Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi Jon,

    Glad to hear it. Welcome.

    Melville Macnaghten, Aberconway Versionó

    "Personally, after much careful & deliberate consideration, I am inclined to exonerate the last 2, but I have always held strong opinions regarding no. 1, and the more I think the matter over, the stronger do these suspicions become."

    You'll find no such careful & deliberate consideration in the 23rd February 1894 version.

    Regards,

    Simon
    Hi Simon.

    To return to the above sentence.
    The passage is entirely subjective, purely emotional and has no place in a report to his superiors (or the Home Office, if that was the intent).

    Also, if you notice the last sentence of the A.V. :

    ".....was the case of the unidentified woman who trunk was found in Pinchin Street on 10th Sept. í89 and has already been dealt with in this memorandum."

    You don't send a memorandum to your boss, this word was omitted from the S.Y. version.
    However, the line you quoted above,
    "Personally, after much careful.....etc." just may betray the fact that Mac. did indeed have a memorandum already in print concerning his personal suspicions long before the Cutbush article was published.

    I have to wonder if this was not what the actual Donner version contained, a personal memorandum identifying his private suspicions on Jack the Ripper.
    When the Cutbush article surfaced in 1894 Mac. re-wrote his Donner memorandum to contain references to Cutbush and the result was the A.V.
    After poof reading the A.V. he settled on the final version which turned up at Scotland Yard.
    Hence, that quote you previously posted was true, he had theorized & speculated for years who the murderer was, and his thoughts had been captured in what we call the Donner version, which sadly cannot be found.







    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment




    • . which may indicate that they clearly suspected the murder of Alice McKenzie in July 1889 as being the work of the Ripper.
      This makes no sense.

      And yes, we know that some felt that she was a victim. Many didnít.

      This also shows that authorization for the extra manpower to be sustained would have come from the likes of MM
      Doesn't mean that it was Macnaghten himself

      .
      So taking all that into account we are entitled to draw and inference, that the private information, along with his strong opinions are not reliable, otherwise he would not have been an obvious party to authorizing the continued manpower and being a part of the concerns raised by senior officers.
      In no way does this affect what we know about Macnaghtenís opinion about Druitt. He and Anderson might have had a difference of opinion. Doesnít mean that Mac was wrong.

      Another desperate attempt Trevor.
      Regards

      Herlock






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

      Comment


      • Originally posted by GUT View Post

        I actually agree that that was probably the order, just the methodology being discussed was, in my opinion, questionable.
        I'm open to a better methodology that can demonstrate which is the older document by hours or days.
        Any ideas GUT?
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post



          This makes no sense.

          And yes, we know that some felt that she was a victim. Many didnít.



          Doesn't mean that it was Macnaghten himself



          In no way does this affect what we know about Macnaghtenís opinion about Druitt. He and Anderson might have had a difference of opinion. Doesnít mean that Mac was wrong.

          Another desperate attempt Trevor.
          We know nothing about how he came to opine, only that he formed it as a result of what he was told by somebody, who was told it by the Druitt family.

          But again in your haste you missed the point, whatever senior officer it was, or more than one, they made the decision to continue paying for extra patrols in Whitechapel. Why would they do that if MM knew the identity of the killer and that he knew killer was long dead. Do you not think that if he had as good information as you and others seem to believe, he would have confided with the others of high rank? and aborted the extra patrols at all that extra expense?

          get a grip of yourself, wake up to reality !

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by John G View Post
            There can be no doubt that in the nineteenth century the criminal law process heavily favoured the prosecution, resulting in miscarriages of justices, such as the notorious Adolph Beck case. That's why the Criminal Appeal Court was estsblished in 1907.

            The aforementioned Beck case highlights just how little was required to secure a conviction. Thus, Beck was convicted on the basis of, " unreliable methods of identification, erroneous eye witness testimony, and a rush to convict the accused": Wikipedia, citing Coates 1999. This, of course, has echoes of what happened to Kosminski, and suggests it would have been possible, if not likely, to secure a conviction based on the avalable evidence (of course, he was determined to be insane, so the issue didn't arise.)

            Considering context, it's easy to see why McNaughton considered that there was ample evidence for Druitt to be considered a viable suspect.
            Hi John G

            But the irony, if one wants to call it that, is that the chief promoter of the Druitt theory in print---George R. Sims--was also the chief champion for Adolph Beck's innocence, and, by giving publicity to the case, was instrumental in getting his conviction overturned, as was Macnaghten, who despite police opinion (and embarrassment) admitted that it was a case of mistaken identity.

            John Hainsworth made this point in his study of Druitt.

            So wouldn't this at least suggest that Sims and Macnaghten understood the potential pitfalls of circumstantial "evidence"? The Adolph Beck case actually appears to be a mark in their favor, as not necessarily being willing to jump to quick decisions based on questionable "evidence." Cheers, RP
            Last edited by rjpalmer; 05-20-2019, 03:52 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              We know nothing about how he came to opine, only that he formed it as a result of what he was told by somebody, who was told it by the Druitt family.

              But again in your haste you missed the point, whatever senior officer it was, or more than one, they made the decision to continue paying for extra patrols in Whitechapel. Why would they do that if MM knew the identity of the killer and that he knew killer was long dead. Do you not think that if he had as good information as you and others seem to believe, he would have confided with the others of high rank? and aborted the extra patrols at all that extra expense?

              get a grip of yourself, wake up to reality !

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              Try reading the post youíre responding to.

              Anderson and Macnaghten might simply have disagreed. We canít simply assume that Anderson was correct and Mac was wrong. The evidence that Mac spoke of mightnít have been good enough to warrant an arrest. This is why he used the word likely. And as a possible suspects guilt couldnít have been definitively proven Anderson wouldnít have wanted to reduce the police presence only to have another ripper murder or two or three!
              Regards

              Herlock






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

              Comment


              • Hi Herlock -- Was David Anderson's book on Druitt available in paper, or was it only an e-Book? It appears to be as rare as molars on a chicken.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  In July 1889 in Whitechapel there was still a compliment of three sergeants and thirty-nine constables from other divisions outside Whitechapel, that decreased slightly in January 1890 to three sergeants and twenty-six constables and in March 1890 it was reduced even more to two sergeants and eleven constables which may indicate that they clearly suspected the murder of Alice McKenzie in July 1889 as being the work of the Ripper.

                  This same file contains memos from many senior officers regarding the concerns over the cost of this extra manpower. Clearly this shows that up until then the police did not have any clue as to the identity of Jack the Ripper or any suspicions about a "suspect"

                  This also shows that authorization for the extra manpower to be sustained would have come from the likes of MM.

                  So taking all that into account we are entitled to draw and inference, that the private information, along with his strong opinions are not reliable, otherwise he would not have been an obvious party to authorizing the continued manpower and being a part of the concerns raised by senior officers.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  But Trevor, you seem to assume this private information was received before mid 1889, yet Mac. does not say that specifically. Mac. only tells us that the police received information which connected the suicide to the murders "some years after" he joined the force.
                  This would tie in with the publication of the Farquharson story in Feb. 1891.
                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                    Hi John G

                    But the irony, if one wants to call it that, is that the chief promoter of the Druitt theory in print---George R. Sims--was also the chief champion for Adolph Beck's innocence, and, by giving publicity to the case, was instrumental in getting his conviction overturned, as was Macnaghten, who despite police opinion (and embarrassment) admitted that it was a case of mistaken identity.

                    John Hainsworth made this point in his study of Druitt.

                    So wouldn't this at least suggest that Sims and Macnaghten understood the potential pitfalls of circumstantial "evidence"? The Adolph Beck case actually appears to be a mark in their favor, as not necessarily being willing to jump to quick decisions based on questionable "evidence." Cheers, RP
                    Hi RJ,

                    Thanks for this very detailed reply. Fascinating. And wasn't Sims firmly of the opinion that Druitt was JtR? That said, Macnaghten was far more cautious, recognizing that his argument was speculative, based upon incomplete information: "The truth, however, will never be known, and did, indeed, at one time lie at the bottom of the Thames, if my conjections be correct!"

                    Of course, some of those conjections were based upon inaccurate information, such as the date of the suicide, and Druitt being a doctor, as well as defective reasoning, such as the idea that the Ripper's brain gave way after the MJK murder (serial killers rarely commit suicide, especially if they haven't been caught.)

                    Comment


                    • Interesting that at around the time of the discovery of Druitt's body, detectives were visiting all the registered private lunatic asylums and various county asylums in the search for the Whitechapel murderer.
                      Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                      Comment


                      • Hi Jon,

                        Can we be certain that a Donner version existed?

                        Regards,

                        Simon
                        Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          There is another issue which has been overlooked which involves seniot police officers including MM

                          This evidence comes from official police sources and is contained in a Home Office file numbered HO 144/221A49301G, and is with The National Archives. This file relates to the payment of additional expenses to police officers drafted into Whitechapel at the time of the murders. It has been long suggested that a short time after the Mary Kelly murder in November 1888 the police operation in Whitechapel was wound down. (Druitt) ?

                          The truth is that this file shows that the police who were drafted into Whitechapel were kept on at great additional expense long after the Mary Kelly murder. In fact they were not wound down for some considerable time after the Kelly murder.

                          In July 1889 in Whitechapel there was still a compliment of three sergeants and thirty-nine constables from other divisions outside Whitechapel, that decreased slightly in January 1890 to three sergeants and twenty-six constables and in March 1890 it was reduced even more to two sergeants and eleven constables which may indicate that they clearly suspected the murder of Alice McKenzie in July 1889 as being the work of the Ripper.

                          This same file contains memos from many senior officers regarding the concerns over the cost of this extra manpower. Clearly this shows that up until then the police did not have any clue as to the identity of Jack the Ripper or any suspicions about a "suspect"

                          This also shows that authorization for the extra manpower to be sustained would have come from the likes of MM.

                          So taking all that into account we are entitled to draw and inference, that the private information, along with his strong opinions are not reliable, otherwise he would not have been an obvious party to authorizing the continued manpower and being a part of the concerns raised by senior officers.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          Hi Trevor,

                          Yes, but I doubt Macnaghten's opinion would have been decisive, especially as he seems to be the only senior officer who favoured Druitt. For instance, as you say, there was an additional police presence in Whitechapel after the Mackenzie murder, even though Macnaghten didn't think she was a Ripper victim.

                          Moreover, Macnaghten didn't say Druitt was definitely the Ripper, or even that there would have been enough evidence to prosecute him, recognising his own arguments as conjecture.

                          Now, I'm sure many would argue that the evidence against Lechmere is even less convincing than the evidence against Druitt. Nonetheless, a modern, highly respected, barrister James Scobie, has opined that there is sufficient evidence against him to have had him up on a murder trial. Well, on that basis, I humbly submit that Druitt deserves to be considered at least as a viable suspect!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                            Hi John
                            Your questions are really what this is all about - looking at the source, asking questions of it, and evaluating the answers to see where they lead. I suggested back in 1988 that Macnaghten's 'little doubt' probably means that the source of his 'private information' was not a member of Druitt's family. But that doesn't mean it was hearsay either, but have been a conclusion Macnaghten reached for himself from what the information said.
                            Similarly, 'said to be a doctor'; Macnaghten knew details such as the train ticket, but not Druitt's profession, which leads to the conclusion that he took his information from a source that knew details relating to the discovery of the body, but which pre-dated the inquest at which correct details about Druitt were given. I thought the most likely source was therefore PC Moulson's report about the discovery of the body. Why he would have used that, of course, is an entirely different matter, but it makes the errors much less significant than some have recently been arguing.
                            Hi Paul,

                            Thanks for reply. Yes, I agree. However, am I right in thinking that PC Moulson's official report hasn't survived?

                            What do you think about the point I made to Trevor, comparing Lechmere to Druitt? Thus, I don't know what your views are on Lechmere, but as noted in my earlier post, a modern, highly respected criminal law barrister, James Scobie, has expressed a view that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to have warranted commital for trial.

                            Now, as I also noted, many would no doubt argue that the case against Lechmere is weaker than the case against Druitt. For example, Druitt was at least suspected by a very senior officer at the time, whereas Lechmere, as far as we know, wasn't suspected by anyone.

                            On that basis, I would have thought Druitt deserves to be considered at least as a viable suspect.
                            Last edited by John G; 05-20-2019, 05:57 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                              Hi Herlock -- Was David Anderson's book on Druitt available in paper, or was it only an e-Book? It appears to be as rare as molars on a chicken.
                              Hi Roger,

                              It only appears to be available in e-book form. I havenít been able to find a hard copy anywhere. I donít even know if it was ever available in paper form?
                              Regards

                              Herlock






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

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                                Hi Jon,

                                Can we be certain that a Donner version existed?

                                Regards,

                                Simon
                                Hi Simon.

                                I have read nothing to indicate certainty.
                                Though, the typed pages of the A.V. must have been taken from a hand written copy, which may be the Donner version.
                                If we had some idea what the Donner version said or didn't say we'd have a better idea.
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X