Did Abberline think MJD was a Doctor?

[GUT]

Many authors claim that in the report in the Pall Mall Gazette 31 March 1903, Abberline was talking about M J Druitt and was in effect rebutting Macnaghten.

However he says "... the body of a young doctor was found n the Thames..."

Now Mac is often dismissed for getting Druitt's occupation(s) wrong, so was Abberline:

1. Making the same mistake, and if so why?

2. Talking out of his hat [or mistaken] when he said "Yes, know all about that story.."

3. Talking about another suicide [and if so who].

[Jonathan H]

In my opinion, it is option 3. or at least 3(b); he is talking about a real suspect from 1888 named John Sanders.

Other major writers have speculated along these lines because Sanders was a Ripper suspect in 1888 -- unlike Druitt --and was a young medical student -- unlike Druitt-- and was the subject of a Home Office Report at the time of his death -- unlike Druitt.

But Sanders was not deceased, let alone drowned in the Thames, he was mistakenly thought to be abroad when checked out in 1888 by C.I.D. and was [probably] sectioned at the time of the murders

Why would Abberline think he was dead?

In my opinion he was misled by Macnaghten, at some point, and this can be seen by another 1903 source which I think is an anonymous Mac muddying the waters at the same time as Abberline's press interview.

As if to try and pre-emptively debunk such a superficial long-shot theory somebody else still working at Scotland Yard, one “well versed in the annals of crime”, spoke with a reporter from ‘The Westminster Gazette’, March 24th 1903--a mere four days after a jury took less than fifteen minutes to convict Chapman of poisoning his wife.

The un-named cop offers glimpses into the true killer, while also admitting that there other “details” he cannot divulge: “… but I have every proof--of a circumstantial and private character—in my possession … Some day the truth concerning these murders … may be revealed.” He then refers to a definitive report from 1888 that confirms the murderer was “a student of surgery suffering from a peculiar form of murder-mania … long since dead—[he] has been identified to the satisfaction of the police as the guilty man.”

Regarding Abberline I think it is a case of hook, line and sinker, because the retired detective is anxious to write to Macnaghten to let him know about the Chapman solution, seemingly unaware that the drowned doctor super-suspect originates from that same chief, Abberline was, I and others argue, completely out of the loop when it came to Montague Druitt--who was not a young medical student, not a police Ripper suspect in 1888 and not the subject of a report ever sent to the Home Office.

[GUT]

I had thought of Sanders but dismissed him as who Abberline was talking about because I thought he was still alive at the time, so if you are right it was a little of option 2 and a little of option 3.

[lynn cates]

abroad

Hello Jonathan.

"But Sanders was not deceased, let alone drowned in the Thames, he was mistakenly thought to be abroad when checked out in 1888 by C.I.D. and was [probably] sectioned at the time of the murders."

New one on me. I thought that his going abroad was correct?

Cheers.
LC

[Jonathan H]

It was a bit of a balls-up as they had the wrong street: 20 Aberdeen Place, instead of the similar sounding 20 Abercorn Place.

[pinkmoon]

In my opinion, it is option 3. or at least 3(b); he is talking about a real suspect from 1888 named John Sanders.

Other major writers have speculated along these lines because Sanders was a Ripper suspect in 1888 -- unlike Druitt --and was a young medical student -- unlike Druitt-- and was the subject of a Home Office Report at the time of his death -- unlike Druitt.

But Sanders was not deceased, let alone drowned in the Thames, he was mistakenly thought to be abroad when checked out in 1888 by C.I.D. and was [probably] sectioned at the time of the murders

Why would Abberline think he was dead?

In my opinion he was misled by Macnaghten, at some point, and this can be seen by another 1903 source which I think is an anonymous Mac muddying the waters at the same time as Abberline's press interview.

As if to try and pre-emptively debunk such a superficial long-shot theory somebody else still working at Scotland Yard, one “well versed in the annals of crime”, spoke with a reporter from ‘The Westminster Gazette’, March 24th 1903--a mere four days after a jury took less than fifteen minutes to convict Chapman of poisoning his wife.

The un-named cop offers glimpses into the true killer, while also admitting that there other “details” he cannot divulge: “… but I have every proof--of a circumstantial and private character—in my possession … Some day the truth concerning these murders … may be revealed.” He then refers to a definitive report from 1888 that confirms the murderer was “a student of surgery suffering from a peculiar form of murder-mania … long since dead—[he] has been identified to the satisfaction of the police as the guilty man.”

Regarding Abberline I think it is a case of hook, line and sinker, because the retired detective is anxious to write to Macnaghten to let him know about the Chapman solution, seemingly unaware that the drowned doctor super-suspect originates from that same chief, Abberline was, I and others argue, completely out of the loop when it came to Montague Druitt--who was not a young medical student, not a police Ripper suspect in 1888 and not the subject of a report ever sent to the Home Office.

Hi jonathan,will all this be explained in your book I do hope so.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Let's get real.

Anyone who mentioned a drowned "doctor" got their information from the wholly misleading Macnaghten Memorandum or its Readers Digest version in Major Griffiths' 1898 book.

Regards,

Simon

[Jonathan H]

Hi Simon

Neither version of the memorandum (there were two versions by the way, only one of which had its suspects contents publicly disseminated by Major Griffiths in 1898) mentions the 'Drowned Doctor' having been in a private asylum, a year before the murders. And that whilst in there he had been diagnosed as a potentially homicidal maniac, specifically with a fixation for savaging East End harlots.

Nor does either version mention that the second leading theory at the Yard was supposedly an American medical figure (Sims, 1907).

Nor does either version mention that the Polish madman had supposedly lived by himself and received medical training in Poland, nor that he had been out and about for a considerable time after the Kelly murder. Nor that the Russian doctor had been incarcerated abroad (all Sims, 1907).

Nor does either version simply dump the sidekick suspects by not mentioning them at all, or concede that Druitt was not a suspect whilst alive (both versions of the memo try this con) where he convinced Macnaghgten due to information received, by implication, from his own people (Macnaghten, 1914)

Nor does either version point towards the body of the barrister having been recovered in early December (Macnaghten, 1913).

Nor does either version identify the source of the private information likely to have been Henry Farquharson in 1891 (in 1902 Sims will claim it was the family, albeit veiled as friends).

Neither version mentions that Druitt was an Oxonian, an athlete, and who killed himself rather than be sectioned into an asylum after telling his landlord he was going abroad (Logan, 1905).

Neither version mentions a confession to a priest, yet the data the Vicar has in 1899 is more accurate about the real Druitt than what Griffiths and Sims were hustling.

Most critically the memo(s) say "family", not "friends"(Griffiths and Sims) and this alteration (maintained from 1898 until 1914) proves that the data is being reshaped for public consumption.

[martin wilson]

Hi all

The Musswellbrook Chronicle 26th September 1900 reports that according to the Paris Figaro the ripper was confined to an asylum, and again the medical student from a good family is mentioned.
It states the facts were known to two prominent journalists, George R Sims of course but also T.P. O' Connor, editor of The Star, from 1888 to 1890.

Reading through Sims' Ripper writings on Casebook, it struck me how he never wavered as to the rippers identity. I wonder why, he was intelligent enough to know when he was being spun a line I think, so what did he know?
All the best.

[Jonathan H]

In my opinion George R. Sims was in on it with Melville Macnaghten; the disguising of Druitt and his family.

[martin wilson]

Hi Johnathan

It's odd isn't it? because Abberline rejected the theory that Sims endorsed. I don't believe that Sims was basing his conviction on the same facts that Abberline and the rest of us have.
I certainly don't believe you can keep a former newspaper editor silent on the matter, and yet I have had a quick look at O' Connor and there is no mention of him apart from the John Pizer incident.

All the best.

[Jonathan H]

Based on the little we have, you can see that Abberline in 1903 knows nothing about Druitt (does not even know that this suspect's 'patron' is Macnaghten) and Sims knows, well, just about everything based on what he wrote (and his protege Guy Logan in 1905).

[martin wilson]

Hi Jonathan

Well, someone agrees with you, although as this was 1898 I am not expecting them to be posting anytime soon.

Distinguished Offenders Secrets Of British Prisons (National Advocate 14th January 1898) Source Trove Digitised Newspapers.

Clearly supports your premise,although has Jack as a blueblood confined to Broadmoor. Might be worth a read though.

All the best.

[DirectorDave]

If anyone is reading this then it means after a few years of trying to post this I've finally plucked up the courage to hit "submit reply".

Does anyone else think there is a possibility Druitt's initials "MD" could be a contributing factor to him being incorrectly said to be a Doctor?

Even more silly I know, but MJ Druitt the name sounds like it should be a Doctor's name?

Feel free to call me daft...I don't care I've finally said it.

[Patrick S]

If anyone is reading this then it means after a few years of trying to post this I've finally plucked up the courage to hit "submit reply".

Does anyone else think there is a possibility Druitt's initials "MD" could be a contributing factor to him being incorrectly said to be a Doctor?

Even more silly I know, but MJ Druitt the name sounds like it should be a Doctor's name?

Feel free to call me daft...I don't care I've finally said it.

I've always attributed it to the frailty of human memory. Abberline was speakign 20+ years after the murders and he may have confused his professions. Doctor, rather than lawyer. He may have confused the father with the son: Druitt's father was a doctor. His memory may have been influenced by the fact that many believed the killer was a medical man, thus making Druitt "a doctor" in this telling.

Just my thoughts.