Reasons why?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You’re reading too much into this PI.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Macnaghten mentioned it immediately before his 'private information' suggesting that Druitt was the Whitechapel Murderer.

Do you think he would have done so if he had thought the term 'sexually insane' to be a meaningless phrase?

But why did he not say what Druitt is supposed to have done to merit such a description?

Yes, I absolutely do think it was a meaningless phrase. Murders - sexual, women - sex workers, killer - understandably adjudged as mad.

So the phrase ‘sexually insane’ sums up Jack The Ripper nicely in a non-expert way.

Why should he have mentioned anything? He didn’t do it with any of the three. He was merely naming suspects. He wasn’t providing an in-depth analysis of the pros and cons. You’re reading too much into this PI. He might have had a very good reason for not saying more and just because we don’t know it we can’t assume that the reason didn’t exist.

Its as if you’re claiming to know what is unknown PI.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Why are you reading into it some meaning that doesn’t exist.

Macnaghten mentioned it immediately before his 'private information' suggesting that Druitt was the Whitechapel Murderer.

Do you think he would have done so if he had thought the term 'sexually insane' to be a meaningless phrase?

But why did he not say what Druitt is supposed to have done to merit such a description?

[Herlock Sholmes]

1. One can reasonably deduce that those policemen pointing an accusatory finger lacked any incriminating evidence.

Whenever it would have been natural for them to mention some, they failed to do so.

I gave some examples:

Anderson mentioning a search that yielded no incriminating evidence, but no search that did yield any incriminating evidence; Anderson being challenged to cite any incriminating evidence but failing to do so; Anderson asking his publisher to indemnify him against damages from naming 'the murderer', as he called him, but failing to take up the offer.

Anderson and Swanson had the opportunity to state what it was that the witness is supposed to have seen that would have led to the suspect being hanged, but they did not say.

They could have cited incriminating evidence that led to their suspect becoming a suspect in the first place, but they never did.

They could have pointed to some physical characteristic that enabled the witness to recognise him 'instantly', but they did not.

Macnaghten could have stated what it was that caused Druitt's relatives to suspect him of being the Whitechapel Murderer, but he did not.

And if it was confidential, then why did he mention anything about Druitt's relatives in the first place?

He claimed that he was 'sexually insane', but why could he not point to any sexual offence that he may have committed?

He had sufficient space to claim that Kosminski had 'strong homicidal tendencies', but apparently not enough to supply any details.


2. No.

How can you deduce that when none of us know what Macnaghten’s information was? I’m lost as to how you can make that leap PI. Mac’s info is an unknown. You can’t assess an unknown.

Yes he could have cited the evidence but he chose not to. Just as he chose not to with Kosminski and Ostrog. He must have had his reasons but how can you assume dishonesty from that? I’m sitting in an armchair…..I’ve provided no evidence for that….does that mean that I must be lying or mistaken?

Macnaghten had no expertise in medical matters or psychology. ‘Sexually insane’ is just a catch-all, meaningless phrase. He might just as well have called the killer ‘a perve,’ or ‘a complete lunatic,’ or ‘a madman.’ Why are you reading into it some meaning that doesn’t exist. The murders were apparently of a sexual nature…the victims were in the sex business….and aman who did what the ripper did can be loosely termed ‘insane,’ Where’s the issue?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Two questions PI.

1. If something is omitted is it right to assume that it never existed in the first place?

2. Is there incriminating evidence against any suspect?

1. One can reasonably deduce that those policemen pointing an accusatory finger lacked any incriminating evidence.

Whenever it would have been natural for them to mention some, they failed to do so.

I gave some examples:

Anderson mentioning a search that yielded no incriminating evidence, but no search that did yield any incriminating evidence; Anderson being challenged to cite any incriminating evidence but failing to do so; Anderson asking his publisher to indemnify him against damages from naming 'the murderer', as he called him, but failing to take up the offer.

Anderson and Swanson had the opportunity to state what it was that the witness is supposed to have seen that would have led to the suspect being hanged, but they did not say.

They could have cited incriminating evidence that led to their suspect becoming a suspect in the first place, but they never did.

They could have pointed to some physical characteristic that enabled the witness to recognise him 'instantly', but they did not.

Macnaghten could have stated what it was that caused Druitt's relatives to suspect him of being the Whitechapel Murderer, but he did not.

And if it was confidential, then why did he mention anything about Druitt's relatives in the first place?

He claimed that he was 'sexually insane', but why could he not point to any sexual offence that he may have committed?

He had sufficient space to claim that Kosminski had 'strong homicidal tendencies', but apparently not enough to supply any details.


2. No.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am not exactly sure what is being debated in this thread. Does it have to be all or nothing with respect to Macnaghten? Would I conclude that Druitt had to be the Ripper based solely on statements made by Macnaghten? No, of course not. Would I dismiss Druitt completely because Macnaghten got some facts wrong? No. Now it would be nice if everything that he said (as well as every other police official and witness) were backed by 100% metaphysical certainty but that just ain't gonna happen. Yes, he got several things wrong. But as Herlock pointed out, it seems unlikely that he just pulled Druitt's name out of a hat. So it seems to me that there had to be some basis for naming him as a suspect. For me, taking what was said with a grain of salt and taking the statements made in their entirety is the most reasonable approach. No need to go all or nothing.

c.d.

Hi c.d.

I’ve never understood why mention of Macnaghten or Druitt causes such strong feeling. We can’t assume that MacNaghten’s judgment was spot on of course but we can’t assume that it wasn’t either. And we have no evidence that he just lied. The only thing that I feel confident in is that I don’t think for a second that Macnaghten just plucked out a random name just because he died after the Kelly murder. It makes absolutely zero sense for him to have picked Druitt unless he felt, rightly or wrongly, that he had good reasons for doing so.

You’re spot on when you say “No need to go all or nothing.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is not so much a matter of what they said as of what they left out: that is, actual incriminating evidence.

Two questions PI.

1. If something is omitted is it right to assume that it never existed in the first place?

2. Is there incriminating evidence against any suspect?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Now it would be nice if everything that he said (as well as every other police official and witness) were backed by 100% metaphysical certainty but that just ain't gonna happen.

It is not so much a matter of what they said as of what they left out: that is, actual incriminating evidence.

[c.d.]

I am not exactly sure what is being debated in this thread. Does it have to be all or nothing with respect to Macnaghten? Would I conclude that Druitt had to be the Ripper based solely on statements made by Macnaghten? No, of course not. Would I dismiss Druitt completely because Macnaghten got some facts wrong? No. Now it would be nice if everything that he said (as well as every other police official and witness) were backed by 100% metaphysical certainty but that just ain't gonna happen. Yes, he got several things wrong. But as Herlock pointed out, it seems unlikely that he just pulled Druitt's name out of a hat. So it seems to me that there had to be some basis for naming him as a suspect. For me, taking what was said with a grain of salt and taking the statements made in their entirety is the most reasonable approach. No need to go all or nothing.

c.d.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Macnaghten wasn’t writing a ‘tell-all’ biography of Druitt. It was a few lines.

I have read something similar before about Swanson: he was not writing a formal report.

Anderson, Swanson, Macnaghten and Du Rose never mentioned any incriminating evidence against their respective suspects.

No-one ever stopped them from doing so.

Indeed, in Anderson's case, he was invited to do so.

Anderson and Du Rose were writing memoirs.

It was they who made the claims; it was their decisions.

They could have mentioned evidence without even naming the suspect.

Macnaghten could have too.

They always mentioned something less than actual incriminating evidence and took quite a few lines to mention it, when in the same space they could have mentioned something actually incriminating.

It was not through choice that they failed to mention it.

There was no incriminating evidence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is and never has been any case against Druitt.

We are told that Macnaghten may have heard from Druitt's relatives incriminating evidence, even though he does not mention any.

Why is that important? Again, Macnaghten wasn’t writing a ‘tell-all’ biography of Druitt. It was a few lines. Really PI. He didn’t mention his shoe size either.

It is always the same: Anderson's and Swanson's identification of a suspect by an unnamed witness in the presence of unnamed witnesses to what would have been the most dramatic identification of a murder suspect in British criminal history, but no-one could recall being there.

And Du Rose's shortlist of suspects which no other policeman who worked on the case could remember.

John Du Rose has no relevance to this case.

We have also heard that Druitt may have tortured animals when he was a child, and may have visited Whitechapel in the early hours because he made donations to a charity there, and may have belonged to the minority of serial murderers who did not come from violent, dysfunctional or broken homes.

In my opinion, it is all unwarranted speculation and Druitt's tragic suicide has no more connection with the Whitechapel Murders than Ireland's suicide had with the Hammersmith Nudes Murders.

And you are entitled to your opinion bearing in mind that it is an opinion and not a statement of fact.

Neither man's suicide note referred to any murder.

And you think that he’d want to bring shame on his own family by confessing to being Jack The Ripper (if he was guilty of course?) Come on PI. He didn’t take an ad out in The Times either. It’s hardly a point against him.

There is and never has been any case against Druitt or Ireland.


Macnaghten and others put him forward. That’s enough and more than 99+% of the other suspects.

And you have absolutely no basis in evidence to dismiss Druitt. You feel that he’s a poor suspect. That’s completely up to you PI, we all have opinions but you shouldn’t add things in an attempt to give the impression that unfounded claims have been made. I’m talking about this passage:

. We have also heard that Druitt may have tortured animals when he was a child, and may have visited Whitechapel in the early hours because he made donations to a charity there, and may have belonged to the minority of serial murderers who did not come from violent, dysfunctional or broken homes.

What I’ve said in the past, and I’ve been very clear in what I said and the reasoning behind it, is this. We know absolutely nothing about Druitt’s childhood apart from where he went to school. We don’t know what kind of child he was. We don’t know of any incidents or experiences that he might or might not have been involved in. We don’t know about relationships with friends or certain family members. We know of no interests, or hobbies, or habits or illnesses. His early life is a complete blank so we absolutely cannot say that x or y never occurred. Yes, of course we have no evidence for them but how can that serve to eliminate possibilities? So we can’t say that he never tortured animals, or that he was never physically or sexually abused. We can only say that we have no evidence for them. We only find these things out about serial killers after they are caught and interviewed.

Then you say “….and may have visited Whitechapel in the early hours because he made donations to a charity there.” I’ve never mentioned charity donations PI. I’ve merely suggested the possibility that, like many men of his age, background, education and location he might have done charity work in Whitechapel. This is an entirely reasonable statement that should cause no objection from anyone. But because of your antagonism to Druitt/Macnaghten you appear to feel the need to question every single point. Even if you disagree on the whole PI there’s nothing wrong in conceding an obviously valid point or two. It’s not a competition.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There is and never has been any case against Druitt.

We are told that Macnaghten may have heard from Druitt's relatives incriminating evidence, even though he does not mention any.

It is always the same: Anderson's and Swanson's identification of a suspect by an unnamed witness in the presence of unnamed witnesses to what would have been the most dramatic identification of a murder suspect in British criminal history, but no-one could recall being there.

And Du Rose's shortlist of suspects which no other policeman who worked on the case could remember.

We have also heard that Druitt may have tortured animals when he was a child, and may have visited Whitechapel in the early hours because he made donations to a charity there, and may have belonged to the minority of serial murderers who did not come from violent, dysfunctional or broken homes.

In my opinion, it is all unwarranted speculation and Druitt's tragic suicide has no more connection with the Whitechapel Murders than Ireland's suicide had with the Hammersmith Nudes Murders.

Neither man's suicide note referred to any murder.

There is and never has been any case against Druitt or Ireland.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

I don’t know why you brought Abberline into it? If you set such store in that particular retired officer’s opinion I have to ask if you would support his proposal of Chapman? Or is he only occasionally reliable?

It is not a question of what I think of his opinion.

He stated that there was no evidence against Druitt.

I do not think you can call that an opinion.

Of course it was his opinion. How can we know that he knew all of the facts that were known to Macnaghten? It was ‘private info’ after all and Abberline had been retired since 1892.

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

you have zero evidence for that suggestion [that Druitt's was the only suitable suicide that happened at about the right time]

Do you not think that if there had been other suitable suicides at about that time, someone would have mentioned them by now?

You are fixating on suicides PI. Macnaghten didn’t need a suicide he needed someone dead or incarcerated and incommunicado. And he’d have had ample choice and yet he chose a respectable, upper-middle class Barrister who was related by marriage to one of his best pals?

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

We have Macnaghten’s own words.

We have his uncorroborated claim to know of the existence of others' uncorroborated speculation.

Would you really call that 'knowing something'?

Yes I would. If you told me some bit of private information PI but you provided no corroboration for some stated reason would I be correct to assume that you must have been lying?

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

Evidence to dismiss Macnaghten’s claim doesn’t exist. It’s opinion only.

Anderson. Macnaghten. Du Rose.

All made unsubstantiated claims years after the events.

And Dr. Harold Shipman was a serial killer. Does that mean that all doctors are serial killers?

Just because Macnaghten went into no further detail why does that have to imply dishonesty?

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

Point me to the evidence that Druitt couldn’t have been in Bucks Row at 3.40am on August 31st.

I wrote in # 97:

we have evidence that Druitt was in Dorset playing cricket when the series of murders started.

and in # 108:

It is not demonstrably, factually untrue.


I did not mean literally that he was playing cricket at 3:40 in the morning and I do not think anyone took it to mean that.

Then we don’t have evidence that he was playing cricket at the start of the murders. As I said. Because that’s when the murders started. They didn’t start at 11.00am or 12.00pm on the 30th as Druitt walked onto the cricket pitch to play a game that was cut short by 50%.

.

If you want to dismiss Druitt on cricket then it would have to be proven that he was still in Dorset at such a time that made it physically impossible for him to have got to Bucks Row by 3.40am. Not that ‘it might have been a bit tight,’ or that ‘I don’t think it likely behaviour.’

[Herlock Sholmes]

The fact that something that was thought to constitute an alibi for that murder turns out not to have constituted an alibi does not mean that he did not have an alibi for that murder.

That is something we cannot know.

Of course. But we can’t dismiss a suspect on the grounds that he might have had an alibi that we’re not aware of.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I don’t know why you brought Abberline into it? If you set such store in that particular retired officer’s opinion I have to ask if you would support his proposal of Chapman? Or is he only occasionally reliable?

It is not a question of what I think of his opinion.

He stated that there was no evidence against Druitt.

I do not think you can call that an opinion.

you have zero evidence for that suggestion [that Druitt's was the only suitable suicide that happened at about the right time]

Do you not think that if there had been other suitable suicides at about that time, someone would have mentioned them by now?

We have Macnaghten’s own words.

We have his uncorroborated claim to know of the existence of others' uncorroborated speculation.

Would you really call that 'knowing something'?

Evidence to dismiss Macnaghten’s claim doesn’t exist. It’s opinion only.

Anderson. Macnaghten. Du Rose.

All made unsubstantiated claims years after the events.

Point me to the evidence that Druitt couldn’t have been in Bucks Row at 3.40am on August 31st.

I wrote in # 97:

we have evidence that Druitt was in Dorset playing cricket when the series of murders started.

and in # 108:

It is not demonstrably, factually untrue.


I did not mean literally that he was playing cricket at 3:40 in the morning and I do not think anyone took it to mean that.