Most ridiculous suspect

[caz]

When you think about it it’s pretty remarkable how some just dismiss him out of hand a a suspect. As you say, it boils down to the private info. So we have just 2 possibilities with no way of knowing which is correct - the private info was correct or the private info was wrong. Can we prove that the PO was correct? No. Can we prove it was wrong? No. Some say - that’s an intriguing possibility. Some say - he should be discarded as a suspect. You can almost smell the bias.

A third possibility, Herlock, is that the private info was legit, but would not be classed as strong evidence today, or possibly not evidence at all. Everyone now has their own idea of what to look out for, and we know it was the same back then.

Anderson's low class Pole, eating from the gutter and doing unmentionable things in public, versus MM's suicidal sexually insane slummer. You couldn't get much more different than that.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Agreed!

Druitt would not have been an obvious choice for a randomly selected suicide merely on the basis that his suicide occurred at an apposite time.

It all comes down to that tantalising "private information" really, doesn't it?

Is the inclusion of Druitt (and indeed Koz) somewhat undermined by the inclusion of Ostrog (a total non-starter) on the same list though?

I can't recall when it was uncovered that Ostrog was in jail in France at the time of the murders.

Was that prior to the MM, or years later that the evidence came to light?

Either way, to my mind there is no way that Druitt should be included on a list of weakest suspects.

Particularly when there are so many truly nonsense ones to choose from!

Hi Ms Diddles,

MM must have believed he had good reasons at the time to suspect any of these men more than Cutbush.

One caveat I have is that times have changed - a lot - and what was looked for in the LVP, as 'evidence' of the deviant nature likely to lead to such crimes, may have been very different from what is considered to be evidence today.

To pick the obvious example, modern serial killers rarely if ever commit suicide until they are in custody and physically prevented from feeding their addiction to murder. I don't know if it would have been different back then. I suspect it was a combination of Druitt's alleged 'sexual insanity', and the timing of his suicide coupled with the theory - by 'normal' men - that the murderer's brain must have given way after Miller's Court, that sowed the seeds - none of which would have the same effect today.

Druitt's family connections brought him to MM's attention, which is also slightly troubling, as there must have been other men who fit the same broad criteria but just didn't enter MM's thinking. We'll never know if there was anything much more specific in that private information to incriminate him, but if there was, would he still have been just one of three on MM's list?

Love,

Caz
X

[FISHY1118]

Let’s have a poll and ask this question…..

Which is the likelier? A) Druitt was the ripper, or B) the solution to the murders was a conspiracy involving a 71 year old recent stroke suffering Physician to the Queen, the Queen’s grandson, a gaggle of blackmailing prostitutes, a well known artist and a coachman carrying mutilated corpses around unseen and a bunch of Freemasonic politicians including the Prime Minister?

I wonder which would be the likeliest

ill keep it simpler that that old boy , Was druitt jack the ripper, yes or no ? ... remember yes or no . not out of hand , or maybe , or could be .

[FISHY1118]

Hi Herlock,

I'm beginning to wonder if you are not being too harsh on FISHY. Is he perhaps unfamiliar with the English expression 'out of hand' and therefore doesn't see what everyone else can?

Love,

Caz
X

Naturally you asked everyone else and they got back to you and agree with you , what did Baron say when you asked him about '' out of hand'' caz ?.

Because i know exactly what he said about it .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Theres been a change at the top or the leader board ...... In my opinion. [ Translation .... which can be changed to suit any debate ,discussion ,conclusion about who was jack the ripper.


1 .Montaque Druitt [Aka, Out of hand man ]


2 James Maybrick , [ Aka, Mr more popular than the most famous diary of them all ]

3 Charles Lechmere .[ Aka, What time did really leave home that morning?]

Let’s have a poll and ask this question…..

Which is the likelier? A) Druitt was the ripper, or B) the solution to the murders was a conspiracy involving a 71 year old recent stroke suffering Physician to the Queen, the Queen’s grandson, a gaggle of blackmailing prostitutes, a well known artist and a coachman carrying mutilated corpses around unseen and a bunch of Freemasonic politicians including the Prime Minister?

I wonder which would be the likeliest

[caz]

Sorry Caz what I am suggesting is that the hoaxer while researching JTR and Maybrick. Looked at the MJK 1 photo in one of the books where it looks like an FM [ maybe the 1973 book ] , and he/she decided to write the poem, initial here, initial there etc to try and contribute to a supposed authenticity.

In other words the forger had already plumped on Maybrick. He/she just observed what they thought could be mistaken for an FM [ or maybe just M ] and saw it as a bonus, so why not use it.

Regards Darryl

Yep, I'll take that, Darryl.

I'd still argue that it would not have worked if Florence Maybrick's name had been Ellen Bury. But you watch. Someone will no doubt conjure up an E and a B from somewhere in that photo for the first time in 133 years to 'prove' the hoaxer could have used the same trick with any suspect they had selected.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

But everyone who provides information to the police provides it in the belief that it is good and reliable information but the proof of the pudding is with the corroboration and there is none, nor there were any steps taken by MM to prove or disprove that info. So despite MM being a seniot officer the info referred to has no more evidentail weight than any other piece of info received by the police. In fact MM being in the position he was had the opportunity to fully investaigate his info but it seems that was not done.

So Druitt as a suspect based on that info carries no more weight than all the other suspects named in similar circumstances.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No one is saying that we can make any positive statements about the strength of the private info. If you want to say that a statement from a very senior police officer who had a known link to someone who had a familial connection to the Druitt family counts for nothing then that’s fine Trevor but I find it impossible to simply dismiss it just because we have no corroboration. Of course we can’t assume that the information was accurate or that Druitt was guilty but I just can see why some are so quick to dismiss him when there’s a very obvious possibility that the information might have been convincing and important. The point about the lack of corroboration is that it’s an assumption that either the information was inaccurate (which we don’t know) or that MacNaughten lied (something that we have no reason for believing to have been the case)

I find it really strange that some people with a professed interest in the case in general (and who don’t treat it as an exercise in promoting their own suspect/theory - and that’s not aimed at you Trevor btw) don’t find it intriguing that a very senior police officer named a suspect who wasn’t a known criminal or a lunatic and who came from a highly respected family and that the said suspect committed suicide just after the murder of (possibly) the final victim of the series. Added to the other points like the others (like Griffiths to name one) who went for Druitt as the ripper. Then Farquharson and the North Country Vicar and the potential connection to the Crawford Letter, and how Druitt’s uncle suddenly halted his memoirs exactly the time of the final murder and the fact that Druitt’s brother flat out lied at the Inquest about siblings. Not to mention his sacking from the Blackheath School and the cricket clubs statement that he’d left his duties as Secretary and ‘gone abroad.’ And Admiral Fleet saying that there was talk in the area of the ripper coming from Blackheath.

Of course none of this ‘proves’ guilt (and I haven’t claimed that) but why, rather than considering him at least ‘interesting/intriguing’ are some people so quick to try and erase Druitt from consideration? To me it looks like a family trying to hide a dirty secret. I can only suggest that those who mock or dismiss (out of hand) have ulterior motives for doing so. Druitt it more ‘going for him’ than pretty much all suspects imo. But that is only my opinion of course and other suspects are also worthy of consideration and further research. I’ve never understood why any mention of Druitt raises the hackles of some posters?

[caz]

I'll tell you what, Caz.

If, by chance, any unconvinced Ripperologist ever posts examples of Lewis Carroll's charitable contributions, and I quickly rush in with comparisons to Harold Shipman, feel free to write me off as a closet Dodgsonian--no matter what I might say to the contrary.

Oh listen to yourself. You brought up James Maybrick's do-gooding to imply that do-gooders don't commit serious crimes. It was a fatuous argument and I merely illustrated why, using a prolific 'caring' killer as a sledgehammer to crack your nut. But as usual you can't resist reading between the lines, instead of simply acknowledging that your argument was no argument at all.

Ero is correct in pointing out that a certain type of sociopath will associate himself (or herself) with popular causes, but it is generally done in a conspicuous manner. There was a certain poisoner in the southern U.S., for example, who bought her church a magnificent pipe organ, all paid for with insurance proceeds she had gathered over the years.

By contrast, there doesn't seem to be anything particular ostentatious in Sir Jim passing the hat around to feed the poor in Norfolk--black & white alike--and I would expect that a real sociopath would have collected the money and then bought himself a nice supply of Cuban cigars and French postcards.

This evidently didn't happen.

You're preaching to the wrong person again. I was not suggesting for one moment that Maybrick's do-gooding could have been a sign of anything more sinister. It's just not evidence that he was an all round good egg. We know for a fact that he was very far from that.

[caz]

How can it be a caveat when it was an integral part of the original post. You can’t just edit three words from a sentence so that you can alter the meaning just so that you can make a point.

Altering a post is what’s cheap and sneaky. And dishonest.

Hi Herlock,

I'm beginning to wonder if you are not being too harsh on FISHY. Is he perhaps unfamiliar with the English expression 'out of hand' and therefore doesn't see what everyone else can?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Are you sure you have the right gender, Jeff?

The figure looks like a shockingly accurate rendition of Kate Eddowes' "standing" mortuary photograph, complete with nicked eyelid, cut cheek, nose cut off, twice slashed throat, abdomen mutilations, bare breasts, and limp arms.




It looks like it is signed by "LEES"

Hmmm, tasteful way to mock the afflicted. Are you taking lessons from Trev Marriott by any chance?

[FISHY1118]

Charles Lechmere., jill the ripper, Montague Druitt.

Theres been a change at the top or the leader board ...... In my opinion. [ Translation .... which can be changed to suit any debate ,discussion ,conclusion about who was jack the ripper.


1 .Montaque Druitt [Aka, Out of hand man ]


2 James Maybrick , [ Aka, Mr more popular than the most famous diary of them all ]

3 Charles Lechmere .[ Aka, What time did really leave home that morning?]

[Trevor Marriott]

As I said though, the private information might have been good or it might not have been. All we know is that MacNaughten felt that it was. Now of course that still doesn’t mean that the info was legitimately pointing at Druitt (it might have just appeared to have done so) and we can’t claim that Mac was Sherlock Holmes but he was an intelligent man capable of forming a judgment which might easily have been a correct one. As we don’t know what the info was we aren’t in a position to judge that info of course.

But everyone who provides information to the police provides it in the belief that it is good and reliable information but the proof of the pudding is with the corroboration and there is none, nor there were any steps taken by MM to prove or disprove that info. So despite MM being a seniot officer the info referred to has no more evidentail weight than any other piece of info received by the police. In fact MM being in the position he was had the opportunity to fully investaigate his info but it seems that was not done.

So Druitt as a suspect based on that info carries no more weight than all the other suspects named in similar circumstances.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Are you sure you have the right gender, Jeff?

The figure looks like a shockingly accurate rendition of Kate Eddowes' "standing" mortuary photograph, complete with nicked eyelid, cut cheek, nose cut off, twice slashed throat, abdomen mutilations, bare breasts, and limp arms.




It looks like it is signed by "LEES"

While art has much interpretation to it, fostering a lot of debate and so forth, I'm thinking you're on to something that will be universally accepted. However, I must admit, I've been wrong before.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think this term private info has been taken too literally, there are many interpretations to describe the term "private info"

I refer back to the SB ledgers where there are a number of entries naming suspects for JTR which came from all manner of differnet sources all of which could be interpreted as private info. So i personanlly cannot give anymore credence to MM`s private info than I can for any of the others simply because there is no corroborating evidence.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

As I said though, the private information might have been good or it might not have been. All we know is that MacNaughten felt that it was. Now of course that still doesn’t mean that the info was legitimately pointing at Druitt (it might have just appeared to have done so) and we can’t claim that Mac was Sherlock Holmes but he was an intelligent man capable of forming a judgment which might easily have been a correct one. As we don’t know what the info was we aren’t in a position to judge that info of course.

[Trevor Marriott]

When you think about it it’s pretty remarkable how some just dismiss him out of hand a a suspect. As you say, it boils down to the private info. So we have just 2 possibilities with no way of knowing which is correct - the private info was correct or the private info was wrong. Can we prove that the PO was correct? No. Can we prove it was wrong? No. Some say - that’s an intriguing possibility. Some say - he should be discarded as a suspect. You can almost smell the bias.

I think this term private info has been taken too literally, there are many interpretations to describe the term "private info"

I refer back to the SB ledgers where there are a number of entries naming suspects for JTR which came from all manner of differnet sources all of which could be interpreted as private info. So i personanlly cannot give anymore credence to MM`s private info than I can for any of the others simply because there is no corroborating evidence.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk