Druitt.

[Fiver]

You have just accused me for about the twentieth time of inventing something.

Herlock is correct to call you on your repeatedly stating things as facts when they are either unproven or mere opinion on your part. That's not Herlock insulting you.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Herlock is correct to call you on your repeatedly stating things as facts when they are either unproven or mere opinion on your part. That's not Herlock insulting you.

He is certainly not correct and I note that you did not quote what it was that I was accused of inventing.

Here it is:

I had written:

It is not necessary to prove that what Macnaghten was told was unsubstantiated.

Herlock responded:

Not when you can just invent the claim without proof of course.

I replied:

You have just accused me for about the twentieth time of inventing something.

Anyone looking at what I actually wrote can see that it is not invention.

I simply made a statement of fact.


Anyone can see that what I wrote is correct because the stories about Druitt are unsubstantiated.

Strangely, unsubstantiated stories about Druitt are not called 'invention', but when I point out that they are unsubstantiated, I am accused of invention!


Of course Herlock has repeatedly insulted me and has repeatedly accused me of invention and 'making things up'.

There is already a well-established tradition here of accusing me of misrepresenting my opinion as fact without, however, explaining exactly how any such misrepresentation occurred.

Serious accusations against me have been made without any basis in fact.

For example, when I stated that I think that Kosminski had at least one alibi for the murders, another poster accused me of invention.

How can someone on this forum be accused of inventing something simply for stating an opinion?

Herlock himself accused Piser of assaulting Gentile women.

When I then pointed out that there was no evidence to support this allegation, he just shut up.

I did not, however, accuse him of invention.

My point about Kosminski rests on the fact that he was never challenged to produce an alibi.

The only reason we know that Piser had alibis is that he was falsely accused and challenged to produce them.

Otherwise, we might have Herlock claiming 'Piser had no alibi', which of course would be untrue.

Herlock has been allowed to get away with claiming 'Druitt had no alibi,' a statement which is clearly untrue.

No one has accused him of invention.

No one has accused him of misrepresenting his opinion as fact.

There is a double standard at work here.

Your statement above is untrue, just as Herlock's accusations against me are untrue.

[GBinOz]

I’ve heard Anderson and Broad called ‘fast bowlers’ numerous time. Neither are fast bowlers.

Fortunately for England they now have a genuine fast bowler in the person of Mark Wood.

While not a Druittist, I find myself unable to eliminate him as a POI, but not for the traditional reasoning. My focus is on the alleged "suicide" note.

We cannot be sure when, or by whom, the note was written, or of its entire content. Traditionally the words "Since Friday" have been interpreted to be referring to the Friday before the Saturday when Monty left his home for the final time. I consider that if that were the case it would have been worded "Since yesterday". I think the Friday referred to was that which saw the end of Kelly's life, and if Monty penned that note then I believe it makes him a prime POI. But suppose he wasn't sacked on the day before he left his home, and that he just went to his London office, and was observed by his associates, and then continued his journey west. Suppose, as Macnaghten claimed, his family, either by confession or inference, developed suspicions that he may be the ripper. What course of response would his brother, as head of the family, had available as a solution?

1. Report him to the police and disgrace the family name.
2. Ignore his suspicions and let the murderous rampage continue.
3. Have Monty quietly disposed off with his body weighted down and consigned to the Thames.

I would suggest option 3. When the body surfaced and suspicions emerged, would it have been considered by his brother that it would be better for the family to have in its ranks a person with mental problems, or a cold blooded serial killer. A note appears, allegedly found at Monty's home, indicating the former.

Pure speculation, but that is my current reading of the circumstances. I think that in the absence of a conclusive alibi, Monty's name must remain on the list of persons of interest. Besides, I find his case fascinating. JMO.

Cheers, George

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I would point out that of the three POIs mentioned by Macnaghten, Ostrog was the only one whose whereabouts allegedly 'could not be ascertained'.

He did not say that Druitt's whereabouts on the day of the murder of Nichols could not be ascertained - nor that Kosminski's whereabouts could not be ascertained.

Does that not suggest that neither man really was a suspect and that neither man's whereabouts at the times of the murders were investigated?

Is that not why in Kosminski's case, MacNaghten put the word 'suspect' in inverted commas?

[erobitha]

Abberline had retired by then so his opinion is close to worthless.

Your “probably nothing more than rumour and opinion,” is beyond weak. You can’t know that, it’s just an unfounded assumption.

That some considered Mackenzie and Coles is also beyond weak. Almost no one today accepts Coles as a victim and only a few believe Mackenzie to have been. Either way we can’t know so we can’t dismiss someone on an unknown. That’s if we’re being fair of course.

To dismiss the MM on a couple of trivial errors is a tool of convenience.

That Macnaghten simply picked Druitt out of thin air is laughable.

Sometimes I side with Trevor far more than I feel comfortable with, but on occasion, he does make good points.

I really don't think you can dismiss Abberline that easily, Herlock. He was arguably the one detective who had the deepest knowledge of the investigation, streets and people involved. MM was not part of the original investigation team.

I understand why you may feel MM was somehow still investigating the crimes and may have had fresher information than Abberline, but you can't dismiss his opinion. It does hold some weight.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sometimes I side with Trevor far more than I feel comfortable with, but on occasion, he does make good points.

I really don't think you can dismiss Abberline that easily, Herlock. He was arguably the one detective who had the deepest knowledge of the investigation, streets and people involved. MM was not part of the original investigation team.

I understand why you may feel MM was somehow still investigating the crimes and may have had fresher information than Abberline, but you can't dismiss his opinion. It does hold some weight.

The point that I was making though Ero was that it’s entirely possible that Macnaghten received his private information after Abberline had retired from the Met leaving him entirely in the dark.

[FriedKidne]

Did I read somewhere (or has my potato bin bakin' too long?) that a member of Druitt's family was married to someone senior at Scotland Yard?

I think the gist of this was that Druitt was named to embarrass the family for some reason.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fortunately for England they now have a genuine fast bowler in the person of Mark Wood.

Its a pity that he’s 33 and prone to injury though George. And that our other fast bowler, Joffre Archer, spends more time on the physio’s bench than in the nets. I agree with Geoffrey Boycott….the Aussies are playing to win whereas England are playing to entertain. I don’t think there’s anything to choose between the batting line-ups but I think that our the only real difference in the bowling is that the Aussies have more pace but the Aussies, as ever, leave nothing to chance.

While not a Druittist, I find myself unable to eliminate him as a POI, but not for the traditional reasoning. My focus is on the alleged "suicide" note.

We cannot be sure when, or by whom, the note was written, or of its entire content. Traditionally the words "Since Friday" have been interpreted to be referring to the Friday before the Saturday when Monty left his home for the final time. I consider that if that were the case it would have been worded "Since yesterday". I think the Friday referred to was that which saw the end of Kelly's life, and if Monty penned that note then I believe it makes him a prime POI. But suppose he wasn't sacked on the day before he left his home, and that he just went to his London office, and was observed by his associates, and then continued his journey west. Suppose, as Macnaghten claimed, his family, either by confession or inference, developed suspicions that he may be the ripper. What course of response would his brother, as head of the family, had available as a solution?

1. Report him to the police and disgrace the family name.
2. Ignore his suspicions and let the murderous rampage continue.
3. Have Monty quietly disposed off with his body weighted down and consigned to the Thames.

I would suggest option 3. When the body surfaced and suspicions emerged, would it have been considered by his brother that it would be better for the family to have in its ranks a person with mental problems, or a cold blooded serial killer. A note appears, allegedly found at Monty's home, indicating the former.

Pure speculation, but that is my current reading of the circumstances. I think that in the absence of a conclusive alibi, Monty's name must remain on the list of persons of interest. Besides, I find his case fascinating. JMO.

Cheers, George

The ‘since friday’ point is an interesting one that intrigues me too George. We can’t prove it of course but there’s always a possibility that Druitt was murdered (the unused return ticket etc) Howells and Skinner might have been on to something. We have too many unknowns though.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Did I read somewhere (or has my potato bin bakin' too long?) that a member of Druitt's family was married to someone senior at Scotland Yard?

I think the gist of this was that Druitt was named to embarrass the family for some reason.

Hi FK,

Its a more distant family connection but it did exist. Colonel Vivian Majendie had been Chief Inspector of Explosives (basically bomb disposal) since 1871 up until his death in 1898. He was a very good friend of Macnaghten’s. Druitt’s cousin, the Reverend Charles Druitt, was married in 1888 to Isabel Majendie-Hill who was the daughter of Majendie’s step-cousin.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m now avoiding responding directly to a certain poster for obvious reasons but I think that it’s only right to make this obvious point.

There’s much that we don’t know (and probably never will in this case) and so we often have to speculate by making our own interpretations of what is known and what might possibly have been the case. There’s nothing at all wrong with this as long as we acknowledge that we’re speculating and could be incorrect.

Therefore it has to be stated that to claim that Druitt had an alibi is factually untrue. Not ‘possibly’ incorrect but absolutely, evidentially incorrect. Everyone on here can look at the ‘Proof Of Innocence?’ thread over on JTRForums and can read the details of the excellent research that was done on this subject. They can also conclude, if they want to, that they feel it unlikely for whatever reason, that Druitt returned to London on August 30th but they absolutely can’t say that he physically couldn’t have done so. Therefore, as far as our knowledge stands at this point in time, Druitt very clearly has no alibi. If such evidence emerged then we would have to exonerate him without question.

Posters will also understand and accept that it’s just not valid to say: “well he might have had an alibi.” Any suspect might have had an alibi,’ but we can’t use this in an attempt to eliminate them. I believe Lechmere to be a weak suspect, I also believe that the evidence tells us that Chapman was killed after he’d have started work for the day. I think that this adds to his unlikeliness as a suspect but I don’t claim this as an alibi to exonerate him because it’s not an alibi because it’s not physically impossible that he could still have killed Chapman.

We also now know that the previously stated alibi for the Tabram murder has now collapse as Roger Palmer clearly explained. DJ Leighton had told us that Druitt was playing in a cricket match which the evidence tells us clearly didn’t happen. In short, Leighton had made an incorrect assumption.

This doesn’t mean that Druitt was guilty of course but it’s factually correct to STATE AS A FACT that as far as the evidence currently stands Druitt has no alibi for any of the murders. It would be good if others would acknowledge this too on here because one poster just won’t accept this undeniable obvious fact.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

By raising doubt about your whereabouts at the time of the alleged crime, an alibi defense can be a powerful tool during a criminal trial. The prosecutor still has a requirement to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If your alibi is strong, this evidence may be enough to achieve a not guilty verdict.

However, some alibis are not very strong or rely on unverifiable or untrustworthy evidence. If a jury does not believe an alibi, the prosecutor still has an opportunity to prove all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, the jury may issue a guilty verdict despite the presence of an alibi.


https://www.treyzlaw.com/alibi-defen...ilty%20verdict.



Druitt did have an alibi for the murder of Nichols.

I did not invent it, any more than I invented his cricketing trip to Dorset.

I believe that he had a strong alibi, because he was on that trip with companions who might have verified his whereabouts at the time of the murder.

I repeat that it is not true to claim, as Herlock Shomes has done, that he 'had no alibi.'

The fact that we do not know how strong his alibi was does not mean that he did not have an alibi.

The prosecutor still has a requirement to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - regardless of the quality of the defendant's alibi.

It is patently obvious that Druitt's guilt could never have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The man leading the investigation - Inspector Abberline - was quite definite that there was no evidence whatsoever against him.

Strangely, we do not get to hear about Anderson or Swanson, who - so I have been told - were far more knowledgeable than Abberline, but for whom Druitt presumably was not Jewish enough.

I'm still waiting to see Macnaghten's evidence that Druitt's cricketing companions in Dorset told police that he disappeared during the trip and they couldn't work out where he had gone.

Or newly-discovered marginalia by Swanson, in which he mentions a ticket vendor who remembered selling a rail ticket to Druitt in London or Dorset at such a time as would incriminate him.

Or a ticket inspector who remembered seeing a man of Druitt's description with bloodstained hands or clothing during his journey back to Dorset.

There never has been any evidence against Druitt and no need therefore to eliminate him as a suspect.

[FISHY1118]

Our representative called Mr. Abberline's attention to a statement made in a well-known Sunday paper, in which it was made out that the author was a young medical student who was found drowned in the Thames.



"Yes," said Mr. Abberline, "I know all about that story. But what does it amount to? Simply this. Soon after the last murder in Whitechapel the body of a young doctor was found in the Thames, but there is ''absolutely nothing'' beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him.


Indeed P.I , Det Abberline certainly was closer to the case than anyone else living at the time, or 134 year later .

[Herlock Sholmes]

The above isn’t strictly true of course because Abberline had retired from the force whilst Macnaghten was working. So at the time he was doing his gardening in Bournemouth. So it might be said that when it came to having insider knowledge about Druitt, Abberline had a real, and not an imagined, alibi.

[erobitha]

From Keith Skinner:

I've been keeping an eye on the Druitt thread and was interested in the post below (part reproduced) because I have been thinking about the "Since Friday" note for the past couple of months.

In Ripper Legacy, Martin Howells and I used the fact that in Druitt's pocket was found "...a second half return Hammersmith to Charing Cross (dated 1st December)..." This we used as a basis for our theory that Druitt intended to return from Hammersmith to Charing Cross (and thence back to Blackheath for which he already had a first class season from Blackheath to London, but never did.

What Martin and I overlooked - or did not appreciate the significance of - was that on the document pertaining to the Letters of Administration on the personal Estate of Druitt, it states he was "...last seen alive on the 3rd day of December 1888..."

And from memory I believe the dates inscribed on Druitt's headstone are August 15 1857 - December 4 1888

December 1st 1888 was a Saturday

December 2nd 1888 was a Sunday

December 3rd 1888 was a Monday

So it raises the question as to who it was that last saw Druitt alive on Monday 3rd 1888 and where?

I think it is generally agreed (although not proved) that Valentine had dismissed Druitt from the school on [Friday] November 30th 1888 and not on December 30th as printed in the newspaper. It is also conjectured that Druitt went to visit his mother in Tuke's asylum at Chiswick on December 1st 1888. If that is the case, it could be surmised the visit to his mother played on his mind over the weekend and he decided to commit suicide on the Monday December 3rd 1888. - ie Since Friday...

I have no problem with sharing this with the Board although, of course, I realise the 3rd and 4th December 1888 dates may have already been factored into everybody's theories.

I also appreciate it does not explain how Druitt ended up on MacNaghten's list six years later in February 1894 on an official report in the Scotland Yard papers. I know it has been speculated that MacNaghten put that report together for the Home Secretary in case questions were asked in Parliament as a result of the SUN series of articles about Cutbush (unnamed) but there is no evidence for this that I'm aware of - only (from memory) Abberline's reference to a report being sent to the Home Office about a young medical student's body being found in the Thames. (I should really quote Abberline exactly but it's a sunny day outside!) I'm guessing the source of Abberline's story is The Pall Mall Gazette around January 1903 because it comes off the back of the Chapman trial?

Best Wishes

Keith

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

We have never believed all those stories about Jack the Ripper being dead, or that he was a lunatic or anything of that kind.

Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago.

It is simple nonsense to talk of the police having proof that the man is dead.

I am, and always have been, in the closest touch with Scotland Yard, and it would have been next to impossible for me not to have known all about it.

Besides, the authorities would have been only too glad to make an end of such a mystery, if only for their own credit.


(ABBERLINE, MARCH 1903)