Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • Hi Wick - Those are same steps. In my senility, I called it the "White Lion Pub." The building is solid white, but it is the "Black Lion" PH. According to the website the steps are called both the Bell Steps and the Black Lion steps. Thanks for the photo.

    Comment


    • So what has using the term suspect achieved.Since I have been posting there have been innumerable persons named as the ripper or ripper suspect.Each and every one has been discounted,mainly on the basis there is no evidence,or the evidence is not strong enough to sustain that status.It is going on at the present. Why use a description that posters keep protesting can't be sustained.There is an alternate expression,'Person of interest' If there wasn't an alternative,Herlock,I would agree with you. Why do I believe 'Person of interest more suitable'.First and most obvious it is because the police use it in criminal cases,and the ripper crimes were criminal.
      Now whether you like it or not,130 years ago there was an organised body of police whose purpose was to investigate crime.They were professional.They used the word Suspect,They obviously knew it's meaning.Perhaps it was an interpretation from a dictionary,but they used it,and their decision was that no one fitted it's meaning.There was no proof.Now if yourself or anyone else believe that to be untrue,fine,prove them, not me, wrong.No one else has.
      Historical investigation can mean many things.Interpreting writing on stones,drawings on cave walls.painted church or cathedral windows.Needs experts.So does criminal investigation,and they were there in 1888.They were called police.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by harry View Post
        So what has using the term suspect achieved.Since I have been posting there have been innumerable persons named as the ripper or ripper suspect.Each and every one has been discounted,mainly on the basis there is no evidence,or the evidence is not strong enough to sustain that status.It is going on at the present. Why use a description that posters keep protesting can't be sustained.There is an alternate expression,'Person of interest' If there wasn't an alternative,Herlock,I would agree with you. Why do I believe 'Person of interest more suitable'.First and most obvious it is because the police use it in criminal cases,and the ripper crimes were criminal.
        Now whether you like it or not,130 years ago there was an organised body of police whose purpose was to investigate crime.They were professional.They used the word Suspect,They obviously knew it's meaning.Perhaps it was an interpretation from a dictionary,but they used it,and their decision was that no one fitted it's meaning.There was no proof.Now if yourself or anyone else believe that to be untrue,fine,prove them, not me, wrong.No one else has.
        Historical investigation can mean many things.Interpreting writing on stones,drawings on cave walls.painted church or cathedral windows.Needs experts.So does criminal investigation,and they were there in 1888.They were called police.
        And those police called people suspects. What is achieved by the change of terminology when most people on this site arenít police?
        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

          And those police called people suspects. What is achieved by the change of terminology when most people on this site arenít police?
          Yes they did, but in the 21st Century based on what we now know about the long list of those suspected, in the interest of being politically correct we are now entitled to re define, them, and by doing so put the ripper mystery in a completely different perspective, and try to stop researchers chasing shadows.

          It all comes down to where the suspicion emanated from in the first place, many from speculative opinions given by ageing police officers years after the murders ceased that has done nothing good for ripperolgy, because it has created false trails, because many are misled by this, believing they must have known something to give those opinions, or they were there so they must have know something. But if they had suspicions back then why did they not act on it at the time?

          What seem to have been missed by researchers is that the police had the power in 1888 to arrest anyone on suspicion, if these suspicions from the officers, and all the others who put names to likely suspects were genuine then we would have seen and been aware of many more being arrested that records now tell us.

          In reality as I have said many times I do not beleive the police had any clues as to the identity of the killer of any of the women. We have many newspaper reports of arrests being made many relating to suspicious persons being seen in Whitechael at night, persons making threats with a knife, assaults on women in Whitechapel people confessing to being the ripper, but none seemingly directly from the police investigation based on inquiries made into the "suspects" they later told about.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Gut,
            They called persons suspects because they had proof.Now tell me the proof against Druitt.The family had suspicions.Tell me what those suspicions were.

            Comment


            • Gut,
              I was referring to the ripper murders.
              I am not or never have been police.

              Comment


              • Inspector Littlechild wrote to G.R. Sims that Tumblety was 'amongst the suspects, and to my mind a very likely one'. We don't know why Tumblety was suspected or what made him 'very likely'. We can only surmise what the reasons were, but we don't know. So by the definitions used by the modern police, Tumblety wasn't a 'suspect' and probably wasn't even a 'persom of interest'. But how would 21st century police terminology classify Tumblety if we had all the information available to Littlechild? We don't know because we don't know what that information was, and we can't assess or judge that information, so we have no grounds or justification for relegating Tumblety to 'person of interest' or 'person of no interest' or any other description we may want to use. Trying to say that Tumblety wasn't a suspect when anyone can see Littlechild stating that Tumblety was among the 'suspects' and, moreover, was 'a very likely one', is nuts, unnecessary and utterly confusing. Nothing 'entitles' Trevor or anyone else to draw conclusions based on our ignorance of what people in the past knew or to redefine the words they used, or the information on which they acted.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by PaulB View Post
                  Inspector Littlechild wrote to G.R. Sims that Tumblety was 'amongst the suspects, and to my mind a very likely one'. We don't know why Tumblety was suspected or what made him 'very likely'. We can only surmise what the reasons were, but we don't know. So by the definitions used by the modern police, Tumblety wasn't a 'suspect' and probably wasn't even a 'persom of interest'. But how would 21st century police terminology classify Tumblety if we had all the information available to Littlechild? We don't know because we don't know what that information was, and we can't assess or judge that information, so we have no grounds or justification for relegating Tumblety to 'person of interest' or 'person of no interest' or any other description we may want to use. Trying to say that Tumblety wasn't a suspect when anyone can see Littlechild stating that Tumblety was among the 'suspects' and, moreover, was 'a very likely one', is nuts, unnecessary and utterly confusing. Nothing 'entitles' Trevor or anyone else to draw conclusions based on our ignorance of what people in the past knew or to redefine the words they used, or the information on which they acted.
                  Tumblety had been in London some considerable time before his arrest. if there had been any "real suspicion" then the police had ample opportunity to arrest him on suspicion. Thats what the police do with suspects !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not save them up and then wheel them out in a belated press interview.

                  Not all this claptrap that has been banded about that after his arrest for the gross indecency they arrested him in connection with the murders, or they arrested him for the murder, and then arrested him for the gross indecency offences, that one is a nice fit for those who want to prop up Tumblety. They had a warrant for his arrest for the gross indeceny. They did not need a warrant to arrest him for the murders.

                  If he was a likely suspect then they had the opportunity to arrest him. There is nothing in official records to show that was ever done, and no one ever mentions it being done, so where is the evidence to make Tumblety a suspect? On what we know I would struggle to even describe him as a person of interest.

                  What Littlechild told to the press mirrors the MM debacle, because what Littlechild told the reporter was also littered with errors as was The MM, yet you and others have been sucked in all of these years by these false trails made by the outdated opinions given by these senior officers.

                  I note that Insp Reid who was head of Whitechapem CID at no time does he mention any suspects. now if all these senior officer were all singing from the same songsheet why doe he not corrobotare any of them. In fact he dismisses what they said in later years.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                    Hi Wick - Those are same steps. In my senility, I called it the "White Lion Pub." The building is solid white, but it is the "Black Lion" PH. According to the website the steps are called both the Bell Steps and the Black Lion steps. Thanks for the photo.
                    I spent twenty minutes yesterday looking for The White Lion Pub! Cheers Roger.
                    Regards

                    Herlock






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

                    Comment


                    • and try to stop researchers chasing shadows.
                      Its a poor researcher that is stymied by the use of the word suspect Iím afraid.
                      Regards

                      Herlock






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

                      Comment


                      • [/QUOTE]. It all comes down to where the suspicion emanated from in the first place, many from speculative opinions given by ageing police officers years after the murders ceased that has done nothing good for ripperolgy, because it has created false trails, because many are misled by this [/QUOTE]

                        Another boring, feeble attempt to dismiss Druitt. Youíre wasting your breath Trevor. Heís a suspect. Absolutely end of. Nothing you can say will alter that fact.

                        And the emboldened part is yet more ego overload - but many are misled by this. Not me though of course.

                        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 harry View Post
                          Gut,
                          I was referring to the ripper murders.
                          I am not or never have been police.
                          I didnít say you were but you and Trevor are pushing for police terminology to be used rather than common English and I still canít understand what either of you think that adds to the whole matter.
                          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


                          • What seem to have been missed by researchers is that the police had the power in 1888 to arrest anyone on suspicion, if these suspicions from the officers, and all the others who put names to likely suspects were genuine then we would have seen and been aware of many more being arrested that records now tell us.

                            In reality as I have said many times I do not beleive the police had any clues as to the identity of the killer of any of the women. We have many newspaper reports of arrests being made many relating to suspicious persons being seen in Whitechael at night, persons making threats with a knife, assaults on women in Whitechapel people confessing to being the ripper, but none seemingly directly from the police investigation based on inquiries made into the "suspects" they later told about.
                            And the police had the ripper revealed in the paper by Lawton and did they pursue it? Itís either no or that they might have looked into it and dismissed him for reasons that were unaware of.

                            As there is no physical evidence against any suspect how do we assess who is a suspect and who is a person of interest? Who sets the criteria? Who judges the merits of the witness statements? Whose interpretations of events to we go by? Who has the final say?

                            Stop wasting everyoneís time with this transparent piffle.
                            Regards

                            Herlock






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

                            Comment


                            • What Littlechild told to the press mirrors the MM debacle, because what Littlechild told the reporter was also littered with errors as was The MM, yet you and others have been sucked in all of these years by these false trails made by the outdated opinions given by these senior officers.
                              Simple questions. Objectively who should we say is a more reliable source Macnaghten or Lawton? And if you say Lawton - why?
                              Regards

                              Herlock






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

                              Comment


                              • Take the Druitt blinkers off ! and stop comparing Lawton to MM, people will think you are suffering from OCD

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X