|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Macnaghten, Sir Melville
Casebook Message Boards: Police Officials: General Discussion:
Macnaghten, Sir Melville
Author: Robeer
Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 03:38 am |        | Martin,
Can you provide some background information about Sir Melville Macnaghten? When and for what reason did he become Sir Melville? I assume that means he was knighted.
What contact did Churchill have with Macnaghten and why did Churchill have a less than favorable opinion of him?
Macnaghten states he joined the Met six months after JtR drowned in the Thames. This would indicate May or June of 1889. That means two murders happened on his watch: Alice McKenzie, 17 July 1889 and Frances Coles, 13 Feb 1891. The JtR case was still an ongoing investigation at that time so Macnaghten was indeed actively involved in this case, not just a curious spectator.
His position was Assistant Chief Constable. Who was the Chief Constable that Macnaghten reported to? Who reported to Macnaghten as their immediate superior? Wouldn't most of the Met detectives in this case come under the supervision of Macnaghten?
Since this was an ongoing investigation would not each one of them be required to report to Macnaghten of their progress on this case? If Anderson expected Macnaghten to do his job it would be incumbent upon the Head of the CID to thoroughly inform the Assistent Chief Constable, whoever that might be, of all developments on this case up to that point in time. And furthermore to have regular meetings to keep updated as to the progress of the investigation.
Some Ripperologists seem to be under the impression Macnaghten was merely an interested observor, as if this were just a hobby for him. In truth he was in the middle of the whole investigation and knew more than his predecessor. It would be logical to expect anyone holding the position of Assistant Chief Constable to know more about the case than anyone else at the Met. While all detectives in this case may have their own opinions Macnaghten would be expected to know what these theories were. If not, then the Met would be completely uncoordinated if not in total disarray.
There seems to be a belief that Macnaghten was some sort of boob or oddball. If so how did he manage to have a long, successful career and eventually be knighted, especially when his boss did not care for him? He definitely was not the teacher's pet.
Macnaghten's comment about his two biggest disappointments in life would indicate he was convinced of the identity of JtR.
Robeer |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 07:08 am | | Hi Robeer,
I've no idea what contact Churchill had with Macnaghten and I didn't know Churchill ever expressed any opinion of him.
Macnaghten was directly involved in investigating the Pinchin Street murder. The Alice McKenzie murder was given at least final supervision or review by Monro the Commissioner; the Frances Coles case pulled out all the top brass to at least visit the site. Macnaghten was consistently outranked by Anderson who had been told directly by the Home Secretary and Commissioner Warren that they held him responsible for catching the murderer.
The Chief Constable to whom Macnaghten ws answerable was the very distinguished Adolphus Williamson. But by 1888 he was very old and disillusioned - (perhaps especially because Monro had wanted to appoint young and inexperienced ex-indigo planter Macnaghten over his head). Keith's and my 'Official Encyclopedia of Scotland Yard' (Virgin, 2000) is probably your easiest source for a summary account of Williamson.
I doubt whether all the detectives on the case felt they had to report to Macnaghten. Abberline had been managing the detectives on the ground prior to his appointment, and at some point (Stewart and Keith will know) this duty was taken over by Moore. They are most likely to have reported back to Swanson what was coming in from the ground, and Swanson would have reported to Macnaghten (who remembered him very favourably as the man in charge of the case). I agree that Anderson would have had to tell Macnaghten what was going on, and it is evident that Macnaghten, like Littlechild, didn't think Anderson's evidence was conclusive, though he accepted it as circumstances making Kosminsky a very strong suspect. If I am right that the ID was of Cohen, it probably took place before Macnaghten joined the force, and we have always to bear in mind Macnaghten's definitely erroneous belief that Kosminski went into the asylum in the spring of 1889 (again before he had joined). So in my opinion, Macnaghten knew of Anderson's story only at 2nd hand through Anderson (whereas Swanson could have seen the events unfolding), and by his own account had a parti pris hope that the case was unsolved still so that he could have a crack at it. It does seem, after all, that it was he who purloined the Dear Boss letter and Bond post mortem report.
Assistant Commissioners were knighted as a matter of form when they retired. Hence Sir Robert Anderson, Sir Basil Thomson. (But never Sir Fred Wensley, the very much greater detective officer who rose to Chief Constable from the ranks, and was never Assistant Commissioner, despite the erroneous belief held by admiring young detectives of the next generationthat he had been).
I don't think his comments taken in toto indicate that Macnaghten was strongly convinced. He talks about long and hard thinking, and at one point says the evidence to prove his case lies or lay at the bottom of the Thames "if his conjectures be true" or some such words. He believes his own theory all right, but he's not nearly as cocksure as Anderson.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Robeer
Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 11:52 am | | Martin,
Somewhere on the Message Board I read where Churchill was not impressed by Macnaghten's intellectual skills. Perhaps they met socially at a party. I can't think of why they should have contact on a professional basis.
If for whatever reason Macnaghten was being kept out of the loop, was being sidestepped, or information was being withheld from him this indicates there were serious problems with chain of command and lack of coordination. Maybe Macnaghten was more of a bureaucrat and content to be a spectator and let the department go on as before. If so then he took no responsibility for the results or lack of results. He may have preferred it that way. Otherwise he should have been intimately involved with the investigation of this now famous case. He appears supremely confident the McKenzie and Coles murders are not the handiwork of JtR, which reinforces his opinion that JtR was no longer active by the time Macnaghten joined the department.
Robeer |
Author: Robeer
Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 08:09 pm | | Martin,
Where did the story come from about Macnaghten destroying evidence by burning his notes? In one version of his notes he mentions that Druitt's 'family' suspected him to be JtR and in the other notes his 'friends' suspected him to be JtR. What do you make of these comments? Sounds like there are two sources of information supplied to Macnaghten. Could be the family tipped off the Met who then interviewed some of Druitt's friends. Macnaghten also seems to find Sickert's story about the veterinarian student significant.
By the way, Dr. William Holt had a 24 year old brother who was a veterinarian student in 1888, if memory serves. I believe there was only one veterinarian school at the time in London. Wonder if they have records of student enrollment going back to 1888? Has anyone researched to see if Druitt was enrolled at that time? Would have seemed easy enough for Macnaghten to check out if he truly believed Sickert's story.
Robeer |
Author: Paul Begg
Sunday, 09 June 2002 - 03:11 am | | Hi Robeer
Are you sure it was Churchill? Churchill said some uncomplimentary things about Anderson in the House of Commons in 1910. Otherwise, could you be thinking of Warren's rejection of Macnaghten when first Monro recommended him as an assistant for Williamson. Warren said Macnaghten had been the only man in India to be beaten by hindoos. |
Author: Robeer
Sunday, 09 June 2002 - 04:49 am | | Paul,
Yes, because I immediately wondered how and why Churchill would have any contact with Macnaghten. They were both in the Army. Perhaps it was during the Boer War? Otherwise, what reason would Churchill have to cross paths with Macnaghten? There is a chance I am confusing this story with Anderson, but I'm pretty sure it was Macnaghten.
I can tell this is going to be another tiger hunt to find where I read this. Pretty sure it was in another poste some time ago. I shall try to find it. Wish me luck!
Robeer |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 09 June 2002 - 08:01 am | | Hi Robeer,
Churchill and Macnaghten would be extremely likely to have come across each other while Churchill was Home Secretary (1910-1911) and Macnaghten was AC. Churchill was responsible for sending detachments from the Met (as well as the notorious troops) to Tonypandy to police the miners’ strike, and personally attended the Sidney Street shoot-out. Apart from the possibility of their meeting while Churchill was engaged in Met-related duties, they would probably have met at one or more official functions and, as you note, Macnaghten was sufficiently upper class that they could have met at a country house weekend or society ball.
They wouldn’t be likely to like each other: Macnaghten was a conventional Tory Protestant Unionist descended from a Prentice Boy of Derry; Churchill was (at this time) Lloyd George’s ally in keeping Asquith’s Liberal cabinet well to the left, and meeting the challenge of nascent socialism with the first welfare statist measures. As a member of Asquith’s cabinet Churchill would also support gradualist Home Rule.
In addition, Macnaghten was notable for his bluff, hail-fellow-well-met good-nature and ability to get on well with almost everyone. Churchill (Saki’s “Quinston”) was notorious for his splenetic outbursts, and as we know, suffered from his ‘black dog’ of intermittent depression.
But finally, surely Churchill was right – Macnaghten was no great intellect? Whereas Churchill was one of the brilliant tetrad – (Balfour, Lloyd George and F.E. Smith being the other three) who would have liked to rise above party politics and the humdrum ordinary minds of folks like Asquith and Bonar Law, and create a permanent government of the ablest. By their standards Macnaghten would be a complete dullard.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 09 June 2002 - 08:06 am | | Hi Robeer again,
Macnaghten himself said in a retirement interview given to the Daily Mail that he had destroyed all his documents and there was "now no record of the secret information that came into my possesion at one time or another". He made this remark just after making the observation that he had a very clear idea who Jack the Ripper was and how he committed suicide, but that he would never reveal it.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Sunday, 09 June 2002 - 08:44 am | | Hi Martin,
Doesn't Macnaghten's 'destroying the evidence' story sound like a child's tall tale when he/she gets caught in a lie?('Well I did my Homework, but the dog ate it!')
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 09 June 2002 - 04:38 pm | | Some people have thought it a tall story, Chris, but more on the grounds that, "I don't want you damned newsmen hounding me for information I'm jolly well not going to give you," which I think is mor probable than the infantile secretive phoney boast. But I'm not committing myself to any speculation as to whether Macnaghten's words thereanent were strictly true or not.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Robeer
Tuesday, 25 June 2002 - 01:24 pm | | Martin,
Do you consider Macnaghten's appointment strictly a political and/or bureaucratic position or was he fully involved with the various investigations under his jurisdiction? It seems many students of the case have a low opinion as to Macnaghten's credibilty, assuming he was careless with details. Was he a bungling amateur or a competant police administrator?
Robeer |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 25 June 2002 - 05:13 pm | | H'mm... I don't think there's a simple answer to that, Robeer. Monro, who appointed him (and made his non-appointment a resignation issue) was the most professional of all the Commissioners prior to the twentieth century: head of one of the Indian Presidency police forces - (and, by the way, it would be worth someone's while to nip down to Blackfriars and havea check through the Gazettes tere, as I've seen monro ascribed to both Bombay and Bengal - and he can't have been both at teh same time) - and so much respscted bvy the force that he would seem to be really a policeman's policeman. And, prsumably, would have picked a young indigo planter as a really likely lad for service with the force.
Monro started as Asst Chief Constable - and the Chief Constable, Williamson, had been very much a hands-on police officer - also the man with real experience who supplied many of the practical ideas incorporated in the revised and perfected CID inthe 1870s. We know that Macnaghten took a great interest in crime; defnitely saw himself as a detecive and liked to be first at crime scenes and to feel that he had contributed to solving them. We know that this was not unusual in the top brass of the time, who were capable of thinking of thsmelves as at least would-be edtectives and not just admninistrators (Monro, Warren and Anderson all fit this pattern). Don't be misled by modern day policemen who tell you that Assistant Commissioners are always just pen-pushers and detection is done at lower levels. That was not how these men saw themslves in the 1880s and 1890s.
On th other hand, Macnaghten's obituary in the Police Review says firmly that the real work was done by his superintendents and chief inspectors. But then, the Police Review was politically strongly committed to the needs of the man on the beat, and the ordinary coppers by teh time of Macnaghten's retrement were fed up with having lawyers and civil servants and military men shoved into the top spots, and very disinclined to give Commissioners and Asst Commissionrs a lot of credit unless they were outstanding like Henry.
So how much use was Macnaghten? Not a great deal as a detective, I suspect. But his encouragement of Wensley indicates a good personnel manager with a real eye for talent in junior officers. I would trust him to put somebody really good in charge of an important case, and to give them eccellent backing. I don't think that he'd ever be like Childs, and think that his own two pennyworth of interference was far more use than the real professionals' work. But he'd have been indignant if you called him an amateur.
Hope that's of some help.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Tuesday, 25 June 2002 - 06:39 pm | | Hi,
Concerning the "truth" of Macnaghten's claim to have destroyed the information he had, etc. Wouldn't he have been charged with destroying evidence if he had actually done so (esp. after confessing to this in public!). Martin's suggestion, that he said this to avoid being hounded by the news, is an interesting possibility. Although, I'm not sure how effective that tact would be? Meaning, would reporters be more or less likely to bother him, trying to get him to "tell them what was the information" if they now thought he was the only one who could possibily tell them. If he passed the info on, then they would go elsewhere. If he destroyed it, they could only go to him in hope? So I figured that means if he had the information, it couldn't have been destroyed (or he would be charged) or if he didn't, well, it's by definition a tall tale. Given the former possibility, there may be hope yet but give the latter, maybe not much.
As for Macnaghten's statement about the "truth laying at the bottom of the Thames", I always took that to mean that the only one who knew for sure if Druitt was or was not the Ripper, was Druitt himself. Like saying "the truth went to the grave with him". The implication being, of course, that whatever evidence Macnaghten had certainly wasn't conclusive (mind you, the inclusion of 2 other suspects in his memorandum means the same thing).
- Jeff |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 26 June 2002 - 06:29 am | | Hi Jeff,
Given that Macnaghten speaks somewhere about "private information", I suspect that anything he did destroy probably didn't come under the official heading of (protected) evidence.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Robeer
Thursday, 27 June 2002 - 03:53 am | | Martin,
Do you get the feeling Macnaghten received information on Druitt from two sources at different times? The first source was Druitt's family, most probably his older brother William who found evidence among his brother's possessions. Later his cousin or sister may have contacted the Met. Then a much later source, this time from a friend. Its almost if Macnaghten was carrying on a confidential, personal investigation. He seems to take the Sickert story seriously concerning the vet student. Could this be why Macnaghten misspoke about Druitt being a med student?
Robeer |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 27 June 2002 - 08:59 am | | I've never thought of adding up all Macnaghten's utterances in quite the detail you have, Robeer. The "cousin or sister may have" you postulate is a speculation for which I just don't know your basis. I agree that Macnaghten strikes one at times as going entirely his own way without reference to colleagues, which is why I've wondered for some time whether anybody else knew about his Druitt evidence at first. The later evidence (of Basil Thomson and Charles Warren) however suggests that something of his thinking became Yard othodoxy. I've no idea how much of his evidence other people knew.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Robeer
Thursday, 27 June 2002 - 11:05 am | | Martin,
From what I've read William, Lionel, and Emily Druitt were all candidates for communication with the Met. All three would appear to have some knowledge of the family secret. The 'friends' statement by Macnaghten is interesting. Did he interview cricket teammates or employees of the school? Or does this open possibilities of London friends higher up the social ladder?
Robeer |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Friday, 28 June 2002 - 01:22 am | | Hi Martin,
Good point. I don't know what the legal ramifications might be of destroying evidence of a crime that was given to you "privately" though. It would depend upon what the evidence was, I suppose. Meaning, if it was something that wasn't even admissable. For example, a letter which contained someones suspicions would probably be inadmissable in a court as hearsay. And, since he does say something like "from private information I have little doubt but that his own family suspected him", it does sound like that might have been the evidence he destroyed. Evidence that Druitts family suspected him, rather than evidence that Druitt was definately the Ripper.
Maybe, anyway.
- Jeff |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Friday, 28 June 2002 - 01:58 am | | There was no evidence against Druitt, it was merely suspicion. Immediately preceding the details of Druitt in his report of 23 February 1894 Macnaghten wrote:
"No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer, many homicidal maniacs were suspected, but no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one. I may mention the cases of 3 men, any one of whom would have been more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders..." [emphasis mine]
The only reasons that Macnaghten gave for this suspicion are the coincidence of the date of Druitt's suicide, his alleged 'sexual insanity' and the private information that "his own family believed him to have been the murderer", none of which amounts to evidence of guilt. |
Author: Jeff Hamm
Friday, 28 June 2002 - 02:29 am | | Hi Stewart,
That's what I've always thought as well. As he included 2 suspects besides Druitt, he obviously didn't have conclusive proof against him. What he does mention to support Druitt's inclusion on the list, as you point out, isn't enough to prove anything against him. As well, he implies that he himself is a bit unsure because he claims the only one who really knew was dead at the bottom of the Thames (at least that's my interpretation of his statement).
- Jeff |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Friday, 28 June 2002 - 02:42 am | | An interesting early view of Macnaghten by one of his contemporaries is provided by Major Arthur Griffiths in his 1898 book Mysteries of Police and Crime:
"Mr. Macnaughten [sic], the Chief Constable, or second in command of the Investigation Department, is a type of man admirably adapted to supplement his chief. He is essentially a man of action, whilst Mr. Anderson is perhaps best and strongest in the closet. He is in very close touch, too, with the personnel of the department, who gladly recognise his authority, and are eager to second him and give effect to his views. A man of presence is Mr. Macnaughten - tall, well-built, with a military air, although his antecedents are rather those of the public school, of Indian planter life, than of the army. His room, like his chief's, is hung with speaking tubes, his table deep with reports and papers, but the walls are bright with photographs of officials, personal friends, and some notorious criminals. Mr. Macnaughten keeps by him, as a matter of business, some other and more gruesome pictures, always under lock and key; photographs, for instance, of the victims of Jack the Ripper, and of other brutal murders, taken immediately after discovery, and reproducing with horrible fidelity the mutilated remains of a human body, but which might belong to a charnel-house or abbatoir. It is Mr. Macnaughten's duty, no less than his earnest desire, to be first on the scene of any such sinister catastrophe. He is therefore more intimately acquainted perhaps with the details of the most recent celebrated crimes than anyone in Scotland Yard." |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Friday, 28 June 2002 - 03:19 am | | Jeff,
Macnaghten made several references to his preferred suspect for the Ripper murders in his 1914 book, Days of my Years. These included:
"Although, as I shall endeavour to show in this chapter, the Whitechapel murderer, in all probability, put an end to himself soon after the Dorset Street affair in November 1888, certain facts, pointing to this conclusion, were not in possession of the police till some years after I became a detective officer."" [page 54]
"There can be no doubt that in the room at Miller's Court the madman found ample scope for the opportunities he had all along been seeking, and the probability is that, after his awful glut on this occasion, his brain gave way altogether and he committed suicide; otherwise the murders would not have ceased." [page 61]
In a newspaper interview on his retirement in June 1913 Macnaghten stated:
"...the greatest regret of his life was that 'Jack the Ripper' committed suicide before he joined the force. "That remarkable man," he said, "was one of the most fascinating of criminals. Of course he was a maniac, but I have a very clear idea who he was and how he committed suicide, but that, with other secrets, will never be revealed by me.
I have destroyed all my documents, and there is no no record of the secret information which came into my possession at one time or another."
As we know, George R. Sims was a confidant of Macnaghten and the following is an extract from an interesting piece written by Sims in 1915, and sourced to Macnaghten:
"There was no question of the insanity of revenge upon a certain class of of women as there was in the case of the mad doctor who lived with his people at Blackheath, and who, during his occasional absences from home, committed the crimes which won him world-wide infamy as 'Jack the Ripper'."
This obviously refers to Druiit and is especially interesting for the repetition of the error of his occupation as a doctor, and the reference to Blackheath and 'his people'.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 28 June 2002 - 08:04 am | | Just the usual prcaution about distinguishing between historical and legal evidence. Macnaghten's writings are in themselves historical evidence - and indeed the only evidence of any kind to have survived - that Druitt was (at least to Macnaghten) a suspect. They would have no validity whatsoever in a courtroom. They don't in themselves contain any avidence showing why Macnaghten reached this conclusion.
But Macnaghten claims to have had other information. This, too was historical evidence as long as it existed - and important historical evidence because, if it had survived, we might deduce its value. Was it a report of a guilt-ridden confession, a suspicion of MJD because he came home one murder night with blood over his shirt, a statement that a friend of a friend had seen Druitt sneaking away from a murder site with a knife in his hand, or just an "I've never liked him, and these murders are just the sort of thing I've always believed he did"? The first and second would be evidence that could be given in court: the third and fourth would be completely inadmissable. The fourth is obviously of virtually no value whatever to lawyer or historian. The third, however, would be evidence that the police might need to follow up and see whether the sighting was genuine, in which case it would itself become legally usable evidence.
The 'evidence' of Warren and Thomson is not evidence at all pointing directly to the probable guilt of any suspect: it is historical evidence of the ultimate thinking in Scotland Yard.
In all this, it will be seen that evidence - whether historical or legal - is not the same thing as proof. Conclusive evidence would be, but of that, as Macnaghten admitted, there was a sad absence (to everyone's mind except Anderson's: this is not said with any wish to reopen discussion of Anderson - whose solitude in his belief militates strongly against its likelihood - just to keep to strict accuracy).
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Friday, 28 June 2002 - 06:13 pm | | Hi. In regards to Macnaghten, my own thinking these days is that his 'private information' was probably some correspondence he received from someone in Blackheath. His information is too mistaken to be directly from Druitt's family, but it might be from someone loosely associated with the school, such as an ex-student.
Though a child at the time, I can still remember the sensation caused by the so-called 'Son of Sam' murders in New York City. Even though I lived on the west coast, I can clearly remember a kindly old lady on my block that went as far as sending a letter to the NYPD outlining her own eccentric theory as to the meaning of 'Son of Sam'. In 1888 and the following years, Scotland Yard must have received hundreds of similar 'helpful' letters. I can even recall an article that appeared in the Washington Post after the Maybrick Diary surfaced where John Ross of the Black Museum [I hope I have that right] said he still received one or two letters a week with Ripper theories. And this was in 1992! My guess is that Macnaghten probably received some such 'private information' that was particularly compelling.
But while I concede that Druitt is probably little more than a rumor, it doesn't ultimately get him 'off the hook' as far as being a suspect. [Sorry. Ugly metaphor--for someone that was fished out of the Thames.]
Something that has bothered me about the Druitt theory is Farson's claim about 'Mr. Knowles' having mentioned Lionel Druitt or Drewitt from Australia before the name MJ Druitt was made public. It seems too much of a coincidence to me. Skinner & Howells did a fantastic job in dismantling the garbled story about Gould & 'the East End Murderer: I Knew Him' pamphlet, but no one has ever really explained Knowles---who had mentioned the same story. Either Farson was not entirely accurate in his claim about Knowles[he was working from notes, since the dossier went missing] or else there is still more to the story than has come to light. Someone calling themselves 'Red Demon' posted two years ago that he had obtained a 1920s pamphlet from Australia about the capture of Jack the Ripper, but he disappeared before revealing its contents. Like everything concerning Druitt, the answer is always just beyond one's grasp. The stuff of smoke and mirrors, perhaps. Cheers. |
Author: Robeer
Friday, 28 June 2002 - 11:19 pm | | To all,
Can anyone summarize how many times did Macnaghten publicly or privately comment on the JtR case and his short list of suspects? Where does he mention the City PC story?
Robeer |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 29 June 2002 - 05:58 am | | Hi Robeer,
The City PC near Mitre Square is mentioned in the Lady Aberconway version of the memoranda: "No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer (unless possibly it was the City P.C. who was [sic] a beat near Mitre Square)". And later, in th4 description of Kosminsky, "This man in appearance strongly resembled the individual seen by the City P.C. near Mitre Square."
Macnaghten also wrote the slightly shorter version of the memoranda deposited on the Met's Ripper file, and now in the PRO in Kensington. It is interesting to note that both references to the PC at Mitre Square are dropped from it. Paul Begg's conclusion that the Aberconway papers were a first draft which was tidied up and improved for the final version put on file is obviously of interest here, suggesting that the references were cut with a purpose.
Macnaghten discussed the Ripper case in a chapter of his memoirs, and in an interview given to the Daily Mail at the time of his retirement: in these places he said or implied that he had access to evidence or information that reached him some years after the murders and that he had destroyed.
Finally there are the tantalising statements of journalist Philip Loftus to the effect that he had seen brief notes by Macnaghten in the possession of his (Macnaghten's) grandson Gerald Melville Donner in addition to the original 'Dear Boss' letter framed on Donner's wall in India. In August 1972 Loftus described these notes thus in a letter to Lady Aberconway: "the three suspects were (1) MICHAEL JOHN Druitt, a DOCTOR of FORTY ONE years of age. (2) A feeble-minded man (probably Thomas Cutbush), who followed young girls and stabbed them [,] probably with nail scissors. (3) a Polish Jew cobbler nick-named Leather Apron". In the Guardian in October that year Loftus gave the briefer description, "three suspects: a Polish tanner or cobbler; a man who went round stabbing young girls in the bottom with nail scissors; and M.J.Druitt, a doctor of 41 years of age."
Anyone familiar withthe course of my thinking will realize why I find it so intriguing that Macnaghten should have been reported as equating his Polish Jew suspect with Leather Apron - obviously not Pizer!
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Robeer
Sunday, 30 June 2002 - 03:30 am | | Martin,
So is the following list of sources correct?
1. Daily Mail interview: 1913
2. Memoir "Days of My Years": 1914
3. Sims article: 1915
4. Lady Aberconway notes: ?
5. Met Ripper file: ?
Question: did Griffiths repeat any of this in his book published in 1898, other than what is quoted above?
In summary, Macnaghten either comments, is quoted, referenced, or alluded to from at least five different sources. Are there any others that should appear on this list? Would it be possible to fill in the missing dates so we can understand the chronological sequence of how and when Macnagten's notes and opinions were made public? Thanks for your help.
Robeer |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 30 June 2002 - 05:04 am | | Robeer,
Don't forget the important reference to be found on page 208 of The Rise of Scotland Yard, by Douglas G. Browne, London, George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd., 1956:-
"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."
We know that Browne, when writing this book, was allowed access to the Scotland Yard files, as he quotes references from them. Some of what he would have seen would not have survived to be deposited in the Public Record Office.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 30 June 2002 - 05:29 am | | Apropos Macnaghten it is interesting to note that in December 1889, when Macnaghten was serving as Assistant Chief Constable, the Commissioner, James Monro, stated:-
"I have always had a high opinion of his qualifications and abilities, but he has shown an aptitude for dealing with Criminal Investigation, and a power of managing and dealing with men for which I was not prepared, he has been doing Mr. Williamson's work for months, and he has done it with remarkable efficiency and success."
The Assistant Commissioner (Crime), Robert Anderson, stated:-
"I concur generally with these views." |
|
|
|
|
