Reasons why?

[dougie]

bite someone on the arse? im not sure a document, diary,or whatever else has the physical capability to "bite someone on the arse" if it has maybe there is a market for reinforced underpants......ill look into it
ok a chance discovery......yes thats what i said.....after all 120 years of research hasnt got us any nearer finding the culprit has it?and the fact and the fictionis still intermingled. macnaughton? yes he based his theory on his research,but then everyone (or most everyone) seems to disregard his ideas...so what exactly is your point?
and by the way "this amatuer of mine" isnt mine at all and modst likely any relevant find by "my amatuer" would prob by discarded by the "experts" purely because "they" (the experts") didnt find it earlier. a little less snobbery wouldnt go amiss i fear.

[Debra A]

if an answer is found to this mystery,i feel almost certainly it will come from an "amatuer" and most likely from a chance discovery which wont arise from any amount of "researching" or "researchers".

It'll just jump out and bite some random person on the arse will it Dougie?!


....it won't be based on 120 years research then, the type that has tried to separate fact from fiction that this amateur of your's will be reading? Afterall, Macnaghten himself was never involved in the case at the time, he based his theory on his own ...."research" surely?

[dougie]

ok ,;lets say not "knowing" in the sense .yes. of not knowing who the culprit was indeed,but ....with the evidence that is out there,conflicting at times,it largely comes down to each persons view of things,and what he/she deems relevant ,and of course which source one believes,or half believes or whatever...theories abound,what some people believe in implicitly others discount entirely.one could research the ripper case for a lifetime and still not KNOW for sure any more than the guy thats read one ripper book and watches one documentary. the point is, even regarding life and society in the east end in 1880s,we can read of it,but unless we were actually there,we have no
real understanding of it,instead we rely on what others have written,and from that form our own mental picture, no doubt as distorted to a smaller or lesser degree as the author s
when i said not knowing"anything", it wasnt meant literally,cos of course everybody knows"something"..just that some think they "know" a lot more than they actually do ,those are the ones who usually take umbrage at any innocent remark that they feel undermines their authority as an "expert".
if an answer is found to this mystery,i feel almost certainly it will come from an "amatuer" and most likely from a chance discovery which wont arise from any amount of "researching" or "researchers".

[Dan Norder]

you are no more of a "beginner" than the rest of us by the way...none of us KNOW anything anyhow.......

Hey, when beginners actually admit to being new to the case and looking for information, that's a good thing. Sure beats the people running around pretending that anyone off the street just magically knows as much as the people who have been researching the case quite extensively for years. Not knowing the identity of the killer isn't the same as not knowing anything.

[aspallek]

There is no way to know the cause of the Druitt family suspicions. We simply must accept that. However, we may presume those suspicions were real. They were likely reported to Macnaghten by someone close to the family, close either in proximity or by friendship or perhaps both. As Dougue says, this kind of suspicion from one's own family is not something to be taken lightly. There must have been some compelling reason for this suspicion. Druitt does not fit the mold of the typical Ripper suspect of the day. He is neither foreign nor Jewish. Is is not from the working class. He's not quite aristocracy but he is from the upper levels of society -- from "a good family" as Sir Melville put it. He had mental issues but he was not a raving lunatic.

What was the basis for the family suspicion? That's the unanswerable question. MY guess is that it may have had something to do with Montague's visit to brother William at the end of October. Perhaps while there, Montague behaved irregularly and said strange things -- things that caused his relatives to think and wonder about him. Maybe then they realized that they could not establish Montague's whereabouts at the time of the murders. Who knows, maybe there were even blood-stained clothes found among his belongings -- as the West of England MP claimed of the murderer. But that's not very likely.

While the Druitt family was wondering about Montague, they got word that he had gone missing and then of his death. No need to contact authorities about their suspicions now. Instead, brother William lies at the inquest in order to protect other family members. Over the course of the next two years the Druitt family suspicions gradually leak out to those in their area. Eventually, they attract the attention of the MP who begins to circulate them forcefully, but the talk is pushed from the public forum by the murder of Frances Coles and also by fear of libel action against this MP. The MP's knowledge is preserved in Macnaghten's memorandum and bits and pieces emerge publicly in the writings of Griffiths, Sims, and later, others. But Druitt, the unlikely gentleman suspect, lies dormant until Farson stumbles across him sixty years later.

It's not quite as simple as all that, but that's the core of it.

[dougie]

SOMEBODY (inmo) felt druitt had violent tendencies,maybe a history of violence towards women,which MAYBE had been kept quiet,perhaps by family members,perhaps by friends. suspecting a friend or family member of being jtr isnt something one would do lightly..so im assuming that there was a good reason...........these suspivcions ,or accusations arent in the same league as those aimed at police officer thicke for example..a clear case of revenge.....not either in the same league as some of the other silly accusations made against a few others,which were driven by malice,or accusations
from some headline seeking individual.
you are no more of a "beginner" than the rest of us by the way...none of us KNOW anything anyhow.......bear that in mind ,or rather keep an open mind.
regards

[kensei]

I may be showing my ignorance here- I've studied the Ripper case quite a bit but not nearly as much, I know, as many of the members here and I do still consider myself a relative beginner. When it comes to Druitt, from what I've read it seems the basic reasons for him being a suspect are that he committed suicide just after the murders ceased, that mental illness played a large part, and because it became known that members of his family suspected him of being the Ripper. But I've never heard an explanation of just exactly WHY his family thought that. Can anyone clarify this? Sorry if this might have been covered before.