What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[Sam Flynn]

I still come back to this question:

Why did Sir Melville Macnaghen name Druitt as a very likely suspect if he didn't genuinely believe that he had good reason to do so?

Perhaps Macnaghten favoured the "suicide" theory for the cessation of the Ripper murders and, given that he firmly saw Mary Kelly as the last of five victims, a reputedly "sexually insane" man who killed himself shortly after her murder would have been a strong candidate from Macnaghten's POV. Also, his (incorrect) belief that Druitt was a medic would only have helped to support his candidacy, given that the Ripper was thought by some to have possessed anatomical knowledge and/or skills. Seen from this perspective, Druitt would have ticked quite a number of boxes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why did he name Ostrog when he had no good reason to do so?!


The Baron

Because he was a criminal. He didn’t matter to Mac indeed he had specific reason to dislike him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Perhaps Macnaghten favoured the "suicide" theory for the cessation of the Ripper murders and, given that he firmly saw Mary Kelly as the last of five victims, a reputedly "sexually insane" man who killed himself shortly after her murder would have been a strong candidate from Macnaghten's POV. Also, his (incorrect) belief that Druitt was a medic would only have helped to support his candidacy, given that the Ripper was thought by some to have possessed anatomical knowledge and/or skills. Seen from this perspective, Druitt would have ticked quite a number of boxes.

But with all of the resources that would have been available him he could have easily picked someone “more likely” in terms of a known criminal or someone that had violence in his history or insanity that would have ticked even more of the boxes. And that persons movements would have been far less traceable or provable than Druitt. Then we have to ask, just to pick someone that died after Kelly, would he have been willing to impose such shame on a respectable family and a family that one of his best friend’s had a connection to?

[Joshua Rogan]

Because he was a criminal. He didn’t matter to Mac indeed he had specific reason to dislike him.

Sounds like you're saying he was being fitted up as a possible Ripper simply because he robbed Mac's old school...

[Herlock Sholmes]

I like these interesting snippets of info. This one was discovered by Paul Begg in the memoirs of a Vice Admiral H.L.Fleet:

““....The Heath itself had a bad reputation after dark. When we lived there formerly it was considered dangerous, for the terrible series of crimes committed by Jack The Ripper were then being perpetrated, and many people believed that he lived in Blackheath.””

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sounds like you're saying he was being fitted up as a possible Ripper simply because he robbed Mac's old school...

Not really Joshua but I take your point. It might explain why he was on his radar though. And yes he might have considered him expendable as far as his reputation went and this may have been personal.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, it may have been pure dumb luck but given he's sticking around to make mutilations, he does seem very lucky indeed, if he was under the illusion he had plenty of time.

I dont see why he was under any illusion Sean. He did what he did in the time that he had available. If he’d heard footsteps then he’d stop what he was doing and go. I don’t think that the ripper was saying - ok I’ve now got 7 minutes before the next Constable gets here.

[Sam Flynn]

But with all of the resources that would have been available him he could have easily picked someone “more likely” in terms of a known criminal or someone that had violence in his history or insanity that would have ticked even more of the boxes.

Not if he was a firm adherent of the "suicide" theory for the cessation of the Ripper murders, unless there was a known criminal who committed suicide shortly after the "awful glut" in Miller's Court.

Interestingly, Abberline seems to have liked "the Ripper moved away" theory, which would explain why he favoured Klosowski; specifically citing the "fact" of Ripper-like murders in the US when Klosowski moved there. To complete the jigsaw, Anderson seems to have favoured the "locked up" theory, which may have influenced his advocacy of Kosminski as the Ripper.

In summary, it may have been a desire for closure - i.e. an explanation of why the Ripper murders ended, and why they never caught him - which drove these three prominent officials to favour the suspects they did, each for different reasons.

[Sam Flynn]

Then we have to ask, just to pick someone that died after Kelly, would he have been willing to impose such shame on a respectable family and a family that one of his best friend’s had a connection to?

As you know, I don't have a big issue with that. Besides, the simple fact of the matter is that, despite the tenuous family connection and the potential shame/fame he might have brought to the family, Macnaghten went ahead and named Druitt anyway.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It may not be in isolation a massive coincidence that the murders of Emma Smith, Nichols, Eddowes, McKenzie, Coles and the dumping of the Pinchin Street torso all took place within a short time frame on a police beat and in each case the perpetrators managed to make a clean getaway without being seen, all in the space of three years - and in that time not a single murder where someone is caught by officer on the beat. In every case, except Coles, the police saw no-one.
Did the perpetrators definitely know the beats, watch for it or have a look out - no, we don't know that. But we can consider it - I think the police considered it to be a possibility at the time and this was part of the reason a pardon was offered to an accomplice.

In the case of the McKenzie murder, if this was a crime of passion or a robbery that went wrong, not only was the attacker in luck with the time window this all happened in, but they took an astonishing risk by sticking around to try to disguise the crime as something else.

The beat officers certainly seem to have a knack of just missing the action.



Yes, it may have been pure dumb luck but given he's sticking around to make mutilations, he does seem very lucky indeed, if he was under the illusion he had plenty of time.



Which is precisely my point. In the recognised Ripper crimes, no-one hears anything much as with McKenzie. Possibly the killer over-powered the victims before they could cry out or he managed to convince them to stay somewhat quiet by some ruse until it was too late. In the case of Annie Chapman a witness may have heard her gently say 'No' during the attack and some believe Mary Kelly said 'Oh Murder' not very loud. If these women thought they were being murdered, one might expect them to fight for their lives, scream or try to defend themselves. Yet there's scant evidence of that in all these cases - including McKenzie.
Which reminds me of another point of evidence with McKenzie. The cuts to the throat were made whilst she was on the ground. Her killer already had her in a compromising position.



He did not make two not very deep cuts. He made two deep cuts to throat starting from the same wound. He made a 'not very deep' long wound along the abdomen. He also made seven or eight scratches from the navel towards the genitals and there was a cut to the mons veneris, which does seem to indicate a sexual attack. I assume the seven or eight scratches are the ones you mean? - as these are made around the genitals, these may well be sexual mutilations. Notably, a shorter knife is used which may account for superficial nature of the injuries.
It's assumed that in the Ripper crimes, the intent was to mutilate but we don't 'know' this. The desire may have been simply to cut. We don't know the reasons for the mutilations and may never know.



We can't be certain and may never be certain. I'm applying a form a Bayesian logic though and based on the attack on McKenzie being a Ripper murder, being connected to the previous crimes but carried out by another hand, some form of copycat or the similarities being purely a coincidence there are four possibilities.
I guess I put like 75% likelihood it is a Ripper killing, 10% a related other hand, 5% it's a coincidence and about 10% it's a copycat. Overall I consider it more likely it is connected and therefore Druitt is unlikely.

Maybe I can't rule out Druitt but I can't rule out Lewis Carroll either. Can't rule out isn't evidence and there isn't much actual evidence against Druitt. Macnaghten claimed he had it but destroyed it, a claim I consider with some scepticism.
Each of senior officers on the case when asked all gave an answer broadly like ‘sure, we know exactly who he was, he was {different suspect} and we couldn’t close the case because reasons’ and given they each suggest different suspects and for example an officer who clearly worked the case, William Thick, was willing to state they had no idea who the Ripper was, it is surely reasonable to treat the claims of the likes of Macnaghten and Anderson with some scepticism.

Yes, it is reasonable to take Druitt’s candidature as the basis for further research and perhaps new research might reveal something more tangible to connect Druitt with the crimes or with Whitechapel. But in the absence of new evidence, Druitt remains a weak suspect.

The final point that I’d make is simply this Sean.

Youve looked into what we know, weighed things up and arrived at an honest conclusion. My issue is with those that say that Mackenzie was definitely a ripper victim (that’s its proven beyond any doubt) and so we can categorically exonerate Druitt. That’s dishonest. There are posters on here that don’t feel that Druitt is a good suspect but they at least remain open to some extent. Over confidence is the continuing issue for me.

[Joshua Rogan]

Not really Joshua but I take your point. It might explain why he was on his radar though. And yes he might have considered him expendable as far as his reputation went and this may have been personal.

So you're not averse to the idea of Mac letting personal feelings affect his judgement?
Do we know if he played cricket? Maybe a young Monty once bowled Mac out for a duck in a Winchester vs Old Etonians match?

[The Baron]

So you're not averse to the idea of Mac letting personal feelings affect his judgement?
Do we know if he played cricket? Maybe a young Monty once bowled Mac out for a duck in a Winchester vs Old Etonians match?

Exactly Joshua! studying MacNaghten tells he was not expierenced, didn't do the slightest of investigations concerning his so called 'suspects' and your idea explains perfectly why MacNaghten mentioned Druitt on his list, ah almost forgot, even Macnaghten"s daughter rejected his claims!


The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

So you're not averse to the idea of Mac letting personal feelings affect his judgement?
Do we know if he played cricket? Maybe a young Monty once bowled Mac out for a duck in a Winchester vs Old Etonians match?

Mac was certainly a huge cricket fan.

All im saying is simply - Kosminski was a lunatic, Ostrog was a criminal (easy suspects to name without comebacks) Druitt was different. I find it almost impossible to believe that Mac would have simply picked Druitt to fill a gap just because of when he died.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Exactly Joshua! studying MacNaghten tells he was not expierenced, didn't do the slightest of investigations concerning his so called 'suspects' and your idea explains perfectly why MacNaghten mentioned Druitt on his list, ah almost forgot, even Macnaghten"s daughter rejected his claims!


The Baron

Another dim witted post. You keep pointlessly blathering on about Macnaghten’s daughter as if that’s in anyway significant. Do you really think that he discussed sensitive cases with his daughter? It’s a pity that we don’t have the thoughts of Macnaghten’s milk man or perhaps he spilled the beans to his wife’s maid over a pint of Guinness and a game of dominoes?

Macnaghten’s experience is utterly irrelevant.You don’t have to be an experienced police officer before you’ll stop believing anything that you’re told without weighing it up.

Studying Macnaghten!!! That’s a joke. You haven’t even read any relevant books on Druitt (probably because they don’t do a pop-up version). All that you do is jump in and out of the thread saying ““well done”” to anyone that appears to confirm your hopelessly biased opinions.

Druitt remains a suspect despite your delusional posts and opinions.

[Sam Flynn]

Druitt was different. I find it almost impossible to believe that Mac would have simply picked Druitt to fill a gap just because of when he died.

I don't think Macnaghten picked Druitt to fill a gap, Herlock. I think he picked him because he genuinely believed him to be a strong suspect (noun), and I suspect (verb) that this was because MM favoured a particular explanation as to why the Ripper was never caught. This could only have been reinforced by the fact that MM believed that Druitt was sexually insane, had medical knowledge, and that he had it on reliable authority that Druitt's family thought he was the Ripper. Strangely enough, criminals/lunatics though we know they were, we can't say as much about Ostrog or Kosminski.