Frantic Friends?

[Stephen Thomas]

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'!

Thankyou Bridewell

And he's got into his 40s without anybody ever calling him 'Jon'.

My my, how sophisticated those Australians must be.

[Bridewell]

Did He Say It?

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?

I wasn't being particularly serious either - just thought your reaction a little ironic in the circumstances!
I haven't seen an answer to the question I presume you're alluding to which was:

Where does MacNaghten say that Druitt:

'definitely gained erotic pleasure from violence (in his case against harlots')?

You say he 'put it on file', but that's not the same as expressing that opinion or even endorsing it. We know that he considered Druitt a more credible suspect thsn Cutbush because he committed that view to paper.
"Did MacNaghten himself ever state that Druitt, 'definitely gained erotic pleasure from violence (in his case against harlots)'? Is it written down anywhere by MacNaghten that this was his view? If he hasn't written it, then the claim that he thought it is entirely speculative. You've answered several other questions in some detail, but you haven't answered Yes or No to that one:
"Did MacNaghten himself ever state that Druitt, 'definitely gained erotic pleasure from violence (in his case against harlots)'?

(The claim that you are 'making it up as you go along' wasn't made by me, so I don't propose to address that.)

Regards, Bridewell.

[johns]

Just happened across this thread, and thought it needed the following unhelpful/very helpful* notes. *delete as applicable.

Lots of people I meet think that John is an abbreviation of Jonathan.

Lots of people call me Jonathan in moments of.. well I don't know really, but they soon get corrected.

I once knew a bloke called Jon, and it wasn't short for Jonathan.

Lots of people call me Johnny.

We now return you to your regular programme...

[Jonathan H]

To Johns

Somebody called me 'Jono' the other day so I was forced to call the police, as you would understand.

To Bridewell

Oh I see what you mean.

Well then no, your honour, he did not write those words exactly like that.

On the other hand that is what he meant by:

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

That's what that line means. What else could it mean?

Other attempts to interpret it as not saying that Druitt was a sexual maniac -- which is defined by Mac as gaining erotic pleasure from watching or commiting acts of ultra-violence -- I find terminally unconvincing.

A better counter-argument is that Mac wrote that 'Kosminski' and Michael Ostrog were dangerous homicidal lunatics anfd they are lies (excluding the Whitechapel murders, he still claims they were very dangerous maniacs) so why not about Druitt too.

[Bridewell]

To Bridewell

Oh I see what you mean.

Well then no, your honour, he did not write those words exactly like that.

Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.

On the other hand that is what he meant by:

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

That's what that line means. What else could it mean?

The second sentence means that MacNaghten's opinion was that the Druitt family's opinion was that Druitt was the murderer. No evidence, as MacNaghten himself makes clear,- just his opinion or what the Druitt family's opinion was.

The first sentence uses the phrase 'sexually insane'. Only MacNaghten knows what that meant to him. It may or may not have meant the same to him as 'sexual maniac'. Presumably the intention is to ascribe to Druitt something which, by the standards of the time, was considered to be a perversion. That could be an illusion to homosexuality, paedophilia, necrophilia, bondage, possession of pornographic material etc. It's certainly not possible to state, as you do, that what is meant is that he 'definitely gained erotic pleasure from violence (in his case against harlots)'.

A better counter-argument is that Mac wrote that 'Kosminski' and Michael Ostrog were dangerous homicidal lunatics and they are lies (excluding the Whitechapel murders, he still claims they were very dangerous maniacs) so why not about Druitt too.

The argument presented here is that MacNaghten was lying when he wrote that Kosminski was a dangerous homicidal lunatic and lying when he wrote that Ostrog was the same and therefore was lying when he wrote that Druitt was the same. I suspect that's not what you meant, which is a pity because it's actually quite a good line of reasoning.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Jonathan H]

No, that is exactly what I meant.

Mac is lying about two of the suspects, so why not the third?

For example, he knew that Michael Ostrog had been absolutely cleared of the Whitechapel murders by late 1894 (he told Sims that he had been in a foreign asylum eg. the Russian thief''s iron-clad alibli) yet he falsely misled Griffiths and Sims, in 1898, to believe that this Russian 'doctor' was still a viable if unlikely 'Jack' compared to 'Dr Druitt'.

Your other contemtion is simpy untenable, but it does represent a necessary grasping at straws by the redudant conventional wisdom to prevent Druitt returning as a prime suspect on a site like this, for that must never ever be allowed to happen.

In his memoirs, Macnaghten writes quiet clearly, exactly and specifically what he means by 'sexual mania' and it refers to gaining sexual pleasure from either watching or committing acts of physical brutality against others, in Druitt's case this must, inevitably, mean poor prostitutes:

Here I'll repaste it for you,

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 murderers (who are also 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 ... it is intensely interesting.'

[Paddy]

Jonathan I was struck by a similar wording by Henry Cox (Thompsons Weekly News 1906) when talking about his suspect.

He said he is convinced that the motive was revenge on womankind, not "a lust for blood",

I seem to remember reading that when a Dr Bond (was it?) was brought in to overlook all the inquests, he made what is thought to be the first act of criminal profiling. I would think they are all quoting this doctor and adjusting it to personal views.

See Ripper Wiki: Henry Cox by Chris Phillips

[Jonathan H]

Hi Paddy

Very interesting!

[David Andersen]

I am starting this thread to argue that there have been a number of new sources discovered, in relatively recent years, which puts Macnaghten-Druitt back in play as a likely, if not the likeliest solution to the 'Jack the Ripper' mystery (eg. it's not a mystery to certain primary sources).


1. Andrew Spallek's identification of the 'West of England' MP as a near-neighbour of the (Tory) Druitts and a fellow upper class, Old Etonian, clubby Tory, and Indian plantation-owner like Macnaghten -- Henry Richard Farquhrason.

2. The new 'West of England' M.P. source recently found by Paul Begg -- who does not agree with my interpretation of its significance -- which establishes, again, the theme of certainty about Druitt's guilt, and that Mac is thus the 'odd man out' in terms of police disagreeing with M.P. Farquharson's 'remarkable theory'.

3. My focus, over several published articles, arguing for the primacy of Mac's 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper' 1914, over Mac's own internal Reports and Sir Robert Anderson's memoirs on this subject. For example, Macnaghten does not confirm Farquharson's error about Druitt killing himself 'the same evening', but rather provides a loose twenty-four hour gap. This is too long for the maniac to be staggering around, a bloody, shrieking husk while facing no impediment to his watery grave (the method and location of suicide are, understandably, with-held by Mac).

4. The likelihood, I argue, that the 'North Country Vicar' article of 1899 and the clergyman's piece 'The Whitechurch [sic] Murders--Solution to a London Mystery' are not only about Druitt, they provide an explanation for the family's extraordinary belief in their tragic member's culpability (he confessed to a priest) and the modus operandi for Mac's turning Mr. Druitt into Dr. Jekyll: 'substantial truth in fictitious form'.

But the most critical breakthrough, I argue, was in realising that Sims is a Macnaghten source-by-proxy. That he was feeding the writer more exaggerated-fictionalised bits about Druitt, not in his 'Reports'. Eventually I noticed -- it only took three years -- that there is a detail in these writings which could not come from P.C. Moulson's Report, and yet which Mac knew and passed onto his famous literary and Liberal pal: that the fiend's brother, William, was frantically looking for his missing sibling.

Acton, Chiswick & Turnham Green Gazette
United Kingdom
Saturday, 5 January 1889
FOUND DROWNED. — Shortly after mid-day on Monday, a waterman named Winslade, of Chiswick, found the body of a man, well-dressed, floating in the Thames off Thorneycroft's ... Witness heard from a friend on the 11th of December that deceased had not been heard of at his chambers for more than a week. Witness then went to London to make inquiries, and at Blackheath he found that deceased had got into serious trouble at the school, and had been dismissed ...

In 1898, Major Griffiths working from Mac's 'Aberconway' version changed the Druitt family into anomic 'friends', and this discreet alteration, to protect everybody concerned, was continued by Sims -- whether he knew it was 'substantial truth in fictitious form' or not?

George Sims, as Dagonet, in his 'Mustard and Cress' column in 'The Referee' Feb 16th, 1902

... At the time his dead body was found in the Thames, his friends, who were terrified at his disappearance from their midst, were endeavouring to have him found and placed under restraint again.

Sims under his own name in 'Lloyds Weekly' magazine, Sept 22nd 1907, 'My Criminal Museum--Who was Jack the Ripper?

The doctor had been an inmate of a lunatic asylum for some time, and had been liberated and regained his complete freedom.

After the maniacal murder in Miller's-court the doctor disappeared from the place in which he had been living, and his disappearance caused inquiries to be made concerning him by his friends who had, there is reason to believe, their own suspicions about him, and these inquiries were made through the proper authorities.

A month after the last murder the body of the doctor was found in the Thames. There was everything about it to suggest that it had been in the river for nearly a month.


To know that William Druitt was desperately looking for his missing Montague you have either heard the whole story from not just the M.P. but intimates of Druitt -- like his family, or a family member -- or, you have at the very least read what we can read in the 1889 press account. which would also tell you that Druitt was a young barrister, who killed himself three weeks after the Kelly atrocity.

People used to ask me if there was any evidence in the meagre extant record that Macnagahten knew more about Druitt than just PC Moulson's Report (which would have given Mac the name, date of the body's recovery, and the train ticket found in a pocket) that is accurate, and the answer is yes: see above.

Whether by fortuitous accident or by sly design, Druitt morphed into a middle-aged doctor further protecting the Druitts, but Mac originally knew the basic biog. data about his preferred suspect -- and that blows the old paradigm to smithereens.

I can understand a Trevor Marriott dismissing this fragment as nothing; as too second-hand (eg. it's not even a source by Macnaghten) but that is looking like at it as a trained-professional member of law enforcement -- as in can an arrest be made? Historical methodology has a much lower standard of 'evidence' than that because the solution does not have to be absolute (eg. a conviction in court) rather it is openly provisional and thus subject to revision.

I would like to see debate on this point about the semi-fictional 'frantic friends', and whether others agree, or not, that it is a significant breakthrough?

We know from William Druitts testimony that he was searching for his brother Montague. But he probably wasnt the only one. Montague had friends who lived close to where his body was discovered. The Tuke brothers ran the asylum in which Montagues Mother eventually died. The Tuke brothers were at Oxford with Druitt and, like Montague, they were cricketing fanatics. It is quite possible that his friendship with them was the reason for his journey to Chiswick.

[Jonathan H]

Well, maybe?

The point I was making is that Macnaghten had information about Druitt outside of PC Moulson's Report, either from the 1889 press accounts or directly from the brother.

Either way he would have known that Montie Druitt was a young barrister who killed himself about three weeks after the Kelly murder and not 'the same evening' as Henry Farquharson mistakenly believed (and sure enough, in his memoirs Mac stretches the gap to a day and a night, making it impossible for him to deploy the Thames as the location of suicide -- as it would contrast too strongly with what he had told Sims about the fiend being so mentally shattered he had to kill himself immediately).)

On the other thread there is much patting on the back about the strength of the historical argument in favour of 'Kosminski' as the likely murderer, or at least believed as much to be Sir Robert and Swanson.

This is similar to arguing in favour of Druitt on the basis of another contemporaneous police chief's certainty.

You would think that these parallel theories would be in equipoise to all?

In fact it triggers vituperation and gnashing of teeth among some.

They dismiss the latter theory as mere fanatical supposition, an empty game based on smoke and mirrors, whereas the former is apparently sound and strong and intellectually respectable -- I presume because there was supposedly a positive witness identitifcation.

This despite the fact that the witness must have been confronting the suspect two years after he saw him? That the Adolf Beck miscarriage of justice -- and many since -- show how dangerously unreliable witnesses can be, however sincere and positive.

Actually there is a strong, if not stronger argument in favour of no witness identification of this suspect at all. They are in a critical primary source, 'Days of My Years' (1914) by Sir Melville Macnaghten and an excellent secondary source: 'Scotland Yard Investigates' (2006).

[Roy Corduroy]

We know from William Druitts testimony that he was searching for his brother Montague. But he probably wasnt the only one. Montague had friends who lived close to where his body was discovered. The Tuke brothers ran the asylum in which Montagues Mother eventually died. The Tuke brothers were at Oxford with Druitt and, like Montague, they were cricketing fanatics. It is quite possible that his friendship with them was the reason for his journey to Chiswick.

Welcome David and thank you



From the Commissioners of Lunacy Report 1882

[Jonathan H]

Abandon all hope ...

[Bridewell]

Dr T

Welcome David and thank you

[ATTACH]14698[/ATTACH]

From the Commissioners of Lunacy Report 1882

Another Dr T?!

[David Andersen]

Another Dr T?!

Since I worked with Dan Farson on his book re Druitt it has long been my contention that Druitt may have gone to Chiswick to visit the Tukes. At first it was thought he may have gone to visit his Mother but, as we know, she was not there at the time.
If this was the case it may explain how Montagues badly decomposed body was so quickly identified.
Feeling like Mother (whos case papers I have from the Tule asylum) its possible he went to them for help.
I contend that his final note was found at the Tuke asylum and that it was the Tukes who raised the alarm when Druitt went missing,
It is said that he was identified from papers found on the body, yet we have PC Moulsom , who searched the body claiming that that no papers were found on the body.
Dr Tuke notes, in Anne Druitts case papers the facts that several of her relatives had suffered insanity and suicide. Yet he makes no mention whatsoever of the very salient fact that her own son, who was known personally to him, had committed suicide just 18 months earlier and just a few hundred yards from the asylum.

[Jonathan H]

Yes, that's all possible but not very likely.

And is off-track regarding what this serial killer was really doing in the last hours of his life as the net -- though not a police one yet -- began to close.

According to other primary sources Druitt killed himself because he was, or thought he was Jack the Ripper. That he had told somebody of his dual identity and now feared being 'put under restraint' -- like mother -- and so vanished.

What the fragments show us is that his older brother William was alerted by an unidentified friend that his younger sibling was missing (eg. was not suddenly abroad) and he tried to find him. The brother now believed, rightly or wrongly, that he was hunting the Ripper -- with the family's respectable, bourgeioise reputation hanging in the balance.

The brother and the unidentified friend became fused-disguised as the generic 'friends' in Macnaghten's pliable crony-conduits to the public, from 1898.

As Macnaghten later told this element of the story, eg. the frantic 'friends' to Sims, and we know that 'friends' was altered in Griffiths from 'Aberconway's' 'family,' the police chief knew about William's frantic search.

That's the breakthrough.

Macnaghten can be shown, from sources by him and on his beghalf, to have known more than just scarps, than just consulting PC Moulson's Report.

That since Macnaghten knew that how could the hands-on, Ripper-obsessed, would-be-sleuth not know accurate biographical information about his preferred suspect? This is confirmed by his 1914 memoirs which though opaque about Druitt arguably make no mistakes about him either (eg. not a suspect between 1888 to 1891, not a dcotor, not middle-aged, never before sectioned, not an affluent recluse, not an instant suicide after Kelly -- and with the 'friends' returning to become, by implication, his family: 'his own people'.)