Reasons why?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I did not say that Macnaghten could not have made genuine mistakes.

I would, however, suggest that when he backdated Kosminski's confinement in an asylum by nearly two years, and Druitt's suicide by three weeks, so that both events are conveniently closer to the time of what he himself regarded as the last murder, those are not genuine mistakes.

Similarly, Kosminski's strong homicidal tendencies and Druitt's sexual insanity, for which there is no evidence, make the cases against both men look stronger than they really are.

And if he was interested only in providing an unbiased report, why did he remove the word 'alleged', which appeared in his draft, so that it seemed that there was conclusive evidence that Druitt was insane?

And where could he possibly have heard that Kosminski had a great hatred of prostitutes, when there is no evidence that he even consorted with them, and when even Swanson, who claimed that he was under CID surveillance, mentions no evidence from that surveillance of any such contact, and when both Anderson and Smith were evidently unaware of any such surveillance having taken place?

And why did two confidants of Macnaghten's record that it was friends who suspected Druitt, whereas Macnaghten himself had indicated that it was relatives?

And why did they record that Druitt too was suspected by the police when he was still alive, when he evidently was not?

As with Anderson's fairytale, Macnaghten's story about Druitt was repeatedly spiced up.

One of the problems is that you are talking Macnaghten’s phrase “…disappeared at the time of the Miller’s Court murder” literally. How could Macnaghten have known exactly when Druitt had gone missing? To do that he’d have had to have read the Acton, Chiswick and Turnham Green Gazette of January 5th where it was mentioned. But he couldn’t have read that because it also contained Druitt’s correct age and occupation. So clearly ‘at the time’ of the murder didn’t mean November 9th or November 10th. If we nitpick then yes, being totally accurate, he should have said ‘at around the time of the Miller’s Court murder.’ When we recall events we use ‘markers’ for events. I can say for example the my brother got his job at the time that my father died. It doesn’t mean that I meant that he got the job on the same day or the day after because he didn’t. But it doesn’t mean that I’m making it up either. We should be wary of accepting or rejecting on the basis of wording.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why remember Kosminski, when the only ripple he caused in the press was to cause laughter in court when he said:

I goes by the name of Abrahams sometimes, because Kosmunski is hard to spell

especially when there was no evidence whatsoever that he had committed any offence more serious than walking a dog in public without a muzzle?

I notice that you’ve responded to a question with a question and not an answer.

My answer - Because the police had clearly been interested in him as a suspect.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

My answer - Because the police had clearly been interested in him as a suspect.

There is no evidence that the police were interested in him prior to his confinement in an asylum.

Anderson mentions only one door to door search, the one which he said yielded no clues.

No arrest or even interrogation or even informal questioning of the 'suspect' was reported to have taken place by Macnaghten, Anderson or Swanson.

None of them mentioned any incriminating evidence.

None of them mentioned any distinctive physical characteristic that might have facilitated his identification.

Anderson had him in an asylum by the time the formal identification was attempted.

Had the police been interested in him prior to his confinement, then they could hardly have failed to attempt an identification prior to his confinement.

Swanson's claim that the 'suspect' was under CID surveillance is indirectly contradicted by both Smith and Anderson.

His claim that an identification was attempted prior to the 'suspect''s incarceration is contradicted by Anderson.

His claim that the 'suspect' was allowed to go home without being charged, in spite of a positive identification, is not believable and again is contradicted by Anderson.

The police were interested in him as a 'suspect' only as an afterthought.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We so many records being missing it’s hardly surprising that nothing remains. That Anderson and Swanson mention him is enough.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

One of the problems is that you are talking Macnaghten’s phrase “…disappeared at the time of the Miller’s Court murder” literally.

Why should I not?

... he committed suicide on or about the 10th of November 1888 ...

(Macnaghten, Days of My Years,1914)

It would have been a generally held opinion that the killer was ‘insane’

Macnaghten did not express the opinion in his Memoranda that Druitt was the killer.

Your point is therefore invalid.

and the victims and the nature of the murders would lead to an assumption that they were of a sexual nature.

That is irrelevant to the question of whether Druitt himself was sexually insane.

Therefore ‘sexually insane’ was simply a catch-all phrase from a man who wasn’t making a medical diagnosis.

If he didn't want to make a medical diagnosis, then he shouldn't have mentioned sexual insanity at all.

But I note that you have not responded to the point I made that in his draft, he mentioned only 'alleged' sexual insanity.

That is not even, as you claim, an 'assumption' of sexual insanity.

we should ask - what would be the chances of a highly respected, upper-middle class family like the Druitt’s suggesting ... that Monty was the most loathed man in England?

Zero, I would say.

Which is why the story is unbelievable.

But again, I note that you have not responded to the point I made that two confidants of Macnaghten's related that it was friends, and not relatives, of Druitt's who spilled the beans.

So for me……did Macnaghten receive his private information? Close to a certainty.

In the absence of evidence, nothing can be close to a certainty.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

We so many records being missing it’s hardly surprising that nothing remains. That Anderson and Swanson mention him is enough.

It is certainly not enough to be able to state, as both Anderson and Swanson did, that Kosminski / the Polish Jew was 'the murderer'.

He was never even charged, let alone convicted.

And you do not need missing records to turn up in order to find out whether incriminating evidence against him was ever discovered.

If incriminating evidence had been uncovered, Anderson would have been crowing about it.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I did not say that Macnaghten could not have made genuine mistakes.

.

I must have imagined his mistakes regarding the three suspects couldn't have been genuine

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I must have imagined his mistakes regarding the three suspects couldn't have been genuine

I acknowledged that mistake of Macnaghten's long ago when Wickerman explained it.

It is not important when you consider the many exaggerated statements Macnaghten made.

[Wickerman]

I was referring to the extent of sexual activity of the person in question.

Yes, but it is well known today that a deviant can be turned on sexually by mutilation and abusive activity towards another person.
Maybe you're looking for the wrong type of evidence?

Whatever sexual misdemeanour Druitt may have committed, that came to the attention of his school, what are the chances that it was the evisceration of women in the absence of sexual activity?

Again, we are assuming the offense was committed at the school, though this is not necessary.
Lets say today, if a teacher at a prestigious school was seen exposing himself in a public place, he could very likely be fired from the school.
Yet, the act for which he has been fired did not directly involve the school.

And if Macnaghten heard some story that led him to describe Druitt as being sexually insane, and if sexual insanity meant sexually overactive, does that seem like someone who eviscerates women without leaving any sign of sexual contact?

Sexual violence can take many forms.
Did he try to have conventional sex with them, and they fought him off?

There is every possibility that the Whitechapel Murderer was sexually inactive.

There's no evidence of that, this is only your assumption, others will assume differently.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I would point out, Jon, that I did not assume that the alleged offence took place at the school.

As for the possibility that he exposed himself somewhere else, why would the school know about that, but not the police?

[Michael W Richards]

I believe that the Memorandum fairly clearly states that "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 also states on Druitt that"... from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer. "

In the 2nd paragraph he goes over what he knows of some of Cutbush's history and his own opinions on the man and some of the circumstances surrounding him, but he does in no way endorse Cutbush as a viable "suspect" for the Whitechapel Murders. In fact paragraph 3 begins..."Now the Whitechapel murderer had 5 victims -- & 5 victims only, -- his murders were...".

What these remarks suggest is that he believes that Druit is more likely than Cutbush to have been the killer, but he doesnt personally endorse Cutbush as a viable suspect for the Whitechapel murders. So what is that comparison really worth? Nor does he ever "personally" endorse Druitt as a viable suspect. I believe the document is primarily intended to dismiss any suggestions that Cutbush was involved in these killings, for the sake of his his old workmate, Cutbush's uncle, and offer some names that he thinks based on his knowledge were more likely involved. One he includes based on some "private information" from a family member, and one he includes despite the fact that man is incarcerated at the time of the murders. I think Mac was generalizing about the types of individuals he thought were more probable as a way to direct suspicions from unlikely Whitechapel murderer Cutbush and thus alleviate any strains caused to Cutbushs uncle, Supt Charles Henry Cutbush. This MM was signed on 23rd of February 1894, the same year and month Thomas Cutbush was first named the Ripper by the Sun on Feb 13th.

The MM does not endorse Druitt as anything more than a "more likely" suspect than Cutbush, who he believes is not a viable suspect in the first place.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The MM does not endorse Druitt as anything more than a "more likely" suspect than Cutbush, who he believes is not a viable suspect in the first place.

In that case, how convincing could the alleged private information have been?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Opinions are fine of course but I’m not going to bother responding to any more posts suggesting that Macnaghten simply mentioned Druitt because he committed suicide. The suggestion is too preposterous to waste further time on. Others are free to discuss it of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In his Referee column of 13 July 1902, Dagonet (Sims)wrote: …[the] process of exhaustion which enabled them at last to know the real name and address of Jack the Ripper. In that case [the police] had reduced the only possible Jacks to seven, then by a further exhaustive inquiry to three, and were about to fit these three people’s movements in with the dates of the various murders when the one and only genuine Jack saved further trouble by being found drowned in the Thames, into which he had flung himself, a raving lunatic, after the last and most appalling mutilation of the whole series. But prior to this discovery the name of the man found drowned was bracketed with two others as a Possible Jack and the police were in search of him alive when they found him dead.

[Kattrup]

Opinions are fine of course but I’m not going to bother responding to any more posts suggesting that Macnaghten simply mentioned Druitt because he committed suicide. The suggestion is too preposterous to waste further time on.

Probably a good idea, Herlock.

I’m not even sure what the discussion is meant to accomplish.
Druitt might not have been the ripper? Yeah, we know.
Macnaghten’s info might not be correct? Yeah, we know.
Any defense lawyer on Law&Order would object? Yeah, we know.

Druitt was named by a senior police official and will remain forever a person of ripperological interest.