Abberline and Druitt

[Jonathan H]

Macnaghten 'mentioned' Druitt because he believed, perhaps wrongly, that he was Jack the Ripper.

More than mention him, the police chief propagated the un-named Druitt to the public.

He was one of the best known, unknown figures of the Edwardian Era.

In the version for file, Macnaghten pulled back from committing himself that Druitt was a doctor while affirming that he was definitely sexually insane (eg. he got off on ultra-violence against harlots).

In his memoirs Mac drops the doctor aspect, and any 'anatomical knowledge'.

[Monty]

Did he?

That's a leap of assumpion.

Monty

[Limehouse]

I am wondering why Macnaghten considered Druitt a better suspect than Cutbush when Cutbush at least had a known history of attacking women and Druitt did not.

Also, with reference to the first post on this thread, Abberline, in relation to Ripper suspects and with reference (it seems) to Druitt states 'I have heard that story but what does it amount to...' Abberline was the investigating officer. If Druitt was a serious suspect and the Met took his family's concerns seriously, why does Abberline only refer to having 'heard that story' Surely he would have been called upon to investigate its worthiness???

[Lechmere]

Jonathan
"Abberline arguably knows nothing about the real Druitt, except that he drowned."

But in The Pall Mall Gazette of 31st March 1903 he claims to know all about it. he said "I know all about that story." No room for doubt.

[Jonathan H]

There is nothing but room for doubt.

This is because despite Abberline's self-serving statement, he then goes on to get everything wrong about Druitt.

He was not a medical student, not the subject of Home Office Report and not suspected of being the Ripper at the time his body was pulled from the river.

Yet these aspects, apart from the drowning, do fit John Sanders and it has been suggested that Abberline assumes that is whom the press, or Sims, are writing about: an insane medical student who was suspected of being the Ripper in 1888, and who was the subject of a Home Office Report--and who was thought to have vanished.

I suspect that Macnaghten told him, quite falsely, that Sanders had eventually been found drowned.

That Abberline is clearly out of the loop on all this is that he oblivious that the Commissioner he urgently wants to relate his Chapman solution is the anonymous originator of the drowned Doctor solution--Macnaghten.

When Abberline says 'we never believed ...' he does not realize, because he is not meant to, that Mac does not agree at all.

[Jonathan H]

To Limehouse

Abberline could not investigate Druitt as it was a 'secret' that leaked out of Dorset only in early 1891.

According to the melodramatic veiled version by Sims the 'friends' of the 'doctor' were in touch with the police after their pal vanished, in November 1888. In early December the killer's body was fished from the Thames.

If you piece each bit together (Mac admitting that Druitt was only a suspect years after he killed himself; the police investigation lasting from 1888 to 1891; information about Druitt's sexual mania travelling exclusively along the Old Boy Network) then the above translates as:

The older brother was trying to find Montie, but he had killed himself in early December--and William Druitt only conferred with Macnaghten in about 1891.

[pinkmoon]

Hi Jonathan that makes very good sense thank you it would still be nice to know what big brother knew.At inquest brother stated that last time he saw montague was when he stayed with him over night during the end of October could that be when he first became suspicious

[Jonathan H]

In my opinion this is what William knew:

Western Mail
19 January 1899

WHITECHAPEL MURDERS
DID "JACK THE RIPPER" MAKE A CONFESSION?

We have received (says the Daily Mail) from a clergyman of the Church of England, now a North Country vicar, an interesting communication with reference to the great criminal mystery of our times - that enshrouding the perpetration of the series of crimes which have come to be known as the "Jack the Ripper" murders. The identity of the murderer is as unsolved as it was while the blood of the victims was yet wet upon the pavements. Certainly Major Arthur Griffiths, in his new work on "Mysteries of Police and Crime," suggests that the police believe the assassin to have been a doctor, bordering on insanity, whose body was found floating in the Thames soon after the last crime of the series; but as the major also mentions that this man was one of three known homidical lunatics against whom the police "held very plausible and reasonable grounds of suspicion," that conjectural explanation does not appear to count for much by itself.
Our correspondent the vicar now writes:-
"I received information in professional confidence, with directions to publish the facts after ten years, and then with such alterations as might defeat identification.
The murderer was a man of good position and otherwise unblemished character, who suffered from epileptic mania, and is long since deceased.
I must ask you not to give my name, as it might lead to identification"
meaning the identification of the perpetrator of the crimes. We thought at first the vicar was at fault in believing that ten years had passed yet since the last murder of the series, for there were other somewhat similar crimes in 1889. But, on referring again to major Griffiths's book, we find he states that the last "Jack the Ripper" murder was that in Miller's Court on November 9, 1888 - a confirmation of the vicar's sources of information. The vicar enclosed a narrative, which he called "The Whitechapel Murders - Solution of a London Mystery." This he described as "substantial truth under fictitious form." "Proof for obvious reasons impossible - under seal of confession," he added in reply to an inquiry from us.
Failing to see how any good purpose could be served by publishing substantial truth in fictitious form, we sent a representative North to see the vicar, to endeavour to ascertain which parts of the narrative were actual facts. But the vicar was not to be persuaded, and all that our reporter could learn was that the rev. gentleman appears to know with certainty the identity of the most terrible figure in the criminal annals of our times, and that the vicar does not intend to let anyone else into the secret.
The murderer died, the vicar states, very shortly after committing the last murder. The vicar obtained his information from a brother clergyman, to whom a confession was made - by whom the vicar would not give even the most guarded hint. The only other item which a lengthy chat with the vicar could elicit was that the murderer was a man who at one time was engaged in rescue work among the depraved woman of the East End - eventually his victims; and that the assassin was at one time a surgeon.

[pinkmoon]

Very interesting especially the end part about charitable work in east end but we come back to this surgeon bit again .The doctor and surgeon bit always seems to run through this story.

[mklhawley]

In my opinion this is what William knew:

Western Mail
19 January 1899

WHITECHAPEL MURDERS
DID "JACK THE RIPPER" MAKE A CONFESSION?

We have received (says the Daily Mail) from a clergyman of the Church of England, now a North Country vicar, an interesting communication with reference to the great criminal mystery of our times - that enshrouding the perpetration of the series of crimes which have come to be known as the "Jack the Ripper" murders. The identity of the murderer is as unsolved as it was while the blood of the victims was yet wet upon the pavements. Certainly Major Arthur Griffiths, in his new work on "Mysteries of Police and Crime," suggests that the police believe the assassin to have been a doctor, bordering on insanity, whose body was found floating in the Thames soon after the last crime of the series; but as the major also mentions that this man was one of three known homidical lunatics against whom the police "held very plausible and reasonable grounds of suspicion," that conjectural explanation does not appear to count for much by itself.
Our correspondent the vicar now writes:-
"I received information in professional confidence, with directions to publish the facts after ten years, and then with such alterations as might defeat identification.
The murderer was a man of good position and otherwise unblemished character, who suffered from epileptic mania, and is long since deceased.
I must ask you not to give my name, as it might lead to identification"
meaning the identification of the perpetrator of the crimes. We thought at first the vicar was at fault in believing that ten years had passed yet since the last murder of the series, for there were other somewhat similar crimes in 1889. But, on referring again to major Griffiths's book, we find he states that the last "Jack the Ripper" murder was that in Miller's Court on November 9, 1888 - a confirmation of the vicar's sources of information. The vicar enclosed a narrative, which he called "The Whitechapel Murders - Solution of a London Mystery." This he described as "substantial truth under fictitious form." "Proof for obvious reasons impossible - under seal of confession," he added in reply to an inquiry from us.
Failing to see how any good purpose could be served by publishing substantial truth in fictitious form, we sent a representative North to see the vicar, to endeavour to ascertain which parts of the narrative were actual facts. But the vicar was not to be persuaded, and all that our reporter could learn was that the rev. gentleman appears to know with certainty the identity of the most terrible figure in the criminal annals of our times, and that the vicar does not intend to let anyone else into the secret.
The murderer died, the vicar states, very shortly after committing the last murder. The vicar obtained his information from a brother clergyman, to whom a confession was made - by whom the vicar would not give even the most guarded hint. The only other item which a lengthy chat with the vicar could elicit was that the murderer was a man who at one time was engaged in rescue work among the depraved woman of the East End - eventually his victims; and that the assassin was at one time a surgeon.

Very interesting Jonathan. Altering the identity, as in a doctor? It certainly does explain why Littlechild didn't know of a Dr. D.

Sincerely,
Mike

[pinkmoon]

Two possibilities for this letter it's either true and the vicar wad told by another vicar about a confession from jack the ripper or the whole things made up by a journalist.

[mklhawley]

Two possibilities for this letter it's either true and the vicar wad told by another vicar about a confession from jack the ripper or the whole things made up by a journalist.

True pinkmoon. How intriguing that it conforms to other primary sources.

[pinkmoon]

My great grandparents lived in Whitechapel during murders and the tale going round very soon after last murder was the killer was a well to do person who has just drowned himself in Thames

[mklhawley]

My great grandparents lived in Whitechapel during murders and the tale going round very soon after last murder was the killer was a well to do person who has just drowned himself in Thames

Wow! How interesting that there's still a connection over a century later.

Sincerely,
Mike

[DRoy]

So the vicar heard it second hand and claims to know who JTR was? Doesn't that sound like everyone else who claimed to know? Pinkmoon's GP's would have just as much proof as the vicar (no disrespect Pinkmoon, just trying to prove a point).

Cheers
DRoy