Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    As intimate as Wolf suggests Abberline was with the theories of his cronies at Scotland Yard, they do not appear to have reciprocated, for they entirely ignored his Klosowski suggestion. Fred Abberline vigorously promoted the Poisoning Pole in the PMG on March 31st; Klosowski is hanged by the neck a week later, April 8th, never seriously investigated as Jack the Ripper.

    Why might that be?


    Nor does Abberline appear to have tempted Swanson, Macnaghten, Littlechild, Anderson, or Sagar over at The City away from their own thoughts and theories. After 1903, not one of them appears to have believed Klosowski was the Ripper.



    I find it slightly bizarre that anyone should favour, in this instance, a retired Chief Inspector living on the coast over a current Assistant Commissioner?
    Regards

    Herlock






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

    Comment



    • 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.
      And, as we don’t know what that information was we can neither categorically dismiss it or validate it. All that we know is that he felt it to be genuine. It might have come from someone that he trusted implicitly. The insignificant errors that you and others keep harping on about don’t alter the fact that he was talking about Druitt. A gap between learning and verifying the info and writing up his Memorandum might easily explain the errors.

      .
      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.
      I can understand that. It’s blatantly obvious that you really have a problem with people disagreeing with you. You are the one pointlessly nitpicking over terminology. We’re trying to discuss the case and you are nitpicking about terminology. It’s like having Pierre back! At least he wasn’t as unpleasant.

      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
      Lawton wrote a statement about CF - No dispute over that.
      No one else heard it so we have to take Lawton on trust that it ever occurred - No dispute over that.
      You say that CF (the source) was a compulsive liar. - No dispute over that.
      In any real investigation an uncorroborated statement taken from a compulsive liar heading for the gallows would be treated with nearer to contempt than caution. Unless you’re you of course, and it helps your case, then it’s gospel. That’s appears to be how it works. Unless you're the Assistant Commissioner Of The Met of course. Then your either a liar or a gullible idiot.

      .
      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.
      Which should be approached in an unbiased way. For a change in some cases.

      .
      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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!
      Could anything be more dishonest than the emboldened part? There’s not a serious shred of evidence that Druitt was gay and yet you are using it as a point against him!! There’s no if he was gay.

      You look on Druitt as nothing more than a person of interest - this is a perfect example of your unbounded ego - and because you look on him as a person of interest everyone else should too of course.

      You cannot tell tell everyone else what terms we should be using. You don’t make the rules because there are no hard and fast rules. Who would decide who is a suspect or a likely suspect or an unlikely one or a person of interest. You? What’s the point of this nitpicking? It doesn’t advance us it just wastes our time, which is basically what you and your parrot have been doing for the last week. There’s no meaningful league table of worthiness here where you can simply relegate someone to person of interest level. You really should give this up and stop focusing on trivialities simply to serve your own requirements.



      .
      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.
      For f#*@s sake!! If someone calls Lewis Carroll a suspect how does it impede our discussions on a forum. Answer - it doesn’t in any way because no one really bothers discussing him. It would impede a police investigation of course to have 200 suspects but this isn’t one. The choice is a simple one Trevor - if you don’t consider Druitt is a suspect STOP DISCUSSING HIM. SIMPLY IGNORE HIM.


      .
      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.
      This isn’t an episode of New Tricks! It should be an open minded, unbiased discussion free from people trying to impose their own rules which change when there own suspect is being discussed. Free from people telling us what words we can or can’t use. The simple fact is Trevor that if there was a thread about a suspect that I didn’t think was worthwhile I wouldn’t spend days posting on it just as an exercise in ego.
      Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 05-17-2019, 08:04 PM.
      Regards

      Herlock






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

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        I can’t see how this would have been manna from heaven for Macnaghten when he would have been adding to his current list of an incarcerated lunatic and a known criminal a man of previously unblemished reputation? Someone with no history of violence or criminality. A man from an extremely reputable family; a Barrister and a teacher at a posh school. This would hardly have been the Victorian publics idea of what Jack The Ripper would have looked like. Also, the movements of someone of Druitt’s station in life would have been far easier to trace than someone from the lower classes. How stupid would Mac have looked if he’d passed on his Memorandum and it had been looked into and found that Druitt was out of town on legal business for three of the murders? Macnaghten could easily have found a third suspect to add to his list and one far less problematic than Druitt. I think it was Farson (or maybe Cullen) who said something to the effect of - it’s Druitt’s unlikeliness that makes him such an interesting suspect. I think Mac suspected him because he genuinely felt that he had good reason for doing so.



        We might also add, on the issue of the class divided society, that it had previously been thought that no gentleman could have committed these crimes. Mac and Druitt we’re both gentlemen from families of gentleman. Wouldn’t that have made him less likely to have, without good reason, branded Druitt as the most depraved man in England? We also have to add that, as we know, one of Mac’s closest friends was related by marriage to the Druitt family. How vital was family honour in Victorian high society? How much did they shudder at the thought of scandal and dishonour prompted by events infinitely less serious than being accused of being Jack?

        I agree with Farson.
        I completely disagree that being from a reputable family would have discounted Druitt, or even constituted an impediment, in the eyes of the police. After all, the toff suspect Astrachan Man was unquestionably considered a serious suspect, at least initially.

        Druitt may have come from a reputable family be he was hardly reputable himself having been dismissed from Eliot Place for " a serious offence."

        As for Druitt's movements, Macnaghten didn't even get basic facts rights, believing Druitt to have been a doctor, for instance, thus risking looking "stupid." Why would he have been any more diligent in painstakingly tracing Druitt's movements during the murders? In fact, had he bothered to do so he may have discovered that Druitt may well have been out of town for one of the murders, Tabram, and that his further cricketing commitments make it somewhat questionable as to whether he could have killed Nicholls or Chapman-he would certainly be making life difficult for himself, i.e. by fitting in a couple of London murders in between a busy cricketing schedule! In fact, is there any evidence he was even in London, let alone Whitechapel, at the relevant time? As Sugden puts it, "one wonders whether he spent any of the school vacation that summer in London." ( Sugden, 2002).

        I have no doubt that Macnaghten believed he had good reason for suspecting him. However, the question is whether he was objectively justified in doing so.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
          ...

          "Yes," said Mr. Abberline, "I know all about that story… but there is absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him.”

          O really? Absolutely nothing beyond the fact he was found drowned?

          Is that an honest and fair rendition of the Macnaghten memo from an informed source?


          Of course it isn’t.

          ....
          You know, reading this makes me think the definition of "what is a suspect" has been going on for about 130 years now. Abberline is not saying there wasn't information that roused suspicions (what we're saying constitutes a suspect) but he's arguing there wasn't information that could "incriminate" him, as in tangible proof of his connection to the murders.

          Rather than ignorance of what MacNaughten had that resulted in MacNaughten's suspicions against Druitt, it looks in some ways that Abberline could very well know what MacNaughten had in terms of "private information", and he considered rumors of suspicion against someone as a dime a dozen so nothing there, but his suicide at the time was the one thing that might point to those suspicions having merit. But as suicides were not uncommon, even that is just a tantalizing pointer. So Abberline could be telling us a constraint on what we could suggest MacNaughten might have had; and that would rule out bloody knives, or confessions, or jars are organs, etc. I think we can rule those out anyway, as if MacNaughten had that kind of thing he would not have couched the MM in terms of listing anyone else, and would have just said "MJD killed himself and we had come across sufficient evidence to convict him had he not".

          Again, "suspect" in JtR is basically used to denote the person one is researching as a potential solution; it is not used in the criminal justice sense in these discussions. A "good suspect" is one where there is a credible, evidence based (meaning historical evidence, not investigative evidence) guiding that choice. Simply randomly picking someone from the census because they live in London in 1888 is not a good suspect. Picking someone who has been named by a senior police officer of the time as a suspect, is a good suspect even if we don't agree with, or know what, reason that police officer listed the person in the first place.

          Using the word suspect as per criminal justice definitions in the context of a historical area research that has it's own pre-established use of the word is inappropriate. Suspect, when used here, simply means the person at the focus of a solution based research project. It differentiates that topic or focus of research into an individual from other, also appropriate topics or focuses of research that might involve a particular person (one researching police officers, to learn of their careers and so forth, would not call them suspects).

          But a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, so whether or not you wish to use the phrase "good suspect" or "bad suspect" or even "not a suspect", it doesn't change one whit the information we have available to us - Druitt still is named on a list that connects him to the JtR murders at the time and which was compiled by a senior police officer of the time. That same document tells us there were some who held suspicions he might have been JtR, but we do not know the basis for those suspicions. And so forth. All of this makes him a very credible focus of research. Arguing over the definition and use of the word "suspect" is simply fighting over the rhetorical ability to use a pejorative or supportive sounding phrase, it has nothing to do with the quality of evidence or the rationality of the thinking or safety of the inferences we draw. Moreover, as we know, if Druitt does not qualify as a suspect despite him being named as one at the time, then nobody qualifies as a suspect in the JtR murders for there is no incriminating evidence against anybody. Therefore, the use of the term, "suspect" should continue to be used and understood as it has always been used in this context, as Paul has pointed out "Against one whom there is suspicion".

          - Jeff

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            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.

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            Trevor,
            Have you actually thought about what you've written here?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

              You know, reading this makes me think the definition of "what is a suspect" has been going on for about 130 years now. Abberline is not saying there wasn't information that roused suspicions (what we're saying constitutes a suspect) but he's arguing there wasn't information that could "incriminate" him, as in tangible proof of his connection to the murders.
              Hi Jeff. I just popped in, so I can give you an immediate response. That's one interpretation, but you should have added the word "maybe..."

              I know what you are saying, and even to a large extent agree with it, but, unfortunately, this observation in no way demonstrates that Abberline had knowledge of the entire 'case against Druitt.' It is still entirely unclear and uncertain how much he knew. He could have had full knowledge, and concluded that the 'evidence' did not incriminate Druitt (probably what Phil Sugden believed); or, on the other hand, he could have had almost no knowledge of the circumstances surrounding Druitt beyond the drowning, and thus said what he said out of a position of ignorance.

              There is no way of knowing which of the two he meant by his bare statement alone. And we still have the issue of his retirement, and Mac claiming the information was "private."

              The whole idea of ‘suspicion’ against this or that suspect is an odd one. Some people have nearly devoted their working lives to prove that this or that person was never a serious suspect (Tumblety, Druitt, take your pick) thus hoping to prove something, while others, gleefully acknowledge that their ‘suspect’ was never suspected by the police (Lechmere, Hutchinson, Francis Thomson, Maybrick, ad infinitum) yet are none the less certain he is the guilty party.

              Ultimately, suspicion, or lack thereof, does not prove a person’s guilt...…nor his innocence.

              So, in one respect, the entire argument is a lost cause, if one wishes to PROVE guilt.

              I think what Paul B might be suggesting is that police suspicion, in itself, signals that there must be something more to a ‘suspect’ than meets the eye. It’s a way of dispelling the ‘nay sayers.’ Agree with them or not, Anderson, Swanson, Sagar, Mac, Littlechild, Race?, etc. must have had their reasons. Most sensible people would acknowledge this.

              And it might even lead somewhere.

              For example, in the case of Kosminski, nowhere does Macnghten mention the incident with Kosminski’s sister and the knife. He said there were ‘strong circs.’ but didn’t not elaborate. It was subsequent research that turned up the incident with the knife, which tends to demonstrate that Macnaghten was not talking out of his hat.


              So, in that respect, police suspicion suggests there were reasons for suspicion, and it may not be entirely hopeless to uncover further data that could reveal what those reasons were.

              And, once again, I personally have no issue with the actual Ripper being a bad “suspect.”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by John G View Post

                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.
                This seems to be a common theme. I said as much about Melvin Harris some years ago. If theorists applied the same logic of critique against their own as they do against the theories of others, we likely wouldn't have any suspects at all!
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                  This seems to be a common theme. I said as much about Melvin Harris some years ago. If theorists applied the same logic of critique against their own as they do against the theories of others, we likely wouldn't have any suspects at all!
                  Well, for my part, I pretty much do! For instance, my favoured suspects at the moment are James Kelly and Francis Thompson, although I freely admit that the evidence against them is flimsy at best. Mind you, at least they have a proven association with Whitechapel!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    I find it slightly bizarre that anyone should favour, in this instance, a retired Chief Inspector living on the coast over a current Assistant Commissioner?
                    And, as far as Scotland Yard welcoming Private Detective Abberline with open arm; "and how can we help you today George?". I don't think...!
                    It's no secret what professional detectives think of those private eyes - ex-copper or not, and it doesn't result in sharing privy data with a retired wanna-be detective. George Abberline is now nothing more than an inquisitive private citizen, and thats how Scotland Yard officials will treat him.
                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • I completely disagree that being from a reputable family would have discounted Druitt, or even constituted an impediment, in the eyes of the police. After all, the toff suspect Astrachan Man was unquestionably considered a serious suspect, at least initially.
                      Im not saying that it would have discounted him John. What I’m saying is that if Macnaghten simply wanted a name for his ‘better suspect than Cutbush’ list he could with very little effort have come up with one that would have been more acceptable in terms of being either mad or criminal (and of the lower classes.) The question therefore is - why Druitt unless Macnaghten felt that the evidence he had received warranted it. We have no evidence that he was either a liar or a gullible fool.

                      . Druitt may have come from a reputable family be he was hardly reputable himself having been dismissed from Eliot Place for " a serious offence."
                      Obviously we don’t know why he was sacked but it was indeed something serious. He was reputable up until his sacking.

                      .
                      As for Druitt's movements, Macnaghten didn't even get basic facts rights, believing Druitt to have been a doctor, for instance, thus risking looking "stupid." Why would he have been any more diligent in painstakingly tracing Druitt's movements during the murders? In fact, had he bothered to do so he may have discovered that Druitt may well have been out of town for one of the murders, Tabram, and that his further cricketing commitments make it somewhat questionable as to whether he could have killed Nicholls or Chapman-he would certainly be making life difficult for himself, i.e. by fitting in a couple of London murders in between a busy cricketing schedule! In fact, is there any evidence he was even in London, let alone Whitechapel, at the relevant time? As Sugden puts it, "one wonders whether he spent any of the school vacation that summer in London." ( Sugden, 2002).
                      Again John, I didn’t say that he would have been more diligent in tracing Druitt’s movements but whoever he passed his Memorandum on to may have been and they would have found Druitt much easier to check than your average working class man.

                      It’s by no means certain the Tabram was a ripper victim. I strongly feel that she wasn’t. Unless we can prove that she was then she, like Mackenzie cannot be used to exonerate Druitt.

                      The crickets commitments, in no way, preclude Druitt. I don’t know why they even get mentioned. It’s a done deal.

                      If you can show that Druitt might not have been in London then we’d all appreciate the evidence John. No one has done it so far.

                      . I have no doubt that Macnaghten believed he had good reason for suspecting him. However, the question is whether he was objectively justified in doing so.
                      True of course.

                      So we can maybe ask a few question to start off

                      1. Is there any evidence that Druitt couldn’t have been the ripper? - I’d say resoundingly no.

                      2. Do we have any evidence that Sir Melville Macnaghten was dishonest (apart from in regard to the way that we all lie for what we feel are valid reasons at some points in our lives.)? - No we don’t.

                      3. Do we have any evidence that Sir Melville Macnaghten was a bumbling, gullible fool that would believe any old tosh? - No we don’t.

                      4. Do we have any surviving evidence to show that Druitt can be connected to these murders? - No we don’t.

                      5. Is the above exclusive to Druitt or every other suspect? - I’d say no it’s not exclusive to Druitt. But what appears to be exclusive to Druitt (and Maybrick of course) is that he seems to make people angry for some reason.

                      6. Are there any physical facts like age, fitness, appearance, location that might preclude Druitt? - No.

                      And so, at the very least, we have a man that was considered a very likely suspect by The Assistant Commissioner of the Met who mentions info coming from Druitt’s own family. Was there a link between Mac and Druitt’s own family which might show that it’s entirely plausible that the info could have come into his possession from them? Very conveniently (or inconveniently for some) there was. This suspect, despite being very easy to trace and examine, cannot be exonerated by any known information. We have numerous references to the ripper committing suicide and being pulled from the Thames. We have Fleet saying that, at the time of the murders, there were rumours that the ripper lived in Blackheath (Yes, only rumours but rumours can sometimes contain truth, and it’s certainly a coincidence that Druitt actually lived in Blackheath.) We have Robert Druitt’s memoirs halted just after the Kelly murder and restarted around the time of the Memorandum and its mysterious message? We have Druitt’s sacking from the school which might or might not have been related to the murders or at least been related to Druitt’s mental state. Even if we postulate that the ripper had anatomical knowledge we can far more easily with Druitt than most other suspects give a reasonable possible explanation as to how he might have gained such knowledge.

                      Theres more than this of course but I fail to see how anyone can be so incurious (to use Roger’s word) as to think that Druitt isn’t worth looking into further. That we should treat the MM as a worthless scrap of paper for a couple of entirely insignificant, inconsequential errors (errors that might easily be given reasonable explanations.) I’ll say again, and I’ll keep saying it despite the biased call by some, Montague John Druitt is a worthwhile Ripper Suspect. Far more worthwhile than the overwhelming majority.
                      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 John G View Post

                        Well, for my part, I pretty much do! For instance, my favoured suspects at the moment are James Kelly and Francis Thompson, although I freely admit that the evidence against them is flimsy at best. Mind you, at least they have a proven association with Whitechapel!
                        And this is part of the problem John. It’s what criteria we apply. If there was a murder in Stepney would you, if you suspected that Kelly might have been a killer, have exonerated him if we couldn’t link him to Stepney. Of course not. He was close enough and as Wick has pointed out, if Monty had been a regular in Whitechapel he’d hardly have been signing any visitors books. So what evidence could we have expected to exist. He’s hardly likely to have said to his colleagues at the school “im just nipping down to Whitechapel for a pint.” A Vicar relation of Druitt’s actually did charitable work in the East End. Many of the upper classes felt it their Christian duty to do ‘good works.’ Maybe Monty did charitable work amongst the fallen women? It’s at least a possibility.
                        Regards

                        Herlock






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

                        Comment


                        • And just on the subject of the word suspect.

                          If myself, Paul, Wickerman and Roger continue to refer to Druitt as a suspect but Trevor and Harry insist on person of interest would that either a) bother me or b) in anyway impede discussion? I’d say overwhelmingly no so again... why the pointless quibbling.

                          And besides a suspect can turn out to be innocent whilst a person of interest can turn out to be guilty.

                          Its just a pointless, time wasting distraction.
                          Regards

                          Herlock






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

                          Comment


                          • Hi Jon,

                            Hold hard, Everard.

                            In 1898 Abberline was assisting Scotland Yard in the Hampstead murder.

                            He was working alongside Frank Froest, who didn't retire until 1912.

                            Regards,

                            Simon
                            Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                              I think what Paul B might be suggesting is that police suspicion, in itself, signals that there must be something more to a ‘suspect’ than meets the eye. It’s a way of dispelling the ‘nay sayers.’ Agree with them or not, Anderson, Swanson, Sagar, Mac, Littlechild, Race?, etc. must have had their reasons. Most sensible people would acknowledge this.......

                              So, in that respect, police suspicion suggests there were reasons for suspicion, and it may not be entirely hopeless to uncover further data that could reveal what those reasons were.”
                              Hi RJ.

                              Yes, agreed. Police suspicion ranks head & shoulders above that of the modern theorist, even when the evidence behind that suspicion no longer exists. And, especially a police officer who was still on the force at the time the suspicion was recorded.
                              Suspicions voiced by the likes of Anderson, Swanson, Sagar & Abberline while they were still on the force would be invaluable, but alas we have none.

                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                                Hi Jon,

                                Hold hard, Everard.

                                In 1898 Abberline was assisting Scotland Yard in the Hampstead murder.

                                He was working alongside Frank Froest, who didn't retire until 1912.

                                Regards,

                                Simon
                                Hi Simon, ever heard of the exception that proves the rule?
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X