Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

M.P. Farquharson-Druitt -- A New Source

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    To Lynn

    It's just my opinion -- and every big gun rejects this line of argument as a travesty -- but I think Mac practised at muddying pools.

    He did it quite alone, all to protect the Druitts, the Yard's rep, and his own role -- and because it was fun in a schoolboyish-prankish way.

    He told Abberline that the drowned man was Sanders, that the young medical student -- who really was the subject of a Home Office Report -- had taken his own life in the Thames.

    He told Littlechild, perhaps after Tumblety was safely dead in 1903, that the American 'Sychopathia Sexualis' was 'believed' to have killed himself after arriving in France (thus neatly disposing of Andrew's Tumblety mission in Canada).

    He told Anderson, in 1895, that 'Kosminski', until then just another name from the house search list of 1888, had been sectioned in March of 1889 after trying to knife his sister, that his family 'suspected the worst', that he was 'soon after' deceased, and that -- this time truthfully -- that the madman masturbated like there was no tomorrow (Swanson arguably repeated, rather than initiated this opinion).

    He told Tom Divall that the murderer had fled to the States, that he was put into an asylum, and died shortly after. Then there were no more murders.

    He told Griffiths that 'Aberconway' was a copy of a definitive document of state, and that police were preparing to arrest the English doctor suspect, and thus knew at the time that Kelly was the final victim.

    He told Sims, that the doctor was within hours of being arrested, and that he was an affluent, unemployed recluse who had been 'twice' sectioned for wanting to kill harlots -- and it was a scandalous blunder that the state had let him back out onto the streets.

    He told the press in 1913 that he knew the fiend's true identity but would never tell it, and had destroyed all the relevant documentation. Of course he had told a gentleman reporter -- in Sims -- fourteen years before, and he didn't destroy anything.

    In his 1914 memoirs, he came close to fessing up: the Polish Jew and the Russian doctor are nothing, the American suspect is nothing, the police were clueless between late 1888 and early 1891. The suicided suspect -- definitely a Gentile and not a Jew -- had never been sectioned, was not confirmed as a medical man with 'anatomical knowledge', and yet was omnipotent against the state except for his own vile illness, which finally broke him, and yet he didn't kill himself on the same evening as the final murder.

    Even if my earlier theorising is wrong, I still argue that if you just take the 1914 source, the de-facto third version of the 'memo' as the definitive Ripper source -- because it was the one public document under Mac's own knighted name -- then it dovetails both with Farquharson (but not his error) and the precious little we know of the real Druitt.

    Comment


    • #77
      loyalty

      Hello Jonathan. Thanks again.

      I certainly agree that at least some of the blocks in the foundation of your theory are in place. If Mac (or someone) were actively trying to make the situation muddied, it would explain why there were so many theories afoot and why they were so garbled.

      But it's difficult to think that the Druitt family inspired such loyalty. I can understand loyalty to Eton, fellow Tories, etc. But it looks to me like Mac is really jeopardising himself and his career for this family.

      And it still "feels funny" that his "protectionism" began AFTER the memorandum in which Druitt is named. (Of course, I understand your reasoning about the memorandum--it was private and a "just in case" device.)

      Cheers.
      LC

      Comment


      • #78
        To Lynn


        In my opinion, Macnaghten would have protected just about anybody connected to a posthumous Ripper because to not do so risked harming the Yard's rep.

        That was an institutional, public relations concern for an affable but reticent police administrator -- who in class outranked them all.

        Hence, his not putting anything on paper about Druitt (that we know of) until forced to -- just in case -- because of 'The Sun' as late as early 1894. Assuming he really did write both versions of his 'Home Office Report' within hours of each other, then since they are so different it both exposes and expresses his acute agitation about his 'secret' knowledge.

        About how to pitch it? How to both conceal and reveal ...?

        And then he didn't need to send it, and didn't.

        One imagines with great relief the Cutbush scoop got no traction and the surgeon's son tale in Dorset did not resurface -- not yet.

        Mac still did not release any info. until 1898 (Anderson had already done so 1895, but about a 'deceased' suspect whom Mac knew was alive) and I think again was somewhat forced to take the plunge, with Griffiths and Sims, because of the 'North Country Vicar' and his imminent, humiliating revelation of a clueless constabulary -- right on cue to mark the tenth anniversary of Druitt's burial.

        Loyalty to the Force and the Tories came first, I think, but he needed to protect the family -- any family -- to keep them quiet about the lack of police cognition about the Ripper's identity.

        This is the sub-theme of the two M.P. sources of 1891 and of the 1914 Mac memoirs.

        It's the convoluted machinations in-between that creates a red herring the size of Bruce from 'Jaws'. For a quarter of a century Mac was discreetly bobbing and weaving, talking out of different sides of his mouth, misleading peers and cronies, yet straining to 'keep everyone satisfied'.

        It was meant not only to be harmless, but helpful to all. Everyone was a winner.

        What on earth was the alternative ...?

        Post-2008 'Ripperology' is, to some extent, still deformed by being misled by that long redundant merry dance -- by the 'error-riddled memo' -- instead of the through-line, one as strong as a main circuit-cable, between Old Etonian sources Farquharson (1891) and a retired Macnaghten (1914).

        Comment


        • #79
          the lack of police cognition about the Ripper's identity

          Hello Jonathan. Thanks, as always.

          "Loyalty to the Force and the Tories came first, I think, but he needed to protect the family -- any family -- to keep them quiet about the lack of police cognition about the Ripper's identity."

          But it seems that "the lack of police cognition about the Ripper's identity" would be only deepened by his reticence, or, better, subterfuge?

          Cheers.
          LC

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Jonathan H View Post
            He did it quite alone, all to protect the Druitts, the Yard's rep, and his own role -- and because it was fun in a schoolboyish-prankish way.
            Excuse me butting in Jonathan, but as usual this sounds all over the place to me. You make Mac look like a push-me-pull-you character, one minute all protective of his presumed monster's family, the next naming him in this 'insurance policy' memo, and then having years of fun dropping hints and misinformation about the whole sordid story to his pen-happy cronies, all the while imagining that he has personally done wonders for the Yard's rep.

            I'm sorry, but what exactly did he do for the Yard's rep? He didn't stop Abberline, Smith et al from admitting the Yard's failure to catch the fiend; and it was Anderson who tried to reassure the world and his wife that the murderer had been identified (as a low class Polish Jew) and safely caged.

            On the surface, all Mac seems to have done is to have had his own hunch, without a shadow of proof, based on private information that he either unaccountably failed to divulge to his superiors or they simply didn't share his enthusiasm about. At the time of writing the memo he merely put down a few of his own reasons for thinking this Druitt character made a better suspect than Cutbush (or Kosminski or Ostrog for that matter): 'said to be' a doctor - does the job - tick; apparently drowned himself immediately after the awful glut on Nov 9 - great - tick; was also 'said to be' sexually insane and suspected by his own family (at least according to a source Mac evidently trusted) - phwooar, bingo! - tick. And why on earth would he have committed all this to the memo without having informed his superiors about his suspicions? He'd have come unstuck if it had been used for its alleged purpose, wouldn't he? It seems he was just keen to get his own theory down on an official document, and nothing wrong with that.

            The irony is that Mac was arguably only doing then what theorists are still doing today: starting with a couple of nuggets dropped into his lap, his ego tells him "By George, I know who it was! I'm special!" After that, who cares if his pet suspect was definitely not a medical man after all, or clearly didn't kill himself straight after MJK? Who cares if the source could have been a malicious gossip passing on prejudiced views dressed up as genuine Druitt family fears? Who cares if every other policeman involved in the case favoured other suspects, other 'types', or had no theory at all? Mac remained satisfied in his own mind that his original theory was the best one, and felt there was little harm in dropping hints here and there, although without proof he'd have been foolish and unprofessional to hand anyone Druitt's name on a plate. Naming him in the memo was a whole different ballgame, and he did make it clear that it wasn't an accusation as such.

            If his first and last thoughts were to protect the family's name and look after the Yard's rep, he certainly went a funny way about it!

            Love,

            Caz
            X
            Last edited by caz; 04-20-2012, 06:57 PM.
            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by caz View Post
              Excuse me butting in Jonathan, but as usual this sounds all over the place to me. You make Mac look like a push-me-pull-you character, one minute all protective of his presumed monster's family, the next naming him in this 'insurance policy' memo, and then having years of fun dropping hints and misinformation about the whole sordid story to his pen-happy cronies, all the while imagining that he has personally done wonders for the Yard's rep.

              I'm sorry, but what exactly did he do for the Yard's rep? He didn't stop Abberline, Smith et al from admitting the Yard's failure to catch the fiend; and it was Anderson who tried to reassure the world and his wife that the murderer had been identified (as a low class Polish Jew) and safely caged.

              On the surface, all Mac seems to have done is to have had his own hunch, without a shadow of proof, based on private information that he either unaccountably failed to divulge to his superiors or they simply didn't share his enthusiasm about. At the time of writing the memo he merely put down a few of his own reasons for thinking this Druitt character made a better suspect than Cutbush (or Kosminski or Ostrog for that matter): 'said to be' a doctor - does the job - tick; apparently drowned himself immediately after the awful glut on Nov 9 - great - tick; was also 'said to be' sexually insane and suspected by his own family (at least according to a source Mac evidently trusted) - phwooar, bingo! - tick. And why on earth would he have committed all this to the memo without having informed his superiors about his suspicions? He'd have come unstuck if it had been used for its alleged purpose, wouldn't he? It seems he was just keen to get his own theory down on an official document, and nothing wrong with that.

              The irony is that Mac was arguably only doing then what theorists are still doing today: starting with a couple of nuggets dropped into his lap, his ego tells him "By George, I know who it was! I'm special!" After that, who cares if his pet suspect was definitely not a medical man after all, or clearly didn't kill himself straight after MJK? Who cares if the source could have been a malicious gossip passing on prejudiced views dressed up as genuine Druitt family fears? Who cares if every other policeman involved in the case favoured other suspects, other 'types', or had no theory at all? Mac remained satisfied in his own mind that his original theory was the best one, and felt there was little harm in dropping hints here and there, although without proof he'd have been foolish and unprofessional to hand anyone Druitt's name on a plate. Naming him in the memo was a whole different ballgame, and he did make it clear that it wasn't an accusation as such.

              If his first and last thoughts were to protect the family's name and look after the Yard's rep, he certainly went a funny way about it!

              Love,

              Caz
              X
              Caz
              Excellent post I think its called hitting the nail firmly on the head !

              Comment


              • #82
                'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper'

                To Chris George

                Soyonara ...

                To Caz and Trevor

                Yes, that is one way of interpreting it, but it's not the only way -- and arguably not the strongest. In fact, terminal.

                This is because it is way too narrow a focus on a 'memo' Mac never sent; a narrow, redundant paradigm which arguably lies at the heart of much of modern 'Ripperology' being so off-track (which is not to say that strong competing arguments cannot be made for the primacy of Aaron Kosminski and Dr. Tumblety too).

                The most important misconception it entrenches -- as a definitely, ascertained fact -- is that Macnaghten did not do a thorough investigation of the late Mr. Druitt, in about 1891. That he relied only on arms-length, 'private information' from presumably Farquharson (who, by the way, knew that Druitt was not a doctor) and then, quite out of character, the 'action nan' Ripper-tragic left it that.

                Yes, that might be what happened, but if you examine all the sources by Macnaghten, all the sources about him, and all the sources he used as proxies then it is so unlikely as to be implausible that he would have left it at just inaccurate, hysterical hearsay. If that is all it was, he would have disproved it himself and put the family's anguish at rest.

                In that document, the official version, Druitt is almost nothing, yet Macnaghten is quite deceitful about him being a suspect whilst alive. That's one of the give-aways that he is manipulating data. If he was being as candid as you claim he would have admitted that Druitt was an entirely posthumous suspect, as he does in 1914.

                But he doesn't, it was not sent, and so the official version had no internal or external impact whatsoever. It's existence was unknown until after the salient sections of the 'draft' had been published in 1965.

                Instead, starting in 1898, Macnaghten disseminated to the public, through reliable cronies, that the 'police' had identified 'Jack the Ripper'.

                How could the 'police' be so certain?

                According to Sims, the maniac had been sectioned for wanting to kill harlots.

                Thus his culpability came from the murderer's own lips.

                Since every element in Sims' profile is an exaggeration or inversion of a true element of Druitt then this is probably a glimpse of how the family, the MP, the people he told, and the police chief could be so certain (if the 'North Country Vicar' is talking about Druitt then the confession from his own lips was to an Anglican priest after Kelly and would explain why he felt he was 'going like mother' eg. into a madhouse).

                Macnaghten calculated that in a public fight for the hearts and minds of the Edwardian public the prestige and fame of Sims would trump the quibbles of working class police (Abberline, Reid, Littlechild) who knew this tale must be mistaken (wrong in the claim the 'doctor' was being strenuously hunted in 1888 or that it was really an American con man) and yet the iconic image of the fiend as a Gentile gentleman, and not a poor Jew, was dominant and ascendant for decades.

                For all its guile the ruse worked: Jack the Surgeon. It was so successful that Mac could not put the Jekyll-Hyde genie back in the bottle when he wrote his own account in 1914.

                A 'better classes' residue of this shocking revelation lasts even to this day: the fiend was one of 'us', not one of 'them'.

                The unlikely notion, never thought-through by secondary sources, that Macnaghten would be so indiscreet and callous as to put the Druitt family at risk -- by telling Sims so much that that the 'drowned doctor' would be recognisable to his circles -- is why the 'errors' are so obviously deliberate. Otherwise he put the family at peril but ... by sheer luck the details were all wrong, and they could not be rescognised?

                This discreet fix is so perfect because Sims would also not feel callous because the Ripper has no family, only pals -- and they already knew the terrible truth. They were about to tell the cops, before the body was even fished from the river, but the latter already knew all about their mad friend because they were so super-efficient.

                The other aspect people arguably misunderstand is that Macnaghten could not control this story entirely. It could resurface in Dorset at any time. The Vicar maybe that resurfacing, though from the north. If so, then the propaganda offensive crushed it.

                William Le Queux, himself a right-wing, professional fantasist, was never fooled by the leftist Sims and he rebooted the mystery-- as a mystery which had stumped the constabulary forever -- in 1923. A few years later a brash colonial, Leonard Matters, went looking for the 'drowned doctor' and not finding him assumed he was a self-serving myth of the establishment -- which was half-right.

                Sims was forgotten, Matters had 'exposed' the drowned doctor, and yet the image of Jack the Gentleman stubbornly persisted detached from the river suicide (the hoax Diary using an English businessman is thus, to some extent, a throw-back to this cultural icon).

                In the latest 'New Independent Review' I have two articles.

                One argues that a new MP source found by Paul Begg backs this 'case disguised' theory. The other argues that the full 'Aberconway' also backs this theory, and that the document is not a 'draft' -- at least not as that term is meant in terms of the old paradigm.

                I think that the theory should be judged on its merits, or not, in those more extensive pieces.

                Once more I reiterate that you are being distracted by a huge red herring. Whatever Mac was doing or not doing between 1891 and 1913, his public comments (of 1913) and memoirs the following year match the MP iceberg-tips of 1891.

                Lastly, I think the other factor that is under-appreciated is this question: what was Macnaghten supposed to do with a posthumously known 'Jack'?

                Comment


                • #83
                  In my opinion, Macnaghten would have protected just about anybody connected to a posthumous Ripper because to not do so risked harming the Yard's rep.
                  The greatest harm which could have been done to the reputation of the Metropolitan Police would have been for an officer, of command rank, to be shown to have concealed the identity of the most wanted criminal of the age (posthumously or otherwise).

                  Regards, Bridewell.
                  Last edited by Bridewell; 04-21-2012, 10:16 PM.
                  I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Lastly, I think the other factor that is under-appreciated is this question: what was Macnaghten supposed to do with a posthumously known 'Jack'?
                    Name him?
                    I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      To Bridewell

                      Name him ..?

                      You mean in public?

                      A man who was beyond the safety of due process?

                      You talk about Macnaghten being [potentially] irresponsible and that is your answer?

                      Name him?

                      Never mind the ruination that would bring to the man's family?!

                      It's one thing to be related to a convicted felon, but related to a tragic suicide against whom no legal proof could be offered because there would be no trial?

                      Not to mention putting the Yard in the firing line for a libel suit, to which the original 1891 MP article fearfully alludes:

                      'I can't give details, for fear of a libel action; but the story is so circumstantial that a good many people believe it.'

                      Sir Robert Anderson, in 1910, with his own deceased Ripper -- who admittedly wasn't actually dead -- says he could name him but this would have severe legal implications in terms of libel:

                      '... I should almost be tempted to disclose the identity of the murderer and of the pressman who wrote the letter ... provided that the publishers would accept all responsibility in view of a possible libel action. But no public benefit would result from such a course, and the traditions of my old department would suffer.'

                      It is your solution which would be wildly inappropriate, as Sims writes in 1917:

                      'Had he been found alive there would have been no mystery about Jack the Ripper. The man would have been arrested and tried. But you can't try a corpse for a crime, however strong the suspicion may be.

                      And the authorities could not say, "This dead man was Jack the Ripper." The dead cannot defend themselves.

                      But there were circumstances which left very little doubt in the official mind as to the Ripper's identity.'


                      True, Mac had been projecting [the un-named] Montague Druitt's identity onto the public for nearly twenty years but if you protectively fictionalise that profile, thus making him unrecoverable, then they don't have to 'defend them themselves'.

                      I think Mac was not only responsible but clever, even witty.

                      He was much more discreet than the honest Anderson who began telling people, from 1895, that he knew the fiend was a sectioned madman -- though he was not going to name him! (Swanson did, but in a private notation he reticently shared with nobody, not even his own family).

                      Macnaghten informed the public -- anonymously, at least until he retired -- that the Ripper had been identified, that he was deceased, that he could never receive due process, and that he was a member of the English, professional bourgeoisie who had suffered from a maniacal illness, yet one which allowed him to appear normal: 'Protean'.

                      Furthermore, Jack's culpability came from his own lips and that his anguished circle were trying to get him incarcerated, and were in touch with the relevant authorities.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Truth

                        Sorry Jonathan but I have to agree with Bridewell...name him is what, in his position, he should've done...or else repaid every penny he took from the public purse...if, that is, it was genuinely a question of honour?

                        Do you detect a faint aroma of sarcasm there Jonathan? Honour alas is one-sided as regards some of the illegitimates who really run this country!

                        All the best

                        Dave
                        Last edited by Cogidubnus; 04-22-2012, 03:29 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          No worries, Dave, but you've lost me with all that?

                          But then you know me, I'm wrong about everything when it comes to the Ripper.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            What I Actually Said

                            To Bridewell

                            Name him ..?

                            You mean in public?

                            A man who was beyond the safety of due process?

                            You talk about Macnaghten being [potentially] irresponsible and that is your answer?

                            Name him?
                            This was indeed my answer, but to the following question posed by you:

                            What was Macnaghten supposed to do with a posthumously known 'Jack'?
                            Had you asked, instead:

                            What was MacNaghten supposed to do with a posthumously suspected 'Jack'?

                            my answer might have been different.

                            Oh, and I didn't say, nor did I mean, "in public". Those words are yours, not mine. If, as your question states, Druitt was known (as opposed to just suspected) to be the Ripper, MacNaghten should have put that fact (as it would have been) on record. You cannot libel the dead; nor can you be convicted of libel if you can demonstrate (on the balance of probabilities) the truth of what you assert, and that it is a reasonably-held belief. Either MacNaghten knew, or he didn't. If he knew, a libel action would be most unlikely to succeed; if he only suspected, it would be most unlikely to fail. Are you saying that MacNaghten did know, or that he didn't?

                            Regards, Bridewell.
                            Last edited by Bridewell; 04-22-2012, 12:53 PM.
                            I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
                              This was indeed my answer, but to the following question posed by you:

                              Had you asked, instead:

                              What was MacNaghten supposed to do with a posthumously suspected 'Jack'?

                              my answer might have been different.

                              Oh, and I didn't say, nor did I mean, "in public". Those words are yours, not mine. If, as your question states, Druitt was known (as opposed to just suspected) to be the Ripper, he should have said so unequivocally in the files. You cannot libel the dead; nor can you be convicted of libel if you can demonstrate (on the balance of probabilities) the truth of what you assert, and that it is a reasonably-held belief. Either MacNaghten knew, or he didn't. If he knew, a libel action would be most unlikely to succeed; if he only suspected, of course, it would be most unlikely to fail. Are you saying that MacNaghten did know, or that he didn't?

                              Regards, Bridewell.
                              Ah, knowing and being able to prove it is one thing, knowing and not being able to prove it is another - so maybe Macnaghten 'knew' But libel wouldn't be a considerations with a private report in police files, which is why they were kept closed for 100 years. I expect we've both seen enough police reports to know the degree of speculation they sometimes contain! But able to prove it or not, Macnaghten still wouldn't have named Druitt in public. The police got hauled over the coals for saying they'd caught the Yorkshire Ripper, even though they had and knew they had.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Sorry Jonathan but I have to agree with Bridewell...name him is what, in his position, he should've done
                                Absolutely, he should. There is no integrity for a police officer in concealing the identity of a vicious murderer. It is emphatically not a police function to airbrush embarrassing facts from the pages of history to protect the 'good name' of a family.

                                Regards, Bridewell.
                                I won't always agree but I'll try not to be disagreeable.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X