What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Nicely played.

Regards,

Simon

[GUT]

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.

And that’s why I say that handful of suspects need to be cleared before we go inventing others. Druitt, Tumblety, Koslowski etc.

[Wickerman]

I guess there must be more than one Hampstead murder - I have 1890 for the Hampstead Murder Case.

[rjpalmer]

I guess there must be more than one Hampstead murder.

It's a rough area. People bludgeoning each other to death with copies of Jane Austin's Emma.

[JeffHamm]

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..."

Hi rjpalmer,

Fair enough, though I intended phrases like "...makes me think..." and "...it looks in some ways that Abberline could very well know ..." to signal the same, that I was presenting just one of many possible interpretations. I in no way intended to suggest what I was putting forth was the one and only interpretation.

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.

I fully agree. I was just noting that even if Abberline did have full knowledge, he could still have expressed his belief as he did, and MacNaughten express his belief as he did, without creating the situation where one of them must be lying as I was suggesting they are using different criterion; which seems to be the issue going on now. And, because that "different criterion" explanation doesn't require us to ignore data, rather it explains data, I think it is fair to consider it a viable (if not proven) hypothesis.

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."

Yes, that is always the case when we can not go back and ask the people exactly what they meant. We are forced to make inferences about their intentions, and often there are a number of inferences possible. I just noticed that one inference could be made that resolved the apparent conflict between the two would be to liken the difference of opinions expressed to the current discussion. The two could have (not did, but could have) access to exactly the same information and yet through different criterion of evaluation present their arguments in diametrically opposed wording. We're seeing that here after all.

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.

True. I view "suspect" and "guilty" as separate, in many ways in that one can be a suspect and yet in truth be innocent, and one can be in truth guilty and yet not suspected. The latter do not get researched because without suspicion there is no motivation to research them (even if one finds something serendipitously upon that find the person becomes a suspect and further research ensues). So, I think there needs to be something that gets the ball rolling though. Wtih Druitt and Tumblety we have their names from contemporary police officers, Hutchinson, while apparently not suspected at the time, admits to being in the vicinity of Miller's Court at a time close to when the murder may have occurred, and Sarah Lewis's testimony seems to corroborate that. Modern researchers put him on this suspect list because of that fact (right place right time), Maybrick is there because of the Diary, Lechmere/Cross because he found Nichols, and so forth. Again, there is something that draws attention to them. Suspects, like Royal Doctors and so forth, have nothing to put them on the list and so I would argue those sorts of "suspects" are misnamed as such (Lewis Carrol, for example - I'm sorry, but anagrams are not evidence of anything, they are the result of games and fantasy).

This is why I think in the context of JtR, because we're not police working on a cold case, but historical researchers examining a historical crime, suspect just means "person for whom suspicion is held", or in other words, "the person at the focus of the research into the identity of JtR". If your "suspect" appears to be drawn from a hat by chance (i.e. Lewis Carrol), then you're leaving it to chance you happened to pick the right person. If your suspect comes by being named by a contemporary police officer, that's probably a good starting point. But it still doesn't mean you've got the right person. Research, once it clears somebody (proves they could not have been JtR), can then be said to have served it's purpose. Druitt is not entirely out of the question, hence people continue to research his life. Even if he were cleared, there are interesting questions remaining to be answered - such as "What was that private information that MacNaughten had?"

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.

Entirely agree.

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.

Yes, evidence of suspicion by contemporary police officers is a good reason for us to be interested in someone. They had access to a lot of information lost to us. While we don't know what it was, they did and if they held suspicions, that should be of interest to us.

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.

Yes, that's what research does. It turns up information, and by adding that new information to our storehouse of evidence, previous evidence that was unclear starts to make sense. Research into Druitt, for example, shows that while he was not a doctor, his father was. That sort of factual error looks to me like a standard memory error, remembering Druitt as a doctor rather than as the son of a doctor. If it was a memory error, then an interesting question becomes "To what extent did that memory error influenced MacNaughten's thinking about Druitt as JtR?" And if that memory error influenced his thinking, then our confidence in MacNaughten's view might likewise require some caution. Again, this is only one hypothetical line of reasoning I'm not saying it is the only one (see below).

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.

Absolutely. Because, even if my above hypothetical line were true, it may also be true that the other information he had would be strong enough on it's own to warrent suspicion and so forth. This is why research is necessary. We can't say MacNaughten's factual errors are fatal to his suspicions without knowing all of the information he had available at that time. We cannot weigh his evidence without knowing what his evidence was. We know his conclusion, just not how he got there. Research, hopefully, will enlighten us. Until then we just have hypotheses, and those are only answered with data.

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

Nor do I, though personally, I'm not really concerned with identification of JtR just yet. Mostly, I think there's lots to be done just sorting out the details of what even happened, and who saw what, etc.

- Jeff

P.S. In terms of serendipity, for example, there is the Henry/ Harry Buckley thread, where Trevor apparently has suggested this may be "Blotchy Face/Carroty Mustache" man seen with Kelly. If that identification is correct, given that blotchy is considered by many as a good "unnamed suspect", Buckley could now very well be considered a "suspect", even though one could argue we can't be sure he actually was blotchy. That "one in the same" connection hasn't been proven, but it has been suggested and there are interesting circumstances that now make him worthy of investigation. He becomes a "suspect" in the historical JtR sense. But that's going off topic.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

How anybody can argue the arse out of a phenomenon who/that/which never happened is completely beyond me.

Wake me up when someone finds some solid proof against one suspect or another.

Regards,

Simon

[JeffHamm]

Hi All,

How anybody can argue the arse out of a phenomenon who/that/which never happened is completely beyond me.

Wake me up when someone finds some solid proof against one suspect or another.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

You may end up with the nickname Rip Van Winkle if we must let you sleep until solid proof is found.

- Jeff

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jeff,

Thanks.

That tells me all I need to know.

Regards,

Simon

[harry]

No Paul, it would not make you a suspect.Only if the suspicion could be proven,would you become a suspect.Forget the dictionary,instead look to the general principle of 'A person is considered innocent until proven guilty'.Like it or not,police jargon as you call it, cannot be ignored. Suspicion,investigation,conclusion. I believe all three stages apply whether the Ripper killings are considered in a historical or police investigative manner. As no investigation into the suspicions of the Druitt family can be proven to have been undertaken,then no conclusion as to Druitt being suspect is acceptable. MM did not declare a belief in Druitt's guilt,nor did he use the word suspect in relation to Druitt. He simply declared a belief that the family were genuine,meaning the suspicions were real to them,the family.In no way does MM suggest that any other person or agency held such suspicions.,or what form the suspicions took. No Herlock,I do not insist on anything,you are incorrect yet again.It is true I consider Druitt of some interest,but how other persons view him is up to them.

[Abby Normal]

No Paul, it would not make you a suspect.Only if the suspicion could be proven,would you become a suspect.Forget the dictionary,instead look to the general principle of 'A person is considered innocent until proven guilty'.Like it or not,police jargon as you call it, cannot be ignored. Suspicion,investigation,conclusion. I believe all three stages apply whether the Ripper killings are considered in a historical or police investigative manner. As no investigation into the suspicions of the Druitt family can be proven to have been undertaken,then no conclusion as to Druitt being suspect is acceptable. MM did not declare a belief in Druitt's guilt,nor did he use the word suspect in relation to Druitt. He simply declared a belief that the family were genuine,meaning the suspicions were real to them,the family.In no way does MM suggest that any other person or agency held such suspicions.,or what form the suspicions took. No Herlock,I do not insist on anything,you are incorrect yet again.It is true I consider Druitt of some interest,but how other persons view him is up to them.

this isnt a modern court case. its history. good grief why cant you understand?

[harry]

Who is talking about a court case Abby? It is a crime case that is under consideration.If that is your contribution,then I have nothing to worry about.

[Abby Normal]

Who is talking about a court case Abby? It is a crime case that is under consideration.If that is your contribution,then I have nothing to worry about.

id be worrying about dementia if i was you.

[PaulB]

No Paul, it would not make you a suspect.Only if the suspicion could be proven,would you become a suspect.Forget the dictionary,instead look to the general principle of 'A person is considered innocent until proven guilty'.Like it or not,police jargon as you call it, cannot be ignored. Suspicion,investigation,conclusion. I believe all three stages apply whether the Ripper killings are considered in a historical or police investigative manner. As no investigation into the suspicions of the Druitt family can be proven to have been undertaken,then no conclusion as to Druitt being suspect is acceptable. MM did not declare a belief in Druitt's guilt,nor did he use the word suspect in relation to Druitt. He simply declared a belief that the family were genuine,meaning the suspicions were real to them,the family.In no way does MM suggest that any other person or agency held such suspicions.,or what form the suspicions took. No Herlock,I do not insist on anything,you are incorrect yet again.It is true I consider Druitt of some interest,but how other persons view him is up to them.

Harry,
Yes, it would make me a suspect. I would be a suspect because you suspected me. Your suspicion doesn't convey guilt, it simply means that you, if nobody else, have reasons to think I could be guilty. It is only 21st century policemen who distinguishes between different types of suspect and what they may mean by 'suspect' isn't the way the majority of people understand and use the word. We don't 'forget the dictionary', Harry, we forget the jargon.

No matter how you approach 'Jack the Ripper', be it as a cold-case investigation, a historical mystery, or an event in the past, you have to judge people by the time in which they lived, and that means understanding what people meant by the words they used. In the late 19th century 'gay' almost exclusively meant cheerful and jolly, and if a man described himself as 'gay' he almost certainly wouldn't have been referring to his sexual orientation, and talk of a 'gay parade' would have conveyed something totally different to what it does today. If you start applying the modern meanings to what people wrote and said in the past, you'd very quickly end up with a horrendously distorted view of what was going on. That's why you do not apply 21st century word usage, especially modern jargon, to the 19th century. And that, amongst other reasons, is why this subject is history. It is necessary to understand that 19th century world, not apply our world too it.

So, Macnaghten thought Druitt was the most likely suspect to have been Jack the Ripper. That much is abundantly clear from the sources we have. As has been explained, Macnaghten wrote of information implicating Druitt having been received by the police some years after mid-1889 and he also wrote of private information from which he deduced the beliefs of Druitt's family. It is assumed that this information was one and the same, and it is also assumed that the information came from Druitt's family, but neither assumption need be correct. You are making an assumption about Druitt's family too. The rest of what you say has been gone over time and time again.

[harry]

We have one source for Druitt,and that was MM."H e was sexually insane,and from private info I have little doubt that his own family believes him to be the murderer"
His own family.No evidence Druitt was sexually insane ,and the wording clearly indicates MM was not talking about his (MM)'s belief of Guilt,but the family's.
Yes it has been gone over many times and still, the same untrue and misleading claims that it was MM who had the beliefs of guilt.Well tell me the words that MM used to describe his(MM)'s beliefs,or the words that others used.Anyone?
My jargon,,and I am entitled to it,is preferable to the jabber constantly sprouted by those supporting Druitt as suspect,and being as I was never in the police,it isn't police jargon I use.They are so wrong again.
Well AbbyI suppose it's your own condition that allows you to speak of dementia,but keep it up,personell abuse seems to be the last desperate attempt to sell the Druitt non starter.Damn,that jargon again.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No Herlock,I do not insist on anything,you are incorrect yet again.It is true I consider Druitt of some interest,but how other persons view him is up to them.

This talk of the use of the word ‘suspect’ is a meaningless quibble Harry. It’s achieving nothing. whether we feel that Druitt should be considered as one or a person of interest or any other title that we decide to bestow. So why is it so important to you and Trevor that we should call Druitt a person of interest? As I’ve said, you and Trevor and anyone else are free to do so and I won’t even comment on it. I don’t see why you should insist that everyone else follow suit though Harry? Does whatever title we select for Druitt affect how we treat his candidature or discuss matters? I really can’t see how? This isn’t a police investigation where a more rigorous kind of classification would have been necessary. As I said in my earlier post Harry, a suspect can turn out to be innocent and yet a person of interest can turn out to be guilty. This isn’t personal Harry. I’m not criticising you because you see Druitt as a poor candidate. I happen to disagree...so what. All I’m saying is that an inordinate amount of time on here is being wasted on an issue that’s completely trivial.