Ripperologist 125: April 2012

[Robert]

I think Stewart Evans said that Macnaghten was not as careful as he might have been as far as the memorandum was concerned.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Robert,

What a polite euphemism.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

I think Stewart Evans said that Macnaghten was not as careful as he might have been as far as the memorandum was concerned.

Hello Robert,

Which is where I bring in the point that the MM, as Simon has pointed out in his Rip piece- ISNT stamped as rec'd by Scotland Yard.

If that document was in any way official, it can be reasonably assumed to have been stamped and dated as received AT THAT TIME into the archives. I find it very difficult to believe that Macnagthen just slipped it in himself AT THAT TIME. I have a gentle suspicion that the document wasnt official and that it was slipped in at a later date.

iF SO, the question becomes when, and by whom.
best wishes

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Phil,

Strange you should mention that.

I was about to ask if there is any indication as to when the MM first arrived in the archives to be indexed as MEPO 3/140 ff 177-83.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

I think Stewart Evans said that Macnaghten was not as careful as he might have been as far as the memorandum was concerned.

Hello Robert,

I think that careful comment can apply to some less reputable authors and scriptwiters too! Heh

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,

Strange you should mention that.

I was about to ask if there is any indication as to when the MM first arrived in the archives to be indexed as MEPO 3/140 ff 177-83.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

Not to my limited knowledge- perhaps someone can enlighten us?
All my books and documents are packed away at this present moment in time Im afraid.
To my memory- I cannot recall having seen a dated filing stamp- but am on shaky ground here
.
Best wishes

Phil

[Jonathan H]

To Debs

A couple of years ago, I had been theorising that Macnaghten was a discreet propagandist and a deft Whitehall player, when I learned from your reserach that Cutbush and Cutbush are not related.

Bingo!

Here is a police chief who was known for competence, compassion, reticence and for a formidably retentive memory. In his 'Times' obit. of 1921 they make a point of mentioning that he knew the 700 men he worked with very, very well.

Mac even cheekily calls the retired cop Cutbush 'well-known', in the full 'Aberconway'.

It beggars belief that not only did he get this familial connection wrong, it is an error that would have placed the Yard in the firing line with a Liberal govt. who were unsympathetic to Tory police chiefs and their failure to catch the Ripper -- whom it turns is an alleged suspect related to one of their own?!

It is the one detail you would check, unless you were incompetent, forgetful and had a tin-ear for office politics -- the very opposite of what the sources confidently and consistently claim about Mac.

Therefore I think that Macnaghten was toying with what Nixon called 'a modified, limited hangout'. That is he would be candid with social climbing wannbe H H Asquith and say, yes, they are related. We are not concealing anything.

More than that Uncle Cutbush is practically the mad boy's father (another lie) and therefore if this all comes out you could have a terrible libel case on your hands.

But his de-facto son is not the Ripper! Here are three suspects much more likely to be the fiend.

How so?

Because what was done to that poor woman in that tiny room (have you seen the photos? Let me show you ...) turned the killer's mind into mush. Cutbush cannot be the murderer because he was too compos for too long after Miller's Ct.

Whereas this English gent, I think he was a doctor (eg. anatomical knowledge!) killed himself immediately after that atrocity by drowning himself in the Thames. This Polish Jew -- what was his first name ...? -- he masturbated uncontrollably after that murder (is there a worse symptom of insanity?) and threatened a female relation with a knife, and had to be permanently sectioned. Here is a piece of really vile, Russian scum and another mad doctor (anatomical knowledge, again!) who was also a gibbering wreck.

We did not arrest them because there were no witnesses, and no hard evidence (though the Englishman was believed by his family, if only they had told us sooner?!) and then one was dead, and the others in the madhouse.

Thomas Cutbush is insane now but not in the years immediately after Miller's Ct. That's not possible for the real 'Jack'. Do you want to see the photos again?

I say 'toying' because what you have to remember is that the 'Report' was never sent. It was a trigger not pulled.

It was prepared in case 'The Sun' articles caused the surgeon's son tale to spill out of Dorset, perhaps exposing the Druitts and therefore the Yard to unhelpful scrutiny.

The aleternatve version Mac showed to cronies and disseminated to the pblic through them also includes the Cutbush lie, but by then it did not matter -- except to fool Griffiths and Sims into thinking they were accessing the contents of a definitive document of state.

The official version might have worked, might not have, might have been seen as too-clever-by-half. The point is that the story gained no traction and it was quietly mothballed.

The Cutbush lie is perfectly at home with every other decpetion practiced by Macnaghten in both versions. You need look no further than what was done to Ostrog. But also, critically, Mac concealed from the Liberals and pals that Druitt was an entirely posthumous suspect against whom 'evidence', let alone it's 'shadow', did not matter as he was long deceased.

[Stephen Thomas]

lWhy lie about a family link between a suspect and a quite highranking member of the Met?

Indeed, Debra, but nobody wants to figure that one out.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Stephen,

Yes- but the truth may well be stranger than the fiction of the MM...
The answer may lie elsewhere if my hunch is correct...
Best wishes

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stephen,

Agreed.

Everybody wants their pet policemen to have had the purest of motives for writing the twaddle they left to posterity.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

Hi Stephen,

Agreed.

Everybody wants their pet policemen to have had the purest of motives for writing the twaddle they left to posterity.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

Agreed.

And very few want to see the twaddle left behind is very clearly exactly that. Ruins the cosy little story of the one-man killing machìne. Cos if it wasnt one man- but two or more, little Jack Spratts story becomes fiction all of a sudden- and we cant have the main storyline blown to pieces can we? Would ruin years of tradition handed down from various 'old departments'...Policemen, theorists and commentators alike.

That would leave an awful lot of reputation and ego exposed, wouldn't it?
And empty places at the top of the totem pole to boot.

Best wishes

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Everybody wants their pet policemen to have had the purest of motives for writing the twaddle they left to posterity.

I don't have that luxury. My 'pet policeman' was thrown in prison along with the man he believed to be the Ripper. He told his story at great personal risk to himself, and certainly not for his reputation's sake. It's unfortunate, but a writer's dream. LOL.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Robert's comment about Stewart is the understatement of the year.

[Jonathan H]

As usual Simon, you're wrong.

My 'pet' policeman is not acting out of the 'purest' of motives but a mixture of compassion, and also a mixture of institutional and self-interest, you know, like real people do.

The smug rigidity by some here is both vulgar and intellectually indefensible.

[Tom_Wescott]

As usual Simon, you're wrong.

What's with all the understatements on this thread?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

Good to know I'm wrong.

I guess smug rigidity goes hand in hand with humourless pedantry.

Regards,

Simon