What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[PaulB]

In the mid-1890s, Inspector Henry Moore stated that the Ripper was dead. Donald Swanson made a similar statement, also in the mid-90s. But, of the known suspects, Kosminski, Cutbush, Tumilty, Sadler, Pizer, Ostrog, etc. were all drawing breath. Only Druitt was dead.

So, if not MJD, to whom were they referring?

Paul - maybe an assumption based on Druitt's headstone? WHD must have had some reason for assigning that specific date. Dec 3rd seems like a reasonable guess.

Thanks Roger. I will have had a reason, but the years creep by... An excellent point about statements that the Ripper was dead.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,
If it is accepted that the errors about the victims would have been avoidable if Macnaghten had possessed accurate information, the obvious and rational conclusion would be that Macnaghten did not possess accurate information. But that does not permit the conclusion that the suspects were not genuine suspects.

As for nobody else mentioning Druitt, that's far from surprising as nobody publicly named any suspect, and I agree that he is barely a person of interest 'on the basis of what is known', but we don't know anything about the 'private information' Macnaghten found so convincing so no conclusion based on the lack of information and ignorance is justified, is it?

Whatever the problems presented by the memoranda, it was a document apparently intended for internal consumption, written by someone who was there, was likely to have been reasonably well-informed, and who claims to have received or been party to information implicating Druitt, which he found compelling, and about which we know absolutely nothing. It's madness to dismiss such a source 'not worth the paper it is written on'.

The memoranda contains errors, but the importance of the memoranda is that Macnaghten was persuaded by 'private information' that Druitt was the Ripper and because Macnaghten says there were 'many circs' that made 'Kosminski' a good suspect (and there appears to be independent corroboration that 'Kosminski' was a suspect). You keep making the point that the memoranda contains factual errors, but there is a difference between making factual mistakes and inventing suspects, and you haven't presented a tittle of evidence or even argument that Macnaghten was given to wholesale invention, especially in a document presumably intended for distribution among people who, if such suspects didn't exist, would know it.

I am not suggesting the MM was a wholesale invention but what has been proven to be wrong with it makes it unsafe to rely on, and you or anyone else cannot deny that. MM must have compiled the memo from records in 1894. If that be the case it goes to show what senior officers said in later years that they had no clues as to the identity of the killer and the names mentioned were not suspects in the true sense.

As to what MM wrote about Druitt and his private information, it is not worth the paper it is written on without any corroboration. What we see in later years are a number of uncorroborated opinions given by long retired senior police officers as to who the killer might have been, and again they are worthless without corroboration. Its no use saying well they were there, and must have known, when there is nothing from 1888 to support their opinions. If you are going to put forward anyone as a suspect there has to be something that makes that person a suspect, otherwise just banding a name about is not going to make that person anything more than a person of interest along with the hundreds of others from 1888 and certainly not a prime suspect

As to Kosminski, I am prepared to accept that there might have been a Kosminksi other than Aaron because Aaron's antecedents do not match. but of course Martin Fido went down the route of trying to find this mysterious Kosminski in asyslum records and the only one that could be found was Aaron, and in the later Aberconway version MM exonerates Kosminski, and I say again if this Kosminski was such an important suspect as postulated by Anderson and Swanson, why did no one know his christian name, because everything legal or illegal stems from the MM in 1894, and I have to ask again despite being the author of two documents in neither does MM mention the ID parade especially as he was Swansons immediate superior, nor for that matter does anyone else within the police or government.

Anderson either lied through his teeth in his 1910 book, or he got confused over another ID parade, Having regard to him in the years leading up to the publication telling everyone that he didnt have a clue as to the identity of the killer I am inclined to believe the former. Insp Reid in 1910 called Anderson out over his claim.

As to the marginalia as I have said before, I have my doubts as to when it was written and by whom !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Simon Wood]

I've been reading through Ann Druitt's case notes at The Manor House Asylum. Interestingly, there was no mention of MJD's suicide, which although eighteen months prior to her admission might have been considered a contributing factor in her declining condition.

So was she told about Monty, and, if so, would she have understood? Or given her condition, was it thought best that she was not told?

[Wickerman]

I thought her case notes only covered the last 6 months of her life?

[Wickerman]

.... If you are going to put forward anyone as a suspect there has to be something that makes that person a suspect, otherwise just banding a name about is not going to make that person anything more than a person of interest along with the hundreds of others from 1888 and certainly not a prime suspect

How is it that you are not able to apply this rationale to Mac's report?
Of course there had to be a reason, our problem is Mac does not share what that reason was.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

And your point is?

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

I wouldn't expect any mention by her doctor of Montie's passing after a year.
I don't think she was in anybody's care at the time of his death. Being only certified in April 1889 by Dr Gasquet, any reason more likely would be made in his notes.

[Wickerman]

If his information was as good as he himself believed it was, then surely he would have known that Druitt was a school teacher and not a doctor if it had come from the family

I don't think he said it came from the family.
His source knew the family, perhaps a friend of the family. All Mac. said was that he had reason to believe the family also suspected him. So Mac. is not talking about his source.

Why do you suppose Abberline also believed the suicide was a doctor?

There is a good deal of information missing in this mystery, discarding what we have is not going to get us anywhere.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,
Sorry, I understood what you were saying, but I thought you were going somewhere with it. It has always been known that the memoranda contains errors, so that's nothing new, but it's what the errors mean that matters. For example, nobody would seriously question that the memoranda is utterly unreliable as a source of information about Druitt, such as his occupation, but that doesn't mean that Macnaghten was wrong when he said that suspicion fell on Druitt as a result of 'private information'. Getting one's facts wrong is one thing, but inventing 'private information' is completely different. One needs evidence to support any argument that Macnaghten invented things like that, and as far as I know that evidence doesn't exist.

So, yes, the memoranda is demonstrably unreliable is some respects, but it isn't in others. The point is that the memoranda presents problems which have been recognised almost since it was discovered, and you quite rightly point some of these out, but that doesn't mean the memoranda is discarded (which I know you haven't here suggested). If we discarded all historical documents that present problems we wouldn't have an awful lot of history left.

Hello Paul,

Oh yes, I am certainly "going somewhere" with it. I think I may, for once, be ahead of you.. Haha!

You see, as I pointed out, and you gracefully acknowledged, the errors are seriously flawed when compared to real facts.

Please allow me to recap slightly.

MM states that the two men called Cutbush are related. Not only that, he is specific in calling them uncle and nephew. The 2nd claim makes the first claim worse, due to the fact that the two men were not related in any way.

MM states Ostrog was a 'homicidal maniac'. He also is apparently completely in the dark as to where this 'homicidal maniac' was in 1888. The second false claim compounds the first. Because the fact is that he was in Paris, in prison, and he had never, ever, been homicidal.

MM states Druitt was a doctor. He also states that there were suspicions as to Druitt being involved in the Whitechapel murders, from 'private information'.
We know for a fact that Druitt was not, nor ever had been, a Doctor.


So we have a very clear thing happening here. Wherever MM got his info on regarding Cutbush, either of them, it was completely false.
Wherever MM got his info from re Ostrog, it was completely false.
Wherever MM got his information re Druitt being a doctor, it is completely false...

And then we are supposed to believe that private information given to MM directly, was 100% kosher given the rest is littered with false facts?

I'm sorry Paul, but it is entirely obvious that serious doubts must be attached to anything MM claims His record speaks for itself. SERIOUS falsities. Not just errors.

It IS serious when MM describes a person to be murdererius, (homicidal) when he is far from it.

It IS serious when he likens the same man to be possibly involved in the WM when the man is safely locked up in a prison in Paris.

It IS serious when he makes false claims about a fellow policeman to be linked with a criminal by family connections, and then lable that family connection to boot. Falsely. It is seriously poor.

And because he can't get his facts right about Druitt either.. Then claim 'private information as a source to incriminate the man.. THAT is a serious insinuation, even an accusation, (dressed up as "more likely than Cutbush" .. Etc.)

So. Unreliable?.. . Yes. Definately.

As to your point re throwing it away, and what would we be left with... I say this.

Throw away the Memoranda on the basis of unreliability and false facts and claims.. And you infact are left with far less confusion. MM meddling with his opinions, in this manner, helps no one imho.

I appreciate that some people MUST have the memoranda and the marginalia to help keep this game going. I think some are afraid to clean away the years of dirty oil and start cleaning this machine up with a fresh cloth. To undo an old, greasy, nut on around a car engine, you need a substance to clear the mess away first. That way, you can get to the centre of the problem easier.


Phil

[Roy Corduroy]

Good evening Simon & Wick et al

"I've been reading through Ann Druitt's case notes at The Manor House Asylum."

"Being only certified in April 1889 by Dr Gasquet,"

Dr Gasquest renewed her certificates, which had lapsed. Details contained in this letter, which I presume was found in Ann Druitt's Manor House Asylum file, possibly contained in the Wellcome Archive and kindly transcribed and posted up by Forum Member Suspect Zero on a Casebook thread in this same Druitt section titled Ann Druitt--Montague's Mother medical condition in 1890.

127 Eastern Rd
Brighton
June 6th, 1890

Dear Mr. Tuke,
I gladly accede to Mr. Druitt’s wish that I should give you a short account of her case, so far as I know it.
She was brought down to Brighton on leave of absence from Brooke House in the summer of ’88, and placed under my care. I never had any history of her case from the asylum authorities, but I gathered she had an attack of melancholia with stupor, from which she was slowly emerging.
I was told she had diabetes, and that Dr. Pavy had ordered her a special diet; but the urine, frequently examined since, has never shown more than slight signs of sugar and occasional traces of albumen.
She slowly improved, and the leave was prolonged from time to time until it was inadvertently allowed to run out in the beginning of ’89. It was then impossible to recertify her, her condition being one mainly of apathy with an unreasonable refusal to spend money; but these symptoms increased, so that she was placed under certificates in April of last year.
She continued more or less in the same state till this winter when she had, as I believe, an attack of influenza. Her mind was quite clear for some days during the attack; but the symptoms of melancholia and stupor became much worse after. Especially her refusal of food became more obstinate, and for the last two months she has been almost entirely fed with the stomach-tube.
She has always been very obstinate and latterly has been violent when thwarted. When in this condition, bromides have appeared to suit her; otherwise she seemed to gain most from occasional use of Indian hemp for a week or two. The bowels have been regulated by Jalapine glycerin enemata.
Last year when she was communicative, she evidently had hallucinations that she was being electrified; latterly it has been difficult to elicit anything, but her refusal of food has been justified by her alleging there is no esophageal passage.

If there is any other point which you wish me to tell you, I shall be happy to write again, and am,
Yours faithfully,

I identified the letter writer as Dr Raymond Gasquet from the address of his surgery and home in Brighton. Ann was transferred to his asylum, St George's Retreat, a Provincial Licensed House in Sussex, in the summer of 1888, shortly after she had been originally certified at Brooke House, a Metropolitan Licensed House in Upper Clapton. St George's was a state of the art, purpose built facility located in the countryside. It is still in operation today as a care home.

So Ann Druitt was under Gasquet's care for the majority of her illness. I have studied him a little bit and he is an interesting person, and was highly regarded. Dr Gasquet married Cardinal Manning's niece and in fact he attended at the Cardinal's bedside upon his demise. His brother became the English Cardinal Gasquet a little later.

Roy

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

At the time of MJD's suicide Ann Druitt had been moved from Dr. Pavy's care at the Brooke Asylum in Clapton and was under the care of Dr. Gasquet at his Brighton establishment. She was moved to Tuke's Manor House Asylum in May 1890.

Gasquet wrote to Tuke on 6th June 1890, giving a resume of Ann Druitt's condition from the time she was placed in his care in the summer of 1888 [see Roy Corduroy's post above]..

At no point did he mention the suicide of MJD as a possible contributory cause of her apathy.

Regards,

Simon

[PaulB]

I am not suggesting the MM was a wholesale invention but what has been proven to be wrong with it makes it unsafe to rely on, and you or anyone else cannot deny that. MM must have compiled the memo from records in 1894. If that be the case it goes to show what senior officers said in later years that they had no clues as to the identity of the killer and the names mentioned were not suspects in the true sense.

As to what MM wrote about Druitt and his private information, it is not worth the paper it is written on without any corroboration. What we see in later years are a number of uncorroborated opinions given by long retired senior police officers as to who the killer might have been, and again they are worthless without corroboration. Its no use saying well they were there, and must have known, when there is nothing from 1888 to support their opinions. If you are going to put forward anyone as a suspect there has to be something that makes that person a suspect, otherwise just banding a name about is not going to make that person anything more than a person of interest along with the hundreds of others from 1888 and certainly not a prime suspect

As to Kosminski, I am prepared to accept that there might have been a Kosminksi other than Aaron because Aaron's antecedents do not match. but of course Martin Fido went down the route of trying to find this mysterious Kosminski in asyslum records and the only one that could be found was Aaron, and in the later Aberconway version MM exonerates Kosminski, and I say again if this Kosminski was such an important suspect as postulated by Anderson and Swanson, why did no one know his christian name, because everything legal or illegal stems from the MM in 1894, and I have to ask again despite being the author of two documents in neither does MM mention the ID parade especially as he was Swansons immediate superior, nor for that matter does anyone else within the police or government.

Anderson either lied through his teeth in his 1910 book, or he got confused over another ID parade, Having regard to him in the years leading up to the publication telling everyone that he didnt have a clue as to the identity of the killer I am inclined to believe the former. Insp Reid in 1910 called Anderson out over his claim.

As to the marginalia as I have said before, I have my doubts as to when it was written and by whom !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,
The errors have been known about almost since Druitt was identified, so nobody is saying the memoranda is safe to rely on, but that doesn’t mean that the whole document is unreliable, so you need to define precisely what you are saying and stop making sweeping dismissals such as ’not worth the paper it’s written on’.

What do you mean by ’not suspects in the true sense’? Do you mean that they weren’t suspects according to the professional terminology employed by the police in the 21st century, or are you trying to suggest that they were not suspects in the sense that the majority of people understand and use the word ‘suspect’ - namely someone on whom suspicion has fallen? Because, if suspicion fell on those people, and it clearly did, then they were suspects in the true sense, albeit not in the jargon of the modern police.

The information about Druitt is worth the paper it is written on irrespective of whether there is corroboration or not. It is an official document, written with a reason and for internal circulation by a senior policeman who had an interest in the case and access to files and sources we don’t. It is highly unlikely that it would have contained lies or inventions that those to whom it was circulated would have immediately identified. All this can be deduced without independent corroboration and it is safe to say that the memoranda clearly reflects Macnaghten’s opinions in early 1894, and we know that Druitt and Kosminski were real people. You have not presented any evidence or even solid argument to refute any of this, yet you state the document isn’t with the paper it was written on.

There does indeed have to be something that makes a person a suspect, and Macnaghten tells you that the ‘something’ was ‘private information’. You don’t know what that was and you can’t assess it, so you can’t judge it. So, exactly what analysis of Macnaghten’s career and abilities have you done that allowed you to state with any confidence that the received information didn’t make Druitt a solid gold suspect?

As for Kosminski, you are merely repeating tired old arguments that have been discussed many times before and which have very little bearing on Druitt. Macnaghten tells us that there were 'many circs' the made 'Kosminski' a good suspect, and you have presented no evidence whatsoever to show that there wasn't a Kosminski and weren't 'many circs', or why Macnaghten should have said there were in a document that was going to be circulated among superior officers and perhaps politicians up to the level of the Home Secretary.

[PaulB]

Hello Paul,

Oh yes, I am certainly "going somewhere" with it. I think I may, for once, be ahead of you.. Haha!

You see, as I pointed out, and you gracefully acknowledged, the errors are seriously flawed when compared to real facts.

Please allow me to recap slightly.

MM states that the two men called Cutbush are related. Not only that, he is specific in calling them uncle and nephew. The 2nd claim makes the first claim worse, due to the fact that the two men were not related in any way.

MM states Ostrog was a 'homicidal maniac'. He also is apparently completely in the dark as to where this 'homicidal maniac' was in 1888. The second false claim compounds the first. Because the fact is that he was in Paris, in prison, and he had never, ever, been homicidal.

MM states Druitt was a doctor. He also states that there were suspicions as to Druitt being involved in the Whitechapel murders, from 'private information'.
We know for a fact that Druitt was not, nor ever had been, a Doctor.


So we have a very clear thing happening here. Wherever MM got his info on regarding Cutbush, either of them, it was completely false.
Wherever MM got his info from re Ostrog, it was completely false.
Wherever MM got his information re Druitt being a doctor, it is completely false...

And then we are supposed to believe that private information given to MM directly, was 100% kosher given the rest is littered with false facts?

I'm sorry Paul, but it is entirely obvious that serious doubts must be attached to anything MM claims His record speaks for itself. SERIOUS falsities. Not just errors.

It IS serious when MM describes a person to be murdererius, (homicidal) when he is far from it.

It IS serious when he likens the same man to be possibly involved in the WM when the man is safely locked up in a prison in Paris.

It IS serious when he makes false claims about a fellow policeman to be linked with a criminal by family connections, and then lable that family connection to boot. Falsely. It is seriously poor.

And because he can't get his facts right about Druitt either.. Then claim 'private information as a source to incriminate the man.. THAT is a serious insinuation, even an accusation, (dressed up as "more likely than Cutbush" .. Etc.)

So. Unreliable?.. . Yes. Definately.

As to your point re throwing it away, and what would we be left with... I say this.

Throw away the Memoranda on the basis of unreliability and false facts and claims.. And you infact are left with far less confusion. MM meddling with his opinions, in this manner, helps no one imho.

I appreciate that some people MUST have the memoranda and the marginalia to help keep this game going. I think some are afraid to clean away the years of dirty oil and start cleaning this machine up with a fresh cloth. To undo an old, greasy, nut on around a car engine, you need a substance to clear the mess away first. That way, you can get to the centre of the problem easier.


Phil

Phil,
As I have agreed, the memoranda contains errors, but there is a world of difference between errors and inventions. We can draw all sorts of conclusions from the errors, but the errors do not mean that Macnaghten made things up, especially in a document intended for internal distribution among individuals who would recognise the inventions or might otherwise seek clarification. So, why on earth shouldn’t it be accepted that the ‘private information’ was probably genuine?

The accusations are serious, but you haven’t shown that Macnaghten knew Ostrog was in prison in Paris when he wrote the memoranda. You haven’t shown that Macnaghten knew Charles and Thomas were unrelated when he wrote that they were uncle and nephew. You haven’t shown that the ‘private information’ didn’t exist. As far as Macnaghten was concerned, Ostrog’s whereabouts in 1888 were unknown. Macnaghten could have sought confirmation that Charles and Thomas were related, but why would he have done that if he had no reason to suspect they weren’t? The ‘private information’ may not have existed, but you haven’t shown that it didn’t exist or explained why Macnaghten would have mentioned it in a document intended for people who may very well have ‘asked’ to see it, and you haven’t shown that Macnaghten had a propensity for claiming that things existed when they didn’t. In fact, you haven’t shown anything at all - except that Macnaghten otherwise made some factual errors which were largely unimportant in the context of the document, but which you choose to represent as significant and damning.We can infer things from the errors, such as arguing that Macnaghten was curiously under-informed about his favoured suspect, and we might even infer further that being under-informed suggests that he didn’t take Druitt seriously enough to find out more about him, but that doesn’t mean that Druitt wasn’t a suspect and it doesn’t mean that it wasn’t ‘private information’ that implicated him, and those are the important things about the memoranda.

[Herlock Sholmes]

MM states that the two men called Cutbush are related. Not only that, he is specific in calling them uncle and nephew. The 2nd claim makes the first claim worse, due to the fact that the two men were not related in any way.

Surely too much is being made of this error. At certain points in our lives we’ve all heard pieces of information that wasn’t correct. We have then carried that piece of information around in our brains; possibly for the rest of our lives. As that information was given as a ‘fact’ it’s how we consider it. This is simply what Mac had done. He’d been told that the two Cutbush’s were related. He would have thought ‘why would someone lie about it?’ He simply assumed, incorrectly, that it was true. This is such a trivial point. Just as trivial as the fact that Mac didn’t mention Kosminski’s Christian name. So what? He mentioned the name Kosminski. What lengths do we have to go to to try and discredit Macnaghten and his memoranda? Are we going to criticise his handwriting or the quality of the paper that it was written on?

[Wickerman]

Hello Roy, Simon.

Anne Druitt's progress was briefly laid out by David Andersen.

It was believed primarily due to the loss of her husband, her mental state gradually deteriorated until in July 1888 she was finally certified by Dr. Perry, and admitted to Brook Asylum under the care of Dr Adams.
It would appear she began to improve (if I read this right) to the extent that she was permitted what is described as a 'leave of absence', or repetitive 'leaves of absence'. According to Dr Gasquet, she was paced in his care during these periods, whether Anne was living at Brighton or not is unclear.

This perpetual "leave of absence" period is also unclear, but she was only re-certified (was she deteriorating?) by Dr. Gasquet in April of 1889, and placed in his care at Brighton.
William had her removed from Brighton to Chiswick in May 1890.

So, getting back to Simon's point. Any records likely to mention her worsening condition due to her son's death would have been recorded by Dr Gasquet, but no records have survived prior to June of 1890.

Thankyou Roy, yes that letter dated June 6, 1890 is published by Andersen.
I don't understand why Gasquet would not receive any medical history from Dr Adams at Brook Asylum, so the symptoms Gasquet did make note of must have come from family, likely William?
The only point Gasquet makes concerning Anne's condition after she was received into his care?, is where he says, "..She slowly improved, and her 'leave' was prolonged from time to time until it was inadvertently allowed to run out at the beginning of '89".

Superficially then, it would appear the death of Montie (which took place during this 'leave of absence' period) had no effect on her mental state, or perhaps she was never told due to the known effect the death of her husband had had on her in the first place?