Official Integrity (Off-Topic Discussion moved from Suspect thread)

[Adam Went]

Monty:

So are you saying then that you believe that Macnaghten never actually believed in the suspect candidacy of any of those 3 men? He just pulled names from a hat for the sake of saying that it could have been anyone other than Cutbush? Well, duh, Sir Melville, it could have been any one of hundreds of thousands of people.....the problem is that regardless of his own beliefs, and regardless of his own status within the police force in 1888, or lack thereof, he made the choice to name 3 people who, by the time the memorandum was written several years later, were not in a position to be able to defend themselves or to be capable of clearing their name.

I've said this before, why not Tumblety, or Klosowski? Genuine suspects who were known to the police officials and both of whom were still alive and free when the memorandum was written? That's just to name two examples. He could easily have chosen to go down that path but whether for the sake of cowardice or the sake of simplicity, he took the path of naming those 3 men.

And it's largely down to him that two of them are even regarded as likely suspects in 2012. So if the basis on which they were suspected in the first place is false, or misleading (which in Macnaghten's case it definitely is), then why are they even still on the suspect radar in 2012? Especially poor Monty Druitt, it irks me to no end that anyone would still consider him a viable suspect.

So regardless of how you look at it and regardless of Macnaghten's motives, what he did was ultimately reckless and damaging, and that's why I rate him as the worst of the police officials - with apologies to Jonathan Hainsworth.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Monty]

Adam,

Regardless of the ethics or your own personal disgust, the bottom line is Macnaghten did not name those 3 as suspects, he stated more likely than Cutbush.

Now you can accuse, throw emotional statements around and exclaim that Macnaghten is the Devil incarnate however he does not state Druitt, Kosminski or Ostrog were indeed suspects.

As for not choosing more valid suspects such as Tumblety or Kloswolski well the reason may indeed lie with the possibility these were high on the suspect list, and any 'condeming' would jepordise possible prosecution.

Monty

[mariab]

Hello Maria. Hmm, did he wave it at him?
I look forward to your research here.

According to newspaper reports, he threatened the police officer with a gun upon being arrested. Which hardly makes him the Ripper.
Unfortunately the sources I was hoping to consult in London have disappeared, but I have an idea of where to seek. I'll have a look in the Paris judicial archives for earlier crimes, but I very much doubt that he engaged in anything else but petty thievery.

As for not choosing more valid suspects such as Tumblety or Kloswolski well the reason may indeed lie with the possibility these were high on the suspect list, and any 'condeming' would jepordise possible prosecution.

That's precisely how I see it too, though I agree with how Adam thinks about Druitt.

[DVV]

At the end of the day (ie : in his memoirs) Macnaghten merely "inclined to the belief" that the Whitechapel murderer resided with his own people, absented from home at times, and committed suicide after Miller's Court.
Macnaghten does not say he was ever suspected. He does not repeat that the man was "said to be a doctor" (and instead, refers to the mutilations as "savage"), nor that he was "sexually insane".

If still a druittist, a very moderate one.

[lynn cates]

new idea

Hello Neil. I've not seen this speculation before--if I recall.

You are suggesting that Sir MLM chose 3 lower tiered candidates because, although more likely than Cutbush, yet not at the top?

I rather like this. Don't think it would work with Druitt but certainly possible with Kosminski and Ostrog--especially given his penned reservations of them.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

twit

Hello Maria. I take it you've seen the list of his misbehaviour? Quite the incorrigible twit.

Good luck with further research on him.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Hainsworth

Hello David. Perhaps. But have you read Jonathan Hainsworth's work on this vexing question?

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Hello David. Perhaps.

Hi Lynn. For sure, not perhaps. It's signed Macnaghten. Printed and edited - not pencilled in a margin.

But have you read Jonathan Hainsworth's work on this vexing question?

Perhaps. What is sure is that I've read Macnaghten.

[Adam Went]

Monty:

One could understand Macnaghten's suggestion of possible other candidates if it was done merely as a one-off in order to clear Cutbush's name, which was the original intention. However, the fact that he suggested the same several times over, and in particular Druitt some 20 years later when his memoirs came out, should surely indicate that they were more than just a 'suggestion' in the mind of Sir Melville.

I place no faith in his accounts anyway since they are so wildly inaccurate, to the point that it's been suggested in the past that Macnaghten even got the wrong name of a suspect altogether.

But he goes beyond the threshold of stating simply that "I feel any one of these three individuals make a better suspect for JTR than Cutbush" by actually going on to state the case against all three, however erroneously it might be. Again, an indication that the names held deeper meaning in his mind at least than simply being scapegoats to clear Cutbush of any wrongdoing.

Whatever the case, it's been left to generations of Ripperologists since to try and unravel it all and Macnaghten must take a large portion of the responsibility for that.

As for not choosing more valid suspects such as Tumblety or Kloswolski well the reason may indeed lie with the possibility these were high on the suspect list, and any 'condeming' would jepordise possible prosecution.

Except neither of them were prosecuted. The chance was there to question Klosowski about the JTR crimes when he was already on trial for his other crimes. And Tumblety already didn't have the best reputation. On the other hand, the likes of Druitt DID have a good reputation, and Kosminski was harmless enough.

Those 3 men were picked because it was convenient for Macnaghten, not because it was factually accurate - and yes, that does annoy me, why shouldn't it annoy anyone?

Cheers,
Adam.

[Monty]

Adam,

Throwing baseless accusations at innocent parties without evidence annoys you?

That's perfectly reasonable. Whether it be individuals accused of murder or, say, Police Officers releasing women who are later found butchered in the street....wait, it only applies when required.

However, I digress. Again, Macnaghten does not state those 3 men were suspects and does not name a suspect in his memoires. People have drawn conclusion yet there is no name whatsoever in there.

Any accusation, or 'naming as a suspect' would have had a detrimental effect on any trial due to prejudice gained from reading such an accusation.

The same would have stood for his memoires, plus the possibility of libel made by the suspect or their family.

However, if you wish to persecute Macnaghten then fine, your right, just that its usually good form to hold the full facts and understand the impacts before drawing such a conclusion.

Monty

[lynn cates]

levels of epistemic involvement

Hello David. Hmm, you and I must sit down sometime over a pot of tea and discuss epistemology.

You may have some fascinating ideas about levels of epistemic involvement.

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

First pot of tea

Hi Lynn. I wouldn't dare say "somali isn't a tonal language" if I confess at the same time knowing next to nothing about tonal languages.

[Adam Went]

Monty:

I wondered how long it'd take.
The difference is of course, quite simply, that there is solid medical and scientific fact to back up the "accusations" towards police officers which you allude to, yet there are no facts of any kind - just supposition - in Macnaghten's suspicion of any of those 3 suspects, but specifically for the sake of my annoyance, Monty Druitt.

Any accusation, or 'naming as a suspect' would have had a detrimental effect on any trial due to prejudice gained from reading such an accusation.
Well they couldn't put Druitt on trial, could they, for obvious reasons? By the time his memoirs came out in 1914, most of the major suspects were already dead or locked up.

All the more reason why it's pretty obvious that Macnaghten took the 'safety first' path instead, and his writings can't be relied on in any way.

I know it would be a great strain upon you to have to speak in detrimental terms of a police officer, but in Macnaghten's case, he either didn't think of, or didn't care what long lasting effects his misleading words would have in years to come.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Adam,

Good post.

You have to worry about a high-ranking policeman who considers a man with an iron-clad alibi "more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders."

Regards,

Simon

[Monty]

You wondered Adam?

Well done you.

Without wishing to tred over old ground, I'm curious as to this 'solid medical and scientific fact' you state which proves Eddowes was indeed incapable and drunk when released from custody.

You didn't provide it then, so maybe your research has uncovered something factual as opposed to assumption.

The impact wouldn't have just stopped with the accused. Family members, children etc would have all been effected by potential libelous accusations. The bottom line, despite you seemingly being convinced of the opposite, is that Macnaghten never named a suspect. It is clear he knew the law and its ramifications.

Whatever your views, or mine, are on the man and his abilities or competences, that is the cold hard fact. And if you are going to accuse Macnaghten of misleading and dirtying the name of the innocent without good evidence then you must level the same accusation against Anderson, Abberline, Stowell, Knight, Fido, Hinton, Marriott....pretty much every person who has bought a suspect to the fore.

No, its not difficult for me to speak detrimentally of the police, if you bother to research instead of following what others say of me, you will find you are woefully wrong.

Other than that, as Simon says, good post.

Monty