Reasons why?

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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]

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……

[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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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?

It is not a question of what I think of his opinion.

He stated that there was no evidence against Druitt.

I do not think you can call that an opinion.

you have zero evidence for that suggestion [that Druitt's was the only suitable suicide that happened at about the right time]

Do you not think that if there had been other suitable suicides at about that time, someone would have mentioned them by now?

We have Macnaghten’s own words.

We have his uncorroborated claim to know of the existence of others' uncorroborated speculation.

Would you really call that 'knowing something'?

Evidence to dismiss Macnaghten’s claim doesn’t exist. It’s opinion only.

Anderson. Macnaghten. Du Rose.

All made unsubstantiated claims years after the events.

Point me to the evidence that Druitt couldn’t have been in Bucks Row at 3.40am on August 31st.

I wrote in # 97:

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

and in # 108:

It is not demonstrably, factually untrue.


I did not mean literally that he was playing cricket at 3:40 in the morning and I do not think anyone took it to mean that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Of course. But we can’t dismiss a suspect on the grounds that he might have had an alibi that we’re not aware of.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

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?

It is not a question of what I think of his opinion.

He stated that there was no evidence against Druitt.

I do not think you can call that an opinion.

Of course it was his opinion. How can we know that he knew all of the facts that were known to Macnaghten? It was ‘private info’ after all and Abberline had been retired since 1892.

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

you have zero evidence for that suggestion [that Druitt's was the only suitable suicide that happened at about the right time]

Do you not think that if there had been other suitable suicides at about that time, someone would have mentioned them by now?

You are fixating on suicides PI. Macnaghten didn’t need a suicide he needed someone dead or incarcerated and incommunicado. And he’d have had ample choice and yet he chose a respectable, upper-middle class Barrister who was related by marriage to one of his best pals?

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

We have Macnaghten’s own words.

We have his uncorroborated claim to know of the existence of others' uncorroborated speculation.

Would you really call that 'knowing something'?

Yes I would. If you told me some bit of private information PI but you provided no corroboration for some stated reason would I be correct to assume that you must have been lying?

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

Evidence to dismiss Macnaghten’s claim doesn’t exist. It’s opinion only.

Anderson. Macnaghten. Du Rose.

All made unsubstantiated claims years after the events.

And Dr. Harold Shipman was a serial killer. Does that mean that all doctors are serial killers?

Just because Macnaghten went into no further detail why does that have to imply dishonesty?

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

Point me to the evidence that Druitt couldn’t have been in Bucks Row at 3.40am on August 31st.

I wrote in # 97:

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

and in # 108:

It is not demonstrably, factually untrue.


I did not mean literally that he was playing cricket at 3:40 in the morning and I do not think anyone took it to mean that.

Then we don’t have evidence that he was playing cricket at the start of the murders. As I said. Because that’s when the murders started. They didn’t start at 11.00am or 12.00pm on the 30th as Druitt walked onto the cricket pitch to play a game that was cut short by 50%.

.

If you want to dismiss Druitt on cricket then it would have to be proven that he was still in Dorset at such a time that made it physically impossible for him to have got to Bucks Row by 3.40am. Not that ‘it might have been a bit tight,’ or that ‘I don’t think it likely behaviour.’

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There is and never has been any case against Druitt.

We are told that Macnaghten may have heard from Druitt's relatives incriminating evidence, even though he does not mention any.

It is always the same: Anderson's and Swanson's identification of a suspect by an unnamed witness in the presence of unnamed witnesses to what would have been the most dramatic identification of a murder suspect in British criminal history, but no-one could recall being there.

And Du Rose's shortlist of suspects which no other policeman who worked on the case could remember.

We have also heard that Druitt may have tortured animals when he was a child, and may have visited Whitechapel in the early hours because he made donations to a charity there, and may have belonged to the minority of serial murderers who did not come from violent, dysfunctional or broken homes.

In my opinion, it is all unwarranted speculation and Druitt's tragic suicide has no more connection with the Whitechapel Murders than Ireland's suicide had with the Hammersmith Nudes Murders.

Neither man's suicide note referred to any murder.

There is and never has been any case against Druitt or Ireland.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is and never has been any case against Druitt.

We are told that Macnaghten may have heard from Druitt's relatives incriminating evidence, even though he does not mention any.

Why is that important? Again, Macnaghten wasn’t writing a ‘tell-all’ biography of Druitt. It was a few lines. Really PI. He didn’t mention his shoe size either.

It is always the same: Anderson's and Swanson's identification of a suspect by an unnamed witness in the presence of unnamed witnesses to what would have been the most dramatic identification of a murder suspect in British criminal history, but no-one could recall being there.

And Du Rose's shortlist of suspects which no other policeman who worked on the case could remember.

John Du Rose has no relevance to this case.

We have also heard that Druitt may have tortured animals when he was a child, and may have visited Whitechapel in the early hours because he made donations to a charity there, and may have belonged to the minority of serial murderers who did not come from violent, dysfunctional or broken homes.

In my opinion, it is all unwarranted speculation and Druitt's tragic suicide has no more connection with the Whitechapel Murders than Ireland's suicide had with the Hammersmith Nudes Murders.

And you are entitled to your opinion bearing in mind that it is an opinion and not a statement of fact.

Neither man's suicide note referred to any murder.

And you think that he’d want to bring shame on his own family by confessing to being Jack The Ripper (if he was guilty of course?) Come on PI. He didn’t take an ad out in The Times either. It’s hardly a point against him.

There is and never has been any case against Druitt or Ireland.


Macnaghten and others put him forward. That’s enough and more than 99+% of the other suspects.

And you have absolutely no basis in evidence to dismiss Druitt. You feel that he’s a poor suspect. That’s completely up to you PI, we all have opinions but you shouldn’t add things in an attempt to give the impression that unfounded claims have been made. I’m talking about this passage:

. We have also heard that Druitt may have tortured animals when he was a child, and may have visited Whitechapel in the early hours because he made donations to a charity there, and may have belonged to the minority of serial murderers who did not come from violent, dysfunctional or broken homes.

What I’ve said in the past, and I’ve been very clear in what I said and the reasoning behind it, is this. We know absolutely nothing about Druitt’s childhood apart from where he went to school. We don’t know what kind of child he was. We don’t know of any incidents or experiences that he might or might not have been involved in. We don’t know about relationships with friends or certain family members. We know of no interests, or hobbies, or habits or illnesses. His early life is a complete blank so we absolutely cannot say that x or y never occurred. Yes, of course we have no evidence for them but how can that serve to eliminate possibilities? So we can’t say that he never tortured animals, or that he was never physically or sexually abused. We can only say that we have no evidence for them. We only find these things out about serial killers after they are caught and interviewed.

Then you say “….and may have visited Whitechapel in the early hours because he made donations to a charity there.” I’ve never mentioned charity donations PI. I’ve merely suggested the possibility that, like many men of his age, background, education and location he might have done charity work in Whitechapel. This is an entirely reasonable statement that should cause no objection from anyone. But because of your antagonism to Druitt/Macnaghten you appear to feel the need to question every single point. Even if you disagree on the whole PI there’s nothing wrong in conceding an obviously valid point or two. It’s not a competition.