Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

    Hi Paul,

    Jargon is language though, it's just specialized. And yes, Trevor has drawn his line in the sand pertaining to a particular ... suspect. I too have drawn my line, but my line is more of the nature of avoiding "suspect solutions" because I'm not convinced the evidence gets us that far. I do enjoy hearing/reading about people's ideas, but I always find myself noting where "solutions" fail to consider alternative forks in the road, so to speak. That aside, categories like POIs, etc, serve a communicative purpose for sharing ideas in that they convey complex concepts combining various amounts of suspicion and just need to clear; as in, a white truck was spotted near the scene of the crime, the driver is a POI because we want to know who it was for no other reason than they were spotted, and family members are POIs because most crimes involve someone close to the victim - these are incidental reasons to cast "suspicion", but not the kind of "suspicion" that makes a person "suspect". You and I, and others, use "suspect" to describe people more than just those sorts of POIs, people that need to be cleared "Just because". Others think of "suspects" as closer to the end of the spectrum that becomes the "accused", which requires more evidence against them than is required if suspect is applied closer to the POI end. This difference in criterion is, I think, at the heart of it. If you think "suspect = accused" then the MM is not sufficient, but if one takes "suspect" to be closer to the POI end, then the MM is all you need. That criterion difference, or semantic definition if you will, changes how one will read and interpret a post/message/text, etc. For those like me, who don't place the holy grail at the "solution" but more at the "what's the clearest picture we can derive", then "suspect" is a term that can be used how ever one wants to use it, because it is in the end, irrelevant.

    - Jeff

    P.S. Did I mention we came 6th in the pub quiz? ha ha
    Hi Jeff,
    I appreciate that jargon is language. I was just drawing a distinction between the problems presented by the complexities of the English language and the problems presented when jargon is used outside the specialisations that created it. You are absolutely correct that jargon enables specialists to make fine but important distinctions, but unfortunately it often causes confusing when used outside the specialisation, as it has done here. We are not policemen and this isn't a criminal investigation, and the standards of evidence are not as rigorous as the police would require if taking a case to court, so why add another level of complexity by introducing police jargon? But all I suggested posts and posts back was that those arguing that Druitt isn't a suspect should define what they meant by 'suspect' and try not to use jargon when it isn't necessary.

    I hope you enjoyed the quiz even if you didn't quite manage to win. Sometimes the questions just run against you.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post



      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.



      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.



      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.



      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?)



      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?



      Very mysterious! No yes or no.



      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.
      For the last time if you are comparing parallels between Druitt and Feigenbaum and this is easy to knock on the head

      Is there any evidence to support MM suspicion on Druitt. the answer is no.
      Is there any evidence to support Feigenbaum as being a suspect -Yes

      We know where Lawton got his information from, we dont know where MM got his from

      In fact as has been suggested Druitt was a homosexual, that in itself would 99.9% rule him out from killing females.

      Did any of the other suspects commit murders on a women using a knife? No

      Were all the WM committed in the same way? No

      The victim killed by Feigenbaum was almost decapitated, ring any bells with Whitechapel women.

      Why would Lawton go to the police after all he only had a suspicion, it was I that gathered the additional circumstantial evidence to enhance Feigenbaums suspect status to being a likely suspect.

      What would the point of Lawton going to the police after all Feigenbaum was then dead, at least he went public with his belief which is more than can be said for MM
      What would the point of him lying when making the press statement, he would have known that he would likely be questioned on i and what he stated he did with Feigenbaum, as it happened he wasn't thats not his fault. But here lies the rub of the green because although he didnt go directly to the police, he did make a public statement inviting then to investigate Feigenbaum !!!!!!!!!!

      "I will stake my professional reputation that if the police will trace this man's movements carefully for the last few years their investigations will lead them to London and to Whitechapel. He had been all over Europe and much of this country.

      Following on with Lawtons statement

      Lawton went on to say, “I began to search Feigenbaum’s record. I learned that he was in Wisconsin at the time the country was startled by the news of the murder and mutilation of several women there. When I saw him again I mentioned the Whitechapel murders to which he replied, “The lord was responsible for my acts, and that to him only could I confess.” I was so startled that for the moment I did not know what to do I then looked up the dates of the Whitechapel murders and selected two. When I saw Feigenbaum again and was talking with him I said: "Carl, were you in London from this date to that one," naming those selected. "Yes", he answered, and relapsed into silence. I then communicated with London and discovered that Feigenbaum was also there when other women fell victim to the knife of some mysterious assassin.”

      As to you rejection of the knife and the Wisconsin angleI think this is relevant?

      Elkhorn Daily Review August 21st 1893

      “An atrocious murder was committed at Perkinstown, a small village west of here. The victim was a fallen woman who lived in a shanty about half a mile from the village, and about one mile from a logging camp operated by Z Darwin. When found her body was found with knife wounds 39 in number, probably inflicted while she was struggling for life, as the greater part of the wounds were on the hands and arms. The left side of her throat was cut. The large arteries being severed, and her face was hacked and slashed in a frightful manner. The woman’s name is Konneamn and her home Schofield, Marathon County, Wisconsin. A man whose name is unknown has been arrested for the crime, and is now in jail here. When arrested his clothing was soiled with blood. He was a workman in Darwin’s camp and his employers say he believes the man insane. The circumstances point to the guilty man as he was seen going towards the shanty only a short time before the crime was discovered. And he had previously quarreled with the woman.”

      Oh dear what a coincidence stabbed 39 times ring any Whitechapel Bells ? No more info on who this man was or what happened to him, but it shows Lawton did do follow up enqs into Feigenbaum and that he wasn't as you suggest lying or making it all up.

      He also found another murder also in Wisconsin April 11th 1890

      Lottie Morgan, who was about twenty seven years old and belonged to the demi monde, was found murdered behind a saloon in Hurley this morning, Her head was split open, cut off and awfully mutilated with an axe. The police are working on a clue. This is a Jack the Ripper case.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk






      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        For the last time if you are comparing parallels between Druitt and Feigenbaum and this is easy to knock on the head

        Is there any evidence to support MM suspicion on Druitt. the answer is no.
        Is there any evidence to support Feigenbaum as being a suspect -Yes

        We know where Lawton got his information from, we dont know where MM got his from

        In fact as has been suggested Druitt was a homosexual, that in itself would 99.9% rule him out from killing females.

        Did any of the other suspects commit murders on a women using a knife? No

        Were all the WM committed in the same way? No

        The victim killed by Feigenbaum was almost decapitated, ring any bells with Whitechapel women.

        Why would Lawton go to the police after all he only had a suspicion, it was I that gathered the additional circumstantial evidence to enhance Feigenbaums suspect status to being a likely suspect.

        What would the point of Lawton going to the police after all Feigenbaum was then dead, at least he went public with his belief which is more than can be said for MM
        What would the point of him lying when making the press statement, he would have known that he would likely be questioned on i and what he stated he did with Feigenbaum, as it happened he wasn't thats not his fault. But here lies the rub of the green because although he didnt go directly to the police, he did make a public statement inviting then to investigate Feigenbaum !!!!!!!!!!

        "I will stake my professional reputation that if the police will trace this man's movements carefully for the last few years their investigations will lead them to London and to Whitechapel. He had been all over Europe and much of this country.

        Following on with Lawtons statement

        Lawton went on to say, “I began to search Feigenbaum’s record. I learned that he was in Wisconsin at the time the country was startled by the news of the murder and mutilation of several women there. When I saw him again I mentioned the Whitechapel murders to which he replied, “The lord was responsible for my acts, and that to him only could I confess.” I was so startled that for the moment I did not know what to do I then looked up the dates of the Whitechapel murders and selected two. When I saw Feigenbaum again and was talking with him I said: "Carl, were you in London from this date to that one," naming those selected. "Yes", he answered, and relapsed into silence. I then communicated with London and discovered that Feigenbaum was also there when other women fell victim to the knife of some mysterious assassin.”

        As to you rejection of the knife and the Wisconsin angleI think this is relevant?

        Elkhorn Daily Review August 21st 1893

        “An atrocious murder was committed at Perkinstown, a small village west of here. The victim was a fallen woman who lived in a shanty about half a mile from the village, and about one mile from a logging camp operated by Z Darwin. When found her body was found with knife wounds 39 in number, probably inflicted while she was struggling for life, as the greater part of the wounds were on the hands and arms. The left side of her throat was cut. The large arteries being severed, and her face was hacked and slashed in a frightful manner. The woman’s name is Konneamn and her home Schofield, Marathon County, Wisconsin. A man whose name is unknown has been arrested for the crime, and is now in jail here. When arrested his clothing was soiled with blood. He was a workman in Darwin’s camp and his employers say he believes the man insane. The circumstances point to the guilty man as he was seen going towards the shanty only a short time before the crime was discovered. And he had previously quarreled with the woman.”

        Oh dear what a coincidence stabbed 39 times ring any Whitechapel Bells ? No more info on who this man was or what happened to him, but it shows Lawton did do follow up enqs into Feigenbaum and that he wasn't as you suggest lying or making it all up.

        He also found another murder also in Wisconsin April 11th 1890

        Lottie Morgan, who was about twenty seven years old and belonged to the demi monde, was found murdered behind a saloon in Hurley this morning, Her head was split open, cut off and awfully mutilated with an axe. The police are working on a clue. This is a Jack the Ripper case.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk





        Gee Trevor, can you let me in on the evidence that supports your statement

        In fact as has been suggested Druitt was a homosexual, that in itself would 99.9% rule him out from killing females.
        G U T

        There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

        Comment


        • I never introduced court proceedings in my posts,and I fail to see how such proceedings matter as far as naming suspects go.Suspect is a condition previous to a person appearing in court.
          MM never used the term suspect in relation to the five persons mentioned,Caldicot being the fifth,and the memorandum was,in the main,about the status of Cutbush.Druitt was,in the words of MM,more likely to have been the murderer, as was Kosminski and Ostrog,but again,no information is forthcoming as to how more likely,or on what basis or information,this was based.As there was no proof against anyone,MM's words, which would have included the five mentioned,then it is unlikely any were even considered suspect by MM.
          The only source of suspicion was within the family.This is clearly stated.The family and no one else,and nowhere is there information that MM or the police in general held the same suspicion. It is incorrect to state that suspicion alone denotes suspect.It is when the suspicion is proven,that a person can be classified as a suspect.So where is the proof that the family's suspicions were proven.There isn't any.
          MM believed the ripper to be a homicidal maniac.MM believed Druit to be a sexual maniac.MM believed the answer once lay at the bottom of the Thames.Not hard to fathom why MM included Druitt,but it was all belief.Nothing was proven.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by GUT View Post

            Gee Trevor, can you let me in on the evidence that supports your statement

            In fact as has been suggested Druitt was a homosexual, that in itself would 99.9% rule him out from killing females.
            Martin Howells and Keith Skinner, in their book, The Ripper Legacy, suggest that Druitt came to Chiswick to visit ‘Wilson’s chummery’, a sort of informal club for homosexuals at The Osiers, Chiswick Mall, the home of one Henry Wilson from 1887 until 1895.

            Henry Wilson was a barrister, a close friend of the Duke of Clarence and a leading member of the Apostles, an exclusive, esoteric and secretive homosexual group. Homosexuality was of course illegal and the need for secrecy was particularly necessary in the 1880s and 1890s.

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              Martin Howells and Keith Skinner, in their book, The Ripper Legacy, suggest that Druitt came to Chiswick to visit ‘Wilson’s chummery’, a sort of informal club for homosexuals at The Osiers, Chiswick Mall, the home of one Henry Wilson from 1887 until 1895.

              Henry Wilson was a barrister, a close friend of the Duke of Clarence and a leading member of the Apostles, an exclusive, esoteric and secretive homosexual group. Homosexuality was of course illegal and the need for secrecy was particularly necessary in the 1880s and 1890s.

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              Oh well I guess that proves he was, so couldn’t have been the killer. Sheesh talk about drawing a long bow.
              G U T

              There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by GUT View Post

                Oh well I guess that proves he was, so couldn’t have been the killer. Sheesh talk about drawing a long bow.
                Bearing in mind his body was fished out of the thames at Chiswick, it begs the question to be asked did he jump or was he pushed !

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • Originally posted by harry View Post
                  I never introduced court proceedings in my posts,and I fail to see how such proceedings matter as far as naming suspects go.Suspect is a condition previous to a person appearing in court.
                  MM never used the term suspect in relation to the five persons mentioned,Caldicot being the fifth,and the memorandum was,in the main,about the status of Cutbush.Druitt was,in the words of MM,more likely to have been the murderer, as was Kosminski and Ostrog,but again,no information is forthcoming as to how more likely,or on what basis or information,this was based.As there was no proof against anyone,MM's words, which would have included the five mentioned,then it is unlikely any were even considered suspect by MM.
                  The only source of suspicion was within the family.This is clearly stated.The family and no one else,and nowhere is there information that MM or the police in general held the same suspicion. It is incorrect to state that suspicion alone denotes suspect.It is when the suspicion is proven,that a person can be classified as a suspect.So where is the proof that the family's suspicions were proven.There isn't any.
                  MM believed the ripper to be a homicidal maniac.MM believed Druit to be a sexual maniac.MM believed the answer once lay at the bottom of the Thames.Not hard to fathom why MM included Druitt,but it was all belief.Nothing was proven.
                  Harry,

                  ‘Suspect’ defined in the Oxford Dictionary - A person thought to be guilty of a crime or offence.

                  Cambridge dictionary - A person believed to have committed a crime or done something wrong, or something believed to have caused something bad.

                  Merriam-Webster - One that is suspected.

                  or - regarded or deserving to be regarded with suspicion.

                  These definitions apply to Druitt. No mention of the police of course. The Merrimack-Webster is the perfect one and the perfect one for Ripperology - One that is suspected.

                  We can add the other category - police suspect - too of course. This is more specific as to who did the suspecting.

                  Druitt fits both categories actually.
                  Regards

                  Herlock






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

                  Comment


                  • . For the last time if you are comparing parallels between Druitt and Feigenbaum and this is easy to knock on the head
                    Actually Trevor, to be more specific regarding the original reason that I brought up Feigenbaum, I was comparing the way that you treat Macnaghten compared to how you treat Lawton.


                    Is there any evidence to support MM suspicion on Druitt. the answer is no.
                    The specific evidence that Macnaghten had no longer exists

                    Is there any evidence to support Feigenbaum as being a suspect -Yes
                    Is that ‘evidence’ strong enough to make him a likely suspect - not even close.

                    We know where Lawton got his information from, we dont know where MM got his from
                    We have a completely uncorroborated statement taken from a man who was a compulsive liar. So Lawton could have lied or exaggerated and CF could have lied. Two levels of doubt that you completely ignore. If CF lied the theory dies.

                    In fact as has been suggested Druitt was a homosexual, that in itself would 99.9% rule him out from killing females.
                    Bit of a straw man there? There is zero evidence that Druitt was gay and so your point is moot.

                    Did any of the other suspects commit murders on a women using a knife? No
                    Yes. William Henry Bury. You should read more Trevor.

                    Were all the WM committed in the same way? No
                    I think we can detect a theme though Trevor. Apart from Kelly for obvious reasons, killed in the streets. Abdominal mutilations apart from Stride.

                    Killing his landlady in a room that she occupied with her son is nothing like a ripper murder. Strange Trevor how you will strongly argue against Fish about the differences with the Torso’s but you are absolutely blasé about blatant differences when it comes to your own suspect. Strange that.

                    The victim killed by Feigenbaum was almost decapitated, ring any bells with Whitechapel women.
                    Sadly the ripper hasn’t cornered the market in vicious throat cutting.

                    Why would Lawton go to the police after all he only had a suspicion, it was I that gathered the additional circumstantial evidence to enhance Feigenbaums suspect status to being a likely suspect.
                    Lawton obviously felt that CF was Jack. It wasn’t his responsibility to search for evidence. That was the police’s job. If he believed that there was a chance that CF could have been guilty he should have gone to the police. If I suspect that a crime has been committed I don’t pop on the deerstalker and go looking. I’d inform the police and that’s what Lawton should have done but he preferred to get his name in paper.

                    What would the point of Lawton going to the police after all Feigenbaum was then dead, at least he went public with his belief which is more than can be said for MM
                    So the police in England had lost interest the case? Macnaghten mentioned Druitt in a memorandum intended for his superiors.

                    What would the point of him lying when making the press statement, he would have known that he would likely be questioned on i and what he stated he did with Feigenbaum, as it happened he wasn't thats not his fault. But here lies the rub of the green because although he didnt go directly to the police, he did make a public statement inviting then to investigate Feigenbaum !!!!!!!!!!
                    Here we are again, what would be the point..... What would have been the point of Mac lying about a suspect that would likely be questioned? And one whose life and movements would have been far easier to trace than Feigenbaum’s. A dead man cannot be questioned.

                    “Inviting them to investigate Feigenbaum !!!!!”

                    To quote John MacEnroe - you cannot be serious!

                    If during the Yorkshire Ripper investigation I’d have had strong suspicions about someone but instead of going to the police I’d blabbed to the Press do you think that I’d have been roundly commended? I’ve never heard such drivel. And from an ex-copper too!

                    "I will stake my professional reputation that if the police will trace this man's movements carefully for the last few years their investigations will lead them to London and to Whitechapel. He had been all over Europe and much of this country.
                    Just saying scouts honour adds no weight to a statement Trevor. And yet you have faith in this man whilst at the same time you have none in a man that was trusted, respected and highly regarded by all who knew and worked with him.

                    Following on with Lawtons statement

                    Lawton went on to say, “I began to search Feigenbaum’s record. I learned that he was in Wisconsin at the time the country was startled by the news of the murder and mutilation of several women there. When I saw him again I mentioned the Whitechapel murders to which he replied, “The lord was responsible for my acts, and that to him only could I confess.” I was so startled that for the moment I did not know what to do I then looked up the dates of the Whitechapel murders and selected two. When I saw Feigenbaum again and was talking with him I said: "Carl, were you in London from this date to that one," naming those selected. "Yes", he answered, and relapsed into silence. I then communicated with London and discovered that Feigenbaum was also there when other women fell victim to the knife of some mysterious assassin.”
                    All based on Lawton’s word and the word of a compulsive liar. Does he present his evidence that CF was in Wisconsin or are we just talking his word....again?

                    As to you rejection of the knife and the Wisconsin angleI think this is relevant?

                    Elkhorn Daily Review August 21st 1893

                    “An atrocious murder was committed at Perkinstown, a small village west of here. The victim was a fallen woman who lived in a shanty about half a mile from the village, and about one mile from a logging camp operated by Z Darwin. When found her body was found with knife wounds 39 in number, probably inflicted while she was struggling for life, as the greater part of the wounds were on the hands and arms. The left side of her throat was cut. The large arteries being severed, and her face was hacked and slashed in a frightful manner. The woman’s name is Konneamn and her home Schofield, Marathon County, Wisconsin. A man whose name is unknown has been arrested for the crime, and is now in jail here. When arrested his clothing was soiled with blood. He was a workman in Darwin’s camp and his employers say he believes the man insane. The circumstances point to the guilty man as he was seen going towards the shanty only a short time before the crime was discovered. And he had previously quarreled with the woman.”
                    Am I missing something or hadn’t the police got their man? I’d assume that he’d have been executed and so.......?

                    And again, did Lawton present his evidence that showed that CF was in Wisconsin?

                    Oh dear what a coincidence stabbed 39 times ring any Whitechapel Bells ? No more info on who this man was or what happened to him, but it shows Lawton did do follow up enqs into Feigenbaum and that he wasn't as you suggest lying or making it all up.

                    He also found another murder also in Wisconsin April 11th 1890
                    1. A not very impressive, coincidence. Desperate in fact.

                    2. It’s not proven that Tabram was a ripper victim. I’d suggest that more say that she wasn’t.


                    Lottie Morgan, who was about twenty seven years old and belonged to the demi monde, was found murdered behind a saloon in Hurley this morning, Her head was split open, cut off and awfully mutilated with an axe. The police are working on a clue. This is a Jack the Ripper case.
                    They were wrong


                    And so Trevor, now that we’ve disposed of that lot, my original point wasn’t intended to be a critique of Feigenbaum as a suspect but about how we weigh things up and how we treat the words of one person compared to another.

                    You are contemptuous of Macnaghten and say that because of insignificant errors and the fact that he didn’t follow it up leads you to dismiss the MM. Add this of course to the - no evidence against Druitt - bit.

                    So comparing Lawton to Mac were left with a completely uncorroborated statement (which might have been made up or exaggerated) made by a man that, in your own words, was a compulsive liar. Since when do we trust compulsive liars?

                    Who do I trust more - the word of Sir Melville Macnaghten, respected Assistant Commissioner Of The Met or William Sanford Lawton, Lawyer who presented a statement that no one else heard, from a compulsive liar and then, instead of asking the police if they might have been interested goes straight to the press?

                    Mac’s private info trump Lawton’s private info every day of the week.
                    Regards

                    Herlock






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

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      Actually Trevor, to be more specific regarding the original reason that I brought up Feigenbaum, I was comparing the way that you treat Macnaghten compared to how you treat Lawton.




                      The specific evidence that Macnaghten had no longer exists



                      Is that ‘evidence’ strong enough to make him a likely suspect - not even close.



                      We have a completely uncorroborated statement taken from a man who was a compulsive liar. So Lawton could have lied or exaggerated and CF could have lied. Two levels of doubt that you completely ignore. If CF lied the theory dies.



                      Bit of a straw man there? There is zero evidence that Druitt was gay and so your point is moot.



                      Yes. William Henry Bury. You should read more Trevor.



                      I think we can detect a theme though Trevor. Apart from Kelly for obvious reasons, killed in the streets. Abdominal mutilations apart from Stride.

                      Killing his landlady in a room that she occupied with her son is nothing like a ripper murder. Strange Trevor how you will strongly argue against Fish about the differences with the Torso’s but you are absolutely blasé about blatant differences when it comes to your own suspect. Strange that.



                      Sadly the ripper hasn’t cornered the market in vicious throat cutting.



                      Lawton obviously felt that CF was Jack. It wasn’t his responsibility to search for evidence. That was the police’s job. If he believed that there was a chance that CF could have been guilty he should have gone to the police. If I suspect that a crime has been committed I don’t pop on the deerstalker and go looking. I’d inform the police and that’s what Lawton should have done but he preferred to get his name in paper.



                      So the police in England had lost interest the case? Macnaghten mentioned Druitt in a memorandum intended for his superiors.



                      Here we are again, what would be the point..... What would have been the point of Mac lying about a suspect that would likely be questioned? And one whose life and movements would have been far easier to trace than Feigenbaum’s. A dead man cannot be questioned.

                      “Inviting them to investigate Feigenbaum !!!!!”

                      To quote John MacEnroe - you cannot be serious!

                      If during the Yorkshire Ripper investigation I’d have had strong suspicions about someone but instead of going to the police I’d blabbed to the Press do you think that I’d have been roundly commended? I’ve never heard such drivel. And from an ex-copper too!



                      Just saying scouts honour adds no weight to a statement Trevor. And yet you have faith in this man whilst at the same time you have none in a man that was trusted, respected and highly regarded by all who knew and worked with him.



                      All based on Lawton’s word and the word of a compulsive liar. Does he present his evidence that CF was in Wisconsin or are we just talking his word....again?



                      Am I missing something or hadn’t the police got their man? I’d assume that he’d have been executed and so.......?

                      And again, did Lawton present his evidence that showed that CF was in Wisconsin?



                      1. A not very impressive, coincidence. Desperate in fact.

                      2. It’s not proven that Tabram was a ripper victim. I’d suggest that more say that she wasn’t.



                      They were wrong


                      And so Trevor, now that we’ve disposed of that lot, my original point wasn’t intended to be a critique of Feigenbaum as a suspect but about how we weigh things up and how we treat the words of one person compared to another.

                      You are contemptuous of Macnaghten and say that because of insignificant errors and the fact that he didn’t follow it up leads you to dismiss the MM. Add this of course to the - no evidence against Druitt - bit.

                      So comparing Lawton to Mac were left with a completely uncorroborated statement (which might have been made up or exaggerated) made by a man that, in your own words, was a compulsive liar. Since when do we trust compulsive liars?

                      Who do I trust more - the word of Sir Melville Macnaghten, respected Assistant Commissioner Of The Met or William Sanford Lawton, Lawyer who presented a statement that no one else heard, from a compulsive liar and then, instead of asking the police if they might have been interested goes straight to the press?

                      Mac’s private info trump Lawton’s private info every day of the week.
                      I think you need a reality check, you are clearly blinded by the Druit/MM light, perhaps you should read my last two posts on him you might then not be so keen on him being the killer !

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        I think you need a reality check, you are clearly blinded by the Druit/MM light, perhaps you should read my last two posts on him you might then not be so keen on him being the killer !
                        I don't think anyone who has recently participated in this discussion is especially keen on Druitt being the killer. As I've said, just because someone's been identified as "a suspect", it doesn't make them "a strong suspect" or even "a suspect I'm keen on".
                        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by harry View Post
                          I never introduced court proceedings in my posts,and I fail to see how such proceedings matter as far as naming suspects go.Suspect is a condition previous to a person appearing in court.
                          You may not have introduced court proceedings, Harry,but apparently you are using the police definition of 'suspect', which is not the way the dictionary defines it and the majority of people mean it.

                          Originally posted by harry View Post
                          MM never used the term suspect in relation to the five persons mentioned,Caldicot being the fifth,and the memorandum was,in the main,about the status of Cutbush.Druitt was,in the words of MM,more likely to have been the murderer, as was Kosminski and Ostrog,
                          From other sources, such as his autobiography and a newspaper interview, we know that Macnaghten believed that Druitt was the murderer, so it's a little misleading to use the memorandum alone to argue that all he meant was that Druitt et al were more likely to have been the murderer than Cutbush.

                          Originally posted by harry View Post
                          but again,no information is forthcoming as to how more likely,or on what basis or information,this was based.
                          Macnaghten wasn't trying to persuade anyone that Druitt was Jack the Ripper, therefore he wasn't required to provide evidence.

                          Originally posted by harry View Post
                          As there was no proof against anyone,MM's words, which would have included the five mentioned,
                          As you know, 'evidence' and 'proof' are different things. There was no proof, but there may have been plentiful evidence.

                          Originally posted by harry View Post
                          then it is unlikely any were even considered suspect by MM.
                          It comes back to how 'suspect' is interpreted. Macnaghten wasn't making any modern distinctions between 'person of interest' and 'suspect', so it's likely that he did consider Druitt a suspect, especially as we know that he believed Druitt was the murderer.

                          Originally posted by harry View Post
                          The only source of suspicion was within the family.This is clearly stated.The family and no one else,
                          It isn't 'clearly stated' that the only source of suspicion was the family; Macnaghten wrote that information implicating Druitt was received by the police several years after mid-1889. He also referred to 'private information' which led him to believe the family thought Druitt was the murderer. Those two pieces of information could be one and the same or completely different. We don't know. But you seem to be assuming they are the same, hence your conclusion that 'the only source of suspicion was within the family...'

                          Originally posted by harry View Post
                          and nowhere is there information that MM or the police in general held the same suspicion.
                          Originally posted by harry View Post
                          It is incorrect to state that suspicion alone denotes suspect.It is when the suspicion is proven,that a person can be classified as a suspect.So where is the proof that the family's suspicions were proven.There isn't any.
                          Again, a modern police interpretation of what 'suspect' means. As demonstrated, the dictionary defines a suspect as someone on whom suspicion has fallen, and that is how Macnaghten defined a suspect too - remember, he wrote that several homicidal maniacs were suspected, although there was no proof against anyone.

                          Originally posted by harry View Post
                          MM believed the ripper to be a homicidal maniac.MM believed Druit to be a sexual maniac.MM believed the answer once lay at the bottom of the Thames.Not hard to fathom why MM included Druitt,but it was all belief.Nothing was proven.
                          If anything had been proven, we wouldn't be discussing it.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            In fact as has been suggested Druitt was a homosexual, that in itself would 99.9% rule him out from killing females.
                            Hi Trevor. I think I know the answer, but is this percentage simply your own "made up" figure, based on common wisdom, or are you suggesting that there is an actual scientific study showing that only 1 out of 1,000 murderers of women is a known homosexual? Thus, "99.9%"?

                            All the best.

                            P.S. These old Druitt/JK Stephen books linking him to the homosexual Cambridge crowd need to be taken with a grain of salt, preferably taken from the lip of a margarita glass. One needs to be slightly lit up to believe them.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              I think you need a reality check, you are clearly blinded by the Druit/MM light, perhaps you should read my last two posts on him you might then not be so keen on him being the killer !

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              You are so divorced from reality that it’s not worth discussing anything with you. Like Paul, it’s just a case of

                              Your last three posts have been 1. A dishonest attempt to bring in a claim that might have been gay simply to try and eliminate him. 2. A meaningless point about him being pulled out of the Thames. And 3. Your rambling justification for the unjustifiable.

                              For the last time....

                              Lawton’s statement from Feigenbaum wasn’t corroborated. No one else heard it. And yet you still keep wittering on about how unsafe the MM is because we don’t know the source (even though Mac was clear that it came originally from the family) and the evidence no longer exists. Is there a recording of CF statement to Lawton? No, therefore Lawton could have lied or simply exaggerated. Why trust him and not Mac. Because it suits your case, that’s why and we all know it.

                              We don’t know who gave Mac the evidence but I think we can say for certain that it wouldn’t have been a compulsive liar and a murderer. In any other context you would have been all over someone that was quoting from that kind of source but strangely, when it comes to your suspect, it’s suddenly ok. As I said in my previous post, perhaps he was only a compulsive liar on Wednesdays and Fridays?

                              Your sources are less valid than Mac’s. Do you honestly think that someone was incable of taking information from a family and then passing it on accurately to Macnaghten? No, in your world that’s impossible. The message must have been incorrect or a fantasy. Even though the person that spoke directly to Mac was likely to have been an educated, intelligent man.

                              But I’m wasting my time. You lost the argument days ago. We’re just pointlessly debating a Godzilla-sized ego.
                              Regards

                              Herlock






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

                              Comment


                              • These old Druitt/JK Stephen books linking him to the homosexual Cambridge crowd need to be taken with a grain of salt, preferably taken from the lip of a margarita glass. One needs to be slightly lit up to believe them.
                                Exactly Roger.

                                Unless they can be used to bolster a poster’s own opinion of course.
                                Regards

                                Herlock






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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X