The exact meaning of "sexually insane"

[Jonathan H]

My book is called "JACK THE RIPPER-CASE SOLVED, 1891".

That is the title the publisher chose, as they did the price.

It was certainly case solved for Macnaghten in 1891.

That's close as we can get; the certainty of that competent, hands-on police sleuth, and the parallel certainty of the suspect's family.

It can never be an absolute solution just a provisional one.

But that is true of a multitude of historical theories.

I can live with provisional, but many here cannot and that is their perogative.

I think my book will be of no interest to Whitechapel buffs because out of seventeen chapters only two (and a half) are on the murders. It is really a loose biography of Sir Melville Macnaghten, and of his second daughter. The question is, will it be of interest to mainstream readers--perhaps not?

It contains four new sources:

1. Old sources that other books have chosen not to include and/or to sideline, such as Macnaghten's 1913 press conference, his 1914 memoirs--especially chapter IV, "Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper"--and the "West of England" MP articles from 1891 and 1892.

2. Newly unearthed material by George R. Sims that shows he knew the trtue details about Druitt, and was intent on disguising such data.

3. "The True History of Jack the Ripper" (1905) by Guy Logan that is a gold mine for accurate information about Druitt.

4. An embargoed source (until March), one unknown since 1922 which arguably proves Sir Melville knew that Druitt was a lawyer and not a doctor, and furthermore that he was desperate to prove the drowned man was not the fiend.

[Amanda]

Finally....

Jonathan,

This is exactly what we've been waiting to know, what it's all about!

It must have taken you quite some time to locate and search through all that material, I admire authors who are thorough.

I wish you every success, I for one will be making a purchase

Amanda

[GUT]

It's the embargoed and the "arguably" that really interests me.

[pinkmoon]

Jonathan,

This is exactly what we've been waiting to know, what it's all about!

It must have taken you quite some time to locate and search through all that material, I admire authors who are thorough.

I wish you every success, I for one will be making a purchase

Amanda

I will be buying a copy as well just as soon as I have remortgaged my house and sold my children to finance it.

[Ausgirl]

The bit that appeals to me about Australia isn't the climate its the fact that if I lived there I would be hundreds of miles away from the wife.

Thousands even, but the same amount closer to mine and she could be just as bad.

You two curmudgeons are fooling no-one. A week without wifey and you'd be wearing your undies inside-out and eating things out of cans. Whilst conversing plaintively with the budgie.

I just want to know what was actually wrong with Druitt, sexually. Was he a necrophile? Pedophile? Sexual sadist?

I'll be buying Johnny H's book, if that information is in it, and isn't presented six degrees separated from concrete (or hey, I'd be happy with silly-putty at this point) evidence.

[GUT]

You two curmudgeons are fooling no-one. A week without wifey and you'd be wearing your undies inside-out and eating things out of cans. Whilst conversing plaintively with the budgie.

I do all that anyway, so what's the diff?

[Jonathan H]

To Ausgirl

Then let me save you a small fortune. That is not in my book because no diagnosis for what ailed Druitt happened whilst he was alive.

There are posthumous opinions only and very Victorian.

Macnaghten described him as a man who could appear to be perfectly normal, who could deploy many faces, but the hidden one was that of a misogynist who enjoyed murdering and mutilating prostitutes. Therefore he was a sexual maniac or sexually insane because these acts of extreme violence provided an erotic fulfillment.

We would simply say psychopath or sociopath.

The Druitt family seemed to have settled on a different mental affliction: epileptic mania. This does not even exist but was believed at the time to be real. A sufferer could commit all sorts of violent crimes allegedly in a mental fit, after which sometimes the person did not even recall them. This is a much more comforting diagnosis to believe about your member who was a serial killer, e.g. he did not even know he was doing it, and when he did he confessed and killed himself.

Macnaghten was rather harsher in his opinion--Druitt enjoyed it.

Johnny H

[Ausgirl]

To Ausgirl

Then let me save you a small fortune. That is not in my book because no diagnosis for what ailed Druitt happened whilst he was alive.

There are posthumous opinions only and very Victorian.

Macnaghten described him as a man who could appear to be perfectly normal, who could deploy many faces, but the hidden one was that of a misogynist who enjoyed murdering and mutilating prostitutes. Therefore he was a sexual maniac or sexually insane because these acts of extreme violence provided an erotic fulfillment.

We would simply say psychopath or sociopath.

The Druitt family seemed to have settled on a different mental affliction: epileptic mania. This does not even exist but was believed at the time to be real. A sufferer could commit all sorts of violent crimes allegedly in a mental fit, after which sometimes the person did not even recall them. This is a much more comforting diagnosis to believe about your member who was a serial killer, e.g. he did not even know he was doing it, and when he did he confessed and killed himself.

Macnaghten was rather harsher in his opinion--Druitt enjoyed it.

Johnny H

Johnny, I was really just being a bit overly wry in regard to my frustration re that question.

The bolded parts above: was MacN's particular conclusion reached because he believed Druitt was the Ripper, though?

It's a different matter for the *family* to come to their conclusion - clearly, all was not well with him. But he wrote of being concerned about affliction with the same illness as his mother. Sociopathy? Likely not. Mania of some kind, maybe.. schizophrenia is a good option (and quite scary indeed, for many people; as the daughter of a delusional person I know that absolute terror of 'what if..' only too well, I'm not sure how I'd react if it actually happened).

Is MacN the only person on record to add the sexual element to it?

[Scott Nelson]

Ausgirl sounds kind of wild to me. Got any pictures of yourself?

[Ausgirl]

Ausgirl sounds kind of wild to me. Got any pictures of yourself?

As much as passing out pics of myself to strangers from murder sites on the internet sounds REALLY appealing...................feck no.

[GUT]

As much as passing out pics of myself to strangers from murder sites on the internet sounds REALLY appealing...................feck no.

Must be an aussie by that answer, but she cleaned it up.

[sepiae]

To Ausgirl

Then let me save you a small fortune. That is not in my book because no diagnosis for what ailed Druitt happened whilst he was alive.

There are posthumous opinions only and very Victorian.

Macnaghten described him as a man who could appear to be perfectly normal, who could deploy many faces, but the hidden one was that of a misogynist who enjoyed murdering and mutilating prostitutes. Therefore he was a sexual maniac or sexually insane because these acts of extreme violence provided an erotic fulfillment.

We would simply say psychopath or sociopath.

The Druitt family seemed to have settled on a different mental affliction: epileptic mania. This does not even exist but was believed at the time to be real. A sufferer could commit all sorts of violent crimes allegedly in a mental fit, after which sometimes the person did not even recall them. This is a much more comforting diagnosis to believe about your member who was a serial killer, e.g. he did not even know he was doing it, and when he did he confessed and killed himself.

Macnaghten was rather harsher in his opinion--Druitt enjoyed it.

Johnny H

Jonathan, hi again,

meanwhile as I was offline I finally realized who you are
even before the Amazon link.
And I actually got to read an older essay of yours. And I'm trying to read anything with as open a mind as possible, to try and see at the end whether what I read made sense to me.

I think no one in this thread made the claims that you seem to have read into; the translation of 'sexually insane' as possible code for being gay was meant in a more general way, and this was clarified. Likewise the notion that Macnaghten was/might have been mistaken isn't the same as declaring him incompetent.

A few points about what you wrote above.
You wrote:
'The Druitt family seemed to have settled on a different mental affliction: epileptic mania. This does not even exist but was believed at the time to be real.'
Actually, it does. There is a condition called postictal psychosis. To be precise, this is not mania, of course, but if we view it in, if you allow, Victorian light, we may be generous with the term. Postictal psychosis is usually seen as connected with certain forms of epilepsy [that doesn't mean that this applies to epilepsy per se, of course]. It is also commonly connected with fits of violence, and it appears to cause amnesia regarding the duration of the fits at times.
Interestingly, Sarah Beth Hopton wrote a book about Mary Pearcey, about whom she had a different theory as those usually applied to her case, and what she describes sounds very similar to this condition.

2nd, and this is a bit like with not needing to say 'in my opinion' - if someone says something one would think that s/he voices her/his opinion, but some of it I'd rather welcome in the writings of a police man about a case. If there's information about a 3rd party one hasn't ever had the chance to interview, to assess, to [I]meet[I], in this case a 3rd party that has died, it'll always ring a little odd to me when this writing ends up as 'he was...' and full stop. It's certainty that I find dubious. And stated as it is it very much reads like certainty.
That's not to say, of course, that, say circumstantial implication cannot be very powerful and indeed convincing. But such would have to be found for reading, in this case. I'm glad you clarified the certainty issue as it is with you, and also the book title; a quick glance, and one might only see [again] the 'case solved'-stamp. Which the title doesn't actually say.

Still, I do have an issue with this sort of via corners diagnoses, and conclusions, I'm referring to Macnaghten. To repeat, witness testimony concerning the specifics of a person's mental state are to be enjoyed with caution - even when it comes from family members; depending on the family
that often is especially when it comes from family members.

I wonder, how many people might have committed suicide in and around London within the span of those 3 odd weeks, and with how many, if we could have a closer look at them, we could build similar case-files...

I absolutely love speculating. It's the beginning of a route. This said, the more speculating is employed, the more one has to admit holes. I know you do. In the end it's a question about where one's inclination comes from: in your essay for Ripperologist [I belief it was issue #103] I found nothing that could add cement for me.
It's still a very intriguing read, and one of the better articles. I should think there's much more in your book.

[Jonathan H]

Thanks S

For clarifying epileptic psychosis as having a basis in fact. I stand by what I wrote that the family would have a natural bias towards embracing it, whereas the police chief would not.

Macnaghten wrote that "in all probability" Druitt was the Ripper, because he could never interview him, let alone arrest him.

Instead he had to make a judgement of the men who were confiding this secret to him, and they were family, and yet they believed something so hideous that it could only bring them social ruin if it came out. He then had to judge if they were in the grip of some kind of hysteria due to grief or shock? Or was their Montie in the grip of a delusional illness when he confessed?

Again the police sleuth's judgement was no and no. I accept that opinion, one that he broadly shared with the public.

It might be wrong, but in all probability it is likely to have been correct.

That is as close as we can get.

To many here that's next to hopeless, whereas to me that's pretty good.

Where I disagree with you is the stubborn and stale notion that the timing of Druitt's sucide had anything to do with Macnaghten's belief in Druitt's guilt. An analysis of all the sources shows that it did not, especially his memoirs. Druitt died two years too early. However for short-term propagandist reasons Macnaghten pretended (with Sims) that he drowned himself at the right time according to the 'police' at the time. In 1914 he conceded that this was not so.

[sepiae]

Thanks S

For clarifying epileptic psychosis as having a basis in fact. I stand by what I wrote that the family would have a natural bias towards embracing it, whereas the police chief would not.

Macnaghten wrote that "in all probability" Druitt was the Ripper, because he could never interview him, let alone arrest him.

Instead he had to make a judgement of the men who were confiding this secret to him, and they were family, and yet they believed something so hideous that it could only bring them social ruin if it came out. He then had to judge if they were in the grip of some kind of hysteria due to grief or shock? Or was their Montie in the grip of a delusional illness when he confessed?

Again the police sleuth's judgement was no and no. I accept that opinion, one that he broadly shared with the public.

It might be wrong, but in all probability it is likely to have been correct.

That is as close as we can get.

To many here that's next to hopeless, whereas to me that's pretty good.

Where I disagree with you is the stubborn and stale notion that the timing of Druitt's sucide had anything to do with Macnaghten's belief in Druitt's guilt. An analysis of all the sources shows that it did not, especially his memoirs. Druitt died two years too early. However for short-term propagandist reasons Macnaghten pretended (with Sims) that he drowned himself at the right time according to the 'police' at the time. In 1914 he conceded that this was not so.

Hi,

ah, but yes, of course this makes sense
My reply to this bit related to you saying that such a thing doesn't exist. I don't doubt that the diagnosis would be sitting better with the family than others. As well as I don't doubt that Macnaghten didn't buy into it. The symptoms wouldn't be exactly subtle.

There's no reason to disagree with me about the timing issue as having anything to do with Macnaghten's belief. I don't think they had.
The remark on suicides within the 3 weeks in question was about the mental states of anyone about to kill her/himself. The timing issue then can come into play as where both contemporaries but also people now are concerned.

Confession: if such a confession was indeed made.

The reasons for him stating what he did, and how he did it [including the mistakes], as you assess them, do make sense, even though I still don't trust in them. In their light, even the assurance of fact does.
It hinges for me very much on whether your idea of it is correct or not.

Go on, I'm not as block-minded as you might think.
Where I am stubborn is Macnaghten's sources not inevitably and without doubt being reliable, neither position or kinship makes them so - perhaps I'm being fussy. But how could I not be - nothing really, really concrete, outside a notion of whatever it was that's been said exactly, and if it is true, then yes, I'm in, but we'll never know for sure, of course.

It still doesn't make Druitt a stronger suspect to me. It seems very much to be about this edge of balance, as you said: to many, hopeless, to you, pretty good; there's quite a bit in between, though.
I'd be very excited about something that turns me towards a positive about a confession, say.

I recall a line I liked a lot in your essay, forgive for not really quoting.
Macnaghten and Anderson having the 'perfect' suspect - both of them.
[don't grill me on the 'perfect'].
Of course, Kosminski turned out, in retrospective, to be a very weak suspect - that is until Fido's theory comes in, where Kosminski isn't actually Kosminski.

It's for me quite fascinating to see people's preferences or animosities towards the respective policemen higher up that were in play. There's often much more emotion going on than with any uniform on the beat, and consequently opinions about competence and agendas vary on a much broader scale. Perhaps we'd all be very surprised indeed would it be possible to meet them in person.
Since you gave some insight in what makes you trust a little more in Macnaghten's ability [in your essay], I'd like to know whether there's anything that distinguished him in particular from, say, Anderson and Swanson - though I feel Swanson wouldn't get too good a rap.
I'm asking w/o clandestine thoughts in waiting [why does one have to add this here...?], since your book is not yet in my reach.

[sepiae]

... in addition, for it occurred to me how strange a phrase like, ' it hinges for me very much on whether your idea of it is correct or not' must seem.

What I meant by this, I recall that you explained a number of issues surrounding Macnaghten's remarks, including some discrepancies with actual facts, in quite a convincing way, while with others you're back at him remembering incorrectly, due to the years that had passed.
I wonder how can one remember incorrectly about one's prime suspect in such a murder case?
In the light of this, my sentence might make a little more sense.