Most ridiculous suspect

[Aethelwulf]

Ah, yes, I see those too (tried to fill them in below). In fact, I think the squiggle is probably a 2, and it's superimposed over a 2nd A (So AA2). Also, there's another human figure to the right, happy and well dressed, and a Scotty Dog above. There's the "skeleton man" above that, another face right beside skeleton man's, and a more faint, but discernible deamonic type head to the right of that, near the downward arrow

You know, I think we're starting to prove the murder must have been at 3:30-4:00 as it would take a long time to do all the artwork.



- Jeff

Stop it Jeff - that perky little scotty dog set me off on a fit of the giggles. Ike must be sat in a dark room with steam coming out of his ears!

If you go back to original and combine the 'AA' with the 'GET' area you can make a little cat face.

[GBinOz]

Also just below the ‘M’ we appear to have the word ‘GET’ written rather clearly all things being considered?

Interesting. I saw that as the face of a cat. And directly above it, the face of a fox.
Cheers, George

[Abby Normal]

As I’ve asked many times Roger if, as some suggest, MacNaghten was simply compiling a list of random pseudo-suspects that he could claim were ‘better than Cutbush’ (to give the lie to the story in The Sun) why choose Druitt? With all of the resources he had to hand why not any random recently dead criminal or ‘lunatic?’ Instead he chooses a well-to-do Barrister/Schoolteacher with no criminal record. A man who, for all that Mac knew, might have had a discoverable alibi for any of the murders (unlike a random nobody whose life would have been far less traceable.) And finally, why was it so important to find a suspect who died after Kelly when many people (including Munro, who Mac greatly admired and respected) believed Mackenzie to have been a victim?

The suggestion that he simply plucked Druitt out of thin air doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. It doesn’t mean that Druitt was the ripper of course because he could have been mistaken but it shows that MacNaughten felt that he had valid reasons for naming him as a suspect. Therefore there might actually have been very valid reasons at the time for doing so. This is only one of the reasons why I feel that Druitt is far too easily dismissed by some.

hi herlock
he was suspected of being the ripper by a family member and or friend of the family who relayed this to MM. it would be fascinating to know why they suspected him, but it must be something pretty bad to have made such an impression on MM.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, Baron, but did Abberline really know 'ALL' the story, or was it a case of 'he only thought he knew'?

Abberline retired in early 1892, and at that point Mac had only been at Scotland Yard for two-and-a-half years. So there's wiggling room for Mac's "private information" to have been received after Abberline's retirement. That doesn't make MJD the Ripper, but it does dull the edge of Abberline's criticism.

Further, what about my final point?

Consider the case of Edward Buchan. He nearly cut his own head off with a knife in late November 1888, and Buchan actually lived in the East End.

"A determined case of suicide occurred in Poplar on Monday morning. A Marine stores dealer, named Edward Buchan, aged 29 years, carrying on business at 42 Robin Hood Lane, cut his own throat with a knife."

"It appears that shortly after ten o'clock a sister of the man heard a strange noise, and on entering the back shop saw Buchan in the act of cutting his throat. She raised an alarm and the father came to her assistance and attempted to take the knife from the man's hand, but failed, and cut his own hand badly in the attempt. Dr. Skelly was at once summoned, but Buchan died shortly after. He had nearly severed his head from his body. He had been strange in his manner for some time past. The body was subsequently removed to the mortuary, to await a coroner's inquest."


Yet Druitt, a mere drowning victim in Chiswick, becomes considerably more than a blip on the Met's radar, but by all indications Buchan doesn't.

The circumstances strike me as a little odd. What Caz argues about Maybrick is far more true of Druitt: outwardly, he strikes most commentators as a very poor suspect indeed, with no reason to suspect him.

Yet, there Druitt is: in the MEPO files.

I've never been convinced that anyone has ever come up with an entirely satisfactory explanation for why that is.

As I’ve asked many times Roger if, as some suggest, MacNaghten was simply compiling a list of random pseudo-suspects that he could claim were ‘better than Cutbush’ (to give the lie to the story in The Sun) why choose Druitt? With all of the resources he had to hand why not any random recently dead criminal or ‘lunatic?’ Instead he chooses a well-to-do Barrister/Schoolteacher with no criminal record. A man who, for all that Mac knew, might have had a discoverable alibi for any of the murders (unlike a random nobody whose life would have been far less traceable.) And finally, why was it so important to find a suspect who died after Kelly when many people (including Munro, who Mac greatly admired and respected) believed Mackenzie to have been a victim?

The suggestion that he simply plucked Druitt out of thin air doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. It doesn’t mean that Druitt was the ripper of course because he could have been mistaken but it shows that MacNaughten felt that he had valid reasons for naming him as a suspect. Therefore there might actually have been very valid reasons at the time for doing so. This is only one of the reasons why I feel that Druitt is far too easily dismissed by some.

[Abby Normal]

Ah, yes, I see those too (tried to fill them in below). In fact, I think the squiggle is probably a 2, and it's superimposed over a 2nd A (So AA2). Also, there's another human figure to the right, happy and well dressed, and a Scotty Dog above.

You know, I think we're starting to prove the murder must have been at 3:30-4:00 as it would take a long time to do all the artwork.



- Jeff

lol I saw the little smiling humpty dumpty man on the bottom right too. what a pair- Zombie man and the egghead. both staring at the remains of kelly. *shudders

[JeffHamm]

Hello Jeff,

Looking closer I see that the first ‘hump’ of the ‘m’ has a solid horizontal line which makes it appear as an ‘A.’ The first line of the second ‘hump’ is more faint and with a small space with no blood which hints that the two ‘humps’ aren’t necessarily connected. The squiggle beneath the second hump is also in as solid lines as the rest of the ‘m’ and with no similarly thick lines anywhere near suggesting to me that the ‘squiggle’ is part of the whole mark. To get an ‘m’ we have to erase that horizontal line and the squiggle.

Also just below the ‘M’ we appear to have the word ‘GET’ written rather clearly all things being considered?

Ah, yes, I see those too (tried to fill them in below). In fact, I think the squiggle is probably a 2, and it's superimposed over a 2nd A (So AA2). Also, there's another human figure to the right, happy and well dressed, and a Scotty Dog above. There's the "skeleton man" above that, another face right beside skeleton man's, and a more faint, but discernible deamonic type head to the right of that, near the downward arrow

You know, I think we're starting to prove the murder must have been at 3:30-4:00 as it would take a long time to do all the artwork.



- Jeff

[rjpalmer]

It amounts for nothing Roger, "absolutely' is the critical word here. The fact that he was found at a time to incriminate him means nothing, thats no evidence in itself at all, and Abberline said he knows ALL about that STORY.

Yes, Baron, but did Abberline really know 'ALL' the story, or was it a case of 'he only thought he knew'?

Abberline retired in early 1892, and at that point Mac had only been at Scotland Yard for two-and-a-half years. So there's wiggling room for Mac's "private information" to have been received after Abberline's retirement. That doesn't make MJD the Ripper, but it does dull the edge of Abberline's criticism.

Further, what about my final point?

Consider the case of Edward Buchan. He nearly cut his own head off with a knife in late November 1888, and Buchan actually lived in the East End.

"A determined case of suicide occurred in Poplar on Monday morning. A Marine stores dealer, named Edward Buchan, aged 29 years, carrying on business at 42 Robin Hood Lane, cut his own throat with a knife."

"It appears that shortly after ten o'clock a sister of the man heard a strange noise, and on entering the back shop saw Buchan in the act of cutting his throat. She raised an alarm and the father came to her assistance and attempted to take the knife from the man's hand, but failed, and cut his own hand badly in the attempt. Dr. Skelly was at once summoned, but Buchan died shortly after. He had nearly severed his head from his body. He had been strange in his manner for some time past. The body was subsequently removed to the mortuary, to await a coroner's inquest."


Yet Druitt, a mere drowning victim in Chiswick, becomes considerably more than a blip on the Met's radar, but by all indications Buchan doesn't.

The circumstances strike me as a little odd. What Caz argues about Maybrick is far more true of Druitt: outwardly, he strikes most commentators as a very poor suspect indeed, with no reason to suspect him.

Yet, there Druitt is: in the MEPO files.

I've never been convinced that anyone has ever come up with an entirely satisfactory explanation for why that is.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"Yes," said Mr. Abberline, "I know all about that story. But what does it amount to? Simply this. Soon after the last murder in Whitechapel the body of a young doctor was found in the Thames, but there is absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him. A report was made to the Home Office about the matter, but that it was 'considered final and conclusive' is going altogether beyond the truth"



It amounts for nothing Roger, "absolutely' is the critical word here. The fact that he was found at a time to incriminate him means nothing, thats no evidence in itself at all, and Abberline said he knows ALL about that STORY.

It is no differenat than saying Pink Panter was in London at the time in order to incriminate him.



The Baron

Unless you’re suggesting that MacNaughten, on receiving his information, thought “well I must drop the retired Fred Abberline a line and tell him all about this,” then we can’t say that Abberline knew everything about Druitt. It’s a very silly suggestion. He knew what he knew. Abberline is irrelevant to the Druitt story. His opinion counts for next to nothing.

How come Abberline knowing nothing about the alleged identification of Kosminski isn’t a problem? It appears that where Druitt is concerned a different set of ‘rules’ apply. Just like the different rules that you’ve previously applied to MacNaughten.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Firstly, the Maybrick scrapbook makes a clear prediction: it predicts that Florence Maybrick's initials will be found in Mary Kelly's room.

Ike

Or the forger of the diary when researching the ripper saw what he thought could be discerned as an F M in one of the photo's and ran with it.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Why would they discern they needed more light? The objective was just to photograph the victim’s body and look at that. In the early years of forensic photography you want to believe they had a full 360 degree grasp of such details?

As being low down I don’t see that as an issue at all. He leaned over the bed and wrote where he was most comfortable. Also if the motive was to be a subtle clue then he perhaps thought lower would be better. Except for some it’s so subtle they can’t even see it.

P.S. Aberline was probably a good copper for the age but he was not Columbo. He was a man and was fallible just like so many of us are.

I would suggest they needed more light to search the room for clues. Sorry but you don't need to be Columbo to realise that if the room is darkened sufficiently you are more likely to miss something.
I have to ask why Maybrick would want to leave a subtle clue if nobody could see it. What would be the point ?
If he wrote the GSG he left it in a place were it was clearly visible. I would suggest he would want to do the same again.

Regards Darryl

[caz]

By the way, those who believe Mike was telling the truth at the Smoke & Stagger, in April 1999, might like to reflect on the fact that he claimed to believe Maybrick was indeed the ripper, and this was why he - Mike - decided to write the diary, to put Maybrick in the frame where he belonged, and persuaded his then wife Anne to go along with this insanity and transfer it by hand into the scrapbook.

You couldn't make it up, could you?

But Mike Barrett could, and did. He had no idea why that was such a daft thing to claim.

I was there - my first meeting - and Keith Skinner kindly read out one of my questions to Mike, asking why the handwriting looks nothing like Maybrick's. Mike replied that he had seen the Will and knew it wasn't written in James's hand. Keith asked him how he knew that, and I can't immediately recall his answer but it was never going to be convincing.

[caz]

If they were as wise as you, Caz, they would have considered him as "equally unlikely" to have been the Ripper as Lewis Carroll, Prince Eddy, Charles Lechmere, William Bury, Jacob Levy, Frank Tumilty, Monty Druitt, George Chapman aka Klosowski, and Aaron Kosminski.

I know because someone told me this only a few posts ago.

The diary makes Maybrick more unlikely than any of those names in my opinion. I was merely wondering about the watch, if the diary hadn't existed.

If that's all you had, with someone's signature in the back, plus the initials of five victims, that person wouldn't have needed anyone else to 'name' him as a ripper suspect, would he? Whoever made the engravings did that for him. But can you, hand on heart, say that you'd have dismissed the signature as the obvious work of a modern hoaxer, if nobody had ever heard of the diary or the Barretts?

[caz]

Hey Caz, did that original 'report' ever surface?
This story only appeared in U.S. newspapers that I can see, do you know more than you're letting on?

Hi Jon,

I suspect no such report existed - at least not in written form. But I could well imagine individuals reporting their speculation that because a photographer was summoned in the latest case to take crime scene photos, this may have been because the killer had left some clue there on this occasion.

Another, more obvious reason, would simply be that it was easier to photograph Kelly in situ, rather than at the mortuary, as the previous victims had been.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Baron]

Baron, Old Chap, I must give you some resistance.

Three caveats. First, Abberline didn't say that there was 'nothing in it.' He said the suspect's suicide was the only reason for connecting him to the murders. Which is not quite the same thing.

Two, Abberline said this while plumping for another suspect that he preferred, which doesn't necessarily mean that he was attempting to diminish the case against MJD, but the context should be considered.

Three, and this is perhaps most relevant, Abberline retired in February 1892, and Macnaghten claimed the 'private' information he received about MJD came some years after he (Macnaghten)was hired at Scotland Yard, so it is not really known if Abberline knew the full case against Druitt.

MJD may or may not have been the Ripper, but the case against him does not implode as easily as some suggest, and, in truth, we know very little about why he may have been suspected.

There were several suicides in and around London in November and December 1888, why did only this one fellow make the radar?

"Yes," said Mr. Abberline, "I know all about that story. But what does it amount to? Simply this. Soon after the last murder in Whitechapel the body of a young doctor was found in the Thames, but there is absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him. A report was made to the Home Office about the matter, but that it was 'considered final and conclusive' is going altogether beyond the truth"



It amounts for nothing Roger, "absolutely' is the critical word here. The fact that he was found at a time to incriminate him means nothing, thats no evidence in itself at all, and Abberline said he knows ALL about that STORY.

It is no differenat than saying Pink Panter was in London at the time in order to incriminate him.



The Baron

[rjpalmer]

Abberline dismissed it, and stated that there is absolutely nothing to it.

Baron, Old Chap, I must give you some resistance.

Three caveats. First, Abberline didn't say that there was 'nothing in it.' He said the suspect's suicide was the only reason for connecting him to the murders. Which is not quite the same thing.

Two, Abberline said this while plumping for another suspect that he preferred, which doesn't necessarily mean that he was attempting to diminish the case against MJD, but the context should be considered.

Three, and this is perhaps most relevant, Abberline retired in February 1892, and Macnaghten claimed the 'private' information he received about MJD came some years after he (Macnaghten)was hired at Scotland Yard, so it is not really known if Abberline knew the full case against Druitt.

MJD may or may not have been the Ripper, but the case against him does not implode as easily as some suggest, and, in truth, we know very little about why he may have been suspected.

There were several suicides in and around London in November and December 1888, why did only this one fellow make the radar?