druitt getting the sack

[pinkmoon]

I have an open mind on the subject however I'm swayed a little towards druitt because the story that runs through my family that originates from my great grandparents who were children at time of jack the ripper and lived in Whitechapel was that the locals were lead to believe by local police that murders had stopped because murderer had drowned himself in Thames after last murder and was a toff

[Jonathan H]

To Limehouse

Primary sources show that Macnaghten was diligent,had a superb memory, and was obsessed with the Ripper case, calling it the greatest regret of his life that he was not on the Force--thanks to Warren--to catch Druitt.

In my opinion there is no way he thought for a moment that Druitt was 31, or a doctor or that he killed himself immediately after Kelly.

Forgetful Mac, or Misinformed Mac was a hastily contrived theory conjured up by Dan Farson in 1959, working to a tight deadline, and it is just untenable.

Untenable then and untenable now.

Because, arguably, the information in his memoirs is not incorrect. See below.

To Chris Scott

Since Mac did not destroy his draft or rewrite of his 'memo' and did not destroy the one on Scotland Yard files (in which Druitt's age is not given, but it is put on the official record file that he may not be a doctor but is definitely a sexual maniac) I think he was lying.

He was lying to compassionately reassure the Druitts, those who still knew, that when he retired the protection he had quietly afforded them would remain in place because he had brruned all his papers. Very meelodramatic.

As you say, it also makes clear that this is his suspect and the documentation is his property and not the Yard's.

To Cogi'

Posturing?

I think you are very, very, very unfair to the 1951 source. He has understood the import of Mac's memoir chapter better than Sudgen, Begg, Cullen, Odell, Rumbelow, et. al., eg. the Ripper was an entirely posthumous suspect who came from a respectable family, and the latter had to be protected. And that Mac is not revealing the complete data as to why he was so certain.

Absolutely spot on, and he got this without 'Aberconway' and without Druitt's identity having been revealed.

Your gut is wrong. Get it checked out.

On the other hand I think you are completely fair about that line by Mac where he implies that the un-named Druitt lived with his family, and that he killed himself the day (or night) after Kelly's murder.

What is lacking in many secondary sources is measuring this statement against other sources by Macnaghten, by his proxies and about him.

Thus if we step back and examine how Macnaghten dealt with this information with Griffiths and Sims and that he had a proven capacity for gentlemanly deceit, then it does make sense.

For Macnaghten was not about to drop the surviving Druitts in it at this late stage, or traumatize the grown-up graduates of the Valentine school.

It is quite something to consider the revelatory moment Macnaghten discovered that Druitt had been a part-time school master, when this police chief was so besotted with his idyllic days at Eton.

Look again at the full paragraph:

'Only last autumn I was very much interested in a book entitled The Lodger, which set forth in vivid colours what the Whitechapel murderer's life might have been while dwelling in London lodgings. The talented authoress portrayed him as a religious enthusiast, gone crazy over the belief that he was predestined to slaughter a certain number of unfortunate women, and that he had been confined in a criminal lunatic asylum and had escaped therefrom. I do not think that there was anything of religious mania about the real Simon Pure, nor do I believe that he had ever been detained in an asylum, nor lived in lodgings. I incline to the belief that the individual who held up London in terror resided with his own people ; that he absented himself from home at certain times, and that he committed suicide on or about the 10th of November 1888, after he had knocked out a Commissioner of Police and very nearly settled the hash of one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State.'

I believe Macnaghten felt a need to quash the best selling novel, 'The Lodger', because, accidentally, it cut close to the bone about the real murderer, as Druitt had been a lodger (and probably had confessed to a priest) albeit it was his place of work too for the lesser of his two vocations and, and 'the Avenger' is a young gent who ends up taking his own life when his people, the Landlord and Landlady, tumble to his guilt.

Yet Mac also had to be careful not to risk a breach with Sims; to tip him off that he had been misleading him for fifteen years (not 'detained', eg. forcibly sectioned in an asylum, whereas Sims' 'Drowned Doctor' had been a voluntary patient).

Since the 'Drowned Doctor' did not work anymore and was a semi-invalid recluse, or so Mac had told Sims, he could not now have him absented from his work--which is what we see in the 1889 source--because he didn't work, and so it had to be where he lived and yet he could not be the novel's lodger--which in ways he resembled.

This para is the greatest textual evidence that Mac did know all, as he has fused Druitt's legal chambers with his school digs, fused the brother nd other family members, eg. 'his own people' who notice he is 'absented' from their home rather than his work--and to be fair his place of part-time work is his home.

The implication of Mac's 1914 account is that the 'private information' received posthumously is from 'his own people', from the family, and not a go-between (which is how newspapers of 1914 interpreted it) such as M.P. Farquharson. There's no buffer as in either version of the 'memo'.

Also consider that Mac extends the gap between the final murder and self-murder by up to 48 hours. He hints it might be longer. What was the tormented killer doing for that long and not being noticed, covered in blood staggering to a river?!? But then, that is not the story Mac tells. There is no rush to a river. There is no river. Instead he has a 'Simon Pure' being able to exit Miller's Court, being able to function, able to get away, with time to confess to 'his own people' and then be found 'absented'.

Finally Mac has the un-named Sir Charles Warren as 'knocked out' by the Ripper. He wasn't, not literally. Warren was under pressure due to a number of factors, but it was a breach of the rules which led to the Commissioner's resignation.

Macnaghten knew this and hated Warren (see pages 202-3 of his memoirs, where he puts his knee into the un-named Warren's groin) for vetoing his initial appointment to Scotland Yard in 1888. For nearly ruining his life, as he saw it.

So, he has the Ripper 'kill' Warren's career as a bit of schoolboyish fun, but he knew it was not literally true anymore than it was literally true that Druitt was not a lodger, or that he literally lived with 'his own people'--but it is from them the family, Mac implies, that the 'certain facts' arrived leading to a 'conclusion'.

He is reshaping data, as he has for years and years, to keep Druitt disguised and yet also inform the public that he, Mac, found the real 'Jack' from information received from the killer's family--albeit years later.

Somebody who knew the Druitts well reading "Laying the Ghost ..." would not realize it was Montague Druitt. the same for a Valentine graduate, who would think well this is not my tragic Mr. Druitt, all those years ago, who killed himself around the same time as 'Jack', as he lived with us not his family.

That memoir chapter also functions as a polemic against Anderson and his Jewish Ripper, a boss whom Mac also disdained.

Though Paul Begg does not agree with my theorising, it was from him that I learned a great insight about Macnaghten: either he is clumsy, callous and poorly informed, or he is not to be taken literally on the details.

[RavenDarkendale]

Hi Lynn.

Lets assume they did notify the police.
What does a bloody weapon 'prove'? - they have a body in the morgue, and weapon in his room, with or without blood stains.

But, you can't charge a corpse with murder, so what, from the legal perspective, could Scotland Yard do?

Not in these enlightened days, but many a corpse went on trial in olden days, perhaps most famously The Cadaver Synod where the body of Catholic Pope Formosus, was exhumed and brought to the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome during January of 897. The dead body sat in a chair in Papal Court while debate raged over Formosus' alleged misconducts. The body was found guilty and his decisions as Pope declared null and void.

Can't imagine cross examining a corpse. "Formosus, wrap one for yes, twice for no. Now, didst thou..."

[Paddy]

Additional to Lord Ogilvy post.....

Re: Post 18 page 2.......See attached a later news report about the drunk man at Blackheath

Then see this listing for Emily Ogilvy in 1891 with her parents Lord and Lady De Mauly
Emily Ogilvy 1842 Cranford, Dorset, England Daughter Langford, Oxfordshire

Probably nothing but a coincidence? I love them !

Pat

[Paddy]

Her Husband was.....

Reverend Charles William Norman Ogilvy married Hon. Emily Priscilla Maria Ponsonby, daughter of Charles Frederick Ashley Cooper Ponsonby, 2nd Baron de Mauley of Canford ....

Pat.........................

[Wickerman]

I have an open mind on the subject however I'm swayed a little towards druitt because the story that runs through my family that originates from my great grandparents who were children at time of jack the ripper and lived in Whitechapel was that the locals were lead to believe by local police that murders had stopped because murderer had drowned himself in Thames after last murder and was a toff

It is necessary to quantify what a local East Ender determines a Toff to be.

Druitt is an interesting suspect because of the number of researchers who have devoted years in an attempt to uncover his background, yet not one of them have unearthed anything to rule him out.

If we compare him with Kozminski, we have two candidates which appear to represent both ends of the spectrum.
Druitt, the Well-dressed suspect, often described in the vicinity, and Kozminski, the rough-looking, perhaps the BS-man or Blotchy character.

Druitt though was the right age at 31, not so Kozminski at only 23.

If we use age estimates suggested by witnesses for the victims, in each case the victim, until positively identified, was thought to look younger than their actual age.
This indicates that an estimate of the killer suggested to be between 28 and 35?, suggests the killer should not be younger than suggested, but if anything, as with the victims, he is older.
Which is another strike against Kozminski.

Given that Druitt had a busy schedule, juggling his work as a barrister, his fill-in job as a teacher, and a cricketing schedule, it is noticeable that nothing has surfaced to rule him out as a suspect, that he had to have been elsewhere.

With Kozminski we have no idea what he was doing throughout the spate of the murders.

That said, there is still no known reason to promote either one as a Ripper suspect, for that we rely on the opinions of those who make the claim years later. How valuable these latter opinions are is the issue for us.

Speaking for myself, due to the above reason's, Druitt cannot be ruled out.

[lynn cates]

Today's lecture . . .

Hello Raven.

"Can't imagine cross examining a corpse."

Ah! You should try lecturing to about three dozen of them at a time. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Robert]

You can cross-examine an insane corpse :

"You're not dead. You only think you're dead."

[pinkmoon]

Surely macnaughton would have made some basic enquires about druitt after he received his private information

[Robert]

I certainly don't rule Druitt out. I just think that, with the exception of the confidential memorandum, if Macnaghten had really wanted to protect the Druitt family then the correct thing to do, when people came a-calling, would have been to say "I have a very good idea who the murderer was, but I will never reveal his identity or any details about him, and I would be obliged if you would cease writing about it. However if you do write about it, you will receive no assistance from me."

[lynn cates]

Dim

Hello Robert. Thanks.

Quite. Or, you may wait for really difficult interrogation from--(drum roll, please):

INSPECTOR DIM!!!!!!

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Surely macnaughton would have made some basic enquires about druitt after he received his private information

If I was Macnaghten, I would, but his private information is hearsay and not regarded as police evidence.
The police need to conduct their own interview, they do not respond to hearsay.

Suppose, for arguments sake, one of Druitt's relatives had seen him the day after the Kelly murder with a heart in a glass jar. Something he never owned before, and the fact they knew he was out late on all the nights of the murders, and that he was once caught cleaning a case of surgical knives.

A bottled heart was not located in his room, the knives had belonged to his father, Druitt is dead, what does Macnaghten do to verify that evidence exists the police could use?
Macnaghten had the means to send a detective to investigate on a private basis, so the press would not find out, that is always possible - nothing being found.

If Macnaghten's source was a letter, the author may not be in a position to produce tangible evidence, only opinion, so he kept the letter private.
He knows legally, and perhaps morally, that the law has no case to pursue.

I'm only suggesting that the overall scenario is not impossible, but also we have nothing with which to show any of it could not be true.
Such is the position with much in this case

[Mayerling]

Not in these enlightened days, but many a corpse went on trial in olden days, perhaps most famously The Cadaver Synod where the body of Catholic Pope Formosus, was exhumed and brought to the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome during January of 897. The dead body sat in a chair in Papal Court while debate raged over Formosus' alleged misconducts. The body was found guilty and his decisions as Pope declared null and void.

Can't imagine cross examining a corpse. "Formosus, wrap one for yes, twice for no. Now, didst thou..."

Hi Raven,

In the Curia Court there is a moment's silence. The instructions are recited again, and suddenly there are THREE raps, and a spectral voice saying, "Sorry, I just don't know!".

Jeff

[Mayerling]

Hi all,

I have been following Johnathan's intriguing theory for the last few months, and I have to admit it is not a bad one. The basic idea is that Sir Melville kept changing his story to fit recent side events - all to try to keep the name of Druitt unknown and unrecognizable, and to do this to protect the innocent Druitt family from potential social infamy.

There is one thing I am curious about. Sir Melville was with Scotland Yard for a quarter century. Aside from protecting Druitt's name and his family, did Sir Melville ever do anything of a similar nature elsewhere?

I have thought about this carefully and conclude that I don't know enough to say he did or did not - and yet there was a case in 1894 that suggests he wouldn't do it normally.

In 1894 a woman named Florence Dennis was shot and killed by her lover James Canham Read in the village of Prittlewell near Southend. She was pregnant, and Read (a married man with children, but also a lothario) decided to kill her, trying to hide any contact with Florence over a period of six or more months, using letter drop off locations to avoid mail being sent from his postal zone.

Read fled when he was aware that his planning was for naught (Florence's sister, Mrs. Ayriss, was aware Florence was seeing Read at Prittlewell, and sent him a telegram informing him she knew). Read kept in touch with a brother, while he hid with a second "wife" he bigamously married. The police were watching the brother, and through this they tracked down Read. Eventually Read was tried, convicted, and hanged.

Read left a nightmare amount of social destruction behind him:

1) Mrs Ayriss was married and had to admit she had an affair with Read - leading to her divorce.
2) Read's wife and children were socially and economically ruined by the crime.
3) Read's second "wife"'s father suffered a fatal heart attack due to the strain of his daughter's disgrace.
4) Read's brother, guilt ridden that the police found James though his own carelessness, committed suicide.

There is no evidence that Sir Melville ever lifted a finger to try to protect all these victims of secondary damage from the results of the crime. Perhaps because they were not from a good country Tory family, like the Druitts?

Jeff

[Robert]

You emigrated, Jeff?

http://murderpedia.org/male.R/r/read-james-canham.htm