WE know that Mac thought Montie was a good candidate for JtR.
We know that in the MM it is said that his family suspected him.
We have speculated that Mac came by his "Private Information" after he joined the police.
Is t at all possibility that the family contacted Macnaghten during that time between early December when William is told Montague is missing and his body being found. Not as a policeman but in some private capacity just as someone who was well connected.
Has anyone ever found a link between the families that could make this fit.
Guess I'm a bit bored and thinking outside the box.
G U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Sir Melville Macnaghten, the police chief, and George R. Sims, the popular writer, were close friends with Colonel Sir Vivian Majendie (knighted 1895) who was Chief Inspector of Munitions at the Home Office (a brave military commander and then bomb disposal expert, he was as famous as Sims), For some years the three upper crust gents went to the boxing every Monday night, after enjoying dinner at the Macnaghten's.
Unknown for 125 years, however, is that Colonel Majendie was also related (by a first cousin's daughter's marriage to Vicar Charles Druitt) to the family of the Ripper. Majendie also had another cousin who was a master at Winchester at the same time Montie attended as a student, and this cousin was, furthermore, friends with Georgiana Druitt (Montie's older sister). Majendie also had a brother-in-law who worked in Queen Victoria's inner, bureaucratic circle.
The family's terrible secret leaked via the local MP in Dorset, Henry Farquharson, in early 1891, either because he was told, directly, or it leaked along the Tory constituency grapevine. Macnaghten met first with the MP, and then with the Colonel, who could introduce him to the Vicar, who was related, by marriage, to the distinguished family of a close chum.
The Majendie breakthrough -- along with the discovery of Farquharson -- lays to rest, once and for all, the assumption from 1959, that hardened in the 1960's into the conventional wisdom lasting to this day, that Macnaghten was under-informed, or misinformed, or mis-recalled the most basic information of his chosen suspect. It was always an unlikely assumption -- based on all of the sources about this police chief
Now we know why Macnaghten and Sims went to such lengths to disguise the Druitt solution for the Edwardian public; partly to enhance the rep of the Yard (we almost caught him -- not true); partly to avoid everybody ending up in the libel courts; partly to shield the Druitt family from ruin -- but mostly to protect the family name of a close friend.
"The Sun" wrote on Feb 13th 1894, defending why it would not name their Ripper (Thomas Cutbush); in order to protect the alleged murderer's family "some of them in positions which would make them a target for the natural curiosity -- for the unreasoning reprobation which would pursue any person even remotely connected with so hideous a monstrosity, and we must abstain, therefore, from giving his name in the interest of these unfortunate, innocent, and respectable connections".
Guy Logan, who provided a fact-and-fiction version of the Druitt solution in "The True History of Jack the Ripper" (1905), wrote a very similar warning: "The inner history of the unspeakable crimes associated with the murder-name of Jack the Ripper is known to very few. The relatives of that monumental criminal are still, many of them, in the land of the living, and I am consequently precluded from giving the exact name of the monster who haunted London's East End in 1888."
Macnaghten had a personal motive, or bias, to debunk the Druitt solution, e.g. to avoid embarrassment for a close VIP friend. He judged the evidence was too compelling -- it was the Ripper.
This is an historical solution: it depends on the reliability of that police chief.
While the Farquharson matter certainly has some pros and cons arguers here, it isn't the reason for the lack of interest. It's more unfair to you and other real researchers here.
We have been deluged (as you may have noticed - and certainly not joined in on) by a jerk who is pretentious and insulting but has a dreadful habit of drawing us into a series of threads he keeps creating on his selected "clues" (I call them "crumbs") regarding what he claims is the correct possible theory of the Ripper's identity and the causes of his crime spree (spite and hatred of the police and the Lord Mayor of London, and a desire to have everybody - especially women - fear him) without giving us the actual theory.
He won't, luring us by curiosity into observing what he has decided to give us, but ending with us sputtering helplessly (but sarcastically) at his obvious flawed reasonings (he keeps jumping from careful forensic science, to academically correct methods to metaphysical or metaphorical meanings of arcane and obscure nature in messages). This "Pierre" has poisoned the board, and if he is a troll he is a successful one. Otherwise why wouldn't GUT's interesting question (it is, after all, an interesting one) not attract more attention her. Aside from Geoff (GUT) and yourself, I am only the third person all day who has popped up on this thread. But seventy five messages popped up on a thread concerning "Pierre"s inquiry about the possible profession of the Ripper (what his suspect would be or was - he never is clear about this). And he has put down 32 other threads since last October.
Maybe you have seen them - but they are a time consuming mess to us.
Anyway, I'm still looking for a copy of your book on Druitt, but haven't had any luck finding it. Hopefully I may this year.
I will keep looking for your comments here and elsewhere on the Board, and add my own comments (if I have any).
I always try to keep up with the Druitt threads and add a comment (if generally unwelcome) if I have one.
What I fail to understand is why anyone bothers with Pierre if they find him nothing but a time-wasting nuisance. I haven't read any of his posts since well before Christmas so I'm way behind with what all the fuss can still be about. Surely, if nobody responded, his own interest in communicating his thoughts - or merely trying to wind people up - would soon fade.
__________________ "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov