|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
John Ruffels
Sergeant
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 50
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 8:05 pm: |       |
One of the major difficulties often cited on these message boards is the paucity of information now available to assess the guilt or otherwise, of suspects accused -often long after the fact- by retired police officers,crime journalists and ingenious arm-chair sleuths.
When a retired police officer gave a doctor's dissecting knife to an elderly lady (who then used it to prune roses ) and the policeman claimed it was an original "Jack The Ripper" weapon, Sir Melville Macnaghten retorted:"Why was this knife not handed to the Comptroller of Prisons as police evidence?".
The very same Sir Melville Macnaghten had a framed, red ink original, "Jack The Ripper" letter displayed on the wall of his house.
The very same gentleman used to proudly keep a photograph album in his desk draw, which he would take out and display to select visitors.It contained police post-mortem photographs of the Ripper's victims and other gruesome murders.
Why did Sir Melville not practise what he preached?
His friend, journalist G.R.Sims, kept what he called his "Crime Museum". Where did he get "Mary Kelly's clay pipe"?
In the last thirty years Scotland Yard files have been quietly returned to their proper place.Morgue photos of victims, and even red ink "Ripper" letters have returned...
But where is the Home Office report about Montague Druitt?
What's missing?
I think we should draw up a list of Home Office, Scotland Yard and post-mortem and Coronial papers and images which once existed, and are mentioned in official reports, but have now disappeared.
What do you think? |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 204
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 23, 2003 - 7:17 pm: | |
Hi John
Intresting set of questions!
The one I'd like to see is the large file mentioned by Littlechild relating to Tumblety....
any other nominations?
CS |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 173
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 24, 2003 - 7:17 am: | |
Hi all
I'd like to see any plans, sketches or photos of Miller's Court and 13 room.
E.g., if the second Kelly photo had been taken just an inch or two further left, we might have been able to check her wedding finger for a ring or ring mark.
Robert |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Sergeant
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 35
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 7:07 am: | |
perhaps as peoples estates get down to this generation far greater removed from the indivduals involoved more stuff will be handed in. the problem is knowing that any thing handed in is genuwine how can we be sure of this?
jennifer
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Sergeant
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 36
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 7:10 am: | |
perhaps as peoples estates get down to this generation far greater removed from the indivduals involoved more stuff will be handed in. the problem is knowing that any thing handed in is genuwine how can we be sure of this?
jennifer
|
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 180
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 25, 2003 - 4:23 pm: | |
Hallo all
Has anyone written to the descendants of the top people involved in the case - police officers, doctors etc - to ask them to check whether they have any marginalia, or anything else, tucked away somewhere? I know it would be a bit cheeky, but it would be a shame if something important ended up in a skip.
Robert |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 51
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 26, 2003 - 3:45 am: | |
Hi everyone,
I have asked several times in the past about the
morgue shots of the dead Montague Druitt. In George Dilnot's book, THE STORY OF SCOTLAND YARD
(Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin Co., 1927), he writes a chapter on the Thames Police,
and he ends it with this statement: "Since 1872
it has been the practice to photograph all bodies
found [in the Thames], so that it is possible
to identify an unknown person months, and sometimes years, afterwards." That would seem to
mean that a photo of Monty was taken in December
1888, after his body resurfaced. No doubt it would be tied to his missing autopsy report.
This being May 26, I was recently thinking of another date in May that is linked to Whitechapel
by some (not many now though). May 21st was the
111th anniversary of the hanging of Frederick
Bayley Deeming in Melbourne. Although few now
consider him the Ripper, at the time of his execution he had spent days writing his "memoirs"
in prison, which he claimed would astonish the
world. This document may have been given to
Deeming's lawyer, and perhaps ended up with his
family. Or they may have been kept by the Australian police. They may be long since destroyed (and even if not, their value is problematical - Deeming being such an untrustworthy source of information). However,
there is a chance they may exist. As his barrister in his 1892 trial for murder in Melbourne was Alfred Deakin (who subsequently was
the third Premier of Australia after the union of
the seven colonies in 1901) there may be means of
tracing down the fate of these documents.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Gary Weatherhead
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 26, 2003 - 12:50 pm: | |
Hi. Jeff
A very interesting post. Thanks for giving the publishing details on THE STORY OF SCOTLAND YARD.
I was unaware of the photo and I would be interested in knowing if it has ever been reprinted in a more readily available source.
I don't mean to seem ghoulish, but the photo could give a modern forensics expert an idea as to how long the body was in the water. This is something I have always been curious about. We all know that Sir Meville speculated that the body had been in the water about a month or so, and we 'believe' we can trace Druitt's last known movements. However, the information we have from the aforementioned is uncertain at best.
I am not a Druittist as I recall one writer put it; but Druitt is an imnportant individual in this saga for obviousl reasons. Not to mention the importance placed on his death by the authorities at the time and the possibility, however remote, that he was murdered.
Best Regards
Gary |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 53
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 - 9:38 pm: | |
Hi Gary,
I am not an Druittist myself, but I have a keen
interest in Druitt's life and his fate. So I
occasionally look into it to see if more information could be available.
Best wishes,
Jeff |
John Ruffels
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 54
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 7:33 am: | |
So what's missing?
(1) GEORGE R. SIMS' "Collection of Criminal Curiosities" "I have the photographs of several of the victims taken after their murder, in my collection of criminal curiosities...":THE REFEREE
April 5, 1903).
(2)M.J.DRUITT's HOME OFFICE REPORT"I am betraying no confidence in making this statement, because it"((Druitt's H.O.Report))"has been published by an official who had the opportunity of seeing the Home Office Report, Major Arthur Griffiths, one of her late Majesty's inspectors of prisnos..."THE REFEREE April 5, 1903.
(3)SCOTLAND YARDS MISSING SUSPECT'S FILE (MEPO 3/141,32/135):"THE A To Z OF JACK THE RIPPER"(p403):-
quotes Jones & Lloyd commenting on the absence of papers on Druitt, Kosminski, and Ostrog on the file when they saw it".
"Bulk of the file of suspects indicated by members of the public.(For carrying black bags, having foreign accents, accosting women, talking about the Ripper in pubs.Those promptly released on identification as respectable.And requests for lists of all persons detained in connection with the Whitechapel murders since 31 October 1888).
(4)HOME OFFICE & SCOTLAND YARD FILES quoted by Douglas G. Browne and Ralph Strauss in "THE RISE OF SCOTLAND YARD"(1956)and subsequently discovered not to be any longer in their place at the PRO.(apparently, until microfilming, files regularly "went missing"!!("THE A TO Z..").
(5) SIR MELVILLE MACNAGHTEN'S "DOCUMENTARY PROOF OF DRUITT'S GUILT.According to Macnaghten in a DAILY MAIL interview June 2, 1913, Macnaghten claimed to have destroyed documents implicating, or proving Druitt's guilt.Later denied.
(6) Dr THOMAS DUTTON'S "CHRONICLES OF CRIME".First mentioned in a SUNDAY CHRONICLE article, possibly written by budding crime reporter, Donald McCormick in October, 1935.These
three volumes of hand-written notes on various crimes and Royal doings..are no longer available for examination to confirm Mr McCormick's very interesting JTR claims.
I am sure you can add to this list.As others have done above. An essential first move to clear the air, to see just what basic
data we have to work on.
Of course THE ULTIMATE SOURCE-BOOK (Evans & Skinner) also seeks to do the same. |
Chris Phillips
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 68
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 29, 2003 - 10:15 am: | |
I wonder if the "Home Office report" on Druitt was really just Macnaghten's memorandum on Cutbush, Druitt, Kosminsky and Ostrog?
Chris Phillips
|
John Ruffels
Detective Sergeant
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 55
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 30, 2003 - 6:07 am: | |
Chris Phillips wonders if the "Home Office Report on Montague Druitt" was just the Macnaghten Memorandum listing Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog but dismissing Cutbush.
Chris, G.R.Sims'full statement in THE REFEREE of April 5, 1903 states:
"But that several correspondents have forwarded to me news cuttings, and that two or three newspapers have inserted letters questioning my statement, I should not have alluded to the Ripper Mystery again.It is argued that "Jack" could not have drowned himself in 1888, because there were murders in Whitechapel in 1891.The last of the Ripper series was the Miller's-court horror,which occurred on November 9, 1888. The East End murders of later years were not in the same "handwriting".
"No-one who saw the victim of Miller's court as she was found ever doubted that the deed was that of a man in the last stage of a terrible form of insanity. No complete description was ever given to the Press. The details were too foulishly, fiendishly awful. A little more than a month later the body of the man suspected by the chiefs of the 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.
I am betraying no confidence in making this statement, because it has been published by an official who had an opportunity of seeing the Home Office Report, Major Arthur Griffiths, one of her late Majesty's inspectors of prisons...."
"I have no time to argue with the gentlemen, some of them ex-officers of the detective force, who want to make out that the report to the Home Office was incorrect. But putting all other matters on one side, it is an absolute absurdity to argue that a cool, calculating poisoner like Klosowski could have lived with half a dozen women
and put them quietly out of the way by a slow and calculated process after being in 1888
a man so maniacal in his homicide fury that he committed the foul and fiendish horror of Miller's court. A furious madman does not suddenly become a slow poisoner. "Jack The Ripper" was known, was identified, and is dead. Let him rest".
Abberline wrote to refute Sims' story in the PALL MALL GAZETTE in 1903:
(About the 'medical student who drowned in the
Thames)."I know all about that story. But what does it amount to? Simply this. Soon after the last murder in Whitechapel the body of a young doctor was found in the Thames, but there is absolutely nothing beyond the fact he was found at that time to incriminate him. A report was made to the Home Office about the matter, but that it was " considered final and conclusive" is going altogether beyond the truth...the fact that several months after December 1888, when the student's body was found, the detectives were told to hold themselves in readiness for further investigations seems to point to the conclusion that Scotland Yard did not in any way consider the evidence as final."
Regardless of which version is correct, we still do not have that Home Office Report to use to form our own judgements.It is missing.
Note that Abberline seemed unaware Druitt's friends had been in touch with Scotland Yard. Doubtless, their statement would also be on that HO file. |
sdp_mail@yahoo.com
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 11:04 pm: | |
Here's something that's never been answered, or to my knowledge, even asked: what ever happened to pieces of physical evidence from the crimes? For instance, what would have happened to Katherine Eddowe's cut apron? Would it have been saved? Where? For how long? What about other minor personal effects found on the victims or anything left in Mary Kelly's Room? Would these have gone to relatives, or saved as evidence?
These are very important questions, in light of what can be done with DNA these days. Patricia Cornwell may be on to something, though perhaps she's looking in the wrong direction.
Imagine having DNA off of something like the apron, and then later being able to match it to something possessed by a suspect! For instance, someone finds one of D'Onston's legendary ties, encrusted with what we know for sure is C.E.'s blood.
Bang! You'd have Jack, for sure. Only the physical evidence can truly solve this mystery once and for all. How would the Police of the time handle,store, or even catalogue physical evidence in their possession?
P.s. How about the Lusk kidney? Why wouldn't this have been saved, if only as a curiosity? Could this still be bobbing around in some specimen collection somewhere?
What about Tumblety's infected womb collection? Would this just have been thrown away, or would it be more logical for his heirs to donate these to a nearby medical college?
Etc. I know it may be impossible to track down stuff like this, but maybe it isn't. Nobody has tried, or even raised the possibility.
|
sdp_mail@yahoo.com
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 11:04 pm: | |
Here's something that's never been answered, or to my knowledge, even asked: what ever happened to pieces of physical evidence from the crimes? For instance, what would have happened to Katherine Eddowe's cut apron? Would it have been saved? Where? For how long? What about other minor personal effects found on the victims or anything left in Mary Kelly's Room? Would these have gone to relatives, or saved as evidence?
These are very important questions, in light of what can be done with DNA these days. Patricia Cornwell may be on to something, though perhaps she's looking in the wrong direction.
Imagine having DNA off of something like the apron, and then later being able to match it to something possessed by a suspect! For instance, someone finds one of D'Onston's legendary ties, encrusted with what we know for sure is C.E.'s blood.
Bang! You'd have Jack, for sure. Only the physical evidence can truly solve this mystery once and for all. How would the Police of the time handle,store, or even catalogue physical evidence in their possession?
P.s. How about the Lusk kidney? Why wouldn't this have been saved, if only as a curiosity? Could this still be bobbing around in some specimen collection somewhere?
What about Tumblety's infected womb collection? Would this just have been thrown away, or would it be more logical for his heirs to donate these to a nearby medical college?
Etc. I know it may be impossible to track down stuff like this, but maybe it isn't. Nobody has tried, or even raised the possibility.
|
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 260
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 19, 2003 - 11:01 am: | |
SDP,
Somebody has tried and raised the possiblilty....I for one.
The general concensus is that the kidney was thrown away in the 50's due to the fact it was presarved in spirts and therefore wasnt presarved at all.
The other nick-nacks, apron ect were either destroyed also or plundered and now lay in someones attic....so check yours !!!
Monty
 |
sdp_mail
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 8:03 pm: | |
OK. That's extremely interesting, about the Lusk Kidney. So, it was kept up until the 50's? That's quite a long time! I wonder if it was ever studied further, or photographed? And who had it all this time, and why would they keep it all that time, then suddenly get rid of it?
And here is another question: what could be learned if the bodies were disintered? What would be left? Could you obtain viable DNA that could be used if someone eventually does find a bloodstained item? |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 414
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 2:33 pm: | |
Hello sdp_mail
The fact is that we don't know how long the Lusk kidney was kept or if it was kept for any length of time. Dr. Thomas Ind, a London area specialist who has contributed to these boards, has done some investigation at the Royal London Hospital, Whitechapel, where Dr. Thomas Horrocks Openshaw examined the kidney, and his feeling is that if anything of the kidney was kept it would have been only a section of the kidney on a glass slide. Dr. Ind's feeling was that such a slide of the kidney might have been kept, but there is no guarantee that was the case. One of the latest e-mails I had from him was to say that a lot of anatomic specimens have been disposed of in the United Kingdom in the wake of the recent Alder Hey Hospital (Liverpool) organs scandal, and so it is possible that if the section of kidney still existed it could even have been disposed of then, relatively recently. But the fact is, we just don't know. It is just as likely, it seems to me, that the remainder of the kidney was thrown away soon after it was examined by Dr. Openshaw. You are quite correct that the Lusk kidney, the piece of Eddowes's apron, and Dr. D'Onston's famous ties should be examined for DNA if those items still exist, but at this point in time their existence in this world seems a very long shot.
Best regards
Chris George |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
