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

    No, Kosminski isn't my favoured suspect. I don't have a favoured suspect.
    Likewise, and whilst I don't find Druitt or Kosminski to be viable suspects at all, I fully acknowledge that the Memorandum makes them suspects nonetheless. Ostrog too, for what it's worth, although we can certainly rule him out.
    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

      Well, it's really easy to say that about the memorandum, but as usual you don't support your case with evidence.

      No, Kosminski isn't my favoured suspect. I don't have a favoured suspect. And Macnaghten doesn't make much difference to Kosminski anyway. So, sorry, you'll have to work harder to manufacture an agenda for me.
      Neither do you, or others show any evidence to show that the information MM received was reliable and investigated.

      Of course the MM makes a difference, in one breath MM is naming someone called Kosminski as being a likely suspect, and in the next he is exonerating the same person. Its a pity that the person who may have been responsible for adding the name of Kosminski to the marginalia didn't bother to read The Aberconway Version first

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
        I have the words of Abberline "Absolutely Nothing"
        Yes, but Abberline, in his retirement, became the first Ripperologist. He realized it was first necessary to casually sweep aside all the police suspects, thus setting the stage for his own man, Klosowski, the non-suspect. He claims, falsely, that the police didn't suspect men sent to asylums, and he also claims, again falsely, that the mad doctor's drowning was the only thing that connected him to the case.

        And since that interview in 1903, it's been the strategy-of-choice. Sugden, using Abberline as his lead, follows suit; so does Trevor; so does "Fisherman," over on the Lechmere threads; so do 9 out of 10 "Ripperologists."

        "We must sweep aside the rubbish, clearing the stage for our own man."

        And so it goes. Me? I'm not so certain. I am more than willing to believe that the Ripper is a lousy suspect, maybe even a lousy "person of interest." He will appear to be "non viable."

        There’s an old saying in an old book, Baron. “Trust not appearances.”

        You’ve ignored it.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          Neither do you, or others show any evidence to show that the information MM received was reliable and investigated.
          Macnaghten named them as suspects... on paper... twice ...and thrice identified Druitt as his favoured suspect. And - for the umpteenth time - whether they were good or bad suspects, whether the information MM received was reliable or unreliable, and whether they were investigated or not, are entirely different questions.
          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

            Yes, but Abberline, in his retirement, became the first Ripperologist. He realized it was first necessary to casually sweep aside all the police suspects, thus setting the stage for his own man, Klosowski, the non-suspect. He claims, falsely, that the police didn't suspect men sent to asylums, and he also claims, again falsely, that the mad doctor's drowning was the only thing that connected him to the case.

            And since that interview in 1903, it's been the strategy-of-choice. Sugden, using Abberline as his lead, follows suit; so does Trevor; so does "Fisherman," over on the Lechmere threads; so do 9 out of 10 "Ripperologists."

            "We must sweep aside the rubbish, clearing the stage for our own man."

            And so it goes. Me? I'm not so certain. I am more than willing to believe that the Ripper is a lousy suspect, maybe even a lousy "person of interest." He will appear to be "non viable."

            There’s an old saying in an old book, Baron. “Trust not appearances.”

            You’ve ignored it.
            Just for the record I dont have a favored suspect I have investigated them all, and following that Feigenbaum is without a doubt in my opinion a likely suspect in the true definition of a suspect.

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              Of course the MM makes a difference, in one breath MM is naming someone called Kosminski as being a likely suspect, and in the next he is exonerating the same person.
              Um... being "inclined to exonerate" is not the same as "to exonerate". Besides, although the Aberconway version shows that Macnaghten strongly favoured Druitt, at least he had the even-handedness to name two alternatives, and in both versions.
              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

              Comment




              • . As you are obsessed with Feigenbaum might I suggest you go back and read the chapter on Feigenbaum because you are misinformed.
                Im not obsessed with a suspect that I believe a poor one. Although, unlike you and even though he was never suspected by the police as The Whitechapel Murderer, ill grant him the title of suspect because he is suspected.....by you. I’m certainly not going to keep reading that chapter in the hope of finding something that doesn’t exist.

                .
                Feigenbaum never confessed to any murders, not even the one he was found committing. The lead to follow up on Feigenbaum came from his lawyer in an article published in The National Police Gazette May 16th 1896 which he gave to the press outside Sing Sing prison, the same morning Feigenbaum had been executed in the electric chair and not at the gallows as you suggest.
                This is more nitpicking. I know what he said....I’ve read the chapter three times. He confessed to having uncontrollable, murderous urges against women and without this Lawton would never have pursued the matter.

                Then his lawyer spoke:

                [I]"I have a statement to make," he said, "which may throw some light on this case. Now that Feigenbaum is dead and nothing more can be done for him in this world, I want to say as his counsel that I am absolutely sure of his guilt in this case, and I feel morally certain that he is the man who committed many, if not all of the Whitechapel murders. Here are my reasons, and on this statement I pledge my honor:
                He talks of honour but does he go to the police in the hope that they will inform the authorities in London and thereby sent in motion an investigation to possibly solve their most infamous unsolved crime. Nope, he blabs to the press. Very honourable.

                "When Feigenbaum was in the Tombs awaiting trial I saw him several times. The evidence in his case seemed so clear that I cast about for a theory of insanity. Certain actions denoted a decided mental weakness somewhere. When I asked him point-blank, 'Did you kill Mrs. Hoffman?' he made this reply[B]: 'I have for years suffered from a singular disease, which induces an all-absorbing passion; this passion manifests itself in a desire to kill and mutilate the woman who falls in my way. At such times I am unable to control myself.
                Did anyone else hear this statement/s ? Can anyone corroborate the fact that Feigenbaum said any such thing. I think you’ll find that the answer to that question is no. But hey, he wasn’t the Assistant Commissioner Of The Met so he can be trusted. And wait, wasn’t Feigenbaum a compulsive liar and so why should we, or Lawton for that matter, believe him? Maybe we should just stop raising inconvenient points. Or perhaps he was only a compulsive liar at certain times and scrupulously honest at others (like when he was overwhelmingly likely to be hanged?)

                "In pondering over this statement of Feigenbaum's I began to wonder whether the sensation he described might not form an explanation of other cases. I already knew that he had been working for many years as fireman on the Atlantic liners, sometimes on the Bremen boats, sometimes on the White Star, and at others on the French and Inman lines. He ceased to follow the sea about six years ago.
                As Feigenbaum was talking in response to a question about the murder that he was guilty of why would Lawton, when given a possible explanation, try connecting this behaviour to other crimes? Or did Lawton simply get a bit over-excited and saw the opportunity of making a name for himself?

                .
                "On my next visit to the Tombs I asked him whether he had not been in London at various times during the whole period covered by the Whitechapel murders. 'Yes, I was,' he answered. I asked him whether he could not explain some of those cases on the theory which he had suggested to me, and he simply looked at me in reply. When I asked him again whether he was or was not guilty of Mrs. Hoffman's murder, he said: 'I'll affirm when I go on the stand and God will believe me just as well.'
                Very mysterious! No yes or no.

                .
                "You will remember the cases of murder and mutilation of women in Wisconsin some years ago. On the trial we had some evidence that this man had frequently been in Wisconsin. The long knife with which Mrs. Hoffman was killed, and the whetstone produced at the trial bore the marks of a Wisconsin firm at Madison, I think. These both belonged to Feigenbaum, and he had carried them for some time"
                Well that proves it then. Feigenbaum carried a knife that was made in Wisconsin (he thinks..maybe) where another murder took place. Do you suspect him of committing any murders in Sheffield by any chance?


                You accuse me of being obsessed with Feigenbaum. What you really mean is stop bringing up inconvenient facts.

                A compulsive liar’s words should not be trusted.
                A statement that no one else heard might not have actually taken place or might have been wilfully exaggerated.
                The Wisconsin knife is laughable.
                Feigenbaum cannot be placed in London at the time of the murders although we cannot say for certain that he wasn’t.
                Mrs Hoffman was not a prostitute and, apart from being a knife attack to the neck, it resembles the Whitechapel Murders in no other way.

                And yet you call him a likely suspect and will spend endless time quibbling over the use of the word suspect?

                Why is Lawton believable and yet Mac isn’t and the MM should be treated as nonsense?

                Why is Macnaghten not to be trusted when the evidence shows that he was held in the highest regard?

                You continually hold Macnaghten to far more rigorous standards than you apply to anything concerning your own suspect and then you say that those of us that are holding a moderate, open-minded approach are being gullible or dishonest.

                Montague John Druitt is a suspect and will remain one until someone proves otherwise.
                Regards

                Herlock






                "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                Comment


                • Begg would have known this,
                  Its also noticeable that Paul addresses Trevor as Trevor and not Marriott.



                  Regards

                  Herlock






                  "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by mpriestnall View Post
                    I remember reading in a ripper book that the police had developed a list of 10 suspects and had reduced it to three.

                    Does anybody know of the book I mean and the source of this?

                    Or have any more info about this?

                    It's interesting that the police also had a list of 3 likelies as well as MM...
                    Hello MP.

                    No one ever answered your question. I don't know the book you are referring to, but the source was clearly Macnaghten's friend G.R. Sims, in an article written in The Referee, cited earlier on this thread.

                    But it wasn't 10 suspects, it was 7. According to Sims, there were originally 7 suspects, and these were whittled down to 3. What makes this somewhat misleading, perhaps, is that Sims' mystical three was clearly derived from the memo. So there are no independent sources for this claim; they are one and the same.

                    Macnaghten does indeed name 3 suspects, but there is no indication that these were the 3 finalists. Mac makes a somewhat strange reference to 'many other' maniacs being suspected, but does not elaborate. He then seems to have taken 3 from the 'many' (7?) to illustrate his point. Which might suggest that there were 4 others that he has failed to mention, but could have, had he been so inclined. So I wouldn't be too certain that these '3' were necessarily stronger than the other 4, though Kosminski certainly appears to have been high up on the food chain.

                    Others have concluded that the whole thing is malarkey,and at least one theorist (AP Wolf) has suggested it was specifically designed to get Cutbush off-the-hook.

                    Whatever Macnaghten's intent, it doesn't appear that he was particularly effective in his aim, since the reaction has largely been one of skepticism and confusion. But even here, one theorist has suggested that his intent WAS skepticism and confusion.

                    Welcome to the jungle.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      Montague John Druitt is a suspect and will remain one until someone proves otherwise.
                      ... and nobody can prove otherwise, because we know for certain that Druitt was named as a suspect by Macnaghten, several times, in writing. If, like me, you don't favour Druitt as a suspect, tough: he was named as a suspect by a senior police official, and that's a historical fact.
                      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                      Comment


                      • Hi All,

                        Ah, the power of suggestion.

                        Would we have ever picked on Druitt or Kosminski [or even Ostrog, come to that] as a putative Ripper suspect had Macnaghten not catapulted them to eternal infamy?

                        Roger Palmer wrote, "I am more than willing to believe that the Ripper is a lousy suspect, maybe even a lousy 'person of interest.'"

                        I couldn't agree more.

                        Regards,

                        Simon
                        Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post

                          Would we have ever picked on Druitt or Kosminski [or even Ostrog, come to that] as a putative Ripper suspect had Macnaghten not catapulted them to eternal infamy?
                          I've often reflected on that, Simon, and I think the answer is "No, we wouldn't", at least not in the cases of Druitt/Ostrog. The Swanson Marginalia makes a big difference in Kosminski's case, but that's definitely a matter for another thread!
                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                          Comment


                          • Hi Sam,

                            I don't want to disrupt this thread, so I won't ask if you believe the Swanson marginalia is kosher.

                            And by the same token, I'll understand if you won't reply.

                            Regards,

                            Simon
                            Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

                              ... and nobody can prove otherwise, because we know for certain that Druitt was named as a suspect by Macnaghten, several times, in writing. If, like me, you don't favour Druitt as a suspect, tough: he was named as a suspect by a senior police official, and that's a historical fact.
                              Exactly Sam. And everyone is entitled to dispute how likely or unlikely a suspect he was.

                              This debate reminds me of the current PC trend, so evident in colleges and universities both here and in The States, where one side is trying to silence opinions that they don’t agree with or like. Some here are trying get us to chuck Druitt in the bin because they’ve simply made up their minds and so cannot countenance the suggestion that they just might be wrong.
                              Regards

                              Herlock






                              "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                Neither do you, or others show any evidence to show that the information MM received was reliable and investigated.

                                Of course the MM makes a difference, in one breath MM is naming someone called Kosminski as being a likely suspect, and in the next he is exonerating the same person. Its a pity that the person who may have been responsible for adding the name of Kosminski to the marginalia didn't bother to read The Aberconway Version first

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                Nobody knows what Macnaghten's evidence was, so how do you propose that someone can produce evidence that the information Macnaghten received was reliable and investigated?

                                And I'm not saying that the evidence was reliable or investigated. I'm saying we don't know whether it was or not. However, you are pushing that it was unreliable and uninvestigated.

                                It has been explained to you that you are misrepresenting what Macnaghten said when he exonerated Kosminski and Ostrog. You have never, not once, explained why you think differently.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X