| Author |
Message |
    
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 7:16 am: | 
|
On another thread Stan Russo condemns Sir Melville Macnaghten for his 'erroneous writings' and refers to him in a derogatory fashion.
Mr. Russo's efforts to demean Macnaghten appear to be a result of his desire to diminish the status of 'Macnaghten's suspect', M. J. Druitt.
There is little doubt that Anderson and Macnaghten didn't quite see eye to eye and neither mentions the other by name in their respective reminiscences.
Also Anderson referred to 'one of my principal subordinates' who made him 'indignant and irritated' over the importance of a threatening letter (nothing to do with the Ripper case) the subordinate had received. This was Macnaghten according to the 'Swanson marginalia'.
It has to be said, in fairness to Macnaghten, that his naming of Druitt as a suspect in the confidential memo was qualified by the statement that he was one of three suspects "more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders", not that he was actually the Ripper.
Macnaghten did not give an age and stated that Druitt was "said to be a doctor." Every indication is that this memorandum was in the nature of a report to the Home Office in order to address the public claim by The Sun newspaper that Cutbush was the Ripper, and the newspaper's use of 'misleading statements'.
Macnaghten was Anderson's second-in-command in the C.I.D. and, no doubt, Anderson delegated the task of addressing this question to Macnaghten.
James Monro thought very highly of Macnaghten and recommended his promotion to replace Williamson as Chief Constable. This was backed by Anderson.
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 4:25 am: |
|
I have expressed my views on MM's reliability in a post in another thread about him.
I regard MM as highly reliable in terms of the thrust and tone of what he was saying, but CONTEXT is all important.
As AIP rightly says, MM was cautious in what he said about Druitt and the other subjects, I think he accurately recorded HIS RECOLLECTION o}f the file, although his memory may have been at fault.
But that was not an over-riding concern to him at that precise moment. His contention was that three individuals were MORE LIKELY THAN CUTBUSH to be the Ripper. Whether Druitt was actually a doctor (for instance) is only tangemtially relevent, if relevent at all, to his argument. The successive drafts of the memorandum reflect him removing emotion and personal opinion from the emerging text as far as possible.
Second, the memorandum was not intended for public use - it appears to be a background note to be drawn on if the Cutbush issue was raised publically. The line taken then would not have involved names, but simply have stated that the authorities were aware of individuals more likely than The Sun's current candidate to have committed the murders. Indeed, the individuals named in the memo need not necessarily be MM's leading suspects - simply they are more likely than Cutbush.
Again, to repeat what I have written elsewhere on this site, there is in my opinion, a SLIGHT possibility that MM was creating a smokescreen here, putting names on the file and as background without revealing more sensitive suspects (such as Tumblety - lost; or a Fenian connection - political overtones) to curious eyes that might have access to the file.
But that does not detract from my view that, in the context that he was writing MM was accurate and relaiable - the three men named were suspects. Had MM been required to produce a formal document for legal or other purposes (maybe submission to a Minister) then I have no doubt that the content would have been checked against the file and the (relatively) minor inaccuracies would have been corrected.
Civil servants of the period and character of MM regarded integrity as a high quality; so would Anderson and Munro. MM would not have retained their confidence had be played fast and loose with the truth in any way. If he had, how could his superiors ever have trusted his judgement or advice - the basis of confidence would have been removed.
But like senior civil servents today, MM and his colleagues would have been conscious in writing of the context and purpose of their work, its audience and the sensitivities involved. their wording would have been precise, and while reflecting the situation accuately might neither be comprehensive nor mean what it appears to to the uninitiated.
Those who recall "Yes, Minister" will recall Sir Humphrey and his facility with words. That is a very astute portrait of the kind of man MM might have been and associated with.
Happy to expand further on what I have said, if anyone wishes me to to anything is unclear.
Phil}
|
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 8:21 am: |
|
Phil, I agree with your comments. Indeed, we should not forget the possibly significant statement that Douglas G. Browne made in his 1956 book The Rise of Scotland Yard,
"A third head of the C.I.D., Sir Melville Macnaghten, appears to identify the Ripper with the leader of a plot to assassinate Mr Balfour at the Irish Office."
This perhaps indicates that Browne saw something in the official files in the mid-1950's to this effect. |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 639
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 12:17 pm: |
|
Phil,
WHile I agree that Sir Melville's reference to Druitt as "a doctor" is not vital, I do think it is more than tangentially important. This mischaracterization does open the possibility that Macnaughten has confused Druitt with someone else. We do know that there was indeed a young doctor fished out of the Thames in this same time period. While not the most likely possibility, this must be considered.
Andy S.
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 1:31 pm: |
|
In the CONTEXT of the memorandum, I don't think it is important. MM simply confused two professions (medical/legal) - it is clear that he was thinking of MJD.
I agree the confusion MAY have been caused by his being aware of the "young doctor", (he may even have conflated ideas/recollections of the two killings, but I don't think that he was "confused". Had he needed to USE the material, it would have been checked.
I was aware of the Browne comment, and this of course supports the view that MM may have promoted two ideas, one externally (what I have called a smokescreen) and one internally, which was (to risk a bad pun) political dynamite!! |
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 3:39 pm: |
|
Macnaghten does not have a 'u' in his name ! |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2004 - 8:08 am: |
|
He does now!! Seriously, as I have said before, accuracy is important and thank you for being so punctilious. |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 643
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 12:03 am: |
|
Phil,
There are three possibilities:
1. MM simply mistook Druitt's profession.
2. MM conflated Druitt's identity with that of a young doctor also fished out of the Thames.
3. MM confused Druitt's name with that of a young doctor also fished out of the Thames.
#1 is most likely, but #2 and #3 are also possible.
Andy S.
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 542
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 3:41 am: |
|
As we know there was a story circulating in 1891 that the Ripper was the son of a surgeon, who had committed suicide, isn't it quite likely that MM confused Druitt's occupation with his father's?
Chris Phillips
|
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 307
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 6:27 am: |
|
Further on the fact Macnaghten described M J Druitt as a doctor in his background note to the Home Office.
I think this might indicate that: Macnaghten was associating the name "Druitt" with the prominent, and recently deceased surgeon Robert Druitt, who not only edited one of the major medical journals in London for several years; was the author of an extremely popular treatise on the medicinal benefits of wine (several editions); but came from a Dorset family which contained doctors continuously for three hundred years.
Perhaps, Macnaghten subconsciously remembered the possibility, raised at the recent Inquest, that the Ripper possessed medical knowledge.
The only other prominent London Druitt, was George Druitt, a well-known Trafalgar Square rioter and political hooligan.
So, I agree with Chris Phillips. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 3:49 am: |
|
Chris,
It is clear that MM's recollection of the details was "confused/inaccurate". I'm not sure we are in a position to speculate on the source of that confusion - we do not know. It could have come from conflating items from the file; from wrongly assimilating written and oral material; or from his having been told something that was garbled or wrong. Since MM says that he destroyed the relevant papers, we may never know.
Phil |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 02, 2004 - 1:45 am: |
|
But to me there is no doubt that it was MJD that MM had in mind, as his suspect NOT the doctor. And thus his point and overall thrust is not in doubt in the context of the memorandum.
That said, if MM believed that Druitt was a doctor with medical knowledge and that view was part of why MJD was a suspect in MM's mind - that WOULD be different. But I don't think that was the case. It's a simple slip nothing more.
At the level of command at which MM, Swanson and Anderson were operating, detail is important, but its the STRATEGIC grip and grasp that they were required to focus on. In the memorandum, MM does just that.
Phil
Phil |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 320
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 - 8:58 pm: |
|
Greetings All,
I should like to congratulate Phil Hill on the refreshing direction his views come from.
So rarely does a poster praise so luxuriantly and with such seeming faith the motives of the much maligned civil servant.
His reinforcement of the purpose of anonymous drafters of memorandums for Secretaries of Departments or Parliamentary Ministers, suggests a touching loyalty to the much-maligned backroom boys and girls of the British bureaucracy.
And whilst I have appreciated his clear and forthright explanations of the role and methodology of the careful Victorian civil servant -especially the vital requirement for accuracy and blandness, and unslanderous utterance- I do think I detect a certain bias.
A human and predictable bias towards his own area of expertise.
That said, I should perhaps turn to the subject of the thread: the Assistant Chief Constable (CID) for the years 1889 to 1894. (I know he held job longer, till 1903, but these have been the years of focus thus far).
I have read back through Phil's postings on this and other threads as he seems to be championing the purpose and underlying accuracy of the Macnaghten Memorandums, particularly the final draft.
(Yeah, I know, "memoranda", but whose counting?).
I actually agree with Phil on most of this: except the purity of motive he visits upon so many of these anonymous bureaucrats.
The very prescient question posed by the immortal Stan Russo: "Why was Macnaghten chosen to draft the M. Memorandum? " goes to the very heart of the matter.
Of course, it is unanswerable.MM is dead.
But, despite the furious dislike of doing so by some posters, we can speculate or theorise using (I hope) logic..
However, to do so, one needs to be steeped in the
personal peccadillos of the drafter. To have a fine knowledge of his career, family life, hobbies
and pet obsessions...
I do not. Martin Fido once described MM as " An inexperienced toff from an Indian Sago plantation". Others allude to his chummieness. Still others to his establishment connections.
My own view of MMs motive in penning the Macnaghten Memorandum (the final draft) is :
(a) To provide timely ammunition for the Home Secretary to answer questions in parliament;
(b)To provide ammunition should the Police Commissioner or the Home Secretary seek to send a letter to THE SUN newspaper countering the Cutbush-as-Ripper allegations;
(c)Because the thrust of the SUN article was to hold the Metroplitan Police's performance in tracking down the Ripper up to ridicule, I still maintain, at least part of MMs reason for collecting ammunition in his Memo. was to raise flagging police morale, with a positive spin along the lines of: "Cutbush was not the Ripper.
The real Ripper is out of harms way. Locked up or dead. The public can relax. Trust us. No more newspaper witch-hunts". |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1563
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 5:22 am: |
|
Hey John,
But maybe he is confusing Monty D with some doctor who is also a likely candidate?
Jenni
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1670
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 4:16 pm: |
|
Much good sense spoken here, but everyone is ignoring Exceutive Superintendent Charles Henry Cutbush of Scotland Yard, uncle of said Thomas Cutbush, and spectacular suicide.
How many senior officers of Scotland Yard have shot themselves in the head?
One unique event.
One unique memo.
Poor old Mac was under a lot of pressure from the media and his superiors and I have always viewed his memo as the best he could manage at the time. He took a load of straws and shortest stick was it.
Just like good public school boys do. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1377
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 5:50 pm: |
|
John and Ap,
I think they all seem to have been at sea over the ripper.I dont think they had any idea who it really was as Abberline and later Walter Dew tell us.
To read the bits that concern Kosminski from Anderson"s quotes-from the "Lighter side" of his official life [apparently]is to be confounded by the astonishing reasons he gives for holding his views.Together with the amazing cameo of an identification parade of ..well what would it be..?a line up of young "low class"Jewish men which included the by then very mentally ill Kosminski fresh from the Asylum ----at a seaside recuperation centre for policemen in Brighton [!]where the one witness who had ever seen the ripper-the Jewish witness who refused to "swear"
because he thought this young Jewish man who had been certified as insane might hang if he did.......it gets so muddling it becomes a joke if it didnt start to sound so desperately sad....
and Macnaghten and his memorandum...another complete conundrum with mixed up dates of birth,profession,lack of evidence etc....and which when coupled with the "lighter" moments of his memoirs," Days of My Years "talks about Druitt having "knocked out" a Commissioner of Police and very nearly "settled the hash"of another....well what are we expected to make of it except what Abberline said regarding Druitt,..."there was nothing beyond the fact that he was found in the Thames at that time to incriminate him"....poor Druitt too...!
still maybe one day we will know more....oh..you were saying AP..?...the Sun Report....?
Natalie |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1671
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 03, 2005 - 6:09 pm: |
|
Ay, it is a bit of a mess, Natalie, but give Robert and meself another year and we'll sort it.
We are at the very conception, but eventually will give birth to some kind of monster.
One shouldn't mention the Police Seaside Home at Hove, for it sends me quite mad as my search returns have no result.
It is worth reading the original Sun reports though. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3756
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 2:39 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie
Just one point : someone told me - it may have been Monty - that the identification could have been a straight one on one confrontation. So maybe we don't have to actually imagine a line-up. I think they could be flexible about the way they did IDs.
Robert |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1381
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 5:05 pm: |
|
Still,Robert it does all beggar belief somehow
don"t you think.I mean Anderson would have known that a man who had been certified as insane could not be hanged.And if the "identification" took place before he was admitted to the Asylum then what he is telling us still doesnt add up-----quite apart from the fact that "Kosminski" didnt die for many many years after he was admitted.
Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3761
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 5:52 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie
Oh blimey, the Anderson/Swanson thing just goes round and round....unfortunately I'm not supposed to take more than 8 paracetamol a day. 
Robert |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1383
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 6:18 pm: |
|
I know Robert.But in my mind I have begun to seriously doubt the Kosminski story.I dont doubt that Anderson found Kosminski to be so seriously disturbed etc etc and conveniently Jewish[because I dont think he could bear the thought that JtR could be a true Brit[whatever that is since we are mostly a nation of mixed races-Angles ,Saxons Jutes,French, Picts, Scots,Celts no doubt some Italians from Roman times-anyway not to digress too much-HE didnt want to believe an Engishman had committed these crimes.And I think he genuinely thought Kosminski was the ripper.
So now I really need more on Druitt because I think he was another "unlikely" i e unless Macnaghten truly had knowledge of any real evidence like blood stained clothes &/or the amputation knife that to belongs to Donald Rumbelow having been found where Druitt lived.Even then I think we might also need some link or other to Whitechapel as well.And more reliable evidence that Sgt White was the police witness who saw the man with the Snow White hands and refined musical voice emerging from Mitre Square.
By the way does AP or yourself have a description of Thomas Cutbush?I did read through the four full pages from the Sun on Thomas Cutbush
at Collindale last year, but it didnt really describe him-other than to say that he had frightened a young couple by telling them that he was not JtR.I seem to remember that they said he was well spoken or something to that effect.Dont let your head spin-just think on you may be nearer than you realise.
[I havent discounted the Kosminski link entirely but while it may have been someone like him I just cant see that it could possibly be Aaron from all his records.
Natalie
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 588
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 6:46 pm: |
|
Natalie
I just cant see that it could possibly be Aaron from all his records.
I know this is very often raised as an objection to Kosminski as a suspect, but isn't the problem that the detailed records don't start until 2 or 3 years after the Whitechapel murders, by which time his mental state may have been significantly different?
Chris Phillips
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3764
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 6:53 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie
There is a report in the Press section, "Qu'Appelle Progress" 29th March 1894 which you may find interesting.
Robert |
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 6:26 am: |
|
The key thing is 'more likely' . Not 'most likely' .
I would suggest this means there were even more likely candidates that for probably quite sensible police operational reasons Macnaughten did not wish to highlight.
Regards
Pete
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 - 2:06 am: |
|
AP what was the date of MM's memo, and what was the date of Cutbush's suicide?
Phil |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1384
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 1:50 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,-thats true and his mental state may have deteriorated rapidly over this time period.
But my most serious reservation regarding Kosminski has to do with his "identification" by a fellow Jew who wasnt aware that such a person as Kosminski would not have to stand trial.Moreover, to think that this person, who after all was "identifying"in the policeman"s recuperation home,was ignorant of the law to such a vital degree.....thats what beggers belief.
Finally they are quite clear, Anderson and Swanson
that the suspect died soon after being admitted to the asylum that it has you thinking that they knew very little about Kosminski at all esp. sice the only proof they offer was his "utterly unmentionable solitary vices"-which most people have taken to be the compulsive masturbation and which in actual fact may have been little more than constantly fiddling with himself which can be a sign of insecurity and anxiety rather than homicidal urges and sexual mania.Its very hard to work out what they actually mean though especially since the only other statement about him appears to be about his hatred of women and of this there appears to be no record whatever in tthe asylum records although they do refer to the compulsive masturbation.
Natalie |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1681
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 2:11 pm: |
|
Phil
Mac did his stuff in 1894.
Uncle Charles shot himself in 1895.
The A-Z says 1896 but I got his obit here and that says 1895.
One thing for sure, he shot himself for a reason.
You know when you examine his life, he was far too involved with his pension to have shot himself, so it must have been something very dramatic, not just his unsound mind, but events that were swallowing his pension up before his very eyes. |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 595
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 2:15 pm: |
|
Natalie
I agree the police statements about Kosminski are problematic, but maybe not quite as problematic as you imply.
As far as I can see, it's only Anderson, in the Blackwood's version of his reminiscences, who says that the identification took place when Kosminski was in an asylum, and in that version he says only that the identifier refused to swear to him when he learned he was a Jew.
The "asylum" reference is excised from the later version of his memoirs. It's Swanson who brings in the prospect of execution as a disincentive to identify the suspect - but of course in Swanson's version the identification takes place before Kosminski was committed to the asylum.
As with Druitt, the Macnaghten Memoranda contain a hint of more circumstantial evidence than is disclosed there: "There were many circumstances connected with this man which made him a strong 'suspect'" [official version].
In the medical records, there is also Jacob Cohen's statement that Kosminski had taken up a knife and threatened his sister's life.
Chris Phillips
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1389
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 6:13 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
I take your points.Also it is true that there must have been more than we now know that made them become suspects in the first place.But this is what we have very scant information on.Its the same with Monty-there must have been more to it than just the discovery of his drowning in 1888.I mean thats just farcical.But wouldnt you agree that it must have been mostly circumstantial.If anybody had actually known the identity of the ripper I feel sure that we would know.
Best Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3775
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 7:11 pm: |
|
AP, Phil
That 1895 obit was for a March or April death, wasn't it? Why would they wait until the March quarter of 1896 to register it? (Free BMD has a Charles Henry Cutbush age 52 registered at Lambeth 1896)
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1691
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 1:24 pm: |
|
Robert
I'm not sure why they waited that long to register the death.
As we are all aware there was another Inspector Cutbush racing around Whitechapel arresting murderers and the like right into the 1900's, but I did notice from The Times reports that he didn't really figure in press reports until after Charles Henry Cutbush died. Then he is all over the place. Perhaps this is just an anomaly in the search engines employed by The Times archives?
The obituary appeared in the 'Morning Leader' March 7th 1895. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3783
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 2:14 pm: |
|
AP, real puzzle here for I have his will, and it says that he died 5th March 1896. It's quite clear, he is Supt of police. What goes on? AP? Anyone?
Very Confused Robert |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 05, 2005 - 4:32 pm: |
|
AP - I knew the rough dates, I just wanted you to spell them out.
Whatever motivation MM had in writing the memo (and I am FIRM that it was purely background briefing) it still follows that MM could not have been covering up for the elder cutbush's death. I also don't see how a memo on a file that few would see would be any influence at all.
True - had a question been asked in the House then young Cutbush would likely have been exhonerated of being the Ripper, without naming any names. But it's a pretty thin cover-up if you ask me.
I re-read your book (I have a 1st edition) over the last two days. Great stuff, and one of my key references. You persuaded me utterly on Kidney, but alas NOt on Cutbush.
Thanks for that,
Phil |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1694
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 5:28 pm: |
|
Robert
I must say that I got uncle Charle's obit from the Black Sheep index years ago, and perhaps foolishly I relied on the chap who sent me the newspaper clipping far too much, as he wrote in hand the date of issue on the press cutting which had no printed date.
So, horror of horrors, perhaps this is all down to me?
If so, I'm terribly sorry.
I do try Robert, but sometimes I fail.
I paid him a lot of money for that as well.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3788
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 06, 2005 - 6:34 pm: |
|
Hi AP
I remember getting my nephew to help me post it for you. It's on one of the Cutbush threads.
If the Black Sheep guy got it wrong, it's no big deal, because I can't see that this particular date (95 v 96) affects anything.
I once in a fit of crossed wires said that DNA can't be got out of blood!
No worries, AP.
Robert |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1696
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 5:49 am: |
|
Robert, I was worried, so I trawled through my tired memory banks, and I now remember being so unhappy with the date of the obit and the date given for uncle Charles' death in the A-Z that I actually tracked down his death record on the net, and that confirmed it was 1895.
But as you can probably guess, after spending two hours looking through all my copies relating to the case I can't find the bloody thing, and now when I search I get the right date and right name but this CHC is only 28!
Tarnation! |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3792
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 6:26 am: |
|
AP, yes, there was a Henry Charles Cutbush d. Lewisham listed for 1895. This was Henry Charles and not Charles Henry - Free BMD list Luke Flood's names in the correct order, so they're not reversing forename and middle name.
But I too got a bit confused when I said that free BMD listed a Charles Henry for 1896. It's given as just Charles.
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3795
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 10:28 am: |
|
Checked the 91 census and Henry Charles Cutbush, printer and compositor, of Walton on Thames was the son of George and Sarah Cutbush.
Robert |
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 19, 2005 - 2:05 pm: |
|
I have a problem with the Macnaghten Memoranda, not actually with the man himself or his mistake in naming Druitt as being a doctor.
My problem is this....if the men on the ground had no idea who this killer was then how is it that Macnaghten(not involved in the investigation at all) & Anderson (a desk officer) are taken as gospel?
In my experience information goes UP the chain of command not DOWN it. I think far too much importance has been attatched to these notes that were written,and lets be honest here,by a man who was not a policeman but a civil servant who was not even involved in the hunt for the Whitechapel killer.
I asked myself a question. If Abberline,the officer in charge 'on the ground' put no faith in ANY of the suspects named by either Macnaghten or Anderson then on what are these two desk officers basing their speculation?
These two men were,in fact,doing basically the same thing that you and I do - looking through Police notes and guessing, and guessing rather badly in my opinion. They were undoubtedly very fine men as testaments by their colleagues shows but I find the idea that Jack the Ripper was actually identified AND incarcerated without Abberline knowing about it, just a tad hard to swallow. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2470
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 4:32 pm: |
|
Hi Steve,
When you say they were undoubtedly very fine men as all their colleagues testify I wonder.
Anderson seems to have no compunction about pointing the finger at a"low class Jew " and being generally offensive in his his anti semitism thereby giving great offence to an already beleaguered community, as can be read in the Jewish Chronicles of the time on this casebook.
Natalie |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 899
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 5:09 pm: |
|
But Anderson's anti-semitism would NOT have been offensive in 1888 - it would simply have been seen as common-sense.
Up to the war, in England, anti-semitism was - perhaps less than in continental Europe, but certainly - widespread among the population. The Holocaust changed attitudes and made people cautious about expressing opinions they had held openly up to 1939ish.
I see no need to be surprised that senior officials at Scotland Yard should have held firm opinions about the case. It is my experience, after over 30 years as a civil servant, that the closer one is to the case the less open the mind, the more likely to be fogged by detail. By and large, senior officials are where they are because they have quick, subtle and open minds. (Not always true, and birth played a part in 1888 - but men like Warren, Anderson and Munro did not pick fools as their chief subordinates.)
Macnaghen, in particular, claimed to have private information that influenced his conclusions. Information that probably would not have come to the attention of men of a less lofty social status.
Senior men, by and large, have more time to stand back from a case and consider it in the round. It doesn't mean they are always right, but it can mean that they have a wider perspective than those mired in the day-to-day minutiae of the hunt.
Phil |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 380
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 8:00 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Macnaghten must have been writing from memory which didn't appear to be very good. Not only did he get Druitt's occupation and age wrong, he couldn't come up with a first name for Kosminski either. (Neither could Swanson so where was he coming from as well?) He also seemed to lack general knowledge about Ostrog calling him 'unquestionably a homicidal maniac' for which there is no evidence. Regarding the suspects, it looks like he was just jotting down some stories that he'd heard around "firm". If he'd gone to the records, he'd have gotten the details better.
Best wishes,
Stan |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 904
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 2:02 am: |
|
But MM had no need to go to the files - his essential point (whether true or a red-herring) is supported by the information he gives.
All he was asserting was that others were more likely than Cutbush to have been JtR. His points support that - and identify the men involved clearly. Druitt WAS a professional; perhaps Kosminski was the way that suspect was referred to; and Ostrog was wanted, as I recall.
The context of the memorandum seems to be to provide a LINE in the event of questions in the House. It serves that purpose admirably, given that the Minister responding would not have given out personal details or names of the suspects. Had a more detailed and specific background note have been required as briefing, then I am sure the file would have been checked.
The danger with Ostrog is 20/20 hindsight. Modern research (in the last 10 years or so) has shown him to be a con-man and not particularly violent. But MM and others in 1888 would have been working on their perception AT THAT TIME. If they then saw him as missing and potentially dangerous, he could have been a suspect. Thus MM's comments about Ostrog could have reflected the "truth" as seen at that time - and that is all that matters, from the historical perspective.
We NOW know that there are questions about Kosminski matching the details Swanson gives; but that does not diminish the sincerity of the information he provides (perhaps allowing from the vagaries of elapsed time, memory and old age).
My point - simply that we need carefully to separate the honest views of the time, with all the mistakes they may include; and the position as perceived today 117 or so years on.
Phil |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 463
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 6:02 am: |
|
I think much common sense and much nonsense has been uttered about Sir Melville Macnaghten.
The important point is most of us do not have a thorough knowledge of the personality, career and genealogy of this man.
I would suggest those who so robustly, and sometimes quite accurately criticise the limited known human foibles of the man, should research his life more thoroughly. And then they will be in a better position to judge his various actions.
I have not made a complete study of Macnaghten but do know some things about him which most of you do not!
I shall be following up an article on Daniel Farson and the Macnaghten Memorandum and the (Australian)Dandenong Document which I hope to publish soon, with a story based on a largely unknown facet of Macnaghten's life which may (not definite) provide evidence of where Macnaghten possibly acquired his "private information" strengthening his belief in Montague Druitt's guilt.I hope to publish that article too.
Suffice it to say, Macnaghten was employed because of the social and political networks he and his family plugged into. Munro campaigned for his enrollment because he understood the top raft of Metroplitan Police Commissioners and their Assistants, were not experienced police detectives, but aristocratic civil servants, used to keeping secrets and low profiles. And helping hose down political scandals.Their contacts were important.
Macnaghten's main weakness was that he did not understand his role properly, imagining he was a
sleuth of the criminal hunting bloodhound variety.
He seemed to delight in exchanging criminal gossip with select journalists, and frequented a jaunty club for playwrights actors and musicians -
the Garrick Club.
His fascination with major murder cases of the day saw him sit in on trials, and saw him collect
macabre photographs of gruesome murdered corpses.
And he most likely assisted his good friend G R Sims to collect criminal memorabillia for his "Crime Museum".
Mention has been made elsewhere of Macnaghten's illegal souveniring of one of the original Ripper letters (the red ink one) which he had framed and hanging in his house.He then handed it on down in his family. Where it still was in 1970.
I believe it has been anonymously restored to Police Archives now.
Finally, some questions: Weren't the principal officers in the Ripper investigations summoned to Scotland Yard on the 13th September 1888 for a meeting? Where are the minutes or reports coming out of that meeting?
Didn't Sir Charles Warren prepare a progress report for the Home Office on the Ripper murders
on the 19th September listing three suspects? The names listed were Isenschmid, Puckeridge and an unnamed resident reported by a brothelkeeper?
How accurate are Warren's details in that Memorandum? |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 381
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 10:45 am: |
|
Hi all,
I don't really see where inaccuracy helps a man's point. If he truly had conviction about what he was saying you'd think he'd make a good effort to get all his facts right. That's how I'd do it if was me anyway. Maybe someone gave him orders to write something to take Cutbush out of the frame and his heart wasn't really in it. That's just one possible explanation.
Best wishes,
Stan |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 907
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 11:20 am: |
|
Then you miss the point, Stan.
The "point" did not require specific accuracy - only a "line to take2 which was served more than adequately by what MM wrote. Look at the evolution of the file note /memorandum as demonstrated by the various extant drafts - you can see the way MM's thinking developed quite clearly as he strives for a dispassionate tone.
He was, after asll, not writing for posterity, but for the moment. As far as he was concerned, the memorandum would be overtaken by events and be of no account within a short space of time.
It was not for him to know that the paper would acquire an importance never intended by its author, as the nearest thing to an official view to survive on the file.
Phil |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 382
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 11:58 am: |
|
I don't care if only one person was going to read read it, I wouldn't want to look lazy or ignorant of the facts. Apparently he had another view.
Stan |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 908
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 5:35 pm: |
|
He had a job to do and did it. To my mind very well.
Phil |
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - 9:10 pm: |
|
But Anderson's anti-semitism would NOT have been offensive in 1888 - it would simply have been seen as common-sense.
Anderson was castigated for his views, and for the way he worded them, by Jewish elders & later wrote something of an apology as well as changing the wording in later articles. Anti-Simitism in 1888 often resulted in violence & the fears of riots because of the GSG were very real ones.
Hi Nat 
I really meant 'fine men' in refference to how their colleagues knew them.I have little doubt that Anderson & MacNaghten had the same 'predjudicies' as the rest of their class in relation to the working class of Britain.
Hi Stan
Macnaghten must have been writing from memory which didn't appear to be very good.
I've read that so many times it almost seems like a mantra now - sorry but I do not buy into it. He was writing about the most sensational murder case of his time, and thats why I think he was clutching straws,Anderson & Swanson the same.
What,I think,we tend to forget is that this was a 'blight' on their careers & in 1888 that meant far far more than it does today,in the same vein that would not allow most doctors to admit the killer had links to their proffesion. |
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 7:39 pm: |
|
I don't care if only one person was going to read read it, I wouldn't want to look lazy or ignorant of the facts. Apparently he had another view.
I agree Stan - I mean,HOW many draughts to still make so many errors? Correct me if I'm wrong here but....does'nt solid police work depend on getting your facts right?
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 914
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, September 23, 2005 - 12:48 pm: |
|
But the memorandum was not about "solid police work" - it was a line to take in the event of questions being asked and thus a "policy", even a "political" matter.
The drafts clearly show MM de-personalising his arguments, and seeking to achieve the civil servents detachment. It is the reasoning that is important here - and that (even if you do not agree with it) is unambiguous. Here are three men, more likely than Cutbush, to have been "Jack" - end of story. IN THIS CONTEXT the details are not particularly important - in fact the mistakes (as I have often said) are relatively unimportant - Druitt as a doctor rather than a barrister (he was a professional man which puts him in his correct social category relative to Ostrog and Kosminski); his age is out by EXACTLY 10 years (a slip of the memory). But the memorandum was never going to be used as a reference for facts - only for the policy LINE TO TAKE.
MM was acting as an administrator here, rather than as a detective.
Phil |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 1:12 pm: |
|
Hi Phil.
Y'know, sometimes I think you're just wasting your time on some people.
Macnaghten has been the favourite target for the "bricks" of Ripperologists for more than thirty years. It seems to me, they fear that if research ever throws up a solution to this mystery, that it will come from this direction.
For what it's worth, I'm in total agreement with everything you say about Macnaghten, and can add nothing to the excellent defense that you've put up for this honourable man.
Best wishes.
DAVID C. |
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 24, 2005 - 3:57 am: |
|
Nicely put Phil, I agree, spot on. |
