HerlockSholmes

Has anyone seen this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bookish_(TV_series) I don’t know if it’s available in the USA. If it is then I highly recommend it; it’s brilliant. A second series is planned.

I read the first two before I saw the movie and then read the third after I’d seen it. I was wondering about how I’d react to the casting because we all get a mental picture of the characters and there were two that I struggled to visualise. One was Helen Mirren as Elizabeth because I’d pictured her as more of a matronly Miss Marple type figure and no one would call Helen Mirren ‘matronly’ or compare her to Joan Hickson or Margaret Rutherford but it worked in my opinion. The other was the casting of Pierce Brosnan as Ron. I pictured him more like the late Bob Hoskins. Mainly of course it was because I picture Brosnan in a tuxedo playing Bond. He was really good though. It looks like a follow-up movie is on the cards too although it hasn’t been given the final go ahead. Both cast and director are all keen apparently. It’s a petty that Messrs Cumberbatch, Freeman and Gatiss don’t appear to have that same level of enthusiasm.

I don’t know if anyone else has read any of these books but I have to recommend the crime novels of Richard Osman, beginning with The Thursday Murder Club. To be honest I would never had decided to read them had they not been recommended to me by a friend from the USA so I decided to give them a go and I don’t regret it for a second. I won’t go into detail but it’s basically set in an upmarket retirement village in Sussex (on the south coast of England) Four friends get together to form The Thursday Murder Club to look into unsolved crimes. The four friends are Joyce (a former nurse, now widowed) Ron (a former Trade Union organiser) Ibrahim (a psychiatrist) and Elizabeth (a former high ranking MI6 officer who’s writer husband suffers from dementia) The stories are cleverly written, the characters are brilliant and the humour is great (with a fair bit of poignancy thrown in) Think of ‘a well written combination of Agatha Christie and Midsomer Murders) They’re difficult to put down. I’ve read three of the five written so far and I’ll be picking up the fourth next week. The first one was also made into a movie which I saw on Netflix just before Christmas. It was really well done. Joyce was played by Celia Imrie, Ron was played by Pierce Brosnan, Ibrahim was played by Ben Kingsley and Elizabeth was played by Helen Mirren. The bad guy in the story was played by David Tennant. There’s one great moment where Helen Mirren disguised herself and looks just as she did when she played the Queen. I noticed straight away then Celia Imrie said “You look just like The Queen.”🙂 👍👍👍

It would be perhaps hard to imagine no one attempting one at some point Carol but the trend is toward doing ‘versions’ of the character which is fine. I can understand producers/writers liking the freedom of not being shackled to certain familiar storylines but another option would be to do one off, movie-length stories taken from the various Holmes pastiches that have been written. Yes it’s a strange thought. The series certainly struck a note with younger people which might perhaps be a little surprising? Not down to the quality because it was excellent but because of the storylines, which were quite complex and younger people today have a tendency toward action over brain power as far as I can see. Tough guys, high-tech weaponry, special effects, car chases etc. Maybe my impression is wrong though? During the flashbacks in the movie we saw McKellen just before his retirement so I was thinking of around that kind of age Carol but set just after he’d retired to keep bees as in the Laurie King stories. McKellen would have been ideal if he was 20 years younger (and wanted to do it of course) Peter Cushing played Holmes when he was 70 and he thought that he was too old…he got away with it but he’d have been perfect to play a recently retired Holmes. It will certainly be interesting to see if they eventually make the Laurie King version. To be honest I do wonder what the problem is? Yes, I read about that one the other day Carol. I’ll have to track it down for a listen. I really dislike giving books away Carol and stupidly I found that I’ve given away at least three by mistake. In my local town there’s an old second hand book shop. It’s been closed for at least 15 years and yet there it sits, full of books! I talked to a former bookshop owner in a nearby town 2 or 3 years ago and he said that he’d tried to buy the stock but the local council had to,d him that they went with the shop and couldn’t be sold separately. Could anything be more insane?

The series might be a good one and I certainly shouldn’t pre-judge. It’s more a case of “how many different ‘angles’ can there be?” I loved House so there’s no reason why this one couldn’t be good too. I imagine that I’ll eventually get around to watching an episode at some point. I can’t see a traditional series coming any time soon either Carol. Things like the Watson series don’t have the baggage that a traditional series carries because there’s nothing for the viewers to compare it to so it’s judged as a standalone work, as it should be; individuals either like it or they don’t. A trad series is always going to be compared to the Granada series and anyone playing Holmes would be compared to Brett so I really don’t see anyone attempting it….not for a few years anyway. There’s certainly more chance of a new Sherlock at some point but, as you say, we may have a few years to wait. Here’s a hypothetical one for you Carol (and anyone else) could you imagine them doing a Sherlock at some point with someone other than Cumberbatch playing him?🤔 I always hoped that they might do another ‘older Holmes’ movie with McKellen but I doubt it. Talking of ‘older Holmes,’ I’m surprised that, as yet, we’ve seen no Mary Russell/ Holmes movie based on the Laurie King books. A few years ago it was said that an adaptation was being looked at and planned but there’s been nothing yet. It’s difficult to imagine why it’s such a difficult prospect. I’ve been moving books on over the past few years out of necessity Carol. I’d have loved to have had a proper library room but I just don’t have that kind of space so the local charity shops have been getting regular donations from me. It’s impossible to estimate how many books I’ve given away although it’s well over a 1000. I’ve probably got no more than 1000 left now (with around 330 being on the subject of Jack the Ripper) Do you know where I can buy a TARDIS cheap?😁

Hi Carol, it’s certainly been a while. I hope that you’re well? Likewise Arcadia and everyone else of course. Yes I’ve quite a list although these days I’d struggle to follow all of the variations and follow-ons. The latest appears to be Watson (which I haven’t watched) then there was Enola Holmes (which I haven’t watched either) When I was last here I seem to recall the series where Holmes was a Japanese woman being discussed (I think that I saw one episode and didn’t like it) but I’m sure that there have been a few more. Maybe some of them are ok but there’s some heavy ‘cashing in’ going on and no sign of the two things that I’d actually like to see happen - a new traditional Holmes series and a new series of Sherlock - neither of which seem likely to occur as we speak; and I wouldn’t like to say which of the two was least likely (although I’d favour the Holmes series for that title) I get the feeling that any return of Messrs Cumberbatch, Freeman and Gatiss might be likeliest in the form of some kind of one-off programme but even that doesn’t appear to be in anyone’s plans at the moment. I’d just assumed that a third Robert Downey Jnr Holmes movie was in the making but checking online it doesn’t look like anything has begun yet and there appears to be some doubt as to whether it will ever surface. I’ve just seen that Guy Ritchie is doing a Young Sherlock movie now. I’m waiting for Sherlock the Toddler or Sherlock the Old Woman next. I’m only just getting over a very traumatic experience in that I had to make the decision to part with the vast majority of my Holmes book collection. They took up five x 6” bookshelves and I just needed the space. I keep a few of course and so now have just one shelf which I look at with a bit of sadness (how attached we get to possessions?) I have around 350 books on the ripper murders already taking up shelf space but they are going nowhere and I gave various other subjects which have now emerged from a couple of cupboards to fill the spaces. If I want to read some Holmes pastiches I’ll do it via Kindle. By the way, if anyone is looking for some good stories I can recommend The Six-Thirteen From Fairfield Junction and Other Cases of Sherlock Holmes by the brilliant Holmes pastiche writer Denis O. Smith. Quality stuff as ever. …………. A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all on Sherlock Forum.👍🎅🥂

Hi all, It’s been a while. I hope that everyone is well? In reply to ElstonGunn - there are quite a few versions that are well worth looking at. Carol and Caya have already gone to the top of the pile by mentioning the Granada series with the finest Holmes ever imo Jeremy Brett. The Rathbone Bruce series gets a mention too as it always should. Rathbone is superb. Radio versions - The series created by Bert Coules starring Clive Merrison as Holmes is about as good as it gets but there are some others that are easy to access (and cheaply) First, Rathbone and Bruce recorded many radio adventures until Rathbone decided that he’d had enough of Holmes, but Bruce continued with an actor called Tom Conway as Holmes (it’s often difficult to distinguish him from Rathbone). Before Merrison probably the best radio series was with Carlton Hobbs as Holmes and Norman Shelley as Watson - well worth listening to. Finally on radio there were few episodes recorded with John Gielgud as Holmes and Ralph Richardson as Watson (two very eminent English actors) but one other to mention had John Stanley as Holmes - not as good imo but well worth a listen. All of the above are easy to find and will cost very little. You can probably listen to most of them on YouTube. There are a few others but I can’t recall them from memory. TV Series - Two classic UK series that are both available on dvd/blue ray are from the 60’s. The first stars Douglas Wilmer as Holmes with Nigel Stock as Watson. Wilmer is brilliant as Holmes and before Brett he was considered by many to be the definitive Holmes. You can buy the box set easily but there aren’t many episodes (Wilmer appeared in an episode of Sherlock of course). When Wilmer decided he’d had enough Peter Cushing took over but his series was in colour while Wilmer’s was black and White. Both great though. The celebrated Russian series is also easily available with Vasily Livanov as Holmes. Well worth watching although they would have been improved by having the subtitles done by someone that spoke English properly. An enjoyable TV series of shorts starred Ronald Howard. They aren’t faithful to the originals but they are worth watching, as is a later series (made by the same producer) starting Geoffrey Whitehead as Holmes. Movies - A Study in Terror - John Neville is an excellent Holmes trying to track down Jack the Ripper. The Hound of the Baskervilles made by Hammer and with Peter Cushing as Holmes is very good. One of Cushing’s TV episodes was also The Hound so he’s the only actor to have done it twice. The Seven Percent Solution with Nicol Williamson as Holmes is also good. Holmes meets Sigmund Freud in Watson’s attempt to cure him of his cocaine addition (Charles Grey who plays Mycroft in the Grenada series plays Mycroft in this too) Also easy to get are the 4 pre- Rathbone era Holmes movies starting Arther Wontner as Holmes. Not great movies but enjoyable and Wontner is an excellent Holmes. I hope that helps? Lots of good Holmes stuff out there (a fair bit of not-so-good too🙂)

Hi Carol, Caya and Brontodon. I hope that everyone is well here on the Sherlock Forum? It’s been a while since I’ve posted. As far as why Watson felt free to spill the beans I think that it’s worth remembering that Doyle wasn’t thinking about the concept of a ‘Holmes universe’ which is shown by the fact that so much time has been spent over the years discussing and disputing the order of the stories. Doyle was never really a master of detail. He was simply interested in telling a good and exciting story which is in contrast to his historical novels like The White Company, Sir Nigel and Micah Clarke where he did lots of quite extensive research. We all know that Doyle came to see his Holmes stories as trivialities when compared to his other work so he spent less time on them and books have been written about the errors in the Holmes stories. Doyle would have considered that the reader was reading this story many years after the actual events occurred and so it should be considered that Holmes had told Watson that the story should only be published after a certain length of time. On The Politician, The Lighthouse and the Trained Cormorant, here’s your opportunity to read it Carol.🙂 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Politician-Lighthouse-Trained-Cormorant-Adventure/dp/1090602456 You can also listen to Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce acting out the story on Spotify and other places like YouTube. I’m pretty sure that I have another written version of the story somewhere too. Every case mentioned in the canonical stories has been turned into a pastiche at some point. The most famous being The Giant Rat of Sumatra which I have at least three versions of. There’s also The Shocking Affair of the Dutch Steamship Friesland (which nearly cost Holmes and Watson their lives.) The Case of the Papers of ex-President Murillo, the singular affair of The Aluminium Crutch and my particular favourite Ricoletti of the Clubbed Foot and his Abominable Wife. You’ll notice the Sherlock reference of course. Finally, The Adventure of the Veiled Lodger which was Doyle’s penultimate Holmes story. This is a tale about a landlady who tells Holmes about her strange veiled guest whose face she had only seen once and it was horribly disfigured. She cries out ‘murder’ at night and is clearly disturbed. When the woman appears to be at death’s door the landlady says that she is going to tell someone but the woman doesn’t want anyone official involved so the landlady mentions Holmes. The woman tells her to say the name ‘Abbas Parma’ which Holmes immediately recognises as the case of a circus lion which tragically escaped killing one person and savagely mauling the other. Holmes gets to the bottom of it of course. It’s not one of the best Holmes stories by any stretch.

Hikari/Carol, One ‘Ripperologist’ (I’ve always hated that term) has a theory that the killer didn’t remove any body parts in situ and that the missing parts were actually stolen at the mortuary. He appears to stand alone with this theory although it seems that there was some kind of trade in body parts. We know that organs were taken from Chapman and Eddowes but not Nichols and Stride. The guy I mentioned disputes the Kelly murder. The doctor said that the heart was absent but he thinks that this meant absent from the body despite the fact that he lists all of the organs found in the room and there was no mention of the heart. We don’t know exactly where the note was found and some reports mention a second note (to Valentine, the owner of the school’ but we have no more than that. Blackheath to Whitechapel is a fair distance (a walk of around 90 to 105 minutes I believe which could be done after a murder by a fit man but it’s not a walk that anyone was likely to have done for work purposes so I’ll certainly back up on my point about the season ticket) There’s not often any Druitt-related discussion on the boards these days because, as you’ll understand, pretty much everything has been discussed numerous times but there has been a recent ‘find’ that has just been posted which was discovered by two excellent researchers called Roger Palmer and David Barrat. It’s from a column called Mustard and Cress which was written by the journalist George Sims. He regularly wrote about the case and was a friend of MacNaghten’s. The Referee - Sunday 24 August 1913 MUSTARD AND CRESS I have been reading with great interest Mrs Belloc Lowndes’s thrilling story of “The Lodger,” which is appearing in the Daily Telegraph. The story of “The Avenger” suggests the adventures of Jack the Ripper, and the reader, as he follows the narrative, finds himself wondering if “The Lodger” may not himself be the mysterious woman-killer who is being so diligently searched for by the police. I am not going to make any comment on the remarkable sensation story the gifted authoress has founded on the mystery of the maniac who has been handed down to infamy as Jack the Ripper. The Real Jack WAS a Lodger during the whole of the time he was committing his crimes, and the house in which he lodged was in the neighbourhood of Blackheath. It was after his last maniacal murder in Miller’s –court that he disappeared from his lodgings. His body was found a month later in the Thames, and the probability is that he flung himself into the river a few hours after committing his last crime. But it is not to revive the old controversy as to the identity of Jack that I am now referring to Mrs. Belloc Lowndes’s remarkable story. I refer to it because it has recalled to my memory a strange experience of my own. Somewhere among my papers I have an astounding document signed by the lady in whose house a man whom she firmly believed to be Jack had lodged. He had come to her house very much as the mysterious “Lodger” in the Telegraph serial comes to Mrs. Bunting. He was supposed to be a medical student. The odd thing about him was that he went out very little in the daytime, but frequently went out late at night, and always carried a small black bag. He was rather a prepossessing-looking man, appeared to have plenty of money for his modest needs, and made himself agreeable to the members of the family. He made himself so agreeable that he landlady’s niece, who lived with her, did not feel annoyed when the lodger confessed that He Was In Love With Her The landlady’s husband was a foreigner. He was a professor of languages and held an official position at a public institution. When he heard that the lodger was paying attentions to his niece he was annoyed. “I didn’t like the man,” he said, “and we knew nothing of him beyond the fact that his reference was a doctor in whose house he had lodged before he came to us.” The professor was so annoyed that he ordered his niece to have nothing to do with the young man, and sent her away to a relation in the country. He also insisted upon his wife giving the lodger a fortnight’s notice. The lodger was annoyed and upset and received his dismissal with a bad brace. That night the lodger went out soon after ten. The landlady saw him leave the house with his black bag. At three o’clock in the morning she was awakened by the noise of the front door closing. She struck a light and opened her bedroom door a little way and looked out. She saw the lodger coming up the stairs. He was in a state of great excitement, his face was marked with deep scratches, and he looked like a man who had been having an awful struggle with someone. “I’ve been attacked by thieves,” he said, when he saw the landlady looking at him. “Two men and a woman set about me in a dark corner of a street, and I had to run for my life.” Then he went to his bedroom. About ten o’clock the next morning his landlady heard the lodger go to the bathroom, and she took that opportunity to go into her lodger’s bedroom and have a look round. He had lighted a fire himself, and on the hearth she saw The Remains of Burnt Linen The bag was on a chair by the side of the bed. She opened it, and in it she saw a long and curiously shaped knife. The landlady was so alarmed that she went off at once to the institution at which her husband was engaged. On her way she caught sight of the newspaper placards. Two women had been found in the early hours of the morning murdered and mutilated in a way which left no doubt that the murderer was Jack the Ripper. She told the story of her discovery in the lodger’s room to the professor, who returned at once with her to the house to make a personal investigation before communicating with the police. When they reached the house the lodger had taken his belongings and had gone. He had left a fortnight’s rent, and a short note: “As I do not care to remain with you ‘under notice’ I have thought it better to leave at once.” The professor hurried off to the police-station and told his story. Every search was made for the missing lodger, but without success, and shortly afterwards another murder was committed. Then came the last in Miller’s-court, and after that the information in the possession of Scotland Yard left very little doubt in the official mind as to Who Jack Really Was He committed suicide while the police were looking for him, and the finding of his body in the Thames put an end to all further official search for him. The real Jack was an insane doctor named D*****, who had been in a lunatic asylum and had escaped. He was a homicidal maniac whose friends, alarmed at his disappearance, had communicated with Scotland Yard and given a full description of him. Several women in Whitechapel, of the class Jack selected his victims from, when shown the photograph the friends left with the police, declared that it was exactly like a man whom they had seen about in the neighbourhood on the nights the crimes had been committed. Two of them declared that he had spoken to them. The body of the man was found in the Thames a month after the murderer’s last crime. And the body had been a month in the water. It was when these facts came to my knowledge that I put away the document the landlady of the mysterious lodger had left with me. I accepted, as everybody who knew the facts has accepted, the police theory that Jack Had Been Identified, and there was no useful purpose to be served in following up any other “clue.” The “revelation” made to me by the landlady who thought she had had Jack beneath her roof was brought vividly to my mind by the thrilling story of “The Lodger” in the Daily Telegraph

Lionel Druitt was definitely a Doctor who lived at 140 Minories before moving to Clapham Road. He’s out as a suspect though as he emigrated to New South Wales, Australia in 1886. Another piece of speculation in regard to medical knowledge…..Druitt got his degree in 1880 but wasn’t admitted to the Inner Temple to train as a Barrister until 1882 so some researchers have suggested that he might initially have begun medical training (following in his Father’s footsteps) but then decided to move to law. As I said, it’s pure speculation of course but there is an unexplained gap. It tends to be assumed that Druitt lodged at the Blackheath school but is that a definite? When he died he had a season rail ticket from London to Blackheath…would he have needed that if he lived and worked in Blackheath, making the odd trip into London on legal business? Possibly. But it’s not impossible that he had a room elsewhere too.

The problem is that even though MacNaghten had a strong inclination toward Druitt (based on the private information that he’d received) he never said that he was definitely guilty so it looks like whatever the evidence was it wasn’t sufficient to be considered proof of guilt. There’s no evidence of Druitt ever being in an asylum (though George Sims said that the killer had been confined, possibly twice, there’s nothing to back this up. One of the complaints that’s levelled against Druitt as a suspect is that there’s no physical evidence connecting him to Whitechapel but to be honest I’ve always found this a weak point. We’ve all done things in our recent past that we couldn’t provide evidence for if asked and let’s face it, there weren’t many places in Victorian Whitechapel that called for a visitors book to be signed. Druitt did have a cousin called Lionel though who was a doctor that lived in the Minories up until around 1886. This was around 2 minutes walk from Mitre Square. Also, in April 1886 Conservative politician JG Talbot held a meeting in Kings Bench Walk (where Druitt’s chambers were) to get Barristers to join the mission at Oxford House (which had opened in 1844) in Bethnal Green. It was a place where the better off (inc Oxford men) could live among the poor and help them. It was a more religious movement than Toynbee Hall. (The North Country Vicar claimed that the ripper was part of a movement rescuing poor women in the East End.) So, like a lot of men of his class, it’s far from impossible that he could have done this kind of charity work. Fallen women?

Blackmail is a possibility which has been suggested Hikari (as you won’t be surprised to hear considering how long there has been interest in the case) and the motive suggested by you is plausible but it’s also possible that there could have been other possible explanations. A few examples…. He’d become violent toward the boys or a staff member. Inappropriate behaviour toward a female servant. It had been discovered that he’d been frequenting prostitutes. Some financial issue. Something in connection to the murders. A woman turns up at the school claiming to be carrying Druitt’s baby. The woman mentioned in the Crawford letter could simply have been a crank of course but I think that it’s at least an interesting possibility that it might have been Druitt’s aunt. As you’ve said, and I wouldn’t dispute it, the possible case for Druitt as the killer is entirely circumstantial with some interesting speculation thrown in but….I know, there’s always a but 😀 I do find it intriguing that in an unsolved case so many suggestions and pointers were made to Druitt as the guilty party. Yes, there’s a hint of the ‘there’s no smoke without fire’ argument about that but it doesn’t change the fact that there could have been something in it and although we know far more about crime, psychology and the behaviour of killers today there’s a lot to be said for the voices of those who actually around at the time. 135 years later we have a huge amount of evidence no longer available to us. Apologies for sounding like I’m presenting the case for Druitt’s guilt but I’ll just add a bit of a list: West Country M.P. Henry Farquaharson claimed in 1891 that the ripper was the son of a surgeon who committed suicide after the Kelly murder. Sir Melville MacNaghten, Assistant Chief Constable (later Chief Constable) of the Met was still favouring Druitt when he retired. Major Arthur Griffiths, Mysteries of Police and Crime: “There is every reason to believe that his own friends entertained grave doubts about him. He was also a Doctor in the prime of life, was believed to be insane, or on the borderline of insanity, and he disappeared immediately after the last murder, that in Miller’s Court on 9th November 1888. On the last day of that year, seven weeks later, his body was found floating in the Thames and was said to have been in the water a month.” Albert Bachert of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee: “I was given this information in confidence about March 1889. It was then suggested to me (by the police) that the Vigilance Committee and it’s patrols might be disbanded as the police were quite certain that the ripper was dead……He was fished out of the Thames two months ago and it would only cause pain to relatives if we said more than that.” Watkin Williams, grandson of Sir Charles Warren (head of the Met at the time of the murders) said: “My impression is that he believed the murderer to be a sex-maniac who committed suicide after the Miller’s Court murder - possibly the young Doctor whose body was found in the Thames on 31st December 1888,” Sir John Moylan, Assistant Under Secretary at the Home Office: “ The murderer, it is now certain, escaped justice by committing suicide at the end of 1888.” Sir Basil Thomson, Assistant Commissioner of the CID in 1913: “ In the belief of the police, he was a man who committed suicide in the Thames at the end of 1888.” In February 1902, the well known journalist George Sims said: ”The homicidal maniac who SHOCKED TNE WORLD as Jack the Ripper had been once - I am not sure that it was not twice - in a lunatic asylum. At the time his body was found in the Thames, his friends, who were terrified at his disappearance from their midst, were endeavouring to have him found and placed under restraint again.”

My apologies Carol, I should have said, Isabella was actually Druitt’s aunt and the family matriarch at the time. His mother Ann was already incarcerated at the time. It’s possible that the encumbrance could have been Druitt’s suicide but although it was considered shameful at the time by society it’s difficult to see it as something that could have placed any kind of lasting shadow over the family. There’s enough going on in the Druitt story to at least leave you thinking that there might be more to it imo. Could there have been anything suspicious about Druitt’s death….it’s possible (theories have been considered and written about). Could there have been any kind of concealment at the Inquest? Who knows, but the Coroner Diplock was a friend of the Druitt family. The pub where the inquest occurred still exists btw. I’ve always wondered why only a part of the suicide note was ever read out? Was there something else in it that the family didn’t want revealing?

On the various pieces of circumstantial evidence and potential hints etc I’ll add another one. James Ludovic Lindsay, 26th Earl Of Crawford wrote this letter to Sir Robert Anderson, Assistant Commissioner Of The Met: My dear Anderson, I send you this line to ask you to see & hear the bearer, whose name is unknown to me. She has or thinks she has a knowledge of the author of the Whitechapel murders. The author is supposed to be nearly related to her, & she is in great fear lest any suspicions should attach to her & place her & her family in peril. I have advised her to place the whole story before you without giving you any names, so that you may form an opinion as to its being worthwhile to investigate. Very sincerely yours, Crawford. In November 1888 Isabella Druitt wrote an anxious letter to her daughter Emily where she mentions an ‘encumbrance’ that she might never be rid of. She told Emily that she had visited Cavendish Square because of this. The Earl Of Crawford lived in Cavendish Square. Also, when I mentioned that one of MacNaghten’s best friends was related by marriage to the Druitt’s I was talking about a man called Colonel Vivian Majendie. The Earl of Crawford’s younger sister was Lady Margaret Majendie.

The point that I’ve emboldened is poorly written and needs to be clarified. Druitt had written a suicide note although we have no way of knowing exactly when he wrote it. He then bought a return ticket to Hammersmith but committed suicide before using the return part which is strange of course and has led some to suggest that Druitt might have been killed by someone or some people because he’d either confessed or that they had found out and that it was made to look like suicide. All speculation of course but the evidence appears to indicate that Druitt, for whatever reason, changed his mind about when or where he was going to end his life.

But I didn’t say that he MUST guilty Hikari, only that he could have been. The evidence for all suspects is circumstantial so we can’t come close to naming anyone with any level of confidence (although that doesn’t prevent a few people doing exactly that) Perhaps a better way of putting it from my own point of view is that from a list of largely poor suspects Druitt is one of the very few where there might be something there. I stress the word might though. As you know, Melville MacNaghten was the Assistant Chief Constable in 1894 (subordinate to Anderson) so he had all the resources of the Metropolitan Police at his disposal. That meant access to prison and asylum records going back way before the murders. Large lists of dead or permanently incarcerated violent men who he could have named in his memo (if he was only compiling a list of scapegoats) Druitt sticks out like the sorest of thumbs in my opinion. Now this doesn’t come close to allowing us to accuse him of being the killer of course but in my opinion it’s a valid point. So the possibilities are…. Macnaghten just plucked his name at random - unlikely in the extreme imo. That a family member was trying to frame him - unlikely in the extreme imo. What upper class family would want the ripper as a member (given their horror of scandal and disgrace) That the family had genuine fears that he might have been the ripper and MacNaghten agreed but they were wrong - entirely possible imo. That the family had genuine fears that he might have been the ripper and MacNaghten agreed and they were right - entirely possible imo. Druitt’s mother wasn’t involved in politics. She was in an asylum at the time of Druitt’s suicide. The evidence points away from a spur of the moment suicide because a note was found in his room after he was pulled out of the Thames so he wrote the note then bought the return ticket. It’s suspected that he might have gone to see his mother in the asylum. ….. All circumstantial of course (and there is more) but we’ll never know. The ripper case, like all cases, is rife with rumour and oral histories. It’s not impossible of course that some might contain a kernel of truth (or not) An example: In January 1899 workers at The Daily Mail opened a letter which came from an anonymous North Country Vicar who said that the ripper had confessed to a fellow priest. Strangely the vicar had titled his letter The Whitechurch Murders - Solution of a London Mystery. Why Whitechurch instead of Whitechapel which was clearly what he was referring to? There was actually a parish which was called alternately Whitchurch Canonicorum or Whitechurch though. It’s priest was The Reverend Charles Druitt…Montague’s cousin and the man who married into the family of one of MacNaghten’s best friends.

I think that if we did a tick box exercise listing various possible criteria with all of the named suspects like ‘easy access to Whitechapel?” “propensity for violence?” “known to carry a knife?” “Link to prostitutes?” “Proven murderer?” “Usual serial killer age group?” “Troubled childhood?” Then Bury would undoubtedly come out top of the list. There’s just no way of proving if he was guilty or not. On the other suspects Carol, most of them have nothing going for them at all. Someone has just tried to find things that might make them ‘fit.’ Bury is a worthy suspect because of who he was, what kind of person we know that he was and what he provably did. Kosminski and Druitt were both mentioned by senior police officers, which certainly doesn’t make them guilty, but it at least means that they might have been connected to the murders. My interest in Druitt might certainly be said to have an element of a ‘hunch’ though. Basically MacNaghten mentioned Druitt, Kosminski and a Russian called Ostrog, in an internal memo which was a response to an article in The Sun newspaper that an inmate asylum called Thomas Hayne Cutbush was Jack the Ripper. MacNaghten mentioned the three as all being better suspects that Cutbush. Kosminski was a known ‘lunatic’ from a low class background and Ostrog was a Russian criminal (both easy to throw under the bus) Druitt is a different kettle of fish though. Upper class, son of a respected surgeon, Barrister, Schoolteacher, no history of violence, no history of criminality. In my opinion Druitt is the very last person that MacNaghten would have favoured as a suspect (and he favoured Druitt of the three) if he hadn’t at the very least believed that he actually had good reason for doing so. He said that he received ‘private information’ and that Druitt’s family believed that he was guilty. We also know that one of MacNaghten’s best friends was related to the Druitt family by marriage. It’s a tantalising story and sadly we’ll probably never find out more.

Hi Hikari, You’ve already mentioned one of the 2 other suspects, Kosminski. Like all suspects there’s no solid evidence against him but he was mentioned though not by name. Sir Robert Anderson, who was Assistant Commissioner at the time of the murders, wrote a book called The Lighter Side Of My Official Life in 1910 in which he wrote: "...because the suspect was also a Jew and also because his evidence would convict the suspect, and witness would be the means of murderer being hanged which he did not wish to be left on his mind...And after this identification which suspect knew, no other murder of this kind took place in London...after the suspect had been identified at the Seaside Home where he had been sent by us with difficulty in order to subject him to identification, and he knew he was identified. On suspect's return to his brother's house in Whitechapel he was watched by police (City CID) by day & night. In a very short time the suspect with his hands tied behind his back, he was sent to Stepney Workhouse and then to Colney Hatch and died shortly afterwards.” Donald Swanson, the man who was in charge of the day to day running of the case, wrote in the margin of his copy of the book: “Kosminski was the suspect. DSS. There are inaccuracies but I think it’s hard to completely dismiss someone that closely involved with the the case. As Kosminski wasn’t known to be violent it has been suggested that names could have been confused Kosminski/Kaminski for eg, or that someone unable to pronounce or spell Kosminski might have used Cohen as a kind of John Doe. The other suspect was a man from near to where I live called William Henry Bury. A nasty piece of work living in nearby Bow. A violent man who left for Scotland with his wife just after the murders. He killed her in a manner with some similarities to the ripper murders. He was once caught kneeling over his wife with a knife threatening to cut her throat. After he’d killed his wife he went to the police station and said that he was afraid that he’d be accused of being Jack the Ripper. When the police went to his flat they found two chalk messages, “Jack Ripper is at the back of this door,” and “Jack Ripper is in the seller” (cellar) The chances of ever finding out who did it is probably close to non-existent but it won’t stop the effort though. I personally think that Druitt is often too easily dismissed. We know that he definitely had no alibi though Hikari. And we have no way of knowing why he was sacked from the school. There are many unanswered questions. Why, when he could have picked from God Knows how many dead violent criminals or lunatics to throw under the bus as a possible ripper why would he have chose a man with no record of violence and someone from the upper classes? To me that points at least to MacNaghten believing that he had good reason for doing it. Why, three years before MacNaghten mentions him, does Farquaharsen describe the killer to fit Druitt (son of a surgeon, suicide)? (After she died btw, the name Farquaharsen was found in Druitt’s mothers address book.) Why did his brother lie at the inquest and say that he had no relatives? Why did Druitt have a return train ticket on him when he was pulled out of the Thames? This post is long as it is so I won’t add more but he intrigues me as a suspect. Has done for thirty years.

Hello Hikari, Good to hear everything’s ok with you. I’m still a regular contributor on the JTR message boards although after around 38 years I’m not quite as keen as I used to be. Believe it or not of the named suspects (and there have been over 150 over the years) the one that a favour slightly is Druitt but that doesn’t say much as I think that only 3 in total are worth any real consideration. I’ll try not to get too boring but… He was named in Macnaghten’s memorandum in 1894 but my question has always been: “why would he have plucked his name out of thin air if he hadn’t felt that he had reason for doing it?” An author called Dan Farson once said something like “it’s Druitt’s unlikeliness that makes him so intriguing,” and I agree. Why pick a random guy, from the upper classes when that class stuck together at that time, who had no history of violence or criminality? He did commit suicide just after the Kelly murder but at the time many people, including his old friend and police colleague Sir James Munro and others, felt that Alice Mackenzie (killed in 1889) was also a victim. Would he have named an innocent Druitt who was related by marriage to one of MacNaghten’s best friends? Also, in 1891, a Dorset (where Druitt came from) M.P. called Henry Farquaharsen was telling people that the ripper was the son of a surgeon who had killed himself just after the Kelly murder (Druitt was the son of a surgeon who killed himself just after the Kelly murder) Druitt had no alibi for any of the murders and he actually lived and worked in London. He had accommodation at the Blackheath School where he worked and was sacked in November (no one knows why) There’s a bit more that I could mention but I won’t cross the ‘boring’ line too far. I think that Druitt is too easily dismissed but I wouldn’t bet money on any suspect to be honest. All I can say for certain is that it wasn’t me😀

I think that “there’s no proof to the contrary” is nearest the mark Carol. Someone who was provably vertical at the time is then researched for ‘clues.’ A difficult childhood, perhaps a hint of criminal behaviour or controversy, a childhood illness or disability, maybe a grudge agains a particular woman, perhaps even a speculation that a female relative might have become a prostitute due to horrendous poverty and off we go. Two hundred pages of retelling the well documented story of the Whitechapel murders followed by thirty or forty pages of baseless speculation. I rarely buy books on the subject these days. There are some very good, well written and well researched true crime books out there though if you can avoid the dross.

Hello Carol, Your request shouldn’t take long as there is no evidence but sadly this can be par-for-the-course in the Whitechapel Murders case - especially in recent years. Certain writers resort to finding someone that was alive at the time and living reasonably close-by and then weaving a ‘case’ around them. If it can be shown, for example, that the suspects father had left while he was young or that the suspect had some kind of illness then ‘bingo!’ We’re now getting close to the position of wondering who hasn’t been suggested as a suspect by now (Dr. Barnado, Lewis Carroll, poet Francis Thompson, Oscar Wilde, Vincent Van Gogh and (horror of horrors) Conan Doyle!) The latest nonsense is the suggestion that it was a police officer called Endacott. He had absolutely no connection to the case but earlier had been involved in quite an infamous case after he’d arrested a young woman for soliciting on completely spurious grounds. The woman was provably not soliciting and there was justified outrage at her treatment. The guy claims that this was some kind of ‘trigger’ (yawn) for Endscott to murder prostitutes. Anyway, on to Holmes. Mudgett claims to have inherited diaries which ‘experts’ have shown to have been written by HH Holmes (although I’m unsure if he’s ever actually produced them?) In them Holmes claimed to have been in London at the time of the murders (this can’t be backed up with evidence despite Mudgett’s efforts) with another man who was some kind of assistant. Holmes instructed him to commit the murders as some kind of distraction to his own murders (in London?) and to discredit the police. Mudgett also claimed to be terminally I’ll due to a tumour which later magically disappeared. While he still had the tumour he was getting seizures which produced hallucinations where he heard his grandfathers voice. The theory is completely baseless Carol. It can’t be shown that Holmes was even in London and, whilst all murders are horrible, the ripper murders were of a very different type. Holmes was a maniac but not the Whitechapel maniac.

Hello Hikari and all, There have been a few books written about HH Holmes as you’d expect but the best is Adam Selzer’s HH Holmes: The True Story of the White City Devil. It’s brilliantly researched and very readable. I occasionally talk to a guy who really knows a lot about the case and he recommended this one to me. They might have it in your library with a bit of luck. His descendant Jeff Mudgett believes that Holmes was also Jack the Ripper but he’s a poor suspect in a subject riddled with poor suspects. I question whether Mudgett actually believes it himself but it’s an opportunity to make few $$$ of course. Hope everyone is well?

Irene Adler wasn’t portrayed in the Rathbone movies but she did get the mention in Dressed To Kill (quoted above by Carol)

Wishing a happy Christmas and new year to all. Have fun and stay safe (especially those in The States affected by the terrible weather.)👍🥃🍺🍹🍸

They tracked down his descendants but the science is inconclusive. The guy who bought the shawl is the same guy who recently claimed to have found the skull of Keith Bennett (victim of Brady and Hindley) on Saddleworth Moor. It wasn’t.