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

[aspallek]

Well, since Farquharson had planned to stand for election from Bethnal Green something must have stirred his interest in the East End. I still wonder whether that was purely an intended political move or whether there was some genuine interest in the East End on Farquharson's part.

[aspallek]

I've just had a reader of this forum accuse me of "clinging tenaciously" to the Bachert story and I fear Stewart has written me off as a kook. Really, I'm not clinging to the story.

Look, all I'm saying is this. All it takes is one senior police official to make such a statement to Bachert in early 1889 to establish that Druitt was under suspicion very shortly after his death. It doesn't matter whether Bachert believed what he was told. It doesn't matter whether or when he may have said anything about it to anyone about it. It doesn't even matter whether any other police officials believed it. Most commentators get caught up in these irrelevant details. Despite the fact that McCormick was prone to inventing "facts" it is certainly well within the realm of possibility that a police official could have made such a statement to Bachert. Therefore, we should not automatically assume this is a fabrication even though there is no independent evidence of it.

What I am trying to do is establish when police first knew of Druitt as a suspect. The identification of Farquharson as the West of England MP removes any reasonable doubt that Druitt was the "son of a surgeon" in question. That dates police knowledge of Druitt as a suspect from early 1891, three years before the Macnaghten memorandum. If a police official did say this to Bachert, the date gets moved up another two years. "If...."

[Stewart P Evans]

Extant

I've just had a reader of this forum accuse me of "clinging tenaciously" to the Bachert story and I fear Stewart has written me off as a kook. Really, I'm not clinging to the story.
Look, all I'm saying is this. All it takes is one senior police official to make such a statement to Bachert in early 1889 to establish that Druitt was under suspicion very shortly after his death. It doesn't matter whether Bachert believed what he was told. It doesn't matter whether or when he may have said anything about it to anyone about it. It doesn't even matter whether any other police officials believed it. Most commentators get caught up in these irrelevant details. Despite the fact that McCormick was prone to inventing "facts" it is certainly well within the realm of possibility that a police official could have made such a statement to Bachert. Therefore, we should not automatically assume this is a fabrication even though there is no independent evidence of it.
What I am trying to do is establish when police first knew of Druitt as a suspect. The identification of Farquharson as the West of England MP removes any reasonable doubt that Druitt was the "son of a surgeon" in question. That dates police knowledge of Druitt as a suspect from early 1891, three years before the Macnaghten memorandum. If a police official did say this to Bachert, the date gets moved up another two years. "If...."

'Kook', no, you are a thoroughly nice guy Andy...

However, from the extant official reports of 1889, and after, there can be no doubt that such a theory was not entertained at that time.

[aspallek]

Stewart, I'll give up after this, I promise. I think you are missing my point. It doesn't require a police "theory." It only requires one police official making one statement to Bachert, which the latter may or may not have believed.

[Stewart P Evans]

Weakest

Stewart, I'll give up after this, I promise. I think you are missing my point. It doesn't require a police "theory." It only requires one police official making one statement to Bachert, which the latter may or may not have believed.

We are all at our weakest when pushing theories and speculation without evidential support.

[Jeff Leahy]

Stewart and Andy

Many thanks for this information. The whole Farquharson debate and the placing of Druitt in the East end does seem to have generated interesting discussion on when Druit's name was first raised in connection to the Ripper crimes.

I cant help agreeing with Keith Skinner, however, much as it is agreed that McCormick is an unreliable source, it is almost impossible to determine what is truth, rumour or invention without seeing or knowing Mc Cormicks original source. (even if you do have the 'original' when he was working from second hand sources or news paper stories...)

However it often amused me why the CIA would employ 'remote viewers' to look for missiles in Siberia, when it was known that they had no greater percentage odds than you or I of finding one? The reasoning (from my source) was that, Even if their information was random and incorrect. Focusing the search on a specific area gave greater chance of detection than not having anywhere to look, so they generate greater success than people looking using other methods.

So even if McCormick is totally wrong if researchers are looking in specific areas because of debate you guys have generated...then something, either way, might possibly turn up...I think there's a logic to that? (Be mindful but keep looking? )

Sorry Andy I still don't buy the whole Druit as JtR thing...are you certain he could have murdered Chapman and caught a train back to Blackheath in time to play cricket?...I'm not sure.. I very much enjoyed your pod cast however...

Fascinating stuff as always

Many thanks Jeff

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Stewart,
While I agree with you that Bachert is entirely unreliable and a thoroughly odd character to boot,I am reminded,when considering at what point senior police were aware of Druitt as a suspect,of Macnaghten"s remark.In his autobiography he stated his belief that
"Jack the Ripper was pulled from the Thames "after he had knocked out a Commissioner of police [this must be Warren] and very nearly settled the hash of one of Her Majesty"s Principal Secretaries of State[this is Matthews].
So he is referring here to the press condemnation of Matthews,the resignation of Warren and the suicide of Druitt.
This to my mind refers to the course of events as revealed in retrospect by Macnaghten,it does not prove they knew about the suicide soon after he had been pulled from the Thames,but it "suggests" he had early information on it.
Obviously he may just be attempting to cover his back from public or reader criticism here,like I believe Anderson was also doing in his autobiography,when he too said he had positive knowledge of who the Ripper was.
Its pretty obvious neither had any such knowledge of who the Ripper was----two different Police Chiefs offering us up two entirely different prime suspects?Get off!

Best wishes
Norma

[aspallek]

Sorry Andy I still don't buy the whole Druit as JtR thing...are you certain he could have murdered Chapman and caught a train back to Blackheath in time to play cricket?...I'm not sure.. I very much enjoyed your pod cast however...

Fascinating stuff as always

Many thanks Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I'm glad you enjoyed the Podcast. I enjoyed doing it. I also think it is rather doubtful that Druitt was JtR but I do believe he is the best named suspect.

In answer to your question, yes Druitt could easily have made his way by train from the East End to Blackheath in plenty of time for the cricket fixture that day. This has been well documented in the other threads. The rail journey takes only about 20 minutes today and would not have taken much longer in 1888. Trains began to run before 7 am. No problem at all. In fact, Druitt's participation in that cricket match is actually a plus for his candidacy as a suspect as it definitely establishes his presence in Greater London at the time at least one of the murders took place.

Oh, and, Stewart,

I know I promised to give up after the last, but -- yes, I know it is a weak point. I have said so. That is why I do not use it as the basis for any theory. Yet, the possibility of its being true cannot be discounted.

[Natalie Severn]

What I meant when I said neither Robert Anderson or Macnaghten knew who the Ripper was,because they each chose a different prime suspect, so neither could have known FOR CERTAIN because in that sense they are contradicting each other-two of the most senior police officials on the Investigation.The other who profoundly disagreed the Ripper"s identity was ever known---let alone with any certainty, was the City Chief of Police Henry Smith.
I support Andy"s view here that the Bachert story may have a basis of truth in it.But I agree with Stewart that it has to be purely speculative.




Norma

[caz]

I did describe the City as affluent because, in the main, it was. If you ventured onto Osbourn Street, you would have ventured into non-affluent territory, but that wasn't in the city, was it? If you bothered to read the thread, you may have picked up upon Andy's observation that cultural and class bounderies existed between the City and the East End as well as purely geographical ones. Serial offenders are known to operate within such bounderies.

To argue that common lodging houses weren't suitable bolt-holes is indicative of a woeful lack of understanding as to their nature and history. They were popular with the criminally cooerced precisely because they enabled the miscreants to become proverbial needles in the haystack.

Quote:
Moreover it was run by ex met police officers and those who lodged there were considered to have a good character----as opposed to those who lived in the common lodging houses of the disctrict.

Ah, splendid. So I guess they'd let Denis Rader, Ted Bundy, Gary Ridgway and Harold Shipman straight in if they were around in 1888. They were all of superficially good character too.

Hi Ben,

Coming late to the discussion - as usual - I would just like to ask you a couple of questions:

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?

I only ask because you still appear to think there was some sort of invisible, electrified cordon around the area in which the Whitechapel victims were clustered, which would have made such an offender skirt round it when looking for women to attack, to avoid the fatal shock that would surely be delivered if he so much as put one foot over the line separating the City from its victim-rich East End neighbour.

Either that, or you believe the only men capable of committing such ’orrible deeds were those already confined by their culture, class and geography to a life within the cordon. On balance I would prefer the former to be the case, since you have no cause to be a snob and I don’t really have you down for a bigot.

My other question is what evidence do you have of criminals using the Victoria Home as a haystack in which to become needles? It’s entirely circular to claim it was a popular base for criminals and their activities ‘precisely’ because they could remain undetected there. If they were even a little bit successful at remaining undetected, how would you know it was popular with them? Deathbed confessions, perhaps? Thought transference? Or merely another of your assumptions?

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 terribly convenient, I don't suppose, fondling a kidney with one hand while masturbating with the other, while twenty Victoria Home dwellers are looking on, wondering what the hell they did to deserve the 1888 version of Britain's Got Talent.

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

It may be an inconvenient fact Ben,that you have so far preferred to ignore, but ,as I have said before, there were indeed serial killers about in Victorian times and a middle class and an upper working class serial killer at that,one being Dr Cream,who murdered a series of South London prostitutes in Lambeth, another area with vast stretches of slum property in London.He was CAUGHT in the early 1890"s by an ex CID man"s careful "monitoring".The other serial killer,operating concurrently with Dr Cream ,was 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 and lived in the East End -including Whitechapel- during 1887-9.He was also "CAUGHT" by London"s police- arrested by Inspector Godley who had worked on the Ripper case via CID during the murder of Mary Ann Nochols.
Also,what you say about the City boundaries in 1888 just aint so.Caz is absolutely on the ball here .Rich and poor rubbed shoulders daily in the City-especially in the area around Aldgate/Houndsditch and St Paul"s"s Carter Lane area.Those are facts.

[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.

[diana]

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

[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?

[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.