Some thoughts, after a year's study:

[mklhawley]

To be fair, Jonathan, only one contemporary police theory - or solution if you must - could have produced the name of the actual killer. It is therefore a reasonable assumption - or theory if you must - that because no more than two senior cops appeared to be in agreement over their likeliest rippers, and others didn't even have a suspect they could believe in, there really was no convincing evidence against a specific individual, and therefore yes, the police - as a body - failed to solve anything, with none of them as individuals coming up with the right name.

On top of that, you have Macnaghten destroying the private information that had convinced him, as just one policeman, that Druitt dunnit. So in effect, how could the ripper case not have been a 'mystery' to the people at the time, and remain a mystery to us today?

You wouldn't buy a car on trust from someone who told you he had destroyed all the paperwork showing it had one careful lady owner - or would you?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Very thoughtful, but for me, it's too much of a broad brushstroke not taking into account their positions and personal agendas. For example, I can see Abberline not privy to the bigger investigation, because he was focus on the Whitechapel District. Any West End 'Jekyl/Hyde' types, he would not known much about. Also, MacNaghten was blessed with being at the right position at the right time.

Sincerely,
Mike

[Jonathan H]

To Caz

But you are not being 'fair' to the primary sources.

You do raise important poiints but if you look more carefully at my previous post(s) they are explained there.

Whether that theory is convincing is up to the individual reader-researcher.

From 1898 Major Griffiths, tentatively and ambiguously, and then from early 1899, George Sims, vigorously and unequivocally, shared with the public that the case was solved.

Or almost 'solved' because the Jack-most-likely could not be brought to trial being deceased. He would never even be officially arrested for the murders, let alone convincted, beause he had gone on to receive an higher judgement.

This also had the somewhat disconcerting element that a Brit would not be protected by due process, by being able to defend himself in a court of law either. Yet he was being posthumously traduced as the greatest criminal fiend in the annals of crime.

As the 1900's rolled along Sims persisted with this line; that the drowned doctor was the chief solution of both Scotland Yard and the Home Office. The latter dept. of state contained, so Sims said, a definitive report which left no reader in doubt -- though Sims did not claim he had read it.

Really eagle-eyed people would have noticed Abberline's dissent, and Reid's and Anderson's.

The reason you are being unfair to the primary sources is that if you examine them, from 1888 to 1917, what you can see is that there is no evidence or indication, whatsoever, that Macnaghten conferred with any other police about Druitt (Anderson and Swanson have nothing to say, everything Abberline says is wrong, Reid believes it is a press beat-up, and Littlechild thinks maybe it is referring to Tumblety).

They never had a chance to consider the evidence against this deceased suspect. Yet elements of Druitt find their way into the Polish Jew (dead soon after Kelly), into the American suspect (young; a possible suicide), and into Abberline's medical student (Thames River suicide; Home Office Report)

We know Mac conferred about 'Kosminski' because Anderson and Swanson seem to have adopted him as their likely deceased suspect from 1895. But what that pair fundamentally believed about their 'suspect' is wrong (and the much later claim of a positive witness identification of this suspect is even more of a desperate, mythical lunge) and therefore their only source may have been Mac, who can be shown to be deceitful about the Ripper case in other sources. Macnaghten is arguably better informed about 'Kosminski' a factor missed by most secondary sources.

What happned was that Macnaghten had found the identity of the likely murderer in 1891 but then, being adept at public relations, he could see how this would all play out if the whole truth became known about long dead Jack.

And it was all bad, except that Jack was identified and safely dead.

But weighed against that was the revelation the police had chased a ghost -- and arrested innocent people -- while Jack-the-Tory had topped himself years before having suffered some kind of implosion.

Furtehrmore, a good and respectable family would be annihiltaed by the scandal and/or sue on the basis that they were being falsely accused of harbouring the fiend.

What a shambles all that would be, and yet could be avoided if the indiscreet Anderson was misled, the family and their Montie were hidden for public consumption, and the Yard took credit -- quite shamelessly -- for almost arresting the 'mad doctor' (from the start this never fooled William Le Queux, and he said so).

In 1913 and 1914 Macnaghten tried to square the circle by coming clean while remaining opaque.

I do not think he burned any docuemnts. He was just alerting the surviving Druitts that they had nothing to fear about what he would leave behind at the Yard, and he was signalling that the Ripper's identity was his 'secret', his property, one of his achievements.

Had Mac allowed other police into the secret its possible they would have disgareed with his assessment; would have exposed the family belief as a mistake. But then why would not Macnaghten do this and avoid all the fictional machinations he launched, not without some calculated risk to his career.

By the way Griffiths seems to have understood that the English 'doctor' disappeared for three weeks and only then killed himself in the river. Sims crunched this timeline -- because it aided the Vicar's tale -- and began redacting the date of the body's reovery by a month too. I argue that this shuffle is cognition on Mac's part that Druitt did not kill himself within hours or even a few days of Kelly.

After all, where does this knowledge of a 'month' or 'upwards of a month' of the body in the river come from except accurate infromation about the timing of Druitt's self-murder?

[caz]

The reason you are being unfair to the primary sources is that if you examine them, from 1888 to 1917, what you can see is that there is no evidence or indication, whatsoever, that Macnaghten conferred with any other police about Druitt (Anderson and Swanson have nothing to say, everything Abberline says is wrong, Reid believes it is a press beat-up, and Littlechild thinks maybe it is referring to Tumblety).

They never had a chance to consider the evidence...

Hi Jonathan,

Quite how this is supposed to help with your argument that the ripper's identity was no 'mystery', and that Macnaghten's self-appointed mission was to make Scotland Yard come out of it smelling of roses while he kept all the goods to himself is beyond me I'm afraid. He let Anderson make a public twat of himself over his low-class Jew just for starters.

If Macnaghten couldn't or wouldn't confer 'with any other police' about Druitt, but was happy to give broad hints to the likes of Griffiths and Sims, and named the man in his memorandum but not publicly, it all smacks of someone who knew very well there was no shadow of proof, but liked to think he had been the one who had solved the case and wanted to write the name down for posterity.

Which was pretty much what he admitted himself, wasn't it?

Love,

Caz
X

PS Christ, I've just remembered this is a Sickert thread - yet another one polluted by Macnaghten's part in Monty's downfall.

[Jonathan H]

T Caz

A stronger counter-argument is that since Macnaghten can be shown to be deceitful and a propagandist (he was about the Camp case too) then he is hopelessly unreliable.

And one who never showed his hand -- his allaged 'evidence' -- to his fellow police.

On the other hand, Anderson's arguably sudden attachment to a solution with the caged-and-then-deceased lunatic in early to mid 1895 coincides with William Grant being so hot a Ripper suspect that they may have wheeled out Lawende again -- six years later! -- to see if he could affirm.

One source claims, the same source, that he did indeed affirm.

Yet nothing comes of all this, in terms of the Ripper case (though Grant's own lawyer, perhaps somewhat bombastically, believed he was the fiend -- and mistakenly also long dead. There it is agian; that persistent motif where suspects are in their graves prematurely. Who told him that?)

Instead Anderson is suddenly telling people in 1895, frankly and forthrighly I think, that 'Kosminski' (albeit a name not connected to Anderson in the limted extant record) was probably-definitely Jack.

What I am getting is that in moments of extreme danger of the Druitt solution spilling out of Dorset again (as it had briefly, almost lethally in 1891) Macnaghten had to scramble to divert the cruel searchlight.

With Cutbush in 1894 he prepared a Report to cover the Yard (Druitt was just a minor suspect but, yes, his family 'believed' he was the Ripper because, yes, he was into sexual violence) but which does not concede that the police had not heard of him for years.

By the way, RipperLand will never absorb that single observation.

That Mac is clearly deceitful in both versions by planting the false impression that Druitt was a suspect from 1888, or early 1889 at the latest. This self-servingly misleading aspect certainly fooled professional 'criminolgists' Griffiths and Sims.

And then, in 1894 over Cutbush and allegations of a police cover-up, nothing happened.

The unknown Report remained on file as an insurance policy; a trigger never pulled. Though the idea of a definitive Reort -- though at the Home Office -- was most certainly a trigger repeatedly pulled by Mac via Sims in 1903, 1904 and in 1910 (and in 1905 once by Mac too, albeit anonymously).

With Grant in 1895 Mac had to scramble again, this time to give Anderson a bone, a big thick juicy bone to prevent another public relations debacle, ala Sadler.

In effect, he gave his loathed superior Druitt in the form of 'Kosminski': a sexual monster who was conveniently dead and whose family suspected the worst, knowing Anderson would begin, inevitably, to tell people because he was so conceited.

With the Vicar's revelation coming in 1899, Mac got in first with Griffiths in 1898 (who was by no means entirely sold on this Dr Jekyll solution supposedly from 1888) and then more solidly with Sims who became the St. Paul of the Drowned Doctor solution.

If the Vicar is writing about Druitt, and he may not be, then we can see why those members of the family and of the 'better' classes all believed. Druitt had told a priest due to no more pressure than a tormented conscience (eg. no police were after him). Posthumously Macnaghten would have to work out if it was a delusion -- yet eveything must have checked out as kosher (Farquharson apparently mentioned 'blood-stained clothes' and may have been right).

[caz]

What I am getting is that in moments of extreme danger of the Druitt solution spilling out of Dorset again (as it had briefly, almost lethally in 1891) Macnaghten had to scramble to divert the cruel searchlight.

You see, Jonathan, this is what I can't get my silly blonde head round for two simple enough reasons.

1) Mac is the only known source to have named Druitt in written documents that he allowed to survive for posterity.

2) Mac could not have done a thing to 'divert the cruel searchlight' if the Druitt solution was known in Dorset and spreading, and could have spilled out at any time.

Love,

Caz
X

[Jonathan H]

No, you will never get it, which is not my fault or responsibility

1) Why shouldn't Mac keep a record of Druitt's name -- actually two -- as he believed that he had identified Jack the Ripper, albeit posthumously!?

2) All he could do if it came out was to protect the Yard's rep by claiming, in an internal Report for the Liberal govt., that Druitt had not been arrested due to a lack of hard evidence. He could thus obscure that the real reason he was not arrested was that the police knew nothing of him for some years after he killed himself.

It is the critical element of Sims' Drowned Doctor disinformation; the constabulary about to arrest the mad surgeon, and it is the same [false] element as to why Sims' dismisses the 1899 Vicar's tale as rubbish: that Jack had neither the time nor the mental capacity to confess anything to anybody.

In his 1914 memoirs, Mac conceded that this 'Simon Pure' was, in fact, a way-too-late suspect and that he did have timeand the mental wherewithal to confess to somebody (eg. 'his own people?').

[bolo]

Hi Phil,

Today, while the van Goghites and the Sickerteenies play, quiet research is going on and articles appear in Ripperologist etc that have real quality. It is that which we should welcome and rejoice in. Not the parasitic weeds.

outlandish theories are part of Ripperology since day one. While I agree that proper research is the way to go, I think that it also can't hurt to keep an open mind about them. Take Knight's Final Solution for example, his theories and final verdict are silly but he still managed to unearth some bits of authentic evidence that was unknown before the publication of his book. By separating the wheat from the chaff, researchers who came after him benefited from it, despite it's many cul-de-sacs and red herrings.

It's true that most of those van Goghites and Sickerteens you mention haven't added anything of importance to the case yet, except perhaps for a bit of entertainment with threads like this. I take them and their theories as an opportunity to leave my dusty study of Ripper research and have some fun in the game room with a LVP-themed pinball machine for a while... it sort of eases my mind and keeps me from not seeing the forest for the trees, so to speak, and sometimes it's even inspiring enough to try and see things from a new angle but with your feet firmly to the ground.

In this light I find the parasitic weeds verdict a bit harsh I must say.

Regards,

Boris

[Limehouse]

Hi Phil,



outlandish theories are part of Ripperology since day one. While I agree that proper research is the way to go, I think that it also can't hurt to keep an open mind about them. Take Knight's Final Solution for example, his theories and final verdict are silly but he still managed to unearth some bits of authentic evidence that was unknown before the publication of his book. By separating the wheat from the chaff, researchers who came after him benefited from it, despite it's many cul-de-sacs and red herrings.

It's true that most of those van Goghites and Sickerteens you mention haven't added anything of importance to the case yet, except perhaps for a bit of entertainment with threads like this. I take them and their theories as an opportunity to leave my dusty study of Ripper research and have some fun in the game room with a LVP-themed pinball machine for a while... it sort of eases my mind and keeps me from not seeing the forest for the trees, so to speak, and sometimes it's even inspiring enough to try and see things from a new angle but with your feet firmly to the ground.

In this light I find the parasitic weeds verdict a bit harsh I must say.

Regards,

Boris

Hi Bolo/Boris,

I almost agree fully, except that I am slightly uncomfortable about the 'fun and entertainment' aspect of Ripperology because at least five women died horrible deaths and some of the candidates put forward have been vulnerable people themselves and I believe they and the women deserve better.

However, your approach is probably the best way of avoiding becoming thoroughly depressed by the grimness and the tragedy of these events.

Julie

[bolo]

Hello Julie,

Hi Bolo/Boris,

I almost agree fully, except that I am slightly uncomfortable about the 'fun and entertainment' aspect of Ripperology because at least five women died horrible deaths and some of the candidates put forward have been vulnerable people themselves and I believe they and the women deserve better.

However, your approach is probably the best way of avoiding becoming thoroughly depressed by the grimness and the tragedy of these events.

Julie

completely agreed. Of course I don't draw this kind of fun and entertainment from the victims and their horrid living condition but the slightly silly choice of suspects like van Gogh, Sickert or Toulouse-Lautrec, as disrespectful and unfair as it is to drag them through the mire just to sell some books.

Of course the deaths of the Ripper victims are no laughing matter, that goes without saying. I apologize if this impression came across, definitely was not my intention.

Regards,

Boris

[Limehouse]

Hello Julie,



completely agreed. Of course I don't draw this kind of fun and entertainment from the victims and their horrid living condition but the slightly silly choice of suspects like van Gogh, Sickert or Toulouse-Lautrec, as disrespectful and unfair as it is to drag them through the mire just to sell some books.

Of course the deaths of the Ripper victims are no laughing matter, that goes without saying. I apologize if this impression came across, definitely was not my intention.

Regards,

Boris

Hi Boris,

No, I didn't think you were giving that impression, but the tone of the Van Gough thread, where the guy invites people to tune in to the radio programme to listen to him being interviewed, suggests that we should all 'join in the fun' and so on. It's all very well people coming up with these unlikely celebrity candidates, but in doing so, the real victims and their terrible ending can get side-lined. I think I've even been guilty of cracking the odd joke myself when such ridiculous suspects have been suggested.

Regards

Julie

[BTCG]

Choosing suspects based on celebrity status?

Methinksnot. Experts in the field are certain that Sickert penned some of the Ripper letters. One could be a lark...to exceed one, is a confession.

The onus then is on us, to disprove the confession. Like it or not, this is the ONLY scientific evidence ever uncovered.

[Limehouse]

Choosing suspects based on celebrity status?

Methinksnot. Experts in the field are certain that Sickert penned some of the Ripper letters. One could be a lark...to exceed one, is a confession.

The onus then is on us, to disprove the confession. Like it or not, this is the ONLY scientific evidence ever uncovered.

Who ARE these experts??

[BTCG]

Who ARE these experts??

Why is it that you cannot do your own research?

[Limehouse]

Why is it that you cannot do your own research?

I have studied and had an interest in Sickert for many years - long before Cornwell wrote her book. Most experts agree that Walter Sickert was in France at the time of the murders. Which experts do we believe?

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo.

Choosing suspects based on celebrity status?

Methinksnot. Experts in the field are certain that Sickert penned some of the Ripper letters. One could be a lark...to exceed one, is a confession.

The onus then is on us, to disprove the confession. Like it or not, this is the ONLY scientific evidence ever uncovered.

How does writing more than one letter equate to a confession? Following that line of reasoning, only Sickert could have written more than one of the thousands of letters. One letter per person, except for the murderer who
is the only one that can write multiple letters.