Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • 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
    Trevor,
    Macnaghten states very clearly that the police received information implicating Druitt 'several years' after mid-1889 - 'several years' - which could have been as late as early 1894. Whatever the information was, it clearly wasn't conclusive, Macnaghten states there was no proof against anyone. So, no matter how certain Macnaghten may have been that Druitt was the guilty man, there was no certainty, therefore Macnaghten wouldn't have risked being wrong about Druitt and the murderer still being at large and killing again, so he would have authorised the additional manpower.



    Comment


    • Sorry if this has been posted before. Here is a newspaper account of Macnaghten from his obituary:

      Sir Melville came across a poor woman of Whitechapel who told him a story that seemed to fully collaborate a theory that he had formed while sitting in a public house in the Commercial Road. A very nicely-spoken, quiet-looking elderly man sat next to her. Conversation naturally turned upon the “Ripper” horror, and the stranger shaking his head softly, said with a pious air: 'Truly in the midst of life we are in death.' He was carrying a small black bag. This he opened and produced a tract. The cover bore the words 'Prepare to meet thy God.' This he presented to the woman. The tract passed into the possession of Sir Melville, and he came to the conclusion that the 'Ripper' was a religious maniac with homicidal tendencies developed by a certain disease. Finally, Sir Melville narrowed down his search to a point where he was morally certain that he knew the man…Then suddenly he solved the difficulty himself. He committed suicide. A body was found in the Thames, and from certain evidence Sir Melville was able to convince the authorities that this was the man who had for so long terrorised the community. A few months later [June 1889] he was made Chief Constable.

      -Reynolds News, May 15, 1921
      Last edited by Scott Nelson; 05-20-2019, 07:16 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by John G View Post

        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!
        John, we disagree on a few things (whether ripper or Wallace) but this is a very honest, fair-minded post coming from someone that doesn’t think that Druitt is a particularly good suspect. It’s a pity that Trevor can’t take a leaf out of the same book.
        Regards

        Herlock






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

        Comment


        • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

          Trevor,
          Macnaghten states very clearly that the police received information implicating Druitt 'several years' after mid-1889 - 'several years' - which could have been as late as early 1894. Whatever the information was, it clearly wasn't conclusive, Macnaghten states there was no proof against anyone. So, no matter how certain Macnaghten may have been that Druitt was the guilty man, there was no certainty, therefore Macnaghten wouldn't have risked being wrong about Druitt and the murderer still being at large and killing again, so he would have authorised the additional manpower.


          This isn’t difficult Trevor but, yet again, Paul has to explain the obvious.
          Regards

          Herlock






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

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            I also think that it’s worth noting Paul the very specific 41 instead of 31. Coincidence or connection? Was Mac told 31 but after checking Moulson’s report which said the body looked like a man of about 40 he mistakenly wrote 41? It’s not exactly a massive howler is it?
            Or even a typo.
            G U T

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

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              I also think that it’s worth noting Paul the very specific 41 instead of 31. Coincidence or connection? Was Mac told 31 but after checking Moulson’s report which said the body looked like a man of about 40 he mistakenly wrote 41? It’s not exactly a massive howler is it?
              Or even a typo.
              G U T

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

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                John, we disagree on a few things (whether ripper or Wallace) but this is a very honest, fair-minded post coming from someone that doesn’t think that Druitt is a particularly good suspect. It’s a pity that Trevor can’t take a leaf out of the same book.
                Thanks Herlock. Your comments are very much appreciated.

                By the way, I'm going to look again at the Wallace case when I get chance, and see if I can present a balanced, objective argument. I'm very conscious of the fact that It's all too easy to take a fixed position on things, so I will try and view things from both sides of the argument. In any event, it's obvious that whatever happened must have been something highly unusual, "the impossible murder", so this is one case where even extreme theories can't be completely discounted!
                Last edited by John G; 05-20-2019, 08:32 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
                  Sorry if this has been posted before. Here is a newspaper account of Macnaghten from his obituary:

                  Sir Melville came across a poor woman of Whitechapel who told him a story that seemed to fully collaborate a theory that he had formed while sitting in a public house in the Commercial Road. A very nicely-spoken, quiet-looking elderly man sat next to her. Conversation naturally turned upon the “Ripper” horror, and the stranger shaking his head softly, said with a pious air: 'Truly in the midst of life we are in death.' He was carrying a small black bag. This he opened and produced a tract. The cover bore the words 'Prepare to meet thy God.' This he presented to the woman. The tract passed into the possession of Sir Melville, and he came to the conclusion that the 'Ripper' was a religious maniac with homicidal tendencies developed by a certain disease. Finally, Sir Melville narrowed down his search to a point where he was morally certain that he knew the man…Then suddenly he solved the difficulty himself. He committed suicide. A body was found in the Thames, and from certain evidence Sir Melville was able to convince the authorities that this was the man who had for so long terrorised the community. A few months later [June 1889] he was made Chief Constable.

                  -Reynolds News, May 15, 1921
                  Hello Scott,

                  Thank you for posting this.

                  2 points.

                  1. Do we have any indication that Druitt was a "religious maniac"? I suspect not.

                  2. If I understand this correctly, MM was already investigating the Whitechapel murders prior to June 1889. And "a few months later" , would mean that the story, as I read it, happened after Druitt was found in the Thames.

                  Perhaps on point 2 I am in err?

                  A thought occurs.. Were there ever any other drownings AFTER Druitt, and say up until April 1889 (a few months previous to June 1889).. For..

                  If point 1 shows no indication of religious mania, it is clear that we are referring to a person and an event not connected to Druitt, but after Druitt's death and before "a few months" prior to June 1889.




                  Phil
                  Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


                  Justice for the 96 = achieved
                  Accountability? ....

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
                    Sorry if this has been posted before. Here is a newspaper account of Macnaghten from his obituary:

                    Sir Melville came across a poor woman of Whitechapel who told him a story that seemed to fully collaborate a theory that he had formed while sitting in a public house in the Commercial Road. A very nicely-spoken, quiet-looking elderly man sat next to her. Conversation naturally turned upon the “Ripper” horror, and the stranger shaking his head softly, said with a pious air: 'Truly in the midst of life we are in death.' He was carrying a small black bag. This he opened and produced a tract. The cover bore the words 'Prepare to meet thy God.' This he presented to the woman. The tract passed into the possession of Sir Melville, and he came to the conclusion that the 'Ripper' was a religious maniac with homicidal tendencies developed by a certain disease. Finally, Sir Melville narrowed down his search to a point where he was morally certain that he knew the man…Then suddenly he solved the difficulty himself. He committed suicide. A body was found in the Thames, and from certain evidence Sir Melville was able to convince the authorities that this was the man who had for so long terrorised the community. A few months later [June 1889] he was made Chief Constable.

                    -Reynolds News, May 15, 1921
                    I've seen this story elsewhere, it being claimed that Macnaghten went to the Commissioner for permission to undertake his own investigations. I wonder what Macnaghten was doing in a pub on the Commercial Road?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                      I've seen this story elsewhere, it being claimed that Macnaghten went to the Commissioner for permission to undertake his own investigations. I wonder what Macnaghten was doing in a pub on the Commercial Road?
                      Having a beer or two
                      G U T

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

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by GUT View Post

                        Having a beer or two
                        Nah, Trev says Macnaghten was a sherry man.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by John G View Post

                          Thanks Herlock. Your comments are very much appreciated.

                          By the way, I'm going to look again at the Wallace case when I get chance, and see if I can present a balanced, objective argument. I'm very conscious of the fact that It's all too easy to take a fixed position on things, so I will try and view things from both sides of the argument. In any event, it's obvious that whatever happened must have been something highly unusual, "the impossible murder", so this is one case where even extreme theories can't be completely discounted!
                          As long as we both agree to avoid the ‘‘Wallace in a dress’’ suggestion we should be ok John.
                          Regards

                          Herlock






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

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                            I've seen this story elsewhere, it being claimed that Macnaghten went to the Commissioner for permission to undertake his own investigations. I wonder what Macnaghten was doing in a pub on the Commercial Road?
                            Well were you not one of those who said he was a hands on policeman, especially when I stated that senior officers of that rank do not go out as rule doing outside enqs.

                            Another example of changing the goalposts to suit !

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              Well were you not one of those who said he was a hands on policeman, especially when I stated that senior officers of that rank do not go out as rule doing outside enqs.

                              Another example of changing the goalposts to suit !

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              C'mon, Trevor, at least try to follow the plot.

                              A newspaper story circulated that prior to joining the Metropolitan Police Macnaghten conceived an idea of who Jack the Ripper was and sought permission from the Commissioner to undertake his own investigation (a story I am certain is untrue). I had said that when Macnaghten was a a policeman he was hands-on, something widely reported in the newspapers (but apparently unknown to you). So, there is a story about Macnaghten undertaking an investigation before he joined the Met, which, if true, which I doubt, would corroborate what I said, namely that he undertook investigations after he joined the Met. You think from this that I am changing the goalposts!

                              Rather than take cheap shots at me, Trevor, why don't you try supporting some of your own arguments when challenged. I asked you four questions from which you fled in a flurry of promises never to darken this thread again; you could start by taking a stab at answering those.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                                C'mon, Trevor, at least try to follow the plot.

                                A newspaper story circulated that prior to joining the Metropolitan Police Macnaghten conceived an idea of who Jack the Ripper was and sought permission from the Commissioner to undertake his own investigation (a story I am certain is untrue). I had said that when Macnaghten was a a policeman he was hands-on, something widely reported in the newspapers (but apparently unknown to you). So, there is a story about Macnaghten undertaking an investigation before he joined the Met, which, if true, which I doubt, would corroborate what I said, namely that he undertook investigations after he joined the Met. You think from this that I am changing the goalposts!

                                Rather than take cheap shots at me, Trevor, why don't you try supporting some of your own arguments when challenged. I asked you four questions from which you fled in a flurry of promises never to darken this thread again; you could start by taking a stab at answering those.
                                I have no need to answer, all that needs to be said from me has been said. I cant help it if the answers dont fit with your own perception of how I have assessed an evaluated the MM, and in what context I now view the said document from a cold case review perspective, and not treating it as a historical discussion, and there is a big difference between the two. So I am happy to continue to stand my ground on all that I have said on this topic.

                                As I have said before far to many "What if`s" "maybe`s" "I think" and "perhaps" in Ripperology,

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X