"City PC"

[mariab]

Thanks so much Mr Hainsworth for clarifying that Major Arthur Griffiths in his Mysteries of Police and Crime quotes the Aberconway version, making it public.
(Plus I'm afraid that last night I seem to have mixed up the year 1894, when the official MM was written - ouch! Might have been the fever taking over my brain.)

[Jonathan H]

To Tom

Yes, Macnaghen made a tiny error, but whether he and the family and the MP, made a colossal and ghastly error at taking Montague's homicidal claims at face value will probably never be known.

I think you're partially right; that he was concealing mistakes by the police such as erasing the graffiti.

I also think Mac had to get rid of it in 'Aberconway' in order to build up 'Kosminki' now supposedly seen by a beat cop -- well, maybe -- talking to a victim. But if you leep the graffiti for that murder then the ethnicity of the killer as possibly this Polish Jew is exposed, and nullified.

[Bridewell]

Montague's Homicidal Claims?

Yes, Macnaghen made a tiny error, but whether he and the family and the MP, made a colossal and ghastly error at taking Montague's homicidal claims at face value will probably never be known.

Hi Jonathan,

We don't know that Montague made any "homicidal claims", so speculating on whether or not MacNaghten or anyone else made the "ghastly error" of taking them at face value is surely an exercise in futility until such time as we know that such claims were actually made.

[Bridewell]

So why take almost a year to sack Harvey? And Watkins resigned.

Contrary to belief, Harveys dismissal is noted. However the reason why is not given. He is noted as being dismissed with a fellow PC and reasons for his dismissal are not given either, which is normal for the monthly returns.

Is other words, his dismissal is seemingly routine and is most likey tied to drink, judging by his record.

Monty

Hi Neil,

There's nothing in his record. It's been stripped of almost everything bar the letters from referees supporting his appointment.

[Jonathan H]

To Bridewell

I would disagree that it is all futile.

It was believed to be solved by a handful of people a few years after 1888. This was broadly shared with the public from 1898.

Yes they could have been wrong, because Druitt was not caught in the act, but what an error for the police chief to make--let alone the man's own family.

If this is Druitt then he was telling people he had acted homicidally. If it is not Druitt, then it is an amazing set of coincidences:

Western Mail
19 January 1899

WHITECHAPEL MURDERS
DID "JACK THE RIPPER" MAKE A CONFESSION?

'We have received (says the Daily Mail) from a clergyman of the Church of England, now a North Country vicar, an interesting communication with reference to the great criminal mystery of our times - that enshrouding the perpetration of the series of crimes which have come to be known as the "Jack the Ripper" murders. The identity of the murderer is as unsolved as it was while the blood of the victims was yet wet upon the pavements. Certainly Major Arthur Griffiths, in his new work on "Mysteries of Police and Crime," suggests that the police believe the assassin to have been a doctor, bordering on insanity, whose body was found floating in the Thames soon after the last crime of the series; but as the major also mentions that this man was one of three known homidical lunatics against whom the police "held very plausible and reasonable grounds of suspicion," that conjectural explanation does not appear to count for much by itself.
Our correspondent the vicar now writes:-
"I received information in professional confidence, with directions to publish the facts after ten years, and then with such alterations as might defeat identification.
The murderer was a man of good position and otherwise unblemished character, who suffered from epileptic mania, and is long since deceased.
I must ask you not to give my name, as it might lead to identification"
meaning the identification of the perpetrator of the crimes. We thought at first the vicar was at fault in believing that ten years had passed yet since the last murder of the series, for there were other somewhat similar crimes in 1889. But, on referring again to major Griffiths's book, we find he states that the last "Jack the Ripper" murder was that in Miller's Court on November 9, 1888 - a confirmation of the vicar's sources of information. The vicar enclosed a narrative, which he called "The Whitechapel Murders - Solution of a London Mystery." This he described as "substantial truth under fictitious form." "Proof for obvious reasons impossible - under seal of confession," he added in reply to an inquiry from us.
Failing to see how any good purpose could be served by publishing substantial truth in fictitious form, we sent a representative North to see the vicar, to endeavour to ascertain which parts of the narrative were actual facts. But the vicar was not to be persuaded, and all that our reporter could learn was that the rev. gentleman appears to know with certainty the identity of the most terrible figure in the criminal annals of our times, and that the vicar does not intend to let anyone else into the secret.
The murderer died, the vicar states, very shortly after committing the last murder. The vicar obtained his information from a brother clergyman, to whom a confession was made - by whom the vicar would not give even the most guarded hint. The only other item which a lengthy chat with the vicar could elicit was that the murderer was a man who at one time was engaged in rescue work among the depraved woman of the East End - eventually his victims; and that the assassin was at one time a surgeon.'

[Wickerman]

Hi Jonathan.

Not being of any religious inclination myself, I am in no position to question the scenario offered in this article. What I do read though is a typically Catholic phrase "seal of confession", being used by a Church of England Vicar.

The Confessional, as I understand it is a Catholic practice, though I have been cautioned that in the late 20th century the Church of England began to adopt the practice with their own variations.
That may be, but this article is late 19th century, were the Church of England undertaking Confessionals at this time?

[Jonathan H]

Yes, the High Church wing of the Anglican denomination (eg. the one which tacked close to Rome, and still does).

But that is arguably small beer compared to what the Vicar is doing which is unusual and risky but comprehensible to his audience; that of mixing fact anf fiction to protect not just the dead but also the living (eg. the rep of the respectable).

I had been arguing the case for Macnaghtenn in his Report(s) and via Simsn mixing fact and fiction, covertly, and then this turned up in 2008 put here by Chris Scott as part of a 'Druitt in the Confessonal? thread. A Vucar doing the same thing overtly.

For me--and only me--it explainerd what lay behind Sims' fictoid that the 'doctor' had been 'twice' a voluntary patient in asylums, Wherein he had been diagnosed as not just depressed, but also a homicidal maniac who wanted to rip up harlots--and they ket onto the streets this ticking bomb!

The connecting theme here between fact and fiction is that culpability comes from Jack's own lips; by his confession to caring professionals of his desires-crimes.

[Bridewell]

Thought I'd bump this thread as the Seaside Home / Anderson's Witness seems to be featuring quite a bit in discussion on others.