Reasons why?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I admitted the typo PI.

I was not referring to that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Do you not consider the suggestion highlighted in bold type to be most unlikely?

Would it not be very difficult to provide such information without providing the context?

The school might not have had anything to do with the reason that his family had felt him guilty. Apart from that, look at the suspect section of the MM. He gives nothing more than a sentence on each of the three. It’s hardly in depth. How can MacNaghten’s not mentioning Druitt’s dismissal be an issue?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I was not referring to that.

Then perhaps you could point out the contradiction for me and I’ll comment on it even though it appears to be a bit of a distraction.

You said that Druitt wasn’t a criminal lawyer (nothing more) I told you that he was and pointed to a criminal case that he’d been involved in. All that you needed to do was to have said “ok, I wasn’t aware of that,” and that would have been the end of it. I’ve been posting on here for quite a while and have made numerous factually incorrect points (often due to posting in haste without checking or due to errors of memory) various posters have pointed these out to me (Wickerman, Joshua, Abby, FrankO etc) and I’ve always just held up my hands and thanked them for the correction. There’s nothing wrong with admitting to an error PI. It’s doesn’t invalidate everything else that you’ve said.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You’re making it sound as if Macnaghten would have required a doctor’s diagnosis to allow him to use the phrase ['sexually insane']

What makes you think he was entitled to state as fact that Druitt was sexually insane?

I remind you of the dozens of times statements have been challenged on this forum for supposedly being mere opinions, suppositions or assumptions, and objections been made to them on the ground that they were not proven facts.

Why are Macnaghten's statements exempted from that standard?

And I’ve never claimed that he did know of the dismissal (accept in one post where I committed a typo) and it’s unimportant anyway of course.

It is central to the case, when considering whether Druitt may have been the Whitechapel Murderer.

He was dismissed from his teaching post and his suicide note suggests that that was what triggered his mental breakdown and suicide.

You appear not to dispute the fact that Macnaghten did not even know of the dismissal.

Since he was ignorant of the basic facts of the case, how can his comments merit being taken seriously?

How can you know that something hadn’t occurred at the time to suggest a hatred of prostitutes?

According to Swanson, Kosminski was under 24/7 CID surveillance.

Please point to the sentence where he revealed that Kosminski was seen consorting with prostitutes - and what happened next.

Statements made by both Smith and Anderson rule out the surveillance.

The only police record is of consorting with dogs.

A bit of an exaggeration.

You mean I was exaggerating when I stated:

'He made numerous categorical statements of fact when he could not possibly have known them to be facts.'?

Please explain how Macnaghten could have known that Druitt was sexually insane, and that Kosminski had a great hatred of prostitutes and strong homicidal tendencies.

We have his medical notes and a report about his court appearance, which have been used against him to prove that he once held up a chair in the asylum and that he could speak ungrammatical English, but as far as evidence of 'consorting' is concerned, all they prove is that he consorted with dogs.

It is most unlikely that he consorted with prostitutes, and since Swanson's claim that he was under CID surveillance is uncorroborated and, moreover, contradicted both by Henry Smith and Anderson's original account, the police could not even have known that he consorted with prostitutes, even if he had.

Many people feel that he is credible.

He got Druitt's age and profession wrong, stated that he was sexually insane without reference to any medical opinion, did not know of Druitt's dismissal nor of the content of his suicide note, got Kosminski's date of admission wrong by almost two years, so that it looked as though he was certified soon after the last murder, stated that he had strong homicidal tendencies when the medical evidence is that he did not, and stated that he had a great hatred of prostitutes, when he could not possibly have known that.

He is obviously not credible.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Do you not consider the suggestion highlighted in bold type to be most unlikely?

Would it not be very difficult to provide such information without providing the context?

His alleged informant is unknown to us, and the slight vagueness of it - "little doubt" etc - suggests the info came from someone who knew the family, or maybe worked for them, for example, and may have been something as obscure as an overheard conversation. When we know so little, it isn't safe to assume a lot.

[Wickerman]

I have to admit to being rusty on ‘Druitt’ details Wick. I might have to try and fit in a bit of reading up over the weekend. I don’t have any fixed ideas though.

William said that he had been contacted by Monty’s friends on the 11th to say that they hadn’t seen him for a week. So this suggests that he was last seen alive around December 4th, which was a Tuesday. Obviously that meant that the next Friday was the 7th. Which would have meant him being in the water for 3 weeks.

Your point about failed attempts is a good one though Wick. I was going to suggest ‘ maybe he’d been sacked because he’d attempted suicide at the school’ but then I thought ‘how could he have done it without leaving physical evidence that would have shown up at the inquest?’ Maybe a cleaner found a suicide note? Yeah, I’m pushing it now.

I need to read-up on Druitt's background, I just recall odd bits of controversy. That being last seen on the 11th is another one. A question was raised as to whether Druitt was last seen on the 11th, or that William was contacted on the 11th, opinions differed if I recall.

[Wickerman]

If MM didn't know that Druitt was a teacher its unlikely that his comment about Druitt being sexually insane was about him and the boys at his school. But was It ? . MM Days of my Life -

“As I have said before, when writing of the Whitechapel murders, such madness takes Protean forms. Very few people, except barristers, doctors, and police officers, realize that such a thing as sexual mania exists,.....

And yet, homosexuality was well known, which suggests to me the charge of being 'sexually insane' more likely refers to Druitt having an abnormal sexual appetite for females, and as I pointed out there were young women employed at the Boys School.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

You’re making it sound as if Macnaghten would have required a doctor’s diagnosis to allow him to use the phrase ['sexually insane']


What makes you think he was entitled to state as fact that Druitt was sexually insane?

I remind you of the dozens of times statements have been challenged on this forum for supposedly being mere opinions, suppositions or assumptions, and objections been made to them on the ground that they were not proven facts.

Why are Macnaghten's statements exempted from that standard?

I really can’t understand why you are using the word ‘allow,’ PI. He’s simply using a phrase that he felt suited someone that murdered prostitutes. If he’d called the killer ‘a madman’ would you have asked what ‘allowed’ him to use the word madman. What if he’d called him a ‘deranged lunatic?’ Would you have asked what ‘allowed’ him to use that phrase? MacNaghten wasn’t making a medical or psychological diagnosis but you are judging him as if that was what he was doing. It’s just a phrase. The point couldn’t be less important.

…

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

And I’ve never claimed that he did know of the dismissal (accept in one post where I committed a typo) and it’s unimportant anyway of course.

It is central to the case, when considering whether Druitt may have been the Whitechapel Murderer.

He was dismissed from his teaching post and his suicide note suggests that that was what triggered his mental breakdown and suicide.

You appear not to dispute the fact that Macnaghten did not even know of the dismissal.

Since he was ignorant of the basic facts of the case, how can his comments merit being taken seriously?


Druitt’s dismissal from isn’t ‘central’ to whether Druitt may have been the Whitechapel Murderer or not except to you. Druitt never mention the school or his dismissal in his suicide note but you are assuming that it was relevant to his suicide because it’s a convenient way of making a point. All that could help us on assessing how likely he was to have been the ripper would be to evaluate the content of Macnaghten’s private information and we cannot do that. So the only fair-minded approach is to admit that we don’t know. Not to scramble around looking for trivial points on which to make convenient deductions.


…

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

How can you know that something hadn’t occurred at the time to suggest a hatred of prostitutes?


According to Swanson, Kosminski was under 24/7 CID surveillance.

Please point to the sentence where he revealed that Kosminski was seen consorting with prostitutes - and what happened next.

Statements made by both Smith and Anderson rule out the surveillance.

The only police record is of consorting with dogs.


Please point to the record which gives us an hour by hour record of what Kosminski did or didn’t do.

…


Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

A bit of an exaggeration.


You mean I was exaggerating when I stated:

'He made numerous categorical statements of fact when he could not possibly have known them to be facts.'?

Please explain how Macnaghten could have known that Druitt was sexually insane, and that Kosminski had a great hatred of prostitutes and strong homicidal tendencies.

We have his medical notes and a report about his court appearance, which have been used against him to prove that he once held up a chair in the asylum and that he could speak ungrammatical English, but as far as evidence of 'consorting' is concerned, all they prove is that he consorted with dogs.

It is most unlikely that he consorted with prostitutes, and since Swanson's claim that he was under CID surveillance is uncorroborated and, moreover, contradicted both by Henry Smith and Anderson's original account, the police could not even have known that he consorted with prostitutes, even if he had.


I’m not going to keep being distracted by talk of Kosminski PI. Why is it that you so often bring up Kosminski/Jewish suspects/ Anderson etc?

…


Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

Many people feel that he is credible.


He got Druitt's age and profession wrong, stated that he was sexually insane without reference to any medical opinion, did not know of Druitt's dismissal nor of the content of his suicide note, got Kosminski's date of admission wrong by almost two years, so that it looked as though he was certified soon after the last murder, stated that he had strong homicidal tendencies when the medical evidence is that he did not, and stated that he had a great hatred of prostitutes, when he could not possibly have known that.

He is obviously not credible.


The errors are trivial. The fact that he didn’t know of Druitt’s dismissal couldn’t be less relevant. The ‘’sexually insane’ point is laughable.

Of the suspects named so far Druitt, Kosminski and Bury are the strongest. The fact that Macnaghten mentioned Druitt is hugely significant. To dismiss this out of hand shows a lack of genuine interest in the case and more of an interest in winning points. You have your opinion PI and I have mine. Many agree with you about Druitt. Many don’t. In the absence of further evidence we can go no further than this.


.

I don’t know why this is so important to you? Why you feel such a need to dismiss Druitt you will focus on unimportant details? Why you are completely against keeping any form of open mind on the subject?

This discussion is pointless PI.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

And yet, homosexuality was well known, which suggests to me the charge of being 'sexually insane' more likely refers to Druitt having an abnormal sexual appetite for females, and as I pointed out there were young women employed at the Boys School.

Are we to take it then that Druitt's appetite, revealed at the school, was the basis of reports of his sexual insanity?

Is it plausible then that such a person would, at the same time as having normal sexual relations with women at the school, have been eviscerating other women without having any sexual relations with them?

Furthermore, how likely is it that when his supposed appetite suddenly became known to the authorities at the school, it involved more than one woman?

If it did not involve more than one woman, then why would anyone have thought that he was oversexed?

[Herlock Sholmes]

1. The phrase ‘sexually insane’ was just a random phrase used by Macnaghten. Nothing can be deduced from it. It’s utterly irrelevant.

2. Peter Sutcliffe managed never to kill and mutilate his wife as did god knows how many other serial killers.

3. No one is suggesting that Druitt did commit any sexual offences at the school. Wick only pointed out that there were female staff there.

4. No one is suggesting that he had normal sexual relations with anyone at the school.

A general question - do we all understand what ‘unknown’ means?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

He’s simply using a phrase that he felt suited someone that murdered prostitutes.

You are quite wrong about that.

He was making a statement about Druitt, not the Whitechapel Murderer.

And he could not substantiate it by reference to a single fact, proven or not.

Druitt’s dismissal from [sic] isn’t ‘central’ to whether Druitt may have been the Whitechapel Murderer or not except to you.

That is not a valid statement.

You cannot possibly know that I am the only person on the planet to hold a certain view.

Druitt never mention the school or his dismissal in his suicide note but you are assuming that it was relevant to his suicide because it’s a convenient way of making a point.

That is quite wrong.

I am not assuming anything.

As I have already noted, Druitt's dismissal is reported to have occurred on Friday 30 November.

Furthermore, his suicide note dates his mental breakdown to the previous Friday.

There are two pieces of evidence, already cited in this thread, that he was still alive at a later date, including evidence that he was seen three days later.

It is therefore entirely reasonable to deduce that he was referring to his dismissal.

That is obviously not, as you claim, an assumption.

It is certainly not, as you put it, 'a convenient way of making a point'.

It is a deduction that flows from the evidence.

I’m not going to keep being distracted by talk of Kosminski PI. Why is it that you so often bring up Kosminski/Jewish suspects/ Anderson etc?

You are not being distracted and I have not suddenly brought up the matter of Kosminski.

He is mentioned in the Macnaghten Memoranda, which is precisely what we are discussing.

The errors are trivial.

He has Druitt disappearing at the time of the last murder, which is not true.

He has Kosminski being confined in an asylum nearly two years before he actually was, which would mean he was confined three or four months after the last murder, which is certainly 'convenient' if you want to make someone look like a plausible suspect.

He claims that Druitt was sexually insane, but cannot produce any evidence in support.

He has Kosminski having strong homicidal tendencies, but the evidence is that he did not.

He has Kosminski having a great hatred of prostitutes, but we have statements from Smith and Anderson that contradict Swanson's claim that he was under CID surveillance.

That means there could hardly have been any evidence that he even consorted with prostitutes, let alone that he hated them.

Those are not trivial errors.

The fact that he didn’t know of Druitt’s dismissal couldn’t be less relevant.

That is quite incorrect.

It would have played a central part in any police investigation.

A man commits suicide a few days after being dismissed from his post by his employer.

Any detective's ears are going to prick up upon hearing that.

The ‘’sexually insane’ point is laughable.

It is not laughable.

He had absolutely no right to make that statement, any more than Anderson had the right to call a Polish Jew 'the murderer' in the absence of any hard proof.

Macnaghten evidently had no proof either.

To dismiss this out of hand shows a lack of genuine interest in the case and more of an interest in winning points.

Would you like to withdraw that remark?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

He’s simply using a phrase that he felt suited someone that murdered prostitutes.


You are quite wrong about that.

He was making a statement about Druitt, not the Whitechapel Murderer.

And he could not substantiate it by reference to a single fact, proven or not.


I’m not wrong. He wasn’t just randomly talking about a man called Montague in isolation. He was talking about Druitt and his possible connection to the Whitechapel murders. That he ‘couldn’t’ substantiate it is untrue. That he didn’t substantiate it in print is true though. You cannot know what Macnaghten did or didn’t know despite you clearly assuming that you can for some reason. Not saying something isn’t the same as not knowing it.

…

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

Druitt’s dismissal from [sic] isn’t ‘central’ to whether Druitt may have been the Whitechapel Murderer or not except to you.


That is not a valid statement.

You cannot possibly know that I am the only person on the planet to hold a certain view.


A nitpick. But ok. I’ll re-phrase it if it makes you happier…..in my near 40 year interest in this case you are the only person that I’m aware of that takes this viewpoint.

…

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

Druitt never mention the school or his dismissal in his suicide note but you are assuming that it was relevant to his suicide because it’s a convenient way of making a point.


That is quite wrong.

I am not assuming anything.

As I have already noted, Druitt's dismissal is reported to have occurred on Friday 30 November.

Furthermore, his suicide note dates his mental breakdown to the previous Friday.

There are two pieces of evidence, already cited in this thread, that he was still alive at a later date, including evidence that he was seen three days later.

It is therefore entirely reasonable to deduce that he was referring to his dismissal.

That is obviously not, as you claim, an assumption.

It is certainly not, as you put it, 'a convenient way of making a point'.

It is a deduction that flows from the evidence .


That Druitt never mentions the school or his dismissal is the exact and literal truth. Neither the word ‘school’ or ‘dismissal’ is mentioned. This is why time is wasted PI. Read the MM and don’t repeat the point.

….


Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

I’m not going to keep being distracted by talk of Kosminski PI. Why is it that you so often bring up Kosminski/Jewish suspects/ Anderson etc?


You are not being distracted and I have not suddenly brought up the matter of Kosminski.

He is mentioned in the Macnaghten Memoranda, which is precisely what we are discussing.


You maybe. I’m not. I’m only interested in Druitt. If you want to discuss Kosminski I’m out.

…

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

The errors are trivial.


He has Druitt disappearing at the time of the last murder, which is not true.


- Trivial. He disappeared just over 3 weeks later. So what?


He has Kosminski being confined in an asylum nearly two years before he actually was, which would mean he was confined three or four months after the last murder, which is certainly 'convenient' if you want to make someone look like a plausible suspect.

He claims that Druitt was sexually insane, but cannot produce any evidence in support.

- He doesn’t need to.

He has Kosminski having strong homicidal tendencies, but the evidence is that he did not.

He has Kosminski having a great hatred of prostitutes, but we have statements from Smith and Anderson that contradict Swanson's claim that he was under CID surveillance.

That means there could hardly have been any evidence that he even consorted with prostitutes, let alone that he hated them.

Those are not trivial errors.



Less than trivial in Druitt’s case.


….


Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

The fact that he didn’t know of Druitt’s dismissal couldn’t be less relevant.


That is quite incorrect.

It would have played a central part in any police investigation.

A man commits suicide a few days after being dismissed from his post by his employer.

Any detective's ears are going to prick up upon hearing that.



Sorry, I didn’t realise that Macnaghten was undertaking a full-blown police investigation. I thought that he’d just been told some information by an unknown ?

…..


Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post


The ‘’sexually insane’ point is laughable.

It is not laughable.

He had absolutely no right to make that statement, any more than Anderson had the right to call a Polish Jew 'the murderer' in the absence of any hard proof.

Macnaghten evidently had no proof either.


He was free to use whatever words he wanted too. Perfectly legitimate.


….

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

To dismiss this out of hand shows a lack of genuine interest in the case and more of an interest in winning points.


Would you like to withdraw that remark?

No. As Roger Palmer once said about the attitude of some toward Druitt. It shows a remarkable lack of curiosity

Druitt cannot be dismissed PI. You may of course dismiss him in your own personal assessment. But he cannot be dismissed using evidence. That is a fact and any attempt to try to do that will fail every single time. Like 99% of suspects in this case it requires solid evidence to dismiss him. You don’t have them though you clearly wish that you did for some reason.

Unless anyone can make any knew or relevant points I’d suggest that this discussion is dead. It’s in no way constructive due to an attempt to do the impossible. Dismiss Druitt. We are just repeating trivialities and engaging in nitpicking. It’s a pity that all Druitt threads end this way. Druitt threads would be much more constructive, and even more interesting, if those that are dead set on wiping his name from the records and proving that Macnaghten was a pathological liar just didn’t bother taking part. If there’s a suspect that I’m not interested in I don’t take part in the discussion. This seems to me to be the sensible approach.

Anyway, it’s back to Bible John for me.

[Wickerman]

Are we to take it then that Druitt's appetite, revealed at the school, was the basis of reports of his sexual insanity?

Nothing else comes to mind.

Is it plausible then that such a person would, at the same time as having normal sexual relations with women at the school, have been eviscerating other women without having any sexual relations with them?

Absolutely, except that it was normal for streetwalkers of the time to practice safe-sex. We might be well to ask whether the doctors of the time were aware.
The two most frequent practices were first anal sex, and failing that was to trap the man's penis between their legs.
I don't recall any doctor reporting he came across proof of sexual activity.
On the other hand, we can't say for sure 'Jack' followed through with the sex act.

Furthermore, how likely is it that when his supposed appetite suddenly became known to the authorites at the school, it involved more than one woman?

If it did not involve more than one woman, then why would anyone have thought that he was oversexed?

This is a time when men, especially a member of a wealthy family could possibly get off with a warning the first time. Wealth can pull strings, so the dismissal may have been due to repeated offenses. Why even bother speculating about the details when we don't even know if this was the cause?

A master of a school with a reputation to uphold will also dismiss an employee for sins performed outside the school. The fact Montague was dismissed by Mr Valentine might imply the trouble involved the school, but not necessarily. The trouble could have been outside the school but any associated gossip that might reflect poorly on his school, and the types of teachers he hires, may compel Valentine to act in defense of his school's reputation by dismissing the offender.

[Wickerman]

I need to read-up on Druitt's background, I just recall odd bits of controversy. That being last seen on the 11th is another one. A question was raised as to whether Druitt was last seen on the 11th, or that William was contacted on the 11th, opinions differed if I recall.

This is the press article I had in mind..

"...William H. Druitt said he lived at Bournemouth, and that he was a solicitor. The deceased was his brother, who was 31 last birthday. He was a barrister-at-law, and an assistant master in a school at Blackheath. He had stayed with witness at Bournemouth for a night towards the end of October. Witness heard from a friend on the 11th of December that deceased had not been heard of at his chambers for more than a week. Witness then went to London to make inquiries, and at Blackheath he found that deceased had got into serious trouble at the school, and had been dismissed. That was on the 30th of December. Witness had deceased's things searched where he resided, and found a paper addressed to him (produced). — The Coroner read the letter, which was to this effect:-"Since Friday I felt I was going to be like mother, and the best thing was for me to die."
January 5th, 1889.

Right so William had received a letter?, from a friend on the 11th Dec. that Monty had not been at his Chambers for over a week, which probably brings us to 4th Dec.
Then Druitt had been dismissed on the 30th December (error for November?), so William had his brother's room searched. Where this room was has also been debated; his chambers, Blackheath or somewhere else - the Manor House at Chiswick?

One article that caused some interest was that Montague's name was mentioned as being in attendance at the Grand County Ball, at Canford, on Thursday 20 Dec.

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/southern_guardian/881222.html

Is that a list of the attendees, or the invitees?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If I may rephrase my first question, Jon:

Is it likely that a man who may have been sexually insane/oversexed and dismissed by his employers on account of sexual activity, would have eviscerated women without having sexual relations with them, bearing in mind that according to the medical evidence, the murderer had no sexual contact with his victims?