Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1
View Post
To say that there is no evidence of ‘sexual insanity’ makes no sense because ‘sexual insanity’ is not a medical diagnosis (whether correct or incorrect) It’s a red herring point. It would have been a generally held opinion that the killer was ‘insane’ and the victims and the nature of the murders would lead to an assumption that they were of a sexual nature. Therefore ‘sexually insane’ was simply a catch-all phrase from a man who wasn’t making a medical diagnosis.
Even if there’s only a 5% chance of Macnaghten telling the truth (and I’d call it close to a certainty that he was) then would that justify eliminating him? Private information could be incorrect of course, but….if Macnaghten had received his private information which, at least in part, came from the family then we should ask - what would be the chances of a highly respected, upper-middle class family like the Druitt’s suggesting, without reasonable evidence, that Monty was the most loathed man in England?
Ive presented 10 reasons why I don’t think that Macnaghten lied. Aside from errors, and errors can be present in any information, we have nothing to suggest that Macnaghten lied. Absolutely not a single thing.
So for me……did Macnaghten receive his private information? Close to a certainty. Would the family have accused one of their own of being the ripper if they didn’t feel that they had very good reason for doing so? Close to a certainty..no. Could they have been mistaken and that ‘worrying’ behaviour or something that Druitt said had led them on a false trail? Certainly possible.
Druitt remains an intriguing suspect for me. He has far more going for him than most.
Comment