Druitt.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Its only ‘unsafe’ if you declare it as proof of Druitt’s guilt. Which no one is doing.

He stuck to his opinion on Druitt until he died as far as we know. What you would have done is irrelevant Trevor as you don’t know the circumstances. Are you suggesting that you’ve never made any minor errors? If he was approached by someone and told about Druitt (perhaps via Majendie who he would have considered highly trustworthy) but not committed it to writing immediately, how could it be so unlikely that he perhaps only came to write it down weeks later when he got a couple of inconsequential details wrong.

Ill point to the three questions I’ve asked which no one ever responds to. Did he just recall a random, inconsequential suicide that occurred six years earlier or did he deliberately search for a name to use? If the former..how is that remotely believable? And if the latter he would have had the details in front of him and so couldn’t have got them wrong. It’s clearly more likely that the information itself was what was important and not Druitt’s age and occupation, which he misremembered.

And finally why do you keep repeating ‘hearsay.’ Every minute of every day the police receive information from someone. Does it always turn out to be wrong? No. So the source is unimportant. It just means that we can’t evaluate it, but the fact is, much to the irritation of some, the Chief Constable of the Met felt him a likely suspect. I don’t ignore inconvenient facts. And this is a fact.

I don’t for a single second believe that Macnaghten simply plucked Druitt’s name out of thin air. The idea is close to childish.

[Ms Diddles]

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?

Hi Herlock,

Could it be that you have answered your own question here?

Macnaghten recalled the suicide because of his friends familial relationship to the Druitts, and subsequently become aware of the "private information".

That could (in theory) explain how he remembered the suicide, but was out with the biographical details as he wasn't that familiar with Druitt and was working from memory.

Just conjecture, of course!

[Lewis C]

Hi Herlock,

I believe that the 3 questions are based on the premise that either Macnaghten simply remembered a suicide that happened 6 years earlier or he or a subordinate actively searched for a likely name. If someone disagrees with that premise, they wouldn't be able to answer the questions. Another possibility is that someone, possibly Farquharson, had Macnaghten's ear, leading him to believe that Druitt was the culprit. In such a case, Druitt was neither a random choice nor a particularly well investigated one.

What Ms Diddles said is also a possibility.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Could it be that you have answered your own question here?

Macnaghten recalled the suicide because of his friends familial relationship to the Druitts, and subsequently become aware of the "private information".

That could (in theory) explain how he remembered the suicide, but was out with the biographical details as he wasn't that familiar with Druitt and was working from memory.

Just conjecture, of course!

Hi Ms D,

I think that the Majendie connection is a very plausible explanation for how he learned about Druitt but my disagreement with others though is when it’s suggested that he simply recalled the suicide when he was looking for a random name to add to his list. I accept your point though. Jon Hainsworth believes that Macnaghten likely received his private info via Majendie.

To be honest I don’t know if it’s known how long Macnaghten had known Majendie? If he’d only met him when he joined the force in 1889 (Majendie had been Chief Inspector of Explosives from 1871) would Majendie have known about the suicide of a very distant relation by marriage and would he have mentioned it to someone that he hadn’t known long? I don’t know.

Druitt’s cousin the Reverend Charles married Isabel Majendie-Hill in 1888 (Isabel was the daughter of a step-cousin of Colonel Majendie)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I believe that the 3 questions are based on the premise that either Macnaghten simply remembered a suicide that happened 6 years earlier or he or a subordinate actively searched for a likely name. If someone disagrees with that premise, they wouldn't be able to answer the questions. Another possibility is that someone, possibly Farquharson, had Macnaghten's ear, leading him to believe that Druitt was the culprit. In such a case, Druitt was neither a random choice nor a particularly well investigated one.

What Ms Diddles said is also a possibility.

Hi Lewis,

All possibles in the absence of anything solid. Of course we would have to ask why MacNaghten would have taken something so seriously without reason.

In a way, Kosminski and Ostrog are ‘disposable’ and unlikely to raise much of an eyebrow. A ‘lunatic’ foreigner who had pulled a knife on his sister law and a criminal foreigner. Both conforming to the prejudices of the time (both on racial and ‘criminal types’) The naming of Druitt, a highly respectable, upper-class Barrister with contacts and acquaintances on high would have had people choking on their brandy and cigars. (A few examples that you’re probably already aware of - Druitt’s younger brother Edward was in the same regiment as Frank Miles. Miles’ brother was PAV’s equerry. H.L. Stephens [brother of JK] had chambers at 3 King’s Bench Walk [3 doors from Druitt] His other brother H.S. was opposite at 4 Paper Buildings. On the floor below Druitt was fellow Wykehamist Reginald Brodie Dyke-Acland [ the brother of Gull’s son-in-law] Also in the building was solicitor Edward Henslowe Bedford, who was involved in covering up the Cleveland Street Scandal. Then there were his sporting acquaintances of course)

I know that some will disagree and that’s fine of course but there are some things that we (as individuals) feel confident about or not confident about and I feel convinced that MacNaghten wouldn’t have named Druitt unless he felt that he had good reason for doing it.

[Ms Diddles]

In a way, Kosminski and Ostrog are ‘disposable’ and unlikely to raise much of an eyebrow. A ‘lunatic’ foreigner who had pulled a knife on his sister law and a criminal foreigner. Both conforming to the prejudices of the time (both on racial and ‘criminal types’) The naming of Druitt, a highly respectable, upper-class Barrister with contacts and acquaintances on high would have had people choking on their brandy and cigars;

Agreed!

What if he was trying to demonstrate a breadth and diversity of suspects (who were more likely than Cutbush)?

From the cream of British society, to the all round criminal bad egg via the poor insane Polish jew, so to speak.

Admittedly rather improbable.

Am just chucking random ideas out there....

[Herlock Sholmes]

Agreed!

What if he was trying to demonstrate a breadth and diversity of suspects (who were more likely than Cutbush)?

From the cream of British society, to the all round criminal bad egg via the poor insane Polish jew, so to speak.

Admittedly rather improbable.

Am just chucking random ideas out there....

No problem with doing that Ms D.

A problem could have arisen though if Druitt’s name had seeped out and it was found that he was blackening the name of an innocent man. Druitt’s brother was a solicitor after all.

Im certainly not confident that he was guilty but I feel confident that Mac didn’t pick him at random. As you’ve noticed though….not everyone agrees.

[Abby Normal]

druitt is a valid suspect and better than most. he was a named a contemporary suspect at the time by a higher up police officer, has no provable alibi at the times of the murders, fits general description, was a physically fit man as the ripper surely was, he was in the area and had ties to london, and to me a point that is often neglected, is that he was in a downward spiral personally at the times of the murders and his demise fits with the end of the c5.

until he is definitively ruled out, in hes stays as one of the least weak suspects, and rightfully so.

[Herlock Sholmes]

druitt is a valid suspect and better than most. he was a named a contemporary suspect at the time by a higher up police officer, has no provable alibi at the times of the murders, fits general description, was a physically fit man as the ripper surely was, he was in the area and had ties to london, and to me a point that is often neglected, is that he was in a downward spiral personally at the times of the murders and his demise fits with the end of the c5.

until he is definitively ruled out, in hes stays as one of the least weak suspects, and rightfully so.

Cheers Abby, always good to hear another unbiased poster (like Ms D and Lewis) on this topic.

[Fiver]

There is more to eliminating a suspect than proving his innocence by them having an alibi.

Agreed. The Ripper was obviously in fairly good physical condition, likely with good night vision and good hearing to detect anyone approaching. Dr Gull's physical condition eliminates him as a suspect for any reasonable person. A short, slender, hard of hearing man in his 50s is only slightly more credible than Gull.

There's also the theories that are complete nonsense. Like using anagrams to try to blame Louis Carroll. Or the Royal Conspiracy or any other nonsense that has the victims trying to blackmail the Ripper.

[Trevor Marriott]

And finally why do you keep repeating ‘hearsay.’ Every minute of every day the police receive information from someone. Does it always turn out to be wrong? No. So the source is unimportant. It just means that we can’t evaluate it, but the fact is, much to the irritation of some, the Chief Constable of the Met felt him a likely suspect. I don’t ignore inconvenient facts. And this is a fact.

It will always remain hearsay until the contrary is proved

I don’t for a single second believe that Macnaghten simply plucked Druitt’s name out of thin air. The idea is close to childish.

No one is suggesting that

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

No one is suggesting that

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It might be ‘hearsay’ to us but it doesn’t mean that it was hearsay to Macnaghten. Hearsay means: “information received from other people which cannot be substantiated.”

If, for example, Druitt had been out on the night of the murders and that he’d come home one night with blood on him. Or he’s spoken in derogatory ways about women in general or specifically prostitutes. We know that none of these things would have been proof of his guilt but they could all have been substantiated as true. Therefore to Macnaghten they wouldn’t have been hearsay. They would have been facts which had been substantiated by family or colleagues or friends.

On you’re other point, you say that no one is saying that Macnaghten pulled Druitt’s name out of thin air but that exactly what some suggest. That he just wanted ‘a name’ to add to his list so he picked Druitt just because he’d committed suicide after Kelly.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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?

I have not made up anything.

The evidence which you say I don't have is in the statements made by the three men.

Two of them claimed that Druitt killed himself immediately after the murder of Mary Kelly, which is obviously not true.

The third claimed that he committed suicide in order to escape justice.

It was also claimed - but now I can't remember exactly by whom - that the police were closing in on Druitt and that that is why he committed suicide.

That is also completely untrue.

If it were true then inspector Abberllne would not have dismissed the case against Druitt.

You have once again accused me of making things up and of stating opinion as fact.

You have once again made untrue allegations about me.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Where is the evidence that Druitt was a fast bowler?



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.



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



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 that being serial killer does not prevent someone from engaging in other leisure activities.

HS objected that I was assuming that it was a three-day trip, when it could have been much longer, and now you're objecting to my treating it as a single trip!

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Where is the evidence that Druitt was a fast bowler?

I think it is obvious from the surviving scorecards.