Jack The Ripper Forums  - Ripperology For The 21st Century  

Go Back   Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century > Victorian London's Finest > Sir Melville Macnaghten

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 22nd, 2014, 08:55 AM   #21
Wicker Man
Researcher
 
Wicker Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,003
Default

The problem as I see it is, that the men at the top (Macnaughten) do not do the investigating. Whatever they "know", or "think they know", comes up the pipeline from the investigators.
This suggests that whatever Macnaughten "knew", came from Swanson. And, therefore, whatever Swanson "knew", came from the detectives Dept.

Are we being asked to entertain the idea that a Chief Constable conducted his own investigation without the knowledge of his own department?
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
"
The theory that the murderer is a lunatic is dispelled by the opinion given to the police by an expert in the treatment of lunacy patients......."If he's insane
" observed the medical authority, "he's a good deal sharper than those who are not".
Reynolds Newspaper, 4 Nov. 1888.
Wicker Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 18th, 2014, 11:51 PM   #22
Roy Corduroy
Researcher
 
Roy Corduroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,179
Default A Hypothetical

Good evening Wick,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wicker Man View Post
Are we being asked to entertain the idea that a Chief Constable conducted his own investigation without the knowledge of his own department?
In a nutshell, yes.

Entertain the idea, that's a good way of putting it. Doesn't mean it happened this way, but is there any reason it couldn't have happened this way? That, as Jonathan proposed, it was all Macnaghten's show. The 'drowned doctor' and Anderson's Polish madman noted as "Kosminski" by Swanson. It all began with Macnaghten, the first Ripperologist if you will, and he worked at Scotland Yard to boot. He did his own checking of the files, made inquiries, etc.

I can't think of an ironclad reason why not.

Roy
Roy Corduroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2014, 01:52 AM   #23
Curryong
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 302
Default

If Macnaughten had done that and the Home Office had found out, his resignation would have been on the Home Secretary's desk the following Monday.
Curryong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2014, 04:29 AM   #24
Jonathan Hainsworth
Author & Researcher
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,385
Default

Thanks Roy.

You put my position succinctly.

To Curryong

Not if--Macnaghten did act like that.

The 'Jack the Ripper' story from 1889 onwards is very different from what you think it was.

From what most people think it was. The good news is that it is fascinating and becomes a tale with a protagonist straight out of Wodehouse. A desk-jockey who is often off by himself as a self-invented sleuth. An upper classer with a grudge, and a chip on his shoulder against the department for temporarily thwarting his vision of himself as Super-cop.

As for Macnaghten being a power unto himself? He said as much at his 1913 retirement press conference; that the identity of the fiend had come to him. It was his solution and by allegedly destroying the relevant papers nobody would know the "secret" after he left.

This begs a question that nobody asked: if succeeding officials were not to be privy to the secret, then were officials who worked with Mac also kept in the dark?

All the fragmentary evidence we have screams YES, though God knows people here will not even entertain such a notion: Littlechild thinks 'Dr. D' must be Tumblety; Abberline thinks the drowned man perhaps must be Sanders; Anderson and Swanson believe the deceased Ripper suspected by his own people is 'Kosminski' (and George Kebbell wrongly thought Grant was also deceased). Tom Divall claims he was told by Macnaghten that the Ripper had fled to the States and died there in a madhouse. For that matter, Littlechild may have heard from somebody that Dr. T had taken his own life.

All of these other suspects were alive but have been deliberately refracted through Druitt, a suspect none of them had heard of.

By the way, Sir Melville Macnaghten actually did know what it was like to be sacked from Scotland Yard.

He was sacked before he even started in 1888 by Sir Charles Warren, a disappointment and a humiliation that rankled 26 years later when he wrote his memoirs.

On the one hand he is typically deceitful in 1914 claiming he had to initially refuse the position. But in his depiction of the [un-named] Warren, in a different chapter, he does not hold back at kicking the living Krap out of him.

The Dorset solution did not come from the Bobbie on his beat, or even a field detective tracking down a lead. It came to Macnaghten through the Old Boy Network, via M.P. Farquharson. A few meetings in gentleman's clubs and middle-class living rooms and the Chief Constable had the entire story.

Now I know from research why it was so easy--in fact inevitable--for the Old Etonian to not inform his colleagues at Scotland Yard or the Home Office. Why the best he could do was to confound and deflect them with suspects who were also deceased--except they weren't and as with Aaron Kosminski he knew they weren't.
Jonathan Hainsworth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2014, 05:58 AM   #25
Lynn Cates
Researcher & Author
 
Lynn Cates's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7,218
Default confusion

Hello Roy. That is my take as well. I think Mac was playing modern day ripperologist. He was convinced that threee men were better fits than any others--especially Cutbush. In process of time, he thought Monty best.

End of story. Or it might be--has not Sir Robert confused Kosminki with another Polish Jew, Wirtkofsky--and thrown a spanner into the works.

Cheers.
LC
Lynn Cates is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2014, 06:52 AM   #26
Jonathan Hainsworth
Author & Researcher
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,385
Default

No, not three men, Lynn.

Nor was he trying to fit anybody into anything.

Rightly or wrongly he had the Ripper, albeit posthumously, as he admitted in 1913 and 1914.
Jonathan Hainsworth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2014, 06:54 AM   #27
Lynn Cates
Researcher & Author
 
Lynn Cates's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7,218
Default wishing

Hello Jonathan. Thanks.

I agree with you about historicity here. Just wish I could see the source of his thinking.

Cheers.
LC
Lynn Cates is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2014, 07:19 AM   #28
Jonathan Hainsworth
Author & Researcher
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,385
Default

Do you reject the Vicar of 1899, as not talking about Montague Druitt?
Jonathan Hainsworth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2014, 07:47 AM   #29
Lynn Cates
Researcher & Author
 
Lynn Cates's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7,218
Default confiteor

Hello Jonathan. Thanks.

Actually, I do not accept or reject. I seem to have insufficient information for either.

But, supposing that he really DID confess. Given Druitt's state of mind at that time, how much would a "confession" come to?

Cheers.
LC
Lynn Cates is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2014, 08:36 PM   #30
Jonathan Hainsworth
Author & Researcher
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,385
Default That Slender Thread

This encapsulates the nub of the de-fault bias against the Dorset solution built up and encrusted for decades in RipperLand.

How much was the confession worth?

It is not for us to judge.

It was for those who heard it, or learned of it and assessed it.

We can only judge their reliability and credibility.

Ripperology, all of it, hangs from the thread that Macnagthten was ignorant, incompetent and pejudiced, e.g. an unreliable source.

But if he wasn't ...

The family, an MP, a police chief and a famious writer on true crime judged the evdience, probably a confession, to be kosher.

Despite all the countervailing pressues and biases to reject it, they believed.

It would have been so easy--especially for his siblings and cousins--to reject it as the ravings of a madman.

To reject it even if the evidence was not ambiguous but compelling--yet left enough wiggle room for doubt.

They did not reject it.

I now know that Macnaghten had painfully acute personal reasons for rejecting it, yet he too felt he had no choice but to accept its veracity. Which led to the solution being with-held from both Scotland Yard and the Home Office, and [partially] disguised for public consumption.
Jonathan Hainsworth is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cutbush and the Macnaghten Memoranda SPE Thomas Cutbush 17 January 14th, 2014 12:41 PM
IS there a time frame of Possibility in which the Marginalia could have been forged? Jeff Leahy Donald Swanson 149 July 17th, 2012 07:22 PM
Assessing Their Words: SRA,MLM, & DSS Howard Brown Victorian London's Finest 43 March 17th, 2009 01:35 PM
Swanson Marginalia: Discussing & Speculating Howard Brown Donald Swanson 1 March 6th, 2009 06:50 PM
Macnaghten Reveals The Ripper Nina Brown The Newspapers 12 September 7th, 2008 06:06 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10 Beta 2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright @ Howard & Nina Brown 2015-2022