To Phil H
I come at it from the opposite trajectory; that of accepting that Druitt was, of course, a discredited suspect to slowly realising that he was the 'probable' murderer.
That it has not been a mystery since 1891, and for the public not since 1898, albeit in a semi-fictional form
Yes, I think that the argument that since 'Kosminski' and Ostrog may well be nothing -- certainly Ostrog is cleared -- then why not M.J. Druitt too?
Also that a source, eg. Macnaghten, may be consciously utilising fictional elements makes it, arguably, unreliable -- and thus a suspect theory built on a potential mirage.
On the other hand ...
Druitt we now know does not begin with Macnaghten as 'Kosminski' and Ostrog do, in the extant record. He begins as a Ripper suspect with his own people in Dorset, posthumously -- as Macnaghten in 1914 admitted, and his Report(s) had stated too.
The 'West of England' MP article and the Mac memoirs of 1914 are a match in terms of timing, religion, race, class -- and the complete lack of police cognition about this suspect in 1888, in 1889, in 1890, and in early 1891.
And the memoirs also treat 'Kosminski' and Ostrog as nothing.
There is no evidence, whatsoever, that Druitt was homosexual which, though on the same level as a lack of evidence of him being anywhere near the East End is repeated as if it was almost a fact.
Mac calls him a sexual maniac; that he gained sexual pleasure from violence against women, specfically prostitutes.
Nothing to do with being gay.
The family would never have regarded the timing of Montie's suicide as being indicative of his culpability as the Ripper as the 'Jack' murders were thought to be on-going, though much more infrequent, between 1888 and 1891.
It was the discovery of Druitt's death in Dec 1888 which -- years later -- imposed upon Mac the truncated 'autumn of terror', not the other way round. This was communicated to the public by Mac in 1898, that it was the tenth anniversary of the cessation of the murders -- which was certainly not how the press and public perceived it (eg. see 'The Sun' Feb 13th 1894)
After all, why did the Druitts, or a Druitt, not seek relief in the Coles murder, two days after their belief about Montie leaked to the media, as proof that 'Jack' was still out there and thus their deceased member could not be the fiend?
The 'evidence' against Druitt, so far as we can glimpse it in meagre, ambiguous and fragmentary sources, is that he confessed to being the killer to a priest, 'blood-stained' clothes were found, and he was dismissed from the school as he was 'absented' -- as some sort of night warden -- on the nights of the murders.
Remember, apparently you only had to hear the full story to be convinced.
Rightly or wrongly, it must have been very compelling.
I come at it from the opposite trajectory; that of accepting that Druitt was, of course, a discredited suspect to slowly realising that he was the 'probable' murderer.
That it has not been a mystery since 1891, and for the public not since 1898, albeit in a semi-fictional form
Yes, I think that the argument that since 'Kosminski' and Ostrog may well be nothing -- certainly Ostrog is cleared -- then why not M.J. Druitt too?
Also that a source, eg. Macnaghten, may be consciously utilising fictional elements makes it, arguably, unreliable -- and thus a suspect theory built on a potential mirage.
On the other hand ...
Druitt we now know does not begin with Macnaghten as 'Kosminski' and Ostrog do, in the extant record. He begins as a Ripper suspect with his own people in Dorset, posthumously -- as Macnaghten in 1914 admitted, and his Report(s) had stated too.
The 'West of England' MP article and the Mac memoirs of 1914 are a match in terms of timing, religion, race, class -- and the complete lack of police cognition about this suspect in 1888, in 1889, in 1890, and in early 1891.
And the memoirs also treat 'Kosminski' and Ostrog as nothing.
There is no evidence, whatsoever, that Druitt was homosexual which, though on the same level as a lack of evidence of him being anywhere near the East End is repeated as if it was almost a fact.
Mac calls him a sexual maniac; that he gained sexual pleasure from violence against women, specfically prostitutes.
Nothing to do with being gay.
The family would never have regarded the timing of Montie's suicide as being indicative of his culpability as the Ripper as the 'Jack' murders were thought to be on-going, though much more infrequent, between 1888 and 1891.
It was the discovery of Druitt's death in Dec 1888 which -- years later -- imposed upon Mac the truncated 'autumn of terror', not the other way round. This was communicated to the public by Mac in 1898, that it was the tenth anniversary of the cessation of the murders -- which was certainly not how the press and public perceived it (eg. see 'The Sun' Feb 13th 1894)
After all, why did the Druitts, or a Druitt, not seek relief in the Coles murder, two days after their belief about Montie leaked to the media, as proof that 'Jack' was still out there and thus their deceased member could not be the fiend?
The 'evidence' against Druitt, so far as we can glimpse it in meagre, ambiguous and fragmentary sources, is that he confessed to being the killer to a priest, 'blood-stained' clothes were found, and he was dismissed from the school as he was 'absented' -- as some sort of night warden -- on the nights of the murders.
Remember, apparently you only had to hear the full story to be convinced.
Rightly or wrongly, it must have been very compelling.
Comment