Jack The Ripper Forums  - Ripperology For The 21st Century  

Go Back   Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century > JTRForums Competition Forum > The One On One

The One On One Debating forum...

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old February 7th, 2008, 04:44 PM   #1
Howard Brown
Proprietor-Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Eagleville, Pa.
Posts: 71,564
Default Anderson--Begg contra Russo

Thread for Messrs. Begg and Russo to debate the Hove Identification.

Please place your comments on the appropriate thread ( The One on One--Sidelines).
__________________
To Join JTR Forums, Contact :
Howard@jtrforums.com
Howard Brown is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 7th, 2008, 10:38 PM   #2
Stan Russo
Former Member
 
Posts: n/a
Default

To state it simply, it has always been my contention that the Anderson suspect ID never took place. There is a wealth of information that, when pulled together, lends credence to this.

Since a portion of this debate already took place on the Anderson up or down thread, I will simply challenge my esteemed opponent to counter my remarks regarding the fabricated suspect ID.
  Reply With Quote
Old February 8th, 2008, 12:01 AM   #3
Paul
Registered User
 
Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan Russo View Post
To state it simply, it has always been my contention that the Anderson suspect ID never took place. There is a wealth of information that, when pulled together, lends credence to this.

Since a portion of this debate already took place on the Anderson up or down thread, I will simply challenge my esteemed opponent to counter my remarks regarding the fabricated suspect ID.
It's slightly difficult - well, it's impossible really - to counter this argument when I don't know what the 'wealth of information' is to suggest that the identification never took place.

There is no particular reason for supposing that Anderson would claim that the identification took place when it didn't and when he knew that other people knew that it didn't, and a collolary of that is that if he'd lied about it how would he have expected to get away with it if asked for proofs such as the police reports and other documentation by interested parties such as the Commissioner or the Home Secretary?

What we have is Anderson stating that the identification happened, we have Swanson providing additional details in some personal and private notes, and we have Macnaghten's reference to the suspect in an internal and confidential memoranda. If the identification never took place, how did these people get suckered into believing that it did (or in the case of Macnaghten, that 'Kosminski' was a legitimate suspect)?

Anderson could have compltely misjudged or misunderstood the evidence against 'Kosminski' and been totally wrong about his guilt, but to concoct the whole story about the eye-witness identification seems to me so fraught with logistical problems that nobody would ever have tried to do it. Any argument to the contrary would have to be very good indeed to overcome the immediately visible problems.
Paul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 8th, 2008, 12:40 PM   #4
Stan Russo
Former Member
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The wealth of information I am referring to is information about the case that to this point has not been connected to Anderson's 'alleged' suspect ID. This information includes not only JTR documentary information but also information from outside sources that impact aspects of the case directly related to not only Anderson but to other factors that, when brought together, make sense and shed light on events in the case that seem unexplainable.

I know that seems vague, at best, but I will list a number of pieces of information that have not been connected to the Anderson suspect ID, which greatly impact its veracity.

a) The errors within the Swanson Marginalia
b) The 1895 Alfred Aylmer article
c) The Littlechild Letter
d) The original MacNaghten Memo
e) The rediscovered memoirs of James Monro
f) The September 22nd Evelyn Ruggles Bryce Memo
g) The 1956 book by Douglas Browne and Ralph Strauss
h) The commonly agreed upon fact that MacNaghten was almost transferred from the Met in 1890, only to be back in the good graces of the department without any recorded reason
i) The 1894 official MacNaghten memo
j) The timeline of Anderson's writings
k) The outside knowledge, from numerous books, that there was no Fenian plot against Balfour or any English official in 1888
l) Anderson's previous work, specifically his job within the department from 1885 to 1888
m) Monro's almost sudden resignation only hours after the Nichols murder
n) The daily meetings between Anderson and Monro the first week of September
o) The use of Special Branch men to investigate the JTR murders only hours after the Nichols murder
p) The fact that they knew the whereabouts of Tumblety to arrest him on four separate counts of gross indecency, one of which beinmg the night of the Nichols murder.
and many more, which I will share along the way.

Please feel free to choose any or all to counter.
  Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2008, 04:58 AM   #5
Paul
Registered User
 
Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,057
Default

Hi Stan,
I'm sorry, but it's impossible to respond to any of these without knowing how they supposedly impact on Anderson. For example, I don't know how the arrest of Tumblety in 1888 has any real bearing on how or why Aaron Kosminski came to police attention in 1891. And whether or not there was a Fenian plot to assassinate Balfour strikes me as is irrelevant as it was based on information seen in the files in the 1950s and possibly misunderstood by the person who saw it.

Cheers
Paul
Paul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2008, 07:10 PM   #6
Stan Russo
Former Member
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Paul,

Well, it interesting that you chose those two,of the bunch, because I do believe they do have a direct impact on the fabricated Anderson ID.

The assassination attempt on Arthur Balfour, which directly linked this assassination plot to the JTR murders, was attested to by Ralph Strauss and Douglas Browne, in their 1956 book. Mentioning it back then, in 1956, did not mean a whole lot, specifically due to the fact that we did not know of the MacNaghten memo and Anderson's suspect, which we all probably believe was Kosminski.

Now, in the pages of the Swanson Marginalia, from his scribblings, he attests that MacNaghten (Ch. Const.) vexed Anderson,making undue fuss about a threatening letter. What was this threatening letter? Putting two and two together, it could have been this letter regarding the assassination of Balfour and its connection to the JTR murders. It was probably this letter, since independant confirmation that MacNaghten knew about it exists from Strauss and Browne. The Dear Boss letter was public - there's no reason for MacNaghten to bother Anderson about it when he could read the file notes on it.

However, if MacNaghten, who was a known Ripperphile, found a document that did connect the JTR murders to an assassination plot on Balfour, who better to bother about it then Anderson?

This explains the fact that MacNaghten was almost transferred in 1890, most likely due to constant annoyance of Anderson, enough to vex him, over this threatening letter.

How this relates to Tumblety's arrest in 1888 is simple - to make an arrest on Tumblety, they had knowledge of four separate occasions where he frequented a gay brothel, one on the night of the Nichols murder. To know this, they were most likely tailing him, as the Littlechild Letter indicates, that whenever he (Tumblety) came to London, he was under constant notice of the police.

Why was Tumblety under notice, enough to gather this detailed information about his whereabouts? Is it possible that the Met, or more specifically, the Special Branch/CID (both run by the same two key people - Monro and Anderson) had been sent a letter that claimed there would be an assassination plot on Balfour which was connected to the JTR murders?

I can only perceive the answer to be yes because we have independant verification of such a letter and probable confirmation, from Swanson, that MacNaghten bothered Anderson about it.

The problem with believing Anderson lied about the suspect ID has always been motive. Why would he lie? I even got you to state that a credible motive may change your way of thinking about whether Anderson lied about the ID.

Anderson, a Special Branch officer of over 20 years, at the time of the murders, a spymaster involved in handling one of the key spies infiltrating the Fenian movement, would have been personally involved in any Fenian threats at the time of the murders,specifically against Arthur Balfour. If this assasination letter existed, which we have verification/confirmation it did and it was seen by someone who was not supposed to see it, such as MacNaghten, whom we know did see it and connected it to the JTR murders, wouldn't it have been prudent for Anderson, who thought of England before everything else except God, to throw him off the scent of this possible Fenian connection to the murders by handing him either the name Kosminski?

We know, or at least should know that it had to be Anderson, or Swanson acting on information from Anderson, who gave the name Kosminski to MacNaghten. We also know that the original MacNaghten Memo, attested to by two separate sources, lists Druitt (although he gets his first name wrong),
a Polish Jew cobbler nick-named Leather Apron and a feeble minded man who went around following young girls and stabbing them (which we can safely assume was Thomas Cutbush). In this document lies the seeds for Anderson to supply MacNaghten with the name Kosminski, replacing Leather Apron, who was John Pizer and cleared of the Nichols and Chapman murders with an alibi, with the name of another Polish Jew, Kosminski.

A lot, I know - but we can discuss it step by step, which will clear things up that I may have accidentally made convoluted.
  Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2008, 03:59 AM   #7
Paul
Registered User
 
Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,057
Default

Hi Stan,
You present an interesting hypothesis, but it's based almost wholly on conjecture and it illustrates how conjecture can lead even to a logically constructed theory that's completely wrong. And I'm sorry to have to say that so bluntly.

The foundation of the theory is that the threatening letter send to Macnaghten concerned an assassination attempt on Balfour which it linked to the Ripper murders,

(1) The threatening letter threatened to kill Macnaghten and appears not to have had any connection with Jack the Ripper. (2) It was from William Henry Townsend, who in April 1893 was charged and found guilty of sending a letter threatening Gladstone’s life and with discharging a pistol near Downing Street. There is no reason to suppose that the letter sent to Macnaghten significantly predated the letter sent to Gladstone. (3) As Macnaghten was almost transferred in 1890, the reason had nothing to do with a threatening letter received subsequent to that date. (4) We have no idea what Browne/Strauss saw, but it was not the letter sent to Macnaghten by Townsend because the whole point of Anderson’s anecdote was that he destroyed that letter. (5) Townsend has no connection with Jack the Ripper. (6) The letter threatening Macnaghten’s life had no connection with Tumblety.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan Russo View Post
Anderson, a Special Branch officer of over 20 years, at the time of the murders, a spymaster involved in handling one of the key spies infiltrating the Fenian movement, would have been personally involved in any Fenian threats at the time of the murders, specifically against Arthur Balfour. If this assasination letter existed, which we have verification/confirmation it did and it was seen by someone who was not supposed to see it, such as MacNaghten, whom we know did see it and connected it to the JTR murders, wouldn't it have been prudent for Anderson, who thought of England before everything else except God, to throw him off the scent of this possible Fenian connection to the murders by handing him either the name Kosminski?
Well, first of all your are presupposing that Macnaghten saw a letter he shouldn’t have seen, which is as questionable as it is theoretical, and secondly, even if he did see a confidential document he was not authorized to see, Macnaghten was nevertheless a senior policeman who presumably Anderson had no reason to distrust with confidential material. And thirdly, unless you can demonstrate that Anderson thought Macnaghten untrustworthy with confidential material, what possible reason would he have had for throwing Macnaghten off the scent by inventing the eye-witness identification story, which there is no suggestion the Macnaghten knew about anyway. On top of all that, the idea that Anderson invented that story is chock full of logistical difficulties, such as convincing Swanson about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan Russo View Post
We know, or at least should know that it had to be Anderson, or Swanson acting on information from Anderson, who gave the name Kosminski to MacNaghten. We also know that the original MacNaghten Memo, attested to by two separate sources, lists Druitt (although he gets his first name wrong), a Polish Jew cobbler nick-named Leather Apron and a feeble minded man who went around following young girls and stabbing them (which we can safely assume was Thomas Cutbush). In this document lies the seeds for Anderson to supply MacNaghten with the name Kosminski, replacing Leather Apron, who was John Pizer and cleared of the Nichols and Chapman murders with an alibi, with the name of another Polish Jew, Kosminski.
First off, as you have acknowledged, Macnaghten was a Ripperphile who need not have been 'given' the name kosminski by anyone, but could have come across him in the files. Secondly, by 1894 Macnaghten thought Jack the Ripper was Druitt, and as Druitt has no known connection with plots to assassinate anyone, it would seem that by 1894 he had abandoned or was not talking about the idea that the Ripper murders were connected with a plot to assassinate Balfour, and that Anderson therefore had no need to feed him information about Kosminski. Thirdly, the Donner material could be a mismemory of something seen some two decades earlier. That this was indeed the case is suggested by the fact that the whole purpose of the memoranda was to refute allegations in the Sun that Cutbush was the Ripper, so Macnaghten is hardly likely to have indicated that Cutbush was a leading suspect.

And on top of all of this, even if Anderson concocted a wholly fictional story to throw Macnaghten off the scent, why wouldn't he have sworn Macnaghten to secrecy about it. Why would h bring Swansn into it, let alone write about it in his memoirs when he knew that nobody else involved in the investigation would confirm it, especially whe there's a fair chance that sombody in authority will ask to see the relevant documentation.

I wouldn't discard the hypothesis entirely, however, because Townsend did threaten the life of Gladstone, not Balfour, and I think I'm right in saying that Townsend had Home Rule papers on his person, which could connect him with the Fenians, and, of course Townsend was the name Tumblety used when fleeing the country, albeit that that was five years before the threatening letters.

Cheers
Paul
Paul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2008, 10:29 PM   #8
Stan Russo
Former Member
 
Posts: n/a
Thumbs down

Paul,

There's no need to apologize for being blatant - you believe my interesting hypothesis that led to a logically constructed theory is incorrect. That is fine.

However, I disagree with your assessment and here is why.

You state that the threatening letter spoken of in the Swanson Marginalia was a letter that threatened to kill MacNaghten. Of course, this is speculation as well. Nowhere does Swanson identify the threatening letter and one can argue that it would make no sense for a police officer, even one as incompetent as MacNaghten, to "vex" a senior officer such as Anderson over receiving a threatening letter.

Two main points lead me to this conclusion.

a) In 1890, as you have backed me up on this, MacNaghten was possibly being transferred. No reason has ever been given for this possible transfer. As such, despite the fact that many feel this has nothing to do with the case, the reasons for this transfer, I feel, must be addressed. Knowing what we know about MacNaghten, one can argue that what got MacNaghten almost transferred out of the CID, in 1890, was the constant discussion of the JTR case, due to the fact that he was a known Ripperphile. If this is the reason for why MacNaghten was almost transferred out of the CID, this would make perfect sense, from a timeline perspective, out of what Swanson referred to when he said that MacNaghten "vexed "Anderson about a threatening letter.

b) The 1956 book by Strauss and Browne. As a prominent researcher once exclaimed to me, "we have no reason not to accept what they said at face value ". since there has been no sufficient reason to doubt their credibility, we must conclude that what they said was correct. What they said was "A third head of the CID, Sir Melville MacNaghten, appears to iddentify the Ripper with the leader of a plot to assassinate Mr. Balfour at the Irish office". Additionally, it has been confirmed that Strauss and Browne had direct access to the Home Office and Scotland Yard files. This is confirmed by direct passages in their 1956 work matching passages only known to exist in the HO and SY files. That, I know, from reading the A-Z by Fido, Skinner and yourself.

So, if the threatening letter was this letter that Browne and Strauss state MacNaghten found and "vexed" Anderson about it, this would explain why he was almost transferred out of the CID. Remember, Anderson was Special Branch and if there was documentary evidence connecting the JTR murders to an assassination plot against Balfour, which was found by MacNaghten, Anderson would be the person to "vex" about it, especially if one was a Ripperphile, as we know MacNaghten was.

Regarding the letter that threatened MacNaghten - I have never heard of this letter threatening to kill MacNaghten, from William Henry Townsend. I also see no reason, stated in a previous paragraph, why MacNaghten would "vex" Anderson about a letter such as this. I especially believe this since as you argue, which I would concur with your assessment, that this letter would have been sent much closer to the date of the letter sent to Gladstone, if this was the letter MacNaghten "vexed" Anderson about in the Swanson Marginalia, the argument behind that thoery would be that after MacNaghten was almost transferred out of the CID in 1890, three years later he was bothering the hell out of Anderson, in charge of the CID, by making "undue fuss" over this letter. This does not make any sense, when looked at from this angle.

Now, back to the Balfour assassination letter - in Monro's memoirs, which we actually have, rediscovered in 1987, he attests that "the Fenians inaguarated a system of assassinations of eminent persons, especially Mr. Balfour". Monro went so far as to name the person chosen for this, an Irishman named J.S. Wlash, who had been involved in the Phoenix Park murders. We now know that not only was Walsh not involved in any assassination attempts on Balfour during 1887-1889, but know that in 1888, the Fenian movement had moved from attacking the English through bombings and assassinations to trying to infiltrate American politics and strengthening their forces on the Canadian border. This comes from documented testimony of Fenians, most notably John Devoy, who was particularly upset with Alexander Sullivan's leadership of the Fenian movement in America, as well as Ireland.

This becomes another background source for the Browne and Strauss find and one directly from the known writings of the absolute head of the Special Branch and Anderson's immediate boss, James Monro. It was also James Monro who was a close personal friend of MacNaghten and resigned in 1890 due to political problems within the Met. Interestingly enough, in 1890, MacNaghten is suddenly under the threat of transfer. The possibility that these two items are connected is not out of the realm of plausible theory, regardless of where you fall on the Anderson suspect ID.

With regards to Tumblety, the argument that everything we know about the police involvement in his arrest on November 7th has nothing to do with the JTR investigation is a flawed argument. From newspaper reports in November, December and January, we know that Tumblety was, in some way, believed to be connected to the murders. Before we get the wrong idea, I do not believe Tumblety was JTR, but that is not the same as saying Tumblety has no place in the JTR argument as an important piece in the puzzle.

If MacNaghten saw a document that was under Special Branch jurisdiction, as a threatening letter connecting Balfour to the JTR murders would have been, then yes, he should not have seen that document, having not been a member of the Special Branch. I think there is a big difference between Anderson distrusting MacNaghten and Anderson allowing MacNaghten to see Special Branch documents. I hope you could agree with me on that one. One must ask the question how did he get access to that document, which is verified by Monro, two researchers and yourself under the comments you made regarding the 1905 City Press article on the Anderson up ... Anderson down thread.

With regards to MacNaghten knowing about the Anderson suspect ID, that can be backed up by his own 1894 internal memo attempting to clear Cutbush. If there was a suspect ID and that suspect was Kosminki, how would MacNaghten have known about it, yet no one on the force other than Swanson know about it, at least as we can certainly state because no one else on the force has ever attested to it. If Anderson simply told MacNaghten about the suspect ID, which can be logically theorized when analyzing the evolution of MacNaghten's three separate memorandums, I am not sure why it is such a hard strectch to believe he could have simply told Swanson about it as well, especially when Swanson was not Special Branch and Anderson could always use that reason to justify keeping Swanson away from a suspect ID.

Regarding Cutbush, I think,with all due respect, that you have it backwards. The Donner material, seen by two people who have never been deemed as non-credible sources or have ever had their memory challenged on anything other than this, actually confirms the reason why MacNaghten was chosen to write the 1894 internalmemo on Cutbush. Who better to write it than someone who initially suspected Cutbush as one of his three likely suspects, which included Michael John Druitt (MacNaghten's reference, although from Donner/Loftus) and a Polish Jew named Leather Apron. It should be obvious, even for someone like MacNaghten, that to view these three suspects as likely, one would have to gather information on them.

Compare the first version of the memo, which we can assume, from what we know about the arrest of Thomas Cutbush, was written sometime in 1891, with the Lady Aberconway version. Druitt, the Polish Jew nicknamed Leather Apron and Cutbush to Druitt, the Polish Jew Kosminski and Ostrog, now defending Cutbush as not the murderer.

Now, ask yourself why MacNaghten was suddenly back in the good graces of the CID in 1891, which we know is a recorded fact. Could it be that his "private info" led him away from the Balfour letter to Druitt and this finally led him to stop bothering Anderson, a Special Branch officer, about the assassination letter, a Special Branch document?

If Anderson concocted the whole suspect ID, as I believe, his Special Branch stature could easily cover for a secret witness/suspect ID, which produced a suspect that he stated was MacNaghten's Polish Jew, yet was not Leather Apron, but Aaron Kosminski. There would be no reason to swear anyone to secrecy, as you obviously do not reveal to anyone, Swanson included and most definately not MacNaghten, that the suspect ID was fabricated.

The alias Tumblety used was "Frank Townsend" and it has been suggested that he was the person who purchased the knives used in the Phoenix Park murders, transporting them from England to Dublin and giving them to the Invincibles. It has also been suggested that Tumbelty was an English spy, but that has never proved fruitful and there is way too much against it as a theory to facilitate it. Tumblety, through the Townsend alias, could have been labeled as a Fenian or a Fenian conspirator - this would have brought him to the attention of the Special Branch and why he would have been known to Chief Inspector Littlechild. This also explains why they knew enough about him to arrest him on gross indecency charges in November, had a Special Branch officer follow him to Boulougne (spelling) and across the Atlantic to NYC, where three officers, including Byrnes,were waiting to keep tabs on him. Not arrest him, but keep tabs on him.

It seems as if Tumblety was and is a key aspect of the JTR investigation, but not as the murderer. It is in this connection that his involvement is directly connected to Anderson's suspect ID.

Sorry for the loooooooooong response, but I felt it was warranted.

I look forward to your response.
  Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2008, 03:35 AM   #9
Paul
Registered User
 
Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,057
Default

Hi Stan,
I'm afraid it isn't speculation that the threatening letter threatened the life of Macnaghten. The incident of the treatening letter was referred to i The Lighter Side of My Official Life and the recipient, unnamed by Anderson, was identified as Macnaghten in a marginal gloss by Swanson. The passge (I have emboldened the part about the recipient's life being threatened) in Anderson's memoir reads in full:-

'The public never realised what a marvellous escape Mr. Gladstone had in April, 1893, when the lunatic Townsend, with a loaded revolver in his pocket, lay in wait for him in Downing Street. A lunatic is often diverted from his purpose as easily as a child; and the man's own explanation of his failing to fire was that the Premier smiled at him when passing into No. io a providential circumstance that, for Mr. Gladstone was not addicted to smiling. That case cost me much distress of mind. " Never keep a document," should be the first rule with a criminal. " Never destroy a document," should be an inexorable rule in Police work. But in this case I had destroyed a letter that would have proved an important piece of evidence. I always ignored threatening letters myself, and I have had my share of them ; and when one of my principal subordinates brought me a letter threatening his life, I felt so indignant and irritated at the importance he attached to it, and the fuss he made over it, that I threw it into the fire. That letter was from Townsend, and though no harm came of my act, I could not forgive myself for it.'

Here the full facts are plainly provided, the letter threatened Macnaghten's life, it was from Townsend, Townsend afterwards sent a threatening letter to Gladstone and intended to assassinate him, this happened in April 1893. There is no reason to suppose that the letter was received significantly earlier - altough research into the life of Townsend might suggest otherwise - and certainly no reason to suppose that Townend had anything to do with Jack the Ripper or that this lone madman was the leader of a plot to assassinate Balfour. Prima facie a letter sent to Macnaghten in or shortly before 1893 will have had nothing to do with anything that happened to Macnaghten in 1890. Browne/Strauss could not have seen that letter because Anderson states he destroyed it by throwing it on the fire, so whatever they saw it was not that letter or had any connection whatsoever with it.

There seems little point in examining the rest of your argument if this crucial foundaton on which it is constructed is wrong, and the threatening letter treatened the lif of Macnaghten, was from Townsend, was probably received in or shortly before 1893, and was destroyed by Anderson. It was not a 'Special Branch' document (Anderson would hardly have destroyed it if it was) and appears to have been sent to Macnaghten personally, was not a document Macnaghten shouldn't have seen, Macnaghten wasn't almost tranferred from the C.I.D. becasue of it, and... well, the theory basically collapses.

Cheers
Paul
Paul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2008, 04:56 AM   #10
Paul
Registered User
 
Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan Russo View Post
Regarding Cutbush, I think,with all due respect, that you have it backwards. The Donner material, seen by two people who have never been deemed as non-credible sources or have ever had their memory challenged on anything other than this, actually confirms the reason why MacNaghten was chosen to write the 1894 internalmemo on Cutbush. Who better to write it than someone who initially suspected Cutbush as one of his three likely suspects, which included Michael John Druitt (MacNaghten's reference, although from Donner/Loftus) and a Polish Jew named Leather Apron. It should be obvious, even for someone like MacNaghten, that to view these three suspects as likely, one would have to gather information on them.
As briefly as possible, let's take a quick look at the Loftus version.

There are possibly three versions of the Macnaghten Memoranda:

(1) is contained in the Scotland Yard files and is commonly deemed to be the ‘final version’,

(2) is a copy of what appears to have been a draft version. It is titled, ‘Memorandum on articles which appeared in the Sun re JACK THE RIPPER on 14 Feb 1894 and subsequent dates’. The original belonged to Macnaghten's daughter, Julia Donner, and was borrowed and copied by her sister Lady Aberconway. The copy was typed by Lady Aberconway's secretary, except for the pages relating to the suspects which were hand copied by Lady Aberconway herself. The original document was then returned to Julia Donner and its fate is unknown.

(3) Is a still earlier version which may have existed and in the early 1950s was in the possession of Julia Donner's son, Gerald Melville Donner, being seen about that time by a friend of Gerald Donner's named Philip Loftus. Loftus wrote a letter to Lady Aberconway on 11 August 1972, having read Tom Cullen’s book Autumn of Terror and Dan Frason's Jack the Ripper, saying that his recollection of the document was that the suspects were ‘Michael John Druitt’, ‘a feeble-minded man (probably Thomas Cutbush), who followed young girls and stabbed them . . . with nail scissors’, and ‘a Polish Jew cobbler nick-named Leather Apron’. In October of that same year Loftus wrote in the Guardian newspaper that the document he saw were private notes ‘in Sir Melville’s handwriting on official paper, rather untidy and in the nature of rough jottings’, and ‘gave 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’. The Donner version has never been seen since.

Now, it is possible that what Loftus saw was:

(a) the version inherited by Julia Donner, which Lady Aberconway copied and which has since disappeared. We do not know what that document looked like and it could well have been rather untidy, rough jottings. If Loftus saw the version borrowed by LAdy Aberconway from Julia Donner then it is self-evident that Loftus misremembered the names.

(b) On the other hand it could have been an earlier draft of the Donner draft. But, and this is the important point, it would still have been a draft of the document written to refute the Sun’s allegations against Cutbush, as the title given to the Donner/Aberconway version clearly states (seee 2 above). As such it would hardly have listed Cutbush among the suspects - if, indeed, Cutbush was the man who stabbed girls in the bottom with nail scissors - and Loftus only suggests this as a probaility - which again suggests that Loftus's memory is at fault.

(c) Or the Loftus document was an altogether different from the memorandum, but if that was the case then we don't know what it was about or when it was writteh. It need not have predated the memoranda, and there is no reason to suppose that it would have done, and could, for example, have dated from 1899 and concerned allegations about the identity of the Ripper from press and public and cited the contemporary references to Leather Apron, the later press allegations about Cutbush, and the private communication about Druitt. In short it may not have been offering those named as serious suspects at all.

No matter how you cut it, the fact is that Philip Loftus was remembering a document he saw once and was remembering after an interval of maybe two decades and after reading and perhaps having his memory contaminated by Cullen and Farson's books. The added probability that what he saw was the Donner/Aberconway version, the content of which we know, suggests that he did misremember the named suspects, or saw an earlier draft of that document further suggests that he misremembered the named suspects. The idea that Macnaghten favoured Cutbush depends on the assumption that the Loftus verson was not written to refute the allegations against Cutbush,which mens it was not an earlier draft of the Donner/Aberconway version, and the assumption that whatever it was it predated 1891 when that version was written. Neither assumption seems to have any reason for being outside the fact that you want Macnaghten to have been pro-Cutbush,and as far as I can recall there is no evidence that anyone ever thought Cutbush was the Ripper before the [I]Sun[I]'s allegations.
Paul is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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
Anderson and the Theft of Official Documents SPE Sir Robert Anderson 11 February 23rd, 2011 01:00 PM
Profiles of Anderson SPE Sir Robert Anderson 3 September 9th, 2010 07:08 PM
Messrs. Begg & Fido On Sir Robert Anderson Jeff Leahy Sir Robert Anderson 648 May 19th, 2010 03:46 PM
Begg Narrowly Escapes Death !!!!!!!!!!!!! Howard Brown People 1 October 26th, 2008 10:35 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:35 AM.


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