Days of My Years

[Jonathan H]

The Tory MP for West Dorset, Henry Farquharson, is much more likely than Boultbee, but I understand why that obvious connection must be sidelined here.

Mac's memoirs give the impression that there was no go-between; the 'certain facts' simply came directly from the Ripper's 'own people', leading to a 'conclusion' and a 'belief' -- though only 'some years after' Jack had killed himself.

In the veiled version of Mac's 1891 investigation (in Sims: in 1903 and 1907) the 'friends' are in direct contact with the relevant authorities, who supposedly already know and are fast closing on the 'mad doctor'.

What many do not ask themselves here is why did Macnaghten allow to have changed 'family' into 'friends' for public consumption?

[Bridewell]

The problem is, we don't have a convincing link back from Mac to the family

Walter Ernest Boultbee might be the man.

[Jonathan H]

To Smoking Joe

And that is what it is, a theory.

The best counters to it are not that Macnaghten was lazy or ill-informed about Druitt's particulars -- which tortures and distorts an entire range of primary sources -- or that Druitt was gay, but that argued by people like Adam Went; that since this police chief was so deceitful how can anything he claims be trusted?

Or by R J Plamer, as in how do you know Mac is not appropriating details from a minor suspect -- and he characterised Druitt as an almost-nothing suspect for file -- in order to hide Dr. Tumblety (a suspect he most certainly does not name in any extant record, but whom Littlechild has been told by somebody that he supposedly took his own life after Kelly)?

Or how about Mac took two suspects he knew to be probably innocent, Druitt and Tumblety, and created the wholly fictitious 'Drowned Doctor' because he could not stomach, for publicity reasons, Anderson's over-reach about a mad Jew and vile East End Jews? This line can be argued by examining the Camp murder of 1897. I am indebted here to the research of Debra Arif and Chris Phillips. It can be argued that for his memoirs, Mac combined two demontrably innocent suspects and created a guilty one -- who never literally existed.

Sound familiar?

To Caz

The breakthough of the MP articles (the ur-text found by Skinner in 1991, the MP's name by Spallek in 2008, and another vital one by Begg in 2011 which is after Coles was killed) is the convincing primary evidence that Macnaghten had an Old Boy source who knew the family.

Furthermore Farquharson's error, the double bang of murder and self-murder by Montie is not repeated by Mac in his 1914 memoirs, essentially matching the real Druitt. But Mac does repeat that 'his own people' knew he was 'absented' which broadly matches William Druit trying to find his missing sibling.

We have textual evidence that Macnaghten reshaped or allowed others to reshape the data to avoid libel trouble: the Druitt family of 'Aberconway' became the 'friends' of Griffiths and Sims.

Mac certainly never corrected this alteration.

Furthermore in 1910, Sims writes that the 'Home Office Report' says that the English doctor had been diagnosed as a dangerous lunatci in an asylum.

Neither version does.

Mac is deceiving his pal for propagandist reasons.

Which leads me to your biggest and most redundant error, though it is as the heart of the Old Guard's foundation or shield against the hated resurrection of the Druitt theory-solution.

You write that Macnaghten only gave 'broad hints' to his cronies about his three alleged suspects.

That's just untrue.

Major Arthus Griffiths, though clearly skeptical, copied or was told verbally the salient sections of the so-called draft version and wrote them in his big book 'Mysteries of Police and Crime'.

It's almost word for word, and rhus provides textual confirmation of Chritabel Aberconway's copy (and not Loftus' alleged memory of her older brother's version, now lost).

That single para in the intro of griffiths' book caused a media sensation. Most papers repeated it verbatim. Because apparently the police had not just one good suspect, they had three. And the best was an English medical man who was so shattered over what he had done that he immediately threw himself in the Thames river!

A ghastly tale -- better a low-life foreigner -- but at least this gent did the right thing at the end. That is satisfying. The notion that he went about his business, arguing in court, playing cricket, teaching boys, would have been beyond the pale.

That would have made him 'Protean' indeed!

Just a couple of months later, in early 1899, the much more widely read Goerge Sims -- who might have been expected to scoff at this 'revelation' based on the scathing things he had written about the police in 1888 to 1891 -- confirmed the scoop.

Morover Sims added details over the years: the Ripper had definitely been the drowned doctor who was a wealthy recluse and asylum veteran. He also definitely killed himself within maybe less than an hour after Miller's Ct. because his mind was destroyed. There was just enough functionality to get to the river and hurl himself in. Otherwise he would jhave been found wandering, covered in blood and unable to speak coherenrly -- and therefore sectioned.

The police were not tipped off by the frantic frends -- they already knew due to an exhaustice inquiry. The arrest warrant had been issued; had he not dronwd himself the mad doctor would have been arrested tried and convicted (and either executed or permanently sectioned. In 1902 Sims blames the state cutbacks for having unleashed onto the streets, in 1887, this human ticking bomb!

It is a measure of Mac's slyness that he picked Sims for all this balderdash.

He must have known that Anderson would keep parroting his caged lunatic Jew theopry -- which arguably came from Mac -- that Abberline would dimiss the drowned man because he was out of the loop, that Littlechild would wonder if that was Tumblety, that Major Smith would reject such a definitive conclusion, and that Reid would hang onto Coles as the final victim, and so on.

Yet the prestige of Sims with all classes trumped them all, ironically trumped even Mac's memoirs of 1914 when he tried to throttle back on the Dr Jekyll-for-real scenario.

When both Mac and Sims died, the image of Jack-the-Surgeon, the Top Hat Toff. became both stubbornly embedded in culture and yet detached from the 'Drowned Doctor'; became immortal, to the detriment of secondary sources understabding what this was originally all about (in hindsight, Dan Farson was a disastrous choice by Christabel to assert her father's bona fides to having identified the fiend).

Therefore in terms of the public and the press, Macnaghten had engineered a public relations coup for the Yard, though it did not outlast his own death; that Sctoland Yard were about to arrest Jack and knew exactly who he was. And he had killed himself so that is some kind of rough justice,

In private, or rather at the office in the 1890's, Mac lived with the perpetual anxiety that the Druitt story could erupt out of Dorset again as it had in 1891 (and may have done so again in 1899 with the Vicar?) and so the Cutbush near-miss sufficently alarmed him to get Druitt on file. He would be somewhat submerged by being bookended with suspects he believed were not suspects at all, while concealing that he was a posthumous suspect and yet trying to square the circle he implied he was a dcotor -- and certainly was a sexual maniac. Wow, that's a Pushme-Pullu mutation!

If Asquith read this out in the Commons -- no names of course -- the Druitts would still be shielded from the press. Nobody would associate the drowned dcotor with MP Farquharson's suiidal surgeon's sonof 1891. He even gambled by having the Cutbushes related.

But he never sent it, and may hever have sent it if asked so not that much of a gamble. It was put there as insurance if the Druitt story re-emerged. Once that crisis passed he began his anaonymous campaign with the public to convince them, half-deceitfully, that the 'police' were on top of the Ripper case at the time. For example they knew at the time that Kelly was the final vcitim. This bit lasts to this day on this site and ther other one.

It did not convince everybody in the Edwardian Era, and it left several cops scratching their heads, but it worked with most for the time he was assistant Commissioner and that sufficed.

From the safety of retirement, Mac tried to concede that Jack was not know to police for years after he killed himself, he had not been in an asylum and he did not kill himself instantly after his 'awful glut'.

It didn't work. Readers did not even realise he was talking about the drowned Doctor Suepr-suspect because in a snese he wasn't. He had to debunk Sims without Sims knowing it, and it was just too difficult to bring off.

His memoirs do not even make it into a load of modern, secondary sources as they are considered so non-revelatory.

Today, seeing behind Mac's curtain -- behind the Wizard of Oz's humbug with flashes and bells -- it has inadvertently pepetuated a 'mystery' long ago solved, and discredited the cop who solved that mystery.

[Smoking Joe]

Thanks Caz and Jonathan for replies.
I believe there is an "undercurrent" of hostility towards anything Druitt related ....by some anyway. Im glad at least one other sees it too,that makes me feel less paranoid. And yes similarities can be seen in the JFK "conspiracy loony community"
Caz brings up some interesting questions and points too.Both of you have a far better grasp of this particular issue than I. Im not ashamed to admit that. Maybe I should listen more and write less........But I have to say Jonathan's theory intrigues me.....a great deal.

[caz]

Straw Men are set up like, why would Macnaghten care about the feelings or reputation of the Druitt family, even though for him to do so is entirely in character and matches the 1891 MP article which is fearful of libel and is also based on his professional need to protect the rep of the Yard -- which he did.

Hi Jonathan,

I'm sure I've asked this before, but how exactly did Mac protect the rep of the Yard, by naming Monty in his private memo and giving broad hints about him to his cronies? I thought the Yard's rep was all over the place, thanks to their apparent failure to catch anyone responsible for any of the Whitechapel murders, and their complete failure to agree on their likeliest suspects.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

But Macnaughton put Druitt at the top of the list for some reason, a list that he seemingly had no right to be on in the first place. What reason would he have had?

Hi Smoking,

No reason whatever if he wanted to protect the Druitt family's reputation. He could have stuck with two more likely than Cutbush, or picked someone else for his third man, yet he made Druitt his prime suspect, when apparently no other senior cop even knew about him. I have no doubt Macnaghten thought he had a winner, but with his suspect six feet under and not a shadow of proof against him, he may have thought his best bet was to commit the name to paper so if he could ever be proved right (and therefore Anderson proved wrong), he would be remembered as the man who had solved the mystery.

In the same way that Jonathan argues for Druitt on the basis that Macnaghten would have fought tooth and nail against such a suspicion unless he had seen overwhelming evidence, it's possible that Macnaghten thought the same about the family, ie that they must have had overwhelming evidence for them to believe such a terrible thing about one of their own kith and kin - and that may have been what convinced Mac, just as it convinces Jonathan today. The problem is, we don't have a convincing link back from Mac to the family, so we don't know that any of the Druitts actually did suspect Monty, never mind had proof.

Love,

Caz
X

[Jonathan H]

To Smoking Joe

As you can see it is acute resentment against the revisionist Druitt theory, the origin of the Top Hat Toff, which burns among the Old Guard.

I have seen this before arguing with JFK buffs who cannot accept the overwhelming evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald (albeit that often has a political dimension as they are often leftists. Had Oswald been a racist-Bircher type it would have been a different story).

And that resentment is directed at me because I am advocating the revisionist theory Macnaghten is the most reliable primary source, which is apparently the most despicable heresy of all.

I am not inlcuding a few in that, eg. Simon Wood.

He has always been helpful to me and I respect his theory of a clumsy propaganda campaign by over-paid nobs at the Yard to claim some unearned glory in their retirement.

What others do is never address what I bring up.

Notice that. Not one aspect of my last couple of posts.

They just repeat the same discredited cliches.

Straw Men are set up like, why would Macnaghten care about the feelings or reputation of the Druitt family, even though for him to do so is entirely in character and matches the 1891 MP article which is fearful of libel and is also based on his professional need to protect the rep of the Yard -- which he did.

Is any of that addressed?

Of course not.

It's irrefutable (unless you are taking a variation of the Simon Wood hypothesis that a weak suspect is being sexed-up for the punters, a line I disagree with but respect because the sources are sufficiently fragmentary, contradictory and ambiguous).

Another Straw Man is why would the Druitts leak theghastly tale; eg. their secret and damaging fears about their deceased member?

Nothing in the primary sources suggests that they did -- deliberately.

That's what a leak is. An unintentional speading of secret information you were trying to keep under wraps. It happened to Silvia Odio, the critical witness in the Kennedy Assassination and it happened to the family of the likeliest suspect in the notorious Memphis-3 case.

The fact that MP Farquharason appears to be getting information which is garbled -- the timeline of murder and self-murder has been truncated -- and that he feels no compunction whatsoever to keep his mouth shut, strongly suggests that the story has come to him due to his partisan affiliation (they are all Tories) and his geographic proximity (the same county as Vicat Charles Druitt).

You see, Joe, nobody new is allowed to notice anything new that people who have been studying this for decades did not not notice first. If they have to concede that they did not notice it -- very rare, they usually just go to ground -- then they say it was not worth noticing.

In 1993 the Littlechild Letter shows that there was a prime suspect in 1888 who was a middle-aged, 'deviant' doctor and in 2008 there was a bridging, primary source found -- Farquharson -- between the family's belief and a fellow Old Etonian's Report in which Mac placed on file that Montie was definitely a sexual maniac.

Many on these sites spend their time staging rear-guard actions against these two major developements in research about Jack the Ripper.

Diagreement is fine. Mike Hawely and R J Palmer-- both superb writers -- and I do not agree on much, but its always civil and poductiive and fun.This also true of people I tangled with and then we leanred to get along like Adam Went and the tall, thin guy.

But for some the disgreement must always be disagreeable.

When you just stand you ground they pull the, hey, you're so sensitive, sorry, I had no idea you were that paranoid, there, there, let me pick up you white cane, poor thing, and other such condescending drek. All the tiresome rhetorical tricks of Orthodoxy, who just want what they have believed for years to remain undisturbed.

For example, I just found two new sources which back my theory.
Do people say, hey great stuff. I don't agree but well found (Howard Brown always does) no it's just the usual, mean-spirited put downs.

I could write their posts myself they are so predictable and so weak.

Druitt was a gay man -- and when Mac writes 'sexually insane' he means homosexual, the stuffy, repressed homophobe! -- and when he was sacked on a Friday, to his face, he topped himself in the Thames. Macnaghten, that hopeless bumbler-fantasist, managed to not onyt think he was a doctor but that Cutbush was related to a retired cop?! Farquhrason was just a posoinois gossip sniffing out the dirt on Tories as well as Liberal election opponents.

'Exonerating' Druitt is considered one of the singular achievements of the congnoscenti, and if it is wrong then many will pack up their bags and pick some other hobby (don't worry if the Littlechild Letter can be treated as it is in some quarters here, then the faithful have nothing to worry about).

But what if Druitt was Jack after all?

[Smoking Joe]

Hi Smoking Joe,

No problem.

In actual fact, it's our best bet.

Regards,

Simon

Why is it a less preposterous theory than either the Druitt,Kosminski, Chapman or Tumblety theory?

[Smoking Joe]

Hi Joe,

You have a very narrow view of whats possible Joe.....the Canonical Group could well be the work of 2, 3, 4 or 5 killers, maybe 10... to be guilty of the crime of murder does not require that the individual held the knife or pulled the trigger..... (just ask Charley Manson about that)...and no-one knows for sure if the man worked alone. Its an assumption. Just like the Canonical Group. I could see myself how having a lookout or 2 could have been very helpful on a few occasions, or having someone help with the initial attack....maybe Mr Wideawake Hat watching Millers Court was a lookout. But that would mean that in those particular cases that the killer wasnt killing to quiet his demons or to satisfy urges. There would be different motivations. And in Millers Court again for example, we have evidence that suggests the killer may have had some personal relationship with the deceased...the facial injuries, the location, Marys lack of attire,..

There are a few additional murders that also are not solved, and they shared space with the Canonical Group inside the Whitechapel Murders file. Some person or people killed them as well.

Any quotation from any Contemporary Senior Official that states unequivocally that this Ripper fellow "killed 5-and only 5", or "it was an ascertained fact that....", alledging some identified profile characteristic in the latter case, ....are misleading at the very least.

The question really should be are they outright lies or was most of the bluster an ego trip?

Cheers

Of course anythings possible. But as with anything from a legal standpoint if there is no evidence to support the allegation (i.e 2-3-4-5 -10 killers,look out men,etc,) then the case doesnt reach court. But even if it "doesnt reach court" you can argue thateven though there is no evidence for the assumption, logic and common sense can tell you it is indeed so ,then you can at least still "play the game" . But when you not only have no evidence ,but no common sense logic that tells you there were 1-2-3-4-5 10 co-conspiratoers either ,then it's time to fold up your tent. Ive mentioned the legal aspect because earlier I was told "the onus is on the prosecution "to prove the case against Druitt.


My "narrow " view isnt formed by exclusive information on the case. It is formed by the views held by the police at the time. Yes there were contradictory views maybe.But the balance of opinion favoured 5 victims,all by the same hand. Thats good enough for me,unless worthwhile info surfaces suggesting they were indeed all lying.They certainly knew more than we do.All we have done ,and I say we in the loosest sense, is RE-DISCOVER .

Now if this a wind up,fine, Ill take the bait....it passes the time

[Simon Wood]

Hi Smoking Joe,

No problem.

In actual fact, it's our best bet.

Regards,

Simon

[Smoking Joe]

Hi Smoking Joe,

What's your problem with the Spanish-speaking kangaroo option No. 3?

Regards,

Simon

No problem at all Simon .....No problem at all .....And you?

[Michael W Richards]

The alternatives would be.
The murders didnt take place,or were in fact a mixture of accidents suicides wrongly thought to be murders
5 seperate people were responsible for 5 different murders
The murder was not a "some one" but a "something"
To believe option 1 and 3 would be akin to believing reports of a Kangaroo speaking Spanish.
So I assume you are an advocate of option 2?

Hi Joe,

You have a very narrow view of whats possible Joe.....the Canonical Group could well be the work of 2, 3, 4 or 5 killers, maybe 10... to be guilty of the crime of murder does not require that the individual held the knife or pulled the trigger..... (just ask Charley Manson about that)...and no-one knows for sure if the man worked alone. Its an assumption. Just like the Canonical Group. I could see myself how having a lookout or 2 could have been very helpful on a few occasions, or having someone help with the initial attack....maybe Mr Wideawake Hat watching Millers Court was a lookout. But that would mean that in those particular cases that the killer wasnt killing to quiet his demons or to satisfy urges. There would be different motivations. And in Millers Court again for example, we have evidence that suggests the killer may have had some personal relationship with the deceased...the facial injuries, the location, Marys lack of attire,..

There are a few additional murders that also are not solved, and they shared space with the Canonical Group inside the Whitechapel Murders file. Some person or people killed them as well.

Any quotation from any Contemporary Senior Official that states unequivocally that this Ripper fellow "killed 5-and only 5", or "it was an ascertained fact that....", alledging some identified profile characteristic in the latter case, ....are misleading at the very least.

The question really should be are they outright lies or was most of the bluster an ego trip?

Cheers

[Simon Wood]

Hi Smoking Joe,

What's your problem with the Spanish-speaking kangaroo option No. 3?

Regards,

Simon

[Smoking Joe]

Hi Smoking Joe,

What leads you to believe that someone was JtR?

Regards,

Simon

The alternatives would be.
The murders didnt take place,or were in fact a mixture of accidents suicides wrongly thought to be murders
5 seperate people were responsible for 5 different murders
The murder was not a "some one" but a "something"
To believe option 1 and 3 would be akin to believing reports of a Kangaroo speaking Spanish.
So I assume you are an advocate of option 2?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Smoking Joe,

What leads you to believe that someone was JtR?

Regards,

Simon