to Russia during October 1917 who never mentions the Bolshevik Revolution is nonetheless a primary source on the Bolshevik Revolution -- it could even be quite useful at showing how little impact this world historical event had on the populace, or foreigners.

A Soviet newspaper during the 19030's which says that everybody arrested for the show Trials is guilty of being a spy, and a wrecker and a fascist is a primary source even though we know that it is the reverse of the truth. The American ambassador is a primary source and yet everything he thought and wrote about the Purges is nonsense, because he fell for Stalin's lies. But then that is useful too from a certain angle.

Macnaghten confided in Sims about the 'Drowned Doctor' which was published between 1899 to 1917, when Edwardians thought the case was as good as solved. Sims is this a primary source on this police chief's opinion and machinations. He is not a wholly reliable source because he was being misled, assuming he was not in on it. On the other hand, his portrait of Druitt can be measured against other primary sources by Macnaghten (his memoirs) and about Druitt and shows it to be a deflective exaggeration of the real person.

[Bridewell]

Blackheath

I've just had a look at the scorecard for the game played by Blackheath CC on the day of Annie Chapman's death:

Blackheath Club innings

F.G. Monkland b P Christopherson 15
E. Woodman c C Christopherson b P Christopherson 2
R.S. Barrow c S Christopherson b P Christopherson 0
MJ Druitt b S Christopherson 2

Blackheath batted first and Druitt batted at No.4, as he usually did, even though his side lost two early wickets. It seems reasonable to conclude that he was there for the start as, if he was tired, or otherwise out of sorts, or even if he arrived late, I would expect to see him drop down the order, but he didn't. I know this has been looked at before, but there's a new poster, Ginger, who seems to have a good grasp of all things transport-related. I'll PM him & ask if he has any views on the feasibility of Druitt having killed AC and still made it to Blackheath in time for the start of the match.

I would have done as above, but Ginger is shown as opting not to receive emails and there is no PM option - will just have to hope he sees this.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Jonathan H]

Yes, go ahead by all means and roast again this old chestnut, but consider that his own family would have considered this angle at the time,and if they and Macnaghten could have got the late Montie off the hook -- based on him being delusional rather than homicidal -- then they surely would have.

Especially if it was as easy as checking his whereabouts according to the timing of the murders.

Apparently, they could not get him off the hook.

[Robert]

Of course, Chapman's murder may have occurred earlier than the near-dawn time connected with Long and Cadosch.

[Beowulf]

Hi Lynn

Well, Cutbush would be high on the list, plus one or two others, but if I were allowed to solve any mystery short of the identity of JTR, I guess it would be MJK, her family, her life story, and as far up to the actual moment of death as I was allowed to go.

I simply cannot get my husband in any conversation containing the idea Cutbush could be the Ripper, seriously, whenever he hears the name in connection to JTR he busts up laughing...Seems an ironic joke, that name.

But one thing is interesting if it were Druitt, I would guess that leaves out the Goulston street graffito theories.

[Jonathan H]

To Beowulf

Ironically, Macnaghten never mentions the graffiti in both versions of his 'Home Office Report', nor to his croines in their writings.

The in his 1914 memoirs Mac extravagantly claims the graffiti was 'undoubtedly the only clue left behind' by the murderer -- by the un-named Druitt?!

But I think the reason is not literal but polemical. His memoir chapter is, to a certain extent, his debuking of Anderson's memoir on this subject from 1910. Thus he eliminates the importance of the beat cop (who had supposedly seen the maybe the Polish Jew suspect) and has three hard-working Jews finding Stride's body, forcing the killer to go off and find another victim (the Gentile harlot was nearly saved by hardy Hebrews).

'Jack' finds Eddowes, and then writes this graffiti blaming just those three Jews for 'forcing' him to kill twice on the same evening.

That is why Mac had to move the three Jews from the Eddowes scene to Stride -- to create that plurality -- and to maintain that the witness to Eddowes was a Gentile beat cop, though nothing he was was satisfying.

This was a fiction to eliminate Lawende and his sighting of what Mac perceived to be Druitt.

In other words 'Jack' was most certainly not Jewish; he was a 'Simon Pure' Gentile who blamed the Jews (and who had never been 'detained' in a lunatic asylum either). Whatever the truth, Macnaghten's memoir is set up, to an extent, as the antithesis of anti-Anderson's and his Jewish fiend, his treacherous Jewish witness and his unco-operative low-life Jews.

[Bridewell]

Assuming

Yes, go ahead by all means and roast again this old chestnut, but consider that his own family would have considered this angle at the time,and if they and Macnaghten could have got the late Montie off the hook -- based on him being delusional rather than homicidal -- then they surely would have.

Especially if it was as easy as checking his whereabouts according to the timing of the murders.

Apparently, they could not get him off the hook.

How do we know that "his own family would have considered this at the time"? According to your theory, they believed MJD to be the Ripper and had good reason to do so. Why would they check the times of matches played by Blackheath Cricket Club?

Apparently, they could not get him off the hook

Always assuming that he was ever on the hook in the first place, that he did actually confess, and that his family did actually suspect him:

"He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer."

Why does MM have "little doubt", as opposed to "no doubt", if he had been in communication with Monty's brother who had specifically voiced those suspicions?

You're convinced of MJD's guilt, and that's fine. It doesn't mean the rest of us have to be. Ginger, if you get to read this,and are minded to do so, I, for one, would value your opinion.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Jonathan H]

To Bridewell

A hat-trick of wrongness, but oh well: that's the price for expressing a politically incorrect opinion.

1) Why on earth would they not check?

And desperately, and thoroughly check at that?

Why would a family of doctors just leave it at his claim to be the fiend, knowing that madhouses are full of Napoleons, Christs and Joans of Arc.

2) I'm not convinced of Montie's guilt -- how could I be?

All I know is that Macnaghten was convinced, a diligent, discreet, and competent police officer.

3) You do not appreciate upper class, British understatement.

"I have little doubt ... ' and 'I incline to the belief ...' means he has no doubt whatsoever.

[Jonathan H]

By politically-incorrect, I mean my opinion not yours.