Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reasons why?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    I don’t know because I have nothing to go on. In fact you’ve just reminded me of another possible reason for Druitt’s sacking to add to any speculative list. Perhaps he was sacked after the police turned up looking for him?

    That is hardly possible.

    Police visits are often made to entirely innocent people, with no suspicion attaching to the person being visited - and the school would have been aware of that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


    You mean it would have taken them three weeks to work out where his school was located?
    I don’t know because I have nothing to go on. In fact you’ve just reminded me of another possible reason for Druitt’s sacking to add to any speculative list. Perhaps he was sacked after the police turned up looking for him?

    Leave a comment:


  • PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    What if a suspicion only came about just before the Kelly murder and while they were looking for him his body was pulled out of the Thames?

    You mean it would have taken them three weeks to work out where his school was located?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post



    You mean they could not arrest him because they were not sure they had a strong enough case?

    In that case, why could he not have been put under surveillance and caught the next time he tried to commit a murder?

    Would not Abberline have remembered that Druitt had been a suspect, instead of dismissing him?

    And what about Anderson?

    Why would he have preferred a Polish Jew in an asylum to a man who was wanted by the police and committed suicide before he could be arrested?

    And how about Swanson?

    Why would Anderson and Swanson have called a Polish Jew the 'murderer' when not only had they been tipped off about Druitt, but he had committees suicide before he could be arrested?

    PI, I keep repeating this but I’m going to have to do it again. We don’t know. There’s an absence of information. And if something is absent it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t, or didn’t, exist. What if a suspicion only came about just before the Kelly murder and while they were looking for him his body was pulled out of the Thames? I really don’t know, but none of us do.

    I’ll ask a question. You are quite happy to suggest that Macnaghten was a liar but do you assume that Abberline was exempt? That he couldn’t have been less than truthful?

    Leave a comment:


  • PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Perhaps not enough evidence to convict. Or perhaps his death made any revelation pointless…only causing pain to the family?


    You mean they could not arrest him because they were not sure they had a strong enough case?

    In that case, why could he not have been put under surveillance and caught the next time he tried to commit a murder?

    Would not Abberline have remembered that Druitt had been a suspect, instead of dismissing him?

    And what about Anderson?

    Why would he have preferred a Polish Jew in an asylum to a man who was wanted by the police and committed suicide before he could be arrested?

    And how about Swanson?

    Why would Anderson and Swanson have called a Polish Jew the 'murderer' when not only had they been tipped off about Druitt, but he had committed suicide before he could be arrested?

    Last edited by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1; 12-18-2023, 08:24 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


    In that case, why was Druitt not apprehended?
    Perhaps not enough evidence to convict. Or perhaps his death made any revelation pointless…only causing pain to the family?

    Leave a comment:


  • PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    to say that they wouldn’t have told anyone is to suggest that any family who had a possible serial killer in their midst would simply have allowed them to continue killing without taking action.

    In that case, why was Druitt not apprehended?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by c.d. View Post

    I doubt that it was their intention to take out a full page ad in the newspaper but a couple of drinks too many could have led to an inadvertent slip. It is also possible that the person receiving the information drew an inference that was not intended and not warranted. We simply don't know.

    c.d.
    Three of us thinking the same thing c.d.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    "Spread the word" probably isnt appropriate anyway, being mentioned in a discreet private conversation with someone named Druitt is more probable. This was a time when Senior Police and the upper crust mingled and swapped stories. It seems one was from a Druitt about his suspicions.
    Exactly Michael.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post



    That is, if there was any private information.

    Even if Druitt's relatives had suspected that he was the murderer, it is unlikely that they would have spread the word about it.

    Using the phrase ‘spread the word about’ is an u fair on to use because it paints a false picture of the situation in order to make it less likely. They certainly wouldn’t have reported it to The Star, chalked it on a wall or gone round the pubs telling everyone, but to say that they wouldn’t have told anyone is to suggest that any family who had a possible serial killer in their midst would simply have allowed them to continue killing without taking action. They might have told one person who then told Macnaghten.

    And it is unlikely that they would have suspected him of having committed murder in Whitechapel at a time when he was on holiday in Dorset.
    They might have if they knew that he’d returned to London. Please don’t say that we have no evidence for that because I’m not prepared to go around in that circle again. The FACT is that he could easily gave returned and that’s all that matters.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post



    That is, if there was any private information.

    Even if Druitt's relatives had suspected that he was the murderer, it is unlikely that they would have spread the word about it.

    And it is unlikely that they would have suspected him of having committed murder in Whitechapel at a time when he was on holiday in Dorset.
    "Spread the word" probably isnt appropriate anyway, being mentioned in a discreet private conversation with someone named Druitt is more probable. This was a time when Senior Police and the upper crust mingled and swapped stories. It seems one was from a Druitt about his suspicions.

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post



    That is, if there was any private information.

    Even if Druitt's relatives had suspected that he was the murderer, it is unlikely that they would have spread the word about it.

    And it is unlikely that they would have suspected him of having committed murder in Whitechapel at a time when he was on holiday in Dorset.
    I doubt that it was their intention to take out a full page ad in the newspaper but a couple of drinks too many could have led to an inadvertent slip. It is also possible that the person receiving the information drew an inference that was not intended and not warranted. We simply don't know.

    c.d.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    I actually agree with that. Only the source of the "private information" could answer that. What is relevant is the fact that Macnaughtens Memorandum didnt say that HE believed Druitt was a viable suspect. He included the name with 2 other people who he thought were more likely to be the murderer, rather than Cutbush. Comparatively.
    But he did say:

    “Personally, after much careful & deliberate consideration, I am inclined to exonerate the last 2 but I have always held strong opinions regarding no 1., and the more I think the matter over, the stronger do these opinions become. The truth, however, will never be known, and did indeed, at one time lie at the bottom of the Thames, if my conjections [sic] be correct.”

    Leave a comment:


  • PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    Only the source of the "private information" could answer that.


    That is, if there was any private information.

    Even if Druitt's relatives had suspected that he was the murderer, it is unlikely that they would have spread the word about it.

    And it is unlikely that they would have suspected him of having committed murder in Whitechapel at a time when he was on holiday in Dorset.

    Leave a comment:


  • PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    The opinion of a retired officer like Abberline isn’t relevant. You assume that he knows or knew everything. Perhaps you think that Chapman was the ripper too?

    I did not claim that his opinion is relevant to the question that was under discussion, namely, the claim made that Druitt was a suspect during his lifetime.

    My point was that if Druitt had been a suspect during his lifetime, then Abberline would have known about it.

    One must naturally assume that he would have known about it.

    There is nothing wrong with assuming something to be true when the alternative is unbelievable.


    Leave a comment:

Working...
X