Abberline and Druitt

[caz]

I know in "the ripper legacy" by Martin Howells and keith skinner the authors make a point about druitt buying a return ticket to through himself in the Thames miles away from where he lives why didn't he throw himself in nearer to home.

Hi Pinky,

Nearer to Blackheath, you mean?

It might just have been the difference between drowning swiftly in relatively clean water further upstream, and dying from ingesting raw sewage east of the City, like the poor buggers lost in the Princess Alice disaster ten years previously, about whom Monty was bound to have read. Things were gradually changing for the better by 1888, but I can also think of better ways to end it all than drowning in the Thames in December, and few worse ways than by ingesting raw sewage.

Or maybe he was visiting certain friends in Chiswick before finally deciding to take the icy plunge.

But then, when people are feeling suicidal their behaviour is likely to be very hard to predict or understand.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Yes, Farquharson was found guilty of libel, but he was not wrong in his information about his opponent being asked to leave a shool due to homosexual activities (what he does that is so low, and typical of pols then and now, is to turn the victim into a 'villain'.)

Hi Jonathan,

Does a tiny alarm bell not ring in your mind at this point? Could the libellous old Farquhar not similarly have turned our suicide victim into a villain - at least in his own mind?

When Macnaghten wrote that he had little doubt the Druitt family suspected their relative was the ripper, he was clearly implying that a non-Druitt source had passed on this nugget, and that he didn't have it from the horse's mouth at that point. Was he being misleading about this, and if so to what end? Alternatively, if he only got confirmation directly from a family member at a later date, how do you think this came about? Did Mac discreetly approach the Druitts himself and manage to find one in talkative mood? Or did a Druitt first make contact with Mac, presumably having got wind that someone outside the family had already blabbed to him? Otherwise, why choose Mac of all people to confide in?

I'm just trying to see how the connections work between Mac's alleged family and non-family sources, because I seem to be missing the crucial link that is meant to have led both, at different times apparently, to choose his ear to whisper in.

If, on the other hand, there may never have been any direct contact, or correspondence, between Mac and any Druitt family members, where would that leave their supposed suspicions or Mac's supposed certainty?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

But there is a weak link who believes that the truth must come out. This I think was Vicar Charles who approaches his local and Tory MP, Henry Farquharson, in early 1891, in the hope of conferring with an officer of the state without it being a cop.

In confiding with the MP, this priest figure carefully and discreetly excises from the suicide tale of the 'son of a surgeon' the confession to a priest, telescoping the timeline to create a confession in action, the incriminating timing of murder and self-murder, rather than a confession in words. This eliminates the role of a reverend of the Anglican Church.

Unfortunately, Farquharson is your classic upper class prick and begins telling people in London and taking credit for solving the mystery.

Talk about picking the absolute worst person on the planet to trust with such a secret. It would be like someone faking a ripper confession then handing it over to Mike Barrett with a request for discretion.

Love,

Caz
X

[Robert]

Hi Jonathan

The impression I got was that Gatty had been bullied, sexually or otherwise, by some of the boys and that the Head advised his father to take him away from the school because Gatty had 'peached' on the boys - a horrible crime at a public school. So if Gatty left the school because of homosexual activities, that's only true in the sense that a man's image can be captured on film in the course of a bank robbery (the man turns out to be a customer looking on).

[Mayerling]

While the Met are checking out Tom Sadler, Macnaghten uses his Old Boy Net contacts to identify the MP and meet with him, below the radar. He hears the tale, tells him to shut up, and checks out some newspaper accounts. Farquharson turns out to be wrong. The drowned barrister killed himself three weeks after Kelly.

A small problem here. Given the way that you have set up the timetable, Macnaughten meets first with Farquharson, presumedly learns the name of the suspect, and then (after telling the M. P. to keep quite), does a search for information in the "newspaper accounts"" of Druitt's suicide

Question: Tom Cullen in his "Autumn of Terror" mentions that the two newspaper accounts of Druitt's suicide and the coroner's court on the suicide were not in big newspapers (The Times, The Manchester Guardian, The Daily Telegraph). They were in two small papers, "The County of Middlesex Independent" for Wednesday, January 2, 1889, and "The Southern Guardian" of January 5, 1889. The former does not mention any name, and the latter does mention it is Druitt, and he was a barrister.

How would Macnaughten know this is his suspect when it is nearly two months after the death of Mary Kelly, and it is not a medical man? Indeed, what would have led Macnaughten to reading those obscure newspapers rather than sticking to better known papers?

Of course Farqharson may have mentioned that Druitt was a barrister who died a suicide in the months after Kelly's murder. But if he did this, surely Macnaughten's next step would be - contact William Druitt or some other family members and learn what they could tell him. He could then request if there was any newspaper coverage at the time of the suicide or the coroner's court - and then check the newspapers.

By the way, has anyone discovered any other newspaper accounts of the death of Druitt or the Coroner's inquiry since Cullen wrote his book in the early 1970s?

Jeff

[Jonathan H]

To Caz

Weclome to Stage Three.

It's not my fault you have been deceived by modern fakers about an obviously modern fake.

And stop asking loaded questions of me that you already think you know the answer to.

To Robert

No, that's not my interpretation.

But it hardly matters because if we can see that Farquharason is an unreliable source what do you think a comptetent, hands-on police chief of the time would have thought?

Much of what is called Ripperology is based on this foundation of sand: that we know more than Macnaghten about his prime suspect, and all the other aspects.

To Mayerling

I agree, Macnaghten would have to check a Dorset newspaper archive.

Or he could have checked P.C. Moulson's Report which would have told him the corpse turned up in Chiswick--a bit far from the East End to have staggered all the way there covered in blood the same morning.

Or, he could have just gone to the Druitts, starting with William.

What I am getting at is that a cursory investigation would have shown him that the MP was wrong; it was not murder followed by instant self-murder.

In the Report(s) he needs, for propagandist reasons, to distant his contact with the family.

In Sims, though further veiled, the go-between is, nonetheless, dispensed with , eg. the contact between the fratnic 'friends' and the 'police' is direct.

This is confirmed by Mac's memoirs in which he implies that it was information recived from the killer's own people that led to his psothumous identification.

[Lechmere]

Jonathan
In your latest rendering of the case against Montague Druitt...

Montague Druitt confesses in full to the most vile murder spree in British history that is holding London in the grip of terror, to one or another relative/priest.
The priest tells him to go and ‘section’ himself and does absolutely nothing else about it. What a guy – what a noble carer for Christ’s flock.
Montague disappears into the night and turns up a month or so later dead in the Thames.

The rest of the family (e.g. William) somehow find out about his confession – and the fate of the family hangs in the balance. The only concern this family now has is to avoid any bad publicity attaching to themselves as a result of Montague’s actions.

Nevertheless a loose lipped Druitt blabs to Farquharson.
Farquharson starts telling everyone within range who has ears. By February 1891 this intelligence is reported in the press (in a veiled form and not naming Farquharson)

Macnaghten needs to use his Old Boy network to identify Farquharson – instead of just asking the newspapers who he was. Presumably the rumours being spread by Farquharson had not reached any police ears.

Macnaghten traces the Druitts and they tell all. Macnaghten promises to keep schtum
However the priest Druitt wants to blab straight away. It is Macnaghten who persuades him to wait an arbitrary ten years as Macnaghten is more concerned about protecting the Druitt name than the Druitts are themselves. Macnaghten also tells him to alter the truth for some reason.
Then Macnaghten gets in first with his version so the priest's version, when released, is glossed over.

It’s straight out of Midsummer Murders.

[Phil H]

I don't want to get involved in this debate for a moment, but can i ask a simple question:

Where is the evidence that the "Druitt family" (whatever that meant) acted as a single unit and with a single (benign) voice?

I ask, because it would be equally proper to assume that someone in the family who hated MJD spread the word that one of the current "family nutters" was JtR. Brothers, cousins, more sistant relatives are not always models of fraternal love and sympathy after all. Maybe someone had a grudge against Monty and wanted to blacken his name.

Just a question, I'm sure one of you'll be able to answer easily.

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

Some while back, following a (quite genuine) exchange of views with Jonathan, I invested in and subsequently read the Leighton book (Ripper Suspect)...Leaving aside the potted history of 19th Century cricket, (towards which the book seems heavily slanted), there is some interesting background information buried deep in there...but blow me if even Leighton ends up unconvinced that Druitt's a realistic suspect...so how can I be?

All the best

Dave

[Jonathan H]

That's not a simple question, Phil H, it's a loaded one. I realise even that will cause you apoplexy becasue you are so thin-skinned.


Midsomer Murders?

Another poster on the other site said it was like a Hollywood thriller.

None of you must be famiilar with either genre?

In a thriller-melodrama, the murderer is very much alive, unless they kill themselves as the police are suddenly about to arrest them.


All of your spluttering and affronted objections (the affronted tome is the give-away) hang from a slender thread and one that was arguably cut several years ago.

That the Druitt family were not conneted to the Ripper murders, via Montie, and that Macnaghten did not know what he was talking about.

The historical truth is that they and he did not want this part of the story to survive, and it hasn't. We only have scraps to try and piece together what might have happened.

We know the beginning of the story, the murders from 1888 to 1891, and we know the middle, then the middle section with the deceased Montague Druitt emrging out of Dorset as as the fiend is veiled from us, and then we know the end, broadly shared with the public--the un-named Druitt, whether a doctor or now, was the likely killer.

What Mac was primarily concerned about was his beloved Yard, and adverse publicity towards it. If the whole story came out it would not look good for the police--again.

Hence he and Sims came up with a nifty shell game in the 1900's: when the mad doctor bobbed up in the Thames the police supposedly already knew that he was the murderer and were about to arrest him. Caompre that with the 1899 'North Country Vicar' source.

[caz]

To Caz

Weclome to Stage Three.

It's not my fault you have been deceived by modern fakers about an obviously modern fake.

Don't put yourself down, Jonathan. Oh you meant...

And stop asking loaded questions of me that you already think you know the answer to.

I don't claim to know any of the answers. But you managed to answer my questions in the rest of your post addressed to others. So it wasn't too taxing for you, was it?

Now you can go back to rolling over for Mike Barrett and letting him tickle your tummy.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

What Mac was primarily concerned about was his beloved Yard, and adverse publicity towards it. If the whole story came out it would not look good for the police--again.

I realise I'm on a hiding to nothing here, and I have questioned this before, but answer came there none.

Once again, I cannot for the life of me see how Mac could have done anything to stop the whole story coming out if Farquhi or Rev Druitt or anyone else for that matter had decided to publish all and be damned. Monty was dead, so libel was not an issue as long as there was no suggestion of anyone alive knowingly covering up for him while the murders were going on.

It was Mac, after all, who named Druitt in his memo and introduced the potentially libellous suggestion that his people knew about his absences and what he was getting up to. If the whole story had come tumbling out, of Dorset, or Blackheath, or Chiswick or anywhere else, I imagine Mac and his beloved Yard would still have had plenty of explaining to do, and evidence to produce, especially if any of them had tried to claim they were on to Monty before he even went into the river.

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil Carter]

Once again, I cannot for the life of me see how Mac could have done anything to stop the whole story coming out if Farquhi or Rev Druitt or anyone else for that matter had decided to publish all and be damned. Monty was dead, so libel was not an issue as long as there was no suggestion of anyone alive knowingly covering up for him while the murders were going on.

Hello Caz.,

EXACTLY.... and that tells us what?

It doesn't take a genius to work it out.....



Phil

[Jonathan H]

To Caz

I realize you put years of your life into being made a fool of by modern fakers and that is not pleasant, for anybody, but it does not justify your constant and condescending sniping of myself and others.

And you lie as easy as breathing, about my posts. Your fake exasperation that I never answer the question is just shameless and appalling.

I have answered those questions many times (for which I am criticized by othersfor repeating myself). That you don't like the answer is, again, not my fault.

You know you had a chance to write the real story of the 'Diary' and you didn't take it, and that's a shame--though only about a minor sideshow of this subject.

To Phil C

In my opinion had Macnaghten not acted as he did the potential for a libel suit was certainly there, as the 'Bristol Times and Mirror' article of Feb 11th 1891 fearfully and explicitly says so (and Anderson alludes to in a different context in his 1910 memoirs).

You cannot libel the dead, but the living can be if it is insinuated that they knew and harbored the fiend. Pizer was paid off by a paper and so was Sadler, albeit they were very much alive.

A melodramatic 'Hollywood' version--or to give it's period name a 'shilling shocker'--was created for the public by Sims: the real life Dr. Jekyll figure who drowned himself before he could be arrested. It had been, Sims falsely writes from 1899, a close run thing.

But Griffiths was highly skeptical and William Le Queux just flat-out said it was an excuse and could not have happened in 1888. Abberline and Reid thought it was made up by the press. Littlechild think is must be a reference to Tumblety who had been arrested.

[Wickerman]

Some while back, following a (quite genuine) exchange of views with Jonathan, I invested in and subsequently read the Leighton book (Ripper Suspect)...Leaving aside the potted history of 19th Century cricket, (towards which the book seems heavily slanted), there is some interesting background information buried deep in there...but blow me if even Leighton ends up unconvinced that Druitt's a realistic suspect...so how can I be?

All the best

Dave

I think it is fare to say that no-one today can expect to learn anything of substance to make Druitt into the Ripper, but that goes for every suspect.
There simply is not enough evidence to point to anyone, so that fact does not single Druitt out.
What is of interest is, that considering the effort of many researchers, and what they have unearthed about his life, his work, and busy schedules, that nothing has yet been found that rules him out.

Although, who else but a cricketer would sign himself, Catch me when you can.