Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by John G View Post
    Is there any evidence that he did rent a room? The Yorkshire Ripper targeted victims over Yorkshire, Greater Manchester and Lancashire. Granted, a relatively small range, but vast compared with JtR's 1 square mile.[/QUOTE]

    I think that the point Wickerman is making is that if Druitt did rent a room then why would we expect to find evidence of this? These people letting out spare rooms wouldn’t have had a guest book or anything like. We can’t know that Druitt did rent a room of course John but he might have done. That’s the best that we can say of course.

    Regards

    Herlock






    "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

    Comment


    • What they dont do is commit suicide when theyre in no immediate danger of being caught.
      Hi Abby,

      Id just say that we don’t know that Druitt killed himself because he felt that he was about to be caught. It may just have been due to a rapid deterioration in his mental health. Or maybe, if his family knew or suspected that he was guilty then he wanted to spare them the shame and did the ‘honourable’ thing?
      Regards

      Herlock






      "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

        Jeff,
        I'd just note that whilst suspect can mean someone who should be investigated, it can also mean someone who has been investigated but against whom proof is lacking. Macnaghten could have been identifying Druitt as someone who might repay investigation, or he could be saying that Druitt had been investigated and (in Macnaghten's opinion) was likely but could not be proved to have been the murderer. Now, if Druitt was someone worthy of investigation, that would put him on a par with any other individual similarly worth investigating, but Druitt was on a list of three, two of whom Macnaghten was inclined to exonerate, or otherwise remove from suspicion, in favour of Druitt. Don't you think that suggests that Druitt was elevated from someone who should be investigated to someone who had been investigated and against whom there was evidence to which Macnaghten gave long and careful consideration?
        Hi Paul,

        I'm not so sure that Druitt was preferred because of the outcome of an investigation. There's something about the wording about how his opinions grow over time, etc, that strikes me as someone who has been given some tantalizing suggestive information (the family suspicions) and then there's his suicide, and so forth. And that, in part because of the lack of any substantial leads anywhere else, just sort of developed into a conviction (hunch if you will) over time. Like many investigating JtR today, with little to go on, convictions grow as we convince ourselves we've connected the dots, but forget we've put most of the dots there ourselves because most of the page is actually blank. Also, he later indicates he's destroyed the information, presumably letters with regards to the private information, so it couldn't have been in official police files as evidence from an investigation. If there had been an official investigation into Druitt, I also think there would be some record of it discovered by now, remnants of the paper trail, a letter of communication with HO, or something tangible that shows an investigation was done. I'm sure people have looked for the paper trail, but until evidence of it shows up, it looks like MacNaghton was stating his personal view based mostly on the circumstances of Druitt's death, coupled with being told his family had suspicions, rather than something derived from a subsequent police investigation into Druitt. In fact, if there had been one, I think the MM would have mentioned it in some way (we have ongoing investigations into a number of promising leads ... type thing, but the absence of any mention of evidence coming from an actual investigation, and only mentioning private information he seems to have received personally, makes me unwilling to assume there was one. There could have been one, of course, but that means there could have not been one too. But if we assume there was one, should we assume they found something incriminating or should we assume they found nothing but couldn't quite exclude him completely? Which dots will we put on the blank page? I guess I see the "His personal view was more of a hunch/gut feeling" (because to me that's how it reads to me, I think he's just saying this one seems right to me) as the starting point, and we need evidence to claim otherwise (i.e. found a paper trail into Druitt, indicating there was an investigation and it mentions strong evidence was found, etc, then yes, we can revise that starting point. Oh, and since I'm making wishes now, I also want a pony.

        - Jeff

        Comment


        • Originally posted by John G View Post

          Hi Abby,

          wasn't Kemper arrested a few months after his last murder? Of course, we dont know who the Golden State Killer is, although someone has now been charged with the crimes. It looks as though this might be a rare example of a serial killer who simply stopped.

          I agree they don't commit suicide. The police at the time understandably had a poor understanding of the criminal mind, and took the view that the killer's mind must have given way after the Kelly murder. I think in hindsight that's a very unlikely scenario.
          Hi john
          kemper turned himself in after his last murder. He had to convince the police it was him. DeAngelo is the gsk the dna proves it beyond a doubt. Its not common but serial killers do sometimes just stop on there own.
          "Is all that we see or seem
          but a dream within a dream?"

          -Edgar Allan Poe


          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

          -Frederick G. Abberline

          Comment


          • One final post by me on this topic and that relates to how safe and reliable the MM is to rely on,
            Its safer than Feigenbaum’s ‘confession’ Trevor. You constant disregard this point with diversionary statements “like read my book.” Well I have read it.

            Yet again I’ll point out for those that haven’t read it.

            Feigenbaum allegedly confessed to his Lawyer Lawton whilst he was in the cells.

            a) No one else heard this confession and so it’s based purely on the word of Lawton. No corroboration.

            b) It was a confession from a man that, in his book, Trevor describes as a “compulsive liar.”

            c) Did the Lawyer go to the police with this ‘confession?’ No, he went to the press. This strongly points to the fact that the Lawyer was more interested in publicity rather than justice. Not a great thing to have on the resumé of a Lawyer.

            Im aware that this isn’t a Feigenbaum thread but the point that I keep trying to make is simply this: how the hell is Feigenbaum’s alleged, uncorroborated confession, a confession made by a compulsive liar to Lawyer that we know next-to-nothing about apart from the fact that he appeared to be more interested in publicity than justice, more reliable that the Macnaghten Memorandum? Which was penned by the second most senior police officer in the country. A man that was regarded in the highest esteem by all that knew and worked with him (from James Munro to the Constables on the ground.) How far down the rabbit-hole have we fallen? Does this mean that we should automatically assume Macnaghten to have been correct? Of course not but we can’t just make blanket statements like the Memorandum isn’t worth the paper it’s written on? This cannot be asserted on a very few insignificant errors. If this was the case how many very good ripper books would we have to chuck into the bin? So again, why is the MM not worth the paper it’s written on and yet the alleged ‘confession’ by Feigenbaum is entirely valid? On what planet? The goal posts have a convenient habit of moving I think.
            Regards

            Herlock






            "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

              Hi john
              kemper turned himself in after his last murder. He had to convince the police it was him. DeAngelo is the gsk the dna proves it beyond a doubt. Its not common but serial killers do sometimes just stop on there own.
              Hi Abby,

              Thanks for this. I wasn't aware that Kemper had turned himself in. And it looks like they've caught the GSK. Out of interest, are there any recent crimes/murders he's suspected of?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by John G View Post

                Hi Abby,

                Thanks for this. I wasn't aware that Kemper had turned himself in. And it looks like they've caught the GSK. Out of interest, are there any recent crimes/murders he's suspected of?
                hi john
                his last known murder was in 86. they think he pretty much stopped around this time because of family/ having kids and while they are seeing if he can be connected to any other serious crimes, it dosnt look like there are. However, he is strongly suspected of peeping tom type stuff until very recently. another rarity but sometimes happens..de-escalation.
                "Is all that we see or seem
                but a dream within a dream?"

                -Edgar Allan Poe


                "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                -Frederick G. Abberline

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  Hi Abby,

                  Id just say that we don’t know that Druitt killed himself because he felt that he was about to be caught. It may just have been due to a rapid deterioration in his mental health. Or maybe, if his family knew or suspected that he was guilty then he wanted to spare them the shame and did the ‘honourable’ thing?
                  hi HS
                  well if I were you Id be arguing that he did kill himself because he thought he was going to be caught! LOL. because that's the more common way it happens-they know theyre busted so they kill themselves.

                  Im not sure if there have been any serial killer whos killed themselves because of mental issues, (and who was not about to be caught). at least I haven't heard of any.
                  "Is all that we see or seem
                  but a dream within a dream?"

                  -Edgar Allan Poe


                  "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                  quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                  -Frederick G. Abberline

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    Its safer than Feigenbaum’s ‘confession’ Trevor. You constant disregard this point with diversionary statements “like read my book.” Well I have read it.

                    Yet again I’ll point out for those that haven’t read it.

                    Feigenbaum allegedly confessed to his Lawyer Lawton whilst he was in the cells.

                    a) No one else heard this confession and so it’s based purely on the word of Lawton. No corroboration.

                    b) It was a confession from a man that, in his book, Trevor describes as a “compulsive liar.”

                    c) Did the Lawyer go to the police with this ‘confession?’ No, he went to the press. This strongly points to the fact that the Lawyer was more interested in publicity rather than justice. Not a great thing to have on the resumé of a Lawyer.

                    Im aware that this isn’t a Feigenbaum thread but the point that I keep trying to make is simply this: how the hell is Feigenbaum’s alleged, uncorroborated confession, a confession made by a compulsive liar to Lawyer that we know next-to-nothing about apart from the fact that he appeared to be more interested in publicity than justice, more reliable that the Macnaghten Memorandum? Which was penned by the second most senior police officer in the country. A man that was regarded in the highest esteem by all that knew and worked with him (from James Munro to the Constables on the ground.) How far down the rabbit-hole have we fallen? Does this mean that we should automatically assume Macnaghten to have been correct? Of course not but we can’t just make blanket statements like the Memorandum isn’t worth the paper it’s written on? This cannot be asserted on a very few insignificant errors. If this was the case how many very good ripper books would we have to chuck into the bin? So again, why is the MM not worth the paper it’s written on and yet the alleged ‘confession’ by Feigenbaum is entirely valid? On what planet? The goal posts have a convenient habit of moving I think.
                    Do you not understand what corroboration and circumstantial evidence means? with Feigenbaum there is both, with Druitt there is neither, end of story !

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • And MacNaghten's daughter discredited him!

                      The MM is not reliable and full of errors.

                      Live with it.



                      The Baron

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        Do you not understand what corroboration and circumstantial evidence means? with Feigenbaum there is both, with Druitt there is neither, end of story !

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        You are clueless!

                        Feigenbaum’s comes from Lawton and no one else. There is no corroboration from anyone (except for Lawton) that this alleged confession occurred. And so we are being asked to trust the word of Lawton. Why should we?

                        Macnaghten said that he received information that the family believed/suspected him of being the ripper. For all we know this info could have come directly from a family member. Equally it could have come from someone with access to the family (Majendie for example.)

                        Why should we trust the word of Lawton but dismiss out of hand the word of Sir Melville Macnaghten? (Unless you’re promoting Feigenbaum as a suspect of course.)

                        This is not an honest approach.

                        End of story.
                        Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 05-07-2019, 01:55 PM.
                        Regards

                        Herlock






                        "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
                          And MacNaghten's daughter discredited him!

                          The MM is not reliable and full of errors.

                          Live with it.



                          The Baron
                          And you are equally clueless and simply keep parrotting what Trevor says. As usual.

                          I don’t have to live with it. The comments of a poster that has been shown to be dishonest carries no weight. A dishonest person is not reliable. That you can be so utterly desperate as to mention Macnaghten’s daughter is laughable. That fact you appear to believe that you understand this case better than Paul Begg is frankly pathetic. You have no understanding or thoughts of your own.

                          Go and sit with Trevor and you can see which of you can talk the most nonsense.

                          Druitt remains a suspect. Logic, reason and open mindedness demand that he remain one.

                          Live with it.
                          Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 05-07-2019, 01:57 PM.
                          Regards

                          Herlock






                          "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                            hi HS
                            well if I were you Id be arguing that he did kill himself because he thought he was going to be caught! LOL. because that's the more common way it happens-they know theyre busted so they kill themselves.

                            Im not sure if there have been any serial killer whos killed themselves because of mental issues, (and who was not about to be caught). at least I haven't heard of any.
                            Hello Abby.

                            Unlike The Baron I will admit when I’ve made an error

                            I misread one of your previous posts. I thought that you’d said that killers don’t kill themselves when they feel that they’re about to be captured. I’ve only been reading for 50 years so you’ll have to make allowances.
                            Regards

                            Herlock






                            "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              Hello Abby.

                              Unlike The Baron I will admit when I’ve made an error

                              I misread one of your previous posts. I thought that you’d said that killers don’t kill themselves when they feel that they’re about to be captured. I’ve only been reading for 50 years so you’ll have to make allowances.
                              LOL! HS if as Abberline said in his interview (and or there are any other sources) for the possibility that Druitt was being looked at by police in 88, then if Druitt caught wind of it and was the reason (or part of the reason) he killed himself then that would make more sense given what we know about serial killers and when/why they commit suicide. Like I said I have never heard of one before that has killed himself due to mental issues only (without also being worried that theyre about to be busted.)
                              "Is all that we see or seem
                              but a dream within a dream?"

                              -Edgar Allan Poe


                              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                              -Frederick G. Abberline

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                You are clueless!

                                Feigenbaum’s comes from Lawton and no one else. There is no corroboration from anyone (except for Lawton) that this alleged confession occurred. And so we are being asked to trust the word of Lawton. Why should we?

                                Macnaghten said that he received information that the family believed/suspected him of being the ripper. For all we know this info could have come directly from a family member. Equally it could have come from someone with access to the family (Majendie for example.)

                                Why should we trust the word of Lawton but dismiss out of hand the word of Sir Melville Macnaghten? (Unless you’re promoting Feigenbaum as a suspect of course.)

                                This is not an honest approach.

                                End of story.
                                What planet are you on? because its not this one Its not about playing one against the other, as you seem to be doing. MM received information from a source, that source was not first hand and not from the person it related to. Lawton was told stuff first hand from the person it related to. MM`s information stops with him, and cannot be corroborated or shown he acted on it. All the follow up enquiries into what lawton was told and said about Feigenbaum have revealed circumstantial evidence which tends to corroborate what Lawton said.

                                Now change the record!

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk



                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X