Problems with the Macnaghten Memoranda
by Scott Hannaford
Although Sir Melville Macnaughten did not join Scotland Yard until
1889, ie after the final Ripper murder, his notes on the case have
been used as the basis for study of a majority of researchers.
There still exist two versions of the memoranda - the Aberconway
version which was discovered in 1959, and the Scotland Yard version
as seen by Donald Rumbelow in 1975. These two both detail Montague
Druitt, Aaron Kosminski and Michael Ostrog, and also refute the
claims against Thomas Cutbush.
Macnaughten's grandson Gerald Donner also had a copy, which was seen
by Phillip Loftus in the 1950's. Unfortunately Loftus did not take
a copy of the memorandum, and could only recall that it described
(i) Michael [sic] John Druitt ... (ii) a feeble minded man who
stabbed girls with nail scissors (either Cutbush or Coldicott) and
(iii) a Polish cobbler nicknamed Leather Apron.
The Donner version has never resurfaced, which is unfortunate as it
would show the evolution of Macnaughten's theories. It may have
also held details as to whether or not this Leather Apron was indeed
Pizer. Because of its disappearance researchers now use either of
the two existing documents.
Whilst the documents are important in that they introduce three
plausable suspects, they should be used with caution as in hindsight
we can see that they have too many errors which cast doubt on the
validity of the supects and call into question the reliability of
Macnaughten- a police officer not directly involved with the events
of 1888.
In both versions of the memoranda Macnaughten writes that "no-one
ever saw the Whitechapel Murderer". This clearly contradicts the
beliefs of Anderson and Swanson and the statements of Lawende and
Schwartz. Major Henry Smith believed that Lawende saw the Ripper,
whilst Scotland Yard file MEPO 3/140 207 puts Schwartz as a very
important witness- the file mentions "the opinion arrived at in this
office upon the evidence of Schwartz at the inquest in Stride's
case". So it is clear that the Police believed that Lawende had seen
Eddowe's assailant (ie Jack the Ripper), whereas Schwartz had seen
Strides (probably a different killer-note the MO differs drastically).
The Aberconway version contains the passage "I am inclined to
exonerate the last two [Kosminski and Ostrog]", so why did he bother
to mention them at all if he did not believe them guilty?
Macnaughten's description of the three suspects has far too many
errors considering that he was supposed to have had access to all of
the files. He described Druitt as bein a doctor of 41 years of age,
whilst he was actually a teacher/failed barrister and aged 31. He
also wrote that Druitt was sexually insane, and although it is clear
that Druitt was indeed a paranoid depressive, he killed himself to
prevent insanity (going like mother).
The Scotland Yard version oulines "a rational theory that ... he
(the killer) immediately committed suicide or was confined in some
assylum"; the latter clearly refers to Kosminski and Ostrog, so the
former must be a reference to Druitt. He did not commit suicide
immediately after Millers Court, but probably between 1st and 3rd
December, a good three weeks later.
On Kosminski the memoranda are only inaccurate as to the date of
his incarceration. He was not removed to an assylum "about March
1889", but spent three days in Mile End Infirmary in July 1890 and
was then admitted into Colney Hatch Assylum in February 1891, ie
two years later.
Both memoranda describe Ostrog as being a homocidal maniac, but
a glance at his criminal record does not confirm this. He was a
liar, thief and con-artist, and despite an attempt to throw himself
under a train whilst handcuffed to a Policman, was not a homocidal
maniac.
The three suspects have been considered in detail by many
researchers, and it is difficult to make a strong case against any
of them. It has been suggested, probably correctly, that
Macnaughten named these three at random, taking them from a long
list of equally plausable suspects.
It must be wondered why a senior officer who had access to all of
the files could produce such an error-strewn document on three
unlikely suspects. The answer is probably that Macnaughten wrote
the memorandum simply to refute the ridiculous accusations against
Thomas Cutbush (his uncle had been a Police Superintendent), and as
the case against Cutbuch was practically non-existent, he could do
this with ease even using three other unlikelys.
Macnaughten was not even a part of Scotland Yard in 1888, and his
knowledge of the murders is all second and third hand. Whilst it is
not a fake like the Maybrick Journal, or a hoax like the
Gorman/Sickert story (and I apologise for putting it in the same
passage as the two), the number of errors and Macnaughten's
second-hand knowledge means that researchers should use the
documents with trepidation.
I would welcome any comments.
Scott Hannaford
BA Undergraduate in History
Worcester College England
