Did The Ripper Wear "Cricketing Shoes" ?

[Ben]

That's true, Chris. I was thinking more about the reactions to Druitt's candidacy (of lack thereof) of other contemporary police officials who were working the case during the commission of the murders and who commented on the subject subsequent to the alleged "private info" being found, such as Abberline's 1903 observations in the Pall Mall Gazette.

[Uncle Jack]

As far as the main police suspects are concerned, I find the cases for Kosminski and Tumblety a lot more convincing than Druitt and Ostrog, though, I am by no means supporters of any of them. But it was shown that most of the police favoured Kosminski as a suspect, though I find it hard to see why.

[Chris]

That's true, Chris. I was thinking more about the reactions to Druitt's candidacy (of lack thereof) of other contemporary police officials who were working the case during the commission of the murders and who commented on the subject subsequent to the alleged "private info" being found, such as Abberline's 1903 observations in the Pall Mall Gazette.

I see what you mean - though I think it is more a question of silence on the part of the other officers.

The trouble with Abberline is that he made it clear that he knew of no evidence against Druitt except for the fact of his suicide. So whatever information Macnaghten was referring to, we can't rely on Abberline for an evaluation of it.

[Uncle Jack]

The fact that Macnaghten got a lot of info about Druitt wrong ie: his age, occupation etc, I find it hard to take what he says with any sort of seriousness, if I am honest.

[Mitch Rowe]

Abberline On Druitt.

I see what you mean - though I think it is more a question of silence on the part of the other officers.

The trouble with Abberline is that he made it clear that he knew of no evidence against Druitt except for the fact of his suicide. So whatever information Macnaghten was referring to, we can't rely on Abberline for an evaluation of it.

It seems to me Abberline was not discounting Druitt altogether. In fact it seems as if he is saying there may be something more to Druitt than just his suicide. Not direct evidence but more of Police suspicion.

Check this out..Im going to bold what I feel is pertinent:

"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. Seeing that the same kind of murders began in America afterwards, there is much more reason to think the man emigrated. Then again, the fact that several months after December, 1888, when the student's body was found, the detectives were told still to hold themselves in readiness for further investigations seems to point to the conclusion that Scotland Yard did not in any way consider the evidence as final."

[Ben]

Hi Mitch,

Surely the sentence most worthy of highlighting in bold is as follows:

"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".

That's the absolute polar opposite from a concession that "may be something more to Druitt than just his suicide". He's stating as a fact that there isn't. It could be argued, not very plausibly in my view, that Macnaghten withheld the "incriminating" details from Abberline, but a more reasonable explanation is that the latter was privy to that info and didn't believe it advanced the case against Druitt in the slightest.

Best regards,
Ben

[Chris]

It could be argued, not very plausibly in my view, that Macnaghten withheld the "incriminating" details from Abberline, but a more reasonable explanation is that the latter was privy to that info and didn't believe it advanced the case against Druitt in the slightest.

Well, Abberline says, "there is absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him". [my emphasis]

Which is more likely? That he knows of no further evidence against Druitt, apart from the fact of his suicide? Or that he does know of further evidence - which, remember, seems to have practically convinced Macnaghten of Druitt's guilt - but doesn't himself find it convincing?

If you think that by "absolutely nothing" Abberline actually means "something, but something unconvincing", we'll have to agree to differ.

Macnaghten's grasp of the facts concerning Druitt was obviously unreliable. But Abberline's acceptance of the suggestion that he was a "young medical student", and his repetition of Sims's line that a report had been written to the Home Office about him, don't inspire any greater confidence.

[Ben]

Hi Chris,

If you think that by "absolutely nothing" Abberline actually means "something, but something unconvincing", we'll have to agree to differ.

I think Abberline meant that that the only thing that could possibly be construed as incriminating against Druitt was his "timely" suicide, implying perhaps that Macnaghten's private information, while not strictly "absolutely nothing" in isolation, was still "nothing" when it comes to anything of incriminating value. In other words, Abberline wasn't necessarily stating that the suicide was the only information he had on Druitt; just that it was the only tidbit he'd come across which could possibly be considered incriminating.

I agree that "young medical student" gives cause for disquiet, but that isn't too far removed from the errors Macnaghten himself made with regard to his suspect of preference.

Best regards,
Ben

[Mitch Rowe]

Hi Mitch,

Surely the sentence most worthy of highlighting in bold is as follows:

"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".

That's the absolute polar opposite from a concession that "may be something more to Druitt than just his suicide". He's stating as a fact that there isn't. It could be argued, not very plausibly in my view, that Macnaghten withheld the "incriminating" details from Abberline, but a more reasonable explanation is that the latter was privy to that info and didn't believe it advanced the case against Druitt in the slightest.
Best regards,
Ben

Yes..Thats the sentence I was arguing against. Or Abberline was. I agree that there may have been nothing but Druitts sad end and the fact that he was believed to have been a young Medical Student to incriminate him at the time. But Abberline says Detectives were on standby for several months after Dec 1888. But it seems nothing was done. Not even a Rutine Investigation wich would probably have removed him from the list. It could be the so called Private Information was enough to convince higher ups that Druitt was their Man and no more Investigation was needed. But Abberline makes his Case effectively. I tend to believe every word he says. Everything known about Druitt seems to point away from him being the Ripper. But MacNaghton seems convinced there were only five Murders. Is it because he is so convinced something happened to the Ripper or does he know something more?

I feel sorry for Druitt. I dont know why he was even mentioned. If he is innocent he got a bad rap

[Uncle Jack]

But MacNaghton seems convinced there were only five Murders. Is it because he is so convinced something happened to the Ripper or does he know something more?

I think it is simply because he did think Druitt was the Ripper, for whatever reason. As far as we know, the only reason to suspect Druitt was that he committed suicide at the right time, that he may have inherited a psychological condition from his mother and the fact that he resembled descriptions of the killer (as many many men did back then). If there is some evidence that Macnaghten saw that points or proves Druitt was the Ripper, then I will actually have to see it before I come to any conclusions. Until then, I have to stand by my view that Druitt wasn't the murderer.

[Chris]

I think it is simply because he did think Druitt was the Ripper, for whatever reason.

But in the official version of the memoranda, Macnaghten insisted there were only five victims without placing any extra emphasis on Druitt above the other two suspects. (Although in his draft he had said he was inclined to exonerate the other two but had "strong opinions" about Druitt - though the truth would never be known.)

[Uncle Jack]

Hey Chris,

Do you think that Macnaghten based the memoranda purely on personal opinion rather than solid evidence and do you think that the memoranda was produced to take away attention from the fact that a national newspaper was stating the relative of a police official was the Ripper? I have always been a bit dubious of the whole memoranda because if memory serves me correct, didn't Macnaghten favour Kosminski at first? Unless he started to favour Druitt after something came to his attention, but as I said before, to accept that Druitt was the Ripper, I need to see this supposed solid evidence and I don't think that will ever happen.

Regards,

Adam

[dmcdonald@onwight.net]

Major Arthur Griffiths

Hi, have been reading your posts with interest. It seems that there were others who thought Druitt was guilty. What about the journalist George R Sims who wrote in 1907 - 'Who was Jack the Ripper?' In this article he implies that a Doctor 'who lived in a suburb about six miles from Whitechapel, and who suffered from a horrible form of homicidal mania ...' which meant that he looked upon women of a 'certain kind with frenzied hatred'.

A year later Sims wrote, 'I am betraying no confidence in making this staement [ie that the murderer's body had been found in the Thames - implying Druitt], 'because it has been published by an official who had an opportunity of seeing the Home office Repoort. Major Arthur Griffiths, one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Prisons ... Jack the Ripper was known, was identified and is dead. Let him rest'.

I found this info when I wrote my book entitled 'The Prince, His Tutor and the Ripper' published last year and based on factual evidence. Have you read it yet? Would be interested to hear what you think.

Deborah McDonald

[dmcdonald@onwight.net]

Hi everyone,
The information that Ostrog stole a tankard from the Cadet's quarters at the Military Academy at Woolwich,is quite interesting.
As you know,I live in the area.
The Academy itself is situated on Woolwich Common.The Cadet's quarters are seperate to the academy,and were located on the hill that leads up from Wellington Street,(where the Town Hall is,and where the victims of the Princess Alice were laid out).
The main bulk of the army silver would have been down at the large academy,as it was used for military dinners.The rest would be cups and medals etc which were displayed in glass cases.The Academy parade ground is currently being torn up for an equestrian event for the Olympics.
The army have recently left Woolwich,but the Cadets quarters still stand.
These quarters are towards Charlton..under ten minutes from Blackheath.
I wonder what Ostrog was doing in Woolwich?
Perhaps,he was "in it" with Druitt with regards to JTR.
Strange though,that they were in the same area at the same time,as I think,if my memory serves me right,didn't Druitt start at the school in 1887.
Just a bit of local trivia.
ANNA.

Dear Anna

Just a quickie - Druitt started at the school prior to 1881 - as shown in the census of that year.

Regards
Deborah McDonald

[Uncle Jack]

I haven't read your book yet Deborah but would be very interested to do so. I do have Stephens on my list of top 10 suspects though I don't actually believe the royals were involved in any way. But as a solo suspect, I find Stephens very interesting.

Regards,

Adam