Druitt - A Link to the East End: The People's Palace

[aspallek]

In contrast to all other senior police officials who didn't.

Now, Ben, I'm afraid this is an inaccurate statement. Do we have record of any other senior police official who put forward a suspect while still in office? Only Macnaghten. The others, like Anderson for example, were reflecting many years later. That speaks volumes. Look, for example, at how Macnaghten himself modified his views in between 1894 and 1914, when his memoirs were published. Who knows what Anderson thought while he was in office?

Frankly, we simply do not have the views of many "senior police officials." Warren left none. Smith rambled a lot but named no suspect. Swanson identified Anderson's suspect but may or may not have agreed with his old boss. Abberline was not a "senior official" and only speculated years after leaving the force. Littlechild I suppose might qualify but he was Special Branch and again his only speculation of which we are aware dates from 25 years later! Ben, you portray this as Macnaghten vs. the whole of SY and City Police forces. Not so. Macnaghten's written opinion while in service and having access to all the information deserves far more weight. As Norma reminds us, that doesn't mean he was right but it deserve far more weight.

Furthermore, you seem to disregard the point that I have repeatedly made that Druitt as a suspect did not originate with Macnaghten in 1894. Farquharson, almost certainly a Druitt acquaintance, was already talking about him as the suspect in early 1891.

I just can't quite picture it, Andy.

Considering the furore these crimes had created, and the collective frustration and opprobrium that had resulted from them, I just can't envisage Macnaghten withholding information about it. At the very least, it would have insenstive to the likes of Swanson and Abberline.

I suppose we will never know for certain -- unless some document surfaces indicating he did -- and it is fair to disagree on this. I only know that Macnaghten was regarded as a man of great integrity. As such, in accordance with the prevailing ethics of his era, I find it difficult to envision him sharing confidential information when no conviction would result.

Speculation warning: This would be particularly true if the "private information" came from a clergyman under the seal of the confessional or at least of "spiritual counseling." Remember John Henry Lonsdale? In 1888 he was the Druitt family pastor (or one of them, at any rate, as assistant curate) at Wimborne Minster. He was also a classmate of Sir Melville's at Eton. Their wives' families' both lived at Chichester (though I don't know whether at the same time). [Here comes the speculation --->] What if the Druitt family confided their fears about Montague to Lonsdale, who in turn informed Macnaghten in the strictest confidence? That would most definitely be private information.

[Ben]

I do not believe Macnaghten would have shared that information with anyone

I just can't quite picture it, Andy.

Considering the furore these crimes had created, and the collective frustration and opprobrium that had resulted from them, I just can't envisage Macnaghten withholding information about it. At the very least, it would have insenstive to the likes of Swanson and Abberline.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Because he had such a senior position in the police,his views,whether you like them or not,are of prime importance in the case.But this is not to say his views about the ripper were correct

Great. I haven't negated any of that, Norma. Nor have I made "sweeping statements" about serial killers. I may have stated a few facts from time to time, for example that most serial killers that we know about derive from working class backgrounds and largely blue-collar occupations (mentioning a few examples of a few that didn't doesn't invalidate the fact that most of them do), or that most closely-clustered and circumscribed serials tend to be perpertrated by local agents (and since the vast majority of those local agents in this case came from working class backgrounds and blue collar professions...).

Neville Heath killed two women (not "several"); one in Notting Hill and the other in Bournemouth. Not fabulously comparable really, least of all geographically and economically. Ditto poisoner Cream.

I have though noted that Abberline was reputed to have thought so-----"a scion of a noble family"he is supposed to have said.

But that's obvious laughable fiction, isn't it?

and Macnaghten thought Druitt the likliest to have been the Ripper.

In contrast to all other senior police officials who didn't.

He could have been from any class -no particular class has a monopoly on murder or serial murder.

And that's where you're factually in error.

But regardless, however fantactically unlikely most discerning students of the case consider the possibility of an upper-class Jack to have been, I've never stated that's it's impossible because I lack final proof. Overwhelming probability points very strongly in the direction of a working class local or locally based serial offender. Crime scene evidence, eyewitness evidence, historical precedent, and expert insight into the topic indicate as much.

[Sam Flynn]

Dear Nats,

I dont think it matters two hoots whether George Chapman trained for five years under a senior Polish surgeon or just a Polish surgeon

You should, if only to clarify what Sugden actually says. Specifically:

"In 1880 his parents apprenticed him to Moshko Rappaport, senior surgeon in Zwolen" (Sugden, p. 441, 2002 paperback edition)

What Sugden omits to say (and I'm 100% sure not deliberately) is that we don't know whether Rappaport was "a" senior surgeon (i.e. the head honcho in his own little practice) or "the" senior surgeon in that village. I suspect, on balance, that Rappaport was one of a couple of "senior" surgeons who had practices in Zwolen at the time, but it's certain that nowhere can it be derived that Rappaport was one of the "senior surgeons in Poland". Secondly, Sugden gives us no clue as to the size of the village (in fact, he doesn't mention that Zwolen was a village at all), which may be a minor point, but it was certainly no sprawling metropolis. From my own research (posted last year, pre-crash) I ascertained that Zwolen's population probably amounted to fewer than 6,000 residents in the last quarter of the 19th Century.

None of this should cast aspersions on Sugden, for whom I have the utmost respect - on the contrary, it should clarify matters with regard to his (not) giving the impression that Kłosowski studied under some surgical "whizz-kid", which is simply not the case. The belief that Kłosowski's teenage apprenticeship and subsequent training (amounting to a few months) was of "med school" calibre is a myth that needs to be dispelled.

The good news is that, thanks to the digitisation of the Old Bailey and Times newspaper records, we can read the original evidence for ourselves - and it is on these sources (for precious little else survives) that HL Adam, and later Philip Sugden, largely drew. I'd recommend that you read them for yourself, because apart from anything else they make for fascinating reading.

Enough, already, from me on this thread - lest the Revd Spallek get justly peeved with me.

[Natalie Severn]

Gareth,
I dont think it matters two hoots whether George Chapman trained for five years under a senior Polish surgeon or just a Polish surgeon ,Sugden is the source and Sugden it is who discusses Chapman"s background and at no point does he suggest Chapman was an impoverished Polish immigrant -which you have said was the case on several occasions in the past.On the contrary,Sugden is most careful when describing his background and the family come across as better off than many.


Ben,
Macnaghten was Chief Constable of CID,Scotland Yard.Because he had such a senior position in the police,his views,whether you like them or not,are of prime importance in the case.But this is not to say his views about the ripper were correct,simply that any serious student of the case will take what he said seriously and argue about it on a serious level.
You keep making sweeping statements about serial murderers.How do you know what "moved" the Ripper? How do you know that the "serial" murderer"- of prostitutes in 1890, Dr Cream,differed in any way from the Ripper with regard to his motivation-ie what caused him to kill?
Are you actually saying all these murderers belong in their own particular "little boxes" or "compartments" and you know which box to put each killer in?Where do you place serial killer and ex-policeman,Christie? Is he the "gas man" or the "strangler" or what? Where do you place Neville Heath whose vicious attacks on several young women,consecutively, [along the lines of Emma Smith] caused them to die in agony?This by the way was an ex public school boy ,a fighter pilot in WW2 so yet again a non working class serial killer.
And it is not true that I am insisting the Ripper was a" toff'. I have though noted that Abberline was reputed to have thought so-----"a scion of a noble family"he is supposed to have said- and Macnaghten thought Druitt the likliest to have been the Ripper.
What I am arguing against actually, is YOUR INSISTENCE that HE WAS NOT.
He could have been working class---ofcourse he could,he could have been Kosminski but where is the proof?-------or he could have been from the middle or upper classes.He could have been from any class -no particular class has a monopoly on murder or serial murder.
In fact,since the Upper Classes in Victorian Times comprised less than 1% of the total population, and the middle classes something like 4% of the total population ,thinking of Dr Cream, George Chapman and co,its looking as though the ratio in Victorian times favoured the middle classes [for numbers of caught and convicted serial murderers coming from that class in Victorian times -pro rata the general population].

[aspallek]

If the private information was of a particularly incriminating nature, I can't see him failing to share it with Anderson, Swanson, Abberline et al.

But the private information was not of an incriminating nature, not legally speaking. Macnaghten is very clear that there was not sufficient evidence to convict anybody. Since there was no possibility of conviction, I beg to differ with you. I do not believe Macnaghten would have shared that information with anyone.

Ben, we now know that Druitt was not really Macnaghten's suspect. Druitt as a suspect existed already in the mind of Henry Richard Farquharson. Farquharson lived ten miles form Druitt and was exactly the same age. Their families travelled in the same circles and they certainly would have known one another and probably rather well.

[Ben]

On the contrary, dozens picked up on Macnaghten's drowned doctor and ran with him even if they didn't know his name

Dozens of what, though, Andy?

Not dozens of senior policemen, surely?

We know Macnaghten had an interest and a passion in detective work, but whether that equates to a "knack" for the job is more a matter of interpretation. You're quite right to observe that he had access to the investigators who were in charge of the case at the time of the murders, which makes it all the more conspicuous that those same contemporary investigators clearly didn't share his prime suspect theory. If the private information was of a particularly incriminating nature, I can't see him failing to share it with Anderson, Swanson, Abberline et al.

Best regards,
Ben

[aspallek]

C) Nobody else seemed to have agreed with Macnaghten, especially not those at the helm of the case in 1888.

On the contrary, dozens picked up on Macnaghten's drowned doctor and ran with him even if they didn't know his name. Only now we know that the drowned doctor did not originate with Sir Melville, but rather was reflective of Farquharson's "son of a surgeon."

Macnaghten wasn't a "professional policeman" in the sense that he hadn't had years of investigative experience. He was, however, a capable administrator with access to the very investigators who worked on the active investigation and also possessed "private information" presumably unknown to those "professional policemen." For what it's worth, Macnaghten seemed to have a sort of natural "knack" for police work. He was far from a bumbling fool even though he did obviously made some errors. Or were they errors?

[Ben]

and that agenda creeps into far too many of my posts

Your posts, I meant, Nats. Although by responding to it, I guess it creeps into mine too.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Nats,

Sugden"s assertion,as I recall in his chapter on Chapman,is that this surgeon he trained under was a highly trained man.

He may have been (although what "highly trained" means in the context of a mid 19th-century Polish village surgeon is another matter), and possibly he was one of the senior practitioners in Zwolen village, but that's not the same as saying that he was "one of the senior surgeons in Poland". Indeed, a Zwolen medical practitioner who also gave Kłosowski a reference in 1885 (a Dr Oltetski - he who gave us the "leeching and cupping" info), states that Moshko Rappaport was a "local" surgeon. We're not talking Joseph Lister, Christiaan Barnard or Magdi Yacoub here.

Also that his family contributed to his training.

There is no record of that among Kłosowski's papers, so one can only assume that "my parents apprenticed me to Moshko Rappaport to study surgery" became extended by speculation to "Rappaport charged tuition fees, and my parents paid them " - none of which can be substantiated by the surviving documentation.

[Ben]

Hi Natalie,

You're seemingly very eager for Jack the Ripper to have been from a higher class, and that agenda creeps into far too many of my posts, from my humble observations.

You must recognise that I was in fact making points about several of your anachronisms and shibboleths re the middle and upper classes, Victorian serial killers and their class background

I've been responsible for no anachronisms. Show me one I've made. And my suggestion that Jack the Ripper was probably not an upper-class "Throw another peasant on the fire!" type of Hollywood lore certainly doesn't count as one.

The fact remains that Sir Melville Macnaghten ,assistant commissioner of police 1889, had Druitt down as the Ripper and Druitt was neither working class or local so you cannot simply dismiss Druitt on the basis of class andon him not being local ,or wish him away,because you have first to deal with why Macnaghten thought he was the ripper.

A) Macnaghten didn't know anything about serial killers, unlike modern commentators who have a decade of experience from which to inform their judgement.

B) Macnagthen wasn't even a professional policeman, having never risen through the ranks and only receiving a high ranking direct from the tea plantations in India.

C) Nobody else seemed to have agreed with Macnaghten, especially not those at the helm of the case in 1888.

Then you venture off on some wild irrelevent tangent about poisoners Cream and Chapman. Firstly, Chapman was locally-based (just as Cream was in Lambeth) and certainly not from an upper-middle class background, and secondly, the reliable eyewitnes and physical evidence (poisoning) pointed specifically away from, say, a local laboruing type and in the direction of someone with medical knowledge. Not so in the case of Jack the Ripper, and nearly all the other non-poisoning serial killers who make up the majority. Poisoning serials tend to be perpetrated by doctors and those with medical knowledge; white collar professions, and just as poisoning serials are in the minority, so too are upper-middle class serial killers. Not so in the case of Jack the Ripper, and nearly all the other non-poisoning.

I'm afraid it's purely an assumption that JTR specifically targetted a victim "type", rather than taking easy advantage of what was most readily available within his own geoegraphical, ecomonical and cultural orbit as far more serial killers do.

You tend to make assumptions on the basis of inappropriate comparison with 21st century statistics about "serial killers",how they operate and where

If it's "inappropriate" to make comparisons with more modern serial killers, it's even more so to make comparisons with serial poisoners.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Ben,

You must recognise that I was in fact making points about several of your anachronisms and shibboleths re the middle and upper classes, Victorian serial killers and their class background, your views on why it was the general ignorance and ineptitude about "serial killers" that were held by the Victorian Police , that failed to catch "serial killer" Jack etc etc .

c]the East End and the City.


You argue the toss about Montague Druitt and his class and non local background to somehow disqualify him from being Jack.
The fact remains that Sir Melville Macnaghten ,assistant commissioner of police 1889, had Druitt down as the Ripper and Druitt was neither working class or local so you cannot simply dismiss Druitt on the basis of class andon him not being local ,or wish him away,because you have first to deal with why Macnaghten thought he was the ripper.
You make assumptions about the class origins of Victorian serial killers based on modern day murderers and serial killers that simply do not match up with what we know about those "serial killers" who made the headlines in Victorian England.We know about that several who in fact GOT CAUGHT and who operated in the working class districts of London in the 1880"s/90"s -viz. serial killers Dr Cream and George Chapman.
And I refer you to Dr Cream as a good example of a non-working class "local man" with a medical background who became a serial killer and was hung for murder in 1892.
You will now probably argue the toss over semantics along the lines of since Dr Cream was a poisoner "serial killer" it somehow disqualifies him in your book from the term "serial killer"-however, pick and choose your terms as you like, the fact remains Dr Cream was a Victorian ,middle class, serial killer.And he was not a local man.Moreover,he selected prostitutes as his victims.So he had actually quite a bit in common with Jack,even if his modus operandi wasnt the same.
Dr Shipman , the most prolific serial killer in the UK ever, didnt murder his victims in the same way as Christie ,the ex policeman ,or Neville Heath the ex public school boy and WW2 pilot,but he was still a "serial killer". You tend to make assumptions on the basis of inappropriate comparison with 21st century statistics about "serial killers",how they operate and where.



Gareth,
You will need to take it up with Philip Sugden since these are the assertions he makes on Chapman"s family of origin and the surgeon he trained under.Sugden"s assertion,as I recall in his chapter on Chapman,is that this surgeon he trained under was a highly trained man.Also that his family contributed to his training.

Regarding the East End/City this is not "guess work" it is based on research from several sources.

[Ben]

If a budding Bundy/Sutcliffe/Wright/Jack the Ripper (doesn’t really matter what name we give him) happened to have working and social commitments in 1888 that involved dividing his time between Blackheath, the City and Dorset, when he developed an irresistible urge to seek out unfortunates to murder and mutilate, would you still expect him to have operated within his own cultural, class and geographical boundaries, regardless of how this would have affected his chances of finding (in 1888 remember) suitably vulnerable females and leaving a victim pattern that could not implicate him?

The "if" is implausible in the first place, Caz.

Most serial killers just don't fit the "if" you're conjuring up in this speculative scenario.

If we examine the majority of serial killers who operate within a small, walkable circumscribed locality, you'll find that most of them do operate within their own "cultural, class and geographical boundaries", which is why anyone with any insight and expertise into this topic recognises the stronger probability of a working class Jack who lived and/or worked in the area of the murders. The killers take advante of the most readily available victims in their immediate environment, rather than deciding upon a specific victim and deciding "Ho hum, now where might I find some of those - bingo!".

If you've decided from the outset the Jack the Ripper was specifically targetting a specific type of victim, and then deciding where he might find some of those as opposed to the opportunistic marauder who takes advantage of the most available victims, then you're simply not learning from experience or those with more insight than you on the topic.

My other question is what evidence do you have of criminals using the Victoria Home as a haystack in which to become needles?

Lodging houses were popular with the criminal contingent in Whitechapel and Spitalfields; that's the reputation they enjoyed. If it was an absolute doddle to snuff out the miscreants from their lairs, that wouldn't have been the case, and yet we know it was.

I take it you reject the idea of Jack using the organs he took from his victims to relive his experiences later at his own convenience.

Not bothered about that idea one way or the other.

What about you - do you reject the idea that they were cannibalized, for example?

Regards,
Ben

P.S. Good post, Gareth. I'm not sure what Natalie's general observation is here at all. Cream and Klosowski poisoned people. And? Rich people walked about in the City, and sometimes poor people too. And?

[diana]

Here's some more info on the people's palace

[Sam Flynn]

George Chapman, trained during a long period of apprenticeship in surgery [5 years] by one of Poland"s senior surgeons-his parents footing the bill for his lengthy training. He emigrated to London in 1887.

I'm sorry, Nats, but all but the first half of the first paragraph is incorrect, and the final two assertions are conjectural. Moshko Rappaport, to whom Kłosowski was apprenticed for 5 years, was a village surgeon (not, as far as we know, even "the" village surgeon) in a Polish backwater with a population amounting to no more than 6,000 people. He may have been the soi disant "Senior partner" in his little practice, but being the King of the Castle in one surgery in the village of Zwolen certainly wouldn't have made him "one of Poland's senior surgeons".

On the second point, there is nothing in the original sources that suggests his parents paid for his "tuition" - indeed, given that he was a teenage apprentice, he probably paid his own way by doing whatever teenage apprentices might have been expected to do at the time.

On the third point, we simply do not know when he emigrated from Poland, nor when he arrived in England, other than it must have been sometime between Spring 1887 and some indeterminate point in 1888.

Anyhow, not a Kłosowski thread, so I won't labour the point any further.