What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[Trevor Marriott]

Exactly Roger.

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

As Jack Nicholson said “The truth, you can’t handle the truth” could have been written just for you

wwe.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

As Jack Nicholson said “The truth, you can’t handle the truth” could have been written just for you

wwe.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’ve proven my points over and over. Paul has been explaining the childishly obvious about the term suspect for longer than it would have taken to teach a chimp to play chess. It’s something that no one but a drooling idiot could fail to understand and acknowledge but you repeatedly fail to do so. And no, i’m not calling you an idiot Trevor, so there’s only one conclusion remaining. You simply refuse to accept it because it would mean admitting that you’re wrong. Which you are. Categorically wrong.

That said, we should move on.

[Trevor Marriott]

I’ve proven my points over and over. Paul has been explaining the childishly obvious about the term suspect for longer than it would have taken to teach a chimp to play chess. It’s something that no one but a drooling idiot could fail to understand and acknowledge but you repeatedly fail to do so. And no, i’m not calling you an idiot Trevor, so there’s only one conclusion remaining. You simply refuse to accept it because it would mean admitting that you’re wrong. Which you are. Categorically wrong.

That said, we should move on.

You have proved nothing other than the fact you cannot comprehend the basics of assessing and evaluating basic facts and evidence
you need to worry more about MM And lees about Feigenbaum

[Herlock Sholmes]

You have proved nothing other than the fact you cannot comprehend the basics of assessing and evaluating basic facts and evidence
you need to worry more about MM And lees about Feigenbaum

That Lawton’s statement was not corroborated by a single other human being is a fact. An incontrovertible one. And the point that Feigenbaum was a compulsive liar is your own. There is no other way to interpret this other that by calling it a statement from a compulsive liar that no one can corroborate ever actually occurred. This is an evaluation that’s beyond argument. It’s a statement of fact.

How can you seek to dismiss the MM as unreliable on the one hand whilst on the other you accept a statement from a compulsive liar that no one can prove ever took place? It’s bizarre.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

Just catching up on this tedious board. This is in response to RJ Palmer’s post #1665 (which, if you can believe it, is a response to my post #481.)

It’s hard to understand what you mean Mr. Palmer:

Looking at the original column in The Referee… Sims did not state "the Commissioner of Police" but "The Commissioners of Police" (plural). Evidently this same error has been repeated in a number of secondary sources.

Now, this is somewhat interesting.

In 1894, Sir Edward Bradford was the Commissioner, and his three Assistant Commissioners were Archibald Bruce, Charles Howard, and Robert Anderson.

Macnaghten, as we all know, was not among them; he was Chief Constable.

So if Sims is referring to the Macnaghten memo, written by his old friend, why is he stating the report was "made" by the Commissioners? (No evidence of this in the Home Office files, of course).

And how does Abberline, who had retired two years before the memo was written, instantly recognize what Sims is referring to when he refers to a report made by “the Commissioners”?

Are you saying here that there actually was a report written by the “Commissioners of police” and that Sims was referencing this and that, therefore, Abberline was also referencing this report and not the Macnaghten Memoranda?

Or are you saying that there was no report made by the “Commissioners of Police” and that Abberline, who says he knows all about it, is therefore lying? (And, I ask you, why would he?)

First off, Simms seems to have stated that the Home Office report was “made by the Commissioners of Police” only once: in his 29 March column. After this one time he never mentions it again. It’s apparent that when Sims talks about the “Home Office report” he is talking about the Macnaghten Memoranda so I have no idea why he said that the report was “made by the Commissioners of Police,” which is obviously wrong.

As for Abberline’s recognition of the report, the simplest explanation is that he is responding to Sims’s description of the report being “made to the Home Office” (about the suspect who committed suicide by drowning) rather than a “report made by the Commissioners of Police.” Abberline response, that “A report was made to the Home Office about the matter…” suggests that this is true.

We don’t know if Abberline ever saw Sims’s column in the Referee. All we know is that a reporter from the Pall Mall Gazette went to see Abberline to get his reaction to it. Had Abberline already read it? Did the reporter hand him a copy to see for himself? Did he merely give Abberline the gist? No one can now say, but unless you want to suggest that Abberline was lying the obvious answer is that Abberline was simply talking about the MM – the Home Office report – as Sims was.

Wolf.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

And how does Abberline, who had retired two years before the memo was written, instantly recognize what Sims is referring to when he refers to a report made by “the Commissioners”?

But I have to say, I've yet to see a credible explanation how Abberline could have knowledge of a Home Office report filed two years after his retirement.

Abberline was greatly interested in the Ripper murders, the case he couldn’t solve in 1888. In his interview with the Pall Mall Gazette on 24 March, 1902, he states “My interest in the Ripper case was especially deep…”

The Pall Mall Gazette 24 March article also states that the reporter found Abberline surrounded by documents and Ripper related newspaper clippings and that he was in the process of writing to Macnaghten about his suspicions that Klosowski/Chapman was the Ripper. This tends to demonstrate both Abberline’s continued interest in the case and his confidence in offering his unsolicited opinions to the Chief Constable.

In his 31 March interview he states “It is simple nonsense to talk of the police having proof that the man is dead. I am, and always have been, in the closest touch with Scotland Yard, and it would have been next to impossible for me not to have known all about it.” (My underline.)

That seems to answer your question. Unless you think Abberline was lying about this?

Did Abberline, on retirement, just walk out the door of Scotland Yard never to see or talk to his old friends and colleagues again? Never to discuss old cases or new information regarding those cases? Seems unlikely.

It should also be remembered that after his retirement from Scotland Yard Abberline became a private investigator in London, before working in Monte Carlo for three years. After that he joined the Pinkertons’ for several years, running their European office. Abberline, therefore, stayed doing detective work for some dozen years after he left the Yard. Ongoing police contact, as part of this work, seems likely especially since one of Abberline’s jobs (a missing person’s case) was given to him by the Commissioner of Police (Bradford apparently) himself. Apparently Abberline did keep in contact with Scotland Yard.

Wolf.

[The Baron]

Abberline was greatly interested in the Ripper murders, the case he couldn’t solve in 1888. In his interview with the Pall Mall Gazette on 24 March, 1902, he states “My interest in the Ripper case was especially deep…”

The Pall Mall Gazette 24 March article also states that the reporter found Abberline surrounded by documents and Ripper related newspaper clippings and that he was in the process of writing to Macnaghten about his suspicions that Klosowski/Chapman was the Ripper. This tends to demonstrate both Abberline’s continued interest in the case and his confidence in offering his unsolicited opinions to the Chief Constable.

In his 31 March interview he states “It is simple nonsense to talk of the police having proof that the man is dead. I am, and always have been, in the closest touch with Scotland Yard, and it would have been next to impossible for me not to have known all about it.” (My underline.)

That seems to answer your question. Unless you think Abberline was lying about this?

Did Abberline, on retirement, just walk out the door of Scotland Yard never to see or talk to his old friends and colleagues again? Never to discuss old cases or new information regarding those cases? Seems unlikely.

It should also be remembered that after his retirement from Scotland Yard Abberline became a private investigator in London, before working in Monte Carlo for three years. After that he joined the Pinkertons’ for several years, running their European office. Abberline, therefore, stayed doing detective work for some dozen years after he left the Yard. Ongoing police contact, as part of this work, seems likely especially since one of Abberline’s jobs (a missing person’s case) was given to him by the Commissioner of Police (Bradford apparently) himself. Apparently Abberline did keep in contact with Scotland Yard.

Wolf.

Great post!


It is simple nonsense to talk of the police having proof that the man is dead.


And after some 130 years we still see some cute 'researchers' saying Druitt is the most valuable suspect we have!!!!



The Baron

[Trevor Marriott]

That Lawton’s statement was not corroborated by a single other human being is a fact. An incontrovertible one. And the point that Feigenbaum was a compulsive liar is your own. There is no other way to interpret this other that by calling it a statement from a compulsive liar that no one can corroborate ever actually occurred. This is an evaluation that’s beyond argument. It’s a statement of fact.

How can you seek to dismiss the MM as unreliable on the one hand whilst on the other you accept a statement from a compulsive liar that no one can prove ever took place? It’s bizarre.

But Feigenbaum never confessed to any murder or murders to Lawton.

What did Feigenbaum lie about?
What do you say nver took place?

Lawtons statement regarding the murders in Wisconsin is confirmed by the fact that there were two murders in Wisconsin
Lawton states Feigenbaum was a sailor, that is corroborated
Where in Lawtons statement does it show Feigenbaum lied?
Lawton in his statement invited the police to investigate Feigenbaums movements

There is more evidential facts against Feigenbaum than any other suspect albeit mainly circumstantial

MM it seems did sweet FA with his "private information" other than get all the details of his "suspect" Druitt totally wrong. It would seem that this private information was the same information he was give in the first instance which he transferred to his memo, If so its unrelaible !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And of course the fact that his body was found in Chiswick miles from any of his other addresses, and the house of homosexual activity referred to is also in Chiswick, makes you wonder.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

I believe it unwise to to interpret a dictionary's definition as referring to all situations, and I do not believe the publishers meant it to be so.Suspicion is a belief that a certain situation might exist.In a case of murder, where suspicion is directed at a certain individual,and by individuals other than police,and the law stipulates only police are empowered to investigate,it is even more important that we accept police evidence as a guide,and respect their way of defining suspect as the proper way.
From experience,I do not believe any law enforcement body would declare a person as suspect on suspicion alone.Only after investigation,and that suspicion being proven,would the term suspect be used.So often suspicion,after investigation,is found to be groundless.So Druitt,in my view,is not a suspect.

[PaulB]

I believe it unwise to to interpret a dictionary's definition as referring to all situations, and I do not believe the publishers meant it to be so.Suspicion is a belief that a certain situation might exist.In a case of murder, where suspicion is directed at a certain individual,and by individuals other than police,and the law stipulates only police are empowered to investigate,it is even more important that we accept police evidence as a guide,and respect their way of defining suspect as the proper way.
From experience,I do not believe any law enforcement body would declare a person as suspect on suspicion alone.Only after investigation,and that suspicion being proven,would the term suspect be used.So often suspicion,after investigation,is found to be groundless.So Druitt,in my view,is not a suspect.

Harry,
Fine, Harry, in your view Druitt is not a suspect because he doesn't conform to the modern police jargon definition of a suspect, even though he does conform to how the dictionary defines a suspect and how most people use the word suspect and, most importantly, what the word meant in 1888. I think this discussion has probably gone as far as it needs to.

[PaulB]

That Lawton’s statement was not corroborated by a single other human being is a fact. An incontrovertible one. And the point that Feigenbaum was a compulsive liar is your own. There is no other way to interpret this other that by calling it a statement from a compulsive liar that no one can corroborate ever actually occurred. This is an evaluation that’s beyond argument. It’s a statement of fact.

How can you seek to dismiss the MM as unreliable on the one hand whilst on the other you accept a statement from a compulsive liar that no one can prove ever took place? It’s bizarre.

Herlock,
Just a passing thought: you brought up Lawton to draw a comparison with accepting an uncorroborated admission by someone you consider a compulsive liar and who cannot certainly be shown to have been in the country when the murders took place, with a statement made by a senior policeman in what appears to be an official document, as well as in other sources, that he strongly believed Druitt to be the murderer, this conclusionbeing based on information received by the police and supplemented by further information personally received suggesting that the suspect's family also believed him guilty.

Now, Trevor has managed to spin that off into an increasingly detailed argument about the merits, as he sees them, of Feigenbaum as a suspect, and you are responding at increasing length. Trevor must be absolutely delighted because not only is discussion of Feigenbaum letting him off the hook of having to defend his indefensible argument that the memorandum is worthless and not worth the paper it's written on (which is what kicked off this interminable thread), but he's also moving his Feigenbaum argument further and further away from your original point that preferring Lawton to Macnaghten is a nonsense. It's Trevor's technique. He makes a statement, somebody challenges it, he neither replies to the challenge nor defends his original statement, but changes the topic and spirals the subject further and further away.

Paul

[John G]

I've just been re-reading Paul Begg"s excellent appraisal of Druitt in the "The Facts." Thus, Paul points out that just about everything McNaughton says about Druitt is wrong. For instance, he says he was a doctor; he wasn't. He says that he committed suicide on or around the 10th November (just after the Kelly murder); he didn't. He implies that he was "sexually insane", but there's no evidence of this.

Of course, there's the matter of secret information supplied by family members who suspected him. However, Paul also points out that the Home Office and Scotland Yard files are full of individuals suspected by family members. They can't all be guilty! And as we don't know what this secret information was it's impossible for us to evaluate it.

Paul concludes by stating that what we know of Macnaghten is that he wouldn't suspect someone on flimsy evidence, but one wonders. I mean, if Druitt was such a good suspect, and had been objectively evaluated, why does Macnaghten fail to acquaint himself with the most rudimentary facts of Druitt's life? As I've argued before, there seems to be a recurring theme of individuals being suspected because they seemed to fulfill the nineteenth century stereotype of a serial killer.

Thus, Druitt was supposedly a "sexual maniac" and Kosminski insane. However, we now know that serial killers are rarely insane or mentally ill. Then there's the reason for the murders stopping: Druitt committed suicide just after the Kelly Murder, and Kosminski's mind supposedly gave way, leading to incarceration in an asylum in 1889. But it's now known that serial killers rarely commit suicide and rarely end up in an asylum.

All in all it leaves Druitt a somewhat unsatisfactory candidate, but then I suppose you could say the same about all of the suspects!

[John G]

Abberline was greatly interested in the Ripper murders, the case he couldn’t solve in 1888. In his interview with the Pall Mall Gazette on 24 March, 1902, he states “My interest in the Ripper case was especially deep…”

The Pall Mall Gazette 24 March article also states that the reporter found Abberline surrounded by documents and Ripper related newspaper clippings and that he was in the process of writing to Macnaghten about his suspicions that Klosowski/Chapman was the Ripper. This tends to demonstrate both Abberline’s continued interest in the case and his confidence in offering his unsolicited opinions to the Chief Constable.

In his 31 March interview he states “It is simple nonsense to talk of the police having proof that the man is dead. I am, and always have been, in the closest touch with Scotland Yard, and it would have been next to impossible for me not to have known all about it.” (My underline.)

That seems to answer your question. Unless you think Abberline was lying about this?

Did Abberline, on retirement, just walk out the door of Scotland Yard never to see or talk to his old friends and colleagues again? Never to discuss old cases or new information regarding those cases? Seems unlikely.

It should also be remembered that after his retirement from Scotland Yard Abberline became a private investigator in London, before working in Monte Carlo for three years. After that he joined the Pinkertons’ for several years, running their European office. Abberline, therefore, stayed doing detective work for some dozen years after he left the Yard. Ongoing police contact, as part of this work, seems likely especially since one of Abberline’s jobs (a missing person’s case) was given to him by the Commissioner of Police (Bradford apparently) himself. Apparently Abberline did keep in contact with Scotland Yard.

Wolf.

Some very good points. However, the problem I have with Abberline is with his comments- when advancing his own suspect, George Chapman-that no witness who saw the Ripper saw him from the front. Now, even it's argued that Hutchinson and Scwartz were subsequently undermined, what about Levy and Lawende? At the very least it makes you wonder about his objectivity and/ or memory or, indeed, exactly how much on the loop he was post-retirement.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Great post!


It is simple nonsense to talk of the police having proof that the man is dead.


And after some 130 years we still see some cute 'researchers' saying Druitt is the most valuable suspect we have!!!!



The Baron

The Parrot is back

[Trevor Marriott]

I've just been re-reading Paul Begg"s excellent appraisal of Druitt in the "The Facts." Thus, Paul points out that just about everything McNaughton says about Druitt is wrong. For instance, he says he was a doctor; he wasn't. He says that he committed suicide on or around the 10th November (just after the Kelly murder); he didn't. He implies that he was "sexually insane", but there's no evidence of this.

Of course, there's the matter of secret information supplied by family members who suspected him. However, Paul also points out that the Home Office and Scotland Yard files are full of individuals suspected by family members. They can't all be guilty! And as we don't know what this secret information was it's impossible for us to evaluate it.

Paul concludes by stating that what we know of Macnaghten is that he wouldn't suspect someone on flimsy evidence, but one wonders. I mean, if Druitt was such a good suspect, and had been objectively evaluated, why does Macnaghten fail to acquaint himself with the most rudimentary facts of Druitt's life? As I've argued before, there seems to be a recurring theme of individuals being suspected because they seemed to fulfill the nineteenth century stereotype of a serial killer.

Thus, Druitt was supposedly a "sexual maniac" and Kosminski insane. However, we now know that serial killers are rarely insane or mentally ill. Then there's the reason for the murders stopping: Druitt committed suicide just after the Kelly Murder, and Kosminski's mind supposedly gave way, leading to incarceration in an asylum in 1889. But it's now known that serial killers rarely commit suicide and rarely end up in an asylum.

All in all it leaves Druitt a somewhat unsatisfactory candidate, but then I suppose you could say the same about all of the suspects!

Hi John
As I previously stated I do not dispute MM received information. It is the quality of information that he allegedly received which is under scrutiny, and I still suggest that the hearsay information he obtained was exacly as he penned it in the memo, and he clearly did not do any specific research into it because of all the things about Druitt that he wrote which were wrong.

Paul Begg and his lap dog Herlock are the one banging their heads against a wall, and I fail to see the object of their efforts other than nitpicking.

MM wrote that he had information that Druitt was the killer- There is no dispute over that
He didnt disclose the source- There is no dispute over that
What he wrote about Druitt was wrong-There is no dispute over that
There is nothing today to show that he acted on what he was told-There is no dispute over that

What is in dispute is the validity of Druitt as a viable suspect based on what MM wrote appertaining to his private information and how his suspect status is perceived by each one of us.

These murders are being discussed in the 21st Century, and so it is right to use modern day investigative terminology terms when discussing the viability status of suspects, and to that end my personal perception is based on what is known, based on the fact that if he was a homosexual then he would not be a killer of the opposite sex. I look on Druiit as nothing more than a person of interest, and still say that the MM is unsafe to rely on as being accurate. That should not be in dispute !!!!!!!!!!!!!

If Druit based on what iis known is to be regarded as a suspect in the true sense, then we might as well simply categorize the other 200 names that have been suggested as "suspects" despite most them have nothing against them to show they should be regarded as a suspect.

Cold case reviews today are carried out as criminal re-investigations, not historical exercises, these such historical exercises as quoted by Paul Begg as we have seen do nothing but muddy the waters, by relying on newspaper reports many which conflict with each other, which may or may not be accurate, and quotes from ageing police officers who give nothing more than uncorroborated opinions, not to mention the many wild speculative opinions thrown into the mix by researchers.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk