|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 586
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 8:41 am: |       |
Jen,
Did you say "reasonable?"
We are, remember, in the Land that Reason Forgot.
But I'll play nicely, since I'm battening down my hatches for tomorrow afternoon's hurricane and will be here through the weekend with lots of time to write.
Waiting for the big one,
--John |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 54
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 9:11 am: | |
To all,
May I interject a comment?
Forget the diary for just one second. Why would James Maybrick commit these murders? I'm not asking because I don't know the theories, I just don't understand why they are believed by so many.
It's the same old re-hashing of the 'JTR' as bad man theory, the theory that has gotten this case nowhere. If James Maybrick were 'JTR', why target women older than his wife? Why murder two women on the same night, if bloodlust were all he wanted? Why did the murders stop after Miller's Court, when his wife had just started a new affair with Alfred Brierley (spelling?) and his arsenic addiction did not severely affect him until at Decemeber at the earliest? Why to a number of other questions that don't make sense when you ask why did James Maybrick murder and mutilate these women?
STAN RUSSO |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 838
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 9:51 am: | |
Hi, Stan
You of course ask the correct questions about Maybrick's candidacy to which I would add the one that I have often expressed, why would he go all the way to London, 200 miles away from his home, when there were perfectly good prostitutes in his home city of Liverpool which was infamous for ladies of the night, vide the old song "Maggie Mae" parading her wares down Lime Street and in Canning Place? ("She had a figure so divine, like a frigate of the line, and me being a poor sailor, I gave chase. . . Oh, Maggie Maggie Mae, they have taken her away and she'll never walk down Lime Street anymore.")
Rather, Maybrick makes for a convenient suspect, a Victorian gent in a top hat who will fit most people's conception of who Jack should be. And the lack of evidence that he was Jack and the illogicality of why he would be the murderer be hanged.
All the best
Chris
(Message edited by chrisg on August 12, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 588
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 10:10 am: | |
Come on, guys.
He was a drug crazed serial killer.
And you're asking for rational explanations of his behavior?
What can you be thinking?
He don' need no stinkin' reasons.
And we don' need no stinkin' evidence.
The diary says it. It must somehow or another be true. And if the diary doesn't say it, we'll say that it does. And if the diary says something else, we'll make that mean what we want it to say. But one way or another, this book will be real, dammit.
Remember where you are.
This is not about the complete lack of any real evidence anywhere on the planet that even suggests James Maybrick was the killer.
This is not about a book filled with mistakes and ahistoricisms and anachronisms and the wrong handwriting and impossible coincidences and artificial scenes all accompanied by a complete lack of provenance.
This is not even about reading or what the words on the diary's pages actually say.
This is just about desire.
This is just about not letting hope die.
This is just about offering any argument no matter how irrational, no matter how inexplicable, no matter how tortured, no matter how amazing, no matter how detached from history and the evidence, no matter how rhetorically far-fetched, solely for the purposes of not admitting what we all know -- that the real James certainly did not write this book and certainly did not kill these women.
This, my friends, is Diary World. And asking logical questions around here will only get you blasts of posturing pique and stories of fantasy and imagination.
The vets here can show you the results.
Welcome to our world. Enjoy the nonsense. But, as always, try to keep your head from spinning when the next round of silliness arrives.
--John
(Message edited by omlor on August 12, 2004) |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 742
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 12:43 pm: | |
John,
sorry.
Stan,
I think really they just going on the watch and diary. Though aside from these things I guess he is as viable a suspect as many who we don't regard in quite the same way!
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 593
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 5:14 pm: | |
Jen,
"Aside from these things" he is not a viable suspect at all, any more than Oscar Wilde is or G.B. Shaw is.
There is exactly the same amount of real evidence against these men in this case as there is against James Maybrick.
We would do well to remember that amidst all this fantasy.
--John
|
Simon Owen
Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 29
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 12, 2004 - 5:31 pm: | |
Unless you think ' The Picture of Dorian Grey ' ( painted by Walter Sickert obviously... ) is a coded confession of guilt , no less !  |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 55
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 1:17 am: | |
Jennifer,
No, I understand that. I'm just looking past those two items to question whether Maybrick is a good candidate aside from that. In actuality Maybrick could have written the diary and not committed the crimes. While highly unlikely its not impossible, although let me state that I believe it is a forgery.
John,
There's no direct evidence against anyone, so eliminating Maybrick based on that scenario does not help the case, it actually hinders it because then there are no suspects, because there is no direct evidence against anyone.
Chris,
I actually thought of that question but came to the conclusion that if someone were to murder women they would not do it in their backyard. I have always believed that 'JTR' was not a wandering impulsive psychopath, but rather a cold calculating murderer (albeit also being a deranged psychopath) who planned the murders and was able to escape detection on multiple nights from multiple police forces.
If you want a theoretical question about the diary, if Maybrick wrote it because he was 'JTR', how did it ever get out of Battlecrease? Again, to all, I understand how it was supposed to have been taken from Battlecrease, but that does not make sense. Anyone on James' side would have destroyed the diary to destroy the secret (Alice Yapp), and anyone who was on Florence Maybrick's side would have used the diary to secure Florence's release from prison. The Diary does not make sense from a theoretical issue, forgetting all the tiny little debates going on about wording. The watch even makes less sense, because Catherine Eddowes used the name Mary Ann Kelly, the name she used less than an hour earlier, so therefore Maybrick would not have scratched CE for her, yet rather another MK. Even if Eddowes used her real name that does not explain the double murder, which is clearly indicated in both the diary and the watch.
STAN RUSSO |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1188
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 4:04 am: | |
Hi Stan,
Wouldn't the ripper have learned Eddowes's real name from the papers?
Hi Chris P,
Ok, I’ll make it even clearer for you.
No, I am not investigating who forged the diary. But I will continue to look at the available information from previous investigations and see what else may be worth investigating to get at the truth, besides aspects currently being investigated seriously in London and Liverpool.
Hi John,
Do please read more carefully. I didn’t say you had ever claimed that Mike Barrett wrote the diary.
What I wrote was this:
…John preaches here…that the diary is a…hoax, created with the help and co-operation of Michael Barrett…
Are you now saying Mike’s Sphere book may not have been used to help create the diary, or that he didn't know it had been used for this purpose until afterwards, so there was no active or conscious help and co-operation on his part? That rather dumps Anne in your frame then, doesn’t it, if you believe Mike’s word that the book was in their attic all along?
I wonder how you think Mike found out about it - and when, bearing in mind that Anne left their home in January 1994, and they weren't exactly on good terms after that. Do you believe Mike could have found the book in the attic, sat down for a good old read, and seen the quotation by chance when the book opened at the right page? Hmmmm, another miracle I shall have to think about then. 
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Simon Owen
Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 33
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 4:15 am: | |
Caz , are you agreeing with us then ? Do you accept that the Diary is a forgery ? |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1189
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 4:26 am: | |
Hi Simon,
I am questioning other people's certainty that the diary is a late 1980s hoax, created with the help and co-operation of Mike Barrett, and that the watch, by implication, is an early 1990s hoax, created with the help and co-operation of Albert Johnson.
And that is more or less what I have been doing since 1998.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 444
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 5:14 am: | |
Caz
I am questioning other people's certainty that the diary is a late 1980s hoax, created with the help and co-operation of Mike Barrett, and that the watch, by implication, is an early 1990s hoax, created with the help and co-operation of Albert Johnson.
That's not really the whole story, is it? You've frequently questioned whether the diary is a fake at all, haven't you?
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on August 13, 2004) |
Simon Owen
Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 35
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 5:22 am: | |
I think that there may be a tiny possibility that the Diary is an old forgery , but surely the most likely thing is that it was created post-1988 :
i) The ' tin match box empty ' line , straight from the police inventory of Eddowes' possessions which was only revealed in 1988.
ii) The Poste House , surely the Poste House in Cumberland Street Liverpool , which got its name in the 1960s.
iii) The idea that new items might turn up after the 100 year centenary of the murders ( mentioned by Don Rumbelow ? )
iv) The appearance of the watch and the Diary within a few years of each other , and the lack of provenance of either item.
|
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 445
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 5:46 am: | |
Simon
And there's also Mike Barrett's "discovery" of the source of the "Oh costly intercourse of death" quotation; perhaps the most difficult thing of all for the Maybrickites - or the "old fake" theorists - to explain.
I asked Caz previously whether she could explain this discovery on the basis that the diary was genuine, but she wouldn't answer.
We could equally ask her how she could explain the discovery on that basis that the diary was an old fake. Perhaps she will answer that one? (Though mostly she blithely ignores all awkward questions these days, and ploughs on regardless.)
Chris Phillips
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 595
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 6:44 am: | |
I could not have asked for a more perfect exchange.
So I will simply repeat it here.
********************************************
Simon Owen writes:
Caz , are you agreeing with us then ? Do you accept that the Diary is a forgery ?
*******************************************
Caroline Morris writes, in response:
Hi Simon,
I am questioning other people's certainty that the diary is a late 1980s hoax, created with the help and co-operation of Mike Barrett, and that the watch, by implication, is an early 1990s hoax, created with the help and co-operation of Albert Johnson.
And that is more or less what I have been doing since 1998.
Love,
Caz
X
**************************************
OK, it's reading time again.
What missing in Caroline's response to Simon's question?
Come on, you all see it.
That's right...
An ANSWER to the actual question he asked.
He didn't ask her what she's doing or what she's been doing. He asked her a much simpler, much more straightforward, honest, easy to read, yes or no question.
Here it is again:
"Do you accept that the Diary is a forgery?"
And there is no answer.
This is the difference between some posters here and others. It's demonstrated here as clearly and directly and as obviously as can be.
Excellent.
--John
PS: Stan, actually at least some suspects do have evidence of a material nature (historical, documentary, testimonial, etc.) that links them in one way or another to the crimes. Shaw, Wilde, and Maybrick do not.
PPS: I see we have yet another mysterious reference to "aspects currently being investigated seriously in London and Liverpool." But as usual there is no explanation, there are no details, and there is no specific information about just what such a phrase might mean. Could Caroline have been just blustering all along? Is this her way of trying to soften the fact that she was caught up in the rhetoric of false promises when she originally announced a "serious investigation ongoing?" Is she now desperately trying to rescue herself from her own puffery? Somewhere, Melvin is smiling.
PPPS: As for Mike and the Sphere Book, I have always said two things, both of which I know for certain. The real James was not quoting that line from that poem in his diary and Mike Barrett was lying about the Miracle of Liverpool Library (and yet he was able to source these five words from the whole history of literature). Oh yeah, and he just happened to be the same guy who brought the book with those unidentified five words in it forward to the public. The rest I happily leave to my wise readers |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 372
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 10:58 am: | |
This might be a bit simplistic, but who writes a forgery and keeps it hidden for decades? A forgery's not much good unless you're actually tricking someone.
Hi, Simon,
I've been asking around about the Langham/Eddowes inquest papers, and one thing I'm hearing from the PRO/NA is that they've been available to the public since 1984, when the Chancellor reduced closure for coroner records to seventy-five years. I'm talking about Langham's inquest only, not the Home Office/Met files. This information was surprising, as I'd assumed they were released with all the other Ripper documents in 1988.
Cheers,
Dave
|
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 56
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 5:28 pm: | |
John,
I hope you're not referring to Druitt. You know, Michael John Druitt, the 41 year old doctor who killed himself immediately after the Miller's Court murder. That's the suspect MacNaghten wrote about, later changing his name to Montague once he was 'allegedly' given 'private information'. I hope you are not saying there is evidence against him other than MacNaghten's erroneous writings. In that respect why is Maybrick less serious than Druitt? Simply because Druitt was named earlier? I would think the exact opposite, Druitt was named much much earlier, and the moron who proposed him couldn;t even get vital stats on his suspect.
Kosminski? There are so many problems with Kosminski (Anderson's refusal to name him, Swanson's errors and most interesting his omission of the name of the identifying witness, and motive other than crazy killer, which does not fit in this case). How is Kosminski that much better than Maybrick, outside of your scenario.
According to your thinking then the proposal chronology should play a more important role than understanding the finer points of the case that eluded the police during the committal of the murders. In your scenario the suspect who should rate number 1 is John Pizer, the first suspect named by police, even though he was thoroughly cleared of the murders. The police never found the murderer, and their total lack of uniformity on a suspect leaves the facts of the case open to any later naming of suspects. They should not be dismissed or thought less of simply because they were named recently. All that will do is force the case into a circle of oblivion. Can't make a good case for any old suspects, yet won;t allow for any new suspects. Not too clear thinking if you ask me.
Caroline,
So even if Maybrick read the papers that still does not explain why Stride was not mutilated. If you can answer that without using the incorrect answer usually given, that he did not have enough time, then you may have a solid argument. Why that answer does not work is Stride was attacked at 12:45, but not discovered until 1:00, giving the murderer 13 minute, using a 1 minute buffer on both sides. He had murdered, mutilated and removed vital organs in under 10 minutes less than an hour later on Eddowes, so time was not an issue with Stride. Perhaps now the crazed psycho killer is starting to make less sense?
STAN RUSSO |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 446
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 5:50 pm: | |
Stan
Is there really any evidence that Macnaghten named Druitt as Michael, but "later [changed] his name to Montague once he was 'allegedly' given 'private information'"?
Chris Phillips
|
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 57
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 6:22 pm: | |
Chris,
There's that tricky word evidence again. There is Philip Loftus' 1972 statement that he personally saw doucments given to Gerald Donner, MacNaghten's grandson, which named three suspects, Michael John Druitt, a Polish Jew Cobbler nicknamed Leather Apron and a feeble minded man who followed young girls and stabbed them with nail scissors. So what does this mean? Nothing, unless you analyze all the elements of the case.
Why was MacNaghten asked to write the memorandum in 1894 refuting the claims of The Sun, that Thomas Cutbush was 'JTR'? Well to me it seems an easy assumption that MacNaghten was given this assignment because the feeble minded man listed among his three suspects was Thomas Cutbush, yet he displayed his personal belief toward his first suspect, whom Loftus remembers seeing as Michael John Druitt.
Yes this document has never surfaced, but if it never existed two questions must be answered.
How did MacNaghten tide over the bad feelings between himself and the CID in 1891 that almost got him transferred by Anderson to the uniform branch? and two
Why would Loftus invent this information, and then make such an obvious mistake as to get Druitt's first name wrong? At this time (1972), Montague John Druitt was the primary suspect.
So by analyzing all the evidence and connecting the obvious dots, I arrived that MacNaghten tided over his bad relations by showing Anderson his original notes on the murders, and the three suspects, which included the recently incarcerated Thomas Cutbush, a feeble minded man who went around stabbing young girls. This not only explains why MacNaghten was chosen by Anderson to privately refute the claims, not publicly but privately, of The Sun, because he had originally mentioned Cutbush to begin with in 1891.
On a side note, but incredibly connected, in my humble opinion, is Anderson's suspect Kosminski. Look at the parallels. Cutbush was incarecrated in March 1891. Kosminski in February 1891. Cutbush stabbed young girls with a knife. Kosminski attacked his sister with a knife, the only recorded time he ever was violent against anyone. If Cutbush was the feeble minded young man, how much of a leap is it for us as researchers and intellignet people to make that Anderson chose Kosminski as MacNaghten's Polish Jew suspect? And by 1894 Kosminski was replaced as MacNaghten's Polish Jew Leather Apron. That of course should bring the pro-Andersonians out in droves, but evidence, or more to the point inferential analysis, leads toward that conclusion. Simply accepting police officials words at face value leaves you with a 41 year old doctor named Michael John and a Polish Jew who died 25 years before he actually did.
Hope that helps a bit, although i may have started a storm here.
STAN RUSSO |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 600
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 6:34 pm: | |
Stan,
I didn't have any of those people especially in mind, but they'll do in this respect. In each case, they have some authentic historical documents or existing testimony contemporary with the period or surviving historical evidence that links them to the history of the case, even if each of those can thereafter be examined for its thoroughness and reliability and similar questions.
In the case of Maybrick, Shaw, and Wilde we don't even have that. We have, in fact, no real reason at all to even think about them having anything to do with these crimes.
If you are telling me that Oscar Wilde is as historically worthwhile a suspect, equally requiring our serious, scholarly consideration, as Druitt or Kosminksi, then I bow to that bizarre and inexplicable logic.
Otherwise, I stand by my original distinction -- Maybrick is simply a fantasy obviously created by a forger with no evidence or even the hint of any real evidence to support the idea of his candidacy.
Hope that explains things from here,
--John |
Simon Owen
Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 42
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 6:57 pm: | |
There is no record of a Michael John Druitt dying in England at any time between 1887 and 1890.
There is a record of Montague John Druitt dying , his death is recorded by the Brentford ( Middlesex ) Coroner for March 1889 Volume 3a , Page 65 , his correct age of 31 being given.
Its possible that the doctor aged 41 who committed suicide in the Thames was called Michael , but thats all one might draw from Loftus's statement.
|
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 58
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 7:02 pm: | |
John,
It certainly does explain things from there. Only those suspects mentioned by people at the time are worthy of serious consideration, no matter how inaccurate or inexperienced these officials were. In actuality - you say all newly proposed suspects are not worthy of discussion.
Pardon me but that is the bizarre approach. I'll remind you again John, the police, that you hold to such high standards that you reject any suspect's worthwhile candidacy because they were not mentioned by them, or for that matter any journalist, true crime writer, historian or academic from that time, never caught the killer. NEVER CAUGHT THE KILLER. That idea that they caught him but never revealed his identity is farcical, choosing instead the vilification of future generations of historians for complete and utter failure.
This case is just a large number of uncertainties that are open to discussion and debate. You however, are openly stating that certain suspects don't deserve to be a part of that debate. How fair is that to Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog, three suspects that have no tie to the murders other than the mentioning in a private memorandum written by an officer who never worked a day on the actual case. Pardon me for second guessing his credibility and opening the door for real detective work by examining all other possibilities, including the candidacy of Shaw, Wilde and Maybrick, no matter how ludicris they may be. As ludicris as a killer murdering and mutilating fiver or six, or three or four or more than six, without getting caught.
Think about it before closing the door.
STAN RUSSO |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 59
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 7:06 pm: | |
Simon,
Or perhaps one can draw more than just that, if they analyze and interpret more than just the actual statement, but analyze and interpret all the relevant pieces of information surrounding it.
Let me ask you why was MacNaghten chosen to write a private memo on Thomas Cutbush?
STAN RUSSO |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 601
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 7:47 pm: | |
No, no, Stan,
You are deliberately overstating my position. I have no objection at all to new suspects being considered, if there is any valid reason offered for seriously considering them, either historical or newly discovered.
But considering Oscar Wilde and George Bernard Shaw as serious Ripper suspects isn't just "ludicrous" -- it's completely without reason.
If this seems like an odd assertion to make, then I'm happy to be the odd one here.
Thanks,
--John |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 602
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 7:51 pm: | |
Oh, and to return to the thread's title...
James Maybrick wasn't Jack the Ripper.
I don't suppose anyone here would like to argue that he was.
Anyone?
Anyone at all?
Come on.
Someone argue that Maybrick was really the Ripper.
Just for fun.
Please?
Looking forward to seeing who shows up to take on this challenge (and who doesn't),
--John |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 60
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 8:12 pm: | |
John,
Can't flip flop your point here. Well you can, but that doesn't bode well for your credibility.
If you say that a suspect has to have an historical link to the case to be seriously considerdd then new suspects usually do not possess that. They are often based on theory, because the murderer was never caught.
And as far as historical links, what was MacNaghten's basis for suspecting Druitt? Again, I understand he stated it was 'private info'. Is that what you choose to rely upon to thrust Druitt above other suspects like Maybrick, Wilde and Shaw? What was Anderson's? And where was their unchallengeable backup for supporting these claims?
No one in their right minds believes Oscar Wilde or George Bernard Shaw were 'JTR'. Some people do believe they should at least be addressed and subsequently researched as a result. Why are they so above the rest of Londoners who have been named as suspects? Hero worship aside, they deserve to be looked at in the very least, if nothing more than to come to the sane conclusion that they weren't the murderer. But your bold statement that unless absolute documentation exists to link someone to the crimes then no further suspects should ever be named. You forget that no actual documentation, other than police conjecture, exists to link your favorite old worthy suspects.
As far as Maybrick is concerned I do not believe he was 'JTR' and that was the point I originally tried to make. Your argument actually takes credibility away from assessing his true viability as a suspect.
I attack the case from a totally different standpoint than yourself, one of being open to all possibilities, because the narrow parameters that you obviously hold to have not advanced the case in the last 100 years. The case is no further from MacNaghten naming three suspects for no offered or backed up reason. No new evidence has been discovered, and the naming of suspects, whether they be ludicris or not has helped this case more than you will ever know. Both my eyes are open, to any way possible to solve this case.
STAN RUSSO |
Simon Owen
Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 46
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 8:19 pm: | |
Why was Macnaghten chosen to refute Cutbush being Jack the Ripper ? He had knowledge of Cutbush dating from 1891 ?
The idea that the Ripper committed suicide in December 1888 , or even immediately after the final murder , was a common one at the time so its easy to see how Druitt became connected to the case. |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 61
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 8:25 pm: | |
Simon,
Interesting, yet you still can;t make the connection to the original notes seen by Philip Loftus, which would answer your earlier question.
How was the idea that the Ripper committed suicide common at the time? Please say Donald McCormick's Albert Bachert hoax story. Because as all historians of the case know nothing McCormick ever said can be trusted. So who else thought he committed suicide other than MacNaghten, who didn't start until July of 1889?
STAN RUSSO |
Simon Owen
Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 47
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 8:31 pm: | |
As far as I can see , Macnaghten merely offered 3 suspects who were more likely to be Jack than Cutbush.
Its certain that he means Montague Druitt because , although he describes him as a 41 year old doctor , he mentions about the corpse " On it was found a season ticket between Blackheath and London '. |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 62
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 8:38 pm: | |
Simon,
Thanks for clearing up your knowledge on the case. it explains a lot.
STAN RUSSO |
Simon Owen
Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 48
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 8:41 pm: | |
I was thinking of the Bristol Times and Mirror , 11 February 1891 : an unnamed West of England MP declared that the Ripper was the son of a surgeon and that he committed suicide on the night of the final murder.
Major Arthur Griffiths and GR Sims may well have based their views on the Macnaghten Memorandum.
Are you saying Stan that Melville had three general ideas of what sort of person the Ripper might have been and he then fitted specific people into the frame ? |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 603
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 8:56 pm: | |
Hi Stan,
Not flip-flopping on anything. New suspects certainly can arrive because of newly discovered historical links to the case. I would have no problem considering them as serious subjects for research, as I said.
And there are plenty of other reasons I can imagine for someone introducing a new and credible suspect and offering valid reasons for their consideration.
Unfortunately, neither George Bernard Shaw nor Oscar Wilde are such cases.
But then you write:
"No one in their right minds believes Oscar Wilde or George Bernard Shaw were 'JTR'."
And we're done.
We agree.
But to my joy and delight, then you also write:
"As far as Maybrick is concerned I do not believe he was 'JTR'"
And we really are done, since I don't either, nor do I see, nor has anyone ever offered me even a single reason to change that conclusion.
Oh, and incidentally, I have no "favorite old worthy suspects."
But I do want to make one thing clear, since you bring it up.
You write:
"...the naming of suspects, whether they be ludicris or not has helped this case more than you will ever know."
Stan,
Perhaps.
In some cases.
But this much I do know.
The naming of THIS subject, in the manner it was done and in the manner it was disseminated and in the manner it was allegedly "researched" and "published" (and I use those terms derisively here), has hurt this case, has hurt this field of study, has hurt its credibility, has hurt seriously the professional and personal relationships between many of its most prominent members, has hurt the reputation of this entire endeavor more than anyone can know or imagine. It's been a disaster for the field's intellectual credibility; it's been a disaster for several of the people directly involved both professionally and personally; and it's been a disaster for the archive, giving us some of the most shameful writing and publishing moments in the history of Ripper Studies.
That much I do know.
The selling of a fake as credible is never good for the integrity of any field.
The voice of experience,
--John 
PS: Charley missed (us, at least).
(Message edited by omlor on August 13, 2004) |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 63
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 9:02 pm: | |
Simon,
"an unnamed West of England". Hardly a credible source, and that doesn't really apply to Druitt, the source for MacNaghten in the first place. It also hardly declares the suicide theory as common, although nowadays it is used to neatly explain the cessation of the murders, generally when the challenge of answering previously unanswered questions becomes too tough.
Griffiths and Sims did base their views on MacNaghten's memo. Griffiths also wrote an article in 1895, but you might not know about that. This article clearly explains the person responsible for the MacNaghten memorandum.
MacNaghten was a troublesome busybody, who had a deep interest in crime. Did you know he also associated 'JTR' with an Irish assassin? Where is that suspect in his memo? MacNaghten constantly studied and asked about the case, and finally it seems as if someone told him about Druitt, his 'private info'. He was such a good researcher that he didn't get his first name right. After he tided over his troubles with the CID, which make no mistake, was Anderson,he continued as assistant Chief Constable, but what tided those bad feelings over? Its obvious that MacNaghten telling Anderson he would drop the 'JTR' research and bothering of him had something to do with it. So that's Druitt, but at the same time Cutbush had just been arrested for stabbing young girls. The Polish Jew, I have always believed, was directly from Anderson, who then turned his Polish Jew Leather Apron into Kosminski, who was just recently reported as attacking a woman with a knife.
These are all interpretive solutions, but to deny connections between multiple different sequences of events, when they can be easily explained by these solutions, does not make any sense.
STAN RUSSO |
Simon Owen
Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 49
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 9:06 pm: | |
To get back on topic , there simply is no evidence or reason to suggest that Maybrick was the Ripper apart from the Diary. Nothing at all. If the Diary is a fake then the whole case against Maybrick falls apart. Even Prince Eddie is a better suspect.
As for Druitt , Macnaghten said this in ' Days of My Years ' : " Although the Whitechapel murderer in all probability put an end to himself soon after the Dorset Street affair in November 1888 , certain facts pointing to this conclusion were not in the possession of the police until some years after I became a detective officer..."
This implies that there is more to convict Druitt than the simple fact of his suicide at the right time , or are you saying that Macnaghten made the whole case against Druitt up ?
If Macnaghten considered ' Michael John ' Druitt a suspect in the rough notes to his memorandum , then most probably he had made a mix-up in relation to information he recieved , possibly from Munro. I can tell you this for a fact - no Michael John Druitt was born at the correct time or died at the correct time and the Macnaghten memoranda refers to Montague Druitt for certain. |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 64
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 9:13 pm: | |
John,
When I stated your favorite old worthy suspects I was referring to the Druitts, the Kosminski's, the Ostrog's that are like royalty in the suspect kingdom without the benefit of credible backing, when analysis is conducted on their sources.
As far as professional and personal relationships in this field, you know my opinion regarding debate. Its a shame that more people don;t feel and act the same way. I am sure when my theory comes out I will get attacked by those who cannot see an attempt at the search for truth through alternative methodology. Very rarely do I post about Maybrick because I believe he is a badly credible suspect, not because of the diary or the watch though, but because of the supreme lack of motive behind him committing the murders. I still give him his day in court however.
To those out there who will read this post John does state an extremely importnat point. This casebook and the message boards are for discussion, not attack, and even I have been goaded into attacking other posters, when in reality I was merely attacking their conclusions. No personal harm is ever intended, but this is a place for serious debate, not coddling of uninformed theoreticians stating they like Walter Sickert because Patricia Cornwell writes good fiction books. I find it the responsibility of those who know the case to set people straight who are inherently wrong, or basically naive about the case.
STAN RUSSO |
Simon Owen
Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 50
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 9:17 pm: | |
I have to agree with John : the amount of time and money wasted over the Maybrick Diary has been apalling , and the bitterness it has caused is legendary. Maybrick has been one suspect we just didn't need.  |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 65
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 9:22 pm: | |
Simon,
Good point. All that needs to be done is to fake something regarding someone who lived at that time in the area and they therefore could never be seriously considered.
It's not the point you know you are making, but it is the one that rings clear. Unfortunately it is a concept that a lot of people who follow this case adhere to.
Are you saying that MacNaghten is credible? Look at Druitt right now. Is he considered by many to be a primary suspect. No. Some people still do but the majority of those who follow the case understand that Druitt was nothing more than MacNaghten's suspect, and he provided nothing but errors and conjecture to back it up. Made it up? Maybe, maybe not. Still does not make MacNaghten a credible source.
STAN RUSSO
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 604
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 9:23 pm: | |
Stan,
1.) They're not my favorites.
2.) The history of the way the diary was initially "researched" and sold served this discipline very badly.
3.) Forgeries, especially forgeries sold as credible, compromise the integrity of any discipline.
4.) I agree with your final paragraph in your post addressed to me.
Thanks for the discussion.
With respect,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on August 13, 2004) |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 51
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 9:36 pm: | |
Hmm , I think I get it...
The papers that Loftus saw were Macnaghten's researches into the Ripper , and these were pretty poor eg the obvious confusion over Druitt.
Anderson lets Macnaghten refute the claim that Cutbush is the Ripper in the Memoranda , he passes on to Macnaughten the ' private information ' about Druitt , Kosminski and Ostrog being the chief suspects in return for Macnaghten not bothering him anymore about Jack the Ripper.
Am I close ? |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 52
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 9:48 pm: | |
I think the problem with this is that we are making a lot of assumptions here. We don't know how much information Macnaghten found out for himself , how much he was given by Munro , how much he was given by Anderson and so on.
We also don't know whether the idea that the Ripper committed suicide was a common one at the time which Macnaghten picked up on , or whether Macnaghten was given this idea or whether its something he thought up himself.
Machnaghten's memorandum certainly impressed Griffiths and Sims though , as they repeated the ideas in their own works.
As for Maybrick , if the Diary was an old forgery then it could have been used to discredit the idea he was the Ripper - as a piece of misinformation if you like. But its almost certainly a modern forgery , made for profit. I only see it as a massive ' red herring ' I'm afraid. |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 605
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 9:54 pm: | |
Meanwhile,
Anyone want to argue that the real James Maybrick wrote the diary or was Jack the Ripper?
Anyone?
Anyone at all?
Anyone?
Maybrick wrote the diary?
Anyone at all?
--John (doing his best Ben Stein impersonation) |
Stan Russo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Stan
Post Number: 66
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 10:04 pm: | |
To all,
Sorry for getting off topic. Back to the unsolvable discussion.
STAN |
Chris Phillips
Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 447
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 3:23 am: | |
Stan
Thanks for the further information.
I'm a bit puzzled about the Loftus version. I do remember reading this somewhere (and my notes from the A-Z mention the "Michael" bit). Perhaps the rest, including the strange reference to Leather Apron is elsewhere in the A-Z?
But elsewhere (e.g. Howells and Skinner) Loftus is supposed to have remembered the suspect as "M. J. Druitt", which is how he is referred to in both the versions of the Macnaghten Memoranda that have survived. I don't think Macnaghten called him "Montague" anywhere.
Surely Loftus's memories were garbled (perhaps he confused Michael Ostrog with M. J. Druitt). If the purpose of the memoranda was to exonerate Cutbush, it's difficult to see why it should have listed the man who stabbed girls' bottoms as one of the prime suspects, even in an earlier draft than the one we have now.
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on August 14, 2004) |
Howard Brown
Sergeant
Username: Howard
Post Number: 46
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 1:02 pm: | |
David O'Flaherty writes above:
"This might be a bit simplistic, but who writes a forgery and keeps it hidden for decades? A forgery's not much good unless you're actually tricking someone."
The nail on the head...... |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 53
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 1:23 pm: | |
Thanks Chris , it seems most likely that Loftus mixed up Michael Ostrog and MJ Druitt when he saw the notes , or maybe Macnaghten mixed them up ?
Maybe Cutbush was one of Macnaghten's suspects at one time , thats why he had notes on him and why he was asked to write the memoranda dismissing Cutbush as the Ripper ?
I know this is OT , but its passing the time while we wait for the pro-Maybrickites to come up with an answer why Maybrick had to be the Ripper ! |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 847
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 12:55 pm: | |
Hi, Stan
We should probably be discussing this in the Druitt thread not here, but I am not sure that I would put much store in Philip Loftus' 1972 statement that he personally saw documents given to Gerald Donner, MacNaghten's grandson, which named three suspects, among them a "Michael John Druitt." Such a gaff in terms of a first name I should say is common, particularly when the recollection is years afterward. Moreover, people commonly inadvertently misremember first names. For example, I might think your name is Syd Russo rather than Stan Russo, an easy enough mistake in anyone who does not have a photographic memory.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 614
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 16, 2004 - 1:44 pm: | |
Chris writes about "an easy enough mistake in anyone who does not have a photographic memory."
Yes, indeed.
This probably explains why the James Maybrick who wrote the diary couldn't remember the details of his own murders correctly the next day or what made his own famous brother such a success or even, apparently, how to write in his own handwriting; but could remember an obscure line from an unanthologized poem by a 17th Century Catholic poet and the words on a police document he never saw and the name of a woman who did not exist and the exact spelling of the name of a pub in which he never set foot.
Memory.
It's a very tricky thing, apparently.
(Just joking, as we all know he remembered [or made up] all of this, but just wrote it all wrong in his diary on purpose because... well, because he was a drug-crazed serial killer after all.)
From the Land of Imagination (and obvious forgeries), where all is quiet for now,
-John (dragging this thread back to the notion of Maybrick being the Ripper and noticing that STILL no one wants to come here and actually advance that case in any way whatsoever) |
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 4:54 am: | |
There is little doubt that only two versions of the 'Macnaghten memorandum' existed, i.e. the Aberconway version and the official version.
As Chris Phillips has astutely noted, Loftus is undoubtedly in error and his garbled version of Macnaghten's notes was a result of his own poor memory of a copy he had seen some twenty years earlier in the possession of Macnaghten's grandson. Loftus was reaclling the notes after he had read Cullen's 1965 book (and Farson's 1972 book) which no doubt contributed to his false memories.
There is no reason at all to treat the so-called 'Gerald Melville Donner version' of the notes (Macnaghten's grandson) with any sort of credibility and they were probably the same as the Aberconway version in every respect. It is of such faulty memories that myths are born. |
Lenny Gray
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 13, 2004 - 1:11 am: | |
entirely new at this message board... amateur Ripperologist since 1971... amazing how many people try and track JtR by first selecting a likely Victoria-era celebrity and assuming "evidence" to support their claim. Maybrick the Ripper? fuggedaboudit... |
Tiddley boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 7:58 am: | |
Simon wrote: To get back on topic , there simply is no evidence or reason to suggest that Maybrick was the Ripper apart from the Diary.
"no evidence....apart from the Diary."
Whilst people can't see the wood for the trees, this will I suppose, remain the case. There is some interesting evidence out there for all to see.
Maybrick was Jack the Ripper, I don't have a problem with stating that. When/if I take time out and find a publisher to undertake a small publication, people can make up their own minds about the findings. Patience wears thin with the condescending and arrogant attitudes sometimes encountered on this board from certain individuals, and that does nothing for the serious investigation of this subject, nor does it encourage others to voice their theories, when they have to wait with baited breath for a slating from those who believe they know best.
I personally wouldn’t put one iota of evidence on here.
I wonder if I was fortunate or unfortunate in finding what I feel is damning evidence against Maybrick. It may not be popular but it will push Maybrick way ahead of any other suspect, and let's face it JTR is a big industry and no-one really wants it solving - do they?
Having only looked at JTR history for less than two years, and then only from necessity due to circumstances, I do not class myself as an enthusiast and am not particularly interested who he was, it was so long ago does it really matter.
Regards.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
