Reasons why?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Macnaghten had evidence that he thought pointed to Druitt.

That is an assumption.

You cannot know that to be true.

He had easy access to any anatomical knowledge the killer might have had.

There is no evidence that he had any relevant anatomical knowledge nor experience of applying it.

His suicide gives a reason for the termination of the murders (if Kelly was the last of course) His suicide also points to a decline.

There is evidence that he suffered a mental breakdown three weeks after Kelly's murder, that it was triggered by his dismissal from his teaching post, and that the breakdown caused him to decide to commit suicide.

That is evidence that his suicide was not connected with any murder, but with something else entirely.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Would you suspect someone of having committed murder because of the existence of trains?

No but I’d accept the possibility that they can be used to move a person from one location to another in fairly quick time.

Further reason to end the discussion because all Druitt discussion ends like this. When someone won’t accept that a person can move around.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So incriminating as to render him 'more likely than Cutbush' to have committed the murders?






Where is the evidence that it did exist?






What is easier than to accuse a dead person of being a murderer?

Farquharson had to pay £5000 in libel damages two years later.

What makes you think he knew anything?






If you really believe that, then please explain why he took the time to give details of three so-called suspects,

any one of whom would have been more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders?

No, I’m not going to explain the obvious PI because I’ve been here before on Druitt and I’m tired of hearing the same old stuff. We’re going around in circles and I think that if we had a photograph of Druitt leaving Millers Court carrying a knife dripping with blood you’d invent some way of dismissing him. I don’t care if you think Druitt a poor suspect because he’s one of the very few worthwhile one’s that we have. Macnaghten named him. That’s enough. Not to make him the killer but enough to make him a person of far more interest than 99+% of all other suspects. That we don’t know what his information was is frustrating and disappointing but it is what it is. To suggest that he simply made it up is not worthy of consideration. Why people have to resort to this kind of stuff is beyond me.

Macnaghten had evidence that he thought pointed to Druitt.
For years we looked for some connection between Druitt and Macnaghten and we now have it.
Druitt has no alibi for any of the murders.
He was fit and healthy and the right age.
He had easy access to any anatomical knowledge the killer might have had.
His suicide gives a reason for the termination of the murders (if Kelly was the last of course) His suicide also points to a decline.
He was mentioned as the ripper in all but name 5 years before the memorandum (by Farquharson.)
We have the North Country Vicar story.
We have the English patient story.
We have a potential link to the Cavendish letter.
In 1908 Frank Richardson writes a story where the ripper is Dr. Bluitt who drowns himself in the Thames.
He wasn’t simply favoured by Macnaghten, others did too.

None of the above proves that Druitt was guilty. I’ve never made that claim but it utterly baffles me how anyone genuinely interested in the case doesn’t find Druitt the most intriguing of suspects.

Im not bothered whether you like it or not PI but Druitt, Kosminski and Bury are the three best suspects that we have by a country mile. It’s not even close. I’d prefer not to continue with this PI because I’ve had years of this kind of approach and it gets us nowhere. If Druitt doesn’t interest you, no problem, move on to another topic but I’m not going to keep trying to counter what appears to be some kind of holy mission to eliminate Druitt. Let’s leave it.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Perhaps because they also knew that trains existed PI?

Would you suspect someone of having committed murder because of the existence of trains?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

But he clearly felt that it was incriminating.

So incriminating as to render him 'more likely than Cutbush' to have committed the murders?

We can’t assume that it didn’t exist.

Where is the evidence that it did exist?

What we do have though is Farquharson telling people, 5 years before the Memorandum, that the ripper was the son of a surgeon that committed suicide. Yes, he said that the killer committed suicide on the night of the last murder, but the main point is that no other son of a surgeon committed suicide just after the Kelly murder. Farquaharsen was from the same area as the Druitt’s. Others favoured Druitt too. Where they all liars or where they all gullible or did they know something that we don’t?

What is easier than to accuse a dead person of being a murderer?

Farquharson had to pay £5000 in libel damages two years later.

What makes you think he knew anything?

The fact that Macnaghten strongly believed that the murders ended with Kelly, and took the time to stress the fact, points to the fact that he felt that he had very good reason for believing Druitt to have been guilty.

If you really believe that, then please explain why he took the time to give details of three so-called suspects,

any one of whom would have been more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders?

[Herlock Sholmes]

.

If they were in touch with him during the period in which the murders were committed, then they knew about his holiday in Dorset.

Why, then, would they have suspected him?

Perhaps because they also knew that trains existed PI?

[Herlock Sholmes]

He never cited any incriminating evidence.

But he clearly felt that it was incriminating. We can’t assume that it didn’t exist. It certainly might have been the case that Druitt wasn’t actually guilty though. What we do have though is Farquharson telling people, 5 years before the Memorandum, that the ripper was the son of a surgeon that committed suicide. Yes, he said that the killer committed suicide on the night of the last murder, but the main point is that no other son of a surgeon committed suicide just after the Kelly murder. Farquaharsen was from the same area as the Druitt’s. Others favoured Druitt too. Where they all liars or where they all gullible or did they know something that we don’t?

Another point to make is that Bond believed that Alice Mackenzie was a ripper victim although Phillips disagreed. Munro, who was a friend of MacNaghten’s, also thought Mackenzie was a ripper victim. Why then would Macnaghten have picked at random someone that was dead when Mackenzie was killed when many believed her to have been a victim? It makes no sense. The fact that Macnaghten strongly believed that the murders ended with Kelly, and took the time to stress the fact, points to the fact that he felt that he had very good reason for believing Druitt to have been guilty.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Sorry, Jon, but even without the benefit of having seen Mrs Druitt's medical notes, I would imagine that she was suffering from something more serious than depression.

Moreover, if Druitt thought that her condition merited being mentioned in his suicide note, then that too suggests that he thought she was suffering from something more substantial than depression.

And since she had never committed murder, or been charged with having committed murder, if Druitt was referring to murder in his suicide note, then why would he have mentioned his mother?

At the time of his suicide, his mother had been in an asylum for three or four months.

Why would he have been thinking about her spending the rest of her life in confinement?

I do not agree that speculation that his relatives suspected him of having committed the Whitechapel murders is reasonable.

If they were in touch with him during the period in which the murders were committed, then they knew about his holiday in Dorset.

Why, then, would they have suspected him?

[Wickerman]

In # 84, you did not write anything about Druitt being deemed guilty.

You wrote that he could be found guilty.

Yes, that's right, ....are you asking how someone could be deemed to be guilty without a trial?
Finding compelling evidence in his room is one way.
Just suppose the missing organs were found in a drawer in his room, it's not the kind of circumstance that he can justify away as 'not my fault'.

He wrote of his fear that he would 'be like mother'.

That is obviously a reference to her mental state and reflects a fear of going mad...

Which is precisely what everyone thought, and yet her symptoms were consistent with depression. Not something to justify taking your own life, especially a young man of his age, unless he had being showing signs of depression, which we wouldn't know about.
It is very possible the comment for him to not "be like mother" referred to the fact she was locked up.

Hypothetically, if the family did suspect he might be the killer, and as his elder brother William was head of the house, it means his brother knew about the suspicion.
Duty required that if any junior family member learns of suspicion they must report it to William as head of the house.
So, was it William who approached Macnaghten?
And, lets not forget, William was the one who produced that suicide note.
Did William even write the note?

It's all speculation, but not unreasonable speculation.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Perhaps you could try and prove that MacNaghten’s evidence was no good? And when I say prove PI, I do mean prove. I don’t mean just a re-stating of your opinion of the likelihood of….

He never cited any incriminating evidence.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Macnaghten seems to be saying that the evidence that he has is enough to make him think that Druitt is the top suspect, but not enough to conclusively prove that Druitt is guilty.

Exactly!

He says that Druitt is

more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders ...

but that the same applies to Kosminski and Ostrog!

[Lewis C]

On the contrary!

It is others who are reading too much into what Macnaghten wrote.

He wrote of the three suspects:

I may mention the cases of 3 men, any one of whom would have been more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders ...

He did not have any incriminating evidence.

If he had, he would have mentioned only one suspect.

Macnaghten seems to be saying that the evidence that he has is enough to make him think that Druitt is the top suspect, but not enough to conclusively prove that Druitt is guilty.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not in Macnaghten's case.

He would have done exceedingly well had he found incriminating evidence against even one suspect.

So you apply a different criteria to Macnaghten. I don’t know why you would do that but it’s up to you of course.

Perhaps you could try and prove that MacNaghten’s evidence was no good? And when I say prove PI, I do mean prove. I don’t mean just a re-stating of your opinion of the likelihood of….

It also doesn’t mean a re-stating of the - if someone doesn’t mention something then it can’t have existed, point.


So your first step of course is to name the evidence that you’re going to rebut.

Ahh, I see a problem.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Isn’t it possible to have incriminating evidence against more than one suspect?

Not in Macnaghten's case.

He would have done exceedingly well had he found incriminating evidence against even one suspect.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the contrary!

It is others who are reading too much into what Macnaghten wrote.

He wrote of the three suspects:

I may mention the cases of 3 men, any one of whom would have been more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders ...

He did not have any incriminating evidence.

If he had, he would have mentioned only one suspect.

Isn’t it possible to have incriminating evidence against more than one suspect? The police have this problem regularly.

That’s a deduction too far. “He would have…” How can you know what a senior Victorian police officer would or wouldn’t have done?