Most ridiculous suspect

[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]

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.

[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]

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]

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

[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 .

[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 .

[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

[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

[Trevor Marriott]

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?

I think every suspect and the evidence to support that suspect has to be closely scrutinized. I am sure those who were made aware of differnet suspects back then were doing no more than researchers of today by trying to put a square peg into a round hole.

I accept Druitt has been named as a suspect but there is no more evidence against him than there is against a plethora of any other named suspects.

and what the evidence looks like to you is simply your opinion which you are fully entited to give, but what seems to have happened is that a handful of suspects over the years have been in my opinion wrongly uplifted to prime suspect status when there is no evidence to elevate them to that catergory.

Druitt is an interesting named suspect but not a prime suspect. Researchers need to learn and understand what evidence it takes to catergorise someone as a prime suspect. That being said we can eliminate most of the those who are regarded as prime suspects from that status.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

Lets look a one point concerning Duritt seeings how someone likes comparisons when there was no such talk of compairing one suspect to a perticular theory but anyway,what do you expect from that type of person .

So Druitt , lets see , heres a guys that if he was jack the ripper murdered 5 women in a way no ones ever seen before ,totally guts mary jane kelly like an animal, makes headlines around the world, is the most famous killer of his time on the streets of whitechapel, has no anotomical knowledge required to remove Eddowes kidney in under 7mins, , kills Chapman at 5.30 cleans himself up and is on the cricket pitch at 11.30 that morning .

Then after the last murder of kelly on the 9th Nov goes silent , kills himself on 30th Nov or around the first week of Dec, his suicide note found on him says ''since friday [being the 30th of nov ] . 'Since Friday I felt I was going to be like mother, and the best thing for me was to die."

Two things that are why Druitt is my worse suspect list , if he killed the C5 i doubt very much it took since friday Nov 30th to feel like he was going to be like his mother and go insane, and the best thing for me to do is die . Surley after kelly, the killer was well past insane .

Lastly , why not tell the world your jack the ripper in the suicide note ? , your responsible for the worse murders the worlds ever seen , your famous the world over, your name would live on in infamy for all enternity. Yet all he says is since friday i felt like i was going to be like mother . hmmmm

Druitt is at the top of my list as on on the worst suspect for one very good reason , he deserves to be there .


''out of hand '' Baron you were spot on , its a nothing phase , mean absolutley jack [pardon the pun] were montague druitt is concerned .

[Mark J D]

A third possibility ... 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.

Something I have never understood -- and this goes back to the late 80s, when I requested that old Druitt book on inter-library loan and jumped upon finding my own initials printed on the first page -- is how anyone can possibly get past that suicide note. Surely the very idea of Whitechapel's monstrous post-mortem mutilator signing off with 'Since Friday I felt I was going to be like mother...' should have everyone shaking their head...?

How do you all get past it, Druittists? 'He'd forgotten what he'd done'? 'He wrote that note five months earlier'? 'Yeah, but he's still a better suspect than Lechmere!'...?

How??

M.

[caz]

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 .

Sorry, FISHY. I wasn't counting anyone whose first language only rarely appears to be English. Clearly, The Baron has the same difficulty as you with the meaning of 'out of hand'.

Love,

Caz
X

[FISHY1118]

Something I have never understood -- and this goes back to the late 80s, when I requested that old Druitt book on inter-library loan and jumped upon finding my own initials printed on the first page -- is how anyone can possibly get past that suicide note. Surely the very idea of Whitechapel's monstrous post-mortem mutilator signing off with 'Since Friday I felt I was going to be like mother...' should have everyone shaking their head...?

How do you all get past it, Druittists? 'He'd forgotten what he'd done'? 'He wrote that note five months earlier'?

How??

M.

I feel an'' out of hand'', ''clueless'' moment coming your way mark

[caz]

Lets look a one point concerning Duritt seeings how someone likes comparisons when there was no such talk of compairing one suspect to a perticular theory but anyway,what do you expect from that type of person .

So Druitt , lets see , heres a guys that if he was jack the ripper murdered 5 women in a way no ones ever seen before ,totally guts mary jane kelly like an animal, makes headlines around the world, is the most famous killer of his time on the streets of whitechapel, has no anotomical knowledge required to remove Eddowes kidney in under 7mins, , kills Chapman at 5.30 cleans himself up and is on the cricket pitch at 11.30 that morning .

Then after the last murder of kelly on the 9th Nov goes silent , kills himself on 30th Nov or around the first week of Dec, his suicide note found on him says ''since friday [being the 30th of nov ] . 'Since Friday I felt I was going to be like mother, and the best thing for me was to die."

Two things that are why Druitt is my worse suspect list , if he killed the C5 i doubt very much it took since friday Nov 30th to feel like he was going to be like his mother and go insane, and the best thing for me to do is die . Surley after kelly, the killer was well past insane .

Lastly , why not tell the world your jack the ripper in the suicide note ? , your responsible for the worse murders the worlds ever seen , your famous the world over, your name would live on in infamy for all enternity. Yet all he says is since friday i felt like i was going to be like mother . hmmmm

Druitt is at the top of my list as on on the worst suspect for one very good reason , he deserves to be there .


''out of hand '' Baron you were spot on , its a nothing phase , mean absolutley jack [pardon the pun] were montague druitt is concerned .

You are entitled to your opinion, FISHY, and to dismiss Druitt out of hand.

And Herlock is entitled to his opinion, that anyone who does so must be clueless.

My own opinion is that we could all fairly be described as clueless because the ripper didn't leave us any - clues, that is.