Archive through March 28, 2000

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Archive through March 28, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects: Contemporary Suspects [ 1888 - 1910 ]: Druitt, Montague John: Archive through March 28, 2000

Author: Jon Smyth Sunday, 30 January 2000 - 12:21 am
R.J. Ostrog was a petty criminal, he was reported in the Police Gazette for failing to report, this was in connection with the crimes he was known for, rogue, vagabond, swindler & theft, etc, but nothing to do with the murders. Even the A-Z authors conceed "The demonstrable facts support Macnaghten's suspicion of Ostrog to the extent that we know the police were indeed looking for him in October 1888 (though not necessarily in connection with the Whitechapel murders)". We still awaite anything on Ostrog to make him a suspect in the Whitechapel murders, I think we'll have a long wait. Regards, Jon
Author: Alfred Grayte Sunday, 30 January 2000 - 03:58 am
Thanks Jon, you saved me a long post. It's just my evil sense of humor that causes me to wind people up then sit back and enjoy the fun. Keep up the great interest R.J. - You are on the right track. Alf
Author: Bob Hinton Sunday, 30 January 2000 - 07:15 am
Dear Everyone, I have been reading with great interest the recent postings on Druitt, and how it may have been that his family suspected him of being the killer. Last year whilst researching a series of brutal murders that happened in Swansea in the seventies, I received a communication from someone who said he had vital information for me regarding the killer (who was never caught) Arming myself with a minder and a tape recorder I went to visit this person who turned out to be a married man holding down a respectable job and as far as I could tell, perfectly sane. After a bit of prompting he finally came out and stated that he thought his father to be the murderer. He then proceeded to give me times and dates he was absent from the home, returning at odd hours, often with mud on his clothing. This man had abused his own children in the same way the victims had been abused, a fact not released to the public. He also carried a length of the same type of rope used to tie up the victims in the glove compartment of his car, a car which fitted the description as one seen near the scene of the crimes. All in all it was a pretty strongly held belief that this man was the killer, a belief shared by his wife who was now dead. All this information was of course passed on to the police and DNA tests showed the man could not have been the killer. The point is that here was a family who were absolutely convinced they had a murderer amongst them, the circumstantial evidence was strong, and yet the man was innocent. How much less reliance can we place on Druitts family suspicions with apparently no evidence whatsoever to back them up ? all the best Bob Hinton
Author: Christopher T. George Sunday, 30 January 2000 - 09:09 am
Hi, Bob: The tantalizing thing about Druitt's family's suspicions are of course that we do not know what they comprised. What precisely triggered their suspicions? A bloody knife? Bloodstained clothing? A Ripper letter found among Montague's possessions? An admission of guilt by him? We just don't know. The story you told of the family suspicion of the father they suspected of involvement in a brutal series of murders in Swansea is a good parallel. In that episode, the father proved to be innocent of the crimes, and the same could have been true of Druitt despite his family's suspicions. In fact, in a high profile murder case, there are numerous persons who contact the police with information that people they know might be the murder. It happened in the Yorkshire Ripper case with people "shopping" family members but with the individuals who were "fingered" eventually being exonerated by the police. In addition, a large number of people at the time of the 1888 enquiry had theories about the murder (e.g., Roslyn D'Onston: was he the Ripper or was he a pioneer Ripperologist?). A little army of people who were probably not the murderer also pretended that they were the murderer, as evidenced by the press reports and as seen in the Jack the Ripper letters. They were the type of individuals who liked to "wind people up" just as Alfred admitted here that he likes to do. Druitt could have been in the latter category, a Ripper wannabe rather than the Ripper himself, and some indication of this behavior in him might have been what might have mistakenly alerted his family that he was the Whitechapel murderer. At least that could be as plausible scenario as the one posited by Macnaghten, in the absence of any definitive proof today that Druitt was the killer. Chris George
Author: David M. Radka Sunday, 30 January 2000 - 11:20 pm
Alan = John = anon = Alfred Grayte = "au fait." (Nice rhyming scheme, eh?) In other words, they're all the same. The only reason he is posting with first and last names is because he now has to register a full name to get a password to post. Ceteris paribus, he remains his same brutally sadistic self, and anyone who acknowledges him as a legitimate contributor here demeans himself and the rest of us. David
Author: R.J. Palmer Wednesday, 02 February 2000 - 08:17 pm
Hello All. I find Druitt's death a frustrating puzzle. I've read and reread all the information I have, and am left with nothing but headaches and unanswerable questions. The speculations of even very careful researchers (such as Fido, Sugden, Begg, etc) often hinge on the interpretation of ambiguous statements in poorly written reports and newspaper articles. There are dates that don't make any sense. (Why did William list his brother's death as December 4th on the tombstone, considering all the information at the inquest seems to point at December 1st?) There are statements that cry out for clarification. ("He had no other relative". "It was alleged that he was sexually insane") There are hopeless muddles. (Much depends on whether one thinks the date "December 30th" from the Acton, Chiswick, and Turnham Green Gazette is a misprint or not). Fundamental information-- such as WHO the suicide note was addressed to-- is not even clear. (Newspaper summaries differ as to whether it was addressed to his brother William or to George Valentine, the Headmaster at Blackheath. Most seem to favor the former, but the latter seems much more plausible to me). So what WAS going on with Druitt during his last couple of months? I think the following can be said with relative confidence: 1. He was well-off financially. 2. He was performing his duties as a solicitor with competence and success. 3. He was living at 9 Eliot Place, the Blackheath school where he was (probably) the Senior Resident Master. 4. He was maintaining some contact with his family in Bournemouth. 5. He was fulfilling his duties as the Secretary and Treasurer of the Blackheath Cricket, Football, and Lawn Tennis Co. The information is scant, but seems to suggest that Druitt was an active and successful member of society up until his death around 1 December l888. So why was he found floating in the Thames? Everything seems to suggest that his suicide was a direct result of some scandal at the Blackheath school. His suicide followed immediately after his dismissal. (It should be remembered that this dismissal would have meant not only the loss of his teaching job, but also the loss of his place of residence and his social circle). At the inquest, his brother William SEEMS to imply that the dismissal was the cause of his suicide. Druitt was dismissed --while obviously absent--from his position of Secretary of the Blackheath Cricket club on 21st December, 1888. Another Assistant Master from Blackheath is present and the polite excuse is made that Druitt had "gone abroad". If Druitt's dismissal was not a particularly big deal (as some have suggested)why would he have been dismissed from the Cricket club, with everyone assuming that he flew the coop? It seems to me that the only other possibility is that by December 21st William had already been around Blackheath looking for his brother, the suicide note was discovered, and so the members of the Cricket club assumed Druitt was gone for good, even though his body hadn't been discovered yet. But this, like so much else, is speculation. There is nothing new here. But after mulling it over for several days, I come to the same undramatic conclusion as the inquest at Chiswick: Druitt committed suicide whilst in unsound mind. I speculate Druitt fled Blackheath after being dismissed, spent the night at his chambers in the city, and bought a ticket to Chiswick the following morning, and drowned himself December 1st. But then why was the alleged suicide note found in Blackheath? Why the return ticket? And was 30th November 1888 the last day of the school term, and does this imply anything?
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood Monday, 20 March 2000 - 12:32 pm
I thought it might be worthwhile to post a couple of Druitt-related census entries. I was trying to find William Harvey Druitt but he doesn't seem to be around in 1881. Still, given that his brother was enumerated as "Druk" that doesn't mean that he isn't around in the UK somewhere with his name mispelled. Dwelling: Westfield House Census Place: Wimborne Minster, Dorset, England Source: FHL Film 1341505 PRO Ref RG11 Piece 2093 Folio 13 Page 19 Marr Age Sex Birthplace William DRUITT M 60 M Wimborne, Dorset, England Rel: Head Occ: F.R.C.S.Not Practising Anne DRUITT M 51 F Shapwick, Dorset, England Rel: Wife Georgiana E. DRUITT U 25 F Wimborne, Dorset, England Rel: Dau Edith DRUITT 13 F Wimborne, Dorset, England Rel: Dau Occ: Scholar Ethel M. DRUITT 10 F Wimborne, Dorset, England Rel: Dau Occ: Scholar Ann FLIPP U 35 F Spetisbury, Dorset, England Rel: Servt Occ: Cook Edith DENNETT U 25 F Wimborne, Dorset, England Rel: Servt Occ: Parlour Maid Sophia E. RIDOUT U 23 F Gosport, Hampshire, England Rel: Servt Occ: House Maid Interestingly enough, at a nearby school in Wimborne Minster there are 3 boys being educated: who are probably brothers: Alan, Melville and Mayo(!) Druitt aged 17, 14 and 11 all born at Christchurch Hampshire. Use of the reasonably unusual first name: Melville does make me wonder if there is a family link between the Druitts and Melville Macnaghten. The following is the entry for Valentine's school on Blackheath. Please note that Montague John is actually indexed as DRUK, a mistake made at some point between the original enumerator and the LDS who filmed and indexed this. Also note the incredible diversity of birth places. Dwelling: 9 Eliot Place Census Place: Lewisham, Kent, England Source: FHL Film 1341170 PRO Ref RG11 Piece 0729 Folio 60 Page 2 Marr Age Sex Birthplace George VALENTINE U 39 M Bombay, India Rel: Head Occ: Schoolmaster B.A. Louisa VALENTINE W 66 F Nervis, West Indies Rel: Mother Mark Francis James MANN U 25 M Guernsey, Channel Islands Rel: Assistant Occ: Assistant Schoolmaster B.A. Montague DRUK U 23 M Winborne, Dorset, England Rel: Assistant Occ: Assistant Schoolmaster B.A. Henry LIESCHINY 17 M Tangelle, Ceylon Rel: Pupil Occ: Scholar Ernest BORWICK 16 M Walthamstow, Essex, England Rel: Pupil Occ: Scholar William WALKER 16 M Rosano B S, Argentine Rel: Pupil Occ: Scholar John D. MENNIE 16 M Poonah, India Rel: Pupil Occ: Scholar W. Reginald ELLIN 16 M Sheffield, York, England Rel: Pupil Occ: Scholar Edward A. UGIELLI 15 M London, Middlesex, England Rel: Pupil Occ: Scholar Henry F. MACKERN 15 M Buenos Ayres B S, Argentine Rel: Pupil Occ: Scholar William F. TYLER 15 M NSL Woolton, Somerset, England Rel: Pupil Occ: Scholar Albert BRIDGES 15 M Berbice, British Guiana Rel: Pupil Occ: Scholar Julius SAVORY 15 M London, Middlesex, England Rel: Pupil Occ: Scholar Nathaniel B. WINTER 14 M New Amsterdam, British Guiana Rel: Pupil Occ: Scholar George H. MACKERN 14 M Limerick, Ireland Rel: Pupil Occ: Scholar Tufnell B. SOUTHGATE 14 M Lee, Kent, England Rel: Pupil Occ: Scholar Arthur BOUSFIELD 14 M Lee, Kent, England Rel: Pupil Occ: Scholar Douglas C. UGIELLI 14 M London, Middlesex, England Rel: Pupil Occ: Scholar Elizabeth SMITH U 23 F Woolwich, Kent, England Rel: Serv Occ: Housemaid Dom Serv Alice S. APPS U 18 F Bromley, Middlesex, England Rel: Serv Occ: Kitchen Maid Dom Serv Herbert J. CLARKE U 15 M Sherborn, York, England Rel: Serv Occ: Stable Boy
Author: R.J. Palmer Thursday, 23 March 2000 - 03:57 am
Peter-- Just a note to let you know your post has not gone without notice. This is excellent work, and I've found it very interesting. Best regards, RJP
Author: Neal Glass Saturday, 25 March 2000 - 05:02 pm
Uh, hello everybody, I'm Neal calling in from California with a big question. I'm writing some fiction that relates to the Ripper. It is not exclusively about Jack, but it's one of the main story lines. Now I have this huge burning question about LIONEL DRUITT, not Montague. Snugden mentions in passing that Lionel emigrated to Australia in 1886, and someone else on this site mentioned that he had emigrated in 1887. My question is where is this information coming from about that? Where is the documentation? Snugden mentions someone who can place Lionel in Australia like in 1890 and later in 1903. This is from people who remember a Lionel Druitt, and that's fine. But where does 1886 come in? This detail is a big deal for me, like one of the last issues in my research, and I hope someone out there has something to say about it. Thanks.
Author: The Viper Saturday, 25 March 2000 - 07:11 pm
Neal, Martin Howells and Keith Skinner conducted a good deal of research into the Druitt family's Australian links for their 1987 book, "The Ripper Legacy". You may find the book worth reading, though it doesn't contain indexing to show the sources of their information as some Ripper publications do. The authors state that Lionel Druitt left England in 1886. Furthermore, they found that he was living with his uncle in Cooma, New South Wales by August 1886. Druitt is listed as resident in Australia in the Medical Directory for 1887. By the way... the name was Sugden, not Snugden. Regards, V.
Author: Neal Glass Saturday, 25 March 2000 - 07:12 pm
Neal Glass again, it seems impolite not to mention how awesome Peter's census entries are, and if he can get to the bottom of Lionel Druitt, I'll sing his praises in my novel. And forgive my spelling of "Sugden" as "Snugden". I'm always doing that . . .
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood Sunday, 26 March 2000 - 12:04 pm
Dwelling: Gainsboro House Census Place: Leyton Low, Essex, England Source: FHL Film 1341414 PRO Ref RG11 Piece 1726 Folio 27 Page 13 Marr Age Sex Birthplace Frank W. COOPER M 42 M Belper, Derby, England Rel: Head Occ: Doctor Edith COOPER M 31 F Bromley, Middlesex, England Rel: Wife Occ: Doctor Mary E. COOPER U 5 F Leytonstone, Essex, England Rel: Daughter Elsie R. COOPER U 4 F Leytonstone, Essex, England Rel: Daughter Edith H. COOPER U 3 F Leytonstone, Essex, England Rel: Daughter Lionel DRUITT U 26 M St George Hanover Sq Rel: Boarder Occ: General Practitioner Alfred P. GRIFFITH U 21 M Barnstable, Devon, England Rel: Boarder Occ: Medical Student Maria BAREHAM U 23 F Feering, Essex, England Rel: Servant Occ: Nurse Jessie J. BAREHAM U 16 F Feering, Essex, England Rel: Servant Occ: Cook Maryann MAY U 17 F Southsea, Hampshire, England Rel: Servant Occ: Housemaid Emily S. PUFFETT U 13 F Wanstead, Essex, England Rel: Servant Occ: Under Nurse Here you are, Neill. As you can see, Lionel's born at St. Georges, Hanover Square. If you're not in the UK, that was a very respectable area of Central London during the 19thC: now it's mostly offices, the big Church and a couple of nightclubs. If you are familiar with London, it's on the South side of Oxford Street just behind Virgin Records. Peter.
Author: Neal Glass Sunday, 26 March 2000 - 03:13 pm
Thanks, Viper, from Neal. I'll try to track down The Ripper Legacy. But for me it is a little vexing when there is, as you say, no source of information listed. And if Sugden is simply going on that, I have to scratch my head. But then you say Howells and Skinner do site the Medical Directory for 1887? And that would explain why someone on this board did use that date instead of 1886. Anything before 1888 settles some questions for me. For now I'll be going on that. I hope the information is reliable, and I'll be tracking it down as I go. Meanwhile my next issue is whether anyone here cares to refute Matthew Fletcher's article on Druitt which appears on this site. I have weighed as many possible objections to it as I can come up with and still feel I have an answer to those objections. But what about everyone else? At this point I feel that Montague Druitt may have murdered Polly Nichols, Annie Chapman, and Katherine Eddowes. I realize that Mr. Fletcher is asserting plausibility for more victims than that, but I can't go that far with it. I am going to post this particular question on other boards as well. I am also interested in anyone's opinion of Rumbelow's mention of Sgt. Stephen White and the article that appeared in the People's Journal in 1919. Sudgen dismisses it as "fiction" on understandable grounds. But I am still unconvinced that those grounds are necessarily irrefutable. If his position in fact is irrefutable, then I think it does weaken Mr. Fletcher's case. But for my own part, I question Sugden's cursory footnote treatment of the issue. I have given it a lot of thought. So I welcome any challenge or help to the direction I'm going in. Thanks again, Neal
Author: Neal Glass Sunday, 26 March 2000 - 03:22 pm
PETER, THANKS, SIMPLY AMAZING DETAIL HERE. I just wish you had a counterpart in Australia! But anything you can dig up about the Druitts, please by all means post it here. I've only been to London once. And it was a while back so please keep that in mind. My mind was not the Ripper in those days, and those London nights can be all a fog in more ways than one. You've given me everything but the name of William Druitt's family dog, if he had one!
Author: Simon Owen Monday, 27 March 2000 - 05:08 am
Neal , I think it is Martin Fido who suggests that the ' Stephen White story ' probably applies to the murder of ' Claypipe ' Alice McKenzie which was indeed commited in Whitechapel , rather than the Kate Eddowes murder which was commited in the City. The suspect seen by the City P.C. , as mentioned by Sir Robert Anderson I think , is someone entirely different and this story is recounted in Evans and Connelly 's " The Man who Hunted Jack the Ripper ". Thus there is no evidence to connect Steve White's story to the Mitre Square murder I am afraid to say.
Author: Neal Glass Monday, 27 March 2000 - 03:13 pm
SIMON, that's real interesting. But you're mistaken that the reference to a PC eyewitness at Mitre Square was ever mentioned by Sir Robert Anderson. It was from the famous note by Sir Melville Macnaughten. I'll have to check out Fido, even though finding him is something of an effort where I am currently located. In the meantime I need more than a writer's opinion. I need to know what they base their opinion upon. With Rumbelow I know what he's going on, and with Fido, having not read him and only going on what you're saying, I only know that he had another opinion. But let me give Fido a good guess here. Plainly a researcher who might give the remarks reputed to Stephen White in the People's Journal would puzzle over Rumbelow placing the account at Mitre Street when White was not with the City. White worked the East End. Fido may have simply decided that Castle Alley was a more likely locale for what White is supposed to have been describing, thus he concientiously moved the scene there to the site of Alice McKenzie's murder. Sugden takes it one step further and dismisses the story out of hand. When he mentions White, he discusses only White's involvement with the Berner Street killing, which was clearly where White was that night. And this is why he ignores the article that appeared in the People's Journal. I am aware of the discrepancy between where White really was that night and why it is unlikely he was posted at Mitre Square. But Rumbelow is correct when he says that Mitre Square is the only crime scene that fits what White is actually saying. White is talking about being a part of a stake-out. He is standing vigil when he meets a mysterious young man who comes out of the unnamed alley (the man fits Montague Druitt's description, which is the relevance here). There are other officers who are doing rounds. This could not have been Castle Alley where poor Alice McKenzie was found. The police believed the danger posed by the Ripper was over at that point. They believed this in part because they were under the impression that the killer was either dead by then or locked up in an asylum somewhere. So the issue as it stands is what do we do with the People's Journal article of 1919? Sugden tosses it. But here I scratch my head. Sugden's footnote reads in full: "I am deliberately discounting the description attributed to Sergeant Stephen White in the People's Journal, 26 September 1919. This is clearly fiction developed out of memories of the Berner Street and Mitre Street Square murders and of Mrs. Mortimer." And that's it. And as a piece of fiction Sugden himself realizes it relates to Mitre Square even as he dismisses it. What annoys me about his footnote is that he does not even specify what he means by "fiction". Does he mean the "fiction" was it a lie perpetuated by White himself? Did the magazine make it up without ever even having spoken to White? Sugden's reaction to this end of things is simply inadequate. And where I really have to step back is when I consider how Rumbelow says that he himself gathered from reading the article that it was Constable Watkins who was probably on the other side of Kearley & Tonge's warehouse door that night. Rumbelow says that Watkins being there had been "a long-held suspicion" of his. And here he says the People's Journal article confirmed this suspicion. So you have a leading figure in Ripper research who has read the entire article and derives confirmation of an obscure detail of the case from having gone over it. Does this sound like something some hack writer somewhere concocted thirty-one years after the fact? I'm not saying there isn't something funny in White's account. But I am saying that the article itself probably did in fact come of the things he told the magazine. It wasn't just something some third party made up. So, if we can agree on this (and obviously Fido was not prepared to dismiss it), we are left to conclude that Sugden considers White to be telling a tale? Well, I can go with that a little. Everyone was telling tales about the Ripper decades after it was all over. People were looking back and saying they had met the Ripper just before he killed So & So. That sort of thing. Anderson often and maybe sometimes compulsively stretched a few points in his recollection of events to make himself the hero. It was definitely a time for everyone to get in their fifteen minutes worth of fame. And what harm was there in it so long after it was all over and done? To the minds of those telling the tales, none at all. This is how legends are born. So upon retirement, we might imagine White talking to some journalist about his days hunting for the Ripper, and, yes, he almost got the guy, but naturally he got away. If it were just that, then I would be fine with this. But there's more to it than this. White knew enough about what had happened at Mitre Square to place where someone was posted, even though he had probably not really been there himself. And so the question is not whether he himself actually encountered someone, it is whether anyone in authority did. Meanwhile you have Mcnaughten mentioning in his first draft that there was a PC eyewitness to the Mitre Square incident. Of course, Mcnaughten had several of his facts backward in his note, and this could have been one of them. In his official draft, he omitted the mention of the PC witness. He himself had not been on the Ripper case. It was all hearsay and old reports that he was going on. When he shortened his note it was probably because he had decided that he was not altogether sure of his facts about the officer who had seen something. But are we to take this to mean he was so completely out of the loop that he had heard about a PC witness at Mitre Square who had never even existed? Or was he just unsure of whether the officer involved could have positively identified Anderson's Jewish scapegoat in the case? He had mentioned the witness in relation to Kosminski. Then maybe he had second thoughts. For one thing asserted that an officer had seen something would raise the question of why there had never been a trial. Upon reflection he may have decided he just didn't really know enough about this to make the remark. But was he completely wrong about there being a PC in the first place? It is one thing to get the age and profession of a suspect wrong, but it is another to assert that there was an officer who saw something when there had never been any such witness one way or another. Was there ever a constable who encountered a man coming out of an alley where the body of a woman was found minutes later? This is a huge question that can't be just yawned off in a footnote. Anderson mentions no PC when he was insisting that Kosminski was the Ripper. Anderson's one and only real witness was a Jewish resident name Lawende--or so Sugeden soundly surmises. But was there at any point someone on patrol who saw something? If so, why don't we see Anderson mentioning it to bolster his argument that Aaron Kosminski was the Ripper? Here we get into personalities. My own respect level toward Anderson is quite low, I'm afraid. Sugden does not exactly go after Anderson, but he does not make excuses for the proud bureaucrat either, an individual he freely admits was "self-conceited". In hindsight any of us studying the murders knows how selective Anderson was in his facts and how occasionally distorted it could all be. Considering this, there is no doubt in my mind that Anderson would have declined to mention any PC witness if that officer had been reluctant to finger Kosminski as the killer. He would have left it at Lawende being the reluctant witness, one Jew covering for another Jew, which would have suited Anderson's attitude on the matter. He wanted it to be a mad Jew, and when he finally found a mad Jew he wanted to blame another Jew for not cooperating. I am not saying that this was actually what happened. I am only suggesting that it could have been one possibility. It is this possibility that I am flirting with in my story, where this kind of speculation is permissible. And raising that possibility is not simply for its own sake. Clearly the People's Journal article is describing someone who matches what Montague Druitt looked like. This is a very important matter, and that Sugden brushes over it is for pointing out as far as I am concerned. I'm not saying the issue cannot be laid to rest by someone of his stature. I am just saying he has yet to do so to my satisfaction. And until he does I think it is a weakness in his argument that is fair game in a story.
Author: Stewart P Evans Tuesday, 28 March 2000 - 02:34 am
Articles such as that published in The People's Journal of Saturday September 27, 1919, on Inspector Stephen White are very misleading and present many problems for the researcher. The piece was presented under the sensational headline FACED "JACK THE RIPPER", sub-titled Detective Tried by Court of Anarchists and was anonymous, its author being 'A Scotland Yard Man.' Thus the story is, at the very least, second-hand and is not even told by White himself, who was by then deceased. To say that the article is flawed is an understatement, and with no factual, historical foundation Phil rightly dismissed it out of hand. Please could we correct some of the errors which appear in this piece, rather than persist in repeating them? First, there was no 'City Police' witness who saw a suspect near Mitre Square, as stated by Macnaghten. In fact the only police officer to see any suspect near a scene of the crime prior to its discovery was PC 452H Smith of the Metropolitan Police who saw a suspect with a woman he identified as Stride in Berner Street, and that about 12.30 a.m. Much has been written about the 'City Police witness' who was almost certainly Lawende, and I would refer those interested to my dissertation on the Casebook on 'Kosminski and the Seaside Home.' As I have stated the article in The People's Journal was not by White himself but I suppose that the facts therein may be imputed to White as the writer's implication is that he is retelling a story recounted by White himself. Let us look at the errors in this piece. None of the murder sites, including Mitre Square, fits the description given in the article of "...a certain alley just behind the Whitechapel Road. It could only be entered from where we had two men posted in hiding, and persons entering the alley were under observation by the two men...", and "...at the end of the cul-de-sac, huddled against the wall there was the body of a woman, and a pool of blood was streaming along the gutter from her body." Sufficient of the records survive to show that White was not present at, nor shortly after at, the discovery of any of the murders. His whereabouts at the time of the discovery of the two murders in the early hours of 30 September 1888 is not known. It is far more likely that the story relates to a tale told by White about an incident regarding a suspicious person that actually occurred, but with the 'discovery of a murdered woman' an embellishment added later to sensationalise the anecdote and make it better copy for the paper. There is no record anywhere of a description supplied by White, nor any record of such a description being circulated. As has been noted Anderson never described his suspect as "a Jewish medical student." The description given in the article included the following "...his hair was jet black. His complexion was inclined to be sallow, and altogether the man was foreign in appearance." It cannot be stressed enough, we know that no one in 'authority,' other than PC Smith, ever supplied a description of a suspect seen near the time and location of a murder. This is obvioius from the official records and this is why Phil Sugden so easily dismissed the story imputed to White. The Police did not believe that the danger 'posed by the Ripper was over' at the time of the McKenzie murder, although the hiatus may have made them more complacent. Indeed, initially James Monro, the Chief Commissioner, believed it to be another 'Ripper' killing. They were not under the impression that he was dead, nor that he was locked up in an asylum somewhere - this is the received wisdom of Ripper fictioneering. "What do we do with the People's Journal article of 1919?" Sound advice is to follow Phil Sugden's lead and relegate it to the realms of fiction. Or you could use it in a novel!
Author: Simon Owen Tuesday, 28 March 2000 - 06:52 am
Neal , sorry about that mistake about Anderson/MacNaughten. Anyway , I have Howells and Skinner's book on the Ripper and I can print up information on Lionel Druitt from it on this board if you want me to. Tell me what you want to know !
Author: Simon Owen Tuesday, 28 March 2000 - 09:34 am
From Martin Fido's ' The Crimes , Detection and Death of Jack the Ripper ' : " White was sure he had seen Jack the Ripper and his evidence is sometimes accepted by those who argue for an educated , middle-class murderer. Donald Rumbelow assumes the alley must have been Mitre Square. But this had three exits , did not lie off Whitechapel Road , and was not being watched by hidden detectives on the night Eddowes was murdered. It would not have been patrolled by White anyway. It was City territory , and he was an H Division Metropolitan man. He must have been referring to Castle Alley and Clay Pipe Alice's murder. In which case , even if his educated man had killed McKenzie , he would not have been the Ripper."(p.114)
Author: Simon Owen Tuesday, 28 March 2000 - 09:50 am
(continued) However , there is support for Rumbelow's theory of Mitre Square , albeit of an annecdotal nature. The descendents of PC Amos Simpson of the Metropolitan Police have a tradition that Simpson was the first PC to find Catherine Eddowes and that he took her shawl as a momento. The article to read is the " Shrouded in Mystery : Stephen White , Amos Simpson and Catherine Eddowes' Shawl " essay on the Casebook : Dissertations Board. Since Mitre Square was City territory , Met policemen may have been keeping an eye on the City Police subject in secret ; I think on an earlier board it was mentioned this man lived in Aldgate and had shops in the East End. I believe it is the City Police suspect who Macnaughten is referring to in his Memoranda. Mitre Square also had a wall-lamp , as mentioned in White's story. It was on the wall of the building on the left side of the entrance from Mitre Street. There was a cul-de-sac to the north west of Mitre's Court called Sugarloaf Baker's Court and White may have been heading to or from here when he saw his suspect. Remember this is all speculation though !!!