Reasons why?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Macnaghten wasn’t writing a ‘tell-all’ biography of Druitt. It was a few lines.

I have read something similar before about Swanson: he was not writing a formal report.

Anderson, Swanson, Macnaghten and Du Rose never mentioned any incriminating evidence against their respective suspects.

No-one ever stopped them from doing so.

Indeed, in Anderson's case, he was invited to do so.

Anderson and Du Rose were writing memoirs.

It was they who made the claims; it was their decisions.

They could have mentioned evidence without even naming the suspect.

Macnaghten could have too.

They always mentioned something less than actual incriminating evidence and took quite a few lines to mention it, when in the same space they could have mentioned something actually incriminating.

It was not through choice that they failed to mention it.

There was no incriminating evidence.

[c.d.]

I am not exactly sure what is being debated in this thread. Does it have to be all or nothing with respect to Macnaghten? Would I conclude that Druitt had to be the Ripper based solely on statements made by Macnaghten? No, of course not. Would I dismiss Druitt completely because Macnaghten got some facts wrong? No. Now it would be nice if everything that he said (as well as every other police official and witness) were backed by 100% metaphysical certainty but that just ain't gonna happen. Yes, he got several things wrong. But as Herlock pointed out, it seems unlikely that he just pulled Druitt's name out of a hat. So it seems to me that there had to be some basis for naming him as a suspect. For me, taking what was said with a grain of salt and taking the statements made in their entirety is the most reasonable approach. No need to go all or nothing.

c.d.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Now it would be nice if everything that he said (as well as every other police official and witness) were backed by 100% metaphysical certainty but that just ain't gonna happen.

It is not so much a matter of what they said as of what they left out: that is, actual incriminating evidence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is not so much a matter of what they said as of what they left out: that is, actual incriminating evidence.

Two questions PI.

1. If something is omitted is it right to assume that it never existed in the first place?

2. Is there incriminating evidence against any suspect?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am not exactly sure what is being debated in this thread. Does it have to be all or nothing with respect to Macnaghten? Would I conclude that Druitt had to be the Ripper based solely on statements made by Macnaghten? No, of course not. Would I dismiss Druitt completely because Macnaghten got some facts wrong? No. Now it would be nice if everything that he said (as well as every other police official and witness) were backed by 100% metaphysical certainty but that just ain't gonna happen. Yes, he got several things wrong. But as Herlock pointed out, it seems unlikely that he just pulled Druitt's name out of a hat. So it seems to me that there had to be some basis for naming him as a suspect. For me, taking what was said with a grain of salt and taking the statements made in their entirety is the most reasonable approach. No need to go all or nothing.

c.d.

Hi c.d.

I’ve never understood why mention of Macnaghten or Druitt causes such strong feeling. We can’t assume that MacNaghten’s judgment was spot on of course but we can’t assume that it wasn’t either. And we have no evidence that he just lied. The only thing that I feel confident in is that I don’t think for a second that Macnaghten just plucked out a random name just because he died after the Kelly murder. It makes absolutely zero sense for him to have picked Druitt unless he felt, rightly or wrongly, that he had good reasons for doing so.

You’re spot on when you say “No need to go all or nothing.”

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Two questions PI.

1. If something is omitted is it right to assume that it never existed in the first place?

2. Is there incriminating evidence against any suspect?

1. One can reasonably deduce that those policemen pointing an accusatory finger lacked any incriminating evidence.

Whenever it would have been natural for them to mention some, they failed to do so.

I gave some examples:

Anderson mentioning a search that yielded no incriminating evidence, but no search that did yield any incriminating evidence; Anderson being challenged to cite any incriminating evidence but failing to do so; Anderson asking his publisher to indemnify him against damages from naming 'the murderer', as he called him, but failing to take up the offer.

Anderson and Swanson had the opportunity to state what it was that the witness is supposed to have seen that would have led to the suspect being hanged, but they did not say.

They could have cited incriminating evidence that led to their suspect becoming a suspect in the first place, but they never did.

They could have pointed to some physical characteristic that enabled the witness to recognise him 'instantly', but they did not.

Macnaghten could have stated what it was that caused Druitt's relatives to suspect him of being the Whitechapel Murderer, but he did not.

And if it was confidential, then why did he mention anything about Druitt's relatives in the first place?

He claimed that he was 'sexually insane', but why could he not point to any sexual offence that he may have committed?

He had sufficient space to claim that Kosminski had 'strong homicidal tendencies', but apparently not enough to supply any details.


2. No.

[Herlock Sholmes]

1. One can reasonably deduce that those policemen pointing an accusatory finger lacked any incriminating evidence.

Whenever it would have been natural for them to mention some, they failed to do so.

I gave some examples:

Anderson mentioning a search that yielded no incriminating evidence, but no search that did yield any incriminating evidence; Anderson being challenged to cite any incriminating evidence but failing to do so; Anderson asking his publisher to indemnify him against damages from naming 'the murderer', as he called him, but failing to take up the offer.

Anderson and Swanson had the opportunity to state what it was that the witness is supposed to have seen that would have led to the suspect being hanged, but they did not say.

They could have cited incriminating evidence that led to their suspect becoming a suspect in the first place, but they never did.

They could have pointed to some physical characteristic that enabled the witness to recognise him 'instantly', but they did not.

Macnaghten could have stated what it was that caused Druitt's relatives to suspect him of being the Whitechapel Murderer, but he did not.

And if it was confidential, then why did he mention anything about Druitt's relatives in the first place?

He claimed that he was 'sexually insane', but why could he not point to any sexual offence that he may have committed?

He had sufficient space to claim that Kosminski had 'strong homicidal tendencies', but apparently not enough to supply any details.


2. No.

How can you deduce that when none of us know what Macnaghten’s information was? I’m lost as to how you can make that leap PI. Mac’s info is an unknown. You can’t assess an unknown.

Yes he could have cited the evidence but he chose not to. Just as he chose not to with Kosminski and Ostrog. He must have had his reasons but how can you assume dishonesty from that? I’m sitting in an armchair…..I’ve provided no evidence for that….does that mean that I must be lying or mistaken?

Macnaghten had no expertise in medical matters or psychology. ‘Sexually insane’ is just a catch-all, meaningless phrase. He might just as well have called the killer ‘a perve,’ or ‘a complete lunatic,’ or ‘a madman.’ Why are you reading into it some meaning that doesn’t exist. The murders were apparently of a sexual nature…the victims were in the sex business….and aman who did what the ripper did can be loosely termed ‘insane,’ Where’s the issue?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Why are you reading into it some meaning that doesn’t exist.

Macnaghten mentioned it immediately before his 'private information' suggesting that Druitt was the Whitechapel Murderer.

Do you think he would have done so if he had thought the term 'sexually insane' to be a meaningless phrase?

But why did he not say what Druitt is supposed to have done to merit such a description?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Macnaghten mentioned it immediately before his 'private information' suggesting that Druitt was the Whitechapel Murderer.

Do you think he would have done so if he had thought the term 'sexually insane' to be a meaningless phrase?

But why did he not say what Druitt is supposed to have done to merit such a description?

Yes, I absolutely do think it was a meaningless phrase. Murders - sexual, women - sex workers, killer - understandably adjudged as mad.

So the phrase ‘sexually insane’ sums up Jack The Ripper nicely in a non-expert way.

Why should he have mentioned anything? He didn’t do it with any of the three. He was merely naming suspects. He wasn’t providing an in-depth analysis of the pros and cons. You’re reading too much into this PI. He might have had a very good reason for not saying more and just because we don’t know it we can’t assume that the reason didn’t exist.

Its as if you’re claiming to know what is unknown PI.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You’re reading too much into this PI.

On the contrary!

It is others who are reading too much into what Macnaghten wrote.

He wrote of the three suspects:

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 did not have any incriminating evidence.

If he had, he would have mentioned only one suspect.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On the contrary!

It is others who are reading too much into what Macnaghten wrote.

He wrote of the three suspects:

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 did not have any incriminating evidence.

If he had, he would have mentioned only one suspect.

Isn’t it possible to have incriminating evidence against more than one suspect? The police have this problem regularly.

That’s a deduction too far. “He would have…” How can you know what a senior Victorian police officer would or wouldn’t have done?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Isn’t it possible to have incriminating evidence against more than one suspect?

Not in Macnaghten's case.

He would have done exceedingly well had he found incriminating evidence against even one suspect.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not in Macnaghten's case.

He would have done exceedingly well had he found incriminating evidence against even one suspect.

So you apply a different criteria to Macnaghten. I don’t know why you would do that but it’s up to you of course.

Perhaps you could try and prove that MacNaghten’s evidence was no good? And when I say prove PI, I do mean prove. I don’t mean just a re-stating of your opinion of the likelihood of….

It also doesn’t mean a re-stating of the - if someone doesn’t mention something then it can’t have existed, point.


So your first step of course is to name the evidence that you’re going to rebut.

Ahh, I see a problem.

[Lewis C]

On the contrary!

It is others who are reading too much into what Macnaghten wrote.

He wrote of the three suspects:

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 did not have any incriminating evidence.

If he had, he would have mentioned only one suspect.

Macnaghten seems to be saying that the evidence that he has is enough to make him think that Druitt is the top suspect, but not enough to conclusively prove that Druitt is guilty.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Macnaghten seems to be saying that the evidence that he has is enough to make him think that Druitt is the top suspect, but not enough to conclusively prove that Druitt is guilty.

Exactly!

He says that Druitt is

more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders ...

but that the same applies to Kosminski and Ostrog!