Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

    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.
    Did you ever think that, on a true crime Forum, you would feel the need to point this out Paul?
    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 Sam Flynn View Post
      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.
      As Iíve said to Paul, Sam - can you actually believe that youíre having to make this point? It beggars belief!
      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 rjpalmer View Post
        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.

        Excellent post Roger

        “Incurious” is a word that I’d intended to use but you beat me to it. There’s much to intrigue us about Druitt, his life and death. He might not have been the ripper....but he might have been. So even if there was only a 5% chance why do some posters feel that he should be dismissed. Any one of us at any time might come up with a point that no one had previously considered. It’s amazing that some think that they are such extraordinary historical detectives that they can categorically dismiss Druitt. Or they can with confidence dismiss Macnaghten as a liar or an idiot. This is simple arrogance combined with bloody-mindedness. It’s an ego thing. And of course, like you, I don’t include Mr Wood in that category.
        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

          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?
          Can I answer that one?
          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

            Did you ever think that, on a true crime Forum, you would feel the need to point this out Paul?
            Yes. You can answer in every sense.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by The Baron View Post

              Wrong.

              Macnaghten destroyed his "private information" that led him to suspect Druitt, and by doing that he destroyed the Druitt-suspect-status forever, he is a clean man !!!



              The Baron
              All that means is that Mac's copies have been destroyed. We still do not know what this evidence was. There may have been original paperwork which Mac did not possess, he only being given copies. The evidence may have included bloodstained clothing, a weapon, a remains of what look like organs, etc.
              All Mac said was he destroyed the paperwork in his possession.
              Whatever the evidence was, it wasn't conclusive, but it was suggestive.


              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


                Jeff wrote : "if Druitt were the ripper, the potential to uncover independent evidence that leads to that conclusion. So far, in my view, the research has not done this, and what has been uncovered, such as his cricket matches, tends to suggest the suspicions were erroneous. However, as there are still windows of time available, the investigation is not yet closed because his guilt or innocence has not been proven conclusively."


                Is that whats you call the perfect rebuttal, then Wow!! just Wow!


                Do we have to lebel a person a suspect based on what we may discover in future investigations as Jeff suggested?

                Or just because an unexperienced police officer who said so, and who destroyed everything related, then we have to label him a suspect?

                The past informations had been destroyed, and we know its full of error quality.

                The future informations haven't surfaced yet.

                This is why Druitt is a clean person, not a suspect.



                The Baron
                Hi The Baron,

                By saying Druitt is clean of suspicion because the information MacNaughtan had was destroyed is what I was rebutting above. And highlighting what I wrote as not being a strong rebuttal of Druitt being a suspect means you're conflating being a suspect with being guilty. Druitt is a viable and good suspect because his name was listed as such. The MM, while getting some details incorrect (which I suspect reflects working from memory; i.e. Druitt's father was the doctor, and so forth), tells us that MacNaughten had information of some sort (private) that cast suspicion on Druitt by his family, which MacNaughton appears to have believed (Druit seems to be a suspect because of these suspicions). We know he claims that information has been destroyed, so there's little hope of finding out exactly what he had. However, the product of research is information, and so people rightly look into this suspect, with two major lines of focus (broadly speaking). First, to see if they can uncover the source of this private information and it's potential contents. Second, to see if there is evidence connecting Druitt to the murders. The first line of research attempts to determine the strength of the evidence by which Druitt became a suspect, the second attempts to determine if those suspicions were true. Ironically, the second could potentially find the suspicions were true while simultaneously the first could reveal the suspicions were based upon pretty flimsy information. This is because suspicion (being a suspect) and guilt are separate concepts.

                I think Druitt is a perfectly good suspect in the context of historical research into JtR. We've got his name, a suggestion of some sort of backing for his listing, and so forth. It is his guilt that I said I do not see evidence accruing to support.

                - Jeff

                Comment


                • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
                  Mr Begg want us to deal with the case using different criterias, to be gentle with an evidence if it was historical, and not beating it to death like 21th century investigations!

                  Are we helping history by convicting or labeling a peron a suspect of murders based on weak indications just because they are of a historical value?

                  Macnaghten suspected Ostrog, according to your arguments, Ostrog will remain forever a suspect, just because the armchair officer said so!


                  This is not an antiquarian!


                  The Baron
                  Hi The Baron,

                  Yes, one remains a suspect until the following occurs.
                  1). The suspect is proven to be incapable of the offense (i.e. they are proven innocent). This can occur without the case being solved. This always removes the person as a suspect because proving their innocence removes the suspicion.

                  Evoking that condition occurs on a broad scale, of course, when the case is solved and someone else (or some others) are shown to have committed the offense. This usually wipes all other suspects off the suspect list as by solving the case those not implicated are, by implication, innocent. But this is just one way by which the necessary condition can be 1 met.

                  There is a bit of a caveat to solving a case because it doesn't always evoke that necessary clearance for all suspects. Think of the case where a suspect who one still thinks might have been involved, but the evidence is not strong enough to include them in the conviction. This shows up in legal cases, where some are charged and tried, and other parties are not. For people like that, we could have a solution, where JtR gets identified, but some other suspect on the list is tantalizingly intertwined somehow, but we're still unsure of their involvement. This caveat is why proving someone innocent is the only way to remove a suspect from the list. Generally situations invokes situation 1 by effectively proving the other suspects are innocent, but it can leave some suspicions associated with others, so they remain "suspects".

                  - Jeff

                  Comment


                  • In the judicial system for example a suspect can be found ‘not guilty’ but this doesn’t mean that he was innocent of course. Just that the evidence wasn’t persuasive enough to convince a jury of his guilt. And so even if someone says that the evidence isn’t strong enough to say that Druitt was guilty it still doesn’t mean that he was innocent. The fact that someone has been named as a suspect by a very senior police officer means that he has to be considered as a suspect. It really is that simple. We can debate whether or not is a good suspect but not whether he’s a suspect in the first place.

                    Roger mentioned the Wallace case. He was convicted of murdering his wife in 1931 and sentenced to death. This decision was reversed on appeal because the evidence wasn’t strong enough. The case is over but it’s still discussed. I agree that the evidence at the time wasn’t strong enough to convict and yet i strongly believe that he was guilty. He still remains a suspect for many of those interested in the case.
                    Regards

                    Herlock






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

                    Comment


                    • Druitt was a suspect in the minds of his family, something which Macnaghten only learned a few years after becoming a police officer. We don't know the origins or strength of the Druitt family's suspicions; all we do know is that Druitt was never a Scotland Yard suspect, so we should perhaps treat his candidature for the mantle of Ripper with extreme caution.
                      Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                        In the judicial system for example a suspect can be found ‘not guilty’ but this doesn’t mean that he was innocent of course. Just that the evidence wasn’t persuasive enough to convince a jury of his guilt. And so even if someone says that the evidence isn’t strong enough to say that Druitt was guilty it still doesn’t mean that he was innocent. The fact that someone has been named as a suspect by a very senior police officer means that he has to be considered as a suspect. It really is that simple. We can debate whether or not is a good suspect but not whether he’s a suspect in the first place.

                        Roger mentioned the Wallace case. He was convicted of murdering his wife in 1931 and sentenced to death. This decision was reversed on appeal because the evidence wasn’t strong enough. The case is over but it’s still discussed. I agree that the evidence at the time wasn’t strong enough to convict and yet i strongly believe that he was guilty. He still remains a suspect for many of those interested in the case.
                        Hi Herlock,

                        I agree with with all of what you're saying. In my above, a finding of "not guilty" is not what I mean by "proving innocent" (which is why the verdict choice is between guilty and not guilty, setting aside the Scottish verdict of "not proven" - which is the jury sort of saying "we're not sure you did it, but don't do it again" ). So, your example would be a case where that necessary condition has not been met, a not guilty verdict is not proof of innocence, hence they remain a suspect. Similarly, if one has reason to suspect a miscarriage of justice, where the wrong person has been convicted, "solving the case" in the legal sense doesn't wipe the suspect list clean. Suspicion and guilt are separate.

                        And of course, with JtR, we're not in the legal context, but a historical one, where the term suspect is used differently. In official police terms there are other terms, like "person of interest", which is anyone who one needs to look into, generally partners, family members, co-workers, and so forth, simply because they are people known to the victim they are "persons of interest". Or, people spotted in the vicinity (Lechmere/Cross, Paul, for example, would be "persons of interest" simply for being there). They get upgraded to suspect when they can't be cleared easily and some evidence could be seen as pointing towards them. As an investigation progresses, and these suspects can't be cleared (shown to be not involved) they might become "prime suspects", and so forth. We tend not to use a graded set of terms in JtR, and anyone from a POI to a prime suspect is just referrd to as a "suspect".

                        Also, some seem to consider that when the probability of guilt appears low enough, that is the same as proving them innocent, and so should be removed from suspicion. Clearly, for some, Druitt meets that criterion, and for others, he does not. Given the case is not solved, I tend to think it best that a very hard criterion be met, that a suspect remains a suspect until they are shown not to be capable. Druitt does not meet that hard criterion, hence I think he's a perfectly valid suspect.

                        John Pizer, I would say, was a suspect (Leather Apron), but the police at the time verified his whereabouts at times that preclude him from being capable, so I would not call him a suspect anymore. He was one, he was shown to be innocent by virtue of being elsewhere, and so he's off the list. Druitt's cricket matches don't quite cover the necessary times so he cannot be shown to be elsewhere, but it certainly narrows the time window. Whether or not there is anything that either opens that up or closes it is the job of research to determine, and until which, he's a suspect because we have evidence he was actually suspected, though we don't know much specific details about what the grounds for that suspicion were, just the gist of it.

                        - Jeff

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post

                          We don't know the origins or strength of the Druitt family's suspicions; all we do know is that Druitt was never a Scotland Yard suspect, so we should perhaps treat his candidature for the mantle of Ripper with extreme caution.

                          Thank you Sir!


                          The Baron


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


                            Thank you Sir!


                            The Baron

                            But not dismiss him out of hand as you do.

                            Regards

                            Herlock






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

                            Comment


                            • A suspect in a criminal situation,is a person who is informed by a person having the authority to do so,that he or she is suspect.The suspect must then be given his or her rights. So when was Druitt so informed by MM Gut. Or anybody. Yes,under common law in England in 1888 that situation did apply.That is why so many senior officers of that time were able to say there were no suspects. That situation exists whether a person wishes to treat the Ripper crimes in an historical or evidential manner.Druitt was never a suspect.He will always be a person of interest.Nice of MM to choose a person whom he knew could not reply,and to phrase his comments in such an ambiguous manner.What was the information,who were the family that suspected?.Was it the whole family,one member of the family?Who was the informant?.Those questions should be answered before any claim of Druitt being a suspect is made. Forget general descriptions in a dictionary.Concentrate on what a court will accept.



                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by harry View Post
                                A suspect in a criminal situation,is a person who is informed by a person having the authority to do so,that he or she is suspect.The suspect must then be given his or her rights. So when was Druitt so informed by MM Gut. Or anybody. Yes,under common law in England in 1888 that situation did apply.That is why so many senior officers of that time were able to say there were no suspects. That situation exists whether a person wishes to treat the Ripper crimes in an historical or evidential manner.Druitt was never a suspect.He will always be a person of interest.Nice of MM to choose a person whom he knew could not reply,and to phrase his comments in such an ambiguous manner.What was the information,who were the family that suspected?.Was it the whole family,one member of the family?Who was the informant?.Those questions should be answered before any claim of Druitt being a suspect is made. Forget general descriptions in a dictionary.Concentrate on what a court will accept.



                                Completely agree, add to that, we know the quality of this MM and the Macnaghten suspects.. Ostrog huh?!


                                The Baron

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X