Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • In that case why are you and Saint Paul of the cant posiible be wrong faith so hell bent on keeping their status as suspect alive, when 130 years or research has not shown one jot of evidence as to why they were named as suspects.
    Do you actually read any of the posts on here before posting sub-standard drivel like this? We and others are the ones calling for open-minded and reasoned debate whilst you make proclamations of alleged facts like “the MM is not worth the paper it’s written on.” Well if it’s not then neither is Lawton’s statement. You profess fairness when bias seeps from every one of your posts.

    Yes, and if no one puts them right then they will continue to be misled, because they will ask what was there to cause that person to be regarded as a suspect and what will we say. According to you and saint paul of the I am never wrong faith, you will say we dont know, but it must have been something otherwise they wouldn't have said it, and the they will ask what was the evidence ? and you and Saint Paul of the I am never wrong faith will say we dont know but there must have been some.
    I don’t presume to speak for Paul or anyone else but the difference between us is obvious. We credit people with the intelligence and integrity to check the facts and form there own opinion whilst you appear to believe that those people need to be told from on high who is a suspect or not. We are not telling people what to think. You are and your doing it for very obvious reasons.

    Then after they read the books they will say there is nothing in official police records to corroborate these opinions regarding these suspects and they will agree and go away contented and much wiser.
    Well that’s transparently not the case because people still discuss Druitt. And even those that don’t feel that he’s a good suspect have the integrity to admit that he is a suspect. Druitt will remain a ripper suspect when Feigenbaum is on some dusty shelf with the ‘curiosities.’ And that’s what really inspires you to keep posting on a thread about a suspect that you dismiss out of hand. Druitt’s looked at seriously whilst Feigenbaum is largely ignored. I don’t post on threads about suspects that I have no time for. So why do you? It’s nothing to do with a search for the truth it’s about bias, resentment and a complete incapability of ever admitting that you’re wrong. Which you are most of the time.
    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

      The only twaddle here is your lame excuses to maintain Druitt and others as suspects.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      Answer the questions and stop wriggling. It’s embarrassing.
      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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

        Answer the questions and stop wriggling. It’s embarrassing.
        If you are embarrassed stop posting then !

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          Do you actually read any of the posts on here before posting sub-standard drivel like this? We and others are the ones calling for open-minded and reasoned debate whilst you make proclamations of alleged facts like “the MM is not worth the paper it’s written on.” Well if it’s not then neither is Lawton’s statement. You profess fairness when bias seeps from every one of your posts.



          I don’t presume to speak for Paul or anyone else but the difference between us is obvious. We credit people with the intelligence and integrity to check the facts and form there own opinion whilst you appear to believe that those people need to be told from on high who is a suspect or not. We are not telling people what to think. You are and your doing it for very obvious reasons.



          Well that’s transparently not the case because people still discuss Druitt. And even those that don’t feel that he’s a good suspect have the integrity to admit that he is a suspect. Druitt will remain a ripper suspect when Feigenbaum is on some dusty shelf with the ‘curiosities.’ And that’s what really inspires you to keep posting on a thread about a suspect that you dismiss out of hand. Druitt’s looked at seriously whilst Feigenbaum is largely ignored. I don’t post on threads about suspects that I have no time for. So why do you? It’s nothing to do with a search for the truth it’s about bias, resentment and a complete incapability of ever admitting that you’re wrong. Which you are most of the time.
          Yes they do discuss Druiit all of six of you on here who hold court on a daily basis

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Macnaghten Memorandum—

            "A much more rational theory is that the murderer's brain gave way altogether after his awful glut in Miller's Court, and that he immediately committed suicide, or, as a possible alternative, was found to be so hopelessly mad by his relations, that he was by them confined in some asylum."

            If Druitt, the Whitechapel murderer, drowned in the Thames, why offer a "possible" alternative fate for him?

            "I may mention the cases of 3 men, any one of whom would have been more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders:

            "A Mr M. J. Druitt, said to be a doctor & of good family . . . He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer."

            Macnaghten's private information wasn't very good. He gets Druitt's profession wrong. He also states Druitt's sexual insanity as a fact. Did the family tell him that?

            Aberconway Version—

            "A much more rational and workable theory, to my way of thinking, is that the ‘rippers’ brain gave way altogether after his awful glut in Millers Court and that he then committed suicide, or, as a less likely alternative, was found to be so helplessly insane by his relatives, that they, suspecting the worst, had him confined in some Lunatic Asylum."

            Macnaghten's "rational" theory has now become "rational and workable," and Druitt's "possible" alternative fate has now become "less likely."

            "I enumerate the cases of 3 men against whom Police held very reasonable suspicion. Personally, after much careful & deliberate consideration, I am inclined to exonerate the last 2."

            Now it's the police who held reasonable suspicion.

            "Mr M.J. Druitt a doctor of about 41 years of age & of fairly good family . . . From private information I have little doubt but that his own family suspected this man of being the Whitechapel murderer; it was alleged that he was sexually insane."

            Macnaghten now gets Druitt's profession and age wrong, and his earlier statement of fact regarding Druitt's sexual insanity has become something that, without any proof, is simply claimed to be the case. Also, Druitt's "good" family has been downgraded to "fairly good."

            Macnaghten had nothing against Druitt which warranted eternal infamy.
            Last edited by Simon Wood; 05-26-2019, 07:39 PM.
            Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

            Comment


            • Hello Simon.

              Haven't we been over this before?
              Internal evidence indicates the A.V. preceded the S.Y. version.

              Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
              Macnaghten Memorandum—

              "A much more rational theory is that the murderer's brain gave way altogether after his awful glut in Miller's Court, and that he immediately committed suicide, or, as a possible alternative, was found to be so hopelessly mad by his relations, that he was by them confined in some asylum."

              If Druitt, the Whitechapel murderer, drowned in the Thames, why offer a "possible" alternative fate for him?
              What Mac is saying here is there are two suspects, his preference is for the suspect who committed suicide, but the alternative is a suspect who was committed. Obviously he is talking about Druitt (1st choice), Kozminski (2nd choice).


              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Hi Jon,

                And what "Internal evidence" would that be?

                Regards,

                Simon
                Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  The only twaddle here is your lame excuses to maintain Druitt and others as suspects.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  If anything I said was lame, you'd have answered me. But you haven't. That's because you can't. Instead you're resorting to rudeness and being silly..

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                    Macnaghten had nothing against Druitt which warranted eternal infamy.
                    Few, if any, now believe that Druitt was guilty of the murders, it's just that some folks have got a bee in their bonnet about his being called a suspect. Well, he was suspected at least by Macnaghten, ergo he was "a" suspect whether we like it or not.
                    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                      Hi Jon,

                      And what "Internal evidence" would that be?

                      Regards,

                      Simon
                      Hi Simon.

                      I provided answers to that question in this post:
                      https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...337#post710337

                      C/w the fact the A.V. ends with this line;
                      ".....was the case of the unidentified woman who trunk was found in Pinchin Street on 10th Sept. ’89 and has already been dealt with in this memorandum."

                      Which shows the A.V. was the memorandum, but the Scotland Yard version was a report.
                      An officer updates his superiors with a report, not with a memorandum.
                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        Yes they do discuss Druiit all of six of you on here who hold court on a daily basis

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        Plus a book about Druitt as a suspect written in 2015. Of course we can compare this thread to the thriving Feigenbaum thread. Just how many people are debating the likelihood of CF being the ripper Trevor?

                        The only person holding court is you. You appear to be psychologically incapable of accepting that people might disagree with you and that they might be correct. You think that all you need to do is to make a judgment and everyone should agree with you. The fact is though that every thread you post on you end up as Billy-No-Mates, jumping up and down demanding that everyone accepts that you’re right.

                        You've wasted days on here with this utterly pointless and tedious terminological quibble which only two of you favour. You had it explained to you ad nauseam about the fact that Mac believed that he had good reason to suspect Druitt and that the evidence no longer exists but on you babble. You apply the most stringent of criteria to Macnaghten whilst giving a convenient free pass to Lawton purely because it helps your own suspect. You’ve even tried the illogical - if Druitt was gay he couldn’t have been the ripper argument. Which is about as honest as your Parrot’s classic - it’s is proven that Mackenzie was a ripper victim therefore Druitt is innocent!

                        Druitt is a suspect. I believe that he’s the best of the ones named but that’s purely my own opinion (at least I can be certain that he was in the country at the time of the murders)
                        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 Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          Plus a book about Druitt as a suspect written in 2015. Of course we can compare this thread to the thriving Feigenbaum thread. Just how many people are debating the likelihood of CF being the ripper Trevor?

                          The only person holding court is you. You appear to be psychologically incapable of accepting that people might disagree with you and that they might be correct. You think that all you need to do is to make a judgment and everyone should agree with you. The fact is though that every thread you post on you end up as Billy-No-Mates, jumping up and down demanding that everyone accepts that you’re right.

                          You've wasted days on here with this utterly pointless and tedious terminological quibble which only two of you favour. You had it explained to you ad nauseam about the fact that Mac believed that he had good reason to suspect Druitt and that the evidence no longer exists but on you babble. You apply the most stringent of criteria to Macnaghten whilst giving a convenient free pass to Lawton purely because it helps your own suspect. You’ve even tried the illogical - if Druitt was gay he couldn’t have been the ripper argument. Which is about as honest as your Parrot’s classic - it’s is proven that Mackenzie was a ripper victim therefore Druitt is innocent!

                          Druitt is a suspect. I believe that he’s the best of the ones named but that’s purely my own opinion (at least I can be certain that he was in the country at the time of the murders)
                          I repeatedly say we are wasting time looking elsewhere until we clear the suspects named by police of the day, who had access to all the material. And in my opinion Druitt, Kosminski and Tumblety are far from being cleared (toss James Kelly into the mix too if we accept that police were searching the East End for him during the murders).
                          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

                            I repeatedly say we are wasting time looking elsewhere until we clear the suspects named by police of the day, who had access to all the material. And in my opinion Druitt, Kosminski and Tumblety are far from being cleared (toss James Kelly into the mix too if we accept that police were searching the East End for him during the murders).
                            It’s convenient for some to label senior police officers as either liars or gullible duffers GUT. Of course no one suggests that they couldn’t have been wrong but we just can’t assume this. Some would rather quibble about the term suspect, as if by relegating Druitt to a person of interest he might in some way get sidelined. Or simply chuck the MM in the bin because of a couple of fairly insignificant errors. How is this a reasoned approach? Bin the bias first is what I’d say.
                            Regards

                            Herlock






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

                            Comment


                            • Hi Sam,

                              Druitt was suspected by his family.

                              Macnaghten didn't suspect him. He merely passed on the family's suspicions.

                              Regards,

                              Simon
                              Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                              Comment


                              • Hi Jon,

                                Macnaghten Memorandum

                                "(4) The case of the unidentified woman whose trunk was found in Pinchin Street: on 10th September 1889 -- which has already been dealt with."

                                Aberconway Version

                                "(4) was the case of the unidentified woman who trunk was found in Pinchin Street on 10th Sept. ’89 and has already been dealt with in this memorandum."

                                Okay, let's assume for a moment that either version was definitive.

                                Fast forward a year.

                                New York Herald, 12th February 1895—

                                “The London police are of the opinion that at last they have got safely under lock and key the long-sought assassin known as Jack the Ripper . . . All the circumstances . . . so much resemble those which characterized the Whitechapel murders that the police believe Grant to be the perpetrator of the whole ghastly string of tragedies.”

                                Windsor Magazine, May 1895—

                                Alfred Aylmer [Major Griffiths] “The Detective in Real Life,”—

                                “Much dissatisfaction was vented upon Mr. Anderson at the utterly abortive efforts to discover the perpetrator of the Whitechapel murders. He has himself a perfectly plausible theory that Jack the Ripper was a homicidal maniac, temporarily at large, whose hideous career was cut short by committal to an asylum.”

                                It must have occurred to you by now that the cops were talking major bollocks.

                                Regards,

                                Simon
                                Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X