How certain was Mac?

[robhouse]

That a probable link between Macnaghten regarding Druitt as the Ripper is not worthless, except to the horoughly biased.

This is not actually a sentence.

Inevitably with you Rob, despite all your research and elegant prose, you over-reach by stacking the deck for the lay-reader and thus give the misleading and false impression that Aaron Kosminski was Scotland Yard's prime suspect (much later his fictional counterpart, 'Kosminski', was Anderson's and maybe Swanson's).

I gave my reasons in my book, and they are quite simple. Anderson was head of CID, Swanson was in charge of the Ripper inquiry. I assume that they were in a position to know more about the case than Macnaghten, who, as you are aware, was not even at the MET at the time of the murders. The more important factor is that Swanson corroborated Anderson's statement that Kozminski was a major suspect in a personal note. And, as I say in my book, it is not unusual for police officials working serial killer cases to have differing opinions about who is the top suspect. Macnaghten "preferred" Druitt as a suspect... this was his preference. He was clearly not certain that Druitt was the Ripper. This you seem unable to accept, but instead endlessly refer to "Mac" as a super detective, weaving intrigue behind the scenes for some unknown reason.

Also, I do not see why it is my responsibility when I am writing a book to refute every opinion or theory that is proposed by other authors. I am not a fan of Stewart's Sailor's Home theory... and to be honest, if I had tried to include that in my book, it would have just been a confusing distraction.

I don't honestly see any point in refuting your fantasies, such as your idea that Kozminski was a fictional invention of Anderson or Swanson.

Your theories are incoherent.

RH

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

What makes you so convinced—and this is hand-on-heart time—that in his 1894 report/memorandum Macnaghten wrote a scrap of truth about his trio of "more likely" suspects?

Regards,

Simon

[Jonathan H]

To Robhouse

Thanks for the English lesson, and I appreciate that it was agony for you to have anything to do with me in order to defend the rules of grammar.

I think you have manipulated the primary sources for your book.

This what a lawyer does with a brief, but the best works of history -- though inevitably polemical and biased -- still allow the reader to make up their own minds because they show why other interpretations are not as strong, and are not afraid to display sources which contradict their thesis.

My thesis is that Sir Melville Macnaghten believed, rightly or wrongly, that Montague Druitt, an entirely posthumous suspect, was 'Jack the Ripper'. This upper class police chief successfully took steps to discreetly shield the deceased murderer's 'good' family from ruin and the Yard from the embarrassment of being too late; of having chased a phantom.

How is that incoherent?

Give Mac more credit: his propaganda fools you in 2012.

To Simon

I agree that both versions are stitched together, one deceitful fragment after another, the most glaring of which is to falsely claim a familial link between Cutbush and Cutbush.

That takes real cheek!

The Mac Report comes in two versions and that they contradict each other, to put it politely, is not just because one is a 'draft' and the other the finished copy.

This is because both mislead the reader (they certainly misled Griffiths and Sims) into assuming that Druitt was investigated by police either before he drowned or very soon afterwards (sims will have the police about to arrest the 'doctor' and discover that he has vanished, and so on).

Secondly, the so-called 'draft's' opinion was disseminated to the public via writers with prestige and authority. One of them said that it was a definitive document of state ...?

The other glaring shift is that in the 'draft' version the family are not sure Druitt is guilty but Mac pretty much is, whereas in the filed version Mac dismisses Druitt for a lack of hard evidence yet paradoxically concedes that he may have killed himself the night of the Kelly murder -- thus perfectly fitting his 'awful glut' litmus test -- that the family 'believed' he was the Ripper, and that their deceased member was a 'sexual maniac'.

I completely agree that deliberate and consistent gentlemanly fibbing is going on here.

But we must also remember that the official version was never sent. Perhaps Mac was never going to send it -- only archive it? It's official but it was dormant too, and unknown. It has no impact on the bureaucracy whatsoever.

Therefore the Cutbush dodge was only ever shown to the cronies for whom it meant nothing -- and who do not, as expected, refer to it.

On the other hand, the essential opinion of 'Aberconway' is that Druitt was probably the Ripper.

This matches Mac sources-by-proxy, eg. Sims from 1899 to 1917, and Mac sources by himself in 1913 and 1914

That's the 'scrap of truth' which predates Mac's Report(s) and which originated with the family and was then picked up by the local Tory MP (and possibly the Vicar too) and was essentially revealed to the public, repeatedly, from 1898 to 1917: like it ot lump it, but the Whitechapel maniac was an English bourgeoisie.

The 1894 Report, either version, has been allowed to trump what Macnaghten said and wrote in 1913 and 1914. Said and wrote, moreover, without the shield of anonymity or constrained by short-term pressures-of-state and partisan politics.

This focus on the 'memo' at the expense of the memoirs is a grave historical error, in my opinion, which has distorted, and conitunes to distort, understanding of the subject.

The very title of the memoir chapter confirms what Mac had anonymously released trhough Griffiths: it's not a mystery, at least according to this police chief.

What he finally conceded which was new but obvious for anybdy who recalled the hunt for Sadler was that the real Jack's 'ghost' was only laid to rest 'some years after' he killed himself (eg. Mac did not know that Kelly was this killer's final victim until the story broke with Farquharson).

The too narrow a focus on the Report(s) has led a number of modern, secondary sources (some otherwise superb) to not analyse both versions of his alleged 'Home Office Report' and, worse, to simply eliminate either Mac's 1913 comments and/or his 1914 memoirs.

[robhouse]

I think you have manipulated the primary sources for your book.

That's quite an accusation. Do you care to provide any examples of where I have "manipulated the primary sources"?

RH

[Jonathan H]

That you call my theory 'incoherent' is also quite an 'accusation' but this is always something happening to you, isn't it?

You are never rude and offensive.

You can quote my opinion chapter-and-verse from previous threads about your stacking-the-deck in your book.

So don't pretend in your unearned indignation that this is all a rude shock.

I have written many times before that I think that your torturing of the sources to force that square peg into the round hole is sincere -- and not that of a hustler -- because you are so oblivious to your own bias.

Think I am alone here in thinking that?

In the previous post I compared it to being like a lawyer rather than an historian, arguing a brief which means eliminating alternate theories -- which you've predictably missed.

You say my thesis is incoherent and so I put it simply.

No comment from you, of course.

You want my critique again? Fine. Look it up, because I am not your phucking valet.

[robhouse]

You claim that this simple summary comprises your entire theory. Yet you seem to forget your extensive rambling posts, which are necessary to butress your "simple" theory; claiming that Anderson and Swanson were completely absent-headed, and/or intentionally duped by "Mac"; your incoherent notions of a super-suspect, a fictionalized "Kozminski," Macnaghten pulling all the strings, manipulating the "primary sources by proxy", his cunning manipulations to shield (why?) an Etonian family, assuming that he would have a motive for doing so; your failure to realize that it would be massively egregious insubordination to do so; your assumption that Macnaghten was effectively "going rogue" within the MET; your assumption that the death of the Ripper and his later discovery would somehow put egg on the face of the police. (In my opinion, it would do the exact opposite. It would provide a very simple story, and closure, so the public could breath a sigh of relief.) Not to mention the simple incoherence of your posts, their ponderous length, your incoherent sentences. (Do you realize that your sentences frequently do not even make any sense at all?) Your incessant hijacking of other threads, your cheeky and annoying reference to "Mac", your repetitive use of "big words" like "redacted", "proxy", "polemic"; your preachy manner, making idiotic statements like "his propaganda fools you in 2012." This type of fantasy and rhetoric might be good enough for your students or your toadies on the message boards, but it doesn't fly with me. You challenge me of being "rude and offensive"... fine. I don't deny that your incessant preachy know-it-all ramblings annoy me.

You claim I am oblivious to my bias. I wrote a suspect book, promoting a suspect as a likely Jack the Ripper. You think I was aware of the dangers of that, the pitfalls? I tried to avoid them. I approached the sources in a circumspect manner, allowing for alternate interpretations. I made an argument that clarified why I think Kozminski is a valid suspect, and should be (in my opinion) the top suspect today, and why many of the reasons he has been dismissed are invalid. I don't particularly care if certain people on these boards agree with you, and seem to believe that I am "oblivious to my own bias" or that I am too dumb to be aware that I am "torturing the sources". Who are they anyway? Are they hiding in the corners, afraid to come into the light. Your cabal?

Are you aware how much of a hypocrite you sound like saying that I am torturing the sources? You tend to toss the primary sources out wholesale, or massively rejigger them to suit your purposes. You basically toss out both Anderson's writings, and Swanson's marginalia, despite the fact that they were both in a position to know much more about the case than Macnaghten ever did. You ignore Macnaghten's own statements, for example: "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." This is a theory... obviously... a personal preference. Nothing more. It happens all the time on serial murder investigations. Read about the Yorkshire Ripper case, the Green River case. Obviously both Kozminski and Druitt were considered as possible suspects by the police. You somehow take what is a quite simple situation—probably a mere suspicion of his family, not unlike hundreds of other suspicions—and turn this into a knowledge, a fact, one that allows you to dismiss Kozminski, turn him into a phantom, a fictional suspect. Is this what you call remaining true to the sources? It is quite obviously not.

You have made a very specific accusation that I have "manipulated the primary sources." I would like you to give specific examples from my book of where I have done this.

But I don't expect you will. I expect you will continue with the Jonathan Hainsworth show. One would think that I would have the sense to simply ignore your posts in the future. And I hope I will.

RH

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

It's no good getting upset.

You believe Sir Robert Anderson and the "Swanson" endpaper notation.

Jonathan believes Macnaghten.

I believe that both Anderson and Macnaghten were talking horsefeathers.

One of us will eventually be proved wrong.

Who cares?

Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

Hi Rob,

It's no good getting upset.

Good point Simon.

Who cares?

Another good point... but for some reason, people still seem to be interested in studying the case.

RH

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

Of course people are still interested in the case. That's just how it should be.

But the truth, whatever it may turn out to be, should not unnecessarily trouble us.

We are not in a competition.

By the way, I very much enjoyed your book.

Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

Thank you Simon. I appreciate it.

Yes, I agree. I would love to hear the truth, whatever that may be. I would not trouble me in any way if Kozminski didn't do it.


RH

[Phil Carter]

but for some reason, people still seem to be interested in studying the case.

Hello Rob,

It seems to this unwise old sage that there is a semi-permanent state of impassé here.
We have-
Those like yourself who believe in the 'evidence' making Kosminski the main possible suspect.
Those like Jonathan who believe in the 'evidence' making Druitt the main possible suspect.
Those like Mike who believe in the 'evidence' making Tumblety the main possible suspect.
Those like Simon (and myself) who believe that the above 'evidence' examples are hogwash.
Those who believe in another possibility.

Now as things stand, unless either your good self, Mike or Jonathan can produce incontravertable police evidence showing that any of these men can be with (as near as hoped) certainty that X was the main possible suspect- the real evidence is that between 1888 and 1895 the police were STILL hunting Jack the Ripper. (Swanson included)
so until you, Mike or Jonathan have prima facae factually written official police evidence to show the above to be untrue (i.e they were NOT still hunting the Ripper) and that all the official statements of Anderson, Swanson and Co were false (i.e. That they actuajy had their man) then that is how it stands.

I understand you have additional material to present to us all later this year.
I understand Neil and Rob have material to be presented to us all (hopefully) soon as well.

For the sake of impassé - I hope that whoever brings what to the table actually cuts some of the fog away once and for all. Because the LAST thing we need is another 'marginalia' 'diary' 'MM' 'knife' '3rd hand 'hand-me-down' story' 'etc etc.

Our beliefs are what they are. I dont care who did what. All I want is to actually get to near the truth. That would be a fine change after yearr of utter rubbish.
(Personally I hope that the murders 1888-1895 were committed by 4 or 5 different men- and that Kos,Dru,Ost, Tum and a Royal corgie dog did the deeds in a cabal) haha!

Best wishes

Phil

[Scott Nelson]

Actually, Swanson wasn't still hunting the Ripper after 1891, maybe early 1892.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Scott,

Re what policeman knew what I respectfully rèfer you to the thread 'No known suspect pre 1895 was Jack the Ripper',

It shows quite clearly that DURING THAT TIME PERIOD, 'Jack the Ripper' could not have been any kown suspect due to the comments of the police themselves.

Of course- you dont believe it- thats a given..because of your own theory. Fair enough. i agree to differ.

best wishes

Phil

[Jonathan H]

Who's the toad?

To Robhouse

Well, well, well, you must feel so much better that you've got all that bile off your chest, out of your mouth and into my face.

You even attacked me as a teacher, about which you know nothing, yet claimed to write with such spiteful authority. Sound familiar?

But then there's nothing a hard-core. close-minded buff won't stoop to.

Actually my students are encouraged to be free thinkers, and often dissent from my opinions as they regard them as dated or even histrionic (look it up!) and so it would amuse them to be thought of as brainwashed by me of all people.

Of course I am your only source for that defense, but then that's the limitation of single sources in terms of making sweeping judgments.

Thank-you, though, for proving my point that your deep-seated, almost pathological resentment of me is based on our disagreeing about the sources.

And of course criticising your book. You've read my critique before so nobody falls for your 'show me the evidence' routine.

Two words: George Sims. Or is that too convoluted for you?

What this is really about is that disagreement is not allowed by the narrowly and humourlessly doctrinaire.

You've personalised this 'debate' from the start, from the moment you discovered that I was not going to fold just on your say so. Why should anybody?

So you think 'proxy' is a big word? You think 'redacted' is a big word? God save us from the mediocre!

Oh, and 'Mac' was Macnaghten's nickname according to himself and others, and it fits/expresses the jaunty personality who wrote those cheerful memoirs.

Plus he's dead, and for quite a long time.

I alone bring the 'honourable schoolboy' back to life in my work, at least as a charismatic and enigmatic personality (look them up).

Could somebody do it better than me?

For sure! Legions could, no doubt. But Mac's ghost will have to settle for me, for now, until somebody better comes along.

Which isn't you, pal.

You think that my posts are inoherent and ponderous and preachy and rambling -- and obviously unconcincing. You have every right to your opinion (though, no, you don't understand my thesis because your summary of it in your previous Phuc-U post is all wrong. Of course that will be my fault again. When I make the summary short you still complain -- always moving the goal posts.)

Nevertheless you have every right to that opinion which is that my arguments, articles, and posts are utterly and completely worthless.

That's harsh but fair for sure.

Likewise I don't think you have ther slightest clue about what you are talking about either.

What is not fair and is quite insulting -- and as usual inaccurate -- is that you characterise anybody who agrees with me, or can follow what I have written, or has complimented me on anything, to be a 'toady' of mine on the message boards.

What an ugly and mean-spirited thing to write.

So, nobody could agree with my tedious snake-oil 'show' unless they are one of my groupies or flunkies?

Does that mean that Mike Hawley, who has enjoyed my work and I have certainly enjoyed his -- is he one my toadies?

In case you haven't noticed Mike and I disagree about the likelier police suspect to be the Ripper.

Is the admittedly very attractive and charming Tom W., is he my bitch?

Tom and I also disagree on the likelier 'Jack'. But he's found some of my stuff -- you know, the same ponderous, incoherent, rambling, preachy wank 'show' from Down Under -- thought-provoking, and so I guess he must beanother degraded toadie.

What about Lynn, and a number of other people?

Adam Went and I fought ferociously, but also made up, complimented each other's work sincerely and publicly, and parted on very positive terms. But we never agreed about Druitt at all, but that does not stop us from being humans.

But is Adam one of my toadies too, for writing that I was tenacious? That will sure be news to my fellow Aussie!

Watch out Simon Wood! On one particular aspect, Mac's deceit, we seem to some extent to agree with one another. You're next, buddy!

Look, I don't mind if you insult me, Robhouse, but why not leave other people who also have a right to their opinions -- even to heretically enjoy mine now and then -- well out of it?

[Jonathan H]

1895 fused with 1888?

To Phil Carter

We agree more than you realise.

I think Mac kept it to himself about what he learned about Druitt in 1891, and thus Scotland Yard had no sense of the fiend being stopped until 1895 and the combination of the William Grant failure and Anderson and/or Swanson suddenly believing that the likeliest Ripper was deceased. In 1895, for the time in the extant record, Anderson refers confidently, albeit briefly to [the un-named] 'Kosminski' to Griffiths.

So I agree with you up to a point. All the police were clueless (except one) until 1895.

Furthermore I think that Anderson, in 1908, misremembering William Harcourt, a Liberal Home Sec. before 1888 but back in govt. by 1895, as the Home Secretary during the initial murders (it was really the Tory Henry Matthews) is his sincere but failing memory connecting the wrong dots: eg. 1888 via 1895: Lawende's affirmation to Grant and then Anderson's subsequent learning (presumably from Macnaghten) that 'Kosminski' was mad, a masturbator, local to the area, that he hated harlots, and was sectioned soon after the final murder (Kelly not Coles) and was, thank goodness, deceased (I say presumably Mac because he alone seems to have known that the Polish Jew was not deceased).

Of course this opinion is only mine, Phil -- well, mine and my merry band of toadies, sycophants, flunkies, and groupies, whom I expect to promptly post how brilliant and dazzling is my preachy 'show', I mean theory.

... Toadies?