Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi Paul,

    I seem to have touched a nerve.

    I merely listed a perfectly reasonable series of events for Macnaghten.

    You ask for evidence of what I believe.

    Where's the evidence for what you believe?

    BTW Have you yet made the move?

    Regards,

    Simon
    Hi Simon,
    No, you haven't touched a nerve and I didn't ask for evidence of what you believe. Trevor, who is madly tap dancing around answering some questions, said I would ask you for evidence. I responded by saying that you didn't have any evidence to ask for - you had merely postulated that Druitt's family would have avoided voicing their suspicions about Montague. You don't know that they did that, but it's very reasonable and perhaps highly probable, supported by the absence of any publicity given to what they thought (if they thought anything). So, Trevor's off-the-cuff comment was just an ill-thought through attempt to use
    your post to get at me.

    Of course, whilst the family may not have voiced their suspicions willingly, someone might have said something inadvertently, or aired their suspicions in strict confidence, or suggested them through deed or action. There are numerous ways in which suspicions can leak out, which is also why Trevor keeps banging on about Macnaghten's 'private information' making it into the public domain - it would have got out and we'd know about it, he argues.

    The move is scheduled for the end of next week. So much left to do, increasingly less time left to do it.



    Comment


    • Originally posted by harry View Post
      Exactly Simon,that is the first consideration,and that too is open to suspicion.Some will suspect one way,others another.
      Of course I will add that we only have Lawton’s word that Feigenbaum said what he was alleged to have done and yet Trevor called him a very likely suspect? Where’s the justification for that?
      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 Simon Wood View Post
        Hi Herlock,

        Why did Macnaghten pick Druitt?

        Because there was nothing problematical about him. He was dead. He obligingly committed suicide at approximately the right time, although not "in bloodstained clothes" . . . "on the night of his last murder" [Farquharson, 1892], nor "at the time of the Miller's Court murder [MM, 1894]." And he was not "a man who at one time was engaged in rescue work among the depraved women of the East End . . ." [North Country Vicar, 1899].

        Macnaghten picked Druitt. Anderson picked the Polish Jew. Two out of three from the memorandum, both police officers ignoring Ostrog who, in October 1894, received £10 compensation from the police for proving that he was in a French jail at the time of the Whitechapel murders.

        It isn't rocket science.

        Macnaghten is not to be trusted.

        Regards,

        Simon
        Hi Simon.

        There was plenty that was problematical I’m afraid.

        1. Some, including Munro, were of the opinion that Mackenzie was also a ripper victim. Druitt’s TOD excludes him from that crime.

        2. Macnaghten couldn’t have assumed that no one would read his memorandum or that someone might not decide to look into his 3 suspects. Druitt’s movements would have been far easier to trace than your average working class man. A check might have proved that Druitt was, for example, in Bournemouth at the time of one of the murders.

        3. Kosminski was mad and Ostrog was an habitual criminal. No one would have raised an eyebrow over them being mentioned in connection to the ripper murders. More than eyebrows would have been raised when a highly respectable Barrister/Schoolteacher with no history of violence or criminality was raised.

        4. With all the graveyards and asylums to choose from why, in such a rigidly class conscious society, would Mac go for someone from his own class if he had no reason to?

        5. Why, if he had no good reason to, would he stain the reputation of a family to whom one of his closest friends was related by marriage?

        6. Why didn’t he just leave it at Kosminski and Ostrog and then add some vague comment like - I could also name 3 or 4 others that were more likely than Cutbush?

        We have no good reason not to trust Macnaghten. At the very least we shouldn’t simply dismiss him. Imo of course.

        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 Wickerman View Post

          An experience that has yet to be fulfilled.
          My commiserations to all the Gunners supporters.
          Thanks Wickerman and Sherlock.

          Am now relying on Liverpool on Saturday to bring some cheer to this Arsenal's supporter's season.

          Sad but true.

          Martyn
          "The one who waits with prudence will be rewarded at the right time."

          Comment


          • Hello Herlock,

            You have questioned why would MM put forward Druitt as JTR, as he was related to him
            by marriage, unless MM really genuinely suspected Druitt.

            1. It's just an unsupported assumption he had any kind of loyalty towards Druitt, based on
            an genealogical connection. We don't know to what degree that connection meant to MM.

            2. Even if he had some reluctance to suspect Druitt because he had a connection to him,
            there remains the possiblity of "competing loyalties" which would cause MM to record
            his suspicions against Druitt. By competing loyalities, I mean MM may have perceived
            a greater need to keep secret the identify of the real JTR in order to maintain the
            status quo for the establishment, for example.

            Martyn
            "The one who waits with prudence will be rewarded at the right time."

            Comment


            • Hello Martyn,

              My brother is a season ticket holding Baggies fan and is currently deeply traumatised over the fact that not only did Aston Villa knock them out of the play-offs on a disputed penalty and an unfair (in his opinion) sending off but that they also achieved promotion. He also works in Birmingham surrounded by Villa fans. I had to text him part way through his next work day to make sure that he hadn’t killed anyone.

              .
              You have questioned why would MM put forward Druitt as JTR, as he was related to him
              by marriage, unless MM really genuinely suspected Druitt.

              1. It's just an unsupported assumption he had any kind of loyalty towards Druitt, based on
              an genealogical connection. We don't know to what degree that connection meant to MM.
              But it’s reasonable to assume that this would have meant something to his close friend Sir Vivian Majendie. We’re all aware of the Victorian’s horror of scandal and shame.

              . 2. Even if he had some reluctance to suspect Druitt because he had a connection to him,
              there remains the possiblity of "competing loyalties" which would cause MM to record
              his suspicions against Druitt. By competing loyalities, I mean MM may have perceived
              a greater need to keep secret the identify of the real JTR in order to maintain the
              status quo for the establishment, for example.
              Could you clarify that point please Martyn. To me you appear to be saying that, on the one hand, Druitt’s guilt would have overridden familial loyalty but, on the other, he just named Druitt to hide the identity of the real ripper?

              Its possible that I’m misinterpreting your point Martyn.
              Regards

              Herlock






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

              Comment


              • Hello Herlock

                Sorry, if I was unclear.

                My belief:

                Druitt was not JTR.

                JTR was known to the police, from around the time of the murders. Maybe just after the Double Event

                It was more important for MM to protect JTR than Druitt, so despite any famillial loyalty, MM happy to posit Druitts guilt.

                (In Simon's book "Deconstructing Jack", he posits that the Sun newspaper was using Cutbush as JTR as as stalking horse to push
                for some kind of enquiry into the WM's so Druitt, Kosminski, Ostrog were only posited to fend off the case for Cutbush,
                and to deflect any need for an equiry. Simon can correct me on my understanding of this, or expand on this if needs be).

                The exposure of the real identity of JTR would be very damaging to the establishment overiding any scandal or shame to Druitt's family.

                Martyn


                Last edited by mpriestnall; 05-31-2019, 12:43 PM.
                "The one who waits with prudence will be rewarded at the right time."

                Comment


                • Originally posted by mpriestnall View Post
                  Hello Herlock

                  Sorry, if I was unclear.

                  My belief:

                  Druitt was not JTR.

                  JTR was known to the police, from around the time of the murders. Maybe just after the Double Event

                  It was more important for MM to protect JTR than Druitt, so despite any famillial loyalty, MM happy to posit Druitts guilt.

                  (In Simon's book "Deconstructing Jack", he posits that the Sun newspaper was using Cutbush as JTR as as stalking horse to push
                  for some kind of enquiry into the WM's so Druitt, Kosminski, Ostrog were only posited to fend off the case for Cutbush,
                  and to deflect any need for an equiry. Simon can correct me on my understanding of this, or expand on this if needs be).

                  The exposure of the real identity of JTR would be very damaging to the establishment overiding any scandal or shame to Druitt's family.

                  Martyn

                  hi priest
                  well then who was this person that was "known to the police" and why would "MM protect JTR"?
                  "Is all that we see or seem
                  but a dream within a dream?"

                  -Edgar Allan Poe


                  "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                  quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                  -Frederick G. Abberline

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by mpriestnall View Post
                    Hello Herlock

                    Sorry, if I was unclear.

                    My belief:

                    Druitt was not JTR.

                    JTR was known to the police, from around the time of the murders. Maybe just after the Double Event

                    It was more important for MM to protect JTR than Druitt, so despite any famillial loyalty, MM happy to posit Druitts guilt.

                    (In Simon's book "Deconstructing Jack", he posits that the Sun newspaper was using Cutbush as JTR as as stalking horse to push
                    for some kind of enquiry into the WM's so Druitt, Kosminski, Ostrog were only posited to fend off the case for Cutbush,
                    and to deflect any need for an equiry. Simon can correct me on my understanding of this, or expand on this if needs be).

                    The exposure of the real identity of JTR would be very damaging to the establishment overiding any scandal or shame to Druitt's family.

                    Martyn

                    Thanks for clarifying Martyn.

                    I have to say though, with respect to Simon, he did mention ‘’infernally complex...scenarios’’ involving Druitt’s family in an earlier post. When we look into the case and see 5 prostitutes, all except one murdered in the street. All except one with abdominal mutilations (and we have an at least plausible, possible explanation for that) All having their throats cut and within a period of around two months in a very small area of the East End. Surely the most obvious conclusion, and one that a modern police investigation would arrive at, is that this was a serial killer killing for his own, probably sexual, reasons?

                    Perhaps for another thread?
                    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 05-31-2019, 06:48 PM.
                    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 harry View Post
                      No one has claimed the family didn't have suspicions.What I say is that it is the only indication that anyone had suspicions about Druitt.As we do not know what was the nature of those suspicions,how can we evaluate those suspicions?Does the unknown equate to reasonable cause to suspect?
                      Right, "WE" do not know the nature of those suspicions. Therefore, "WE" cannot label Druitt a suspect, based on those suspicions.
                      But "WE" are not labeling Druitt a suspect, it was Macnaghten who labelled him a suspect, and Macnaghten did know about those suspicions.

                      See the difference?
                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • Hi Simon.

                        Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post

                        Because there was nothing problematical about him. He was dead. He obligingly committed suicide at approximately the right time,...
                        So did Richard Brown, on 16 Nov......
                        "The man who committed suicide in Hyde-park yesterday by shooting himself in the mouth with a revolver, has now been fully identified as Richard Brown, a constable of the E Division..."

                        And he was not "a man who at one time was engaged in rescue work among the depraved women of the East End . . ." [North Country Vicar, 1899].
                        Are you aware Druitt made a substantial donation to The Peoples Palace, with premises in the Mile End Road & at Toynbee Hall on Commercial Street Whitechapel.
                        We are not sure the extent of his connections to the East End.

                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • Hi Jon,

                          What are you suggesting?

                          Abberline donated to the People's Palace.

                          Regards,

                          Simon
                          Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                          Comment


                          • How do we reconcile the substance of this newspaper article?

                            Click image for larger version

Name:	ABERDEEN PRESS AND JOURNAL 14 FEB 1891 RIPPER MIX UP.JPG
Views:	214
Size:	58.6 KB
ID:	711751

                            Aberdeen Press and Journal, 14th February 1891—

                            We have Montagu Williams MP, who was pushing the Portuguese cattleman Ripper theory, a West of England MP reporting that the Ripper committed suicide in 1888, and, with Frances Coles, a possible brand new Ripper murder being investigated by Inspector Swanson.

                            How can these stories co-exist?
                            Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                              How do we reconcile the substance of this newspaper article?

                              Click image for larger version

Name:	ABERDEEN PRESS AND JOURNAL 14 FEB 1891 RIPPER MIX UP.JPG
Views:	214
Size:	58.6 KB
ID:	711751

                              Aberdeen Press and Journal, 14th February 1891—

                              We have Montagu Williams MP, who was pushing the Portuguese cattleman Ripper theory, a West of England MP reporting that the Ripper committed suicide in 1888, and, with Frances Coles, a possible brand new Ripper murder being investigated by Inspector Swanson.

                              How can these stories co-exist?
                              Hi Simon,

                              I think the article is emphasizing how Montague Williams reassurances that the "Ripper" committed suicide were considered incorrect, as they were assuming this murder was also by JtR (the phrase "queer irony" indicates that). The cattleman theory could co-exist, as if Coles was killed by JtR then there's no reason that JtR couldn't have been the Portuguese Cattleman (that was Edwin Larkins theory at the time, though he may not have been unique in that respect - I think even Queen Victoria mentioned the cattle boats, if not the Portuguese in particular). The closing bit, that JtR could be a woman, or dressed as one, was also an idea bandied about. Again, with the lack of any solution to the case, the press would just report what there was - speculation and rumour. The overall gist and tone, to me at least, is indicating just that there was no solid clue to the identity of the Ripper. But clearly, the suicide idea was out there by 1891, but whether that was with anyone in particular in mind or just a speculative possibility as to why the murders seemed to have stopped, we don't know.

                              - Jeff

                              Comment


                              • Hi Jeff,

                                Thanks.

                                I am going to extract what I think is the most telling point from your post.

                                " . . . there was no solid clue to the identity of the Ripper."

                                And that includes everyone who ever thought they had a clue.

                                Regards,

                                Simon
                                Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X