Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • Originally posted by harry View Post
    To me,if there is only one killer,all you need is one suspect.A person,who,when all information, evidence,and proof is taken into consideration,appears to be the most likely to have killed.Todate we have,and I think I am correct,in the ripper killings, scores of persons claimed to be suspects..A farcical situation,as Trevor has pointed out.
    To reduce that number we do need a different terminology,and person of interest serves very well.It doesn't delete a person from being a subject of discussion,but it does allow a person to be discarded where the information and evidence is insufficient.All the more reason when we do not know what the evidence was,as in the case with Druitt.
    Wickerman,
    Where there is proof,a person can certainly be accused of being suspect.Whats your point? Perhaps you can supply the proof that makes Druitt a suspect.
    I have suspicions that George Hutchinson lied.Does that make him suspect? No! If I could prove those suspicions,the situation could change.To me he is a person of interest.
    Druitt's family had suspicions.If those suspicions could be proved the situation could change.To me he is a person of interest. At least in the case of Hutchinson,I can outline the reason for my suspicions.Can anyone give the reason forDruitt's family suspicions?
    You only need one suspect, but it doesnít mean there can only be one suspect.
    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 harry View Post
      To me,if there is only one killer,all you need is one suspect.A person,who,when all information, evidence,and proof is taken into consideration,appears to be the most likely to have killed.Todate we have,and I think I am correct,in the ripper killings, scores of persons claimed to be suspects..A farcical situation,as Trevor has pointed out.
      To reduce that number we do need a different terminology,and person of interest serves very well.It doesn't delete a person from being a subject of discussion,but it does allow a person to be discarded where the information and evidence is insufficient.All the more reason when we do not know what the evidence was,as in the case with Druitt.
      Wickerman,
      Where there is proof,a person can certainly be accused of being suspect.Whats your point? Perhaps you can supply the proof that makes Druitt a suspect.
      I have suspicions that George Hutchinson lied.Does that make him suspect? No! If I could prove those suspicions,the situation could change.To me he is a person of interest.
      Druitt's family had suspicions.If those suspicions could be proved the situation could change.To me he is a person of interest. At least in the case of Hutchinson,I can outline the reason for my suspicions.Can anyone give the reason forDruitt's family suspicions?
      Excellent post and well put !

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        Excellent post and well put !

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        Actually not well put at all, if thereís only one killer, thereís only one killer, but there can be more than one suspect.
        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


        • Gut,
          I did say there only needs to be one suspect.I didn't say there couldn't be more.The ideal situation,which police strive to achieve,is to be left with only one suspect,in a situation where only one person is believed to have committed a crime.Were more than one person believed to have committed the ripper crimes?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by harry View Post
            Gut,
            I did say there only needs to be one suspect.I didn't say there couldn't be more.The ideal situation,which police strive to achieve,is to be left with only one suspect,in a situation where only one person is believed to have committed a crime.Were more than one person believed to have committed the ripper crimes?
            But what is the relevance of only needing one suspect? Tere can be more than one, ad I repeat a question is asked earlier what is the benefit if changing the terminology from suspect to person of interest, as far as I can see no benefit at all.
            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

              Actually not well put at all, if thereís only one killer, thereís only one killer, but there can be more than one suspect.
              But the police believed all the murders were the work of the same person, so on that basis there can only be one suspect in the eyes of each of those who gave their opinions, and the worrying thing is that none of them were singing from the same songsheet. So how reliable are those opinions? Reliable enough to justify the suspect tag, or not reliable enough for that. but sufficiently reliable to call them persons of interest?

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 05-26-2019, 08:48 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                But the police believed all the murders were the work of the same person, so on that basis there can only be one suspect in the eyes of each of those who gave their opinions, and the worrying thing is that none of them were singing from the same songsheet. So how reliable are those opinions?

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                Thatís a different question alltogether. Could be theyíre all wrong, could be one (or more) are right, but it doesnít stop them from being suspects.
                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


                • To reduce that number we do need a different terminology,and person of interest serves very well.It doesn't delete a person from being a subject of discussion,but it does allow a person to be discarded where the information and evidence is insufficient.All the more reason when we do not know what the evidence was,as in the case with Druitt.
                  If this was an ongoing police investigation then yes, it would be beneficial as investigating multiple suspects would take up valuable time and resources.

                  But as this isnít an ongoing police investigation we have no such need. We can simply choose not to discuss or research him. This thread is not preventing us from looking into other suspects. Even if we called Druitt a person of interest it still wouldnít stop people discussing a researching him. This is why itís pointless to try and relabel suspects. It would achieve nothing and would only achieve confusion. Added to that it would only give us something else to argue about. Who deserves to be called a suspect and who doesnít? Who decides the criteria and who makes the decision when opinions are divided?
                  Regards

                  Herlock






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

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by GUT View Post

                    But what is the relevance of only needing one suspect? Tere can be more than one, ad I repeat a question is asked earlier what is the benefit if changing the terminology from suspect to person of interest, as far as I can see no benefit at all.
                    Exactly GUT. This is the point. There is no benefit at all. This is why I canít help but get the feeling that itís some kind of ploy to, in some way, relegate and sideline Druitt.
                    Regards

                    Herlock






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

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      But the police believed all the murders were the work of the same person, so on that basis there can only be one suspect in the eyes of each of those who gave their opinions, and the worrying thing is that none of them were singing from the same songsheet. So how reliable are those opinions? Reliable enough to justify the suspect tag, or not reliable enough for that. but sufficiently reliable to call them persons of interest?

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      Nope. A police officer could have more than one suspect. He could give them equal credence or one could appear more likely than others. You are a compendium of logical fallacies.
                      Regards

                      Herlock






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

                      Comment


                      • Trevor,
                        It's funny how you comment on everything, but ignore the questions you are being asked. The point is that you are attempting to apply 21st century police categorisations of 'person of interest' and 'suspect' to 19th century suspects, but this can't be done because it involves assessing and evaluating evidence which we don't have. It is also wrong to apply modern terminology to what people in the past said.

                        Now, you either agree with that statement or you explain why applying 21st century police categorisations doesn't involve assessing and evaluating evidence that you don't have. Simples!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          Nope. A police officer could have more than one suspect. He could give them equal credence or one could appear more likely than others. You are a compendium of logical fallacies.
                          Bu we are talking about several police officers who were around at the time, and all gave different suspects. Does that tell us that they were all working together at the same time, as they should have been, or they all had different agendas, or they were all full of bull and bluster and knew nothing of any consequence?

                          From what researchers have been able to find out these past 130 years the latter would seem to be a fav.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by PaulB View Post
                            Trevor,
                            It's funny how you comment on everything, but ignore the questions you are being asked. The point is that you are attempting to apply 21st century police categorisations of 'person of interest' and 'suspect' to 19th century suspects, but this can't be done because it involves assessing and evaluating evidence which we don't have. It is also wrong to apply modern terminology to what people in the past said.

                            Now, you either agree with that statement or you explain why applying 21st century police categorisations doesn't involve assessing and evaluating evidence that you don't have. Simples!
                            If you dont have the evidence to support the term suspect, then you cant describe someone as as a suspect. An uncorroborated opinion based on hearsay is not evidence on its own to justify someone being called a suspect, they become a person of interest. You are living in the dark ages with how you perceive all of these opinions

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • Trevor,
                              Trevor,
                              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                              Of course they need corroboration to be regarded as a proper suspect, far to easy for anyone asked in conversation who they thought the killer could have been, what would any answer be worth without corroboration sweet FA. You cant make a singular statement of fact without corroboration. A statement of fact would be Mary Kelly was killed in Millers Court that can be proved.
                              You consistently avoid the point? Iím sorry if it Is really that hard to understand. The point is that corroboration may not be possible or ever be possible, so what do we do then? Well, in your case, you dismiss those opinions as Ďoutdatedí and accuse those who treat them properly as distorting the factsĒ, which leads you to discount those opinions altogether and claim the sources arenít worth the paper theyíre written on. But most everyone else doesnít do that, recognising and understanding that we donít know the reasons why those senior officers believed those things, so we canít judge the evidence.

                              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                              That is a good question about what prompted Littlechild many years later to make that statement. Especially when there in nothing in official records to support that. Littlechild was not involved in the investigation, there is nothing that has come to light from Littlechild in The Special Branch files to back up his suspicion in fact the only mention of Littlechild and a ripper suspect from those files is the following "Chief Inspector Littlechilds entry read, Suspect OBrien & The Whitechapel Murders No mention of Tumblety at all.
                              It is a good question, but youíre not answering it. Tumblety not being mentioned in the police files and Littlechild not being involved in the investigation is irrelevant. Both are capable of acceptable explanation, but even if they werenít they have no bearing on why Littlechild said Tumblety was a suspect and a good one if Tumblety wasnít suspected at all. So, as already asked, are you calling Tumblety a liar? What are you saying about Littlechild?

                              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                              You and others are putting to much emphasis on what MM wrote and what Littlechild wrote, and not to mention Abberlines mention of Chapman. The senior officers giving their own personal opinions. and nothing to back it up both pre their statements or after. no record of any of them ever being interviewed, or each suspect being mentioned by any of the others. They have created fasle trails and you and other have been sucked in.
                              It isnít strictly true that these senior officers didnít offer anything to back up their opinions, but they didnít have to and given the paucity or surviving files, it is unsurprising that we have no corroboration.

                              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                              Then you treat it with caution and try to corroborate it. If you cant corroborate it then you fall back with treating it with caution. Not continue to regard the hearsay as good evidence, especially with MM who it would seem got it third hand.
                              First of all, you donít know from where Macnaghten got his information, and even if it was received third hand, that doesnít mean his source wasnít absolutely reliable. Second, who is regarding hearsay as good evidence? Iím certainly not. Third, yes, well done, of course you treat it with caution and look for corroboration, but there are a few other things one can do to test the reliability of the source. Have you tried those? Treating the source with caution is what most of us are doing, but youíre not. You are declaring that the source is worthless, not even worth the paper itís written on.

                              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                              Considering Anderson's position the only suspect he mentions is the mythical witness to the mythical ID parade.
                              And you have proof that they were mythical do you? So why did Anderson lie about them? Why did Swanson endorse the lie? Why if every source you disagree with a liar?

                              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                              I am talking about all those other senior officers in particular Monro who were involved in all of this, who by the use of different phrase at different times say the police didn't have a clue. Not well, we had some likely suspects but didn't have the evidence to arrest them even though they were good likely suspects. They didnt even have to name them something like that would have given us a bit more encouragement.
                              You were asked in which memoirs you expected to find reference to Druitt, and you name Monroís, yet he didnít publish his memoirs, and change what you meant to things said in newspaper interviews and so on. It has been explained to you why they were unlikely to have done that, but youíve ignored it as usual.

                              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                              Insp Reid
                              February 4th 1912
                              I challenge anyone to produce a tittle of evidence of any kind against anyone. The earth has been raked over, and the seas have been swept, to find this criminal ' Jack the Ripper, always without success. It still amuses me to read the writings of such men as Dr. Anderson., Dr. Forbes Winslow, Major Arthur. Griffiths, and many others, all holding different theories, but all of them wrong.
                              Quoting a newspaper! And an interview by an ageing police officer! I suppose itís okay to do that when it supports your opinion.

                              Maybe Anderson et al were all wrong and Reid was right to laugh his socks off at their theories, but that has no bearing on what or why they wrote what they did. Tumblety may not have been Jack the Ripper, and Littlechild didnít say he was, but he did say that he was a suspect and a very good one. Reid doesnít contradict that. Feel free to explain why he does contract it.



                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                If you dont have the evidence to support the term suspect, then you cant describe someone as as a suspect.
                                Let's test that, shall we... I suspect Trevor Marriott of being Jack the Ripper. I don't have any evidence yet, but I find him really suspicious.

                                You're a suspect now, Trev. How does it feel?
                                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, GŲtzendšmmerung, 1888)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X