Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • Good points Trevor and Simon.
    In the case of Druitt there was merely suspicion,and my dictionary writes of suspicion as being a' belief formed or held without sure proof'.
    There was no proof against any one person,MM states. There were no suspects other policemen of that time state. No one needs to know the definition of the word suspect,either of that time, or since..You only have to understand what the terms,'There were no suspects,and no proofs 'means,and I would expect persons posting and reading are of sufficient education to understand that.So I am giving reasons why the term suspect is less favourable to me.There weren't any in 1888.
    The term has been used in latter times,overwhelmingly by persons who have no experience of law enforcement,but believe they are better placed to explain the ripper murders,and none has.Most are using present day terminology.Some even use today's terminology from today's dictionary.Funny that.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
      Hi Sam,

      Druitt was suspected by his family.

      Macnaghten didn't suspect him.
      Hello Simon

      That's hard to reconcile with the Aberconway Version's "I am inclined to exonerate the last 2 [Ostrog and Kosminski], but I have always held strong opinions regarding No 1 [Druitt], and the more I think the matter over, the stronger do these opinions become", or his saying in his memoirs many years later that "I incline to the belief that the individual who held up London in terror... committed suicide on or about the 10th of November 1888". The latter is a more guarded statement than we get in the Aberconway, but it nonetheless still indicates that, even after many years had passed, his "conjections" still inclined him towards Druitt.
      Last edited by Sam Flynn; 05-27-2019, 04:23 PM.
      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by harry View Post
        Good points Trevor and Simon.
        In the case of Druitt there was merely suspicion,and my dictionary writes of suspicion as being a' belief formed or held without sure proof'.
        There was no proof against any one person,MM states. There were no suspects other policemen of that time state. No one needs to know the definition of the word suspect,either of that time, or since..You only have to understand what the terms,'There were no suspects,and no proofs 'means,and I would expect persons posting and reading are of sufficient education to understand that.So I am giving reasons why the term suspect is less favourable to me.There weren't any in 1888.
        The term has been used in latter times,overwhelmingly by persons who have no experience of law enforcement,but believe they are better placed to explain the ripper murders,and none has.Most are using present day terminology.Some even use today's terminology from today's dictionary.Funny that.
        By stating that it was merely suspicion you are making it appear that Macnaghten was simply mentioning some vague, unsubstantiated rumour. Macnaghten clearly felt that Druitt was a good suspect and that Druitt’s own family suspected him. Of course he’s not saying that he had categorical proof. We keep engaging in wordplay to try and interpret what Macnaghten was saying. It’s very clear that he felt that he had good reason to suspect Druitt. I for one don’t think that this should be cast aside simply because we don’t have proof that Druitt was the ripper. Mac could have been right. Druitt’s family could have been right. Therefore Druitt could have been the ripper.
        Regards

        Herlock






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

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          By stating that it was merely suspicion you are making it appear that Macnaghten was simply mentioning some vague, unsubstantiated rumour. Macnaghten clearly felt that Druitt was a good suspect and that Druitt’s own family suspected him. Of course he’s not saying that he had categorical proof. We keep engaging in wordplay to try and interpret what Macnaghten was saying. It’s very clear that he felt that he had good reason to suspect Druitt. I for one don’t think that this should be cast aside simply because we don’t have proof that Druitt was the ripper. Mac could have been right. Druitt’s family could have been right. Therefore Druitt could have been the ripper.
          Yet again it comes down to interpretation of what he wrote "He was sexually insane and from "private information" I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer.

          Private information clearly from a third party, who told MM that the family believed him to be the killer, and from what he was told he clearly believed that.

          From what he was told and his subsequent opinion might have come from how the profile of the killer was described by others long before MM took up his role and MM simply applied some of the parts of those profiles to Druitt, which made him refer to Druitt as a likley suspect.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
            Yet again it comes down to interpretation of what he wrote "He was sexually insane and from "private information" I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer.
            Which means that he had a very high level of confidence; stopping just short of absolute certainty.

            Private information clearly from a third party, who told MM that the family believed him to be the killer, and from what he was told he clearly believed that.
            Nothing wrong with information coming from a third party; especially if that third party had a link to the family. There is no rule that says that information coming from a third party is by definition likely to be inaccurate.

            .
            From what he was told and his subsequent opinion might have come from how the profile of the killer was described by others long before MM took up his role and MM simply applied some of the parts of those profiles to Druitt, which made him refer to Druitt as a likley suspect.
            Again this ascribes to Macnaghten a gullibility which isn’t consistent with anything that we know about the man. I don’t think that it’s at all likely that Macnaghten would have described Druitt as a likely suspect, in a memo to his superiors, based on a vague rumour. I also think it far less likely that Druitt’s own family would have taken the huge step of mentioning Monty as potentially being connected with the murders of Jack the Ripper if they hadn’t felt that they had good reason. This makes no sense.

            Simply put, I think that the Druitt’s had persuasive evidence which Macnaghten also believed highly persuasive.
            Regards

            Herlock






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

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
              Again this ascribes to Macnaghten a gullibility which isn’t consistent with anything that we know about the man. I don’t think that it’s at all likely that Macnaghten would have described Druitt as a likely suspect, in a memo to his superiors, based on a vague rumour. I also think it far less likely that Druitt’s own family would have taken the huge step of mentioning Monty as potentially being connected with the murders of Jack the Ripper if they hadn’t felt that they had good reason. This makes no sense.

              Simply put, I think that the Druitt’s had persuasive evidence which Macnaghten also believed highly persuasive.
              Also, of course, in the Daily Mail interview Macnaghten said, 'there is now no record of the secret information which came into my possession at one time or another [my italics]’, which suggests - in fact it states - that Macnaghten did not receive just one piece of information. This may be confirmed by Days of My Years,in which Macnaghten wrote that information implicating Druitt was 'not in possession of the police till some years after I became a detective officer', which also perhaps distinguishes that information from the private information on which he based his conclusion that Druitt's family thought he was the Ripper. Therefore, it is an assumption unsupported by the sources that Macnaghten's only information about Druitt was the private information, and, if different information was received by different people at different times, that would kick the stuffing out of the idea that was repeating a casual piece of gossip.

              Comment


              • Is there any trace of this information suspecting Druitt within police files or asserted by other police officers? If not, why not?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by mpriestnall View Post
                  Is there any trace of this information suspecting Druitt within police files or asserted by other police officers? If not, why not?
                  No it isn't. Only a small fraction of the Scotland Yard and Home Office files on the case survive.

                  Comment


                  • Hi Sam,

                    I see your point, but there's a great deal of retrospection in the Aberconway Version, and all Macnaghten had to go on was the family's word that they "believed" [MM] or "suspected" [AV] Druitt was the "Ripper."

                    "The truth, however, will never be known, and did indeed, at one time lie at the bottom of the Thames if my conjections be correct." [AV]

                    Conjection is an obsolete form of conjecture, so what we have is Macnaghten putting forward a statement which is unproven but thought to be true, or else a hypothesis.

                    In 1914, Macnaghten was still equivocating—

                    " . . . the Whitechapel murderer, in all probability, put an end to himself soon after the Dorset Street affair . . ."

                    I don't think Macnaghten suspected Druitt any more than he did Kosminski or Ostrog.

                    Regards,

                    Simon
                    Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post

                      I don't think Macnaghten suspected Druitt any more than he did Kosminski or Ostrog.
                      That doesn't quite tally with his statement that he was inclined to exonerate the latter two.
                      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                      Comment


                      • Hi Sam,

                        He had to say that so Anderson could pick one of the other two.

                        Regards,

                        Simon
                        Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                          No it isn't. Only a small fraction of the Scotland Yard and Home Office files on the case survive.
                          Using the same old chestnut-the missing files that's wearing thin now.

                          If his suspicions were of any relevance at the time, then others within the police service would have known, and at some time thereafter they would have talked as did most of those involved either in press interview or in memoirs. So that must suggest that it was not that good.

                          What is the point in receiving potentially valuable information on the most wanted man in the country, and doing nothing with it, or telling anyone else. Believe it or not that even after a suspect is dead, a case can officially still continued and if there is sufficient evidence to prove a persons guilt then it can be recorded as detected crime with no proceedings. If the police back then knew the identity of the killer as is being suggested using Druitt as an example then I am sure the police would have wanted to bring closure to the case, not just for their sake but for the publics sake as well

                          Abberline in 1903 as part of a press interview "Besides, the authorities would have been only too glad to make an end of such a mystery, if only for their own credit."

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                            That doesn't quite tally with his statement that he was inclined to exonerate the latter two.
                            That would depend on the strength of the information before him to name them in the first instance.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • Using the same old chestnut-the missing files that's wearing thin now.
                              Why is this a chestnut?
                              Regards

                              Herlock






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

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                That would depend on the strength of the information before him to name them in the first instance.
                                It's all relative. Macnaghten must have had stronger suspicions about Druitt than either Kosminski or Ostrog, otherwise he wouldn't have said as much.
                                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X