What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[The Baron]

The dictionary defines a suspect as someone who is suspected. Druitt was suspected. If you have a different definition of 'suspect', as you obviously do, then give it. Then we'll all know what you mean.

A french writer Sophie Herfort has argued that Macnaghten himself was responsible for the Jack the Ripper murders!

Accurding to your definition, Macnaghten is a suspect too!



The Baron

[Sam Flynn]

Yes and history is there to be challenged, and not readily accepted as being the truth !

Nobody is saying we can't challenge Druitt's viability as Jack the Ripper, but what's beyond doubt is that Melville Macnaghten named him as a suspect, because he certainly did. In fact, we've actually got it in writing... and in triplicate - two versions of the Memorandum and Macnaghten's own autobiography. Given that video recording didn't exist back then, and audio recording was literally in its infancy, it really doesn't get much better than this, folks.

[rjpalmer]

I wonder if lack of curiosity ever killed the cat? The nay-sayers seem to lack a healthy curiosity; they are singularly uninterested in why this young barrister has made his way into an internal MEPO document, and why suspicions against him seem to have been independent of Macnaghten (as in Farquharson and perhaps others).

To them, it is simply all bullshite, and they are unwilling to even probe it's mysteries. Thinking about it in an intelligent way is less interesting to them than the satisfaction gained by simply shouting it down. (I don't put Simon in this group; he appears to be a special case).

Meanwhile, 'proof' is a tricky thing. It's so tricky that it was decided long ago that it should be left up to a judge and a jury to decide whether or not guilt has been established, and even then, sometimes the resulting decision is set aside as invalid (as in the Wallace case).

Further, 'evidence' and proof are not the same thing. There can be this murky thing called 'evidence' against a suspect, but it is left to the Treasury, the Crown Prosecution Service, the local District Attorney, etc., to decide whether it is sufficient to file charges, and to a jury whether it is strong enough to prove guilt. And sometimes it is then left up to a Court of Appeals to look at all over again.

There can certainly be 'evidence' against a suspect without charges ever being filed.

So it is rather shallow and meaningless to shout out 'there is no evidence!' against this or that suspect, particularly since we often don't know the nature of the suspicions or on what they were based, and whether or not some unknown factor may have influenced whether or not charges could be filed.

The more intelligent posters will recognize cases where a person has been charged and put on trial with very little valid evidence against them; they will also know of instances where there seemed to be an abundance of 'evidence' against this or that person, but, inexplicably, no charges were ever filed.

The law is a mysterious beast.

As Paul B notes, a suspect is a person against whom there is suspicion; if there was 'proof' (whatever that its; it depends on the district attorney and whether he or she is willing to risk a trial) the suspect would cease being a suspect. Instead, he or she would become a defendant, charged and be placed in the dock.

We have several suspects, but we have only one defendant, Sadler

(Though Grainger is an interesting case, and might make it in through the back door).

In the case of Druitt, the situation is complicated by the fact that the suspect drowned himself. He was dead before the 'evidence' (whatever it was) fully came to light, and since you can't place a dead man on trial, what may or may not have constituted 'evidence' against him became a rhetorical question. Nor could he be interrogated, etc. In the case of Kosminski, the claim seems to be that there was at least the beginning of a legal case, but the suspect was shuffled off to an asylum before it could be pursued; in the case of Sadler, the police thought he was guilty and the evidence was sufficient to file charges, but they were outmaneuvered by the defense, and Sadler was wrongly set free. (the police view)

There are certainly mysteries worth pursuing here, even if it is done in a skeptical light. If you don't find them interesting, there is a wide world out there, stamp collecting, football, gardening, cribbage, baking flatbread, politics, etc., etc.

[Sam Flynn]

I don't put Simon in this group; he appears to be a special case

I've often thought that, RJ





... just kidding, Simon

[rjpalmer]

It has never been answered to my satisfaction why Macnaghten even wrote this document.

The usual, flippant answer is that he wrote it for the benefit of the Home Office in case unpleasant questions rose due to The Sun articles about Cutbush.

But this is only a half-answer. In my experience, few organizations are this pro-active. The usually are reactionary...they react after-the-fact; they don't create a policy or a document 'just in case' something might happen.

Further, politicians very rarely get involved in a mere criminal case in less it has broader implications: a miscarriage of justice, claims of police wrongdoing, or in cases where some political leverage can be gained over their opponents; a way of embarrassing them.

There had been other Ripper 'flaps' in the 1890s; why, in this case, did it result in this document being written?

[PaulB]

Yes and history is there to be challenged, and not readily accepted as being the truth !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Do you have a point, Trevor? Maybe something original. Something that hasn't been answered a billion times already. Something relevant to the usage of jargon and terminology?

[PaulB]

A french writer Sophie Herfort has argued that Macnaghten himself was responsible for the Jack the Ripper murders!

Accurding to your definition, Macnaghten is a suspect too!



The Baron

Not my definition. It's the dictionary definition. Why don't you give your definition of 'suspect'? Your definition, whatever it is, seems to be the one that's different from most everyone else's.

[Simon Wood]

Hi RJ,

The Sun story was elaborate fiction.

T.P. O’'Connor, a political bruiser, was unscrupulously using the unnamed Thomas Hayne Cutbush, incarcerated at Broadmoor in April 1891 for jabbing girls in the buttocks, as a stalking horse with which to trigger an inquiry into the Whitechapel murders, an inquiry which would have exposed the deception of Jack the Ripper and embarrassed the Tory party, during whose watch the Whitechapel murders had taken place.

With a General Election just around the corner, it was a clever ploy. If an inquiry ensued, Scotland Yard would have had to demonstrate that the non-existent Jack the Ripper was not Thomas Hayne Cutbush, and in order to do that would have to further show that the non-existent Jack the Ripper was, or might have been, somebody else: somebody about whom nobody could agree. Consensus might have led to a demand for evidence, whereas uncertainty lent weight to the idea that Jack the Ripper may have conveniently died or been incarcerated before his identity was suspected, or perhaps been too shrewd for the police, avoided arrest and was possibly still at large.

The hurriedly-written and ill-thought-through Macnaghten Report was a knee-jerk reaction to the Sun story. Riddled with errors, it is impossible to imagine what possessed him to concoct it. Had an inquiry ensued it would not have withstood more than a moment’s scrutiny, especially as one of its three “more likely suspects” —the as then unaccounted for Michael Ostrog—would, eight months later, clear himself of any possible complicity in the WM and receive £10 compensation for his trouble.

A hui hou,

Simon

[Scott Nelson]

I don't put Simon in this group; he appears to be a special case).

Simon gives us his take of the MM in Ripperologist 109 (December 2009), The Macnaghten Memorandum & Other Fictions. Its also in his book, Deconstructing Jack.

Simon, if you're reading, what do you (or anyone else for that matter) think of Dirk C. Gibson's The Whitechapel Crimes as Public Relations (Ripperologist 116 (Sept. 2010)?

[Scott Nelson]

Sorry Simon, our posts crossed....

[Simon Wood]

No problem Scott,

Always good to hear from you.

Regards,

Simon

[Simon Wood]

Hi Scott,

In answer to your question, Dirk C. Gibson wrote—

". . . the Ripper crimes were a calculated communication campaign designed to advance the agenda of a social movement."

I see what he is getting at, but, as I said in my book, "it is difficult to imagine a conclave of beetle-browed conspirators sitting around a table plotting the Whitechapel murders from beginning to end in the desultory way they played out."

Regards,

Simon

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes and history is there to be challenged, and not readily accepted as being the truth !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And it’s equally dishonest to say that something couldn’t have been true just because we don’t have conclusive proof. We can say that something might have been the truth. Or that surrounding facts might point strongly to it being the truth. Simply pointing out fairly insignificant errors and then jumping up and down shouting “throw it in the bin” isn’t the way forward either. Neither is assuming that someone is a liar or a fool (especially when there’s no real evidence for that assertion) simply to arrive at the conclusion that suits.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And who said that the aim of discussion was to change each others mind?!

We are presenting and discussing ideas, evidences and their quality, thats our purpose Mr Begg.

I am sure you wouldn't have written the above if you just counted to 10.


The Baron

Some of us are trying to do that. Some are impervious to reason.

Some are simply playing the pointless “There’s no evidence against Druitt and so we should completely dismiss him card.”

It begs the question Baron, especially after the point about not changing each other’s mind, why you are wasting your time (and ours) arguing about a suspect that you dismiss out of hand? Why don’t you go and discus a suspect that you feel is worthwhile? I don’t post on threads discussing Sickert for example because I don’t rate him as a valid suspect. So what’s the point of you being here? I think that most of us know why you’re actually here Baron.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I for one keep an open mind and thus my mind is constantly being changed about the validity of suspects. some go up, some go down-usually based on the quality of discussion, research and debate that goes on here.

Nothing wrong with changing your mind Abby of course. We’ve all done it. Rigidly fixating on a conclusion and then arguing that black is white just to maintain your position is dishonest. To remain open-minded about a suspect even if you don’t think that he’s a particularly good one is honest. Not all are like that though. Sadly.