The exact meaning of "sexually insane"

[Jonathan H]

Ah, that's more like it.

I was getting worried that the resistance would only be token.

Now it's revving up.

How does the Orthodox deal with the sources that show the police chief in question was neither homophobic nor imprecise in his definition?

Easy, ignore them.

To others:

Sir Melville believed that Druitt was the Ripper. Despite what Pinkmoon always laments we do have a good idea as to what the "private information" contained.

It does not matter about the chief's posthumous medical diagnosis.

It's beside the point. He had discovered that the deceased Druitt was the fiend, and he was speculating as to why he committed such maniacal acts whilst at other times functioning as a gentleman and a professional. The word he uses is "Protean".

[GUT]

You won't get any criticism from me, Amanda. We don't know whether Druitt was gay or not. However, IF he had been caught say, embracing a pupil at his school, that would have been enough for the headmaster and his (Montague's) brother to have ascribed sexual insanity to the poor man.

We know that homosexuality was regarded as a certifiable mental illness throughout the first half of the twentieth century. If there was the slightest hint of what would have been thought an effeminate manner even, relatives, especially male ones, would have been pursing their lips in disgust!

Today he would be in trouble for hugging a student, not so in 1888, in fact not even in 1960s.

[Jonathan H]

Alright, GUT, that was good but, you know, let's not late it on too thick.

I need this to be paced so it lasts just two more months.

So don't climax prematurely, not when I am so close ...

[sepiae]

I think because there was never a Mrs Druitt that a lot of people have assumed that Monty was gay it's quite possible that Monty was simply to busy to have a wife or girlfriend what with his two jobs and hobbies .We can't rule out that Monty used prostitutes and some stage of his life possible in the area of the murders or close by nor can we say for sure if he had contracted syphilis which I have always thought could be a cracking motive for the murders .We will always come back to the fact that some person or persons must have told sir Melville something about Monty which lead to him drawing the conclusion that Monty was our killer what this is we will never know for sure but it must have been something a lot stronger than simple gossip could his informant mentioned the sexual angle to these crime s hence spawning the sexually insane claim.

Hi pinkmoon,

you're quite right, of course, as what we're talking here is nothing but assertions that indeed might already have been exactly that and no more back then. If we're still today wonder about someone's marital status and what it implies, how much more people might have wondered at the end of the 19th century. Which means nothing in regards to what the real choices of the individual in question were.
It's repeatedly assumed and said that Macnaghten 'must have had his reasons' - 'if we only knew...' etc. We know some about his source, and in the end, correct me if I'm wrong, that source referred to family members?
Which for Macnaghten means in the end 'heard it from someone who knew it from someone else, who...'
Been quite a lot discussed, but this includes the use of the term 'sexually insane'. If I was a lawyer for an in effigie Druitt, I'd first confront Mr. Macnaghten with the question, '... and you've been a close personal acquaintance of the late Mr. Druitt? I'm just asking, since you're so learned about his very private life...'
What if at the true bottom of what a distinguished figure as high up states as fact is indeed nothing but Chinese whisper, rumour, or perhaps even malice, possibly family-run malice? In other words, perhaps Macnaghten did not have to have reasons, while still being convinced of what he said. I don't know Macnaghten. Thus there's the possibility of one distinguished man telling another distinguished man being enough for him to trust the information.

For the record, the same goes, more even, for any notion about syphilis in context with Druitt - my mentioning it was just to give a more general reply to what 'sexually insane' could mean in code.
Nothing about the information there is about Druitt would appear to imply syphilis.

[GUT]

OFF thread

Alright, GUT, that was good but, you know, let's not late it on too thick.

I need this to be paced so it lasts just two more months.

So don't climax prematurely, not when I am so close ...

Jonathan,

I hope the fires haven't impacted you.

Pace myself to last 2 months

[sepiae]

Ah, that's more like it.

I was getting worried that the resistance would only be token.

Now it's revving up.

How does the Orthodox deal with the sources that show the police chief in question was neither homophobic nor imprecise in his definition?

Easy, ignore them.

To others:

Sir Melville believed that Druitt was the Ripper. Despite what Pinkmoon always laments we do have a good idea as to what the "private information" contained.

It does not matter about the chief's posthumous medical diagnosis.

It's beside the point. He had discovered that the deceased Druitt was the fiend, and he was speculating as to why he committed such maniacal acts whilst at other times functioning as a gentleman and a professional. The word he uses is "Protean".

Hi Jonathan H,

seems we're getting there after all
Thank Zarquod...

No, no ignoring, nothing of the kind. Yes, about the good idea about source and content of the private information.
Not as much trust in the precision of his definition, though.

I take it that your notion of Macnaghten having 'discovered' that the late Mr. Druitt 'was' the fiend is an extension of his believing him to be.
What is not beside the point is that, no matter what, these conclusions were drawn based on 3rd party reporting of 2nd party information. Which makes Macnaghten sort of 4th party.

Precisely because of the source, Druitt as being favoured for the perp should be viewed with some care, if not suspicion.

Did anyone have direct evidence for genuine sexual insanity, not as an expression in code, in Druitt? Other than hearsay? Other than speculation about a protean character in order to explain it to oneself?

Anything in words, coming from a source more remote than, say, a close confidance or spouse - and perhaps there's reason not to count family as being this close in Druitt's case? - should be used as a possible sign post to a potential route, not as anything this definite, regardless the year, regardless the investigator, but especially the police. This said, the same should go for someone closer to the subject.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.

[Jonathan H]

Oh you are, Sepiae, completely, but that's your job--so keep doing it.

I'll show you what I mean.

Beyond this paragraph is a line of argument that becomes incomprehensible to people here. It is so shocking, you see, because it would mean it's all over. I know this because it is never commented on. The debate reverts to hey, Mac thought Druitt was gay, right everybody? It's all just Chinese Whispers--right?

Actually what happened is that Macnaghten conferred with the person who took Montie's confession, and that's just one degree of separation. I think that person's information contained details known only to the police and the killer.

In 1891 Macnaghten had tremendous personal and professional reasons to prove to the Druitts that they were quite mistaken about their deceased member. To get a fellow gent off the hook, especially one in no position to defend his good name.

The reverse happened: the family convinced the Chief Constable.

Then began the scramble to both reveal and conceal the solution, the sequel to 1888 covered in no previous book, until mine.

[lynn cates]

suggestion

Hello Jonathan. Thanks.

No, I was NOT suggesting that Druitt was homosexual. I was merely pointing out the etymology of a word. I think of that word as generic--much like Amanda described it.

Cheers.
LC

[sepiae]

Oh you are, Sepiae, completely, but that's your job--so keep doing it.

I'll show you what I mean.

Beyond this paragraph is a line of argument that becomes incomprehensible to people here. It is so shocking, you see, because it would mean it's all over. I know this because it is never commented on. The debate reverts to hey, Mac thought Druitt was gay, right everybody? It's all just Chinese Whispers--right?

Actually what happened is that Macnaghten conferred with the person who took Montie's confession, and that's just one degree of separation. I think that person's information contained details known only to the police and the killer.

In 1891 Macnaghten had tremendous personal and professional reasons to prove to the Druitts that they were quite mistaken about their deceased member. To get a fellow gent off the hook, especially one in no position to defend his good name.

The reverse happened: the family convinced the Chief Constable.

Then began the scramble to both reveal and conceal the solution, the sequel to 1888 covered in no previous book, until mine.

What, it is my job to being mistaken?
You shouldn't advise people to keep to such a job...

I don't say that Macnaghten thought Druitt was gay. I don't know whether he thought he was gay. I don't have information that would imply either way in respect of this.
I don't think the line of argument as being incomprehensible at all. I just think that it changes nothing about the separation - and I cannot be as sure about the degree as you are. Quite frankly, Druitt's family, any family is not being a rock solid source by mere nature of being family.
That's not to say, 'here, not a valid source, let's forget about it.'

You say you think the source's information contained details only known to police and perp?
Perhaps I should 1st get better acquainted with the details of how you arrived at your reading this - but I don't know which of the books out there is yours, I only meet you as Jonathan H
I might run into troubles finding your book then [I don't do Amazon], perhaps you've got a detailed summation in essay-form until then?

[Amanda]

Oh dear....

Hi Sepiae,
Your going the right way to upset Jonathan's apple cart!

As far as I'm aware there is only one chap called Jonathan that writes on the topic of Jack the Ripper, so his books should be easy to find in the shops.

Asking for an essay to look at to support his theories? Are you mad! Jonathan is clearly warming up his audience a couple of months ahead of his publication's release date. Sit back, enjoy the banter & then buy yourself a copy of his latest book when it does come out. Don't think any of us will be disappointed.

Amanda

[GUT]

Hi Sepiae,
Your going the right way to upset Jonathan's apple cart!

As far as I'm aware there is only one chap called Jonathan that writes on the topic of Jack the Ripper, so his books should be easy to find in the shops.

Asking for an essay to look at to support his theories? Are you mad! Jonathan is clearly warming up his audience a couple of months ahead of his publication's release date. Sit back, enjoy the banter & then buy yourself a copy of his latest book when it does come out. Don't think any of us will be disappointed.

Amanda

Well the poor man has to drum up sales doesn't he cost of living is horrendous.

[sepiae]

... perhaps this one in addition:

...nor imprecise in his definition?

Even if you're not referring to Macnaghten's outright claim of Druitt having been 'sexually insane', but in respect to it he's using a term that is pretty much open to interpretation from our POV because it could have more than one meaning in Victorian settings.
In other words, if we're to take it 'literally', which would already pose a problem for us, what are we to understand? Unless Druitt had been caught in the act of something absolutely unspeakable to anyone living back then by the primary source, a flagranti witnessing for which more is needed to believe in than a claim without direct reference [to the act] we're left with the term - which is very much what this thread is about. So we cannot know whether he was being imprecise. Until we do, the term is vague, however.

[sepiae]

oh dear gosh...

Hi Sepiae,
Your going the right way to upset Jonathan's apple cart!

As far as I'm aware there is only one chap called Jonathan that writes on the topic of Jack the Ripper, so his books should be easy to find in the shops.

Asking for an essay to look at to support his theories? Are you mad! Jonathan is clearly warming up his audience a couple of months ahead of his publication's release date. Sit back, enjoy the banter & then buy yourself a copy of his latest book when it does come out. Don't think any of us will be disappointed.

Amanda

Hi Amanda,

now you did it! You're making me experience that terrible feeling of having committed an intolerable social faux pas...

I hope you'll forgive me, Jonathan H, but there was nothing remotely sarcastic in what I wrote; I simply don't know who you are

Or, now, I have to amend it, I'm simply not sure who you are.
Before I'm not sure I'd rather won't have you mistaken. Which I would if I were. You know what I mean. Sort of.

Amanda, yes I'm being outrageously naive, as I'm asking in reply to what's said
As for finding books in shops, I'm not quite situated in literature heaven, unfortunately, so it'd be shipping in most cases, and absolutely not via Amazon...

All this said, I'm genuinely curious about this.

[sepiae]

...

... a curiosity that has to wait for food until Monday at least.
Bid farewell for the weekend, and wish everyone better book access than I have

[Jonathan H]

Well done, team!

My only fear are those suspicious enough to think it is a set-up by me; that these are all me trying to prove my point about Ripper Orthodoxy.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jack-Ripper-Case-Solved-1891-Hainsworth/dp/0786496762