Littlechild Ltr Survey Complete - Absent Bias?

[Jonathan H]

No I don't really follow ...?

Druitt's sympathetic obits suggest nothing wrong except, obviously, some kind of tragic, mental affliction.

Whereas the family 'believed' that their deceased member enjoyed killing and mutilating poor harlots.

That puts him outside any 'sexual mainstream' I would have thought.

[lynn cates]

yup

Hello Jonathan.

"That puts him outside any 'sexual mainstream' I would have thought."

I would have thought so too. (Just like Tumblety and Kosminski.)

And that is ALL my point.

Cheers.
LC

[mklhawley]

It was apparently Macnaghten who at some point thought that the Ripper was the leader of a plot to assassinate Balfour, though I'm not sure where that quote comes from. (I'd endlessly appreciate it if someone could enlighten me on this.) This rumor is absolutely not a new element. As far as I'm concerned, a new element in Spiro Dimolianis' book is Patrick Tynan, the leader of The Invincible, one of the Irish Fenian type gangs.

Simon Wood is absolutely correct, the highlighted part is written nowhere, neither in Clutterbuck nor in the ledgers. A uncorroborated rumour circulating states that the detective agency mentioned in the SB ledgers pertains to a “Nielson of Wealdstone“.

Hi Mariab,

Reread my reasons why it was the Pinkerton Agency. To suggest otherwise is to deny the obvious connections. A statement about an uncorroborated rumour is weak compared to this. ...of course in my opinion.

[mklhawley]

I want to comment on the methodology of the survey and not Tumbletly as a suspect. As others have noted, the results of this survey - in the absence of appropriate controls - are almost a foregone conclusion. I suspect that similar results would be obtained if those not familiar with the case were given scenarios involving Druitt, Kosminski, Barnett, Kelly, Sicket, or any number of other suspects. This is the same phenomenon that many of us experienced when, new to the case, we read a suspect book and became convinced...until we read another suspect book and became convinced again...Unfortunately this still affects me!

It might be interesting if intelligent people naive to the case were given the best arguments put forward for - say - the top ten Ripper suspects and then asked to rank-order these suspects. While we have something like this on the website, most of us have knowledge/biases that contaminate our responses. Not that knowledge is a bad thing! This raises the question what is the purpose of asking the opinion of people not knowledgable of the case?

Hi Barnaby,

Many a ripperologist in the past have claimed Littlechild did not mean Tumblety was a likely suspect, but merely one amongst many. This is basically an English test, so those I surveyed were perfect for this. I believe this argument is no longer as valid.

Sincerely,
Mike

[ChrisGeorge]

I want to comment on the methodology of the survey and not Tumbletly as a suspect. As others have noted, the results of this survey - in the absence of appropriate controls - are almost a foregone conclusion. I suspect that similar results would be obtained if those not familiar with the case were given scenarios involving Druitt, Kosminski, Barnett, Kelly, Sicket, or any number of other suspects. This is the same phenomenon that many of us experienced when, new to the case, we read a suspect book and became convinced...until we read another suspect book and became convinced again...Unfortunately this still affects me!

It might be interesting if intelligent people naive to the case were given the best arguments put forward for - say - the top ten Ripper suspects and then asked to rank-order these suspects. While we have something like this on the website, most of us have knowledge/biases that contaminate our responses. Not that knowledge is a bad thing! This raises the question what is the purpose of asking the opinion of people not knowledgable of the case?

Hi Barnaby

You are absolutely correct... the people surveyed give the expected response, because Littlechild makes it sound as if Tumblety was the guilty party, and as you say the same could be said about arguments for all the suspects. The "evidence" is presented in a way that makes it seem as if the suspect is the killer. In this respect, the different policemen commenting on the case are no better than authors who promote preferred suspects. They each present an argument that make it sound as if the person they are talking about was the murderer.

Best regards

Chris

[Fleetwood Mac]

For you to say his 'extreme' hatred of women in such a sarcastic and joking manner tells me it's affecting you emotionally and that's the source of bias. Do you really think a Chief Inspector and the head of an international detective agency would consider yelling at women on the corner as extreme hatred?

Hawley,

Your OP surrounds opinions based solely on the letter. In the event you're not happy with the replies then don't ask the question, mate; it would save you a bout of heartache.

Yes, I am being sarcastic.

Littlechild offers nothing of any note, in the letter, to engender confidence in Tumblety as a decent suspect; nor does he make it clear that Tumblety was suspected by someone other than him.

From the letter alone, which was your concern, I would conclude the following:

1) Littlechild thought he was one of the better suspects, although not out in front as the number one suspect.

2) There is nothing to substantiate this beyond outdated logic.

3) It was the opinion of Littlechild alone.

Now, in the event you want to bring in other sources showing otherwise, then that's a different matter; and one which would certainly beg the question: what on earth was the point in your 'survey'?

[Jonathan H]

To Lynn

We are not in agreement.

Tumblety was a known homosexual, a crime at the time. Aaron Kosminski was masturbating, perhaps chronically, and this was seen as evidence of insanity.

These sexual elements of these two men's lives are separate from whether they might have been murderers.

Whereas, there is nothing known to be wrong with Montague Druitt except that he was believed to be a sexually-motivated serial killer. The suicide of this 'barrister of bright talent' was essentially inexplicable to the inquiry into his death.

To Mike

You've proved your point again and again.

Don't waste your time with those consumed by bias.

I read again Palmer's trilogy on Andrews, and marvelled once more at what classic pieces of historical analyses those 'Examiner' articles are -- as great as anything this subject has ever produced.

Once more I was thoroughly persuaded that Andrews was in Canada seeking background information on Tumblety, rather than informers for the Parnell Commission -- actually a quite shallow and absurd interpretation.

There is no other suspect of 1888, for whom so much trouble was taken by Scotland Yard.

For some reason Littlechild, Swanson, Andrews, and the ...eh, other one, were commended by the departing Warren for their outstanding police work but it is obscure exactly for what case, or cases? Arguably for their work on cornering Tumblety.

I think that the shock of the 1891 Coles' murder 'proved' that the Irish-American was not the Ripper to Anderson and/or Swanson, and then as time passed and memories faded, the pretty, young Coles was merged with the pretty, young Kelly as the 'final' murder of 1888, and later 'Kosminski' (not Aaron Kosminski mind you) seemed to fit an 1888 theory about insular and uncooperative East End, impoverished Polish-Jews.

[mklhawley]

Hi Jonathan,

As you stated earlier, bias is as thick as London fog specific to Tumblety. It seems now that everyone is in agreement Littlechild considered Tumblety ‘a likely suspect’. What’s interesting is that some seem to think Chief Inspector Littlechild should not be taken seriously. Stewart Evans said it right:

“Littlechild was one of the resident CID Chief Inspectors at Scotland Yard from 1883 until 1893 when he retired. It is a nonsense to suggest that he would not fully discuss the case with his fellow senior officers at the Yard, including Swanson and Abberline, both of whom he had worked closely with on earlier cases…It is also reasonable to believe that Littlechild (head of the Special Branch) would know more about Tumblety, a known Irish sympathiser, than regular CID officers. It is pointless to say 'none of which have yet to be shown [sic] to have even remotely considered Tumblety in the role of the Ripper to date', for but for the chance survival and discovery of the Littlechild letter in 1993 we would not even know that Littlechild considered him 'a very likely' suspect, let alone any other senior police officer.
Apropos of which, as regards other named suspects, just how many senior Yard officials 'remotely considered any other suspect in the role of the Ripper'? As I have indicated, far too little has survived to be making any accurate assessment as to the seriousness of any given suspect.”

To all out disregard a possible suspect, especially one mentioned by a Chief Inspector working at the time of the murders corroborated by US newspaper articles, be the subject of inquiry by Anderson to US chiefs of police, be the subject of a Scotland Yard inspector investigating in Canada, one that admitted he was in Whitechapel at the time of the murders, with such limited information available can only be a product of bias.

Sincerely,

Mike

[lynn cates]

sex

Hello Jonathan.

"These sexual elements of these two men's lives are separate from whether they might have been murderers."

Absolutely agree. But my point is that ALL these 3 suspects were thought to be guilty of some sexual irregularity or other. Without that, it is not clear if any would have been suspected.

Cheers.
LC

[Jonathan H]

To Lynn

You have it round the wrong way.

The Druitt family believed that their Montie killed and mutilated harlots.

In a family of doctors they diagnosed, posthumously I think, that the motive muts have been a form of sexual insanity -- what else could it be they thought?

[lynn cates]

Sir MLM

Hello Jonathan. Well, what did Sir MLM think?

To put it another way, if he did NOT suspect "sexual insanity" would he have suspected MJD--family story or no?

Cheers.
LC

[Jonathan H]

To Lynn

You have my sympathy because this is one of the most entrenched elements of this old paradigm; where the cart is put ebfore the horse.

It is understandably wrenching, after all these years -- even decades for some -- to see that it has, all along, been the other way round.

Macnaghten in the official version of his 'Report' makes the astonishing assertion that this minor, hearsay suspect -- about whom 'the police' were allegedly did not bother to find out if he was definitely a doctor or not -- got his kicks from homicidal violence towards women, specifically prostitutes.

'(1) A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor & of good family -- who disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder, & whose body (which was said to have been upwards of a month in the water) was found in the Thames on 31st December -- or about 7 weeks after that murder. He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer.'

Because the family believed he was the murderer, he must have been sexually insane.

The crimes are the symptoms leading to this [posthumous] diagnosis.

If he was not 'believed' by them to be the murderer, they would not have thought he was sexually insane.

Nothing about Montie suggested that he was sexually insane, except for his penchant for slumming it in the East End, stalking, strangling and then mostly mutilating harlots.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

Do you have any evidence in support of MJD's "penchant for slumming it in the East End, stalking, strangling and then mostly mutilating harlots"?

I reckon it's lucky for you that the dead cannot sue for libel.

Regards,

Simon

[Jonathan H]

To Simon wood

You echo exactly what Sims wrote in 1917:

"He was undoubtedly a doctor who had been in a lunatic asylum and had developed homicidal mania of a special kind.

Each of his murders was more maniacal than its predecessors, and the last was worst of all.

After committing that he drowned himself. His body was found in the Thames after it had been in the river for nearly a month.

Had he been found alive there would have been no mystery about Jack the Ripper. The man would have been arrested and tried. But you can't try a corpse for a crime, however strong the suspicion may be.

And the authorities could not say, "This dead man was Jack the Ripper." The dead cannot defend themselves.

But there were circumstances which left very little doubt in the official mind as to the Ripper's identity."

What you are missing is I that I am saying that this is what the family believed about their deceased member, and later Farquharson and Macnaghten.

Whether Druitt actually did this, was really the Ripper, can never be known as an absolute fact.

But the family 'believed' that their Montie did these terrible things, and they -- after the fact -- came up with the notion that he must have suffered from sexual mania.

Or, else why did he commit these crimes?

By the way ...

A few posts ago I asked you to explain your notion that Sims criticised Abberline, before Abberline was even in print criticising him?

I so hope you are right.

But the only sources I know seem to match; the back and forth in terms of dates. I posted these to compare.

What am I missing?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jonathan,

Evidence.

That's what you're missing.

You only have MM's error-ridden twitterings to support the idea of Monty's family ever having suspected him.

Regards,

Simon