Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    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



    I don't think he will get it, but it doesn't hurt to try.

    So Herlock, read the post above, it is very important, and you may learn something new and useful for you.

    And again, try to live with the facts, that the MM is full of errors, and that even MacNaghten's daughter didn't believe it.

    For me Philp Sugden opinions are better than some other lovely authors and researchers here and there, you have to live with that too! You are not doing them any good by just repeating their names without understanding the points arise.

    And now take a deep breath, read some books, maybe Sugden's, and let us know what he thought about MacNaghten, can you find the word Misleading somewhere?!

    You will learn.


    The Baron

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      One final post by me on this topic and that relates to how safe and reliable the MM is to rely on,

      As is known MM was not in the police at the time of the murders. So when asked to provide some form of written reply to the Sun suggestion re Cutbush, how did he set about gathering the information on the suspects he names. That could only have been by reviewing files, or what he was told. Clearly whether that was both or just one is not known. But what is known is that the information he gathered relating to Kosminski,Druitt and Ostrog which he put in that document was totally wrong and has proved to be wrong along with major errors with regards to Druitt.

      Paul Begg questions the timing of the Aberconway version if it was a draft for the original then the way it is formulated adds even more weight to the suggestion that it is unsafe. The AV contains more detailed information than the original because he exonerates two of his original suspects he gives no reasons, neither does he give any tangible reasons or explanations why he keeps Druitt, other than his strong opinion. Well opinions of ageing police officers in later years count for nothing in the grand scheme of things without some form of corroboration. These opinions cannot be backed up by the same old chestunt used, that they were there, so they must have known something for them to form their opinions, that term is a cop out used by those who want to believe without question that these officers opinions were correct, and when we look at them they all had different opinions so that says something for the value of those opinions.

      This was the biggest case the police had encountered I think that if they had suspicions then they would have acted on them, the police code gave officers the right to arrest a person on suspicion, yet none of their suspects were ever arrested on suspicion or it seems questioned for that matter.The main suspect file is missing, someone out there has it sitting in their draw, perhaps when it comes back into the public domain it might throw more light on the likely suspects that form a major part of this mystery.

      Are we entitled to draw inferences from what is written in The MM, and what we have we been able to prove, and disprove from its contents. The answer is yes we are entitled to draw such inferences, and the main inference that can be drawn is that it it unsafe and unreliable. Are we prepared to accept that given all the errors highlighted, we should readily accept the rest of what he says about Druitt without question, and look upon Druitt as real suspect or simply a person of interest because his name has been mentioned? Person of interest at best ,Not a suspect.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      I have neither the time nor the inclination to reply in detail to Trevor Marriott, so we can all join Trevor in breathing a large sigh of relief about that! I honestly don't want to be unkind, but he may have been a top murder squad detective, but he's utterly out of his depth when it comes to almost everything historical, and an example is his statement that 'they were there’ means that ’they must have known something’.

      When 'he was there' means is that the person was in a position to know what he was talking about. In the case of Macnaghten, that obviously means asking whether he would have been party to information implicating Druitt, if such information existed. This is just one of many questions asked of a source by those trying to establish its reliability. Trevor doesn't understand these basics of source analysis, so he thinks it's a ‘cop out used by those who want to believe without question…’ when in fact it's precisely the opposite.

      Comment


      • Hello Baron

        Here is the entirety of Abberline’s dismissal of the Druitt theory:

        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.”

        A Druittist could argue that this statement is patently false.

        Macnaghten (and Sims) state there was far more than the suicide that implicated Druitt (undisclosed “private information,” the suspicions of Druitt’s family, his alleged “sexual insanity)—none of which Abberline mentions, almost as if he was entirely unaware of it…

        Meanwhile, we have Farquharson making a strange statement about the son of a surgeon with blood on his clothing. Although Abberline claims that he “knows all about it,” one has to wonder if he actually knew anything about it…

        In his earlier posts, Wickerman even wonders if Abberline has his wires crossed and is referring to an entirely different suicide…

        So yes, Phil Sugden does indeed put great faith in Abberline and uses him to dismiss the Druitt theory (and to some extent, the Kosminski theory) but the question arises as to whether Abberline actually knew very much about either of those two “investigations.”

        After all, he was reassigned after 1888, and the suspicions against Druitt and Kosminski don’t appear to have solidified until a later date.




        Comment


        • Concerning Lawton's post-mortem accusations:

          Click image for larger version  Name:	Post-Mortem Accusations.JPG Views:	0 Size:	40.7 KB ID:	708807

          What's the old saying? "Dead men tell no tales..."

          Comment


          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
            Concerning Lawton's post-mortem accusations:

            Click image for larger version Name:	Post-Mortem Accusations.JPG Views:	0 Size:	40.7 KB ID:	708807

            What's the old saying? "Dead men tell no tales..."

            Exactly!

            And that includes Druitt too!


            Thank you

            The Baron

            Comment


            • Originally posted by The Baron View Post

              And that includes Druitt too!
              It almost--but not quite--includes Abberline's own suspect, Severin Klosowski.

              Abberline muses about Klosowski being the Ripper in two interviews given at the end of March, 1903, directly after Klosowski's conviction.

              Barely a week later, on April 7th, the Poisoning Pole does the dance of death at the end of a rope in Wandsworth Prison, thus quickly joining Druitt, Feigenbaum, 'John Anderson,' Thomas Neil Cream, etc. etc. on the other side of the River Styx.

              Had Abberline's peers at Scotland Yard actually believed there was any validity to his theory, they could have requested a stay of execution and investigated the matter thoroughly.

              But no one seems to have been particularly interested in doing that.

              They weren't interested, because they didn't put any faith in Abberline's theory.

              Comment


              • 1903—

                “I know all about that story," said Abberline. "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.”

                "A report was made to the Home Office about the matter, but that it was 'considered final and conclusive' is going altogether beyond the truth."

                Abberline went on to posit that JtR had emigrated; also, that after the student/young doctor's body was found, Scotland Yard was advised to hold itself in readiness for further [Ripper] investigations.

                In 1903, G.R. Sims contradicted Abberline—

                “‘Jack the Ripper’ committed suicide after his last murder - a murder so maniacal that it was accepted at once as the deed of a furious madman. It is perfectly well known at Scotland Yard who ‘Jack’ was, and the reasons for the police conclusions were given in the report to the Home Office, which was considered by the authorities to be final and conclusive."

                In advancing their respective 1903 theories, Abberline and Sims both cited a report sent to the Home Office. Major Griffiths had not mentioned such a report in his 1898 book; but as he, Abberline and Sims all repeated the “drowned doctor” error it becomes apparent that, one way or another, the source of all their bogus information had been the Macnaghten memorandum.
                Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  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


                  I’m on the same planet as the proper historians and researchers on this thread. This is very, very, very simple Trevor. Pleeeeese try and allow to sink in before we all die.

                  No one can corroborate the alleged statement that Feigenbaum gave to Lawton. No one. Comprendez?

                  Added to this inarguable fact we have your own words Trevor. Feigenbaum was a compulsive liar.

                  Add these to the fact that Lawton went to the press rather than the police

                  and what do we have?

                  We have an alleged confession that only one person heard made by a compulsive liar who knew that it was overwhelmingly likely that he was going to hang.

                  a) why should anyone give this a moments credence (anymore than Neil Cream allegedly saying “I am Jack the...” on the scaffold?)

                  b) the fact that just because in the alleged confession Feigenbaum said that he was in London, and he did visit London after the murders) does not corroborate the confession in any way. At best it says that it wouldn’t have been impossible for CF to have been in London at the time. And by the way - Druitt was definitely in London.

                  Uncorroborated.

                  The Macnaghten Memorandum exists. We know that it was written by Mac at the time that it’s purported to have been written - I just thought I’d establish that.

                  Mac doesn’t specifically say how he got his private info but we know that it led him to strongly favour Druitt and that he said that Druitt’s own family, at the very least, had very strong suspicions.

                  So Unless this was a confession by Monty (and it could have been) we might assume that it was either - family member to Mac or family member to intermediary to Mac.

                  So either the family made it up or were mistaken. The intermediary made it up or was mistaken. Or Mac made it up or was mistaken.

                  Or that they were all being truthful.

                  1) Does anyone believe that a family would make up a story about one of their own being a serial killer - no, we can reasonably discount that.

                  2) Could they have been mistaken? It’s difficult to see how as they were living miles apart. Also, what set of circumstances might appear to point to someone being a serial killer when they are no such thing? - so unlikely.

                  3) Why would an intermediary like Majendie make up something like this about a family that he had connections too? - He wouldn’t.

                  4) what could he have learned from the family that would mistakenly lead him to believe that Monty was the ripper? - Can’t think of anything.

                  5. Mac made it up. Why would he? He could have left the MM at two suspects (no-one demanded three.) He could have chosen from a list of disposable rippers instead of the unlikely Druitt for a memo headed for his superiors. - The idea that Mac made this up is risible.

                  6) That Mac was mistaken. - Errors occur of course. You can get a date wrong, or an age or an occupation, or someone’s height but it’s a bit more involved to mistakenly name someone as a likely Jack the Ripper in an official Memorandum written for his superiors by someone as senior as Mac. Do we really think that Mac cared so little for his reputation?


                  There is easily enough here for Macnaghten’s Memorandum not to be dismissed. Unless you’re utterly and hopelessly biased of course.
                  Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 05-07-2019, 06:40 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


                    I don't think he will get it, but it doesn't hurt to try.

                    I’ll give an honestly held opinion unlike you who a) just parrots what Trevor says and b) is a proven liar.

                    So Herlock, read the post above, it is very important, and you may learn something new and useful for you.

                    I’ll never learn anything listening to you and Inspector Gadget

                    And again, try to live with the facts, that the MM is full of errors, and that even MacNaghten's daughter didn't believe it.

                    Will you stop blathering on about Macnaghten’s bloody daughter. She plays no part in this. Her opinion, like yours, means nothing.

                    For me Philp Sugden opinions are better than some other lovely authors and researchers here and there, you have to live with that too! You are not doing them any good by just repeating their names without understanding the points arise.

                    “lOvely authors and researchers” ha. Ones that you continually accuse of not knowing what they’re talking about. You understand nothing and every post that you make demonstrates that. You are a parrot. And a dishonest one.

                    And now take a deep breath, read some books, maybe Sugden's, and let us know what he thought about MacNaghten, can you find the word Misleading somewhere?!

                    I’ve read Sugden’s book amongst over 300 others. I’d like to know how many books on the subject that you’ve read. The evidence is that it’s not many. 3, 4 fewer? But you don’t need to as you can just agree with Trevor.

                    You will learn.

                    Unfortunately you won’t learn because you don’t have the honesty to view things objectively. You are dishonest. But we all know that.

                    The Baron
                    Few posters can maintain such a level of low content posts. Quite an achievement. It’s a pity that it’s your only achievement though.
                    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

                      Few posters can maintain such a level of low content posts. Quite an achievement. It’s a pity that it’s your only achievement though.




                      The Baron

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by The Baron View Post





                        The Baron
                        Please tell me that you don’t think that I was being complimentary?
                        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

                          I’ve read Sugden’s book amongst over 300 others.

                          Who would have thought?!


                          Comment


                          • And just in case Trevor might have misunderstood me (and he might have.) I’m not talking about corroborating the contents of the “confession.” Although there is no corroboration for the contents.

                            Im saying that there’s no corroboration that this “confession” ever really occurred. And the fact that Lawton went to the press rather than the police speaks of an agenda. And when we add this to the fact that the person allegedly making it was a compulsive liar shouldn’t fill anyone with confidence.

                            Except Baron maybe.
                            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


                              Who would have thought?!

                              I notice that you haven’t answered my question regarding how much you’ve read on the case Baron. I certainly don’t considered myself an expert but you appear to consider your opinions more valid than others. Why is that?
                              Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 05-07-2019, 07:08 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


                              • Hey Herlock and The Baron,

                                Enough already.

                                Would you girls please go and get a room?

                                Regards,

                                Simon
                                Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X