Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • Originally posted by harry View Post
    Quite correct Sam,now what is the evidence against Druitt?
    You don't know what the evidence was. And it is very likely that we'll never know what the evidence was. But unless Macnaghten based his suspicions on thin air, it's reasonable to conclude that evidence existed.

    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.


      Harry, Paul has explained this God knows how many times. This isn’t a current Police investigation. The circumstances are different. We are not police officers trying to catch a serial killer. It’s wordplay. Macnaghten named him as a suspect - some still believe that he’s a reasonable or good suspect - therefore he’s a suspect. Why does the word suspect annoy so much? You can even add the word ‘rubbish’ if it makes you happy. I’m certain that some feel that if we remove the word suspect that Druitt will just fade away.

      Nice of MM to choose a person whom he knew could not reply,
      Not very nice of him to choose someone with no record of violence when he could have had his pick.
      Not very clever of him to choose someone whose movements would have been easier to track that your average criminal.
      Not very kind of him to select someone as Jack who was related by marriage to one of his best friends.
      Not very clever of him to select someone that had died before Mackenzie when many at the time believed that she was a victim.

      Mac had numerous asylums and cemeteries from which to select a ‘suspect.’ Someone with at least some record of violence; a local; lower class; virtually anonymous but no, he selects someone as prominent Druitt. To me that absolutely screams that Mac named him because, at the very least, he felt that he had good reason too.
      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



        Nothing.


        You don't know that.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by GUT View Post

          WEL clearly Harry was talking about court proceedings.
          Thanks. It's just that I wasn't sure as to which post he was referring.
          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

            Trevor,
            Thank you for that, but I do understand the distinction between a 'person of interest' and 'suspect' and why that distinction is made, but it is a distinction made by policemen. You are using jargon. Do you understand that? Jargon is a word or phrase that has a specialist meaning to a specific group of people and is best avoided outside that group because the man in the street does not use it or understand it. The police may make a distinction between a 'suspect' and a 'person of interest', but the man in the street doesn't. If suspicion falls on someone, he's a suspect. It's that simple. If Macnaghten suspected Druitt, Druitt is a suspect. If Sophie Herfort suspected Macnaghten, Macnaghten is a suspect, if Trevor Marriott suspects Feigenbaum, Feigenbaum is a suspect. Your use of police jargon in a non-police discussion is unnecessary and is causing confusion and, above all, is wasting all our time.

            If you approach it from a historical perspective its still the same The MM is a genuine historical document. History and historical documents are there to be challenged and not readily accepted as fact as you keep being told, but dont seem to comprehend that fact. It has been challenged and the contents from that challenge and what we now know lead us to infer that it is unsafe to accurately rely on.

            No I would suggest the time wasting and confusion arising is from you and others all wanting to agree with MM that Druitt was a viable suspect. Basing all of that on absolutely no evidence other than weak hearsay, years after the murders ceased, and conveniently after the man named was dead, and even more conveniently MM supposedly destroyed his papers. In todays world that act might be construed as perverting the course of justice.


            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

              The Macnaghten Memoranda and his autobiography are evidence in themselves. They stand in exact relation to his "suspecthood" as Einstein's 1915 paper on the General Theory of Relativity stands in relation to the concept of gravity as a distortion of spacetime.
              That's it Sam, reduce it to a level that everyone can unserstand :-)
              I think we should all agree that, until some evidence is found pointing one way or the other, Druitt exists as both a suspect and a non-suspect at the same time...a sort of Schrodinger's suspect.
              It's quantum, baby!

              Comment


              • . All we have is the statement from MM, which everyone, and I do mean everyone has to accept is hearsay,
                And of course, because we are being fair, we have to accept that Feigenbaum’s confession was hearsay. So we cannot be certain that he actually made it and even if he had made it then there’s still a cloud of doubt because he was a compulsive liar.

                Because we’re being fair, right
                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 Trevor Marriott View Post

                  He is mentioned in an erroneous document !

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  There is nothing erroneous about it.

                  Question: Do you know for a fact that MM had no good reason to suspect Druitt?

                  Answer: No you don’t.

                  very simple.
                  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 harry View Post
                    Quite correct Sam,now what is the evidence against Druitt?
                    Where is the evidence against any suspect?
                    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



                      Nothing.


                      It no longer exists as far as we are aware.
                      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 GUT View Post

                        Another exchange that deals with the Court system.

                        so it seems plenty are talking about Court
                        Basically it’s in desperation GUT. I’m becoming convinced that some feel that if we stop calling Druitt a suspect he will simply fade away

                        Mac suspected him therefore he is a suspect. All other quibbling is entirely meaningless.
                        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 Trevor Marriott View Post

                          If you approach it from a historical perspective its still the same The MM is a genuine historical document. History and historical documents are there to be challenged and not readily accepted as fact as you keep being told, but dont seem to comprehend that fact. It has been challenged and the contents from that challenge and what we now know lead us to infer that it is unsafe to accurately rely on.

                          No I would suggest the time wasting and confusion arising is from you and others all wanting to agree with MM that Druitt was a viable suspect. Basing all of that on absolutely no evidence other than weak hearsay, years after the murders ceased, and conveniently after the man named was dead, and even more conveniently MM supposedly destroyed his papers. In todays world that act might be construed as perverting the course of justice.


                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          Trevor,
                          Are you nuts? I don't mean to sound rude, Trevor, but no historian has disputed that history can't be challenged and no historian would 'readily' accept historical source material. Are you really as profoundly ignorant about history and what historians do as you appear to be? I mean, it's frankly embarrassing that you come out with this statement (over and over and over again), apparently utterly unaware that as a discipline history is all about questioning and interpreting and reinterpreting the source data. And I have been telling you this time and again, yet you have the stupidity and gall to say I don't comprehend you! Do you actually pay attention to or care the least about what you write, or do you just pen you glib phrases and the first words that come into your head. Seriously, before you start telling anyone what historical documents are there for, I suggest you pop out and buy a book about the theory and practice of history and stop making a fool of yourself.

                          Yes, you have challenged the memorandum and you have been told why your challenge is wrong. You don't pay any attention to that. Of course, you would try to shift the responsibility for the time wasting and confusion onto other people, but the time wasting and confusion is being caused by your insistance on employing police jargon and declaring that Druitt isn't a suspect when by every definition in the English language he obviously is, not on whether Druitt is a viable suspect.

                          Comment


                          • .
                            No I would suggest the time wasting and confusion arising is from you and others all wanting to agree with MM that Druitt was a viable suspect. Basing all of that on absolutely no evidence other than weak hearsay, years after the murders ceased, and conveniently after the man named was dead, and even more conveniently MM supposedly destroyed his papers. In todays world that act might be construed as perverting the course of justice.
                            Another statement oozing with bias and self-interest. You continue to apply stringent criteria to Druitt’s candidature that you conveniently relax when it comes to Feigenbaum.

                            In todays world that act might be construed as perverting the course of justice.
                            Like you’re perverting the course of debate by pointlessly nitpicking over terminology. This is not a modern day investigation. If someone is suspected then they are a suspect. That should be the end of it but you and others will continue this utterly meritless quibble.

                            Suspected = Suspect.

                            if it’s not then how do we evaluate who, is a suspect or who is a person of interest? Who is to be the judge? If you say that it’s based on the strength of the case against then who is the judge of the strength of the case (a researcher selling a book on the subject)? If there are differences of opinion about evidence who is to be the judge of that? Or do we vote on each person of interest and if more than say 50% consider them a suspect then suspect they are? Or do we wish to add more complicated gradations of validity?

                            No, we use terminology that we can all understand and use. And so, if someone has been suspected, we call them a suspect.
                            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 Joshua Rogan View Post
                              It's quantum, baby!
                              Godley does not play dice with the Universe, as Einstein (almost) said.
                              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                                Trevor,
                                Are you nuts? I don't mean to sound rude, Trevor, but no historian has disputed that history can't be challenged and no historian would 'readily' accept historical source material. Are you really as profoundly ignorant about history and what historians do as you appear to be? I mean, it's frankly embarrassing that you come out with this statement (over and over and over again), apparently utterly unaware that as a discipline history is all about questioning and interpreting and reinterpreting the source data. And I have been telling you this time and again, yet you have the stupidity and gall to say I don't comprehend you! Do you actually pay attention to or care the least about what you write, or do you just pen you glib phrases and the first words that come into your head. Seriously, before you start telling anyone what historical documents are there for, I suggest you pop out and buy a book about the theory and practice of history and stop making a fool of yourself.

                                Yes, you have challenged the memorandum and you have been told why your challenge is wrong. You don't pay any attention to that. Of course, you would try to shift the responsibility for the time wasting and confusion onto other people, but the time wasting and confusion is being caused by your insistance on employing police jargon and declaring that Druitt isn't a suspect when by every definition in the English language he obviously is, not on whether Druitt is a viable suspect.
                                Yup
                                Regards

                                Herlock






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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X