Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • Paul,Herlock,
    I am aware that the suspicions were claimed to have been those of the family.I am aware of how those suspicions came to MM's attention.I have stated nothing different,though you dishonestly attempt to show otherwise.
    I have stated that the basis on which the suspicions are based(By the family),is not known.That is fact,you say so yourseves.Why rely on something that is unknown? Any speculation on what the basis might have been is worthless.Yes I discuss the suspicions,but not in the way you claim I do.Untill we know why the suspicions were held by the family,and what the circumstances were,it is foolish to claim Druitt a suspect,but be my guest,go on being fools.
    It is not my opinion there were no proofs and no suspects,it is the claims of police officers engaged in the ripper investigations.Show that they were wrong,that their jargon was worthless.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      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

      All you have done is cite Macnaghten's errors about Druitt, use them to claim that the memorandum is unreliable, and dismiss the document as not worth the paper it's written on. When it is patiently explained to you why your conclusion is wrong and why, you pay no attention at all. When pushed to explain yourself, your usual fall back is to say you have already done so and that you're not going to so again. Just like you're doing now. You've done nothing of the sort, of course. You can continue to treat the case as a cold case investigation if you want to, but you're screwing up the proper assessment of source documents by doing so because you are straying into history, which you manifestly don't understand. There are lots of if and maybes in Ripperology, but you are contributing an awful lot of them!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by harry View Post
        Paul,Herlock,
        I am aware that the suspicions were claimed to have been those of the family.I am aware of how those suspicions came to MM's attention.I have stated nothing different,though you dishonestly attempt to show otherwise.
        I have stated that the basis on which the suspicions are based(By the family),is not known.That is fact,you say so yourseves.Why rely on something that is unknown? Any speculation on what the basis might have been is worthless.Yes I discuss the suspicions,but not in the way you claim I do.Untill we know why the suspicions were held by the family,and what the circumstances were,it is foolish to claim Druitt a suspect,but be my guest,go on being fools.
        It is not my opinion there were no proofs and no suspects,it is the claims of police officers engaged in the ripper investigations.Show that they were wrong,that their jargon was worthless.
        Harry,
        I don't take kindly to being called dishonest and a fool, so I'll leave you to it.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

          All you have done is cite Macnaghten's errors about Druitt, use them to claim that the memorandum is unreliable, and dismiss the document as not worth the paper it's written on. When it is patiently explained to you why your conclusion is wrong and why, you pay no attention at all. When pushed to explain yourself, your usual fall back is to say you have already done so and that you're not going to so again. Just like you're doing now. You've done nothing of the sort, of course. You can continue to treat the case as a cold case investigation if you want to, but you're screwing up the proper assessment of source documents by doing so because you are straying into history, which you manifestly don't understand. There are lots of if and maybes in Ripperology, but you are contributing an awful lot of them!

          The only real source documents of any evidential value are the MM and the AV, Both are littered with glaring errors, and both full of contradiction, and both lacking in corroboration, as is the comment made by the writer on how he came to from and opinion that Druitt was the killer.

          If you are going to work on a historical angle to prove or disprove, then lets look again at the suggestion which has been banded about for years that Druitt was a homosexual, and if he was, therefore would not be the killer of the opposite sex.

          We know he got the sack from the school, but we do not know why, again applying a historical question could it have been for offenses against boys?

          MM states the drowned doctor was sexually insane, sexual insanity has a Latin root and it could mean homosexual. I believe Tumblety was so described and we know he was definitely a homosexual. So can we draw and inference from the MM`s use of the term sexually insane, that Druitt was the drowned doctor who was a homosexual, and as a result might have indulged in form sadomasochism.

          Historically we know his body was found floating in the thames at Chiswick, miles from his home. All his personal effects were still with the body. Due to the state of decomposition a proper conclusion on how he died could not be given.

          Historically we know that Howells and Skinner in their book also worked on the hypothesis that Druitt was a homosexual and was a regular a visitor to a house also in Chiswick frequented by other high class homosexuals,. Now to me those facts are very interesting, and I ask again did he jump or was he pushed?

          I also have been reading back to 2011 on JTR forums when you had lengthy arguments with Stewart Evans, and others over this same topic. I see Stewart takes the same view as I do over Druitts candidacy, and also the evidential value of the MM and The AV, and 8 years on you are still fighting the same corner.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • In Days of My Years Macnaghten explains exactly what is meant by "sexual mania", which I assume is akin sexual insanity:

            " Sexual mania therefore means to gsin erotic pleasure from either witnessing or causing acts of ultra violence and/or death."

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post


              The only real source documents of any evidential value are the MM and the AV, Both are littered with glaring errors, and both full of contradiction, and both lacking in corroboration, as is the comment made by the writer on how he came to from and opinion that Druitt was the killer.

              If you are going to work on a historical angle to prove or disprove, then lets look again at the suggestion which has been banded about for years that Druitt was a homosexual, and if he was, therefore would not be the killer of the opposite sex.

              We know he got the sack from the school, but we do not know why, again applying a historical question could it have been for offenses against boys?

              MM states the drowned doctor was sexually insane, sexual insanity has a Latin root and it could mean homosexual. I believe Tumblety was so described and we know he was definitely a homosexual. So can we draw and inference from the MM`s use of the term sexually insane, that Druitt was the drowned doctor who was a homosexual, and as a result might have indulged in form sadomasochism.

              Historically we know his body was found floating in the thames at Chiswick, miles from his home. All his personal effects were still with the body. Due to the state of decomposition a proper conclusion on how he died could not be given.

              Historically we know that Howells and Skinner in their book also worked on the hypothesis that Druitt was a homosexual and was a regular a visitor to a house also in Chiswick frequented by other high class homosexuals,. Now to me those facts are very interesting, and I ask again did he jump or was he pushed?

              I also have been reading back to 2011 on JTR forums when you had lengthy arguments with Stewart Evans, and others over this same topic. I see Stewart takes the same view as I do over Druitts candidacy, and also the evidential value of the MM and The AV, and 8 years on you are still fighting the same corner.

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              Trevor,
              All source documents have evidential value. Even when they're wrong, they are evidence of what people believed at the time. Whether they contain errors and contradictions or lack corroboration is immaterial, your job is to understand, if possible, how and why the errors were most likely made, what can be learned from the contradictions, and whether corroboration can be found in other sources, and whether corroboration actually matters. This isn't some arcane science, it isn't something that can be done or not done. It's what trying to understand the past involves, whether you are approaching the past as a policeman or a trained historian.

              Druitt appears to have been fired from Eliott Place for a serious offence, which is why it was suggested that he was homosexual and had molested one of the boys. There is absolutely no evidence to support this suggestion. So, a question for you: was Druitt sacked on the spot or did he serve out the term? How serious would an offence have to be to merit summary dismissal? What other offences could lead to a teacher being dismissed? Could Druitt's fears, apparently about his own sanity, have led to his dismissal?

              Macnaghten did indeed describe Druitt as sexually insane. Question for you: in the late 19th century did 'sexually insane' have a specific meaning? If so what was it? Does Macnaghten anywhere explain what he meant by the term? (John G has helped you out there). Does anyone else use the term and explain it?

              So cause of death could not be ascertained. So what conclusion are you drawing from that?

              Howells and Skinner theorised that Druitt visited a house patronised by homosexuals, but did he? What is their evidence/reasoning? Can any of it be corroborated? How well has their theory stood the test of time since it was suggested in 1987? Why, when you have no evidence that Druitt was homosexual and no evidence linking him with the house in Chiswick, are you asking whether Druitt jumped or was pushed?

              You'll forgive me if I don't waste more of my valuable time traipsing back to 2011, but it's good to see you doing just a little research, albeit for all the wrong reasons.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by John G View Post
                In Days of My Years Macnaghten explains exactly what is meant by "sexual mania", which I assume is akin sexual insanity:

                " Sexual mania therefore means to gsin erotic pleasure from either witnessing or causing acts of ultra violence and/or death."
                Hi John G,

                Sexual mania would be a type of sexual insanity, but sexual insanity is a broader categorical terms that would include other things as well that are not sexual mania. It's like a dog is a mammal, but there are other things that are mammals that are not a dog. So, given MacNaughten knows the more specific term, but did not use it in the MM could be argued to mean that Druitt was not alleged to have had sexual mania (note, ...could be argued to mean..., and not ...definitely must mean...). Ah the joys of language, it is such a clumsy and imprecise means by which to communicate that it often appears to be the just the opposite.

                - Jeff

                Comment




                • . I am aware that the suspicions were claimed to have been those of the family.I am aware of how those suspicions came to MM's attention.I have stated nothing different,though you dishonestly attempt to show otherwise.
                  Neither Paul or I or Wickerman or Roger have said a single dishonest thing on this thread Harry. You may say that we are incorrect (which you do) and then show your reasoning (which you do) which might prove that we are wrong (which it very obviously doesn’t.) There has certainly been dishonesty Harry but it’s plain which side the dishonesty has come from. The sad thing is that this particular subject - the word suspect - is relatively unimportant. The only reason that it’s important to some is that they see it as a convenient way to, in effect, demote Druitt.

                  .
                  I have stated that the basis on which the suspicions are based(By the family),is not known.That is fact,you say so yourseves.Why rely on something that is unknown? Any speculation on what the basis might have been is worthless.Yes I discuss the suspicions,but not in the way you claim I do.Untill we know why the suspicions were held by the family,and what the circumstances were,it is foolish to claim Druitt a suspect,but be my guest,go on being fools.
                  I don’t think that we’re being fools either. The majority isn’t always correct Harry but I suspect that if you asked all Ripperologists about terminology and whether we should stop calling someone a suspect because, at some point and by someone, he had been suspected and move to a modern police jargon definition then you and Trevor would be sitting together on a very lonely step.

                  .
                  It is not my opinion there were no proofs and no suspects,it is the claims of police officers engaged in the ripper investigations.Show that they were wrong,that their jargon was worthless.
                  Its been explained to you by Paul about 900 times!!! This is simple Harry. It shouldn’t even be a subject for debate. It’s utterly and obviously pointless so here’s what I suggest Harry....

                  You and Inspector Clouseau can call Druitt a person of interest whilst I, Paul Begg, Wickerman, Roger, John, Jeff and the rest of ripperology will continue to call him a suspect. He will still be found in the suspects sections of the two forums. He will still be found in the suspects sections of ripper books. He will still be called a suspect in discussions and debates.

                  Harry do you honestly see any point in you and Trevor continuing to whistle in the dark?
                  Regards

                  Herlock






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

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                    Trevor,
                    All source documents have evidential value. Even when they're wrong, they are evidence of what people believed at the time. Whether they contain errors and contradictions or lack corroboration is immaterial, your job is to understand, if possible, how and why the errors were most likely made, what can be learned from the contradictions, and whether corroboration can be found in other sources, and whether corroboration actually matters. This isn't some arcane science, it isn't something that can be done or not done. It's what trying to understand the past involves, whether you are approaching the past as a policeman or a trained historian.

                    Druitt appears to have been fired from Eliott Place for a serious offence, which is why it was suggested that he was homosexual and had molested one of the boys. There is absolutely no evidence to support this suggestion. So, a question for you: was Druitt sacked on the spot or did he serve out the term? How serious would an offence have to be to merit summary dismissal? What other offences could lead to a teacher being dismissed? Could Druitt's fears, apparently about his own sanity, have led to his dismissal?

                    Macnaghten did indeed describe Druitt as sexually insane. Question for you: in the late 19th century did 'sexually insane' have a specific meaning? If so what was it? Does Macnaghten anywhere explain what he meant by the term? (John G has helped you out there). Does anyone else use the term and explain it?

                    There is no definite specific meaning for this term as you well know. It could relate to homosexuality. So what do you interpret is to be ?

                    So cause of death could not be ascertained. So what conclusion are you drawing from that?

                    Well you may or may not know but a person who is already dead before being thrown in the water, would have very little water in their lungs, whereas a person committing suicide by drowning would have a substantial amount in their lungs. Either would show up during a post mortem, but of course Druiits body was badly decomposed making a cause of death difficult to establish.

                    Howells and Skinner theorised that Druitt visited a house patronised by homosexuals, but did he? What is their evidence/reasoning? Can any of it be corroborated? How well has their theory stood the test of time since it was suggested in 1987? Why, when you have no evidence that Druitt was homosexual and no evidence linking him with the house in Chiswick, are you asking whether Druitt jumped or was pushed?

                    Well its a mighty big coincidence do you not think that this house was known for its homosexual activites in Chiswick, and Howells and Skinner must have done sufficient research to be able to report this in their book. I havent read the book so I do not at this time know what else they uncovered in relation to this. But is pretty good evidence. And of course if Druitt was a homosexual then we can kiss him goodbye as being JTR.

                    You'll forgive me if I don't waste more of my valuable time traipsing back to 2011, but it's good to see you doing just a little research, albeit for all the wrong reasons.
                    If you are going to accept that Druitts source of information was of significant value for him to be able to give his opinion on it, despite there being nothing to corroborate it, then you have to also accept the fact that Druitt may have been a homosexual, and may have been sacked for a serious offence, and may have died or perhaps murdered at the house in Chiswick. The pendulum swings both ways and in fact the scales in my opinion tip firmly with the latter.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      The pendulum swings both ways
                      Perhaps Druitt did too.
                      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post


                        The only real source documents of any evidential value are the MM and the AV, Both are littered with glaring errors, and both full of contradiction, and both lacking in corroboration, as is the comment made by the writer on how he came to from and opinion that Druitt was the killer.

                        If you are going to work on a historical angle to prove or disprove, then lets look again at the suggestion which has been banded about for years that Druitt was a homosexual, and if he was, therefore would not be the killer of the opposite sex.

                        We know he got the sack from the school, but we do not know why, again applying a historical question could it have been for offenses against boys?

                        MM states the drowned doctor was sexually insane, sexual insanity has a Latin root and it could mean homosexual. I believe Tumblety was so described and we know he was definitely a homosexual. So can we draw and inference from the MM`s use of the term sexually insane, that Druitt was the drowned doctor who was a homosexual, and as a result might have indulged in form sadomasochism.

                        Historically we know his body was found floating in the thames at Chiswick, miles from his home. All his personal effects were still with the body. Due to the state of decomposition a proper conclusion on how he died could not be given.

                        Historically we know that Howells and Skinner in their book also worked on the hypothesis that Druitt was a homosexual and was a regular a visitor to a house also in Chiswick frequented by other high class homosexuals,. Now to me those facts are very interesting, and I ask again did he jump or was he pushed?

                        I also have been reading back to 2011 on JTR forums when you had lengthy arguments with Stewart Evans, and others over this same topic. I see Stewart takes the same view as I do over Druitts candidacy, and also the evidential value of the MM and The AV, and 8 years on you are still fighting the same corner.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        I haven’t read the thread but did Stewart say that Druitt should under no circumstances be called a suspect but insisted that he be labelled a person of interest?
                        Regards

                        Herlock






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

                        Comment



                        • If you are going to accept that Druitts source of information was of significant value for him to be able to give his opinion on it, despite there being nothing to corroborate it, then you have to also accept the fact that Druitt may have been a homosexual, and may have been sacked for a serious offence, and may have died or perhaps murdered at the house in Chiswick. The pendulum swings both ways and in fact the scales in my opinion tip firmly with the latter.
                          Trevor I wouldn’t have thought it possible but your reasoning is worsening.

                          There isn’t a singly, solitary, tangible piece of evidence that points to Druitt being a homosexual. Howell’s and Skinner were postulating in order to form a theory but with no actual evidence apart from ‘what if’s’ or ‘maybe’s.’ So how can it be even approaching honesty for you to say that ‘if he was gay then he was unlikely to have been Jack the Ripper?’ You might as well say ‘that if Druitt had a blood phobia then he was an unlikely ripper.’ This is a Straw Man fallacy.

                          We categorically do do not know why Druitt was sacked. All that we know is that it was something serious. We can come up with a whole list of possibilities and still not hit on the correct one. Without actually knowing all are equally possible. I’ll list a few:

                          1. He’d engaged in some form of sexual behaviour with one or more of the boys.
                          2. His behaviour had become erratic to an extent that he couldn’t effectively teach.
                          3. That he’d behaved inappropriately with one of the female (or male) staff.
                          4. He’d become violent toward a boy or a member of staff.
                          5. He’d been regularly AWOL.
                          6. He’d gone missing and Valentine had found evidence in Druitt’s room that he was the ripper.
                          7. Valentine had been presented with evidence that Druitt had been visiting prostitutes.
                          8. Druitt had been speaking in an explicit and derogatory manner about women (or prostitutes) to the boys.
                          9. Druitt had been caught in possession of pornographic material.
                          10. A woman/prostitute had turned up at the school demanding money or carrying a baby that she said was Druitt’s.

                          Thats 10 for a start. Feel free to add more. One of them could be true or all of them could be false. Numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 would all add weight to the suggestion that Druitt might have been the ripper but I’m not suggesting that they are true though. So why do you get to use the ‘if Druitt was gay’ argument?’ Answer - you don’t.

                          The problem is that your pendulum doesn’t swing naturally. You move it to suit your own preconceptions. And let’s repeat - no one on here is saying that Druitt was definitely the ripper. Some say that he is a weak suspect but a suspect nonetheless. Others feel that he’s a worthwhile suspect. All except that there’s no physical evidence against him (but that applies to pretty much all suspects so far named) I’m the only poster as far as I know that has Druitt as his likeliest candidate. That’s purely my own opinion. I’m not stating it as fact. You, on the other hand, are constantly making blanket statements with a level of confidence that is simply unfounded. We cannot assume, on no evidence, that the MM is unsafe and should be dismissed. That’s a preconception to suit yourself. It’s a weird reversal that you (and others) are constantly seeking to portray those of us that are asking for a calm, reasoned, open-minded approach as oddball conspiracy theorists.

                          I used to have a friend that was constantly getting black eyes and cuts and bruises. He always used to say something “like “I was in a pub and this bloke started a fight.”” We all knew that it was down to him of course. In terms of the Forum, you are that man. As Paul as said, on every thread you post on you end up pretty much isolated in your opinions. Always refusing to accept that you might be wrong or that others might be correct. This is not a coincidence Trevor.
                          Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 05-21-2019, 02:06 PM.
                          Regards

                          Herlock






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

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                            Perhaps Druitt did too.
                            Regards

                            Herlock






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

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                              There is no definite specific meaning for this term as you well know. It could relate to homosexuality. So what do you interpret is to be?
                              Are you sure there was no specific meaning? If there wasn't, where did Macnaghten get it from? And he seems to tell you what it means and indicate that other people understood what it related to. Do you have any other specific examples of it referring to homosexuality?

                              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                              Well you may or may not know but a person who is already dead before being thrown in the water, would have very little water in their lungs, whereas a person committing suicide by drowning would have a substantial amount in their lungs. Either would show up during a post mortem, but of course Druiits body was badly decomposed making a cause of death difficult to establish.
                              So, we can't establish the cause of death.

                              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                              Well its a mighty big coincidence do you not think that this house was known for its homosexual activites in Chiswick, and Howells and Skinner must have done sufficient research to be able to report this in their book. I havent read the book so I do not at this time know what else they uncovered in relation to this. But is pretty good evidence. And of course if Druitt was a homosexual then we can kiss him goodbye as being JTR.
                              I can only suggest that you read The Ripper Legacy and find out what their evidence is before saying that it 'is pretty good evidence.' If Druitt wasn't homosexual, and you have absolutely no evidence that he was, the house being there wasn't coincidental at all. This isn't reasoned argument, Trevor, it's you wanting Druitt to be homosexual so you can kiss him goodbye as a suspect.

                              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                              If you are going to accept that Druitts source of information was of significant value for him to be able to give his opinion on it, despite there being nothing to corroborate it, then you have to also accept the fact that Druitt may have been a homosexual, and may have been sacked for a serious offence, and may have died or perhaps murdered at the house in Chiswick. The pendulum swings both ways and in fact the scales in my opinion tip firmly with the latter.
                              Macnaghten stated that he had 'private information' from which he drew the conclusion that the family believed Druitt was the murderer. That is a fact stated by Macnaghten and there is no reason to suppose that Macnaghten lied about it. Now, please explain how and why you arrive at the argument that this means I have to accept that Druitt was homosexual when there isn't an iota of evidence that that was the case and that he was associated with a house in Chiswick associated with homosexuals when there is no evidence of any such association? Is this an example of your logic?

                              Last edited by PaulB; 05-21-2019, 02:17 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Historically we know that Howells and Skinner in their book also worked on the hypothesis that Druitt was a homosexual and was a regular a visitor to a house also in Chiswick frequented by other high class homosexuals,. Now to me those facts are very interesting, and I ask again did he jump or was he pushed?
                                We've talked about the possibility of Druitt being murdered on this thread already. I’m open to the suggestion and I know that Wickerman is too. I’d suggest that, for you, there’s a problem though. Why would anyone murder a harmless Barrister/Schoolteacher? There might have been a reason but we can’t state one for certain. We might answer that question though by suggesting - well he could have been murdered because it was discovered that he was Jack the Ripper and it was decided that this was the only way to avoid a scandal. I don’t mind that. It’s as likely as any other scenario and added to the MM I’d say that, as a murder scenario, it’s more likely.
                                Regards

                                Herlock






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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X