Reasons why?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

We had long thought that he had an alibi for the Tabram murder. We now know that he hadn’t.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I did not claim to know exactly when he committed suicide.

I stated:

There is evidence that he was still alive more than three weeks after the last murder in the series.

That is a fact.

And that’s what Macnaghten said. Fished out of the Thames 7 weeks after the last murder. In the water for around 4 weeks.

7 weeks minus 4 weeks is……

[Herlock Sholmes]

From Keith Skinner:

With reference to the post below, the one thing to keep in mind, predicated on primary sources, is that Druitt was last seen alive on Monday December 3rd 1888 (we don't know who by, where or what time) and his body was fished out of the River Thames on Monday December 31st 1888.

Best Wishes

Keith

Cheers Jon and thank Keith for me.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

If MacNaghten’s memorandum is criticised for not being supported by other evidence we have to ask ourselves why it’s acceptable to accuse Macnaghten of simply selecting Druitt because of his suicide when this isn’t supported by evidence either. It’s simply speculation.

Do you really think that when Abberline said that the only 'evidence' against Druitt was the fact that he had committed suicide, he was simply speculating?

It has been suggested that Macnaghten simply picked Druitt at random. This is speculation. We have no evidence for this. 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?


Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

... why pick an upper-middle class Barrister/Schoolteacher with no history of violence or criminality ...

Because his was the only suitable suicide that happened at about the right time?

Firstly, you have zero evidence for that suggestion. And secondly, can you really believe that there were no dead or confined criminals that he could safely have named? He didn’t need a suicide. He only mentioned the suicide because of Druitt. Not the other way around.

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

Druitt and Kosminski, whether anyone likes it or not, were mentioned as suspects by very senior policeman and others. Men in a position to know things that we don’t .

There is no evidence that they knew things that we do not know.

We have Macnaghten’s own words. No one has ever claimed corroboration. All that I’ve suggested is that it makes no sense simply to dismiss his opinion.

On the other hand, there is evidence that we know things that they did not know.

This proves nothing.

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

If some retired 1960’s London Police Officer came forward and named a suspect for Jack The Stripper would we be interested? Would we want to know more? Or would we assume that he was just making it up?

I am not sure whether you are really suggesting this as something hypothetical.

That is what actually happened and he obviously was just making it up.

He claimed, just as someone claimed about the Whitechapel Murders investigation, that the police had narrowed down their pool of suspects to just three.

He then claimed that his prime suspect committed suicide.

The suspect, who has been identified as Mungo Ireland, left a suicide note, which made no reference to the murders.

He was about 10 to 15 years older than the estimated age of the man last seen with one of the victims, posing as a client of hers.

No other police officer has ever come forward to confirm that Ireland was on a short list of suspects.

Inspector Du Rose, like Anderson, made inflated claims about knowing the identity of the murderer which do not stand up.

I said “if some retired detective…” I was being hypothetical. If someone made the claim we would be interested or at least….we should be. We would only dismiss his statement on evidence if it existed. Evidence to dismiss Macnaghten’s claim doesn’t exist. It’s opinion only.

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

Finally we have this yet again: “Instead, we have evidence that Druitt was in Dorset playing cricket when the series of murders started.”

There is no other way of putting this apart from by saying that this is demonstrably, factually untrue.

It is not demonstrably, factually untrue.

The evidence does exist.

Whether you accept it as conclusive is another matter.

Point me to the evidence that Druitt couldn’t have been in Bucks Row at 3.40am on August 31st. If you produce that evidence I’ll never post again on this forum. And just to be clear, I’m not talking about your opinion on likelihood or your opinion.

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

Why no extended dismissals of Levy ....

I have dismissed Joseph Hyam Levy as Anderson's witness, who allegedly saw his relation Jacob Levy in Church Passage with Catherine Eddowes, on the ground that Anderson made it crystal clear that his alleged witness learned that the alleged suspect was Jewish only after he had formally identified him.

Levy would obviously not have needed to be reminded that his relative was Jewish.

It is quite obvious from Levy's testimony that he did not recognise the man in Church Passage as a relative of his, and that his nervousness stemmed from what his friend called the man's rough appearance

Clearly I wasn’t asking for your opinion on Levy. I was making a general point about more time and effort being spent on trying to dismiss Druitt than all other suspects combined (with the exception of Maybrick and Cross) Why does Druitt create such a level of antagonism in some? Why are you so concerned with trying to dismiss him?

.

So much time is wasted on this kind of reaction to any mention of Macnaghten and Druitt. Over on JTRForums we had a thread on the cricket match. Numerous researchers were involved..Roger Palmer, Chris Phillips, Gary Barnett, Steve Blomer etc. None of whom can be labelled ‘Druittist.’ The unanimous, unavoidable, research based conclusion was that cricket clearly didn’t provide Druitt with an alibi for Nichols murder. You played no part in the discussion and you submitted no research on the subject and yet you completely dismiss or ignore the conclusions of their research because you are so desperate to dismiss Druitt. Why do you do this PI?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

No one knows exactly when Druitt committed suicide. This is a fact.

I did not claim to know exactly when he committed suicide.

I stated:

There is evidence that he was still alive more than three weeks after the last murder in the series.

That is a fact.

[jmenges]

From Keith Skinner:

With reference to the post below, the one thing to keep in mind, predicated on primary sources, is that Druitt was last seen alive on Monday December 3rd 1888 (we don't know who by, where or what time) and his body was fished out of the River Thames on Monday December 31st 1888.

Best Wishes

Keith

We don’t know when he committed suicide. All that we have is an estimation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is evidence that he was still alive more than three weeks after the last murder in the series.

Mcnaghten said that Druitt was fished out of the Thames 7 weeks after the Miller’s Court murder and that it was “said to have been upwards of a month the water.”

No one knows exactly when Druitt committed suicide. This is a fact.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If MacNaghten’s memorandum is criticised for not being supported by other evidence we have to ask ourselves why it’s acceptable to accuse Macnaghten of simply selecting Druitt because of his suicide when this isn’t supported by evidence either. It’s simply speculation.

Do you really think that when Abberline said that the only 'evidence' against Druitt was the fact that he had committed suicide, he was simply speculating?

... why pick an upper-middle class Barrister/Schoolteacher with no history of violence or criminality ...

Because his was the only suitable suicide that happened at about the right time?

Druitt and Kosminski, whether anyone likes it or not, were mentioned as suspects by very senior policeman and others. Men in a position to know things that we don’t .

There is no evidence that they knew things that we do not know.

On the other hand, there is evidence that we know things that they did not know.

If some retired 1960’s London Police Officer came forward and named a suspect for Jack The Stripper would we be interested? Would we want to know more? Or would we assume that he was just making it up?

I am not sure whether you are really suggesting this as something hypothetical.

That is what actually happened and he obviously was just making it up.

He claimed, just as someone claimed about the Whitechapel Murders investigation, that the police had narrowed down their pool of suspects to just three.

He then claimed that his prime suspect committed suicide.

The suspect, who has been identified as Mungo Ireland, left a suicide note, which made no reference to the murders.

He was about 10 to 15 years older than the estimated age of the man last seen with one of the victims, posing as a client of hers.

No other police officer has ever come forward to confirm that Ireland was on a short list of suspects.

Inspector Du Rose, like Anderson, made inflated claims about knowing the identity of the murderer which do not stand up.

Finally we have this yet again: “Instead, we have evidence that Druitt was in Dorset playing cricket when the series of murders started.”

There is no other way of putting this apart from by saying that this is demonstrably, factually untrue.

It is not demonstrably, factually untrue.

The evidence does exist.

Whether you accept it as conclusive is another matter.

Why no extended dismissals of Levy ....

I have dismissed Joseph Hyam Levy as Anderson's witness, who allegedly saw his relation Jacob Levy in Church Passage with Catherine Eddowes, on the ground that Anderson made it crystal clear that his alleged witness learned that the alleged suspect was Jewish only after he had formally identified him.

Levy would obviously not have needed to be reminded that his relative was Jewish.

It is quite obvious from Levy's testimony that he did not recognise the man in Church Passage as a relative of his, and that his nervousness stemmed from what his friend called the man's rough appearance.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You are free to speculate all you like PI. You have no evidence for it though.

It is Anderson and Macnaghten who had no evidence,

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

We don’t know when he committed suicide. All that we have is an estimation.

There is evidence that he was still alive more than three weeks after the last murder in the series.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He has him committing suicide shortly after the final murder in the series.

He actually committed suicide more than three weeks later.

We don’t know when he committed suicide. All that we have is an estimation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We can deduce that Anderson and Macnaghten were boastfully claiming to know more than they actually did.

You are free to speculate all you like PI. You have no evidence for it though.

[Herlock Sholmes]

At 1.40 a.m. on a Sunday morning?

Of course not PI. Obviously I was just suggesting that if someone did do charitable work in Whitechapel it could have led to a familiarity with the location.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Macnaghten had simply sought out a ‘suicide’ to add to the list (because of a preconception about the cessation of the murders) then we have to ask how he arrived at Druitt? Is it remotely likely that he simply recalled a suicide that occurred six years previously that was barely reported in the Press and then decided “that’s the one for me”? I’d suggest that would be unlikely in the extreme. So that leaves a deliberate search for a likely candidate that fit the bill, carried out either by himself or, perhaps more likely, by a subordinate. Therefore if someone had searched the records and found Druitt they would have had those records right in front of them. So how could it have been possible for them to have got his age and profession wrong with the facts sitting in front of them on the desk? This seems equally unlikely.

Therefore it’s surely more likely that Macnaghten received this information by word of mouth and didn’t bother writing anything down at the time. Then after an unknown period of time he found that he needed to compile his memorandum which meant relating the facts from memory. Perhaps a memory that he had too much confidence in? 41 for 31 (not a disastrous error in terms of memory) Doctor instead of Barrister (Druitt was the son of a doctor/surgeon so again, hardly a remarkable error when someone is thinking back) He wasn’t writing an in-depth biography of Druitt after all (or of Kosminski and Ostrog for that matter) He was merely naming likelier suspects than Cutbush (in his opinion)

…………

If MacNaghten’s memorandum is criticised for not being supported by other evidence we have to ask ourselves why it’s acceptable to accuse Macnaghten of simply selecting Druitt because of his suicide when this isn’t supported by evidence either. It’s simply speculation. There’s nothing wrong with speculation of course as long as it’s acknowledged as such and that it isn’t suggested that it can only be applied in some circumstances and not others.

…………

My point about the naming of Druitt hasn’t been addressed as usual, but in all the years that I’ve posted on here it’s never once been addressed……why pick an upper-middle class Barrister/Schoolteacher with no history of violence or criminality, a man who was related by marriage to one of Macnaghten’s best friends, a man with family connections and a brother and a cousin who were solicitors, instead of some dead or incarcerated lower class criminal or lunatic? It couldn’t have been easier for Macnaghten to have done this but he didn’t. He named Druitt. It made no sense then and it makes no sense now to suggest that this was some random act of gap-filling. This illogical suggestion has gone on too long to be allowed to stand unchallenged.

……….

We have no evidence against any subject in this case. None. Do we eliminate all suspects or is this criteria only applicable to Druitt? It has long appeared to be the case. Why? Why seek to cast out someone who, for all that any of us know, might have been the killer? Is ‘because I don’t think that he was guilty’ a good enough reason? It’s about as good as the ‘well there’s no evidence’ argument. Abandon all suspect talk then. Every last one.

When there is a lack of evidence we tend to look for what ‘scraps’. The majority of suspects don’t even have scraps but they still get proposed. Druitt and Kosminski, whether anyone likes it or not, were mentioned as suspects by very senior policeman and others. Men in a position to know things that we don’t . Does that mean that they must have been correct? No, of course it doesn’t, but in any unbiased approach they would have to be considered and the very fact that they were named has to push them to the top part of any suspect list. It might be said that they are the best of a poor bunch. Ok, no problem. But they still have something that other suspects don’t have. This should make them of interest to us. So why does it make some more determined than ever to dismiss them? I’ve never understood this approach. If some retired 1960’s London Police Officer came forward and named a suspect for Jack The Stripper would we be interested? Would we want to know more? Or would we assume that he was just making it up? The latter approach appears to be more evident when it comes to anything to do with Macnaghten and Druitt.

………….

Finally we have this yet again: “Instead, we have evidence that Druitt was in Dorset playing cricket when the series of murders started.”

There is no other way of putting this apart from by saying that this is demonstrably, factually untrue. What evidence do we have that Druitt was in Dorset at around 3.40am on the morning of August 31st? (I.e. when the murder of Nichols actually occurred) None. Absolutely zero. We know that he was in Dorset hours earlier though. We don’t even know how many hours. It could very easily have been 12 hours earlier! Even in a worse case scenario Druitt could still very easily have got back to London well before Mary Nichols was killed. Whether any thinks it likely or not is absolutely irrelevant in terms of alibi. Druitt absolutely with 100% certainty could have been in London to kill Nichols. The fact that even this absolute fact won’t be conceded is ample evidence of the determination to eliminate Druitt. Again, why? Why the need to eradicate Druitt from all discussion? And even when new evidence is discovered it gets ignored if it’s Druitt-related. We had long thought that he had an alibi for the Tabram murder. We now know that he hadn’t. This should have been a fairly important bit of news but all that we got from those that dismiss Druitt was a great yawning silence. Why?

………….

Druitt remains a suspect despite individual opinion. In my own opinion he has more going for him than almost all of the named suspects. Druitt, Kosminski and Bury are the only ones of real interest to me. The rest are also-rans imo. But everyone is still free to discuss them of course and I’m certainly not claiming to know the ripper’s identity. Why do we tend to focus in the same few suspects? If some think that Druitt is such a poor suspect, fine. But why do they have to keep bending over backwards to try and dismiss him. Why are there no extended discussions on Chapman? He was named by Abberline and favoured by Sugden after all. Yet he’s completely ignored. Why no extended dismissals of Levy or Hyams or Hardiman or Mann or Hutchinson or Endacott? Druitt CANNOT be eliminated on what we know at the present time whether anyone likes it or not. This might change at any time if evidence is found to exonerate him. I find him the most intriguing of all of the named suspects and I make no apologies for that.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That is a very interesting point.

The alternative is that Macnaghten arrived at his theory of a suicidal or certified maniacal killer and then found suspects who fitted it.

But what are the chances that he formed a theory that the murderer had committed suicide before he learned of an actual suicide?

Sorry, FM, for the confusion.

What I really meant is that Macnaghten formed his theory on the basis of the supposed histories of his supposed suspects and then referred to them in support of his theory.

I do not think he formed his theory before he heard of his suspects.