Druitt and Monro

[John Wheat]

One man’s opinion Trevor. All of the doctors and police officers at the time were convinced that the killer took organs and yet you don’t believe them so why do you choose to take the above as fact. We can’t know if Mackenzie was a victim therefore we can’t say for a fact the Druitt was dead while the killer was still at large.

I could also quote Dr. Phillips:

”After careful and long deliberation, I cannot satisfy myself, on purely Anatomical and professional grounds that the perpetrator of all the "Wh Ch. murders" is our man. I am on the contrary impelled to a contrary conclusion in this noting the mode of procedure and the character of the mutilations and judging of motive in connection with the latter.”

Why do you dismiss Phillips opinion when you think that he was right about Chapman’s ToD. Anyone would think that you were picking who to ‘believe’ to bolster your opinion.

Mackenzie can’t be considered conclusively as a ripper victim therefore we can dismiss any suspect on this basis. If you, or anyone, is convinced that she was a victim then fine; that means that in your opinion Druitt couldn’t have been the killer. It’s not a fact though.

I highly doubt Mackenzie was a Ripper victim. There was a large gap between Mary Jane Kellys murder and the murder of Mackenzie.

[Doctored Whatsit]

I think the below post eliminates Druitt because at the time of this murder he was long dead

Alice McKenzie July 1889

Dr. Thomas Bond chose the opposite conclusion, telling Sir Robert Anderson he believed it was indeed a Ripper killing:

I see in this murder evidence of similar design to the former Whitechapel murders, viz. sudden onslaught on the prostrate woman, the throat skillfully and resolutely cut with subsequent mutilation, each mutilation indicating sexual thoughts and a desire to mutilate the abdomen and sexual organs. I am of opinion that the murder was performed by the same person who committed the former series of Whitechapel murder

Monro, who was on duty during the investigation since Anderson was on leave at the time,

I need not say that every effort will be made by the police to discover the murderer, who, I am inclined to believe, is identical with the notorious Jack the Ripper of last year.

In fact, on the day of the murder, Monro deployed 3 sergeants and 39 constables on duty in Whitechapel, increasing the force with 22 extra men.


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Bond was not involved in the on site examination and post mortem of the first first four murders, so his view is less reliable than Phillips or Brown who saw much more than he did.

According to Anderson, Monro initially thought that McKenzie was a Ripper murder, but changed his mind as the investigation progressed. Of course, Anderson could be wrong ...

There has to be doubt about the killer of McKenzie.

[Wickerman]

I think the below post eliminates Druitt because at the time of this murder he was long dead

Alice McKenzie July 1889

Dr. Thomas Bond chose the opposite conclusion, telling Sir Robert Anderson he believed it was indeed a Ripper killing:

I see in this murder evidence of similar design to the former Whitechapel murders, viz. sudden onslaught on the prostrate woman, the throat skillfully and resolutely cut with subsequent mutilation, each mutilation indicating sexual thoughts and a desire to mutilate the abdomen and sexual organs. I am of opinion that the murder was performed by the same person who committed the former series of Whitechapel murder

There were no "subsequent mutilations", after the throat, McKenzie had a shallow cut approx. 7 inch long under one breast, some bruises, a few scratches and a small cut on the genitalia.

Your quote sound like Bond has exaggerated the wounds, or possibly confused the murder of McKenzie with someone else.

[Fiver]

I think everyone is forgetting the murders of Mckenzie and Coles which were attributed to the Ripper if they were then Druitt is cleared of any suspicion because he was long dead by the time those murders took place.

Then and now, people tend to support or discount Mackenzie and Coles based on whether the dates fit their suspect. Macnaghen, Dew, and Arnold discounted both. Reid thought both were Ripper victims. Munro thought Mackenzie was Ripper victim. Anderson discounted Mackenzie.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I highly doubt Mackenzie was a Ripper victim. There was a large gap between Mary Jane Kellys murder and the murder of Mackenzie.

I’ve always had my doubts but the last time that I expressed them it was suggested that I was trying to keep Druitt ‘in the game,” although I haven’t a clue why anyone should think that I’m somehow desperate for Druitt to have been proven guilty.

[Trevor Marriott]

Then and now, people tend to support or discount Mackenzie and Coles based on whether the dates fit their suspect. Macnaghen, Dew, and Arnold discounted both. Reid thought both were Ripper victims. Munro thought Mackenzie was Ripper victim. Anderson discounted Mackenzie.

If Reid thought they were both Ripper victims, then his opinions must be respected as he was actively engaged in the investigations.

I fail to see why some researchers keep wanting to prop up Druitt when the evidence they seek to prop him up with has proved to be unsafe

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Reid thought they were both Ripper victims, then his opinions must be respected as he was actively engaged in the investigations.

And perhaps you will give us your reasons why Dr. Phillips opinions shouldn’t be respected Trevor? Is it a case that when it comes to estimating a ToD Phillips was an ahead of his time genius, but when it comes to comparing injuries he was a bit of a duffer whose opinions can be discarded?

No witness or ‘expert’ is infallible. We have to acknowledge doubt. We should guard against over-confidence.

I fail to see why some researchers keep wanting to prop up Druitt when the evidence they seek to prop him up with has proved to be unsafe

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’m not trying to ‘prop him up’ Trevor, it just that it appears that most of us have more respect for what is actual evidence and what is just your opinion than you do. It doesn’t matter that some felt that she was a victim. Some felt that Smith was a victim too…do you agree on that one? Most felt that the killer wrote the graffito and discarded the apron in Goulston Street…do you agree on that one? Every single officer and doctor believed that the killer removed organs…do you agree on that one? If the answer to any of the above is “no,” and I know that’s the case, then perhaps you could answer the following question?

Why are ‘some people’ eager to cherrypick which opinion is ‘safe’ and which is ‘unsafe’ merely so that they can ‘dismiss’ a suspect?

[Fiver]

If Reid thought they were both Ripper victims, then his opinions must be respected as he was actively engaged in the investigations.

Reid also thought that Emma Smith and Martha Tabram were Ripper victims.

[John Wheat]

For me the opinions of those at the time don't hold that much weight. If they were that good the case would have been solved.

[John Wheat]

I’ve always had my doubts but the last time that I expressed them it was suggested that I was trying to keep Druitt ‘in the game,” although I haven’t a clue why anyone should think that I’m somehow desperate for Druitt to have been proven guilty.

I think I've been accused of this with Bury but I discounted Mackenzie as a Ripper victim on the evidence before I favoured Bury as a suspect.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Herlock,

Thanks for the information on James Ernest Monro.

Most family details concur with my findings.

I shall trawl through my stuff to discover how we managed to part company.

Thanks again.

Simon

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Simon. No problem.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Herlock,

Here's something I stumbled upon.

British Medical journal, 28 November 1992

James Ernest Monro FRCSED [Fellowship of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh].



Simon

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Here's something I stumbled upon.

British Medical journal, 28 November 1992

James Ernest Monro FRCSED [Fellowship of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh].



Simon

Thanks Simon.

[Wickerman]

If Reid thought they were both Ripper victims, then his opinions must be respected as he was actively engaged in the investigations.

Which sounds like a reasonable argument when taken in isolation, yet it is when we apply the same logic to other officials who were also involved in the case, like Anderson, Arnold & Macnaghten, we find all four had different opinions.
But of course, you being an ex-detective already know this, right?