Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post

    Hello Paul

    Thank you for your reply. Appreciated.
    Yes, I feared as much re the London Doctor, and suspected as much re Bachert. Thank you for the confirmation.

    You did not however answer the last question.
    From where does the name Karmonski derive?

    I believe, forgive my absent minded memory, that I've seen this name mentioned elsewhere re the memoranda? I may be wrong.
    I note the spelling.. With an R on it, not Kaminski


    Phil
    Hi Phil.
    My copies of McCormick are in storeag, so I can't look at what he wrote, and I don't recall 'Kaminski' off hand. I think McCormick heard about the memorandum from either Farson or Cullen when they did a TV show together, so maybe it's what McCormick heard rather than saw written down. I had a chance to meet McCormick years ago, but didn't take the opportunity, and sadly no other opportunity presented itself. A quiet regret.

    Comment


    • Abby.

      Thanks for the welcome post #1022 and your thoughts on Druitt.

      I've personally never even considered Druitt or Kosminski as suspects.
      For me I think of them as kind of 'default' suspects in the absence of anyone better.

      But hey, who knows?

      ++

      Baron, thanks for your comments re my initial post.

      I note your point that if Mckenzie was a ripper victim then that rules out Druitt.
      Ironically (and uncomfortably), as far as who to include as victims I tend
      believe MM as to his canonical five proposal but not his Druitt as JTR proposal.

      ++

      Just one possible take I have on Druitt's candidacy:

      JTR was a "son of a surgeon".

      JTR's and Druitt's family both had members of the family in the same professions:
      Medical/Legal/Church/Army ie the stereotypical sample of middle-class professions
      within some victorian middle-class families.

      One of the common professions between JTR and Druitt would provide avenues
      of communications that allowed Druitt to learn of JTR's identity.

      Druitt gave indication he would name JTR.
      JTR killed Druitt to silence him because he learnt of Druitt's knowledge
      through the same/similar communication channels. IOW I think Druitt could have
      been 'suicided'.

      When MM came to write his memo, Druitt provided another convenient
      suspect, along with Kosminki and Ostrog to work up his memo which
      was only intended as a political piece to defend against the Sun's
      stalking horse suspect ie Cutbush. Eventually, the memo was re-purposed
      to provide content for Griffiths and MM's books and thus turning Druitt
      into a more concrete suspect than he was intended to be originally.

      I think Farquarshon was playing the same game. That is, if anyone
      had heard rumours about JTR being a son of a surgeon, anyone really in the know
      could point to Druitt as JTR, knowing he was not going to contradict them.

      William Druitt overtly accepted the 'suicide' of his brother, basically to protect himself.
      This seems a reasonable decision in this scenario.

      Martyn







      Write something...

      Comment


      • Hi Jon,

        1. All five murders were no doubt committed by the same hand". (ie; Bucks Row, Hanbury Street, Berner Street, Mitre Square, Dorset Street).

        How did Dr. Bond reach this conclusion?

        Regards,

        Simon
        Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by John G View Post

          But you could make that argument against any suspect. For instance, James Kelly was on the run from Broadmoor, and was familiar with the East End of London, so Whitechapel would have been an obvious place for him to hide out.
          So what is wrong with that, if it works for James Kelly why not for Druitt?

          The reality is: Druitt had no known association with Whitechapel.
          He had no known association with Blackheath school, until researchers uncovered the fact.
          We knew nothing about Druitt; not his cricket matches, not his skill at playing 'fives', not his donation to the underprivileged in Whitechapel, nothing, until someone looked.

          Can you name one suspect where accusations are not highly speculative?

          Furthermore, there can be no doubt that the killer was psychologically committed to the local area.
          Whatever that is supposed to mean...

          He didn't even extend the tiny geographical area where he was active, even when it would have made sense to do so, i.e. on account of the greatly increased police presence. Why then would a man like Druitt, who had no known association to Whitechapel, and who could easily have targeted victims over a much wider area, be so committed to the location?
          Questions, are not answers.
          Only answers can weaken a theory, not questions.
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post

            Hello Jon,

            Thank you at least for replying.

            It still doesn't answer the questions asked.

            Who was this London doctor,
            And where does McCormick derive the Karminski name from in the first place?

            I've a reason for asking both questions. That's why I'm asking them.


            Phil
            Hi Phil.

            I can't answer the questions, which is what I was alluding to - perhaps no-one can.
            Maybe the doctor never existed?

            I suspect you may need to provide both questions & answers, maybe you are the only person who can provide both?

            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
              Hi Jon,

              1. All five murders were no doubt committed by the same hand". (ie; Bucks Row, Hanbury Street, Berner Street, Mitre Square, Dorset Street).

              How did Dr. Bond reach this conclusion?

              Regards,

              Simon
              What I replied with was point 1, of 11 points.
              All the subsequent 10 points (1-11) in his report are intended to justify how he reached that conclusion, aren't they?
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • .
                Furthermore, there can be no doubt that the killer was psychologically committed to the local area. He didn't even extend the tiny geographical area where he was active, even when it would have made sense to do so, i.e. on account of the greatly increased police presence. Why then would a man like Druitt, who had no known association to Whitechapel, and who could easily have targeted victims over a much wider area, be so committed to the location?
                Thats a bit of a bold statement John.

                As someone that didn’t live locally he would have found it easier to familiarise himself with a smaller area so he might have felt less confident over a wider one.

                Regards

                Herlock




                “ Herlock is the cleverest man that I’ve ever met.” - Stephen Hawking.
                “ I wish that I could have achieved half as much as Herlock.”- Neil Armstrong.
                “ What a voice Herlock has.” - Luciano Pavarotti.
                “ I wish that I could dump Harry for Herlock.” - Meghan Markle.
                “ I know that it’s not good to be jealous but I just can’t help it.” - John Holmes.

                Comment


                • Hi Jon,

                  Not really.

                  Dr. Bond only saw the medical evidence from the inquests on Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes. These had been sent to him in a letter from Robert Anderson dated 25th October 1888.

                  Bond wrote in his 10th November report, “In the four murders of which I have seen the notes only I cannot form a very definite opinion as to the time that had elapsed between the murder and the discovering of the body.

                  “In one case, that of Berner Street, the discovery appears to have been made immediately after the deed—In Buck’s Row, Hanbury Street, and Mitre Square three or four hours only could have elapsed."

                  I would suggest that Dr. Bond was woefully under-informed.

                  Regards,

                  Simon
                  Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                  Comment


                  • Hi Simon.

                    When it comes to medical opinion, everyone suffers from 'confirmation bias,' even Sir Robert Anderson.

                    The trick is to keep asking around until you find a physician that tells you what you want to hear.

                    It's how Donald Trump picked his personal quack, and it's how I picked mine. It took me years to find a doctor who believes drinking two or three pints of IPA every night is excellent for the health.

                    Being informed or under-informed is of minor importance.

                    All the best.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                      Hi Jon,

                      Not really.

                      Dr. Bond only saw the medical evidence from the inquests on Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes. These had been sent to him in a letter from Robert Anderson dated 25th October 1888.

                      Bond wrote in his 10th November report, “In the four murders of which I have seen the notes only I cannot form a very definite opinion as to the time that had elapsed between the murder and the discovering of the body.

                      “In one case, that of Berner Street, the discovery appears to have been made immediately after the deed—In Buck’s Row, Hanbury Street, and Mitre Square three or four hours only could have elapsed."

                      I would suggest that Dr. Bond was woefully under-informed.

                      Regards,

                      Simon
                      Hi Simon,

                      I think Dr. Bond's "3 or 4 hours only" statement is him indicating a maximum time range based solely on the information contained in the medical notes. Meaning, he's not precluding shorter intervals, which one could argue for based upon other sources of information. We know, for example, patrols of Mitre Square and Buck's Row preclude those intervals, but patrols are not medical information. He's not playing detective, he's reporting what the medical information allows for. Other sources of information not of a medical nature are for the police to factor in. He doesn't seem to indicate a minimum time, unless that's somewhere else in his report? So basically, for all but Stride I think he's saying "Anywhere from 0 to 3-4 hours is possible, medically speaking".

                      - Jeff

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                        Hi Jon,

                        Not really.

                        Dr. Bond only saw the medical evidence from the inquests on Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes. These had been sent to him in a letter from Robert Anderson dated 25th October 1888.

                        Bond wrote in his 10th November report, “In the four murders of which I have seen the notes only I cannot form a very definite opinion as to the time that had elapsed between the murder and the discovering of the body.

                        “In one case, that of Berner Street, the discovery appears to have been made immediately after the deed—In Buck’s Row, Hanbury Street, and Mitre Square three or four hours only could have elapsed."

                        I would suggest that Dr. Bond was woefully under-informed.

                        Regards,

                        Simon
                        Hi Simon.

                        When Bond writes about only seeing the notes, he is talking about the autopsy reports of the first four victims. Nothing to do with the inquests.
                        "Notes" is just the term surgeons use for what we call an autopsy report. He even begins his autopsy report of Kelly with the same term, he writes:
                        "Notes of examination of body of woman found murdered & mutilated in Dorset St."


                        I would agree Bond was less informed than Phillips, but Phillips was less inclined to speculate.
                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                          So basically, for all but Stride I think he's saying "Anywhere from 0 to 3-4 hours is possible, medically speaking".
                          I don't quite follow, Jeff.

                          Medically speaking, are you saying it's possible that "fresh looking" blood could have flowed from Polly Nichols' neck from anywhere between 0 and 4 hours?

                          I don't think so, unless you are trying to trigger a coronary in Fisherman.

                          So it makes no sense, medical or otherwise, not to have referred to the observations made at the crime scene if he was going to make this strange statement.

                          For that matter, why on earth would Bond even include these "discovery" estimates without referring to those who were at the scene? What is he even driving at, and what is the purpose of it? I'm with Simon. I never have understood this aspect of his report. The information was readily available, and would have been entirely relevant to any estimate of time of death, if that was his purpose.

                          Bond seems to be mainly interested in the nature of the mutilations, so it's unclear to me what the 'discovery of the body' has to do with it, unless he wants to give his mad butcher as much time as possible to have mucked around with the corpse.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                            I don't quite follow, Jeff.

                            Medically speaking, are you saying it's possible that "fresh looking" blood could have flowed from Polly Nichols' neck from anywhere between 0 and 4 hours?

                            I don't think so, unless you are trying to trigger a coronary in Fisherman.

                            So it makes no sense, medical or otherwise, not to have referred to the observations made at the crime scene if he was going to make this strange statement.

                            For that matter, why on earth would Bond even include these "discovery" estimates without referring to those who were at the scene? What is he even driving at, and what is the purpose of it? I'm with Simon. I never have understood this aspect of his report. The information was readily available, and would have been entirely relevant to any estimate of time of death, if that was his purpose.

                            Bond seems to be mainly interested in the nature of the mutilations, so it's unclear to me what the 'discovery of the body' has to do with it, unless he wants to give his mad butcher as much time as possible to have mucked around with the corpse.
                            Hi rjpalmer,

                            I don't think he had the crime scene information, or observations other than those made by the various doctors since he specifically indicates he's working from the medical notes. Given they didn't notice the abdominal wounds on Nichols until she was taken to the mortuary, it appears the examination at the crime scene was less extensive in that case than for subsequent ones. And, also, it wasn't the doctor who commented on seeing oozing blood but one of the police officers (PC Neil I think?), the doctor's observations may not have included that detail, so Bond wouldn't have it to consider. We know what observations other people made, but Dr. Bond wouldn't have had all of it in the medical notes.

                            - Jeff

                            Comment


                            • Hi Jeff, I realize Bond wouldn't have had all the information in the medical notes. Granted. But my point is why would he have broached the subject of "delay" without seeking out the relevant information? It would have been crucial. Simon said "underinformed," and to me, it almost looks as if Bond didn't bother to seek further information.

                              Yes, that sounds a little conspiratorial.

                              But recall that his opinion was commissioned by Anderson. And Anderson specifically stated that he wasn't happy with the existing medical opinions.

                              But a fairly LARGE part of those medical opinions (the alleged medical skill of the Ripper) was based on knowing, as closely as possible, the amount of time the Ripper had at his disposal, particularly at the Eddowes crime scene, but to some extent the Chapman and Nichols crime scenes.

                              If Bond was going to draw conclusions about the skill level of the Ripper, wouldn't he be required to have a better estimate of how much time the Ripper had than 0-4 hours? Can a surgeon operate at the same skill level in 5 minutes as he can in 4 hours?

                              So, in that respect, I agree with Simon. Although I think Simon is headed in a different direction, Bond's conclusions about the nature of the wounds was made independently of knowing precise details of the crime scene, and that is a serious--and strangely avoidable--drawback. Just my opinion. Have a good night.

                              Comment


                              • Oh, come along Jeff,

                                "three or four hours only . . ."

                                In that remark, Dr. Bond lit a squib under under one of Jack the Ripper’s signature trademarks—that of his victims being discovered just moments after their dispatch.

                                Regards,

                                Simon
                                Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X