Reasons why?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I agree, FM.

Macnaghten's belief that the murderer would have broken down after seeing Mary Kelly's mutilated body is completely wrong.

The chances are that the murderer left her room in high spirits.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I used to make an annual donation to a charity based in Devon and they used to send me regular newsletters.

I have never even visited Devon.

Nor have I ever had any personal contact with anyone connected with that charity.

The point is that we know for a fact that men from exactly the same class and background as Druitt did do charitable work in the East End. This of course doesn’t provide proof of anything but just because we have nothing written it doesn’t make his possible presence in Whitechapel particularly unlikely. Men recruited by Talbot went there but we have no list to prove that any individual was or wasn’t there; but they certainly were there. If he’d gone to visit prostitutes then there would be no written evidence. Maybe he went there for another reason that we aren’t aware of? Maybe he never went there at all? We just don’t know. All are possible.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Macnaghten's attempt to rationalize the rumors we are told he learned 'behind closed doors', in my view, have no bearing on whether those rumors were true.

Of course it does, Jon: confirmation bias.

Macnaghten gives you his theory that the man was either locked up in an asylum or committed suicide 'immediately' after Mary's murder.

Confirmation bias: an innate, unconscious tendency to interpret information in ways that confirm what we already believe or want to believe.

From there, Macnaghten proceeds to list his insane types and a poor fella who thought his best bet in this life was to kill himself.

The source of Macnaghten's information is unknown, the content of that information is unknown also, Macnaghten tells us it was private information and so a police investigation and rigorous analysis of the source is absent and there is no corroboration of this source/information.

There's a good case to suggest that Macnaghten was ripe for making a mountain out of a molehill, and his claim that the family suspected him might not necessarily be supported by an analysis of his 'private information' and its source (in the event it was available).

Can you imagine how little of this case would be left if we threw out everything for which we only have one source?

You'd be left with the quality information from which to draw conclusions, Jon, unhindered by all of the bits and pieces cluttering the place up.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If we don’t know what MacNaghten’s private informations was…and we don’t…..how can we deduce what it wasn’t?

[Wickerman]

That is not what you wrote in # 74.

You wrote:

That is why he chose suicide, not because of the murders - but because if found guilty, first there's the shame he brings to his family, then second is the fact he would be caged like an animal for as long as he lives.

You were suggesting that he was afraid of being convicted of some offence and incarcerated indefinitely.

Unless he had committed murder, he could not have been incarcerated indefinitely - and even in that case the sentence would have had to have been commuted.


What you wrote in #84 - 'he can be found guilty, but not charged if deemed to be insane' - makes no sense.

In order to be found guilty, he would have had to have been charged, so the option of not charging him would no longer apply.

If instead of 'charged' you meant 'sentenced', then one is bound to ask what it is about the supposed offence that would lend itself to a finding of insanity.

But, in any case, he could not have been found to be both guilty and insane.

You might not think what I wrote in both posts can be mutual - that does not make it wrong. You just disagree, that's all.

I'll explain post 84 - if all the evidence points to Druitt, and I'm talking about such evidence that has not come down to us, then he can be deemed guilty, but because he will be also deemed insane, he cannot be charged under British law.
Which means he will be incarcerated for life.

How can that not make any sense?
I would be wrong if the authorities did not find Druitt to be insane.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I agree, FM.

Macnaghten's belief that the murderer would have broken down after seeing Mary Kelly's mutilated body is completely wrong.

The chances are that the murderer left her room in high spirits.

Whatever else we imagine, PI, the experience of sexual serial killers tells us that it doesn't happen in the way Macnaghten imagined it. 'Quite understandable that Macnaghten was wide of the mark given that he had no experience/knowledge to guide him.

Getting back to the OP: "why his family suspected him".

We don't know that they did, we only have Macnaghten's second hand story ('could even be third hand for all we know). We don't know the source of the 'private information' and how credible that source was. Assuming the family did 'suspect' him, we have no idea as to whether or not it was reasonable grounds for suspicion.

In the final analysis, it's not reasonable to take a sentence from an article and remove it from its context. Macnaghten had a theory, or a preconceived idea whatever you want to call it, and the three 'more likely suspects' were put forth with that theory in mind. That alone is grounds to question the veracity of the 'private information': objectivity had gone out of the window.

As a source document, it doesn't have much going for it. The only saving grace is that Macnaghten was a senior policeman and so it's not a stretch to claim he had access to 'private information'. On the other hand, the fact he had it so badly wrong with Michael Ostrog, would be good grounds to question the authoritative nature of the source document. He couldn't even get Druitt's details right. Where did he get his erroneous information on Druitt from? From the same place as his 'private information'?

It may also be telling that a lot of research and effort has gone into Druitt and virtually nothing has been unearthed that would lend weight to Macnaghten's 'more likely suspect' point of view. I agree with you on the charity thing. In the event that most tenuous of links is the best that can be unearthed as a result of years of research, then that in itself tells a story.

Macnaghten's memorandum does not provide a compelling case to take it seriously let alone suspect Druitt: it's full of holes and the scene he sets is an unauthoritative delve into the mind of a sexual serial killer.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Getting back to the OP: "why his family suspected him".

Assuming the family did 'suspect' him, we have no idea as to whether or not it was reasonable grounds for suspicion.

I think that is a very important point.

As with the alleged identification of Kosminski, the alleged witness himself is unidentified and the precise nature of his alleged evidence is not revealed.

In both cases, we have nothing more than the say-so of a police officer writing years later.

Macnaghten had a theory, or a preconceived idea whatever you want to call it, and the three 'more likely suspects' were put forth with that theory in mind.

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?

Where did he get his erroneous information on Druitt from? From the same place as his 'private information'?

I am sure I have already made that point myself.

I have argued that, as Macnaghten made something like a dozen factual mistakes, they could hardly have come from reliable sources.

It may also be telling that a lot of research and effort has gone into Druitt and virtually nothing has been unearthed that would lend weight to Macnaghten's 'more likely suspect' point of view.

Just as some defenders of Anderson and Swanson argue that there may have been incriminating evidence against Kosminski, even though neither of them ever made any reference to such evidence.

One can reasonably expect that if such evidence had existed, they would have cited at least some of it rather than simply mentioned an identification by an unnamed witness in the presence of unidentified police officers.

One can reasonably expect that if there was a strong circumstantial case against Druitt, then Macnaghten would have referred to evidence that placed him in the Whitechapel area at around the time that a murder was committed there.

Instead, we have evidence that Druitt was in Dorset playing cricket when the series of murders started.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I'll explain post 84 - if all the evidence points to Druitt, and I'm talking about such evidence that has not come down to us, then he can be deemed guilty, but because he will be also deemed insane, he cannot be charged under British law.

He will spend the rest of his life incarcerated.

In # 84, you did not write anything about Druitt being deemed guilty.

You wrote that he could be found guilty.


I do not see how you can assume that he made a calculation that he would be charged by the police and then deemed by a court to be insane.

He wrote of his fear that he would 'be like mother'.

That is obviously a reference to her mental state and reflects a fear of going mad.

It cannot reasonably be taken to be a reference to court proceedings.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The point is that we know for a fact that men from exactly the same class and background as Druitt did do charitable work in the East End.

At 1.40 a.m. on a Sunday morning?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If we don’t know what MacNaghten’s private informations was…and we don’t…..how can we deduce what it wasn’t?

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

Anderson claimed that he could deduce the religious and ethnic background of the murderer from a house to house search that produced no leads.

Anderson claimed that he knew the identity of the murderer and that he was prepared to divulge his identity in the event that his publisher promised to indemnify him against any legal damages arising from his revelation of the murderer's identity.

In spite of being given the assurance he sought, he did not reveal the murderer's identity and, moreover, upon being publicly challenged to cite any incriminating evidence against his suspect, he declined to do so.

All of these facts suggest strongly that Anderson did not tell the truth.


Macnaghten made so many mistakes about Druitt and Kosminski that he can hardly be regarded as a reliable source of information about them.

He has Druitt being a 41 year old doctor.

He was a 31 year old lawyer and teacher.

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

He actually committed suicide more than three weeks later.

Why do you think he makes these elementary mistakes?

If Druitt was a doctor who committed suicide shortly after the last murder, does it not look rather worse for him than if he is a teacher and lawyer who did not commit suicide until more than three weeks later?

Similarly, if Kosminski was confined in an asylum about four months after the last murder in the series, does it not look rather worse for him than if he was not actually certified until nearly two years after that murder?

And does it help Kosminski that he has homicidal tendencies and Ostrog that he is a homicidal maniac, when in fact there is no evidence for either claim and none that Macnaghten could adduce?

Macnaghten's evidence had to be private.

He could no more produce it than Anderson could produce his.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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.