Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • One minor, nit-picking point. At the inquest, William Druitt stated that MJD got into 'serious trouble' at the school and was thus dismissed; he did not say a 'serious offense.' Using the word 'offense' makes it sound more criminal.

    It's a tricky business. Had MJD been guilty of 'interfering' with the boys, would William Druitt have brought the matter up at the inquest? I suppose he had no choice but to mention that MJD was no longer living at the school at the time of his suicide, and thus had to offer some explanation, but it is difficult to believe he would have alluded to something this scandalous unless absolutely forced to do so. If he's trying to hush it up, he's doing a damn poor job of it. RP.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      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?
      Another man with a wise head on his shoulders who understands the difference between a person of interest and a suspect

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        Another man with a wise head on his shoulders who understands the difference between a person of interest and a suspect
        The term POI didn't come into being until 1986, and that was in the context of a police investigation... in America. As Paul has pointed out, this is no longer a police investigation, but history, and POI would have meant nothing in the context of a criminal investigatoin in Victorian London. Druitt was suspected by Macnaghten at least, so from a historical perspective there is nothing wrong with calling him a suspect. Besides, as I've said before, why would a POI be "of interest" to the police if they didn't "suspect" them at some level?
        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          Another man with a wise head on his shoulders who understands the difference between a person of interest and a suspect

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          You haven’t answered my question - did Stewart Evans state that Montague John Druitt should not be considered/labelled as a suspect?

          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 Sam Flynn View Post
            The term POI didn't come into being until 1986, and that was in the context of a police investigation... in America. As Paul has pointed out, this is no longer a police investigation, but history, and POI would have meant nothing in the context of a criminal investigatoin in Victorian London. Druitt was suspected by Macnaghten at least, so from a historical perspective there is nothing wrong with calling him a suspect. Besides, as I've said before, why would a POI be "of interest" to the police if they didn't "suspect" them at some level?
            Its a wonder we can see anything past the mound of corpses of dead horses that we’ve had to flog on here Sam.
            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 Trevor Marriott View Post

              Another man with a wise head on his shoulders who understands the difference between a person of interest and a suspect

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              We all understand the difference.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                As long as we both agree to avoid the ‘‘Wallace in a dress’’ suggestion we should be ok John.
                I think what happened was something very unlikley, but not that unlikely!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by John G View Post

                  I think what happened was something very unlikley, but not that unlikely!
                  Regards

                  Herlock






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

                  Comment


                  • 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.
                    Ive just had a skim through the Howell’s and Skinner book to jog my memory.

                    Their theory that Druitt might have been a homosexual originated purely from the phrase ‘sexually insane’ and nothing else as has already been suggested. Apart from that there really is nothing. The whole theory is predicated on the phrase. Then it’s all about people that Druitt might have known. JK Stephens brother Harry had rooms at 3 Kings Bench Walk, close to Monty. Harry Wilson (who was one of the ‘Apostles’) also had chambers close to Monty’s. Many of these gay men met at a house at Chiswick Mall called The Osiers. Howell’s and Skinner found no evidence that Druitt had ever been there and no evidence that he had any friendship with any of the men apart from playing cricket against, I think, one of them.

                    Ill stress again that I only skimmed through the book but I think that i got the gist.

                    And so Trevor

                    1. It’s dishonest to use the ‘’if Druitt was gay’’ argument.

                    and 2. If it was true that a gay man couldn’t have been (or was unlikely in the extreme to have been) Jack the Ripper. You have to apply the same reasoning to Tumblety who was first discovered and proposed by....Stewart Evans.

                    By the way, I have every respect for Stewart Evans but I don’t play Trevor’s game of ‘‘pick the expert that appears to agree with me.’’ Oh, and before you cite Paul as an example....don’t bother.
                    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 05-21-2019, 07:29 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 Trevor Marriott View Post

                      MM states the drowned doctor was sexually insane, sexual insanity has a Latin root and it could mean homosexual.
                      No it doesn't, and Andy Spallek demonstrated that years ago with quotes from contemporary dictionaries and social topics.
                      "Sexually insane" was akin to deriving sexual pleasure from violence againsnt the victim.

                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • Herlock,
                        About 900 times Paul has explained.That alone is enough to label you a liar and a fool. When has numbers proved what jargon we should use.I understand you were trying to score a point,but out of those names mentioned,only one,to my knowledge,insist we should not use current police jargon.So it's 2-1 in our favour,if you wish to use numbers.
                        I suppose seeing that I have less than 2000 posts to my credit,my comments should be treated as inferior to those that have more.I should be treated as less informed?

                        Now lets see,only one expression of current police jargon has been used,by Trevor.It's 'A person of interest'.I totally agree with him,Druitt would have been a person of interest,he was never a suspect.No matter how often posters use the term,it is incorrect.Police statements of that time reference that.There were no suspects.They claimed that,but they did use the expression,persons in whom the police were interested.Not much difference is there.

                        Now Herlock suppose for those of us who are not so well informed, you will explain the term suspect,both in it's current usage,and that of 1888/94.How were suspects created? You might also explain when a murder case become historical.

                        Now posters might be offended in my use of the word fool,were they also offended when I was termed senile? I doubt it,she was on the side of the good and knowledgable.Before you rush to say he was not a she,I would ask him,before he takes his skirt and knickers off before going to bed tonight,to have a good look down,to allay my suspicions.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                          So why should we be surprised if Anderson now disagreed with Macnaghten?
                          Because if there was very good evidence linking Druitt to the murders [as I disagreed with in my last post], experienced officers like Anderson and Swanson would not have disagreed with Mac and seen the worth of said evidence.
                          I am not saying Druitt is not a suspect and I believe Mac's sincerity but I personally believe it is more of what he perceived the killer to be. Why else mention "Said to be a Doctor" for instance, without being sure? Unless he thought Jack possessed some form of anatomical knowledge. Mac even concludes that Jack probably did away with himself shortly after the Kelly murder, hence no more killings, again a plus to Druitt. And in the Aberconway version of the memorandum Mac says - I have always held strong opinions over Druitt [1] and the more he thinks it over, the stronger the opinions become, and finally if his conjections are correct. Conjecture -an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
                          Many people confessed to being the ripper and many people were suspected with unsound minds. Again I am not saying that Druitt shouldn't be treated as a suspect, but I feel that on this thread we are pushing Druitt back to being the prime suspect, which I believe he is not
                          Regards Darryl

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by harry View Post



                            . Herlock,
                            About 900 times Paul has explained.That alone is enough to label you a liar and a fool.
                            Its good to see that reasoned debate is still possible.

                            When has numbers proved what jargon we should use.I understand you were trying to score a point,but out of those names mentioned,only one,to my knowledge,insist we should not use current police jargon.So it's 2-1 in our favour,if you wish to use numbers.
                            I’m sure that you understand the point being made Harry. According the thought processes of yourself and Trevor the suspects section of this Forum should be near to completely empty. If we all agreed with you what would be the benefit of this use of the word Harry? Why are you and Trevor so insistent on a point that no one, as far as I’m aware, has ever been remotely concerned with? We use the dictionary definition of suspect. We will continue to correctly use the dictionary definition of suspect. You and Trevor are quite at liberty to refuse to do so. All the rest of us can do is to consider this question:

                            ”is it a coincidence that the two people who are insisting on using the police jargon version of the word suspect are two people that feel that Druitt should be dismissed as a suspect?”

                            Answer....no it’s not.

                            I suppose seeing that I have less than 2000 posts to my credit,my comments should be treated as inferior to those that have more.I should be treated as less informed?
                            No. I’ve never in the past had any issues with your posts Harry. I can’t recall us having any disagreements even. For some reason though people lose their sense of balance when Druitt is involved for some reason. Personally I think it’s because often Druitt is dismissed from conversation by the simple parroting of a mantra “there’s no evidence against him.” It doesn’t matter of course that there’s no real evidence against any suspect. People get riled when Druitt is considered. Frankly it’s bizarre. And biased.

                            Now lets see,only one expression of current police jargon has been used,by Trevor.It's 'A person of interest'.I totally agree with him,Druitt would have been a person of interest,he was never a suspect.No matter how often posters use the term,it is incorrect.Police statements of that time reference that.There were no suspects.They claimed that,but they did use the expression,persons in whom the police were interested.Not much difference is there.
                            Are we talking about every single police officer or a certain amount or one division?

                            Sir Melville Macnaghten suspected him. Sir Melville Macnaghten was a police officer. So Druitt was a suspect.

                            Now Herlock suppose for those of us who are not so well informed, you will explain the term suspect,both in it's current usage,and that of 1888/94.How were suspects created? You might also explain when a murder case become historical.
                            I don’t know when a case becomes historical Harry. But I know that The Whitechapel Murders is a historical case.

                            Now posters might be offended in my use of the word fool,were they also offended when I was termed senile? I doubt it,she was on the side of the good and knowledgable.Before you rush to say he was not a she,I would ask him,before he takes his skirt and knickers off before going to bed tonight,to have a good look down,to allay my suspicions.
                            I never called you senile Harry and I wasn’t aware that anyone had. I genuinely don’t understand the rest of the above quote.

                            This quibbling has gone on too long. It’s utterly pointless but only you and Trevor can’t see it. I’ll ask three questions”

                            By what criteria do you decide who is a suspect or person of interest?

                            When there’s a difference of opinion on this for a particular suspect who is the deciding voice?

                            What benefit would be gained by ripperology as a whole would be gained if we used the modern police definition of suspect?






                            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 Darryl Kenyon View Post

                              Because if there was very good evidence linking Druitt to the murders [as I disagreed with in my last post], experienced officers like Anderson and Swanson would not have disagreed with Mac and seen the worth of said evidence.
                              I am not saying Druitt is not a suspect and I believe Mac's sincerity but I personally believe it is more of what he perceived the killer to be. Why else mention "Said to be a Doctor" for instance, without being sure? Unless he thought Jack possessed some form of anatomical knowledge. Mac even concludes that Jack probably did away with himself shortly after the Kelly murder, hence no more killings, again a plus to Druitt. And in the Aberconway version of the memorandum Mac says - I have always held strong opinions over Druitt [1] and the more he thinks it over, the stronger the opinions become, and finally if his conjections are correct. Conjecture -an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
                              Many people confessed to being the ripper and many people were suspected with unsound minds. Again I am not saying that Druitt shouldn't be treated as a suspect, but I feel that on this thread we are pushing Druitt back to being the prime suspect, which I believe he is not
                              Regards Darryl
                              I don’t really understand this perception Darryl as I appear to be the only person on this thread that considers Druitt the likeliest suspect that we have. We have a mixture of some that don’t even feel that he merits the term suspect, some that feel that he does merit the term but is still a poor suspect and some that feel that he is, at the very least, a reasonable suspect. So I’d say that the general opinion is that he’s a suspect worthy of further exploration and discussion. So I can’t see why you would feel that Druitt is being in some way over-promoted? I’m of the opposing view. I’m of the opinion that Druitt is far too easily dismissed these days. It appears to be ok to discus other suspects that there’s no evidence for and yet a man named by the Assistant Commissioner Of The Men is beyond the pale.

                              On your point about Anderson and Swanson. I don’t think it particularly unlikely that senior police officers might have disagreed. I simply don’t accept that Mac would have alighted on Druitt simply because he fit certain preconceptions or because he conveniently died after Kelly. We know that police numbers weren’t reduced after Druitt’s death and also that some believed Mackenzie and Coles to have been victims. Mac would have been aware of this and so why wouldn’t he have just selected some nonentity that died or was incarcerated after Mackenzie or Coles. For me it all points to Mac genuinely feeling that he had good reason to suspect Druitt.
                              Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 05-22-2019, 01:37 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


                              • As John pointed out in Days of my years Mac described sexual mania as "gaining erotic pleasure from either witnessing or causing acts of ultra violence and/or death."
                                With that in mind looking at the Littlechild Letter it seems to me he is replying to Sims about Druitt. " I never heard of a Dr D". He then goes on to mention that Tumblety wasn't a sadist and then goes on to mention - "It is very strange how those given to 'Contrary sexual instinct' and 'degenerates' are given to cruelty, even Wilde used to like to be punched about. It may interest you if I give you an example of this cruelty in the case of the man Harry Thaw" explaining the case, Why?
                                Mac says that Druitt was said to be sexually insane. Is Littlechild answering a question put to him by Sims about the subject? Or is Sims explaining to Littlechild that Druitt was a sexual sadist who liked inflicting pain and the ripper probably did as well, in a previous correspondence?
                                With the fact that Littlechild says Contrary sexual instinct and then mentions Oscar Wilde, could Sims have explained to Littlechild, again in a previous letter that Druitt was gay and liked to inflict pain on boys. Hence the trouble at school? And the replies? Just a few thoughts
                                Regards Darryl

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X