Druitt.

[Herlock Sholmes]

... the murderer's brain gave way altogether after his awful glut in Miller's Court, and that he immediately committed suicide ... [Druitt] disappeared at the time of the Miller's Court murder ...


(MACNAGHTEN)


[the Ripper] escaped justice by committing suicide at the end of 1888


(MOYLAN)


The story that [Farquharson] was privately telling people in 1891 is that the surgeon's son suffered from a homicidal mania and was a killer of harlots, and that he had 'confessed' to the crimes by destroying himself the same night as his final victim.


(HAINSWORTH)

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/persons-of-interest-or-actual-suspects/m-j-druitt/19711-why-was-druitt-sacked/page6

It is obvious that none of these three men - Macnaghten, Moylan, and Farquharson - knew anything about the identity of the murderer.

And it’s obvious that you’ve just made that up. You have no evidence for it. Opinion stated as fact. Yet again! How many times PI?

[Trevor Marriott]

So how should we treat one M.J Druitt then POI OR SUSPECT or should he be neither ? seeing how you posted here i think its fair you give us your opinion.

Person of interest nothing more

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Person of interest nothing more

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

At least he can be proven to have been in England at the time Trevor. Unlike the suspect that you back.

[FISHY1118]

Person of interest nothing more

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thanks

[Trevor Marriott]

We have no evidence against any suspect Trevor. Why does Druitt alone merit this stridency?

Well I mention it on this thread because it is Druitt that is the topic but it applies to many of those regarded by researchers as suspects and all lack primary evidence which categorizes them as prime suspects,

Primary evidence, also known as best evidence, is the best available evidence of the existence of an object. Usually, primary evidence takes the form of the object itself, such as a knife in an assault case, but it can also take the form of a substantiated statement about the primary evidence. It is usually required in cases where the contents of a document have to be proven; in such cases, the document itself is needed to prove that what is contained within it matches with what the prosecution claim exists within it.

MM`s input into these murders is by his own admission nothing more than hearsay

Hearsay
When providing witness testimonies, witnesses are generally expected to provide direct evidence - evidence that they have obtained through their own observation of the crime. Hearsay is 'a statement not made in oral proceedings'. In other words, hearsay is second-hand evidence, collected from a third party's experience. For a witness, hearsay would constitute any information garnered from an overheard conversation; any information that has been passed on to them from another person and not directly discovered; or evidence that someone has written. Witnesses who present hearsay in court are not only asking the court to believe them, but also to believe the person who told them the evidence they are recounting. It is on account of the second assumption - that the unknown third party can be trusted

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well I mention it on this thread because it is Druitt that is the topic but it applies to many of those regarded by researchers as suspects and all lack primary evidence which categorizes them as prime suspects,

Primary evidence, also known as best evidence, is the best available evidence of the existence of an object. Usually, primary evidence takes the form of the object itself, such as a knife in an assault case, but it can also take the form of a substantiated statement about the primary evidence. It is usually required in cases where the contents of a document have to be proven; in such cases, the document itself is needed to prove that what is contained within it matches with what the prosecution claim exists within it.

MM`s input into these murders is by his own admission nothing more than hearsay

Hearsay
When providing witness testimonies, witnesses are generally expected to provide direct evidence - evidence that they have obtained through their own observation of the crime. Hearsay is 'a statement not made in oral proceedings'. In other words, hearsay is second-hand evidence, collected from a third party's experience. For a witness, hearsay would constitute any information garnered from an overheard conversation; any information that has been passed on to them from another person and not directly discovered; or evidence that someone has written. Witnesses who present hearsay in court are not only asking the court to believe them, but also to believe the person who told them the evidence they are recounting. It is on account of the second assumption - that the unknown third party can be trusted

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’m not getting into this again Trevor. How we categorise our suspects makes absolutely no difference to anyone and so, even if it was a possibility, it would be an exercise in futility.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Three Questions.

If Macnaghten just wanted any old name to add to his ‘likelier than Cutbush’ list then how did he come by Druitt’s name? Do you think that he simply remembered a suicide that occurred six years previously or do you think that he (or a subordinate) actively searched for a likely name?

1) If you believe the former then I’d have to ask how could we expect Macnaghten to have remembered a suicide from six years before (and before he’d joined the Met) and which caused barely a ripple in the press?

2) If you believe the latter then either Macnaghten or his subordinate discovered details about Druitt’s suicide from records. So if that information was in front of them how could they have got his age and occupation wrong?

3) We know for certain that Macnaghten had access to prison and asylum records. We know that those records would have included numerous violent men (dead or permanently incarcerated) So can anyone give an explanation for why he would have selected such and unlikely, ‘sticks out like a sore thumb’ suspect as an upper class Barrister (that was related by marriage to one of his best friend’s) if he hadn’t felt that he had good reason for doing so?

[Fiver]

As a fast bowler, he was probably much taller then any of the suspects described by witnesses.

Where is the evidence that Druitt was a fast bowler?

We are being asked to believe that he committed the first murder during a trip to Dorset, by commuting between London and Dorset during the trip.

You are assuming a single trip to Dorset. That might be true, but it is not a fact.

You're also assuming Tabram was a Ripper victim. That's possible, but not certain.

So even if proof is found that Druitt was in Dorset that whole week, that doesn't prove he couldn't have been the Ripper.

When I pointed out that this meant that he was being alleged to have used the trip as a cover to commit the murder - in other words, to create an alibi - someone retorted that that wasn't so.

Why would someone go on a trip to Dorset and during that trip commit a murder in London, unless to provide himself with an alibi?

To repeat, you are assuming one trip instead of two.

The idea that if a leading policeman makes an accusation against someone, there must be something in it, is obviously a flawed one.

Multiple people were accused by leading policemen, but at most one was correct. Still, they were prime suspects at the time, based on information the police officials had.

Of course, that information could be incomplete or wrong. Most everything that Macnaghton said about his three suspects was wrong.

It should be abundantly clear to anyone looking at Druitt's activities that he spent his spare time playing sports - not stalking prostitutes.

It should be abundantly clear that being serial killer does not prevent someone from engaging in other leisure activities.

[Fiver]

Druitt was playing cricket in Bournemouth on 3, 4, 10, and 11 August 1888.

He may have been in Bournemouth continuously from 3 to 11 August.

Does anyone think that he was commuting between Bournemouth and London during that time, looking for opportunities to murder prostitutes?

Nobody is claiming that. They are acknowledging that Druitt could have been somewhere other than Bournemouth on 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 of August. Druitt's business as a barrister could have taken him into London on any or all of those days.

[Fiver]

Question to Druitt supporters who believe he should be left a suspect

Was he in their opinions JTR yes/ No ?

I am not a Druitt Supporter. I don't think Druitt was the Ripper. Almost everything Macnaghton said about Druitt was wrong - his being a suspect appears to have been based on misinformation. Macnaghton appears to have not been in on the case until 1889, so most of his information was second hand. The timing of his match on the day of Chapman's murder would have meant he got little or no sleep if he was the Ripper.

But Druitt cannot be eliminated as a suspect. He has no alibis and the murders probably stopped around the time of his death.

[Trevor Marriott]

Three Questions.

If Macnaghten just wanted any old name to add to his ‘likelier than Cutbush’ list then how did he come by Druitt’s name? Do you think that he simply remembered a suicide that occurred six years previously or do you think that he (or a subordinate) actively searched for a likely name?

He answers this in his memo "From private information I have little doubt but that his own family suspected this man of being the Whitechapel murderer, it was alleged that he was sexually insane" this is hearsay, we don't know how he was told or by whom and we certainly can't judge how accurate that information was

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

But Druitt cannot be eliminated as a suspect. He has no alibis and the murders probably stopped around the time of his death.

But if you were to go through the 100+ names of Ripper suspects how many of them could be proven to have alibis? There is more to eliminating a suspect than proving his innocence by them having an alibi.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

He answers this in his memo "From private information I have little doubt but that his own family suspected this man of being the Whitechapel murderer, it was alleged that he was sexually insane" this is hearsay, we don't know how he was told or by whom and we certainly can't judge how accurate that information was

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And no one has ever disputed that Trevor but it doesn’t mean that the information wasn’t accurate or persuasive and in a case where there’s no real evidence against anyone Macnaghten’s must raise the possibility that Druitt might (and I’m only saying might) have been guilty.

[Ms Diddles]

Hi Herlock.

Fortunately, I'm at my desk and can give you an immediate reply. The suggestion that Druitt had an alibi for the Tabram murder came from author D.J. Leighton.


Montague Druitt: Portrait of a Contender, by D, J. Leighton, p, 110.

"On 3 and 4 August he played for the Gentleman of Bournemouth against the Parsees, a visiting Indian touring side. A couple of days later he played for the Gentleman of Dorset against the same opposition [ie., the Parsees]. The following weekend on 10 and 11 August he turned out for the Gentlemen of Dorset against Bournemouth at the end of the latter's cricket week."

The cricket matches on 3/4 August and 10/11 August are documented and MJ Druitt did play in those matches. This much is true; I've seen the scorecards.

By contrast, the August 6th match has never been located, and as these matches were widely reported in contemporary newspapers, its absence is conspicous. I found no evidence of it, and neither (I think) did Gary Barnett when we were discussing it.

In reality, the Parsees can be seen to be playing in Norfolk on August 7th and in Cambridge on the 8th and 9th. This strongly suggests they had left the area and were traveling on the 6th, which seemingly confirms that no such match was played. It is merely a mistake by Leighton. In another passage, Leighton appears to place MJD in Bournemouth during Cricket Week, but there doesn't appear to be any evidence for this, either. He doesn't give his sources for any of these claims.

In short, we currently have no idea where Druitt was on August 6th/7th, the date of the Tabram murder.

In fact, we do not know his whereabouts on August 5,6,7,8, or 9th which is a five-day stretch, with Bank Holiday in the middle of it.

If you recall, William Druitt claimed that Monty stayed with him 'one night' in October 1888, and there was an express between London and Bournemouth so a person could be a day tripper if they so desired.

Now give me your best rendition of 'Day Tripper, Monday Ripper, yeah!' to the tune of the Lennon/McCartney song. (Sorry, no disrespect intended). Cheers.

Thanks for posting this Roger!

I remembered that Druitt's alibi for Tabram had been called into question, but had completely forgotten the details.

Much appreciated!

[Trevor Marriott]

And no one has ever disputed that Trevor but it doesn’t mean that the information wasn’t accurate or persuasive and in a case where there’s no real evidence against anyone Macnaghten’s must raise the possibility that Druitt might (and I’m only saying might) have been guilty.

But the evidence to suggest MM was telling the truth is unsafe due to the glaring errors in the part that relates to Druitt in the memo, if someone had given me information as important as that I would certainly have got the facts right in the first instance, so he should have made enquiries to ascertain the accuracy and truthfulness of what had been disclosed. it is nothing more than hearsay and he makes no comment on it in the later version of his memo, and in that later version, he clearly had changed his mind about Kosminski, so that shows he did do some background into him to eliminate him.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk