What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[Scott Nelson]

We'll be asking next where Anderson got his information regarding the guilt of his "Polish Jew."

That's easy. From the Macnaghten memorandum.

Hi Simon,

Where did Macnaghten get the information on the Polish Jew and when?

Incidentally, I'm about half way through your revised and expanded Deconstructing Jack. I first read the 2015 version. Excellent!

[Simon Wood]

Hi Scott,

Thank you. I'm pleased you're enoying my book.

The Convict Supervision Office at Scotland Yard kept a watchful eye on asylum committals.

On 7th May 1891 Michael Ostrog was committed to Banstead Lunatic Asylum in Surrey, which received pauper lunatics from the county of Middlesex.

Regarding Ostrog, on the same day Macnaghten wrote to the medical officer at Banstead—

“I shall feel obliged if you will cause immediate information to be sent to this office in the event of his discharge, as the Magistrate adjourned the case sine die in order that he might again be brought up and dealt with for failing to report himself if it is found that he is feigning insanity.”

Two years later, on 29th May 1893, Michael Ostrog was discharged “recovered” from Banstead Lunatic Asylum. At this time, Macnaghten did not launch an inquiry into whether he may have been the Whitechapel murderer.

So why, less than a year later, should Macnaghten have considered him a WM suspect?

On 7th March 1891, exactly a month after Aaron Kosminski was committed, and two months before Macnaghten wrote to Banstead regarding Ostrog, Robert Anderson wrote from the Convict Supervision Office to the Medical Superintendent of the Colney Hatch Lunatic Asylum, regarding George Hall, whose identity need not detain us.

Thus, it is hard to believe that Anderson and/or Macnaghten did not learn about the committal of Aaron Kosminski.

Regards,

Simon

[mpriestnall]

Did the Sun newspaper use Thomas Hayne Cutbush as a "stalking horse" in the hope of getting an enquiry (of some sort) into the WMs?

And if so, why?

Martyn

[Simon Wood]

Hi Martyn,

The Sun story, normally the stuff of silly-season journalism, was intended to embarrass and harm the Conservative Party, under whose watch the WM had taken place, by provoking an official inquiry into Scotland Yard’s failure to catch Jack the Ripper.

It appeared at a critical time. In February 1894 Liberal Prime Minister William Gladstone, then 84 years old, frail, and further afflicted by failing eyesight, had just returned from Biarritz to rumours of his resignation. There were also rumours of parliamentary dissolution, and The Times had earlier reported T.P. O’Connor as declaring that if an election were to take place under present circumstances the Liberals would undergo a crushing defeat; also that a big Tory majority would dash any future hopes of Irish Home Rule.

Prior to publication, Liberal MP Henry Labouchere opined, “If I were Mr. Asquith [Home Secretary] I should elect a clever officer to look into the matter. He would do so carefully, for I suppose that the reward still remains valid.”

“A Liberal” wrote in the Sun, “Surely some action by the Home Office is necessary. What have the Police authorities to say? It reflects no credit on Scotland Yard that the detection of this infamous scoundrel should be left to the enterprise of the Sun. If Scotland Yard still entertains a doubt, let Mr. Asquith appoint a committee of experts to examine into and sift the mass of evidence which you have gathered with so much labour.”

The Morning Leader [sister paper to the Star], employing what appeared to be the imprimatur of Scotland Yard, ran a spoiler story up against O’Connor’s lavish serial, leaving it dead in the water. Exactly who was behind it is not hard to guess.

Gladstone did not get a say in who should succeed him. Instead the Queen sent for Lord Roseberry. He became leader of the Liberal Party on 5th March 1894. In June 1895 the party was defeated by the Conservatives under the leadership of the Marquis of Salisbury, who had been Prime Minister at the time of the WM.

You'll find a detailed version of this episode in my book.

Regards,

Simon

[mpriestnall]

Simon, thank you very much. I did get this "stalking horse" idea from your book.

++

Some non-Druittists view the purpose and content of MM's Memorandum from the political angle, ie a document to defend the status quo, rather
than a genuine suspect list. That's why the suspect list had 3 suspects that all have the attribute of not being easily disproved. One dead, one gone walkabout and the other locked up in an asylum.

MM was proposed and hired by Monro, the head of SY's secret dept. He would only select someone who would be prepared to disassemble, if necessary, in the world of establishment real-politics.

And MM was very much "establishment", Eton educated, father head of East India Company (with other members of his family also in the EIC).

To my mind, a top victorian policeman had two main roles. Overseeing the police and also to protect the status quo of the establishment.

Just as as long he chose his suspects carefully, backuped with magic "private" info, with no real chance of any comeback, why wouldn't he lie, it was part of his job after all.

Martyn

[Roy Corduroy]

The Sun story ...
It appeared at a critical time. ...

But the story got blown out of the water by the much more sensational story of the anarchist killing himself with his own bomb on the grounds of Royal Observatory Park, Greenwich, which happened the very same week as the serialized story appeared. So the entire political machinatons motive is less than a side angle, its' mooted. Up in a puff of smoke. The Met police were off and running raiding the Autonomy Club right quick, etc. No one paid much mind to the Sun articles. In fact, that version of the Sun newspaper petered out shortly thereafter.

In my opinion that is also why Macnaghten's memo on official stationary was not signed off or stamped by anyone else in the police department. He quietly put that one in a drawer there at the office, meanwhile he had his private version at home.

In other words, blaming white men in positions of power for something, for everything, now and to infinity and beyond, and back to the dawn of time - it has its limits. It's what people get college degrees in now, but it only goes so far.

Roy

[Roy Corduroy]

Good afternoon Martyn,

... the purpose and content of MM's Memorandum from the political angle, ie a document to defend the status quo, ...

The status quo - as opposed to - what? What exactly is the alternative reality that in fact existed that you know about as concerns the Whitechapel Murder File?

This is what the 'anti-status quo' folks never approach. Not here nor in books or articles. The alternate reality is implied, but never spelled out. Anytime yall are ready to lay out your alternate reality to us, believe me we are all ears.

Roy

[Simon Wood]

Hi Martyn,

I cannot disagree with you.

The art of the top cop was and still is how convincingly they can lie whenever necessary. Witness the many doubtful statements made by Home Secretary Henry Matthews in Parliament, background knowledge of which were attributed to various, but unnamed, high-ranking police officers.

T.P O'Connor knew what the WM were all about, in that they had nothing to do with a sex-crazed serial killer. His problem was how to prove it. How was he to overcome a six-year JtR blitz which the public had swallowed hook, line and sinker? The answer was to force a public inquiry. He knew full-well that Thomas Cutbush couldn't have been the non-existent Jack the Ripper, and wanted to know how the police would respond. How would they explain away the non-existent Jack the Ripper?

T.P. O'Connor never discovered the police response. He never got to read the Macnaghten memorandum which posited three men who were more likely than Thomas Cutbush to have been the non-existent Jack the Ripper.

The whole subject is BS. There was a Jack the Ripper simply because people wanted there to have been a Jack the Ripper. And we still do. He continues to satisfy the darker side of our imaginings.

Regards,

Simon

[Simon Wood]

Hi Roy,

I cannot disagree with you.

The immediacy of the Martial Bourdin incident took people's minds right off the Sun story.

Regarding your last point, old white geezers in positions of power continue to be the source of the majority of our social injustices.

Regards,

Simon

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s been stated previously that that it was incorrect (a lie) to say that Ostrog had been detained as homicidal maniac as another point against Macnaghten’s honesty. I was interested to read this point today in a long article by David Orsam on his website.


“one argument that Macnaghten wasn't telling the truth in his 1894 memorandum is that he stated that Ostrog had, after 1888, been 'detained in a lunatic asylum as a homicidal maniac'. There is no doubt that Ostrog was admitted to a lunatic asylum in Banstead Asylum in Surrey in May 1891 (having, prior to the Ripper murders, been detained in Surrey County Lunatic Asylum) but what about him being a homicidal maniac? Was there any evidence of this?

Well, Ostrog told a doctor who examined him on 4 May 1891 (and who certified him as insane) that he intended to commit suicide by cutting his left femoral artery. Today, we would not regard this as homicidal but what I think has been overlooked by everyone, including Sugden in his 2002 book, is that suicide was not only a criminal offence in the nineteenth but the crime of self-murder was regarded as a homicide. The following is a quotation from an 1891 book entitled'A Guide to the Criminal Law Intended for the use of students for the Bar Final and for the Solicitors' Final Examination' by Charles Thwaites (Third Edition):

'Felonious homicide is the killing of one's self or another without just cause or excuse; it is always a punishable crime and may be suicide, murder or manslaughter'.

So technically and legally, Macnaghten was perfectly correct to say that Ostrog would have been regarded as homicidal (and thus a homicidal maniac) by threatening to commit suicide by cutting his left femoral artery. “

[Roy Corduroy]

T.P O'Connor knew what the WM were all about, in that they had nothing to do with a sex-crazed serial killer.

Great!

T.P. knew what the murders were all about, and you claim to also know what the murders were all about, too. T.P is no longer with us, but you are, Simon, yet you won't tell us what you claim to know. That you know what the murders were all about. But you won't say. You've never said. Right? Not here and not in your book. Do you agree you've never explained what it is you "know". You claim to know what it is but you won't say. Correct me if I'm wrong.

This is almost diametrically opposed to, for instance, Lynn Cates, who used to post here and penned several articles. Lynn, after careful research and much critical thnking, posited Jacob Isenschmidt murdered Annie Chapman and Polly Nichols. Then he was put in asylum and did not kill again. This is Lynn's position. It is easy to understand. At least for those two victims. Ergo, Lynn maintains there was no serial killer.

Lynn puts his cards on the table. What you see is what you get.

I really like you Simon. In fact, you are and always have been one of my favorite peeps here. And will always be.

You said "The whole subject is BS. There was a Jack the Ripper simply because people wanted there to have been a Jack the Ripper. And we still do. He continues to satisfy the darker side of our imaginings."

I hope your imaginings are well fed with the unspeakable knowledge you won't share with us. The inside scoop. Because the rest of us are busy feeding our inner demons nothing but dry food. Because, WE DON'T HAVE THE SECRET SAUCE!

Roy

[Simon Wood]

Hi Roy,

Consider this a correction.

I have never claimed to know what the WM were about. If I knew, I would have told you. What I did in my book was tell everyone what they were not about.

Regards,

Simon

[Simon Wood]

Hi Herlock,

So, you've been reading Orsam's 62,000-word critique of my book. Good luck. I hope you didn't get soaked in drool.

I think I'm right in thinking that large, bold, italic fonts, and large regular fonts constitute shouting.

Were they yours, or his?

Regards,

Simon

[Roy Corduroy]

Thanks Simon, correction accepted. You can see my continued confusion can't you though.

originally posted by Simon Wood

T.P O'Connor knew what the WM were all about, in that they had nothing to do with a sex-crazed serial killer.

This part "they had nothing to do with a sex-crazed serial killer." That agrees with your answer to me. You said your book explains what the murders were NOT. OK. I get that.

But this part "T.P O'Connor knew what the WM were all about..." This doesn't add up. Because your correction addressed to me said you have never claimed to know what the murders were all about. Only what they were NOT about.

If that is the case, how do you know "T.P O'Connor knew what the WM were all about..." If you don't know what they were all about, how do you know he knew? How do you know (a) what he knew (which you didn't say what it is he "knew") and (b) how do you know if "what he knew" was correct, if you claim to not know yourself what they were all about.

It is so stirring to hear you state "T.P O'Connor knew what the WM were all about..." by golly by gosh I feel like I'm almost right there in London at the time. But the letdown is what you claim to NOT KNOW. So how do you base your claim to his veracity.

It's not printer's ink, it's a SECRET SAUCE used over there on Fleet Street.

Roy

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

So, you've been reading Orsam's 62,000-word critique of my book. Good luck. I hope you didn't get soaked in drool.

I think I'm right in thinking that large, bold, italic fonts, and large regular fonts constitute shouting.

Were they yours, or his?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

it was just a copy copy and paste job. The quote in the article is just emboldened so I don’t really understand why it came out as it did. It wasn’t intended as a shouty post though.