|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 664
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 5:19 pm: | 
|
Andy,
we don't know Druitt's height but 5'7" appears plausible
I have read this this suggestion by you several times and I still wonder why, in the absence of any evidence, you so conveniently peg Druitt's height at 5-7?
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 933
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 6:19 pm: |
|
Donald,
I haven't "pegged" Druitt's height as anything, conveniently or inconveniently! What I have said -- and I now repeat again -- is that 5'7" is plausible. This is simple English. It means that there is nothing in the photos of Druitt that are available to us that suggests he was not 5'7" tall. In other words, it doesn't appear that he was 6'5" or 4'11". Why? Because 5'7" was a fairly typical height for an adult male in that era and there is nothing in the photos to suggest that Druitt was not of average height. I have not attempted to overstate the case. I have attempted to point out that the issue of height is not a conflict. I have also pointed out true conflicts such as Druitt's build. The Druitt in the photos does not appear to be "stout" as many witnesses describe and I have given a couple of possible resolutions for this conflict.
Donald, I think if you read my article you will find that it is rather objective. I have pointed out many problems with the case against Druitt. I don't know whether Druitt was guilty, but in the end he is still, in my opinion, our best suspect.
John,
The information on Holt's death wasn't in Eddleston after all. You may have a point. Perhaps I just assumed he wasn't found dead in the Thames. However, I can say that there is no such account in the Times. If I find any more I'll post it in the Holt thread.
Andy S.
(Message edited by Aspallek on August 08, 2005)
(Message edited by Aspallek on August 08, 2005) |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 665
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 7:02 pm: |
|
Andy,
No need to get upset, but let's be honest, 5-5 or 5-9 are also plausible heights and to choose the plausibe figure of 5-7 is rather convenient because so many of the witnesses arrived at that same height -- even if that is not why you did so.
I certainly read your article in the latest Ripper Notes and enjoyed it. Furthermore, you deserve credit for marshalling some of the arguments against Druitt. However, if you read my article you would have understood that a) (to paraphrase another prominent poster) Witnesses, Schmitnesses and b) if you want to put any credence in the witnesses there are reasons to consider as more likely heights that are rather less than those given.
As it is, I still do consider MJD a "person of interest" in the suspect sweepstakes. I was just curious if you had anything more than the average height of a middle- or upper-class Englishman at the time on which to base your estimate.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 934
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 8:28 pm: |
|
Donald,
I don't want to engage in a personal discussion here but I think you are still misunderstanding. It isn't that I concluded that Druitt was 5'7" tall and then said, "Gee, that's just the height the witnesses described!" What I openly did was to start with the witness description and affirm that such a height is plausible for Druitt.
I have received my copy of Ripper Notes but I have not read it yet. I'm trying to finish a library book first that is due Friday. Then I will gladly read your article and the others!
Andy S. |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 666
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 08, 2005 - 11:01 pm: |
|
Andy,
No problem. The heat is probably making me fractious. I see your point and I'm cool with it (even if everything around me is still hot). Meanwhile, enjoy that book from the library and get it read before late-fines kick in.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2003
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 6:44 am: |
|
Hi All,
If Druitt is 'our' best suspect, we may as well all give up and go home.
How many families at the time would have suspected that their Monty/Tom/Dick/Harry was Jack because of certain characteristics or behaviour?
Monty was in the wrong place (in the river) at the wrong time (shortly after what many believed was the last murder in the series), and came from the wrong family - one with known mental illness. And then the wrong information, that he was a doctor, helped to promote him above the others as a more likely suspect than Cutbush.
I wonder how well the stereotype would go down today, of a mad medic whose mind gives way completely after a particularly horrific murder like MJK's, leading to his suicide.
But then it was an acceptable sign of the times. Littlechild did much the same thing, only with a change of initial. Still no doctor, but this mad (read sexually perverted) quack doc's initial was T instead of D. The 'likely suspect' statement was also based in part on a mistaken belief, this time that Dr. T had taken his own life after the last murder.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1285
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 7:03 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
Monty was in the wrong place (in the river) at the wrong time (shortly after what many believed was the last murder in the series), and came from the wrong family - one with known mental illness. And then the wrong information, that he was a doctor, helped to promote him above the others as a more likely suspect than Cutbush.
The trouble with this kind of argument is that if that were all there was to it, Macnaghten should have had dozens - if not hundreds - of suspects, not just three.
As you say, many people were suspected of the murders, and many were reported to the police. There must have been something beyond the bare fact of Druitt's suicide to put him at the top of Macnaghten's list. And of course, we know that Druitt was rumoured to be the Ripper before he was mistakenly believed to be a doctor.
That's not to say I agree he is our "best suspect" (though all things considered they are a pretty poor lot). But he is interesting because Macnaghten ranked him so highly, apparently on the basis of private information that he felt compelled to destroy - therefore something quite different from the public facts of Druitt's suicide, his mother's insanity or his profession.
No doubt those pushing many other suspects would kill - on their behalf - for the kind of statements Macnaghten made about Druitt ...
Chris Phillips
|
Liza
Sergeant
Username: Liza
Post Number: 15
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 3:22 pm: |
|
ok folks
Take a train ticket, or a bit of stiff card, place it in some (preferably dirty - like the Thames) water, give it a quick stir (currents)
watch it disintergrate!
Now tell me how long Druitt was in the Thames!
Liza
P.S. I've tried this, and any writing 'disappears' in under two hours (Oh, and yes, I'm talking printer's ink) |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 515
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 5:57 pm: |
|
"I wonder how well the stereotype would go down today, of a mad medic whose mind gives way completely after a particularly horrific murder like MJK's, leading to his suicide."
You know, Caz, I think there is something about the notion of a murdering doctor that sends chills down the collective spine, catching the public's eye to this day. Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald and Dr. Sam Sheppard come to mind as recent cases where I suspect that being doctors didn't help their cause vis a vis the jury.
http://www.themacdonaldcase.org/Jeffrey_Mac.html
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2269
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 6:52 pm: |
|
I am looking forward to reading Andrew"s article on Druitt.I haven"t read any yet in either magazine as I haven"t had them long and lots of them look good...anyway to return to Druitt
I am not sure Macnaghten wasnt trying to "cover up" for some other middle class "gentleman" here with Druitt a convenient scapegoat who couldnt be
libelled,because of being dead.
Alternatively,Macnaghten himself suggested Druitt perhaps because he wanted to appear to have
played a bigger,more important role in the ripper investigation than he did.
Think of how daft he would have looked if he had acknowledged that he hadnt a clue who the ripper was[as did Walter Dew later having ,by the time he came to write HIS "memoirs" that crucial "cache" that it was he who caught Crippen to boast about instead!
As chief of police our friend Macnaghten might have looked a tad wimpish with nothing at all to claim any fame for regarding his particular role in the ripper investigation.What sort of "memoirs" would these have been after all?
But by announcing to the World that he knew all along who the ripper was ,but had had to keep mum over it because of this phantom ripper"s respectable family connections, this gave him the let out.No one could argue ....only Macnaghten knew!
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 937
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 7:27 pm: |
|
Caz,
Well, what can I say. We just disagree. But I do agree that we are in a bad position to identify a suspect -- as needs must be 118 years after the fact.
Chris,
"The trouble with this kind of argument is that if that were all there was to it, Macnaghten should have had dozens - if not hundreds - of suspects, not just three."
Yes, indeed. See the list of suicide victims I identified from theTimes. Several of these should have been on MM's list if that's all there was to it.
Liza,
The problem with your experimentation and reasoning is that it assumes the medical examiner was an idiot. The ME in this district would have been very familiar with bodies fished from the Thames and would have examined countless documents so submerged. It's a safe bet he knew what he was doing. At any rate, think about it. A medical examiner that cannot tell the difference between a body submerged for a month and one submerged for hours? Unless you think Diplock was part of some conspiracy...but really, now. By the way, in your experiments, did you try a card folded away in a wallet inside the jacket pocket of a man?
Natalie,
But member that Macnaghten's memo was "confidential." That the suspect was Druitt was not announced to the world.
Andy S. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2008
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 3:26 am: |
|
Hi All,
Druitt was only number one of three suspects more likely to be Jack than Cutbush, in Macnaghten's opinion. If he had thought the private info that spectacular, the other two would surely have dropped off the end of his 'more likely than' list.
And he may as well have listed all the suicides that happened shortly after MJK, if his private info wasn't all that. I bet with most suicides you could read something into the reasons behind it if you had the information and wanted to make something of it.
Chris wrote:
No doubt those pushing many other suspects would kill - on their behalf - for the kind of statements Macnaghten made about Druitt ...
If that's true it's no wonder no one's solved it. I don't believe for one moment that if one of the cops at the time had named the real Jack, the others would each have named someone else entirely. The chances that any of them would have hit on the right name, in the absence of hard evidence placing the man at a murder scene, must be terribly slight I'd have thought.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1287
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 4:11 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
If he had thought the private info that spectacular, the other two would surely have dropped off the end of his 'more likely than' list.
The trouble is we just don't know what the private information was. We also don't know why Macnaghten's opinion about Druitt hardened so much in later years - we don't know whether it was because he had found out more information that confirmed his suspicions, or just because it was a prejudice that ossified.
We just don't know. We haven't the necessary data, and in the absence of the data it's silly to be dogmatic.
Chris Phillips
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2273
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 6:40 pm: |
|
Andrew,
Like you I still ,in fact believe that there is no smoke without fire.Macnaghten knew something we dont and this looks very likely from what he said later in my view.
Nevertheless when he writes his "internal memorandum" on his prime suspect for Jack the Ripper he has an eye on posterity,IMHO.In other words,he would have almost certainly surmised that anything he ever said- internally or externally- about such a world famous case would probably leak out and he would be remembered not as the chief of police who hadnt a clue who the ripper was but rather as the one who did-through this "private information" he had honourably destroyed to save the feelings of Druitt"s family.
Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4768
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 6:46 pm: |
|
I agree Sir M would have been mindful that his memorandum would leak out or at some point be revealed. And that's why I don't think he'd have just plucked Druitt's name out of the air, to make up the numbers. For a man of Sir M's standing, to accuse a respectable man from a respectable family would to me seem incredible, unless Sir M had at least something to go on.
Robert |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 791
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 7:12 pm: |
|
Dear Andy....
The problem with your experimentation and reasoning is that it assumes the medical examiner was an idiot. The ME in this district would have been very familiar with bodies fished from the Thames and would have examined countless documents so submerged. It's a safe bet he knew what he was doing. At any rate, think about it. A medical examiner that cannot tell the difference between a body submerged for a month and one submerged for hours?
That certainly wasn't my intention,to cast aspersions on the ME.
What I will say,as it was my intention by mentioning a "test" in a similar environment was that being submerged in water for " a month " is a ballpark estimate on the part of the ME, not an exact amount of days. In fairness,there's no way he could have known the exact amount of days Druitt was in the water. I'm not doubting the ME, Andrew..Druitt was in the water for a while...but
.....Druitt may very well have been in the water for only two weeks, not four....which opens up other possibilities. Thats why I mentioned it in the first place...
...and that there could be a possibility that Druitt's brother was partially influential in the determination of "about a month". |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 941
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 11:09 pm: |
|
Howard,
I'm certainly open to the possibility that Druitt's body was in the water for a little less than a month -- maybe even only a couple of weeks.
However, the difficulty is the rail ticket dated Dec 1. If Druitt had committed suicide a week or two after Dec 1, why was he still carrying around that ticket? You almost have to postulate foul play rather than suicide to hold that view. Since there is no indication of foul play and no known motivation for foul play, I think we are dealing with slim possibilities.
If Druitt did indeed commit suicide, he did so on Dec 1 or very shortly thereafter.
Natalie,
I can agree with that. But that's hardly announcing it to the "world."
Andy S.
(Message edited by Aspallek on August 11, 2005) |
Restless Spirit
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 86
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 3:15 pm: |
|
Andy & Donald
For what it is worth, I would estimate Druit's height to be between 5'9 - 5'11. Why you ask? If you look at the picture of Druit sitting at a desk (looks like a student desk) with his head in his hand.(that picture) He appears to have a long upper body and long legs. No I am not an expert however, it is an educated guess based on the picture which shows a full body shot.(even though he is sitting you can make a reasonably accurate guestimate)
regards
Restless Spirit
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2285
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 4:25 pm: |
|
Andrew,
Anything written by Macnaghten about who the ripper may or may not have been would have been known,even then to have found its way eventually
to an international audience.But you are right when you insist that in 1894 Macnaghten could not have been accused of "announcing it to the world" and would have been confident that the "confidential memorandum" would have stayed reasonably "confidential" for a long time-Macnaghten"s lifetime he would probably have hoped.
The photo of Druitt in the cricket picture
suggests to me a man of "middling" height-5ft 7or8
Natalie |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 3:53 pm: |
|
Natalie,
Hi.You stated that Macnaghten acted honorably and had the private information he obtained from the Druitt family destroyed in order to save their feelings. It seems to me however that if the family was in possession of hard evidence or even a reasonable suspicion that Druitt was the Ripper during the time the murders were being committed and didn't come forward, that the appropriate action would be to have them prosecuted for obstruction of justice as opposed to sparing their feelings. Naturally, we have to consider the possibility of a libel suit being brought by Druitt's family but this brings up the question of just when they formed their suspicions that Druitt might be the Ripper. |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 3:32 pm: |
|
If we are to believe that Druitt was the Ripper, why was there no mention of what he had done in his suicide note? He might have wanted to protect his family's name but why not make at least some veiled allusion to the killings to show his remorse? |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 3:24 pm: |
|
Some very good points here I must say. With regards to the "private information" obtained by Macnaghten, wouldn't that information have been checked out to the fullest extent possible? Certainly it would not have been taken at face value. I think Caz makes a good point. If the information was that great (and not mere speculation or suspicion) the other two names on the list would have been dropped or at least not mentioned in the same context. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2287
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 5:55 pm: |
|
Sorry c.d. I didnt mean he was actually acting honourably
but rather that he would have expected those he addressed when he admitted to "destroying all the information he had once had" would be likely to consider he had acted honourably-he hoped!
I don"t think it would have been possible to prosecute posthumously since Macnaghten admitted he was not 100% sure it was Druitt-just "more likely than Cutbush,Kosminsji,Ostrog.... |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2015
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 11:38 am: |
|
Hi All,
It just strikes a really odd note with me, that someone obtains private information about a certain individual which suggests he could well have been the world's most wanted killer in history; that information is then destroyed, apparently to spare the family's feelings; but far from preserving the family's otherwise good name for posterity, this private information is then alluded to, along with the suspect's actual name, in an official, if confidential document, which is eventually in the public domain.
I can't see how that works. It seems on the surface to be a 'need to know' situation, whereby an allegedly sexually insane killer drowns himself and is no longer a danger to anyone, therefore no one but Macnaghten ever needs to know the sordid details - except that he needed others to know that he knew something important - enough to put that fact in writing for them.
Our collective imagination is then left to puzzle over what those sordid details might have been, and we all know how imagination can conjure up something far worse than the truth. So I can't reconcile an 'honourable' act of destroying the papers with the later decision to name Druitt in writing anyway, while sparing his readers the main reasons why he is being named. Both actions seem to serve different interests.
And this 'alleged' sexual insanity thing - I do wonder to what extent a contemporary ripper suspect's known - or suspected - sexual habits influenced people's thinking in those days. If Druitt was suspected by his family to be homosexual, like Tumblety, or into 'solitary vices', was the next step to worry that he might be a prostitute mutilator in his spare time?
Hi Chris,
We just don't know. We haven't the necessary data, and in the absence of the data it's silly to be dogmatic.
Wonderful! I hope you won't mind me quoting you elsewhere. It's exactly what I've been trying to tell you for ages. You haven't the necessary data to be dogmatic. 
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1295
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 11:54 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
Wonderful! I hope you won't mind me quoting you elsewhere. It's exactly what I've been trying to tell you for ages. You haven't the necessary data to be dogmatic.
Please do quote me wherever else you like. And please try to live up to it yourself. It would be a very welcome change if you stopped making assertions for which you don't have evidence.
It would also be nice if you could actually reflect on the relevance of the lack of data to your musings on Druitt - Druitt being the subject of this board.
While admitting we don't have the data to be dogmatic, you've just given us another speculative post, again assuming a certain sequence of events, for which you don't have any evidence.
What do you feel you are achieving by doing this?
Chris Phillips
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 945
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 15, 2005 - 6:25 pm: |
|
R.S. --
I also tried estimating Druitt's height from the "seated" photo and at first I came to much the same conclusion. Then I realized my error. The only means of estimating the length of Druitt's limbs is by comparing them to the table and chair. The flaw is that we don't know the size or height of the table and chair. I agree with Natalie that the cricket team photo is of more value. There he seems to be about the same size as other players, implying that he was of average height -- roughly 5'7" in that period.
Caz,
You have to remember that in the Victorian age, one's honor was everything. Protecting the honor of a prominent family -- even if they had exercised poor judgment -- would be expected. Since Druitt was dead there would be no point in attempting to bring charges against the family as there was no possibility of the killer's conviction. Furthermore, I'm not sure about British law, but in America I am under no legal obligation to report my suspicions -- or even evidence -- regarding someone else to the police (unless under subpoena). Such action is voluntary.
I also think some folk make to much about MM's mention of "destroying" the evidence. I think he was simply saying that he had discarded his notes on the case and no longer had them. There are a number of things I have foolishly thrown away over the years and wished later that I had kept.
Andy S. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2022
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 10:54 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
Well I'm asking - how would you correct my speculation about the sequence of events? I'm just trying to understand exactly what happened and why.
If I jump the gun and my speculation is based on a misunderstanding of the facts, it would be more helpful to our readers if, like Andy, you could try to correct my misunderstanding, rather than just telling me off again.
Hi Andy,
I just think it was a wee bit unfair on Druitt, because the mere mention of private information has undoubtably had the effect of strengthening the suspicions against him, without Macnaghten having had to account fully - in writing - for the suspicions he later put in writing. We have no way of judging his judgement of this 'discarded evidence', which does him no favours at all IMHO.
If Macnaghten wished he had not discarded his papers, and truly believed the evidence they contained was significant, would he have been so coy about their contents? Couldn't he, in that case, have at least referred to the evidence, to justify his naming of Druitt as a suspected killer? It's not as good as having the proper documentation to back up a suspicion, of course, but it would have beaten the pants off the "I suspect Druitt because of information I no longer have and will never reveal" line, which leaves Druitt in totally unevidenced, unconvicted limbo.
If, on the other hand, Macnaghten meant to destroy the evidence, because he sincerely believed it served no one's interest to keep it, why was it later in everyone's interest to learn about its existence (though not its content), when naming Druitt as just one of three suspects thought more likely to be Jack than Cutbush?
Just trying to understand, that's all.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1306
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 11:21 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
Why do you keep saying that Macnaghten destroyed his evidence before writing his memoranda?
Chris Phillips
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 948
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 11:25 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
I fear I may have given the wrong impression. I don't know that MM wished he hadn't destroyed the evidence. I just think that he had casually discarded it and so it was a dead issue to him in 1894. In discarding this evidence he would have "destroyed" it (the equivalent of our modern shredding) because of its sensitive nature.
Remember that to the police the Ripper crimes were not that big a deal. They were only a "big deal" because the press latched onto them and turned public sentiment against the police. The crimes themselves were considered by the police to be a rather "ordinary" set of murders. So, I believe MM was curious enough when he joined the force to do some private research and come to an informed conclusion. Then, as interest in the crimes waned after 1889 (yes, I know there was some interest sparked by the Coles murder, etc.), he probably saw no point in keeping his notes and disposed of them. However, in 1894, the Cutbush case stirred up interest in the Whitechapel Murders once again. Now MM has to rely on his memory of his discarded notes to write his memo.
I do not believe MM was writing for posterity when he wrote the memo. I don't think it's fair for us to judge him based on that memo because it wasn't intended for our eyes to read. What MM wrote for posterity is contained in his autobiography.
Andy S. |
Martin Anderson
Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 42
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 11:51 am: |
|
Andrew,
I'm not sure the case was considered so ordinary that it involved concentrating all the forces's top commisioners as well as reinstaing a Scotland yard man to co-ordinate the investigation. To say nothing of the pressure it put on Charles Warren and arguably resulted in his resignation.
I think you may have come to this conclusion because the prostitutes were considered an unimportant class but the way the crimes were committed, together with pressure from the media/public meant that the police, quite rightly had to - and did- treat it very seriously indeed. I do however agree that a single murder of a prostitute would not have been treated in the same way and would not have been a "big deal", but there is no doubting the effort and resources the police invoked in order to catch the culprit.
Martin Anderson
Analyst
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 949
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 12:59 pm: |
|
Martin,
Let me put it this way: The police would like to have treated it as a serious, but not extra-ordinary, series of murders. They were forced to take vastly extra-ordinary means by the press. For what it's worth, I'm not sure the fact that the women were prostitutes had much to do with police attitude. To be sure, had the victims been prominent there would have been much more internal uproar. But had the victims been ordinary citizens as opposed to prostitutes I don't think it would have made much difference.
I am basing this opinion largely on the demeanor of the many internal documents and memos I have read. These are available in the Ultimate Companion.
Andy S. |
Martin Anderson
Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 44
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 1:51 pm: |
|
Andrew,
Why do you think the police took this attitude?
I see your point now. Maybe it wasn't so extraordinary as the press made out. They created a demonic fiend able to pass through Whitechapel invisibly. But this is impossible as we both know.
Anyway here are come reasons why the case was high profile:
£500 reward by the City police; (that would be a small fortune then)
Enormous pressure on Home Office to fund a reward for the Met to offer;
Drafting in Abberline;
Sir Robert Anderson cutting short his holiday;
Resorting to desperate measures (Barnaby and Burgho);
Warren resigning shortly after Kelly's murder;
Specially listed detective sergeants onto the case (Thicke, Godley, Enright and McCarthy);
Nightly patrols stepped up until 1891;
Complaints that too many policeman were focused on the case.
These points can be confirmed in any decent JTR book.
The killings themselves were extraordinary because of the MO - there had been almost nothing like it before.
Martin Anderson
Analyst
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 951
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 2:28 pm: |
|
Martin,
I have to disagree with you as to the uniqueness of the Whitechapel murders. They weren't all that unique. There had been plenty of mutilation murders before, even in series (the Texas axe murders, for one example and the Torso murders in London in 1888-89). What made the Ripper murders spectacular was the speed in which the killer must have worked and the fact that he repeatedly got away without a trace. This gave the killer an almost supernatural character.
I not trying to debate the accuracy of your points but let me address each one:
1. The reward of £500 would indeed have been a fortune. It would be the equivalent of perhaps £250,000 today (to calculate today's value of £1 in 1888, multiply by anywhere from 100 to 500). The City police were pressured by the public through the press to offer this reward.
2. The pressure from the Home Office on the Met to offer a reward. Same reason as above. The Met steadfastly refused, believing firmly that it would hinder, rather than help, their investigation.
3. Drafting in Abberline. Thus is just prudent police work under the circumstances. I don't think it represents any great pressure from outside.
4. Anderson returning from the continent. Hard to say on this one. Would he have returned had it not been for the press? It would have been the prudent thing to do but probably had little or no actual bearing on the case.
5. Bloodhounds. This was a silly idea but it was an effort to show that they were doing everything they could. Would they have brought the dogs in had it not been for the press? I doubt it.
6. Warren's resignation. Warren actually tendered his resignation just before Kelly's murder but it was not acted upon until after the murder. This was a direct result of press coverage. He had become a laughing stock.
7. Nightly patrols stepped up. These were drastically cut back in early 1889 (prompting Albert Bachert's alleged complaint) but remained somewhat elevated thereafter. Just prudent police work.
8. Allegations of too much police presence. Meddling on the part of the press and the public via the press. Some folks are never satisfied.
Andy S. |
Restless Spirit
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 88
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 2:56 pm: |
|
Caz
Your points are very well put and make all the sense in the world.
regards
Restless Spirit
|
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 15, 2005 - 9:48 pm: |
|
Andy,
Hi. I think your statement that in the Victorian era honor was everything is absolutely correct. This explains Macnaghten's behavior but can we apply the same standard to Druitt's family? Even if they were under no legal obligation to come forward surely they must have felt some moral obligation (one would hope)and if their suspicions were at all substantial they must have had some real concern for their family honor if Druitt were to be arrested. Would the lesser of evils have been for them to go to the police with their suspicions with the caveat that any investigation be kept strictly confidential?
I have to wonder if their suspicions were simply the result of Druitt's probable erractic emotional behavior prior to his suicide. Surely no reason to go to the police. They are then approached by the police who explain their theory that the killer must have committed suicide as a result of his mind giving way after the brutal murder of Mary Kelly. If Druitt's family bought into this theory, then Druitt's behavior, which up till now had simply seemed strange, now becomes suspicious and is seem in a whole new light. It is in this context that their information is passed along to Macnaghten. Just a thought. |
Martin Anderson
Sergeant
Username: Scouse
Post Number: 46
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 7:17 pm: |
|
Hi Andrew,
My point point of dispute is not in the case being unique or not, but in how the police viewed the crimes.
I am aware of the Texas killings and others before it, but the point I was trying to make is that the police did see the crimes as a "big deal", in fact they saw it as a calamity. This was certainly the case after Chapman's murder. I recently read Fido's book in which this information is greatly substantiated, but I might be wrong as I'm probably not as well versed in the matter as you. But I did have a grandfather alive at the time who told me so. Well not really, but it seems fashionable to support such statements here ;)
Why do you think the police held this attitude anyway? I am interested to get your feeling on this. You have already admitted it was not because they were prostitutes which I thought it might be, so was it because murder was rife in the East End? Why did the police not see the Whitechapel murders as such a big deal? This is something I have not heard before.
Martin Anderson
Analyst
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 952
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 2:02 am: |
|
c.d. --
Yes, your line of thinking is rather sound. However, for Druitt's family to come out publicly with their suspicions or "evidence" would certainly damage the family's reputation. Perhaps they didn't suspect Montague until after he was dead, or perhaps just before his death, so that there was no moral obligation to come forward any more.
Martin --
Perhaps we are debating semantics here. Yes, the crimes were a big deal to the police because of the bad press they brought. In and of themselves I think the crimes would have been taken in stride by the police. Sure, they would be taken very seriously as they were more brutal than most but there were lots of brutal crimes taking place in London those days. I think the police felt that they could have caught the killer if they had only been left alone by the press and the public. Perhaps this sentiment is behind Monro's statement that Jack the Ripper "should have been caught" but that is pure "on the spot" conjecture on my part.
Andy S. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2309
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 3:47 am: |
|
Andrew/ All,
The few utterances from Monro that we have had come down to us about the Ripper Investigation have been very intriguing.
Monro,in charge of the Special Branch which was concerning itself almost exclusively with the Fenians and infiltration into their ranks around that time suggested that "he knew who the Ripper was" by the statement that it was a real "hot potato".
When you add the words accorded to Monro "he should have been caught" it suggests to me that someone,somewhere -a couple of the police and possibly the home secretary "knew" who he was too
this accords with the last utterances we have on the matter from Abberline on the identity of the ripper-putting aside his earlier remarks about both "Chapman" and "the doctor found drowned".Abberline is recorded as having said
"If you wanted to find out who he was you would have had to have looked not at the bottom of society but a long way up".
Such remarks from Monro and Abberline suggest that these two at least didnt agree with
Anderson on his "low class Jew" theory or with any of the other "local lad" theories but rather someone of Druitt"s class and status in society.
The question is was Druitt really that much of a "hot potato"?
IMHO others are better qualified for such a label.
Certainly Thomas Cutbush,the nephew of Charles,a very senior officer from Scotland Yard involved in the investigation,would have been considered a "very hot potato" by other senior colleagues of Charles Cutbush.Also ,like Druitt,after March 1891 at least noone had to worry because although he wasnt dead or drowned he was already banged up in Broadmoor!But then the question arises about whether this nephew of CC
would have been considered to belong to a level of society that was "a long way up" and that in my view is questionable in a way that in Druitt"s case it isnt.
Cutbush belonged to the "petit bourgeoisie"-the artisan class.That class of society was often affluent and influential but not considered to be "a long way up" in society-such as a family of eminent surgeons or Barristers as in Druitt"s family.
Maybe Monro was referring to the Fenian linked Dr Tumblety[was he an infiltrator used by the police or simply a fenian sympathiser-we dont know the answer to that yet]but whose case Monro and others were well onto in 1888 trailing him to the states etc and who after all moved up and down in both "American "and "English" High Society like a yoyo due to his abilities as the " arch conman".
Maybe we need to take a good close look at Monro"s remarks alongside Abberline" last remarks and consider who
---Monro would have considered "hot potato" enough to be accredited with them .
----Abberline would have considered at that time to warrant the description,"a long way up society".
Natalie
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 517
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 11:25 am: |
|
"Maybe we need to take a good close look at Monro"s remarks alongside Abberline" last remarks and consider who
---Monro would have considered "hot potato" enough to be accredited with them .
----Abberline would have considered at that time to warrant the description,"a long way up society"."
J.K. Stephen fits the bill nicely if we hold ourselves just to those remarks.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2026
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 11:46 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
Why do you keep saying that Macnaghten destroyed his evidence before writing his memoranda?
Well I'm confused now (although it doesn't alter my basic feelings either way) because Andy wrote:
Now MM has to rely on his memory of his discarded notes to write his memo.
Who is right, you or Andy?
Hi Judy,
Thanks for your support.
I still can't see why Macnaghten could not have gone into the private information in his memoranda, considering it wasn't written for our eyes in any case. To name anyone as a serious ripper suspect, dead or alive, is about the worst thing you can write about an individual, so I can't see anything 'honourable' about doing precisely that (even in a confidential document) and then not revealing (in that same confidential document) the evidence that should justify the suspicion, if it was a fair one to begin with.
And that is something Macnaghten gave no one reading his memoranda the right to know. Unfair IMHO.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1310
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 1:07 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
As far as I can see, it was you who introduced the idea that Macnaghten destroyed the documents before writing his memo. The statement by Andy that you quote was a reply to one of yours.
I'll try again.
Why did you say this was what happened, and why do you keep saying it?
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on August 17, 2005) |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 954
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 11:35 pm: |
|
Caz,
I was making an assumption in stating that MM discarded his notes before writing the memorandum. I don't know it for a fact. It is a logical deduction based on our knowledge that MM (1) discarded (destroyed) his notes at some point, (2) made certain factual errors about Druitt that he presumably would not have made had he still had his notes, and (3) would have reason to discard his notes before 1894 as interest in the case waned after 1889.
Andy S. |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 955
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 11:40 pm: |
|
Natalie,
As always, your thinking is on the mark. To be honest, I have difficulty describing Druitt as "a hot potato" or "a long way up" the social ladder. I suppose in comparison to a low class Jew, he would be.
But perhaps we need to look at potential Druitt associates. This is not to say that there had to be a conspiracy but perhaps Druitt had close enough ties to a real "hot potato" that implicating him could lead to scandal involving this associate. I am very interested in exploring the J.H. Lonsdale link to Harry Wilson as this could lead to real "hot potatoes."
Andy S. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 521
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 12:07 am: |
|
I realize that Wilding's work is considered to be a tad "speculative" but he tried to connect Druitt and J.K. Stephen. And J.K. strikes me as fitting the "hot potato" or "a long way up" description to a T.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2032
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 4:55 am: |
|
Hi Andy,
Many thanks for your explanation - makes perfect sense to me.
Hi Chris,
Blimey, you love picking scabs don't you?
This is what I wrote before you again queried my sequence of events:
Well I'm asking - how would you correct my speculation about the sequence of events? I'm just trying to understand exactly what happened and why.
If I jump the gun and my speculation is based on a misunderstanding of the facts, it would be more helpful to our readers if, like Andy, you could try to correct my misunderstanding, rather than just telling me off again.
You see, I was allowing for the fact that I could have misunderstood, ok?
I still might have done, and Andy and I could have made an illogical deduction.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on August 18, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1312
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 5:20 am: |
|
Andy
Thanks for clarifying that.
Going back to what was actually said about this, I must say it's not the way the evidence strikes me.
We have Hargrave Adam's statement, in The Trial of George Chapman (1930):
Sir Melville Macnaghten even went so far as to declare that he had once possessed documentary proof of the identity of the criminal, but that he had burnt the papers. An unprecedented thing, surely, for a police official to do!
http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/rps.trialgeorge.html
Then there is the statement following Macnaghten's retirement in the Daily Mail of 2 June 1913 (quoted in the A to Z):
I have destroyed all my documents and there is now no record of the secret information which came into my possession at one time or another.
This reads to me as though Macnaghten had simply destoyed all his documents before retiring, including anything relating to the Ripper.
The other interesting thing is that he refers to secret information which he received "at one time or another" - which opens the possibility that there was more than one piece of secret information, received at more than one time.
In his autobiography, he says "certain facts, pointing to this conclusion [that the killer committed suicide soon after the murder of Kelly], were not in possession of the police till some years after I became a detective officer" [i.e. "some years" after June 1889].
http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/rps.daysofmyyears.html
We know there were rumours circulating, apparently relating to Druitt, in February 1891, but that would have been only 18 months or so after Macnaghten became a detective officer.
Could Macnaghten in fact have received further information after the writing of the memoranda, which caused his suspicion against Druitt to harden, so that instead of being the favoured one of three suspects, by his retirement Macnaghten could say he "had a very clear idea as to who he was"?
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1313
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 5:25 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
I was trying - for about half a dozen times - to get you to explain why you said what you did.
But if you aren't willing to back up your assertions, fine - forget it.
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1314
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 5:40 am: |
|
Natalie, Andy and Sir Robert
Considering how tricky these police officials' own statements are to interpret, I think these second- and third-hand claims about Abberline and Monro have to be treated very carefully.
In Morland's story, recounted some 50 years after the event, isn't it particularly suspicious that Abberline is made to quote the "butcher/yid/foreign skipper" poem, printed in Macnaghten's autobiography?
And couldn't Monro's "should have been caught" statement just reflect on the efficiency of the investigation? Couldn't "hot potato" have related to the case in general, and its consequences for the officials involved, rather than to a theory about the identity of the killer?
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2035
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 6:45 am: |
|
Blimey, Chris, I've explained that I didn't mean anything to sound like an assertion, because I'm allowing for my speculation to be incorrect, or based on a misunderstanding on my part of the facts.
You have at last provided some useful information for me to get my teeth into, so I can reassess my previous thoughts - thanks!
Now can you quit attacking me for a sin I have already admitted committing - please??
Love,
Caz
X |
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 280
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 18, 2005 - 7:56 am: |
|
Chris,
Not to play devil's advocate again, but Hargrave L. Adam's 1930 book is filled with errors. Through discovering these errors, it was the late Melvin Harris who proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald McCormick lied about almost everything he wrote regarding 'JTR'.
The point: Be weary of taking H. L. Adam's writings at face value.
SJR |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
