|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4718
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 12:09 pm: | 
|
I suppose there's an outside chance that Sir M's false info about Monty could have come from a police raid, or something similar? Perhaps at some point Monty was obliged to speak to the police, and for some reason there was no point in lying about his name - but he gave them false info about his age and profession? The sequel might have been that he was let off with a warning, and the police never probed the details of what he'd told them.
Robert |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 665
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 2:27 pm: |
|
Jeff--Thanks for moving on over with the interesting thoughts. Yes, I think that Druitt's social status is at least tentatively part of the equation. In the case of Kosminski, Sir Robert Anderson tells us he is 'tempted' to reveal the man's name--even in the pages of a well-known publication,--- and only hesitates (he states) because the risk of a libel suit; he evidently had little qualms about naming an East End Jew. Macnaghten, on the otherhand, admits to having discreetly burned his private papers relating to Druitt. (I always think of John Murray burning Lord Byron's diaries! How dare he).
But is there a further puzzle here? Macnaghten burns the notes, but he certainly doesn't burn his draft of the memo itself, leaving the ironic situation that, in his discretion, he gives us Druitt's name and some vague rumors, but nothing to truly judge on what those rumors were based.
I've never really been able to grasp what Macnaghten might have meant by having 'little doubt' that Druitt's own family suspected MJD. It's a mysterious phrase. It's difficult not to read too much into these things, but it seems as though he only suspects that they suspected...there is a whiff of evasion or subterfuge involved in whatever he is referring to. How might this have have 'worked?' Unless they were indiscreet, how could anyone have known their suspicions? Is this a possible answer to your question? Did someone confront them, and were met with odd silence? Or does it have something to do with William Druitt making inquires around London after the suicide? Did they seek medical advice before the suicide? I can't get my mind around it.
Chris- You make a good point, of course, about the 1894 memo only being a snap-shot. For instance, doesn't a much later statement by Sims suggest that he eventually learned that Ostrog had been in custody in France? These old fellows pondered these things for years. Cheers. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 790
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 5:03 pm: |
|
Hi R.J.,
Again, as from the other thread, it is absolutely bizarre to claim that "on one hand, Macnaghten is underinformed, and, on the other, that he is totally convinced" is a contradiction, let alone an irreconcilable one.
Instead of reposting everything I said over there, here is a link to it:
../4922/19142.html"mailto:dannorder@aol.com">Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 243
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 5:19 pm: |
|
R.J.,
When I say that MacNaghten was a boob, I do not mean that he was a female milk feeding device for infants. I mean he was just really bad at his job and an imbecile. Warren knew this, and Monro knew it also, as the known facts bear out.
It is interesting that authors such as Cornwell, Williams and pseudo-theorist Radka, as Dan mentioned, are put to some higher standard regarding their research and produced work, yet when it comes time to discuss MacNaghten, who makes as many, if not more, blatant errors as those two authors, and one pseudo-theorist, everyone comes running out to defend them.
Same standards for everyone. That is my opinion. It would be nice if those same standards could be applied to everyone, inlcuding MacNaghten. Why is MacNaghten held is so much higher regard than Cornwell? Shouldn't it be their work that determines their worth?
If the answer, which most people I hope come back with a resounding yes, than one conclusion must be embraced: MacNaghten was a BOOB. Not a BOOBY, but a BOOB.
SJR |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 468
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 5:32 pm: |
|
"Sir Robert Anderson tells us he is 'tempted' to reveal the man's name--even in the pages of a well-known publication,--- and only hesitates (he states) because the risk of a libel suit;"
R.J. , I don't pretend to know if Anderson knew, or 'only thought he knew', or was blustering, but I've always taken the risk of libel comment as implying that the unnamed perp's family was sufficiently well-to-do to have access to legal recourse.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 244
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 5:42 pm: |
|
R.J.,
Another person who should be held to the same standards I listed above is Sir Robert Anderson, the policeman, not the poster. LOL.
Perhaps for any ardent Andersonians I suggest reading any book that mentions him not produced by the English government. there are many books that do not extoll his greatness, and I lean toward those conclusions, based on examining his words.
Just think of the opinions held regarding major Henry Smith. Applying the same standards to Robert Anderson, rather than applying a mythical status to his contributions to this case, it becomes clear that Anderson was a liar, and everything he said that has appeared in print for the public was fabricated, lacking any corrobation.
SJR |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 792
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 5:44 pm: |
|
Hi Stan,
Well, I won't call him a boob, but then I think it's not even all that relevant to the final weighing of his opinion.
Even if Macnaghten were totally competent in his job, there's still the problem of him not being perfect and thus possibly being just plain mistaken. It happens... especially with something as difficult as trying to track down a serial killer with presumably no prior contact with his victims.
Not to mention that there were all those other police officials we could just as easily discuss (who should be given at least the same benefit of the doubt RJ wants to give Macnaghten) who were convinced that Macnaghten was wrong. Anderson of course is famous for being totally convinced on a suspect nothing at all like Druitt. Abberline disputed both of them. And we could get into all the rest as well, other than their opinions get less and less well documented as we go.
Hi Robert,
That part sounds like just more bluster to me.
But then even not very well off people could file a claim for libel, as that alternate "Leather Apron" guy apparently did... I could also see the Jewish newspaper or some other group like that jumping in to defend someone who couldn't otherwise afford it, and since Anderson talked about how the Jews protect their own, he could have considered such a possibility when making this statement.
Plus, correct me if I'm wrong here, but the time he wrote that I think he had thought his suspect was already dead (didn't Swanson say that he was?) and thus no libel case would have been possible, from what I understand of those laws. At least that's how it works now, and I don't think it was different back then.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 245
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 5:52 pm: |
|
Hey Dan,
I agree with you. Too much emphasis is placed on the policeman at the time of the murders. You could name six different policeman and get six different suspects that they believed, at least in print.
Why I call MacNaghten a BOOB, is because its funnier than imbecile, but he was both. MacNaghten is primarily our sole reason for MJ Druitt's connection to the case. Without Macnaghten, Druitt would be Edward Buchan, who in my opinion is just as likely to have committed the murders as Druitt.
Why he is a BOOB, is because Druitt was HIS suspect, and he wholeheartedly believed in him as 'JTR'. In fact it is widely reported and inferentially backed up that MacNaghten was a Ripperphile. This is why I place him as a BOOB. His policework is so incompetent that he could not even gather basic background details on the man he believed was 'JTR'. Daniel Farson gathered more information on Druitt seventy years after he died than MacNaghten did less than 2 years after Druitt died. To me that's major incompetence, hence major BOOBERY.
SJR |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1242
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 6:34 pm: |
|
Sir Robert
I don't pretend to know if Anderson knew, or 'only thought he knew', or was blustering, but I've always taken the risk of libel comment as implying that the unnamed perp's family was sufficiently well-to-do to have access to legal recourse.
The trouble with this is that Anderson's statement about the libel action refers to both the murderer and to the pressman who he says faked the Ripper letter.
So we're left guessing who he thought might sue for libel - and in particular it's unfortunately not clear whether he believed the suspect was still alive at the time of writing.
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1243
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 6:51 pm: |
|
Dan
Plus, correct me if I'm wrong here, but the time he wrote that I think he had thought his suspect was already dead (didn't Swanson say that he was?) and thus no libel case would have been possible, from what I understand of those laws.
Certainly you can't libel the dead in English law, but (see last post) Anderson couples the murderer with the faker of the Ripper letter, so no deduction is permissible about whether the suspect was still living.
As far as I know Anderson didn't say whether his suspect was alive or dead, though Swanson (and others) obviously did.
Chris Phillips
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 246
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 6:57 pm: |
|
Chris,
I was wondering about your opinion regarding the Swanson marginalia?
SJR |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1244
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 7:27 pm: |
|
Stan
My biggest question about the Swanson marginalia is what he meant by the "Seaside Home".
In the absence of any argument as to why they should have taken the suspect all the way to Hove, I'm very sceptical about the received view that he was referring to the Convalescent Police Seaside Home.
I know John Ruffels is about to post some interesting photos of the Police Seaside Homes, and it will be interesting to see what discussion ensues:
../4924/19178.html"#DEDDCE"> |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 247
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 7:44 pm: |
|
Chris,
Here's how I see it. I really could not care less about disputes regarding a Convelescent Police Seaside Home. As Anderson was a long standing member of the 'Special Branch' he would have been privy to secret locations for the interrogation and or identification of suspects.
My real problem is that people actually think Swanson was there, and as a result can back up Anderson as that long needed corroborative policeman to the identification. Here is why Swanson, based upon logical analysis of his writing, could not have been there.
In the Marginalia, he names the suspect as Kosminski. This was a book that was his own personal copy of Anderson's memoirs, so it can be assumed he was not giving it away. Now, if he were not giving the book away, and decided to reveal the name of the ID'd suspect, to himself for some reason, why not also reveal the name of the witness, to himself?
Forget the minor historical errors that fit Cohen but not Kosminski, and vice versa. Forget the ridiculous hypothesis that he was recollecting from memory. He wrote it down, because he was not there, and was obviously told the suspect's name by Anderson. If he was smart enough to remember Kosminki, which he obviously did not keep proper tabs on, believing he died shortly thereafter, then he would have also remembered the name of the witness, if he were truly there.
Hypotheses and specualtion aside, this logic shatters the one possible corroboration to a witness ID, claimed by Anderson. As Kosminski is in the MacNaghten memo, yet not in the first draft, seen by MacNaghten's grandson, it is safe to state that the name Kosminski was given to MacNaghten as well, of course by Anderson.
Macnaghten never mentions anything about Anderson's "alleged" ID. More corroboration that it did never take place.
Of course this is my opinion, but I'm not just saying it to say it. I can back it up with analysis and interpretations from the case, without changing anything, just looking at it from a different angle. Something this case needs bad.
SJR |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 410
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 6:03 am: |
|
Hello All,
Stan Russo has let us all know what a low opinion he has of Melville Macnaghten. All well and good.
But given the only details WE have been able to dredge up about Montague Druitt and his alleged guilt as Jack The Ripper, don't convince us that he is the likely suspect;
Given the newspapers we have so far turned up, also fail to provide sufficient information to label Druitt the prime suspect;
Given surviving official records and private papers so far turned up, fail to convince us of Druitt's guilt;
And because of OUR failure to locate confirmatory evidence of Druitt's guilt, and because police records are incomplete, some Ripperology theorists are wont to say Macnaghten's suspicions of Druitt are wrong.
On what grounds?
Let me give you an example:suppose Sir Melville Macnaghten scribbled a Memorandum and placed it in the MEPOL file in 1894 saying Montague Druitt was a failure as a lawyer:he could not get casework and therefore this was a reason for his committing the Ripper murders, how many Ripper authors, and Casebook theorists PRIOR TO THE RECENT DISCOVERY OF DRUITT'S CASES REPORTED IN "THE TIMES", would have gone along with Macnaghten's statement?
I know Colin Wilson did. And he is an eminent author and researcher.(Interestingly in his 1988 book, Paul Begg did not).
Now, it is one thing to champion one suspect as the Likely Lad, another to disprove others are
less Likely Lads.
In other words, whilst Macnaghten fails to make out a strong case for Druitt being the Ripper, by the same token,he also failed to make out a strong case against the others too.
We are fortunate with this case that the murders occurred in an era when writing things down was almost an obsession. Even in more recent years, researchers have turned up useful facts in overlooked journals and letters.
As to whether Stan Russo is correct in labelling Macnaghten a Boob,in my opinion, it would not matter if Macnaghten has a luminous aubergine, where he sat in Scotland Yard, that man knew more than most of the other senior officials put together. Anderson off on sick leave; Williamson dying;leaving Macnaghten to act as Williamson's replacement(temporarily). Attending secret conferences as secretary for Munro's Secret Department; and in his normal role liasing with the heads of the 25 police Divisions in London. He would have had frequent talks with the head of Whitechapels "H" Division.
You can call him a Boob Stan, I would call him the best informed luminous aubergine in Britain!
On certain matters, at that time. |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 248
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 12:33 pm: |
|
John,
First, to my knowledge, an aubergine is an eggplant. So if you feel confortable calling MacNaghten the best informed eggplant at the time, more power to you.
Once again this boils down to a matter of selective interpretation. I interpret Macnaghten as a BOOB for numerous reasons. You do not, for the reasons you've outlined, such as Anderson having been on sick leave or Williamson on the verge of dying.
Unfortunatley, you neglect to mention, or perhaps fail to understand, that during these two events, MacNaghten did not work as a policeman. Anderson's sick leave was between September 8th, 1888 and October 6th, 1888. MacNaghten joined the ranks as Asst. Chief Constable in June of 1889.
Williamson had been ill for quite some time. This is another interesting fact that you seem to have left out, or as I would say selectively excluded. Monro, not Munro, was a friend of MacNaghten, from their earlier days. When he attempted to place him in the post of Assistant Chief Constable, basically such an unimportant post that it didn't exist prior to 1888, the appointment was blocked by Warren. Warren knew MacNaghten was a BOOB, calling him the "only man who could get beaten by Hindoos".
Let's discuss this appointment. It was obviously a stepping stone, offered to a friend, because of Williamson's ailing health. Obvious until you research the little inconsistencies of the case John, not just read one item and accept it based on your own feelings. When the post for Chief Constable actually came up again, Monro did not offer the post to MacNaghten, yet rather had a battle with Matthews, who wanted Evelyn Ruggles-Brise, and Monro suddenly appointing someone else to the post, civil servant Andrew Howard.
How could that be John? How could this man you believe was the most informed officer at the time be passed over for the appointment he was originally offered back in 1888, by the same man who offered it to him? I can figure it out John. Can you?
It seems obvious that even Monro, not Munro, knew MacNaghten was a BOOB, and his original appointment was cosmetic, to keep Warren, who was all over Monro and his activities, off his back. Someone like MacNaghten, whom Swanson called a "busybody" and whom Anderson almost had transferred out of the CID in 1890, after Monro left, was perfect for the job of getting Warren off Monro's back.
This is speculation, but based on the analysis and understand of data that no one has offered a good explanation for. Your explanation that MacNaghten was so informed and such a capable officer, that in an internal memo, which was for Scotland Yard eyes only, he botches the vital information on his preferred suspect, does not hold water John. I'd say it was a good try, but it was rather feeble. Just because you don't like me calling MacNaghten a BOOB, doesn't mean you can construct an argument out of thin air to challenge me.
Colin Wilson believes everything every one tells him. Read the foreward to almost any Ripper book and you'll see Wilson uttering the words - "game over". By that rationale over 40 suspects were actually the murderer.
It's not enough to read the books John. You have to understand the material, understand when the material is suspicious and arrive at a logical conclusion based on that.
SJR |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1245
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 1:14 pm: |
|
Stan
I really could not care less about disputes regarding a Convelescent Police Seaside Home. As Anderson was a long standing member of the 'Special Branch' he would have been privy to secret locations for the interrogation and or identification of suspects.
But don't you think there would have been a "secret location" available somewhere closer to London?
Chris Phillips
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 249
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 3:25 pm: |
|
Chris,
Sure I do. That's further reason to believe Anderson lied to Swanson about it. By placing it outside of London, one that Swanson wouldn't have known about or been able to track down, Anderson would have less questions to deal with.
I agree with you completely, but hope you understand the further ramifications of your question? Meaning that it is further evidence that Anderson lied about an ID.
SJR |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1246
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 3:52 pm: |
|
Stan
I agree with you completely, but hope you understand the further ramifications of your question?
I don't think you can have read my previous message properly. I'm not suggesting Anderson made up a story about something happening at the Police Seaside Home in Hove - I'm suggesting that the identification may have taken place at a different Seaside Home altogether.
Chris Phillips
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 250
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 4:01 pm: |
|
Chris,
Yes Chris I totally misunderstood your post. I though it improbrable that you would argue against the Convalescent Police Seaside Home, because there is no proof and no corroboration of it by any officer, then go ahead and suggest another place, with even less than no proof and no corroboration.
As I thought that to be a ludicris approach I misundestood your post.
So what you are saying, is despite the lack of any evidence or corroboration of the existence of such a home when the ID was 'alleged' to have taken place, you feel comfortable offering an alternative place, with similar problems as to its existence?
The problem still exists though. And other problems arise from it, such as why would Anderson lie to Swanson about it and if he lied about that what else would he have lied about?
SJR |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 667
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 4:43 pm: |
|
Dan--Ah, but in this instance do not the "underinformed" include you? And me? And everyone else? Let's face it. We are all underinformed about why Macnaghten was convinced of Druitt's guilt, so to be confident that he was merely grasping at straws is to engage in the very behavior you are ridiculing as 'bizarre.' As I've argued (and Paul Begg too, to some extent), it can only be shown that Macnaghten was ignorant of the details of Druitt's biography. This alone doesn't make Druitt a necessarily bad suspect, because there are any number of ways a man can appear to be guilty of murder without his accusors knowing the first thing about his profession or his age. Basing a suspect's probable guilt on the thumbnail sketches we have of them is the standard approach in "Ripperology", and I think it is an utterly fatal mistake. So, in some ways, comparing Macnaghten to Cornwell or Williams is invalid, because in the latter cases they were clearly committing the no-no of combing the known details of their supsects' lives and 'fitting them up' (ah! he had fistula!) , whereas in Macnaghten's case his suspicions are quite possibily and even probably independent of his direct knowledge of Druitt's biographical details. I of course can't prove you're wrong to think he was merely leaping to belief with little or no evidence, but neither can you prove that I am wrong to doubt that he was. It depends on what one thinks of Macnaghten, and how critical of a thinker he was. I think he was too competent to not have something else in his warchest. This doesn't mean Druitt was the Ripper, because circumstantial evidence can be misleading as hell. And I say this while not even personally believing that Druitt was the Ripper. RP |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 251
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 5:08 pm: |
|
R.J.,
Thanks for clearing that up, or re-iterating what I've been saying all along, just because of MacNaghten's many errors, this does not suddenly turn Druitt into a bad suspect. This is an ideal that I have stressed in print many times.
Consequently, without MacNaghten, regardless of his errors, Druitt would be Edward Buchan, and perhaps we wouldn't even know their names. Again, that does not actually affect their suspect status though.
As for MacNaghten, keep holding and clutching and grasping onto the dream that he was competent. Apparently our opinion of competance differs. I've posed this question before yet no one has ever answered it, maybe you can : If MacNaghten was so competent can you name one other case where he actually made a difference with regards to policework?
Don't even bother trying R.J., it doesn't exist. every recollection of the man is either as a troublesome busybody (Swanson quoting Anderson), an imbecile (Warren) or simply as a nice guy (almost all others).
So rather than conducting correct and accurate policework you are applauding him for conclusions that we can't back up (his actually being the murderer) because of him many errors? That to me is severely incompetent.
Warchest? Okay R.J. This is the forum for such debate. offer an idea of what he may have had. Be warned though, your ideas should have some sort of background and or foundation to them, as mine do. Your opinion is as valid as mine, or Dan's or Chris P.'s or anyones, but its how you back it up with some semblence of foundation where your credibility lies. Without any foundation for your opinions then there is really no purpose for them, outside of your own head.
Fair is fair. if Cornwell and Williams have to be judged on their opinions then so do I, and so do you R.J.
SJR |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2320
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 5:42 pm: |
|
Here’s how the ‘Boob’ used to waste his time and expertise:
1894.
Worked as a member of the highly acclaimed and controversial committee on the government bill ‘Identification of Habitual Criminals’. The actual foundation of our modern criminal identification system.
1907.
Sat in court for the entire duration of the inquest into the murder of Emily Dimmock, 23. The Camden Town Murder.
The Druse Case, where he personally supervised the exhumation of the body at Highgate Cemetery.
1909.
Was present in court for the entire proceedings of the ‘Whitechapel Murder’ case
Later: the Crippen case, the Clapham Murder trial, all were conducted under his personal supervision.
Let’s give the guy some credit where credit is due. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 794
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 5:44 pm: |
|
Hi RJ,
Don;t get me wrong, I would agree with you that Macnaghten may have had actual details to back up his suspicions. What I am taking issue is are your claims that he most likely did or that it's "irreconcilable" that he could have been so confident in his suspect otherwise, because, as I've pointed out above, that argument is self-contradictory when you include the other official's statements.
From the admittedly hazy details we have in, though, it looks to me that Macnaghten very possibly was involved in fitting up his suspect. Note the changing details between drafts of his memorandum, the suspicious wording about how Druitt's family allegedly suspected him, and so forth. Between that and the proven errors there's no solid reason to expect that he suddenly got the rest right when we know he got the several important things we can check wrong. But that's just my sense of it, and I admit it could go the other way if we had a way to check.
Andrew Spallek has a very good article about Druiit's candidacy in the current issue of Ripper Notes that makes some similar arguments to the ones you are making. I obviously respect the position enough to have it highlighted as a cover/lead story.
Oh, and another classic argument I forgot to mention previously that I'll toss out again: Any idea based upon the premise that Macnaghten must have had good reasons to suggest a suspect or else he wouldn't have listed him has to deal with the train wreck that is Ostrog, the #3 man in the memorandum. That's a whole other topic, but, geez, talk about a non sequitur of a suspect.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 252
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 6:30 pm: |
|
AP,
Thank you for those cases and references. Why is it that no one mentions MacNaghten in connection to those cases when reminiscing about him. Why are the majority of reminiscences of a "nice guy but" nature?
Worked on the bill? OK. In what aspect? what did he do that actually made any difference?
1907 - Sat in court. Perhaps this is just my opinion, but so what? And isn't that case unsolved, as the accused man, Robert Wood, had all charges dismissed?
1909 - Under his supervision? Please elaborate. This could mean so many things, as the 'JTR' murders were under Swanson's supervision, but he really contributed little to the case.
It is apparent that my calling MacNaghten a BOOB has offended some people. Why they are offended, I am not sure? Why someone would get offended at me calling an inferior officer a BOOB,while backing it up with sources, details, analysis and logic is beyond me. When people bash my preferred suspect I do not get offended. I do not strike back and say "how dare you".
If my words regarding MacNaghten have offended anyone, two things. First, I am sorry. Second, perhaps you should talk to someone about why you are getting offended at someone you didn't know being called a BOOB.
I can understand if people were upset if i couldn't back it up, but this is just pure sensitivity at work here.
SJR |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 918
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 11:19 pm: |
|
OK, time for me to weigh in.
Melville Macnaghten did not invent the suspect we call Montague John Dtuitt. What Sir Melville did was give this suspect a name. There is ample evidence of a "drowned doctor" suspect apart from Mcnaghten's memo. Some of it even predates Macnaghten's time at SY (the Albert Bachert statement). Macnaghten's contribution is to take this unknown "drowned doctor" and give him the name "M.J. Druitt." Such a suspect did exist.
What of the errors in Sir Melville's description on MJD? Well, only two are particularly serious: his age and occupation. It is quite possible Macnaghten merely transmitted errors that were already in his source information. This, I believe is the case with Druitt's occupation. The idea of a drowned doctor suspect was already ingrained at SY. An early newspaper account of Druitt's death described him as a doctor. Clearly there was confusion. A powerful (erroneous) first impression was created that Druiit was a doctor. First impressions -- even when erroneous -- are hard to "unlearn." Regarding Druitt's age, Macnaghten may have been misinformed. However, there is another possibility. Have you ever wondered why MM would make an error of exactly 10 years? It just may be that Sir Melville was referring to a document that listed only Druitt's birth year (1857). What if Macnaghten simply made an arithmetic error in calculating Druitt's age. It has happened to me a number of times.
Andy S. |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 253
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 11:39 pm: |
|
Andy S.,
Actually the Albert Backert statement is an invention of the author, and noted LIAR Donald McCormick. No evidence outside of McCormick has ever been shown to state it was real, and not imagined like so many other of McCormick's "inventions".
As a result of McCormick's lie, much research has been done on Druitt and the consensus is that at no time prior to MacNaghten's original memo, in late 1890, was Druitt or the drowned man in the Thames mentioned in connection with the murders.
Only two are serious? What about the original memo? The one where MacNaghten calls him Michael? I'd say thats a pretty serious error.
Again, where are you getting the drowned doctor suspect ingrained in Scotland yard? If it is from McCormick then you need to revise your thinking. I've never seen this newspaper describing Druitt as a doctor.
Even if there were errors on record regarding Druitt, of which no available source backs you up on this, to my knowledge, MacNaghten, if he were competent, would have researched the man he believed was 'JTR' better. As he was not competent, we have a 41 year old doctor named Michael.
Simple arithmetic error? Andy. Please. Why the need to cover for him, as if a responsible police officer not being able to count is an acceptible reason for his errors. Guess what, if you are a plumber its okay to make arithmetic mistakes. If you are the police officer making a sound claim on an unknown suspect, the math is hard theory doesn't hold water. it makes him look like a .... well a BOOB.
SJR |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 919
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 1:17 am: |
|
Stan,
Your comments might be taken more seriously if you showed a little more courtesy and respect and a little less sarcasm and contempt.
While it is not certain the Bachert statement is true there is also no evidence that it is a lie or an invention. Don't make the mistake of thinking that because something someone says is untrue that means everything that person says is untrue. Yes, it casts doubt on the story but that is only one piece of the evidence. You say the "consensus" is that there was no mention of a drowned doctor before 1890. Whose consensus? Anyway, even if true, there was a drowned doctor suspect before MM's memo.
The "original" memo that you are talking about consists of the fuzzy recollection of Philip Loftus of an alleged handwritten document then in the possession of MM's grandson, Gerald Donner, purporting to be the original notes of Sir Melville. This document, if it ever existed, has long ago gone missing and no one else alive on this planet has seen its contents. Dubious evidence indeed. Begg himself, who relates this account, believes Loftus' memory is inaccurate. But even it is it genuine and accurate, the final, official document gets Druitt's name correct.
I am indeed sorry that I cannot find the newspaper article describing the unidentified corpse (later known to be Druitt) as a doctor. It is possible that I may be confusing this with an article that gives Druitt's age as being about 40, but I don't think so. I will keep looking.
The "drowned doctor" was a suspect ingrained at SY, if not before Macnaghten's days (as I believe) then certainly shortly after (see my article in the upcoming Ripper Notes for more info). If he was so much of a "BOOB" surely his "stupid" memo cannot be responsible for this ingrained suspect.
As to the possible arithmetic error, I think it is quite plausible. I know I've gotten a person's age wrong by exactly years due to this type of error. It could happen to me. It could happen to you. It could happen to Albert Einstein! I think it's a strong possibility but I'm not hanging my hat on it. But the misinformation on Druitt's age did not begin with Macnaghten. The County of Middlesex Independent of 2 January 1889 describes the body pulled out of the Thames off Thornycroft's as "that of a man about 40 years of age." [Howells & Skinner, p. 154 of paperback).
Andy S. |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1247
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 3:23 am: |
|
Stan
the consensus is that at no time prior to MacNaghten's original memo, in late 1890, was Druitt or the drowned man in the Thames mentioned in connection with the murders.
I have a feeling I'm going to regret asking this, but what makes you think an earlier version of the memo was written in 1890, four years before the versions we know about?
There is newspaper evidence of a drowned Ripper suspect from early 1891.
Chris Phillips
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 254
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 1:14 pm: |
|
Andy S.,
Once again I will apologize if my words upset you. This is how I talk. I get to the point and I don't say things just to say them. To me, that is a waste of time.
Sarcasm is the most underused tool, in my opinion. Take a certain someone who just says things without being able to back them up (not you). Without sarcasm how would he actually know he was full of hot air? Just telling a person like that that he is full of hot air does not work.
The Albert Backert, not Bachert, statement is a fabrication. If you choose to believe that this is the one nugget of truth from a researcher who admitted he lied about almost everything else, then more power to you. Since there is no evidence of any statement from Albert Backert regarding Druitt, or a drowned suspect in the Thames, I will use my brain and acknowledge that is was just another of the many lies told by McCormick.
You keep saying there was a drowned man suspect before MM's memo, yet you don't back it up. Your later article which speculates as to the man's age is not enough to back up your claim. It does not connect the man, "of about 40 years of age" to a drwoned suspect in the 'JTR' murders.
Yes, the final memo does get Druitt's name correct, but it is the first memo that holds the key. Within that first memo, three suspects are named, one of whom was most likely Thomas Cutbush, a man who went around stabbing people with nail scissors. Didn't you ever apply 2 + 2 to understand that this is the only sensible explanation of why MM was chosen to write the 1894 internal memo, because one of his original 3 suspects were named by the Sun?
It's not good enough, in my opinion, to recite what others have done. You must add to that, and this is plain and simple the best explanation of why a man who had not one day of work on the 'JTR' murder case was asked to write an internal memo for SY. True, it has not been seen since the 1950's, but if Loftus was lying, as he revealed the three suspects he saw to the press in 1972, 6 years after the MM memo was made public, why would his supects differ from the SY version, if he were lying?
This question eludes every researcher, because they can not answer it, plus, it destroys the Kosminski theory, as it also explains that Anderson simply substituted Kosminski for MM's Leather Apron suspect from the original memo.
Andy, it seems that you are trying to hold onto MM as some sort of mythic figure. Why? Ok, he wasn't a BOOB. He was in fact the most able officer of his time, who was also able to keep that information from all his friends who never praised him for his policework. The word BOOB has incited a quasi-riot from those who for some reason feel the need to protect a man's name, without being able to solidly provide the information as to why he was not an imbecile.
I will read your article Andy, as i try to read all the Ripper stuff coming out. I will absolutely disagree with you if your arguments are as transparent as they were here, i.e.;MacNaghten was not a BOOB because everyone makes math mistakes.
Chris P.
Regret is a part of life dude.
What makes me think that is I've studied the case and it makes sense. Without insulting you, because apparently thats all I can do, even when I give you the information, all the clues are right there for you. It's just the ability to understand them.
Why was MM chosen to write the internal memo in 1894?
What was the problem that almost got MM transferred from the CID in 1890?
How was that situation tided over at the end of 1890, early 1891?
What does Swanson mean when describing MM in his marginalia?
And the kicker, put all of them together to arrive at a cohesive stream of though Chris. I've always said I'd back up what I say, to prove that there are some people out there not speaking and supplying information merely to hear themselves speak and impress people, but I'm also getting tired of doing the research for you. The answers are right there. If, after a few hours, you still can't get it, i'll explain it to you.
SJR |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1252
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 1:34 pm: |
|
Stan
I'm also getting tired of doing the research for you.
I certainly wouldn't want you to do that.
I think a cursory glance at the dates shows there's something wrong with your theory about an "original" written in 1890, because Cutbush didn't start to stab people until 1891.
The "consensus" is certainly not that Macnaghten originally wrote this in 1890 - it's that Loftus was wrong about the details of what he'd been shown more than 20 years before.
And as I've already pointed out, the story of the drowned suspect was in circulation in early 1891.
Chris Phillips
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 469
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 1:39 pm: |
|
"What does Swanson mean when describing MM in his marginalia? "
Hey Stan -- correct me if I am wrong, as I am working from memory, but wasn't it the case that Anderson disliked MM, and Swanson was an Anderson loyalist ? It's probably reasonable to think then that Swanson would not have had a favorable opinion of MM, and in that light Swanson's comments re MM in the Marginalia are pretty benign.
Another thing that also casts doubt on MM's core competencies is the fact that he only oversaw the family's tea plantations for one year before being 'airlifted' to the relative safety of the civil service.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 920
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 1:54 pm: |
|
Stan,
First, since you "correct" me as to the spelling of "Bachert/Backert" let me inform you that it appears both ways in print. "Bachert" would be an accurate spelling of a German surname so I choose for the sake of ease (so as not to have to write "Backert/Bachert" every time) to spell it the German way consistently.
It's not so much that your words "upset" me as that they disappoint me. In this forum what I hope for is a discussion among researchers rather than a debate between adversaries. True, though, that one can learn either way.
We disagree on the relative weights to give to the Bachert story and the Loftus/Donner story. Your rejection of the former and acceptance of the latter seems inconsistent to me. Perhaps my view seems just as inconsistent to you. One deciding factor for me is that the name "Michael Druitt" seems to be part of an admittedly vague recollection and could easily be the result of conflating "M.J. Druitt" with "Michael Ostrog" in a dimming memory. This is much more probable than suspecting a genuine error on MM's part when he gets it right later. Also, the inclusion of Cutbush as a suspect in the Loftus/Donner recollection is impossible and must be the result of remembering the name "Cutbush" but mentally placing it in the wrong category. There is no statement by Bachert with regard to Druitt because he was sworn to secrecy as well as threatened by the police.
The article identifying Druitt's body as that "of a man about age 40" is only cited to show that misinformation about Druitt being that age existed before Macnaghten's memo. He didn't necessarily invent that misinformation. He could have been misinformed or he could have made an arithmetic error as I have described.
Yes, the final memo does get Druitt's name correct, but it is the first memo that holds the key. Within that first memo, three suspects are named, one of whom was most likely Thomas Cutbush, a man who went around stabbing people with nail scissors. Didn't you ever apply 2 + 2 to understand that this is the only sensible explanation of why MM was chosen to write the 1894 internal memo, because one of his original 3 suspects were named by the Sun?
That is a huge leap based on a very dubious dim recollection from a secondary source.
Andy S. |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 255
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 2:00 pm: |
|
Chris P.,
I know that Cutbush had his stabbing incident in March of 1891. What I was talking about was the problems that almost got MM transferred out of the CID, by Anderson in 1890, combined with those problems being tided over in 1891, combined with Swanson's assessment of MM constantly bothering Anderson about the case, combined with why he was chosen to write the internal memo in 1894.
It is obvious that the problems between MM and Anderson were over MM constantly annoying Anderson regarding 'JTR'. Swanson attests to this in his marginalia. The suddenly tided over feelings that allowed MM to stay in the CID must surely relate to his idea that Micheal(sic) John Druitt was the murderer, adding Cutbush, who just stabbed girls in March of 1891, and the Polish Jew Leather Apron as possible alternatives.
Interesting that Anderson knew of a Polish jew recently incarcerated at around this time, who had threatened a woman with a knife, Aaron Kosminski.
The story of the drowned suspect, if in circulation in early 1891, would have come from either MM or the person who fed MM his "private info" on Druitt. That is the logical conclusion, versus the illogical, that all of a sudden, after 2 years, a drowned man was suddenly thought of as 'JTR' by the press, who still happened to believe that 'JTR' was working, due to the murder of Frances Coles.
The consensus you are talking about, that Loftus was wrong about the details, could be wrong also. I would like you to answer one question, if the consensus is right. Why was MM chosen to write an internal memo on Cutbush, if he had not named Cutbush to Anderson, in a small private memo as being one of three suspects?
Sir Robert,
How the hell are ya'.?
Anderson hated MM. Swanson attests to that, but that goes even more so to the actual ability of MM. Anderson was constantly annoyed by MM's persistent commentaries on the 'JTR' murders, of which I believe Anderson knew mopre than he ever let on.
MM was not the competent person Andy S and R.J. and John are trying to make him out to be. they do severely oppose my BOOB remark, and as aresult I believe thay have taken up a losing battle to show me up. that's fine, but the facts remain. Not one officer or official ever praised MM for anything regarding duty. When AP offered some things MM had done, they included listening to a court case, as one of the more strenuous tasks. People will believe whatever they want to believe, but more to the point, some people, as Andy S. proved, simply don't like people who assert themselves in a strong manner. To me thats fine.
SJR |
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 133
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 2:17 pm: |
|
Here's a short piece found by Nick Connell in Reynolds News, May 15, 1921, by P.A. Parsons, written after Macnaghten's death:
Sir Melville came across a poor woman of Whitechapel who told him a story that seemed to fully collaborate a theory that he had formed while sitting in a public house in the Commercial Road. A very nicely-spoken, quiet-looking elderly man sat next to her. Conversation naturally turned upon the "Ripper" horror, and the stranger shaking his head softly, said with a pious air: "Truly in the midst of life we are in death." He was carrying a small black bag. This he opened and produced a tract. The cover bore the words "Prepare to meet thy God." This he presented to the woman. The tract passed into the possession of Sir Melville, and he came to the conclusion that the "Ripper" was a religious maniac with homicidal tendencies developed by a certain disease...Finally Sir Melville narrowed down his research to a point where he was morally certain that he knew the man... Then suddenly he solved the difficulty himself. He committed suicide. A body was found in the Thames, and from certain evidence Sir Melville was able to convince the authorities that this was the man who had for so long terrorised the community. A few months later [June 1889] he was made Chief Constable. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 470
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 2:18 pm: |
|
"Anderson was constantly annoyed by MM's persistent commentaries on the 'JTR' murders, of which I believe Anderson knew more than he ever let on."
Personally, I've always been in the "Anderson only thought he knew" camp. I'm curious: what do you believe Anderson really knew ? JTR's identity ? And his comments in his memoirs were therefore a false trail ?
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 256
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 2:21 pm: |
|
Andy S.,
I apologize for the correction. I was reading books on the case in English, not in German.
Well "upset" versus "disappoint" is not a very far stroll. And on this forum, the debates begin, then veer, then wind up into a discussion about something named "Sooty". I try to stay on track, and it is my demeanor that bothers you. I would ask why the calmer demeanors that lead to "Sooty" seem not to bother you?
Explain why that seems inconsistent. One is a story from a noted historical liar, who has actually backed up his own lies by writing books under another name to provide background information on his lies. The other, is not from a noted liar, and in fact finally makes sense out of why someone like MM would have been chosen to write the internal 1894 memo regarding Cutbush.
So how do you account for the fact that Ostrog was left off the Loftus from memory version, and that the entire bulk of the 1894 memo's, on Thomas Cutbush, are never mentioned by Loftus?
Again, you are relying upon Donald McCormick's stories. As solid of a researcher as I'd heard you were i must say I'm not at all impressed if you are still at the level of accepting McCormick. Try reading some books by Richard Deacon, on Russian criminals and secret services. In them he actually backs up McCormick's stories that Ostrog was an alias for McCormick's own suspect Vassily Konovalov.
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, Richard Deacon was Donald McCormick's pseudonym. You see, he filled in gaps and background information for his lies, in books written under a different name. So you see it is extremely different than the Loftus version of the MM memo.
How long will it be before someone acknowledges that a police official not actually getting his facts straight, by doing the requisite policework, is less than exemplory. Regardless of Druitt as a suspect, MM botched many pertinent details of whom he believed was 'JTR', in an official police document. Does that not tell you something about the person's ability. &0 years after Druitt's death we were finding out the truth about him, that he was a barrister, 31, and did not go missing only days after the Miller's Court murder. Are you telling me MM couldn't have done the same?
I'll make that leap it is sound. While i make my sound leaps, you shall remain in the back of the classroom, applauding MM's lack of mathematical ability. Join the head of the class. It might prove productive.
SJR |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 668
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 2:22 pm: |
|
Stan--Have you missed Andy's point above? Be a little more specific about this 'original' memo, eh? You wouldn't be, by any chance, referring to someone's memory of having seen that memo? Now you're going to blame Macnaghten for someone elses faulty memory?
To be honest, I don't agree with either you, nor Mr. Spalleck, here; I think you're both misreading the sources. As for your part, there's nothing the least bit strange about a Chief Constable writing an internal memo (probably in response to a query from someone in the Home Office) about an event to which he was a contemporary---the Cutbush affair.
As for the Druittists, I think they've placed the cart before the horse. Macnaghten himself stated the information didn't reach him until a number of years after joining Scotland Yard. He's not garbling a contemporary suspect, and, no, McCormick is not a credible source. (see this month's Fortean Times). The way I see it, the Dorset MP (or his source) forwarded the information to MM, and he found some further circumstantial evidence that seemingly confirmed the rumors. The 'doctor' error is not quite so curious if one recalls the West Country MP refered to Druitt as the son of a surgeon.
(Message edited by rjpalmer on July 25, 2005) |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 257
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 2:24 pm: |
|
Robert,
I do believe that Anderson knew more than he was letting on, and that the ID, the Polish Jew suspect and everything he publicly wrote on the topic was a lie.
Do you know who Alfred Aylmer was?
SJR |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1253
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 2:26 pm: |
|
Stan
I know that Cutbush had his stabbing incident in March of 1891. What I was talking about was the problems that almost got MM transferred out of the CID, by Anderson in 1890, combined with those problems being tided over in 1891, combined with Swanson's assessment of MM constantly bothering Anderson about the case, combined with why he was chosen to write the internal memo in 1894.
Sorry, but no. You did say that Macnaghten wrote an "original" version of his memoranda in late 1890.
That's what I was querying. I take it you do agree that's not possible.
The story of the drowned suspect, if in circulation in early 1891, would have come from either MM or the person who fed MM his "private info" on Druitt. That is the logical conclusion, versus the illogical, that all of a sudden, after 2 years, a drowned man was suddenly thought of as 'JTR' by the press, who still happened to believe that 'JTR' was working, due to the murder of Frances Coles.
The newspaper report, dated 11 February, attributed the story to a West of England MP. He may have been Macnaghten's source, directly or indirectly. A difference is that the newspaper report correctly describes the suspect as the son of a surgeon, unlike Macnaghten.
Incidentally, the report was printed two days before the murder of Frances Coles, so there's no difficulty there.
As for the rest of your theories, all I can say is that I don't find them at all persuasive. I can't see any out-and-out impossibilities, as was the case with your suggested date, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone else can find some.
Chris Phillips
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 258
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 2:50 pm: |
|
Chris,
Why I said late 1890 is becauise this is when MM's relations were somehow tided over with Anderson, halting his transfer from the CID.
I was able to speculate, with backing, that it was at this time that MM arrived at the conclusion that Druitt was 'JTR' and he showed Anderson, or at the very least stoped annoying him. Why I believe he showed Anderson, is because it would have been Anderson's decision to assign the memo in 1894 to Druitt, and the much neater cleaned up version in SY has an Anderson edited ring to it. It even emphasizes Kosminski over the Lady Aberconway version of the MM draft.
You are reading, but not understanding. As I wrote a book on suspects i know Cutbush was incarcerated for acts in March of 1891, and was merely stressing that in late 1890 relations between Anderson and MacNaghten were tided over. My opinion, which has foundation and logic, is that bthese relations were due to his early draft on Druitt. Cutbush and Leather Apron could have been added at any time after March of 1891.
Well they are not meant to persuade you Chris. Quite frankly i couldn't care less what you thought about my theories. You are part of the sideways crowd, trying your best to make sure the case never moves forward, arguing for the greatness of MacNaghten while simultaneously devaluing his suspect. The questions I pose and answers I give are far too advanced for you, and it wouldn'y shock me to think that half of what i say goes right over your head. I say this because your words are meant as insults, mine are meant as persuasion.
SJR |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 259
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 2:52 pm: |
|
R.J.,
Feel free to think what you want. that is your right. If such driving ambition at possible answers were the norm the case would never get anywhere. Oh yeah, it is the norm.
SJR |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 471
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 2:54 pm: |
|
Aylmer was Griffiths' pseudonym, no ? How do his writings discredit Anderson ?
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 260
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 3:01 pm: |
|
Robert,
Well Griffiths was a friend of Anderson. And all of a sudden, after Swanson was quoted in the Pall Mall Gazette in 1895 as having the best theory, Aylmer writes something attributing the best theory to Anderson.
Anderson was an egomaniac, and not above anything that would benefit himself of country. This directly relates to MM with regards to the memo.
The one mistake that researchers make is that they take one item and treat it as unrelated to a hundred other items, when many things are interrelated on this case. It is this driving ambition that I point out to Chris P., which i am glad I do not have, because most are just satisfied with "ok, its normal for a Chief Constable who never worked a day on the case to write an internal memo". they are happy leaving it at that, mainly because their research ability can't go past that.
I however refuse to accept such drivel as MM was the person to write that memo, without wondering "why". I may have discovered the answer. I may not have. But at least I haven't stopped trying.
SJR |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 921
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 3:25 pm: |
|
Stan,
OK, I started it so I will withdraw my comments about your demeanor. You have been civil.
Not to belabor the spelling of Backert/Bachert, but I want to correct an apparently misleading statement. This person's name was spelled variously as "Backert" and "Bachert" in British newspapers. I don't know for sure how he himself spelled it but I think "Bachert" is more likely since it appears to be a surname of German origin. But it certainly could have been anglicized. No big deal. I just don't want to be corrected for a mistake I didn't make. [I make enough genuine mistakes for which I deserve to be corrected].
Backert's statement is my only firm evidence for a "drowned doctor" theory being current at SY before MM joined the force. (Although the whole "White-Eyes"/Dr. Holt story also suggests that it might be so). No, I cannot say for certain that it is true because it comes from a questionable source. On the other hand not every statement made by a questionable source must be false. I see no evidence to disprove the statement. Therefore, I, along with many others, cautiously accept his statement as quite possibly true. I see no reason for it to be implausible. Anyway, it's not vital to my main point: that Montague Druitt is still our best suspect.
But even if we can't prove that the drowned doctor theory existed before MM's days on the force it seems pretty clear that such a theory was in circulation shortly afterward, before the 1894 memo. There is no reason to believe that MM invented this theory. It is much more likely that it was related to him by those who investigated the case.
I also don't understand why you think it so peculiar that MM "was chosen" to write the memo. First of all, I don't know that he "was chosen" to do so. He may well have written it on his own initiative. It would have been well within the scope of his responsibilities, I should think. Why do you believe that he was chosen or assigned this task as opposed to doing it on his own?
You raise a good question regarding how, 100+ years after Druitt's death we know things about him that MM did not seem to know. There are a number of reason for this. You and I are obsessed with naming the suspect so we have to get the details right. MM's memo was confidential. Since, as far as he was concerned, the identity of the suspect would not be made public he might have been less concerned with cross-referencing the information he was using. Also, the whole attitude of the police toward the murders was remarkably low key. It seems that they only took remarkable or exceptional action to solve the case when they were pressured by the press or the government to do so. They would have preferred to handle it as an ordinary series of crimes because that it what they considered it to be. In short, they were not as obsessed about it as you or I. Sir Melville's aim was to show that Cutbush is not a viable suspect. Giving details about the more likely suspects -- even the one he favored -- was not his aim.
Finally, you ask why did Ostrog drop out of the alleged Loftus/Donner version of the memo? As I said, Loftus apparently confused or conflated in his mind the names of Druitt and Ostrog so that Ostrog's first name, "Michael", survived and his surname disappeared while Druitt's surname survived and his first initials disappeared. In other words, Michael Ostrog and M.J. Druitt became one "Michael Druitt" in Loftus' fading memory. That is what I suppose happened, although Loftus might have just plain forgotten about Ostrog and just gotten Druitt's first name wrong. We have to remember that people are fallible, especially in their memories. I don't know why this seems strange to you. Think of a book or an article you read years ago. Can you get all the details right by memory?
Is Montague John Druitt Jack the Ripper? I don't know. Are there holes in the theory that he is? Most certainly. Are these holes damning to the theory? I do not believe they are.
My article is entitled "Montague John Druitt: Still our best Suspect." My contention is just that. In spite of other plausible and semi-plausible theories new and old and in spite of the holes in the theory, Montague Druitt is still our best suspect because the evidence against him is better than that against anyone else.
Andy S. |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1254
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 3:33 pm: |
|
Stan
So - just to make sure not too much is going over my head - are you now proposing that there were four different documents?
(1) An "original" written in late 1890, proposing Druitt as a suspect;
(2) A revised version written in March 1891 or later, bringing in Cutbush and "Leather Apron".
(3) A third version written in 1894 in response to the Sun articles about Cutbush, mentioning Druitt, Kosminski and Ostrog as more likely suspects.
(4) A fourth version revising the third, with relatively minor changes of wording.
This does all seem to be getting very complicated.
I prefer the simplicity of the alternative explanation - that Loftus, 22 years after being shown a copy of the memoranda, made three minor errors of recollection:
(1) He remembered Cutbush as a suspect, rather than the man Macnaghten was contrasting with the suspects.
(2) He gave Druitt's christian name wrongly as Michael, only the initial M. being given in the memoranda, and another suspect being named as Michael.
(3) He assumed Kosminski was identical with the Jewish "Leather Apron" suspect he had read about elsewhere.
Do you honestly think you could describe today, with perfect accuracy, a document you last read in 1983?
Chris Phillips
PS If you're attempting to compete for the title of "Most Obnoxious Poster on the Casebook", you should be aware that the competition is extremely stiff!
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 261
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 3:37 pm: |
|
Andy,
I look forward to reading your article. I for one feel Druitt is a non-suspect, yet will be the first to state that we can not totally eliminate him as one.
I hope that in your article you reconcile the problems within the Druitt theory, such as his working at night in Valentine's School watching over the children, while committing these murders and never causing any suspicion, and of course the lies told by William Druitt at the inquest regarding MJD, which casts doubt on his suicide.
I do look forward to reading it.
SJR |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 262
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 3:52 pm: |
|
Chris P.,
Firstly, you are a jacka$$. So I wouldn't expect you to like me, nor do I care to have you like me.
As a jacka$$ it's clear that you will argue every little thing, rather than trying to learn and ask the right questions versus merely regurgitating what others have said, even if they are wrong.
You opt for the simple approach, because you are simple. Your approach also does not answer why he wrote the memo. Why anyone would think someone would take it upon themselves to write this memo is beyond me. Beyond me becuas it is such a ridiculous notion. But your driving ambition to accept the simple nature of the case will get you far.
Your comments to me about trying to be the most obnoxious poster only further shows your idiocy. I have done nothing but offer ideas and back them up with factual information, which some have argued is not the way they think. they have not argued that my facts are wrong, but you are insinuating that I am attempting to be obnoxious, therefore you are a jacka$$, and most people know that.
Perhaps Stephen should cut the casebook in half, one side for people who want ideas, and one side for people who don't. Guess which side you would be on Chris? That's right - the side that will never get anywhere. But that is the way you like it.
SJR |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1255
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 4:03 pm: |
|
Stan
As a jacka$$ it's clear that you will argue every little thing, rather than trying to learn and ask the right questions versus merely regurgitating what others have said, even if they are wrong.
Surely you can understand that not everyone is going to agree with your theories. If this is your reaction to critical questioning, it's really not going to get you very far.
Chris Phillips
|
Luke Whitley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, July 25, 2005 - 6:54 am: |
|
Hi Andy.
I agree with everything you've written above.
There are a couple of simple errors made in the memorandum, but nothing of vital importance.
Age for instance. Druitt was 31, not 41, but as you said, The County of Middlesex Independent refers to "a man of about 40 years".
With Druitt coming from a noted family of Doctors & Surgeons, it would be easy to have confused his profession. Albert Bachert's statement was also brought up by Don Rumbelow in his book, "The Complete JtR". While Rumbelow admits that the story was uncorroborated, he does not dismiss it as an outright lie, which is what Stan is hinting at.
Even with all the new names that have been proffered in recent years, I still personally believe that Druitt is, by far, the best suspect out there.
Warmest regards.
LUKE WHITLEY |
Luke Whitley
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 10:34 am: |
|
Hi R.J.
I've followed you from the other thread.
With reference to Paul Begg's new book, did you mean "JtR - The Facts", or "The definitive History"??
I've just bought the latter, and am very interested in the full explanation of Begg's answer, concerning Macnaghten, that you mention here.
I still believe that Druitt is the best suspect out there.
Warmest regards.
LUKE WHITLEY |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
