What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[Herlock Sholmes]

As you know, I don't have a big issue with that. Besides, the simple fact of the matter is that, despite the tenuous family connection and the potential shame/fame he might have brought to the family, Macnaghten went ahead and named Druitt anyway.

In a Memorandum not for public consumption though.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't think Macnaghten picked Druitt to fill a gap, Herlock. I think he picked him because he genuinely believed him to be a strong suspect (noun), and I suspect (verb) that this was because MM favoured a particular explanation as to why the Ripper was never caught. This could only have been reinforced by the fact that MM believed that Druitt was sexually insane, had medical knowledge, and that he had it on reliable authority that Druitt's family thought he was the Ripper.

Strangely enough, criminals/lunatics though we know they were, we can say none of these things about Ostrog or Kosminski.

Good point Sam. You're saying that he might have seen his suicide as the confirming piece of evidence. The fact that tipped the balance so to speak.

[Sam Flynn]

In a Memorandum not for public consumption though.

So where was the problem? Was this the final version? Was it ever sent? If not, would the names have been in the final version? (Sorry for all the rhetoricals!)

[Sam Flynn]

Good point Sam. You're saying that he might have seen his suicide as the confirming piece of evidence. The fact that tipped the balance so to speak.

Exactly that, Herlock. In the same way that the stories of the "American Ripper murders" might have tipped Abberline onto Klosowski.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Simon. In reviewing this thread, I noticed a small but potentially significant error by Wolf V. in post #481. He misquotes George R. Sims:

…"It is perfectly well know at Scotland Yard who "Jack" was, and the reasons for the police conclusions were given in the report to the Home Office, which was considered by the authorities to be final and conclusive.
How the ex-Inspector can say "We never believed 'Jack' was dead or a lunatic" in face of the report made by the Commissioner of Police is a mystery to me. … The genuine "Jack" was a doctor. His body was found in the Thames on December 31, 1888."

Looking at the original column in The Referee (reprinted below) Sims did not state "the Commissioner of Police" but "The Commissioners of Police" (plural). Evidently this same error has been repeated in a number of secondary sources.


Now, this is somewhat interesting.

In 1894, Sir Edward Bradford was the Commissioner, and his three Assistant Commissioners were Archibald Bruce, Charles Howard, and Robert Anderson.

Macnaghten, as we all know, was not among them; he was Chief Constable.

So if Sims is referring to the Macnaghten memo, written by his old friend, why is he stating the report was "made" by the Commissioners? (No evidence of this in the Home Office files, of course).

And how does Abberline, who had retired two years before the memo was written, instantly recognize what Sims is referring to when he refers to a report made by “the Commissioners”?

John Hainsworth has an explanation for this oddity, and I have my own. If you or Wolf V. feel like chiming in, I am all ears.

But I have to say, I've yet to see a credible explanation how Abberline could have knowledge of a Home Office report filed two years after his retirement.

In brief, there is no guarantee that Abberline is referring to the Macnaghten memo. He does mention a suicidal “doctor,” but then so does Sims in The Referee piece that triggered his response, so that is hardly earth-shaking.

[Simon Wood]

Hi RJ,

I regret to tell you that I found the same error in my book, which goes to prove that you should never work from typed transcripts. Wherever possible, work from original sources.

Don't forget that Sims and Abberline were commenting nine years after the date on Macnaghten's memorandum.

I reckon they both read Griffiths and drew similar conclusions.

In advancing their respective theories, Abberline and Sims both cited a report sent to the Home Office. Major Griffiths did not mention a Home Office report in his 1898 book; but as he, Abberline and Sims all repeated the “drowned doctor” error it becomes apparent that, one way or another, the source of their bogus information had been the Macnaghten memorandum.

Regards,

Simon

[Scott Nelson]

But Simon, how did Sims know that the "drowned doctor" lived in a suburb six miles south of Blackheath?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Scott,

Help.

Do you mean Sims knew the drowned doctor lived in Blackheath, or in a suburb six miles south of Blackheath?

Regards,

Simon

[Scott Nelson]

sorry..the latter.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Scott,

On 22nd September 1907, thirteen years after the date on Macnaghten's memorandum, Sims wrote—

"The third man was a doctor who lived in a suburb about six miles from Whitechapel."

Earlier that year, on 11th February 1907, Macnaghten had written to Sims, telling him the names, places and dates of the canonical five murders.

"It may also save you the trouble of research if I give you the times & places of Jack the Ripper's pleasantries."

At this date, Sims obviously didn't know much.

So I don't believe that Sims "knew" about Blackheath. Rather, he had been told this, presumably by Macnaghten, whose details of his mythical "doctor" had been lifted from the press reports of Druitt's inquest.

Regards,

Simon

[The Baron]

Perhaps Macnaghten favoured the "suicide" theory for the cessation of the Ripper murders and, given that he firmly saw Mary Kelly as the last of five victims, a reputedly "sexually insane" man who killed himself shortly after her murder would have been a strong candidate from Macnaghten's POV. Also, his (incorrect) belief that Druitt was a medic would only have helped to support his candidacy, given that the Ripper was thought by some to have possessed anatomical knowledge and/or skills. Seen from this perspective, Druitt would have ticked quite a number of boxes.

Indeed.

'The Daily Express', Aug 1st 1904: --An interview with Sims :

‘... Mr. Sims said that he had not the slightest doubt in his mind as to who the “Ripper” really was. “Nor have the police”, he continued, “In the archives of the Home Office are the name and history of the wretched man. He was a mad physician belonging to a highly respected family. He committed the crimes after having been in a lunatic asylum as a homicidal maniac.”

This is MacNaghten's view of Druitt, a raving mad doctor who escaped his lunatic asylum and went butchering women on the streets of Whitechapel, before his mind gave away completely after Kelly's murder, and killed himself.


He could have done some research, but the lack of experience didn't help him.


The Baron

[Wickerman]

Perhaps Macnaghten favoured the "suicide" theory for the cessation of the Ripper murders and, given that he firmly saw Mary Kelly as the last of five victims, a reputedly "sexually insane" man who killed himself shortly after her murder would have been a strong candidate from Macnaghten's POV...

Here's another 'convenient' suicide, I wonder why Mac. didn't pick this poor sod:
"The man who committed suicide in Hyde-park yesterday (16 Nov) by shooting himself in the mouth with a revolver, has now been fully identified as Richard Brown, a constable of the E Division, belonging to Hunter-street police-station."

Statistics published at the close of 1888 show that on average in London six people commit suicide every week.
So on average about 42 people killed themselves in the seven weeks between 9 Nov. and 31 Dec.
Mac. had quite a good selection to choose from, so if he was just pinning the tail on the donkey, why pin it on Druitt?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here's another 'convenient' suicide, I wonder why Mac. didn't pick this poor sod:
"The man who committed suicide in Hyde-park yesterday (16 Nov) by shooting himself in the mouth with a revolver, has now been fully identified as Richard Brown, a constable of the E Division, belonging to Hunter-street police-station."

Statistics published at the close of 1888 show that on average in London six people commit suicide every week.
So on average about 42 people killed themselves in the seven weeks between 9 Nov. and 31 Dec.
Mac. had quite a good selection to choose from, so if he was just pinning the tail on the donkey, why pin it on Druitt?

I really do think that this is an important, and far too easily dismissed question. Why Druitt?

[Simon Wood]

A 'homicidal maniac' is a mentally unstable person who kills people. If Druitt was such a person, who had he killed prior to incarceration? And why wasn't he kept permanently in a lunatic asylum?

Macnaghten: "No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer; many homicidal maniacs were suspected, but no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one."

Why were all these homicidal maniacs out on the street?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Indeed.

'The Daily Express', Aug 1st 1904: --An interview with Sims :

‘... Mr. Sims said that he had not the slightest doubt in his mind as to who the “Ripper” really was. “Nor have the police”, he continued, “In the archives of the Home Office are the name and history of the wretched man. He was a mad physician belonging to a highly respected family. He committed the crimes after having been in a lunatic asylum as a homicidal maniac.”

This is MacNaghten's view of Druitt, a raving mad doctor who escaped his lunatic asylum and went butchering women on the streets of Whitechapel, before his mind gave away completely after Kelly's murder, and killed himself.


He could have done some research, but the lack of experience didn't help him.


The Baron

Lack of experience is the most pathetic, nonsensical claim as a way of explanation.

Read a book. Or even two.

Read JJ Hainsworth: Jack The Ripper-Case Solved, 1891.

Read Blood Harvest by David Anderson

But we all know that you won’t. And so you take the utterly valueless position of criticising something before you familiarise yourself with both sides of an argument. Your posts on other threads are the same. You get a fixed idea, based on a cursory reading, then you stick to it no matter what. You won’t even concede obvious points that reasonable posters on here (posters who don’t think that Druitt is a good suspect) will honestly concede. Even when you have been categorically proven to have made a mistake you haven’t the integrity to admit it. So your reduced to making dishonest points about Macnaghten’s daughter and other such piffle in a sad attempt to bolster your points.

You are an annoyance. Nothing more.