What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[mpriestnall]

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?

Paul, thanks replying to my question. I'll reply to your excellent questions soon. I just want to take more time so I can give a considered reply.

I'm out today and my evening will be taken up watching Arsenal beat Chelsea later this evening...

Martyn

[Herlock Sholmes]

It will be a novel experience for Paul. Someone actually answering questions.

[mpriestnall]

I'm sure I dont' know who you mean!

And it'll be a novel experience for me see Arsenal to win something!

[Darryl Kenyon]

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?

Paul, this is what I have been trying to get to terms with in previous posts. In my opinion if Mac did have damning or even just very good evidence to show that Druitt was the ripper. Then surely he would have been morally, if not legally obliged to share that info?
Yet Anderson sticks his neck out saying [Probably knowing he will come in for a barrage of criticism], that Jack was definitely a Polish Jew. Not only that but Swanson in private notes looks likely to have agreed with him. Then we have Littlechild saying he had never heard of a Dr D, and Abberline telling a newspaper that the evidence, [as he saw it] against Druitt didn't amount to much.
The evidence may have more or less convinced Mac but it certainly didn't others. And I simply cannot believe that , in the most famous case of the age he kept that evidence to just himself, if it was damning.
So to my mind it simply wasn't, but it re-enforced Mac's profile of who the killer was. IE Someone with possible anatomical knowledge, committed suicide, sexually insane etc.
Regards Darryl

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm sure I dont' know who you mean!

And it'll be a novel experience for me see Arsenal to win something!

Good luck with the game Martyn.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Paul, this is what I have been trying to get to terms with in previous posts. In my opinion if Mac did have damning or even just very good evidence to show that Druitt was the ripper. Then surely he would have been morally, if not legally obliged to share that info?..
Regards Darryl

What if Mac thought that the evidence was persuasive but not enough to convict and that he then considered that Druitt had been dead for close to six years and if he was the ripper the there would be no more deaths. He might then have thought - why cause a family such shame and probable estrangement from society especially when that family was connected by marriage to one of his closest friends?

[Trevor Marriott]

What if Mac thought that the evidence was persuasive but not enough to convict and that he then considered that Druitt had been dead for close to six years and if he was the ripper the there would be no more deaths. He might then have thought - why cause a family such shame and probable estrangement from society especially when that family was connected by marriage to one of his closest friends?

Detected crime no proceedings !!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Detected crime no proceedings !!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

In English?

[Wickerman]

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.

Perhaps it's numbers that Trevor needs.
The suspect list dated 1889.
Mac. joined the force in 1889.
The first known circumstantial accusation against an unnamed Druitt was by Farquharson in 1891. (2 yrs later)
The second known circumstantial accusation that would fit Druitt was the 'Confession', in 1899. (10 yrs later)

Purely math Trevor, there's an on-line calculator if you need one.

https://www.online-calculator.com/

[Wickerman]

I'm sure I dont' know who you mean!

And it'll be a novel experience for me see Arsenal to win something!

An experience that has yet to be fulfilled.
My commiserations to all the Gunners supporters.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Perhaps it's numbers that Trevor needs.
The suspect list dated 1889.
Mac. joined the force in 1889.
The first known circumstantial accusation against an unnamed Druitt was by Farquharson in 1891. (2 yrs later)
The second known circumstantial accusation that would fit Druitt was the 'Confession', in 1899. (10 yrs later)

Purely math Trevor, there's an on-line calculator if you need one.

https://www.online-calculator.com/

Very generous of you Wick

[Herlock Sholmes]

An experience that has yet to be fulfilled.
My commiserations to all the Gunners supporters.

I’ve just seen the score

[Wickerman]

Very generous of you Wick

Always ready to oblige....

[PaulB]

A meaningless one-liner from Trevor, but no sensible response to the questions he needs to answer. We know why, of course, and the silence speaks volumes.

[rjpalmer]

Detected crime no proceedings !!!!!!

Hi Herlock,

What I think Trevor is referring to, in modern police parlance, is a "detected crime"; a crime where the police are confident they know the identity of the criminal, but, for whatever reason, no charges can be filed, and no prosecution can take place, thus there is no reason to proceed. Maybe all the witnesses have died, or evidence has been accidently destroyed, etc. The suspect himself may have lung cancer and will be dead before the case could possibly make it through court. Thus, the file is closed and marked "detected crime," even though, as far as the public is concerned, the crime was never solved.

(If you are interested, see the link below to an article in the Irish Times back in 2002, where there was some debate over whether the books in Ireland were being cleared by marking down crimes as "detected," even though they were not).

I don't think the Victorians used the term, but somewhat ironically, I think it is identical to what Sir Robert Anderson and John Littlechild meant when they wrote about "moral guilt" or a suspect being "morally guilty." It was a situation where the police were morally certain of a suspect's guilt, but there simply wasn't enough legal evidence to convict. Anderson distinguishes between the two types of guilt, and even uses the term to describe the case against the Polish Jew.

But what I think Trevor (and Simon) may also be saying (and they can certainly chime in if they want) is that if Macnaghten considered the Druitt case a "detected crime," then why did they still proceed to investigate Kosminski, Sadler, Grant, etc.? The file was not closed.

I'm not defending or dismissing the argument, just explaining what I think Mr. M is getting at.

It is, I think, a reasonable suggestion, but, my counter-argument is as follows. To put a twist on an old saying: "doubt springs eternal." Even if the police thought X was guilty of the 1888 murders, why wouldn't they exercise due diligence and investigate Sadler (or Grant) if they were suspected of cutting up a woman in the East End in 1891 or 1895?

I may be morally certain that my brother is the one that stole my Spalding baseball mitt (I know he did!), but if I saw the neighbor kid wearing an identical mitt a few months later, I would be curious enough to investigate anyway. Because doubt, suspicion, etc., "springs eternal." Especially when the cases were necessarily circumstantial.

That is what Simon calls "the Romantic view of things." Talk to you later.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/gardai-review-detected-crime-definition-1.1088285