What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

It’s an important point Paul and one that’s sure to be casually dismissed by some.

[Simon Wood]

There's nothing like a spot of sophistry to keep the pot boiling.

[mpriestnall]

1. Did MM have "private information" pointing to Druitt's guilt during his tenure of office?
2. If he did, did he have legal obligation to feed that info the police system officially so the police could investigate it?
3. Maybe the answer to no.2 is we dont' know he did or not because the files don't exist?

Anyway, any views on his legal obligation not just to sit on his private information?

Martyn

[Trevor Marriott]

Why is this a chestnut?

Because its a cop out excuse people use when they are postulating a specific suspect, when others suggest that the suspect is not a viable one because there is nothing to corroborate what that person is saying .i.e in the case of Druitt he is not mentioned by anyone else at Scotland Yard, at the time of after. So we get people like Paul stating the files are gone, lost, destroyed, or pilfered so thechestnut referred to is "we don't know what might have been in them".

As to the suspect file it couldn't have contained that much if MM used it to compile his memo, and I seem to recall that in the 1960`s this suspect file was seen and the contents disclosed for a television documentary before it went missing and I dont believe Druitts name appeared.

If there had have been enough on Druitt as I have said before MM would not have kept it to himself he would have shared it, unless of course he didn't totally accept what he was being told and didnt tell anyone and simply embellished his memo in respect of his suspects, and then as is know backed down.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

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."

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The reason why there is nothing about Druitt in the police files is because almost all the files no longer exist. You have offered no alternative explanation, except that Macnaghten alone received information about Druitt (you haven't explained why that is the case) and was such a numbskull that he kept it to himself (for which you have offered no supporting evidence).

Produce your evidence that Macnaghten did nothing with the information and didn't tell anyone about it? Or produce your evidence that Macnaghten was likely to have received potentially valuable information and done nothing with it. Or, I tell you what, produce your evidence that Macnaghten was such a massive idiot that he'd not tell anyone about potentially valuable information he'd received, then write a report telling his superiors that in his opinion the subject of that information he did nothing about was actually Jack the Ripper.

And while you are doing that, answer the direct questions previously put to you.

[PaulB]

Because its a cop out excuse people use when they are postulating a specific suspect, when others suggest that the suspect is not a viable one because there is nothing to corroborate what that person is saying .i.e in the case of Druitt he is not mentioned by anyone else at Scotland Yard, at the time of after. So we get people like Paul stating the files are gone, lost, destroyed, or pilfered so thechestnut referred to is "we don't know what might have been in them".

As to the suspect file it couldn't have contained that much if MM used it to compile his memo, and I seem to recall that in the 1960`s this suspect file was seen and the contents disclosed for a television documentary before it went missing and I dont believe Druitts name appeared.

If there had have been enough on Druitt as I have said before MM would not have kept it to himself he would have shared it, unless of course he didn't totally accept what he was being told and didnt tell anyone and simply embellished his memo in respect of his suspects, and then as is know backed down.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

When asked why the police files don't mention Druitt, it is not a cop-out to point out that only a fraction of those files have survived and that they don't mention any suspects (or much else about the day-to-day investigations for that matter). As for the rest of what you write, I have already asked you to provide your evidence for stating that Macnaghten did nothing with the information he received. That should be easy for you as it is something to keep stating as fact, so I expect you will be providing it at some point in the day. In the meantime, the 'suspect file' seen by the BBC in the 1970s was requested and received by Scotland Yard in JANUARY 1889, and you know that Macnaghten stated that information implicating Druitt wasn't received by the police until several years after Macnaghten joined the Met in JUNE 1889, so please explain how that 'suspects file' is relevant to Druitt? I mean, it has been patiently explained to you why it is irrelevant, but I assume it was too subtly expressed. You see, Druitt wasn't named in that file because he wasn't a suspect when the file was compiled. I hope that helps.

[PaulB]

1. Did MM have "private information" pointing to Druitt's guilt during his tenure of office?
2. If he did, did he have legal obligation to feed that info the police system officially so the police could investigate it?
3. Maybe the answer to no.2 is we dont' know he did or not because the files don't exist?

Anyway, any views on his legal obligation not just to sit on his private information?

Martyn

Martyn,
Whether or not Macnaghten was legally obliged to hand over any information he received, why do you suppose he might not have done so? Wouldn't it be an extraordinary and frankly improbable thing for a senior policemen to have received potentially important information about a suspect in one of the most serious crimes in the history of Scotland Yard and done nothing with it? I mean, if it is extraordinary and improbable, there should be some solid evidence or really good arguments for supposing that it is something Macnaghten might have done, let alone did. And why do you suppose that Macnaghten would then have referred to the subject of that information in a report to his superiors and said he thought he was the Ripper? Wouldn't the reasons why Macnaghten sat on the information still apply? Wouldn't Macnaghten have volunteered more information in that report if he was naming someone nobody had heard of? Wouldn't Macnaghten have been a bit more circumspect about naming somone when he'd sat on the information implicating him?

[Trevor Marriott]

The reason why there is nothing about Druitt in the police files is because almost all the files no longer exist. You have offered no alternative explanation, except that Macnaghten alone received information about Druitt (you haven't explained why that is the case) and was such a numbskull that he kept it to himself (for which you have offered no supporting evidence).

We know the files no longer exists but what files do you suggest did exist where Druitt might have been named that no longer exist? You cannot say these mythical files may have contained stuff on Druitt, especially when there is nothing anywhere to support what MM writes.

Do you not think that if the information was as good as you and others seem to believe, good enough to make him a real suspect he would not have shared it with at least the commissioner, but he keeps it to himself, and then conveniently destroys it, but keeps his own records to me that shows it wasnt that good information,

Produce your evidence that Macnaghten did nothing with the information and didn't tell anyone about it? Or produce your evidence that Macnaghten was likely to have received potentially valuable information and done nothing with it. Or, I tell you what, produce your evidence that Macnaghten was such a massive idiot that he'd not tell anyone about potentially valuable information he'd received, then write a report telling his superiors that in his opinion the subject of that information he did nothing about was actually Jack the Ripper.

Your the one backing MM you show where other than what he writes there is any evidence to support Druitt being the killer ? Lets work on facts.

His report never got to his superiors did it because had it have done and it was as valuable as you suggest, they would have mentioned it and someone would have investigated it and reported on that investigation. There is no evidence of any of that taking place.

And while you are doing that, answer the direct questions previously put to you.

You dont seem to realise that when a major crime is being investigated all sorts of people from the public will come forward and volunteer "information" many will ask that their names not be mentioned, that then becomes "private information" that information may be of use or completely irrelevant, but at the time those who give it believe it to be genuine and those who receive it have to act on it. But most of that type of information is not relevant and is simply a case of members of the public wanting to help. I say this because I believe that MM`s private information was nothing more than that.

And do you have any comment to make on the original suspect file seen in the 1960`s which it would seem doesnt mention Druitt

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

When asked why the police files don't mention Druitt, it is not a cop-out to point out that only a fraction of those files have survived and that they don't mention any suspects (or much else about the day-to-day investigations for that matter). As for the rest of what you write, I have already asked you to provide your evidence for stating that Macnaghten did nothing with the information he received. That should be easy for you as it is something to keep stating as fact, so I expect you will be providing it at some point in the day. In the meantime, the 'suspect file' seen by the BBC in the 1970s was requested and received by Scotland Yard in JANUARY 1889, and you know that Macnaghten stated that information implicating Druitt wasn't received by the police until several years after Macnaghten joined the Met in JUNE 1889, so please explain how that 'suspects file' is relevant to Druitt? I mean, it has been patiently explained to you why it is irrelevant, but I assume it was too subtly expressed. You see, Druitt wasn't named in that file because he wasn't a suspect when the file was compiled. I hope that helps.

But remember the police believed the murders in 1889-1891 were the work of the same killer, and MM was around then, surely that would have been the time for him to chip in with his private information and pour water on that belief, or at some point did he then realize he had been sold a pup with the private information?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

But remember the police believed the murders in 1889-1891 were the work of the same killer, and MM was around then, surely that would have been the time for him to chip in with his private information and pour water on that belief

Perhaps he did and it was dismissed.

or at some point did he then realize he had been sold a pup with the private information?

If so, then it wasn't until after 1914, when his memoirs were published.

[PaulB]

Trevor,
This nonsense has gone on long enough and I am bored to death with it. You are repeatedly asked to support or otherwise explain your arguments, but you consistently don't do so, but insteadtry to change the subject, bluff and bluster, and resort to rudeness and insults. So why don’t you put up or shut up? Answer the questions.

We know the files no longer exists but what files do you suggest did exist where Druitt might have been named that no longer exist? You cannot say these mythical files may have contained stuff on Druitt, especially when there is nothing anywhere to support what MM writes.

I haven’t said and I am not saying that the police files contained any material about Druitt. I’m saying that the bulk of the police files no longer exist, so it is likely that there would be no mention of Druitt in them, especially when there is barely a mention of any suspects. Please explain why you think this explanation is a cop-out.

Do you not think that if the information was as good as you and others seem to believe, good enough to make him a real suspect he would not have shared it with at least the commissioner, but he keeps it to himself, and then conveniently destroys it, but keeps his own records to me that shows it wasnt that good information,

I have not said I think the information received by Macnaghten was good, bad or indifferent. I have said that I don’t know what the information was and therefore cannot evaluate it and form an opinion. Likewise, I don’t know that Macnaghten did not share that information with the commissioner. I have asked you for your evidence that he didn’t. I’m still waiting for you to produce it, and nothing you say should be taken at all seriously until you start supporting your claims.

Your the one backing MM you show where other than what he writes there is any evidence to support Druitt being the killer ? Lets work on facts.

I'd love to work on facts. Do you have any? You don’t seem to understand how this works; you are the one saying that Macnaghten did nothing with the information he received, so you are the one who must support that claim with facts.

His report never got to his superiors did it because had it have done and it was as valuable as you suggest, they would have mentioned it and someone would have investigated it and reported on that investigation. There is no evidence of any of that taking place.

Okay, if you have evidence that his report never got to his superiors, share it with others. Let’s see the evidence that Macnaghten never mentioned his information to anyone else.You can’t simply announce that Macnaghten received information and didn’t tell anyone about it, you need to support it.

You dont seem to realise that when a major crime is being investigated all sorts of people from the public will come forward and volunteer "information" many will ask that their names not be mentioned, that then becomes "private information" that information may be of use or completely irrelevant, but at the time those who give it believe it to be genuine and those who receive it have to act on it. But most of that type of information is not relevant and is simply a case of members of the public wanting to help. I say this because I believe that MM`s private information was nothing more than that.

That much of the information given to the police by members of the public proves to be irrelevant isn’t one of the arcane mysteries, Trevor. And what you believe is neither here nor there unless you can support your belief with evidence or good and sensible argument. So, go ahead and show the evidence that Macnaghten was the Mr Plod who believed idle gossip and thought it a jolly wheeze to pass it on to his bosses.

But remember the police believed the murders in 1889-1891 were the work of the same killer, and MM was around then, surely that would have been the time for him to chip in with his private information and pour water on that belief, or at some point did he then realize he had been sold a pup with the private information?

I assume you are trying to make a point relevant to something I have written. What is it? It doesn’t seem to explain or, indeed, have any bearing on why you think it’s a cop-out to explain why there’s nothing about Druitt in the files, or on the fact that a suspects file compiled in January 1889 doesn’t mention Druitt, who wasn’t implicated until several years later. It might be helpful to everyone if you therefore answered the question put to you instead of trying to change the subject.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. And do you have any comment to make on the original suspect file seen in the 1960`s which it would seem doesnt mention Druitt

This pretty much sums up the standard of you’r arguments Trevor. How can you say this in post #2288 after Paul, in post #2286 had explained to you that Mac had started his job 5 months after the report and that he hadn’t received his info until several years later! It couldn’t be simpler.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But remember the police believed the murders in 1889-1891 were the work of the same killer, and MM was around then, surely that would have been the time for him to chip in with his private information and pour water on that belief, or at some point did he then realize he had been sold a pup with the private information?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Private information that he didn’t receive until several years after he’d been in the job! Which part of this don’t you understand Trevor? Give it up. You lost the argument ages ago. Paul answers every single one of your points without fail and yet you immediately start tap dancing around when he asks you some very crucial and very specific questions. You do realise that your posts can be read by others don’t you? You’ve also never answered the question about why Lawton is believable and yet Mac should be dismissed either?

[harry]

Whenever mac received the information,is immaterial to us,if we do not know what that information was.That is what I believe to be the basis of Trevors argument,and it is a good argument.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Whenever mac received the information,is immaterial to us,if we do not know what that information was.That is what I believe to be the basis of Trevors argument,and it is a good argument.

Sorry Harry but you are defending an indefensible point. Trevor was making a very specific point not a general one. He’s asking why Druitt wasn’t in a file from 1889 despite it being pointed out to him that Mac didn’t receive his information until several years after he’d begun the job. He begun the job in 1889 so naturally Druitt wouldn’t have been mentioned. Will Trevor admit this? Of course he won’t.