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

[perrymason]

If any senior investigator thought that Druitt was the Ripper, and that his death somehow signaled the gradual withdrawl of officers and slow down of the Ripper investigations, we would not have what happened the summer of 89 when Alice McKenzie is killed and forces were immediately ramped up again....we would not have the Seaside Home story,... nor would suspects still be called in to be identified by witness as late as 1896.

The ONLY reason that he is a suspect is an alleged discussion between his family members and a senior investigator about their concerns. Tell me....what families that lived near the killings that had family members who were psychologically disturbed didnt wonder about that themselves,..particularly if the whereabouts of that family member concerned were unknown during that Fall.

The facts are, that The Ripper investigation was active until closed in 1892(? )...so Druitt's death did not signal the end of expeditures on the Ripper investigations. Had a Senior Man compelling evidence The Ripper was dead, thousands of pounds would have stayed in Government coffers.

Best regards.

[aspallek]

Ben,

I think what Norma is saying is that we should keep our minds open to the possibility that each of these has a kernel of truth.

Personally, I think the bit about the "bloodstained clothes" in the article relating to Farquharson's tale is a bit of journalistic hyperbole or possibly even an embellishment on HRF's part. However, there may be a bit of truth to it.

The interesting factor for me now becomes the recent discovery that in 1894 Henry Farquharson had planned to retire from his seat in West Dorset and stand for election from Bethnal Green, of all places. This clearly indicates an interest in the East End on Farquharson's part. One wonders if this connection led him to be aware of his Dorset neighbor's interest in the East End as well -- and just maybe -- a room with bloodstained clothes.

Michael,

I think it is normal for investigative activity to be ramped up again any time there is a new crime that might possibly be seen as part of the series. No one is saying that police knew for certain that the killer was dead in early 1889. It may have been an assumption by some of them. But when a new murder occurs, yes, of course the investigation will stir again. That really proves nothing.

[Natalie Severn]

It is a bit ironic that authors have been trying to establish a link between the Ripper and the Cambridge Apostles when the link may have been rather to the Oxford supporters of Toynbee Hall and the People's Palace. Wrong university but similar idea of intellectual elites.

Well its true that the philosophy was a bit elitist in that Barnett"s lot seemed to think Oxford and Cambridge were the only places to provide education in its real sense....and I agree thats elitist.But the People"s Palace was a bit "down market" in its aims and aspirations,according to Mrs Barnett who sounds a right snob actually.She and hubbie Barnett and a few other Toynbee toffs didnt like the idea of "vocational" education at their place----even though by providing the skills of the three "R"s they might have enabled their pupils to get decent jobs.But the People"s Palace lot had no such qualms and just got down to trying to make sure their charges could read and write as well as possible-hence the idea of these "Pupil /Teacher" programmes------not bad thinking to my mind!
But going back to Druitt, I reckon Mrs Caroline Dyke Acland knew something and told Dr Stowell who was a long time close friend and colleague of her husband, who it was.There"s no smoke without fire Andy-and we have estabished now that one of these Dyke Aclands was definitely in the East End from 1884 [ at the latest] working bang next door to the Tabram murder site ----often on a DAILY basis.I saw the entries with my own eyes.
Best Natalie

[Natalie Severn]

Ben,
No big deal here.The reporter wasnt quoting "verbatim" or using "direct speech".It was indirect,reported speech and it says quite enough.
Regarding the remarks about Albert Bachert,he too may have had it slightly wrong but its a mighty funny thing to be coming out with two months after Druitt"s body was fished from the Thames and at a time the police WERE running down their troops!
Natalie

[Ben]

It was indirect,reported speech and it says quite enough.

...Enough to know that the informer was rather seriously misinformed, yes.

What's the provenance for that Bachert account, by the way? I remember discussing it many moons ago, but I'll be dashed if I can remember the history of that purported exchange between Bachert and a police official. As for the police "running down their troops", I recall that another poster - Greyhunter, I believe - produced some figures which seriously called into question that claim. Unfortunately, this was pre-"crash".

[aspallek]

Ben,

You don't need "provenance" of every last detail. 120 years on we could not possibly expect to see an orginal witness deposition or interview notes for every piece of information. What we do need is to take certain things with a grain of salt, as you indicated earler.

[Natalie Severn]

Ben,
Albert Bachert was chairman of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee.This committee is spoken of most respectfully by the top hatted toffs from Oxford who had digs in Commercial Street and Leman Street in 1888[-see book on Toynbee Hall] and who religiously "went out on patrol with them" see Canon Barnett: His Life and Work Vol 1 . Bachert would be the voice of the original cttee .This statement was made in March 1889 . He spoke with the police in the first instance, on behalf of the Vigilance Committee,but the police swore him to silence------unless more murders happened.
So Bachert"s[ official] complaint to senior officers seems perfectly reasonable: Why were there a reduced number of patrols in the area after the Miller"s Court murder?
The response from the police clearly troubled Bachert whosimply did not believe them. He states that the police suggested to him that "the patrols of their vilgilance committee might be disbanded as the police were quite certain the Ripper was dead."He was fished out of the Thames two months ago and it would only cause pain to his relatives if we said any more than that".

[Natalie Severn]

Mike I would accept what you say but for the fact that this story came from Caroline Gull[ AKA Mrs Caroline Dyke Acland]via Dr Stowell Dyke Acland"s friend and one time medical assistant .
D Stowell ,like Gull, achieved great eminence as a doctor in his lifetime and was one of the most respected and highly thought of physicians in the UK.Since Gull was Queen Victoria"s physician,as well as Mrs Dyke Acland"s father ,his word was almost certain to have carried great weight.Since Druitt came from an equally distinguished family of surgeons, some of whom had written books making breakthroughs in medicine, its likely the "old school tie" was used to prevent the scandal of a fellow surgeon"s son being discovered to be the Ripper.
Thats how things in the "upper echelons of Society" tend to work over here----or did do until recently.Macnaghten may have known his name in 1889----through a source unknown to us.I bet no one else was privy to the name----not until a policeman"s nephew was named in 1894.That seems to have changed everything and caused such a hullabaloo that poor old Macnaghten felt compelled to pick up his pen and write that memo!
Best
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

...........and I bet all those Hurrah Henrys that gathered around the Dyke Aclands swigged their champers , harrumphed loudly ---[ once the initial shock of his suicide had passed ofcourse].........."Yah!...Yah! I always rather thought old Druitt was a bit of an odd old bod come to think of it-----the Ripper eh? ..........Whato chaps so THATS who it was.....and so it goes on.....
But its a good puzzle for all that!

[Johnr]

Hello Natalie and other debaters,
Healthy that not everyone is pro-Druitt.
Unfortunately, I think the source of the Bachert story you quote is Ripper author Donald McCormick. In the second edition of his book ,McCormick claims he learned from Dr Dutton's notes that in March 1889 Bachert was badgering the police about adequate numbers and the rest of the story.
McCormick has found to have been unreliable about lots of claims in his book.
(See the Dissertations).
It is my understanding veteran journalist McCormick obtained lots of his yarns and facts from the Kemsley House newspaper groups huge newsclipping files in the '30's.
Perhaps now digitisation is becoming more ubiquitous, a possible source for this true or not so true story will be revealed.
I agree with Andy, even if senior police thought MJD was the Ripper, when other similar murders happened, given the highly charged political climate, they could not take chances, so more police poured back in.
JOHN RUFFELS.

[Ben]

Thanks for that, John. That's jogged my memory. I knew the source for the Bachert story was of a highly dubious nature.

[perrymason]

Hi again all,

Thanks for the replies Nats and Andy. I know you two know your stuff, so Im not disagreeing really...but I think we need to inject some variables into the equation. The numbers of Police assigned to The Ripper cases in the Fall of 88 was unprecedented, and enormously expensive. The call down of forces in January and February still did not diminish the police to pre-Ripper levels. An expert was called in to compare Alice's death to the Ripper murders. These things represent a commitment of sizable dollars/pounds. Would any Senior Investigator assigned request additional resources to the extent that were deployed during the previous Fall, while believing the Ripper was dead? Would anyone grant those monies, if they thought Jack was dead? Would Sadler have been in a line-up years after the fact, to see if a witness from the Ripper cases recognized him....if they believed Jack died in late November or early December 1888?

I think the continued level of financial commitment is far beyond merely pragmatic Police thinking...its a statement that JtR was not believed to be dead, or known, as late as 1896.

Cheers all.

[Natalie Severn]

Yes,thanks for that John.I dont think it matters much either way quite frankly.For example ,I dont see reason to doubt the Stowell story now,about Caroline Dyke Acland-----its a quite likely source for Macnaghten"s "private information".But neither Bachert"s grump with the police or Mrs Dyke Acland"s "private information,[or Macnaghten"s come to that] ,make Druitt the Ripper.But you do graduallybegin to see here how the gossip could have come about and how it then becomes a very faint possibility that he could have been JtR.
The truth is the Ripper left no clues whatsoever.No one seems to have seen him with any certainty or heard him.The apron piece -its just another red herring really.
The Hutchinson story though,is very curious in what it tells us "didnt happen".He appears to never have been suspected by any of the police at any time.Why?-was he just a decoy? Very strange stories we get told about him talking to a policeman the day before the inquest-but that policeman never materialising ---did he ever actually exist?......stalking Mary Kelly at 2am for an hour ------while she was being murdered!!!!!Not being present at the inquest..........and no one seems to have asked why....Oh come on...

[Dan Norder]

JtR was not believed to be dead, or known, as late as 1896.

What one or more police officials believed could have been (and apparently was) different from each other. What any of them believed versus what could be proven and acted upon could be different as well. Beliefs can also change over time. The fact that you can find one or more police officials taking certain actions on certain dates in no way proves what all of them thought at that time, let alone before or after.

It can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that JtR was in fact believed to be dead well before 1896... The Macnaghten Memorandum was written in 1894, and the belief was obviously around at least some time prior to that.

[Stewart P Evans]

The Bachert Story

...Enough to know that the informer was rather seriously misinformed, yes.
What's the provenance for that Bachert account, by the way? I remember discussing it many moons ago, but I'll be dashed if I can remember the history of that purported exchange between Bachert and a police official. As for the police "running down their troops", I recall that another poster - Greyhunter, I believe - produced some figures which seriously called into question that claim. Unfortunately, this was pre-"crash".

The Bachert story was indeed another McCormick invention, and it appeared in both editions of his book. Here it is from the first edition -



It would appear that in this account McCormick has confused the McKenzie murder (17 July 1889) with the Coles murder (13 February 1891). McCormick's first publication of this story was in 1959 and the second 1970. Between these two editions Cullen's 1965 [Druitt] book had appeared and the Thames suicide had been identified as Druitt. Thus in the later edition McCormick adds material on Cullen and his Druitt theory as well as some confusing (for the uninitiated) material on 'the doctor drowned in the Thames' story.