|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3645
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 6:06 am: |       |
Hi all
Dec 3rd seems to be the date he was last seen alive, but why did the tombstone have Dec 4th on it? Or is that wrong?
Robert |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 498
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 10:32 am: | |
Just one point. It seems to me that Druitt's 'dismissal' has been a red herring of sorts for many years. Clearly, Managhten didn't know anything about the Blackheath cramming school...if he had, he wouldn't have referred to Druitt as a doctor. Thus, Druitt's dismissal--whatever the reason--can't directly be the genesis for Macnaghten's 'sexual insanity' rumor. In other words, the sexual insanity can't be fondling little boys at the school, etc., since Macnaghten knew nothing about the school. The 'link' --if there was one--would have to have been indirect., such as a bizarre episode that independently reached both a Met 'deviant' list and the School....(the latter resulting in his dismissal). Or, more likely, an odd activity or preference that landed him in trouble on more than one occasion.
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 674
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 4:26 pm: | |
I looks like my memory was at fault here in that I thought the date on Druitt's grave was Dec 3. Looking at the picture in this thread: ../4922/9228.html"#C6C6B5"> |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3653
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 6:10 pm: | |
Andy, http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/ has info on how to order online, by post etc. It should cost about £7.
Robert |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1291
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 6:20 pm: | |
Hi John,I have just read the Lloyds weekly account by Sims of Sept 1907.
Your paraphrasing gives less vehemence to the "frenzied horror " term that Sims uses to describe the way he says MJ Druitt looked upon prostitutes and he clearly states that Machnaghten came to the conclusions he did because he had drawn together all the evidence
from friends AND "from the only person believed to have ever seen the ripper -a policeman who saw him in the darkness and and soon afterwards stumbled upon the ghastly corpse".
He also states that the way in which one of the organs was removed "in speed and in the darkness"[or words close to that]indicated medical knowledge-without question.Presumably this was the removal of Kate"s kidney.Well we know Druitt was not a doctor but he was the son of a surgeon and could have learnt a great deal from studying medical books at home-perhaps the morbid interest was aroused quite early on looking at diagrams of organs being removed with instruments -this sort of thing.
One thing though stands out.Macnaghten first and then Sims the journalist seem to have either suffered memory loss or from not paying attention to the facts that were known about Druitt as early as January 5th 1889.These facts were reported in several local newspapers as well as the Acton and Chiswick papers and quite honestly its unthinkable that a journalist would not have checked his facts over the matter[even though Sims refrained from naming Druitt as late as 1907]
They have to have everything double checked for libel.This has been standard practice from at least as far back as Victorian times.Sometimes its true they "publish and be damned" but they are obliged to check.The first process too is when the journalist[working for a paper or news agency] hands his or her copy to the sub-editor
-the lawyers come last.Even if Sims was freelance he would still have been obliged to allow it to have gone through a similar process.
So I am bemused by the pair of them bumbling around talking about a 41 year old "doctor" when Sims for certain must have known he was nothing of the sort.
Natalie |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 6:22 am: | |
"Macnaghten was protecting someone when he mentioned Druitt (and Ostrog and Kosminski, for that matter). He was protecting Thomas Cutbush..."
If MM had wanted to "protect" Cutbush, then I think he would have used different words and a different method. A confidential memorandum on a restricted file is hardly protection.
That would not be the way of senior officials in british Government then or now, if that was their aim.
The memorandum is clearly (as I have discussed in a previous post) a background brief for use should the matter be questioned in the House. the material would not have been quoted (you don't mention names in a position like that) but the memorandum indicates that there were suspects "more likely" than the one currently being touted in the media, who MIGHT have committed the crimes.
However, there is one concern that MM might have had, and that is to distract attention from any Fenian (political) dimension or connection. His memo would have done that without telling a lie, and his use of Druitt as the name he gave to Sims and others 9whether specifically or not) may have been a useful way of dodging difficult questions.
Was Munro, an arch political operator, supposed to have said that the case was a "hot potato"? Druitt/Kosminski would never have been that. But MM probably did not lie - he just stretched the implications of what he said.
Phil |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3654
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 7:04 pm: | |
Hi Phil
I've read what you've said about MM being concerned with the general thrust rather than detail. However, if he prepared the memo in case questions were asked in the House, there was one particular detail which one would have thought he'd have got right, i.e. that Cutbush was the nephew of Supt (retired) Charles Henry Cutbush. I can't see how Thomas Hayne Cutbush could possibly have been the Supt's nephew.
Robert |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1293
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 11, 2004 - 7:13 pm: | |
Hi Phil,taking your last point first I think the case was a political hot potato anyway because of the potential it was causing for anti semitic riots.There may have been some other reasons we dont still know about.
Anderson calls [compulsive]masturbation a "solitary vice" and gives it as one of his reasons for believing Kosminski to be the ripper so I think they would have attempted to synchronise their vocabulary if Druitt was the same and said both men suffered from "solitary vices".
The article on this site that John Ruffels mentions is most interesting about Druitt-see above to find it.
Natalie |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 675
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 1:21 am: | |
OK, I brought it up so I have ordered a copy of Monty's Death Certificate. It was indeed £7.
Andy S.
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1296
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 5:54 am: | |
Andrew,Thats great.I too have ordered up some research.I dont know yet how much it will cost but its by the half hour.I"m hoping it wont take too long!But if it doesn"t yield what I"m looking for in less than two hours work I will be going myself as soon as I have time in January-I"ll probably go then anyway.
Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3657
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 7:44 am: | |
Hi Natalie
I tried to email you, but you're not accepting private messages.
If you're talking about paying for research, I can recommend Mark Pardoe.
Robert |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1298
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 9:39 am: | |
Thanks Robert,I actually prefer to try and do such research myself but know because of commitments over the next few months it could be quite a while before I can go.However I will remember in case I need something researched
in future.
Best Natalie |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 159
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 11:11 am: | |
Re: "sexually insane"
Macnaghten says that Kosminski was "insane" due to his many years of solitary vices.(and,boy,doesn't that explain a lot about human nature??) 
...anyway, perhaps the phrase means what used to be known as "over sexed' or too interested in sex.
Just grasping at straws here. If only these people had known that we would be so carefully parsing their every utterance 100 yrs later.
Mags |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 560
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 11:44 am: | |
Natalie
So I am bemused by the pair of them bumbling around talking about a 41 year old "doctor" when Sims for certain must have known he was nothing of the sort.
I think it's likely that Macnaghten was Sims's source, but also that Macnaghten didn't tell him more than the first letter of Druitt's surname - hence Sims's enquiry to Littlechild about a suspect known as "Dr D".
Chris Phillips
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 524
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 12:17 pm: | |
Hi all,
We are assuming that Sims would have been acquainted with small area newspapers like the Acton and Chiswick newspapers of December 1888 - January 1889. As he worked in London it is not all that likely that he would have noted these smaller town papers. What I find more interesting is the 1907. It was not quite 20 years since the events of the autumn of terror, but Sims felt obliged to just use a mild abbreviated pseudonym for Druitt. It does suggest that Sims really never did probe much beyond what he learned from Macnaghten. As Monty was dead, any comment made by Sims naming a "Dr. Druitt" as the Ripper would not have been actionable for slander or libel (it still isn't). As for protecting family, friends, or employers (Valentine was not mentioned) who would have been upset - especially as "Dr. Druitt" was not Monty (he wasn't a doctor). Anyone reading that would probably not guess it was Montague Druitt. But Sims leaves the anonymous name there, and does not seem too upset. Like he knows who Macnaghten says was the main suspect, but he (Sims) really does not care to investigater further. Quite odd for a newspaperman.
Of course, he could have asked Macnaghten permission to publish the story (as it appeared) and got Sir Melville's permission if he just published it as he did. But why, in 1907, the need for this crushing anonymity is anybody's guess.
Jeff |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 561
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 1:17 pm: | |
Jeffrey
But doesn't the Littlechild letter imply that Sims had mentioned "Dr D" in the hope that Littlechild could identify him - and thus that Sims hadn't been told his full name?
Particularly this sentence:
I never heard of a Dr D. in connection with the Whitechapel murders but amongst the suspects, and to my mind a very likely one, was a Dr. T. (which sounds much like D.)
I can't see that this would make sense if Littlechild thought Sims knew the full name but was abbreviating in the letter. After all, "D" may sound like "T", but "Druitt" sounds nothing like "Tumblety"!
Chris Phillips
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1299
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 3:53 pm: | |
Hi Jeffrey,it does seem pretty clear though that Sims by talking about a man who had drowned himself in the Thames shortly after the Millers Court Murder and whose body was found after about a month was talking about Druitt.His reference to "the only man who ever saw the ripper" also seems to confirm that he is referring to Druitt
because he says it was a PC who saw him in the darkness and a few minutes later stumbled upon the body----------this sounds so like he is talking about the account of Detective Steve White
from the People"s Journal issue of 26 September 1919 written on his retirement.Looking at photos of Druitt the description given by White fits uncannily-down to the "long tapering fingers" that can be seen in his Cricket photo.
But its interesting that Sims does seem to think Tumblety was another person who deserved to be included as a suspect-mostly perhaps because of his medical or supposed medical background. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 12, 2004 - 4:08 pm: | |
"If only these people had known that we would be so carefully parsing their every utterance 100 yrs later."
Macnaghten and Anderson at least would have expected it and acted accordingly, as would a modern civil servent. Their use of English is highly specific and needs to be "parsed" carefully. They would NOT have told an untruth, except in dire necessity (when, to quote a later UK civil servant, they might have been economical with it).
Look at MM's file copy of the memo, then compre with the drafts - he removes almost all personal opinion and summise and re-phrases accordingly. His memo does what it says on the packet - no more, no less.
They gave us precise words, it is for us to work out what they meant and why - if they were - they phrased things the way they did.
Phil |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 525
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 4:11 pm: | |
Hi all,
Actually, given their habits of secrecy and limited admissions to the public of informaiton, I would think that civil servant administrators like Anderson and Macnaghten would wish to use language to help obfuscate, not explain, any nasty bits of information that might have reprecussions. And one thing did occur to me from Macnagten's memorandum. He refers to Monty as "Dr. M.J.Druitt, age 41". Most chroniclers and examiners of the clues have assumed this shows Macnagten's lack of knowledge of the truth because Monty was not a medical doctor, and was 31. Some, however, suggest that it shows that Macnaghten was simply confused because Monty came from a family of surgeons, so he must (Macnaghten thought) have been one. But there are two other possibilities:
1) Macnaghten is aware of Monty's work at Valentine's school as an assistant headmaster. but got it into his head that Monty had a doctorate as a teacher.
2) Macnaghten is aware of Monty's legal career as a barrister - and thinks he has some learned degree in the law entitling him to be "Dr. Druitt" (like L.L.D., or my own J.D ("Juris Doctoris").
In short, Sir Melville may have been wrong about the title Dr., but he may have been informed of Monty's actual career. If not, why didn't he just say "medical doctor" in his description? It would have not been amiss, as the list of names dealt with leading characters in the murder and mutilation of five women - and many felt the killings showed a knowledge of medicine.
Jeff |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 4:31 pm: | |
Civil servants are, and were 120 years ago, taught to draft (ie compose minutes and letters etc) in such a way that they do not lie. It would requirea state emergency for a traditional British civil servant deliberately to lie (that is not to say they don't make mistakes, but they by definition are not realised at the time). If caught out lying the department would be embarrassed and the civil servant's career would be ruined. Thus they do not do it.
So I do not believe that MM would have said that Druitt was a doctor unless that is what he believed him to be. We know he was mistaken, but we also know that MM could have misremembered the file or been confused by abadly worded phrase.
(I'm not saying MM read this, but) remember that sentence about JtR knocking out the Chief commissioner and almost flooring the home secretary (paraphrase)? One of the 1988 books takes this literally, as I recall, and suggests it might have been a violent attack on these senior figures by a suspect during an interrogation!! But surely the wording is meant metaphorically, not literally?? MM knew Druitt was a professional, but that was all that mattered for the purposes for which he was writing the background brief.
A former Head of the UK Home Civil Service said during the Spycatcher trial in the 80s that he might have been "economical with the truth". If a civil servant wished to mislead it would be by withholding information without distorting the basic facts (ie to say a man was violent, when he was actually a proven killer); orin misleading by choice of words.
Thus, IMHO, if MM is misleading in his memorandum (and I am far from certain he is) then it is most likely to be in saying that three names are more likely than Cutbush to be the killer, without ever saying any of them IS!!
He creates smoke and everyone thinks fire - but actually is it a smokescreen.
Just my musings,
Phil |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1307
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 5:23 pm: | |
To me it has never proved anything,Macnaghten"s muddle over the age and doctor talk.He clearly means the Montague Druitt we are discussing.And you are right Phil in my opinion when you say that he isnt certain it was Druitt.But I,like you think that HE thought it was Druitt,he was his prime suspect.He says he has destroyed all the evidence to protect his family.
The only other reasons he could have had ,in my view, were either that he wanted his police colleague"s nephew[or illegitemate son]Thomas Cutbush ,kept out of it and the other three were used as decoys and so he didnt bother too much with the details or else he wanted to "save face"
by saying he knew who the ripper was[when he didnt]which is what I suspect Anderson is up to when he says, more or less, that he KNEW the ripper to be Kosminski.
I still hold that he genuinely thought it was Druitt.He wasnt certain but nearly so[because he says "of the private information I have received".As this was being told to his fellow police officers who presumably weren"t privy to the "private information-which I have destroyed"
its no wonder Abberline was put out and said he didnt believe a word of it more or less.But once again this too could have been to save face since
he was the man with the "hands on "experience of Whitechapel and had slogged his guts out night and day on the case to no avail.He would hardly accept the word of a Johnny come lately to the case such as Macnaghten who had hardly set foot in Whitechapel by all accounts.The same could more or less be said of Anderson"s assertions.
So I think we have these problems because of internal rivalries as much as anything else.
As for these people never telling an untruth....
Abberline seems to have had grave reservations then!
Natalie
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 4:06 pm: | |
Natalie - civil servants of MM's ilk would never tell a deliberate untruth (IMHO) because the implications of being caught out in a lie were too devastating.
They would obfuscate, mislead, and confuse by a deliberate choice of words and silent exclusions of material - but NOT lie.
The only exception would be in circumstances of extreme national security (hence my musing from time to time that MM - and maybe Anderson & Swanson - might have been seeking to sheild some Fenian activity or association.
Sometime I must go back to complete the word by word/line by line analysis of Anderson's memoirs that I started several years ago. I know I was starled by the number of qualifications and evasions I detected in what he said.
But Swanson is MUCH more straightforward and seemingly factual.
A continuing conundrum.
Phil |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1311
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 4:30 pm: | |
OK Phil,I am confident that you know what you are talking about here.
Good to talk to you and look forward to when you join.
Natalie
|
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 313
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 6:32 pm: | |
Evening All,
R.J.Palmer makes a refreshing insight into Macnaghten's knowledge of the identity of JTR, when he points out Macnaghten would have been unaware of Druitt's Blackheath school activities if he referred to him as a 41 year old doctor.
My impression of the Macnaghtem memorandum was it was to boost police morale during very parlous times (street riots and allegations of brutal force in quelling the demonstrators; police disquiet over pensions and pay conditions; years of press jibes over the failure of the police to capture the alleged perpetrator of -not one-not two-but FIVE murders: all in a square mile area; even anti-Semitic ructions around Goulston Street-(see other thread)).
Macnaghten was saying:
(1)"No, the insinuation the JTR criminal was never captured because he was a close relative of a senior police officer was false: the relative, Cutbush "never done it".
(2)In fact, Macnaghten attempted to supply a confidential backgrounding note for the Home Secretary to use in parliament- the ONLY place in Britain exempt from draconian libel laws- that the police were thoroughly confident JTR was no longer a public risk because their list of the "Three most Likely" were now dead, locked up
or locked up.
(3) Implicit in the Memorandum was the fact police could not reveal the true identity of the serial murderer because he had never undergone due process of British Justice (trial by jury by
twelve of his peers). Thereby suggesting the police were "on top of" the case but were bound by the law not to reveal their knowledge. Furthermore, out of consideration for the feelings of the ------ family, a respectable middle class family, nothing more could be said.
All very convenient and tidy for the Sir Humphrey Macnaghtens of this world, but wiser heads in the Home Office realised this information would raise more questions than it answered.
Thwarted by these adept political animals, Macnaghten's sole solution was to slip the unused Memorandum into the moribund JTR file. Just to set the record straight for the history books.
I too am mystified as to why both Macnaghten and Sims did not make a name for themselves in later years by using their privileged clues: (a doctor or professional man aged about 41, found drowned one month after the Millers Court murder).
I do not believe for one minute Macnaghten destroyed documents regarding MJD. It is highly probable the Druitt family would have been contacted (even retrospectively) to try to learn more about this amazing murderer. And that somewhere - probably in an innocuously titled file
like "Purchase of Goose feather beds for St James Palace" are the vital file papers, awaiting their
day of discovery.
Macnaghten was using his memory and newsclipping misinformation to inadvertantly
misinform future inquirers. I do not think it was intentional. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1312
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 5:56 pm: | |
Hi John,some very interesting thoughts in your above post.I think you may be right on all counts!
But it is certainly very strange that Thomas Cutbush was incarcerated in Broadmoor from his
early twenties,a young man who was not charged with murder or rape but jabbing at two young women"s buttocks with scissors.I am not saying this is nothing or that it didn"t need to be dealt with promptly,but Broadmoor-even then an institution for the dangerously and criminally insane! One could accept perhaps a prison sentence
or confinement in an institution such as Colney Hatch but to me with only Macnaghten"s reassurances ,and some strong indications that both Thomas and Spt.Charles Cutbuh had mental health issues ,Broadmoor would seem well over the top for such an offender as Thomas Cutbush
unless there actually was more to it!
Apart from my reservations about Macnaghten"s true intentions regarding the Cutbush scenario
I think you may be right though about all the rest.
Natalie |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 193
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 8:22 pm: | |
It would be brilliant to know where any of the missing files where ! |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 314
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 1:59 am: | |
Firstly, an apology: Sorry folks I thought this was the Macnaghten Memorandum thread. However, some of my thoughts are common to both threads.
I agree Simon, that missing file is out there somewhere.
Thanks for your observations, Natalie. I can only agree most strongly that locking young Cutbush up in Broadmore the asylum for the "criminally" insane suggests there is more to the Cutbush saga as others have frequently inferred.
Some time ago, Chris Phillips, in my opinion, a patient and careful researcher, turned up the files on a similar case that of "young Saunders"
(the "search" mechanism on Casebook should locate it) whose crimes and family situation had remarkable parallels to the Cutbush and Trapp cases. Interestingly, Saunders was from a well-connected Irish family, and the intrusion of a very senior policeman into the court case suggested privileged influence, in my opinion.
Saunders may well have been suffering from venereal disease too.
This thread asks "Why was Druitt sacked?". We may never know the real answer. Perhaps he was suffering from later stage syphillis. Causing him to behave erratically. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1313
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 2:59 pm: | |
Hi John,I do see your point about the subject matter of this thread but since Macnaghten"s memo
was all there was known about Druitt for many years I refer to it to help me understand what the memo was all about.I dont think you can understand the case that well if you compartmentalise the different areas of Druitt"s life too much because if you do you may get the sum of the parts but not the whole picture.Just my opinion and I defer because you are quite right-this thread is about why he was sacked.I might add here then that there may be clues in the memorandum,viz. the reference to his "alleged" sexual insanity.Also the fact that there is no reference to his sacking or that he was a part time school teacher as well as a barrister may in itself tell us something.Was this in fact part of a "deliberate" obfuscation
of his actual working life---/his sacking/his law work-all of which if identified in the memorandum
would have led to a fairly quick identification of the individual and a lack of protection to Druitt"s "family of good class" whose reputation MM was supposed to be protecting.We may therefore ask was Valentine silenced? Interesting that his pupil roll fell to just one pupil during the following two or three years and the school itself closed in the early 1890"s I think.Whatever Druitt was sacked for it looks as though it may anyway have had a deleterious effect on the school roll!
The mention of Cutbush is because we seem to only know about Druitt because MM was anxious to rubbish the allegations about Cutbush in the Sun Newspaper and turn the spotlight on Druitt as his prime suspect-----------but interestingly the rebuttals were only for the attention of his fellow police officers.
Thanks John for the info on Saunders-I"ll look up the link you have given.
Best
Natalie |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1314
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 3:03 pm: | |
PS-John,I doubt that Druitt was suffering from this kind of debilitating illness due to his cricketing prowess!
Natalie |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 1:42 am: | |
John - how could the MM memorandum affect police morale when it was on a file that few would see? I don't see a single cogent reason for that being part of its purpose in being written - its is a background brief to be drawn on in the event of questions in the House - nothing more. That much is clear.
The memorandum would have gone straight on the file, NOT been slipped in later. neither would its contents (the memos that is) ever hve been made public. It was BACKGROUND, no more - the public line would have been (something along the lines of) "There are several suspects known to police more likely than X to have been JtR...". The memorandum tells the Minister why that is true.
If you cannot conceive why MM would have destroyed the confidential papers in his private possession (ie not on an official file); and why he would not have "cashed in on" his knowledge; then I suggest you do not undertand the mind-set or ethos of the Victorian senior civil servant.
Neither would such a man EVER have written anything unintentional (it may have been genuinely mistaken in fact) on an official file.
Interestingly, of course, MM does appear to have let some people see his notes or the file; or talked to them about Druitt (i.e. Sims) and it is for that reason that I think MJD might have been a convenient cover for something deeper - perhaps a Fenian connection.
From personal experience, I very much doubt whether a file with a title as aberrant as you propose would have been created or used. Then and now there are rules about such things which are enforced. There are other and better way of losing things - but there was not much "leakage" from the system (unlike today) so why bother with subterfuge? How much did we know about the contents of the HO or SY files until Cullen saw MM's drafts, and the later release of the files? Effectively nothing? So where is the motive for the approach you envisage?
As for the loss of the files - we know that pilfering of the JtR files went on in recent years (items seen in the 70s which have now gone). For the rest, pressure on space leads to destruction of files - routinely destroyed after (say) 5, 10, 25, or 30 years after closure unless they are still required, or they are part of the Public Record. Frankly I doubtwhether in the brisk mind of offcialdom ROUTINE JtR files would have been regrded as that.
If files have been withheld, I would look to "intelliegence" or Fenian-related files, where there might still be sensitivities for "political" reasons.
So take it I disagree strongly on those counts.
Regards
Phil |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 3:34 am: | |
...that missing file is out there somewhere...
What POSSIBLE basis can there be for that statement?
Is there any evidence that the file ever existed? Any evidence anyone ever saw it? Any reference or cross-reference to it?
It is this kind of argument/unsubstantiated thinking that has got Ripper studies a bad name. It is only one step removed from MacCormack's approach of - "It ought to exist so I'll invent it".
Sorry if I sound harsh, and being a newcomer here myself, for speaking out so forcefully. But really, such unsubstantiated and misleading suggestions (I recognise it is no more0 should not go unchallenged.
Nothing personal, John,
Regards,
Phil
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 19, 2004 - 4:22 pm: | |
Natalie - let's get this straight:
MM was anxious to rubbish the allegations about Cutbush in the Sun Newspaper and turn the spotlight on Druitt as his prime suspect-----------but interestingly the rebuttals were only for the attention of his fellow police officers.
This is frankly and demonstrably nonsense. consider the following:
a) Cutbush WAS the subject of speculation in the press;
b) as in all such cases on issues of the day Ministers need to be in a position to respond to questions in a considered way. (Even today No10 and Departmental minsiters expect to be briefed on the background to matters of media concern, and to be given lines to take.
c) that requirement MM responded to as part of his daily duties and responsibilities - He was not anxious to rubbish allegations!! in any sense other than to gput the facts on record.
d) we have no record from any source of Cutbush being a contemporary suspect on the part of anyone other than the media,
e) thus MM's statements are correct - he names three men considered more likely than Cutbush to be JtR - we know that Kosminski was Anderson (and Swanson's?) suspect; and that MM claimed private information on MJD. Ostrog was wanted by the police in 1888. MM was not, therefore, incorrect
f) the official file is precisely where you would expect such information to go, for reference. On your basis every piece of file material we have was "only for the attention
of his fellow police officers..."
g) The memorandum (or better the background brief)which would form the basis for lines to take/rebuttals rested on file so that it could easily be fouind if Questions needed answering. They were not (no Hansard record) so no need to be referred to.
Sorry, but your contentions just won't wash in the face of period process and procedure. No conspiracy here.
Regards,
Phil
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1315
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 5:25 pm: | |
Well all I can say Phil is that you make a good case!
Nevertheless the "confidential report" was written to exonerate Thomas Cutbush,who was the nephew of Executive Superintendent Charles Cutbush [Scotland Yard]who appears in the official files of the Whitechapel murders and who committed suicide in 1896.
It appears to be true that Thomas Cutbush never appears in the official[Scotland Yard] files as a suspect.
However the Sun Newspaper named him as the ripper in February 1894 and carried over a period of four days four full page spreads on the reason why.....I think its worth reading if you haven"t already.
Myself I have a number of reservations about Cutbush as JtR but I know I am quilty of digressing from the title of this thread if I cite anymore stuff on Cutbush here.
I am interested though in why there is no mention of Druitt being sacked in the Memorandum.Neither is there any mention of him having been a teacher and a barrister..instead there is a continual reference to him being a doctor[he was ofcourse from a family of doctors]
but he himself?-maybe he was a"student doctor" during his mysterious "gap" year from 1880 to 1881
I would love to know what he did during this year-he could have been having mental health problems...could have been in a private asylum for all we know.
Was he possibly sacked because he had mental health problems that precipitated his suicide soon after?
Best Wishes
Natalie
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1621
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 4:01 am: | |
I can only say what I said twelve years ago:
'Now it has been pointed out to me recently that this memorandum from Macnaghten was solely intended for the internal consumption of Scotland Yard and the Home Office, and therefore carries less weight than if it were a document intended for public circulation. However I disagree with this point of view in the strongest possible terms, as it is patently obvious that any document produced by the police then - and even now - for public consumption would leave much unsaid, whereas a document purely intended on an ‘eyes only’ basis for senior officials within an organisation gives us not only a canny insight into the internal workings and machinery of that organisation but more importantly offers us a unique opportunity to explore the motives of all those concerned. As such this private memorandum does not close any windows of opportunity, it does in fact fling them wide open and invites us to climb inside.
The document is more valuable as a private memorandum because it shows us what the police were thinking and not saying.'
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1622
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 4:48 am: | |
I also believe it false to take the MM and look at it in some kind of splendid isolation, as if it totally unrelated to the events and dramas that were taking place around its creation and purpose.
The subject of the Memo was Thomas Hayne Cutbush - this cannot be ignored - so other official material relating to Thomas Hayne Cutbush must be included in any discussion concerning a Memo concerning Thomas Hayne Cutbush.
For instance the official police documents concerning his arrest and detention.
For instance the court proceedings of his hasty trial, where he was actually named in court as ‘Jack the Ripper’ by counsel for defence and prosecution.
Inclusive and impartial reading of all the documents concerned must be part of any discussion.
Again, some of my thoughts from a long time ago:
‘The Scotland Yard files make it plain that the Metropolitan Police were determined to get Sadler for the murder even if it meant chasing him to the grave. Over a year after Sadler had been cleared of the crime, Scotland Yard were still recording his daily movements in the hope of nailing him for something or the other. But Thomas Cutbush was allowed to slip into the obscurity of an early death in the securest prison in the land. Macnaghten said that Cutbush was ’found to be insane, and sentenced to be detained during Her Majesty’s pleasure’ after he had stabbed just one woman in the bottom with a knife. Make no mistake, what Macnaghten is talking about here is that Cutbush was sentenced to be detained for the rest of his natural life, if it was Her Majesty’s pleasure, and it usually was.
Let us see how other various suspects - who were all at one time or another considered as serious suspects by the police for Jack the Ripper - fared when they faced the wrath of the Victorian criminal justice system.
John Pizer, another Ripper suspect received six months for stabbing someone in the hand.
Charles Ludwig, yet another Ripper suspect, actually attempted to stab a prostitute and later attacked a man at a coffee stall with a knife and was merely remanded in custody for a week.
Both of these suspects were well known to and by the police as insane.
More importantly perhaps is the almost equally complicated case of Colicott - or perhaps ‘Colocitt’ as the newspaper reports of the time indicate - who apparently also stabbed women in the bottom with some kind of sharp instrument - which may well have been scissors - a fair indication one would have thought that the chap was not quite all there; and hence for exactly the same crimes as Thomas Cutbush this man, Colicott, received what amounted to nothing more than a caution - being bound over for a £200 surety - when he appeared in court.
It seems rather harsh that if all Thomas Cutbush really did was to stab a woman in the bottom - or as Macnaghten so charmingly puts it: ‘jobbing girls in the behind’ - that he was sentenced to be confined to Broadmoor for the rest of his natural life. Even the most sceptical amongst us must surely agree that the sentence handed down was vastly disproportionate to the fairly mediocre crime committed.
This type of sentence is usually only handed down by a court of law when the said charged person is felt to be an immediate and positive threat to public security and safety. It is not normally handed down for ‘jobbing’ a girl’s backside. That much is obvious from the court’s treatment of Colicott - who did exactly that - and the others, so what set Thomas Cutbush apart?
Only one fact: he was the nephew of a senior serving police officer of Scotland Yard who was himself not of sound mind.
That is it. No more than that.
That little crack in the complicated machinery of the complicated criminal justice system of the Victorian age does point a long finger at the police force that investigated Thomas Cutbush, and the courts that sentenced him. No, the police must have, in reality, known a hell of a lot more about the dangerous activities of Cutbush for such a sentence to have been sought and then passed. After all the state punishment for a criminal who had murdered but was found to be insane was to be detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure.’
|
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 316
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 1:38 am: | |
Hello All,
I am in the middle of Australian Christmas mayhem,
so do not have adequate time to respond to Phil Hill's surprisingly robust reaction to my suggestion that Melville Macnaghten composed his Memorandum, inter alia, to boost sagging police morale.
Given Phil's forty year interest in Jack The Ripper, and the obvious fact he can now allot time to analysing poster's responses,
may I suggest he become a Registered member? (It's free- though I would lobby for him to purchase the CD Rom ), and we can all be reassured as to his bona fides, and his true identity ?
In the meantime, Merry Christmas to all who celebrate Christmas, Chappy Chanakuh to others, and happy holiday to the rest. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1317
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 4:09 pm: | |
Christmas Greetings Everyone!-like John above I too have been taken up with the celebrations and have"nt had time to devote to the important avenues of investigation such as AP and John refer to.Like John I wish you would register Phil
-it can be unsettling when someone new comes on and argues in such strong terms-and with such touching faith in civil servants!
Take Care All
Have a good Christmas
Natalie
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 211
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 4:16 pm: | |
I've just finished reading AP Wolf's book on "Jack the Myth" and I found it fascinating. thanks, AP, for letting it be posted here for all to see.
Mags |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 5:05 am: | |
Excellently put AP - and your point of the insight into police thinking is even greater because given what we know of the drafts (Loftus and Aberconway) we can see how the thoughts of this particular policemen developed as he honed his phrasing.
I once undertook the beginnings of as detailed textual analysis of the memorandum and drafts - and I must return to it sometime.
Natalie
The memorandum was NOT written to "exonerate" Cutbush, it was a background brief indicating why Cutbush was a less serious suspect than a number of others known to the police. A different thing entirely.
Even today the popular press is capable of running all sorts of stories which have no foundation, and of foundationless speculation. I am no more likely to take account of that sort of unsubstantiated testimony in 1888 than I would be today.
Phil |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 3:19 am: | |
Given Phil's forty year interest in Jack The Ripper, and the obvious fact he can now allot time to analysing poster's responses,
may I suggest he become a Registered member...and we can all be reassured as to his bona fides, and his true identity ?
John, I do intend to register.
My screen name is my own name, I have nothing to hide. As for interest since the early 60s, I make no claims of anything, except having read much of the literature as it was published, nd having lived through the various fads and theories. I have done no original research and have nothing to add except personal views and personal insights. I make no claims to being an "expert" (once defined as "X" is an unknown factor and a "spurt" is a drip under pressure!!) or for any credence to be given to what I say other than any intrinsic worth that might be in my argument.
My "bona fides" - what would registering do to aid recognition of them? My posts speak for themselves or not at all, surely? If they persuade or are perceived as useful, fine. If no, so what - I have not argued well enough or my ideas lack substance?
Knowing more about me personally will tell you nothing about my views on JtR. On the other hand, I hope to get to know people here and make personal friends in the course of time.
If it helps you John, I am a man in my mid-50s, living in the UK (a long time London resident but no more), a civil servent, with interests in history and mysteries. Is that what you wanted?
Sorry if my "robust" post offended in any way.
Cordially,
Phil
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page