|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1315
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 8:11 am: | 
|
Stan
Actually, I agree. I meant to add above that Adam's account looks rather like a simple embellishment of the newspaper report.
Adam's account gives the impression that Macnaghten possessed specific "documents" relating to Druitt's guilt. The newspaper report just related to information that Macnaghten had previously received, of which no record remained because he had destroyed "all [his] documents". That could be read as referring to notes he had taken based on oral information, letters passing on gossip, or almost anything.
Does anyone know of any other references to the "destroyed documents", or are the Daily Mail report and Adam's comments all that are known?
Chris Phillips
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2311
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 4:26 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
I have just read the facsimile document, written by Macnaghten,from the Public Record Files-[compiled by Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner].
In this he writes quite matter of factly of Mr.MJ Druitt:"...He was sexually insane and from private info I have little doubt that his own family believed him to be the murderer."
Reading the report in its entirety,with "Confidential" handwritten in the top left hand corner and the rest of the report also handwritten I found it to be a neat flowing account and I have to say that it read, for the most part, very much as a rejection ,giving numerous reasons why Thomas Cutbush was NOT the Ripper rather than a reasoned account of why Druitt or any one else WAS.
Macnaghten even managed to slip in at the end of this "rebuttal" that Thomas Cutbush was the nephew of the "late Supt. Executive".
Paul Begg[The Facts]reminds us though that there is a sentence in Macnaghten"s autobiography[see page 330-332 of The Facts]..."certain facts were not in possession of the police till some years after I became a detective officer".
Macnaghten became a detective officer in 1889 and it looks like these facts were not in police possession at the time of Abberline"s retirement,therefore he may not have ever had access to them.
Chris,
In answer to your points about Monro and Abberline
I agree,the statements,if they were made, could have been from a different context and could have
meant something very different from my interpretation above.
Natalie |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 282
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 4:45 pm: |
|
Natalie,
If you agree that the statements from Abberline and Monro could have been from a different context, without saying which context or even offering an idea, then you must agree that they actually could be from the direct context they imply. Fair is fair.
I still see an attempt to run away from anything having to do with royalty, because a couple of people proposed really bad, and disproved theories. I'm not saying their comments mean the Royals did it, but what I am seeing is every attempt being made to come up with alternative solutions, without really offering any solutions. Just saying, "could be something else", doesn't really help.
I know this is where many people begin to disagree with me on the topic, but "could be something else", should be followed with "and here is at the very least an idea of what that something else could be".
I don't see any of that.
SJR |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1316
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 5:16 pm: |
|
Stan [to Natalie]
If you agree that the statements from Abberline and Monro could have been from a different context, without saying which context or even offering an idea, then you must agree that they actually could be from the direct context they imply. Fair is fair.
Well, I just felt these statements were being taken at face value, and I thought a note of caution should be injected.
As far as Monro's alleged statements go - which at least come from members of his family - I think an alternative interpretation is near at hand, as I suggested in my previous post.
And as for Morland's claim about Abberline, I'm frankly sceptical, for the reasons I gave - the huge lapse of time, and the way he is made to quote the "Butcher/Yid/Foreign Skipper" poem. My impression is that this was just a random Ripper letter that Macnaghten retained for his own amusement. Is there any indication that it had sufficient currency - before the modern (1960s plus) Ripperature - for Abberline to have quoted it in private conversation?
In the interests of cards being put on the table - forgive my ignorance, but I don't know what your favoured theory is, except someone told me it concerns a conspiracy involving Sickert. Is that right?
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1317
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 5:39 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
You have at last provided some useful information for me to get my teeth into, so I can reassess my previous thoughts - thanks!
Believe it or not, I think many of your contributions on these boards are very perceptive - where entrenched positions and vested interests don't get in the way. So I am genuinely interested in your thoughts on this question, and the reasons for the opinions you express.
I don't have any strong feelings about Druitt's candidacy either way, but I think there are a number of questions connected with Druitt that it would be interesting to answer.
The question of Macnaghten's "private information" is one.
Another, which I don't think has ever been adequately explained, is the question of how a man named Knowles came to write to Dan Farson, in early 1959, about a document about the Ripper, written by a Lionel Drewery, Drewett or Druitt, published in Dandenong, Australia.
This was before Farson discovered the Macnaghten memoranda, and before he discovered that Montague had a cousin named Lionel who emigrated to Australia. And despite the fact that he searched long and hard for the source of the story, I haven't seen any evidence that Farson ever knew that Lionel lived in the Dandenong Road in the neighbouring suburb of Oakleigh.
This story is widely believed to have been debunked by Howells and Skinner in The Ripper Legacy, with the help of John Ruffels, but I've never understand how their solution is supposed to explain the central conundrum (unless Farson simply invented the whole story).
Chris Phillips
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 285
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 5:47 pm: |
|
Chris,
I understand where you were coming from, but to state that there could be an alternative explanation just seems to me like a desire to fly away from the logical explanation, without showing why it is illogical. That, to me, is bad detective work.
We will never know what these two statements meant. And I believe they were referring to Morland's statement that Abberline confided in him that 'JTR' was somewhere "high up". A quick analysis excludes Prince Eddy, because he is more than just "high up", he is the second highest. I think Morland, if he were not inventing like McCormick, was stating that Abberline believed 'JTR' was close to those "high up", which explains the vagueness of the statement.
My cards have been made public. i believe the murders were committed by JK Stephen and Walter Sickert, working together. My original book was 600 pages, and McFarland felt it was too long to publish. A number of people have read my theory of why, and they have respnded with a number of interesting comments, none of which were - "you are nuts".
Conspiracy is a bad term. It evokes memories of the Royal Conspiracy, which is erroneous, and immediately gives people the impression I am a kook. I have always stated that my theory is a theory, and I would be willing to accept any evidence that shows I am wrong.
I will not accept ideas that I am wrong because Patty Cornwell's work was awful. Or that Stephen Knight's work was disproved. that's not a good enough reason to dismiss a suspect, as I have written in an article for Ripperologist. The implications of what is currently going on within Ripperology are that all that is needed to eliminate any suspect is to create a false theory about them. Again, bad detective work.
So not a conspiracy, but definitively an intended set of 6 murders, which bturned into seven for a specific reason, all which is outlined in my 600 page book, that I am still trying to get published, after I finish the 3 projects I'm doing right now.
SJR |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 286
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 5:52 pm: |
|
Chris,
sorry for the repost but I did not see your post to Caz. The whole Knowles letter to farson has been deciphered and understood. While being very simple, it also reveals one of the most notorious figures involved in this case for what he truly was.
SJR
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2313
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 6:12 pm: |
|
Hi Stan,
Is your Ripperologist article out or will it be in the next issue as I"d like to read it!
Natalie |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 287
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 6:18 pm: |
|
Natalie,
I think it was in issue #56 or #57. I introduce a new suspect, to prove a point. Unfortunately the point got missed.
SJR |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2314
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 6:23 pm: |
|
Stan,
Will look it up when I am back in London at end of month!In Wales right now.Very interested in your thinking regarding JK Stephen together with Sickert.
Natalie |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 288
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 6:26 pm: |
|
Natalie,
You'd be in the minority. Most people are so narrowminded that they hear Stephen or Sickert and immediately dismiss it, before even hearing the theory.
SJR |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2315
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 6:43 pm: |
|
Myself I cant fit Sickert into much that makes sense to me.Druitt does and JK Stephen does if only because of both their minds blowing.I can see Druitt "fitted up" too-hence the need to know where the railway ticket was intended to take him.
But Sickert was more "of the world",painted with a realistic eye and lived to be 82.Cant see it at all.
But I shall look forward to reading this theory of yours Stan all the same!
Natalie |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 811
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 6:47 pm: |
|
Natalie,
It is in issue number 56,November 2004 issue.
Stan said..."... all that is needed to eliminate any suspect is to create a false theory about them..."
You might have added that to unnecessarily embellish their [the suspect or suspects ]feats to "sell them" to Ripperologists and the general public actually makes them less "buyable" in the long run.
Take Druitt's situation as a suspect for an example. How many times have we heard that Druitt was removed by Mr. Valentine for alleged homosexual behavior? There's no proof of this and other accusations [ I've heard pedophilia mentioned and possibly embezzlement as being two other reasons of this dismissal ].
Thats precisely why I,personally,liked Andrew Spallek's possible solution to the question for this removal [The last Ripper Notes [ 23]...
Whether or not Andy is "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant. Its a new way of approaching this suspect and does not rely on past assumptions or "sandbagging" the suspect's feats to make him more appealing. A very good and worthwhile read for everyone.
...and I certainly didn't say "You're nuts.." when I read the 6,000 [ not 600 ] page manuscript,buddy....I said to myself,"You're nuts for not making Russo promise to buy all the brews at the Ripcon for spending so much time on it !!!"...
In all seriousness,it was a good read Stan.
Just like Andrew's Druitt piece in RN23. I really identify with that late night return to an institution by a suspect, although a different one.. |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 289
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 6:48 pm: |
|
Natalie,
My full theory is not in the Rip article. My theory chapter alone is 81 pages.
With all due respect, its not about what makes sense for you, its about what makes sense from a case standpoint.
That's where I discovered my two suspects, from studying the case, not discovering the case because of my two suspects. There is a big difference in those standards, that unfortunately many theorists don't abide by.
SJR |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1318
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 6:54 pm: |
|
Stan
The whole Knowles letter to farson has been deciphered and understood. While being very simple, it also reveals one of the most notorious figures involved in this case for what he truly was.
I know a lot of people think that, but I'm far from convinced.
Do you mean you think Farson just made it up?
(I must say that even if that's the case, I don't understand how the solution suggested by Howells and Skinner makes sense.)
Chris Phillips
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 290
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 7:00 pm: |
|
Chris,
No. Not farson. This whole thing was settled 20 years ago. If you need I could explain it, although everything is a matter of public record.
STAN |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2317
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 7:04 pm: |
|
OK Stan -may need to read the book too!Will read the article first.
Howard,
Thanks for the detail on Stan"s Ripperologist article which I can"t wait to read now!
I too found Andrew"s article refreshing and very useful too for quick references!
Natalie |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 291
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 7:12 pm: |
|
Natalie,
Book isn't published yet. First book didn't hit good enough to draw interest from major publishers. Dem's da breaks.
SJR |
Martin Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 53
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 9:04 pm: |
|
Natalie,
Wasn't aware that Sickert lived to be 82.
Just confirms all what I thought before really. A painter that reproduced what was going on at the time in the only way he knew how. Don't think this needs any more elaboration.
A painter is passionate for sure,
So is a killer;
A painter knows when to stop.
A killer knows when to kill her.
Martin Anderson
Analyst
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 292
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 9:13 pm: |
|
Martin,
Actually, if you could elaborate, because if I'm reading this correctly you are eliminating a suspect because he lived a long time and was a painter, and have decided to create a poem to share your feelings with us?
SJR |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 522
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 9:53 pm: |
|
" This whole thing was settled 20 years ago. If you need I could explain it, although everything is a matter of public record."
Please do, Stan. Sometimes the truth hides right out in the open.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Martin Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 55
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 10:08 pm: |
|
Stan,
I am totally eliminating Sickert as a suspect. The fact that he no connection whatsoever with the circumstances ascribed to the murders is totally damning initself. Unless you have some 'new' evidence then please share your thoughts with me.
My elaborative content referred to the fact that Sickert lived in a time when there was a lot of murders going on and so he did what he did best - he painted them. For gods sake, this is a long way from committing a crime. In fact I am quite a capable sketcher myself and I would probably do the same which illustrates what the poem said. Please do not accuse me of a murder.
Martin Anderson
Analyst
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1319
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 4:26 am: |
|
Stan
No. Not farson. This whole thing was settled 20 years ago. If you need I could explain it, although everything is a matter of public record.
I'm all ears.
Chris Phillips
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 293
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 5:21 am: |
|
Chris and Robert,
In 1959 Dan Farson decided he would do a televison program on Britain, which would include one show on Jack the Ripper. It wound up airing in November. Farson made a plea to anyone with any information on Jack the Ripper to send it to him, for the upcoming television program.
A Mr. Knowles, from Australia, sent him a document that he believed was connected to what Farson was looking for. It was something about an article titled "The East End Murderer - I Knew Him", or as close to that as possible. (sorry - I am at work). The article, Knowles claimed, was written by a Lionel Druitt.
Farson had this document in his possession prior to receiving the Lady Aberconway version of the MacNaghten Memorandum. As we believed, up until 1986, this would have been an incredible find for Farson to use, although it went missing, so he could not use it, just mention that he remembered something about it.
In this document, Knowles (I believe) claimed that the murderers name was something like Drewen, Druitt or Drewery. The actual article he was referring to was an 1890 or 1892 article in the St. Arnoud Mercury (again working from memory). The article, to which Knowles had botched some information, such as it actually being written by Lionel Druitt, referred to Frederick Bailey Deeming, who had used the alias of Druin upon entering Australia. This information was researched and uncovered by Howells and Skinner, and the famous Knowles letter to Farson was explained and laid to rest. It was in no way regarding Montague Druitt at all.
Why I say this letter revealed one of the most notorious figures within the context of this case, and not Farson, was beause Farson allowed another researcher to see his material on Jack the Ripper, because that researcher had a book on Jack the Ripper on its way to being published, coming out in that same year of 1959. This researcher was Donald McCormick.
Melvin Harris claims supremacy, and rightfully so, as the researcher who first exposed McCormick as the supreme liar he is now known to be by those who have studied the entire case. Harris missed one critical piece to the puzzle, which I explained during my lecture at the Ripper Conference in Baltimore in 2004. McCormick actually stole papers belonging to Farson, during the time Farson was gathering research for the program he would dedicate to JTR.
This is a proven point, and the Knowles letter proves this. We know that the Knowles letter refers to the suspect as "Druin, Druitt or Drewett", from Farson's memory. What McCormick did in 1970, with his 2nd revised edition of his 1959 book, was explain, or lie, that Walter Sickert stated the name of the lodger, from Sickert's infamous story of sleeping in Jack the Ripper's bedroom, once rented to a young veterinary student, was something like "Druitt, Druin or Hewitt". This was pure fabrication on McCormick's part, as Sickert never revealed any name to this lodger, ever, other than to say that he wrote the name in a book, which got destroyed during the bombings of WWII. Putting two and two together, which some researchers refuse to do, these names that McCormick used to clear Druitt as a suspect, to help his own invented suspect, Vassily Konovalev, only could have come from the Knowles letter to Farson, which mysteriously went missing, and wound up in print 11 years later from a book by a researcher who was privy to that letter.
Now that's a mouthful. There is the basic crux of the argument. For those who dont know, here's a little trivia - it was in this 1970 book that Walter Sickert was first named as a suspect, as well as Dr. John Barnardo, all to eliminate them, and promote his own suspect, who never existed. Also, the suspect Dr. John Hewitt, who has been totally cleared of the murders, was actually names as a suspect by Steward Hicks, as a result of McCormick's fabrication. Ripper historian Colin Wilson has said in print that if they had not found the asylum records that showed Hewitt was confined during the nights of the murder the case would have been solved. Luckily, for Wilson, they found them, because he would have fully endorsed a suspect that never should have been named in the first place.
McCormick is perhaps one of the most evil men involved within this case, because he lied about everything, and set the case back years as a result.
Martin,
You just dont get it. What you are implying is that because you can paint, you will never ever under any circumstances commit a murder. Whether that's true or not, it does not mean that other murderers do not have artistic sides.
And by Sickert having no connection whatsoever to the murders, are you referring to the seven theorists who have named him as a suspect, the numerous paintings with 'JTR' in the title he drew, the proven connections with other suspects, the proven connections with Mary Kelly, the stories he told about, being 'JTR', being chased and called 'JTR', sleeping in 'JTR's bedroom, where the young veterinary student once lodged and the fact that he is for all matters concerned a Ripper theorist? I'm just checking, is that what you were referring to when you said no connection whatsoever?
OH BOY
SJR |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1320
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 6:04 am: |
|
Stan
Thanks for going to the trouble of posting that explanation.
However, I'm afraid you've got nearly all the pertinent details wrong.
According to Farson, Knowles didn't refer to "Drewen, Druitt or Drewery" as the murderer, but Lionel "Druitt, Drewett or Drewery" as the author of the document. So no mention of Deeming's alias of Drewen.
(For what it's worth, McCormick doesn't refer to the veterinary student as "Druin" either. The suggestion I've heard about the identity of the thief concerns a different Ripper author entirely.)
The article in the St Arnaud Mercury, discovered by John Ruffels, was a "Lodger" story from 1890 (two years before Deeming's arrest). How Howells and Skinner thought that it explained the Knowles letter I've never understood. Only the date coincides - the place of publication and the title do not.
Nor was it written by Lionel Druitt, of course, though he lived there at the time (which is why John checked the newspaper in the first place). To my mind the mystery remains why Knowles should have connected a Lionel "Druitt, Drewett or Drewery" with the Ripper at all, before the Macnaghten memoranda were discovered.
Chris Phillips
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 299
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 8:06 am: |
|
Chris,
Well I see you are just looking to argue.
Deeming was never mentioned by Farson, and i never said he was. Howells and Skinner deduced, correctly, that the article that Knowles was referring to, was regarding Deeming.
As far as the "Drewen, Druitt or Drewery" versus "Druitt, Drewett or Drewery", well ya' got me. Perhaps not asking for research you think you already know, simply to start an argument would be a better idea.
You won't accept my ideas on the subject Chris, so good luck with everything that remains a mystery to you.
Here's something puzzling to me. How does apparently four mistakes, although two of them were not mistakes, because Deeming's alias was "Druin", and the McCormick information is correct - lead toward a statement of "I'm afraid you've got nearly all the pertinent details wrong"? When 20 details are provided, from memory, and 4 are labeled mistakes, two of which are not, and the other two were minor mistakes, if at all, I doubt that's nearly all. But I understand that as usual, there is no need to back up your statements with any foundation.
SJR |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1321
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 8:38 am: |
|
Stan
Perhaps not asking for research you think you already know, simply to start an argument would be a better idea.
Well, I did make it clear - twice - that I didn't find the theories of Howells and Skinner convincing. From that, you might have been able to guess I knew the details.
You seem to view your mistaken belief that both Farson and McCormick referred to Druin as only a trivial error. But apparently it is the basis for your accusation that McCormick stole Farson's dossier.
Surely there should be something a bit more substantial behind an accusation like this?
Chris Phillips
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 302
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 8:48 am: |
|
Chris,
Farson allowed McCormick to see his papers and info on 'JTR' in 1959.
After Farson received the Lady Aberconway version of the MacNaghten Memo he remembered the Knowles letter, possibly referring to Druitt, named in the MM.
The letter all of a sudden is missing. Farson can't find it. Where oh where oh where can it be?
McCormick names Sickert's veterinary student as something like "Drewett or Druitt or Drewen", to show how Druitt was not a suspect, because he stated that Sickert was a suspect, thus trying to negate Druitt.
Deeming's alias when he arrived in Australia, in 1890, was "Druin".
Connect the dots. That's what smart researchers do. It's ridiculous that you can actually claim McCormick did not lift the document from Farson, merely because you do not like my way of thinking. What more do you need? In fact, don;t tell us. Please.
SJR |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1322
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 9:08 am: |
|
Stan
McCormick names Sickert's veterinary student as something like "Drewett or Druitt or Drewen"
I've just told you, he didn't!
He said:
Sickert was often uncertain about names and the name of the young veterinary student was something like Druitt. It may have been Drewett, or even Hewitt.
Not a "Drewen" in sight!
As for the letter, it went missing when Farson's assistant allowed a man (whose identity she was "vague" about) to remove his dossier of notes from his office at Television House one lunchtime.
How connecting those "dots" amounts to sufficient evidence of theft against McCormick, I can't see.
But the question of who stole the dossier is really a side issue.
As far as explaining Knowles's letter is concerned, what is needed is some kind of plausible explanation as to why a Lionel Druitt (or Drewett, or Drewery) should have been connected in early 1959 with an Australian Ripper document published only a few miles from where Montague's cousin Lionel lived later in the 1890s.
Chris Phillips
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 304
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 9:22 am: |
|
Chris,
How about we just leave it as you don't understand the Howells and Skinner discovery, and I can't teach it to you?
Is that fair? because arguing over one letter, even when it was the alias of Deeming, seems petty, and as if someone was just looking to start an argument.
So how about this? I won't answer any of your questions on why you don't understand things that are accepted, and you don't respond to any of my attempts to help people get the correct information, even if sometimes I make the dreadful mistake of adding a letter.
SJR |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1323
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 12:53 pm: |
|
Stan
Is that fair? because arguing over one letter, even when it was the alias of Deeming, seems petty, and as if someone was just looking to start an argument.
Sorry, but that's just a bit too ludicrous to pass wthout comment.
Your accusation that McCormick stole Farson's research dossier was based on your mistaken belief that Knowles and McCormick both used the name "Drewen/Druin" - you said "these names ... only could have come from the Knowles letter to Farson" (and the other "names" were Druitt/Drewett!).
I have pointed out that neither Knowles nor McCormick used the name "Drewen/Druin", which destroys your argument. And you try to pass it off as arguing over one letter (!).
Chris Phillips
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 956
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 4:53 pm: |
|
Thanks, Chris, for jogging my mind to remember the statement in MM's autobiography about "certain facts" pointing to the conclusion that the killer committed suicide shortly after the Kelly murder not being in the possession of police until some years after 1889. I had forgotten about it. What does MM mean by "certain facts?" This would be a strange was of referring to documents. Yet "possession" implies something tangible, rather than just knowledge. One would have expected MM to write "certain evidence." A careful examination of what MM says indicates that these "certain facts" are not proof that the killer committed suicide shortly after the Kelly murder but rather merely facts pointing to that conclusion.
So, can MMs "certain facts" be the same as his "private information" about the Druitt family's suspicions? At first I was tempted to say "no" but let's not be hasty. In the context of the "certain facts" statement, MMs purpose is to show that the "Butcher..Yid..." letter is not from the Ripper because the real Ripper was dead by the time it was received. In this immediate context he is not concerned about the Ripper's identity, only the fact that he died before Summer 1889 and thus could not have written this letter. As evidence of this, MM says that there is evidence to suggest that the Ripper committed suicide in 1888 but (as an aside) that the police weren't sure about this until later (some years after MM joined the force). What if these "certain facts" amounted to the "private information" MM possessed, i.e. that the Druitt family believed poor Montague who committed suicide shortly after the Kelly murder, to be the Ripper? Would this information not be "certain facts" that "suggest" the killer committed suicide shortly after the last murder?
So when did MM receive the information about the Druitt family's suspicions? I had assumed it was very early. But in light of the "certain facts" quote, perhaps it was not until a few years after 1889. Btw, Chris, I don't think 1891 is incompatible with "some years" after MM joined the force when you remember he is writing his autobiography 20 years later.
Or maybe, "private information" suggests information known to MM and confided to him "off the record" as a private citizen so that this knowledge would not technically be "in the possession of the police."
I know this is not totally consistent with other thoughts I have had but we have to explore all possibilities.
Andy S. |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 307
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 5:42 pm: |
|
Chris,
What I am saying is that in 1986 Howells and Skinner cleared up the issue of the Knowles letter by stating it had nothing to do with a Lionel Druitt, and was referring to an alias, "Druin" or "Drewen", used by Frederick Bailey Deeming. We all are aware that you don't understand this.
Please do us all a favor and rake me over the coals because I mistakenly attributed the name "Drewen" to McCormick in 1970. That, as you have clearly stated, should negate every word I have ever uttered on the case, and now McCormick should be praised as a saint because I feel otherwise.
As I have tried to state, we can't help each other. You won't accept what I have to say, and will not allow the simple error I made by attributing "Drewen" to McCormick rather than stating it was Howells and Skinner who gave us the name "Druin" or "Drewen", to show the Knowles letter was not related to Druitt.
Let it go. It is apparent that you are only interested in exploiting this minor error I have made. Great - hey world - I made an error. It doesn't change the fact that McCormick had access to the Knowles letter, and used three aliases that were strangely similar to the ones in the Knowles letter, in a later book. Oh and yeah, the letter went missing. But if i say it was McCormick you must say it was someone else. I get it. We all do. It's enough already, because no matter how many times I apologize to Earth about making that simple error it will not be enough for you.
As I have stated many times, this is why the major authors do not post here. Because of people like yourself, who will attack them for a simple error, and then state that everything they say must be mistaken because of a small error, that actually explains what you were really looking for, regarding Howells and Skinner.
SJR |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 308
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 19, 2005 - 5:42 pm: |
|
Chris,
What I am saying is that in 1986 Howells and Skinner cleared up the issue of the Knowles letter by stating it had nothing to do with a Lionel Druitt, and was referring to an alias, "Druin" or "Drewen", used by Frederick Bailey Deeming. We all are aware that you don't understand this.
Please do us all a favor and rake me over the coals because I mistakenly attributed the name "Drewen" to McCormick in 1970. That, as you have clearly stated, should negate every word I have ever uttered on the case, and now McCormick should be praised as a saint because I feel otherwise.
As I have tried to state, we can't help each other. You won't accept what I have to say, and will not allow the simple error I made by attributing "Drewen" to McCormick rather than stating it was Howells and Skinner who gave us the name "Druin" or "Drewen", to show the Knowles letter was not related to Druitt.
Let it go. It is apparent that you are only interested in exploiting this minor error I have made. Great - hey world - I made an error. It doesn't change the fact that McCormick had access to the Knowles letter, and used three aliases that were strangely similar to the ones in the Knowles letter, in a later book. Oh and yeah, the letter went missing. But if i say it was McCormick you must say it was someone else. I get it. We all do. It's enough already, because no matter how many times I apologize to Earth about making that simple error it will not be enough for you.
As I have stated many times, this is why the major authors do not post here. Because of people like yourself, who will attack them for a simple error, and then state that everything they say must be mistaken because of a small error, that actually explains what you were really looking for, regarding Howells and Skinner.
SJR |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1324
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 3:23 am: |
|
Stan
It would be nice if we could discuss this sensibly, without all your silly hyperbole and misplaced claims of superior understanding.
In fact Howells and Skinner did not claim that the Deeming affair explained Knowles's letter. They claimed it explained the story told by Maurice Gould, who had approached Farson with various pieces of information, some of which purportedly confirmed what Knowles had said.
After summarising their theory about Deeming, H and S say "this still meant that whatever Knowles had seen in Australia was as much of a mystery as ever"!
No it was the article in the St Arnaud Mercury, dicovered by John Ruffels, which they said "was in essence 'The East End Murderer'".
This article did not, as you had thought, relate to Deeming, but a "Lodger"-type story from an East End landlady. And as I said previously, apart from the fact that it was published in 1890 it doesn't agree in any other particular with the document described by Knowles. In particular, it doesn't explain why Knowles should have come up with Lionel's name before anyone even knew Montague was a suspect.
As for your accusation against McCormick, are you really still insisting that the names he used - Druitt, Drewett or Hewitt - "only could have come from the Knowles letter", which used Druitt, Drewett or Drewery? That's really not credible, and all these complaints that I'm somehow being unfair or petty in pointing out your errors won't alter that.
For what it's worth, a carefully reading of what Farson actually says, together with a close comparison of the first and second editions of McCormick's book, clearly show that he was not the culprit. As for the real culprit, you really don't have to look very far ...
Chris Phillips
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 321
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 3:50 am: |
|
Chris,
I'll ask once again.
How about you go about your business, being petty and not understanding.
And I'll go about my business, trying to answer questions as best I know, from my research.
Once again, I'll say how sorry I am t have offended you by referring the "Drewen" comment to McCormick rather than to H and S. I see it has really upset your valuable work on the case. Now that I am wrong and you are right, maybe you can get back to some constructive work on the case, like asking for things you claim you don;t know but obviously do, and annoying people with petty matters.
You are quite good at that.
And I will be stabbing myself in the heart for making an error. Everyone knows the great and powerful Chris Phillips never has made an error, or more to the point, never admitted he made an error.
As far as the whole shebang, if I am the "culprit", I did it when I was -13 years old. While you probably mean that I am the culprit, for passing on 100% bogus information to everyone on the boards.
So you - keep on misunderstanding stuff.
I will keep trying to help people out with their misconceptions. occasionally I will be wrong, just like occasionally you will understand something. The sun shines on a dog's you know what every now and then.
As for you trying to continually bait me, it's good work, if you can get it. Andit really really really helps the case, but we all know, and I mean everyone knows, that helping the case move along is not what you want in the least.
So I will kindly ask once more - do your thing, which all people know what it is, and I will do mine. since we hate each other's guts, let's try and stay out of each other's way. how's that sound?
SJR |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1325
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 4:00 am: |
|
Stan
If you don't want to discuss it, no one is forcing you to.
But please don't keep up this silly stuff about me "misunderstanding" things. I think people can see who is "misunderstanding" things and getting their facts wrong.
And no, I wasn't referring to you as the culprit you wouldn't have to look very far for. I meant that there is a very obvious candidate staring you in the face.
Chris Phillips
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 323
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 4:20 am: |
|
Chris,
you just can't let it go. I understand why now. My mistake gives you so much pleasure. Well, be my guest. Enjoy
SJR |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2041
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 5:49 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
Believe it or not, I think many of your contributions on these boards are very perceptive - where entrenched positions and vested interests don't get in the way.
Ooh, that's a back-handed compliment!
My current 'position' on the you-know-what is something you fought long and hard to get me to vouchsafe - and I never did. You even went back a couple of years to dig out an opinion or two I expressed then, so you could graft those on to me, in your frustration. So 'entrenched positions' hardly applies to me.
And what do you mean by 'vested' interests, exactly? I have said more times than I care to remember that I don't give two hoots what the origins of the you-know-what turn out to be. I think it's a cautionary tale worth telling regardless.
Now, back to Druitt and his railway tickets.
And let's all try to attack the theory, and not the theorist or he who questions it.
Love,
Caz
X |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 333
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 6:12 pm: |
|
Caz,
Well here's a thought.
Why don't we try to show the flaws in ideas, so they don't become commonplace?
And here's another thought.
Why don't we all realize that this case isn't personally connected to us, so when an idea or thought is shown to be wrong there is no need to hang onto it like it was the last iota of oxygen on the planet.
And here's another thought.
We all could get along, and help each other, but that would mean sticking with the things above, and we know that some people's ego, totally unwarranted mind you, won't allow others to show them their errors, and will fight back with mythical analogies, until enough people tell them they are wrong.
I seem to be the only one who does so, because it comes off as combatative. Mind you, its not combatative until that person fights back while holding onto their erroneous ideas. but that, within Ripperology today, doesn't matter. It's the thinker who is in the minority, not the regurgitator.
SJR |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 222
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 9:16 pm: |
|
I think that Druitt must still be considered a major suspect for the simple reason that one of the main views of the time was that the Ripper drowned himself after the murder of Mary Kelly.
George Sims wrote : " A little more than a month later [ after the Kelly murder ] the body of the man suspected by our chiefs of Scotland Yard and by his own friends who were in communication with the Yard was found in the Thames. The body had been in the water about a month. "
The return ticket to Hammersmith suggests that Druitt was going there to see somebody and that he intended to return. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 719
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 2:54 am: |
|
Simon - I concur with what you say.
Add to Druitt's "credentials" as a suspect that Macnaghten (who took a close interest in the case thought not directly involved) rated him as one of three suspects worth noting on the file. Moreover, he claimed to have personal information (unknown andprobably now unknowable, but allegedly of from a source close to MJD) that the circumstantial evidence was strong".
However, I think we must be careful about other sources, Sims was close to melville macnaghten, and he also seems to have tipped off some other writers. So such sources do not necessarily provide backing for what Sir Melville wrote.
My only caveat would be that I think it just possible that MM was playing a part in a Fenian-related cover-up. I doubt it, but I do see the arguments. In that case, MJD is just a plausible suspect brought in as a smokescreen (that does not necessarily mean his family did not have suspicions) but was not the killer we know as jtR.
Phil |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 435
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 3:06 am: |
|
Hurray!
Well done Simon. Back to THE thread: "The railway tickets found on Druitt".
I've been guilty of it in the past..drifting off the subject onto some tangent I thought just as important.
Stan!
How are you? If you read back through this board you'll see it was that pesky Chris Phillips got us off the subject..
(By the way, Stan, you might think I was not courageous enough to respond to your stinging rejoinder to my Macnaghten line on another thread,
but I'll resume on that thread not this one).
For those interested, I am taking the chat about Farson's THE EAST END MURDERER: I KNEW HIM, over to that thread.
Meanwhile, I have a question about Montague Druitt's railway journey...There has been much discussion about which railway station Montague was intending to travel to, using the tickets.
But the trouble with a Season Railway Ticket (but not the Return Ticket) is that they do not seem to be annoted for each rail journey. So even if the ticket were still legible after 31st December,the station staff did not have to endorse the ticket. So no record of "from where" and "where to", existed.
Also, some people have touched on the prevailing tides. I notice on the map, an island close by.
Would this have caused a deepening or shallowing of the channels either side?
The newspapers said the tide was "running up"..
what does that mean?
Has a study been made of the regular movement of the Thames River in cold December, 1888?
All this is to suggest, since no hat or cane or
collar and tie or bag, were found on the shore close by where the body was found,could Montague Druitt have jumped in up, or down stream from the point where his body was recovered?
Was he still wearing shoes? the reports don't say.
Had Montague Druitt, after an unproductive journey, walked for some time along the Thames bank, pondering on what to do next? Walked some distance from the place(s) he had been visiting?
There was a church at Chiswick nearby. Druitt came from a religious family, might he have called in to seek solace there. (The location was called Church Wharf)? |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4819
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 7:16 am: |
|
Hi John
The popular image of the murders is of their being committed during fog, which we know wasn't true. Ironic, then, that the day Druitt was found there was dense fog! So if a hat or cane or other debris was floating near Druitt's body, the waterman and PC might well not have noticed.
JAN 1st 1889
Robert |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 723
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 8:49 am: |
|
But Robert, the report relates to The City and parts of the West End, and to the north and south. Hammersmith, which is well outside the central urban area (and would have been even more evidently a suburb in 1888) might well have been free of smog. I don't think one can necessarily draw the inference you do from this report.
Sorry,
Phil |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4821
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 9:12 am: |
|
True, Phil, I can't prove that it was foggy at Hammersmith. Seems like a fair chance, though.
Robert |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 724
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 12:14 pm: |
|
I don't know - "London particulars" (as they were known) could be very patchy - much depended on weather - or atmospheric - conditions, I believe. Hammersmith then would have been quite rural - and the smogs were not fog (as such) but the effects of all the coal smoke in the air.
Phil |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 9:03 am: |
|
Hi Phil.
Nice to see you back.
I think Glenn's description of you was, "The voice of reason". I heartily concur with that assessment.
Best wishes.
DAVID C. |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 459
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 9:07 pm: |
|
Hi John
Regarding Druitt's railway season ticket, I did obtain a picture of one from the 1890's, and this can be veiwed on this thread under "Archive through August 08/05". However it only seems to have given from where and where too, but does not mention any particular station.
The question of flow of the tide near this island is dificult to guess, but I would think that if the channel was narrower on one side of the island then that would probably cause some scouring of the river bed and it may have been deeper. Local knowledge would have been invaluable, and perhaps the waterman Winslow could have told us more.
Regarding the tides, the term "running up", I take to mean that the tide was on the flood (i.e. coming in), this would meen that the flow was from the east.
I did check up on tidal flows in the River Thames, which seem to be about one knot, this would mean that it flows from east to west for about 5 hours followed by a flow in the opposite direction for another 5 hours. Given that the natural flow of any river is towards the sea (in this case to the east), and that Monty's body had been in the water for about a month, I beleive it is possible for him to have gone into the river anywhere within approx. 5 miles either side, but more probaly to the west, say Richmond. Of coarse when he drowned the body may well have remained on the river bed until decomposition occured sufficiently for the body to float.
As regard a top hat and cane, would not someone who picked them up have kept them or even pawned them?
Hope this helps.
Rgds
John |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 440
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 11:30 pm: |
|
Hello John and All,
Thanks for your responses.So is it possible Montague's body, once it bloated to the surface, might have drifted towards Hammersmith and not from it? Or from Richmond and not towards it?
Shows what poverty there was in Late Victorian London that watermen like Winslade were out in their boats in freezing, foggy conditions looking for lost and discarded items.(I wonder if he took MJDs wallet home ?).}
Several (portable) things were not present. Coins like sovereigns, would still be useable after immersion.
I wonder whay superstitions watermen adhered to, as regards robbing drowned corpses? |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
