Where was Montague John Druitt 1 December 1888

[Jonathan H]

We are in agreement.

I have a provisional opinion based on the certainty of people who were there, but that cannot be absolute. How could it be?

The Logan source shows that Macnaghten knew a lot about Druitt that was accurate. That's my overall point on that source. It's been quite humbling.

William Druitt and the rest of his family could have been mistaken about Montie being the fiend, and this mistake was backed by Macnaghten--who was neither a doctor nor a trained detective.

But. Is. It. Likely?

[caz]

Hi Jonathan,

If there had been actual proof of Druitt's guilt, at one time in the possession of family members and/or Macnaghten, then they could hardly have been mistaken. So by acknowledging they could have been mistaken (even though you personally find this so unlikely), you seem to be acknowledging this lack of proof. It remains an awkward paradox. Why would a family member believe such a thing without proof? How could a family member be mistaken if they had it?

But first things first. You have yet to demonstrate that William Druitt 'and the rest of his family' (what, all my pretty chickens now??) did believe Monty was the ripper, never mind what made anyone reach that conclusion. If and when you do that, we could begin to discuss how likely they could have been mistaken.

Love,

Caz
X

[Jonathan H]

If the 'North Country Vicar' is talking about Montie Druitt then we know why they all 'believed'.

Druitt confessed in a lucid manner to a clergyman, and took his own life rather be sectioned and see his family ruined. All now confirmed in Logan.

Either Druitt was the fiend, or he was delusional.

You would expect the family, or those members in the know, to embrace the second option especially as he was beyond a trial. Instead they did not.

Historical methodology argues for the likelihood of their belief because it goes against their expected bias, also of the Tory MP and the police chief.

That's as close as we can get. If you want an absolute solution it will be unsatisfying but if you can accept the provisional nature of historical theories based on incomplete data then it is very strong.

[David Andersen]

Your answers may be found here:http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blood-Harves.../dp/B00LNYU6JW

[David Andersen]

As I understand it referring a case back to the original deciding court when an appeal against that courts decision has been granted is a technical device rather like when a judge instructs a jury to bring in a Not guilty verdict. The lower court is instructed to amend their original decision to conform to the appeal courts decision. No further hearing is required under those circumstances and neither is the presence of counsel. So referring the case back to Christchurch does not imply that Druitt had to be present in Christchurch.