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 Jon,

    What are you suggesting?

    Abberline donated to the People's Palace.

    Regards,

    Simon
    I'm suggesting the full extent of Druitt's connections to the impoverished of the East End are yet to be determined, but it would not be true to say there were no connections.
    Regards, Jon S.

    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:	237
Size:	58.6 KB
ID:	711751

      Aberdeen Press and Journal, 14th February 1891ó

      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?
      Actually Simon, I think you're the one looking for something that doesn't exist.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Hi Jon,

        Doesn't exist?

        It's right there, in black and white, in front of your eyes.

        Explain.

        Don't play the old Ripperologist trick of shrugging it off as irrelevant.

        You're better than that.

        Regards,

        Simon
        Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

        Comment


        • Jon,
          Then what were the suspicions of MM?.As far as I can see,Mack's suspicions were that the family of Druitt were sincere in their suspicions.Still comes down to the family.Or are you saying,the suspicions of Mac were different than those of the family?When you write Jon,try to explain yourself.What were Mac's suspicions?

          Comment


          • Iím posting this here because John G mentioned it on the other thread. I mistakenly attributed it to Druittís Uncle Robert. Roger pointed out to me that the fact that Robert died in 1883 might absolve him of the accusation of dictating his memoirs​ It was actually Montyís uncle James.

            ďUncle, James Druitt, had, sometime in the late 1800s commenced writing a memoir. The memoir was dictated to his daughter Barbara. For some unknown reason the memoir breaks off in November 1888, between the last murder and Montagues death. It recommences again in 1894, with the words Ď ..avoiding all mention of the defects which one hopes to conceal from ones neighbours í whatever these defects might have been are, of course, pure speculation but clearly Uncle James was keeping it secret. .Ē

            Of course Iím not saying that this is proof of anything but itís interesting (to me) nonetheless.

            I donít know how David Anderson got his dates but itís saying that the break came before Monty died and so his suicide canít really be the reason for break. Also why would a suicide cause a gap of six years? It canít be Druittís mother because sheíd been ill for quite a while. Itís also difficult to see how it could have been the result of Montyís sacking as the whole episode appears to have been handled with discretion. Weíre unaware of any other weighty events in the Druitt family. We can only speculate of course....a gap that coincides with the Ďfinalí ripper murder and the MM
            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
              Iím posting this here because John G mentioned it on the other thread. I mistakenly attributed it to Druittís Uncle Robert. Roger pointed out to me that the fact that Robert died in 1883 might absolve him of the accusation of dictating his memoirs​ It was actually Montyís uncle James.

              ďUncle, James Druitt, had, sometime in the late 1800s commenced writing a memoir. The memoir was dictated to his daughter Barbara. For some unknown reason the memoir breaks off in November 1888, between the last murder and Montagues death. It recommences again in 1894, with the words Ď ..avoiding all mention of the defects which one hopes to conceal from ones neighbours í whatever these defects might have been are, of course, pure speculation but clearly Uncle James was keeping it secret. .Ē

              Of course Iím not saying that this is proof of anything but itís interesting (to me) nonetheless.

              I donít know how David Anderson got his dates but itís saying that the break came before Monty died and so his suicide canít really be the reason for break. Also why would a suicide cause a gap of six years? It canít be Druittís mother because sheíd been ill for quite a while. Itís also difficult to see how it could have been the result of Montyís sacking as the whole episode appears to have been handled with discretion. Weíre unaware of any other weighty events in the Druitt family. We can only speculate of course....a gap that coincides with the Ďfinalí ripper murder and the MM
              Thanks Herlock, very informative.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by harry View Post
                Jon,
                Then what were the suspicions of MM?.As far as I can see,Mack's suspicions were that the family of Druitt were sincere in their suspicions.Still comes down to the family.Or are you saying,the suspicions of Mac were different than those of the family?When you write Jon,try to explain yourself.What were Mac's suspicions?
                Harry.
                When I've already posted to you that "WE" do not know what those suspicions were, why do you reply by asking me what those suspicions were?
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                  Harry.
                  When I've already posted to you that "WE" do not know what those suspicions were, why do you reply by asking me what those suspicions were?
                  And where does the idea come from that the only information about Druitt available to Macnaghten was what the family thought?

                  Comment


                  • Hi Paul,

                    Er . . ? Macnaghten . . ?

                    Regards,

                    Simon
                    Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                    Comment


                    • Exactly Jon,you do not know what the suspicions were.How then can you come to a decision of guilt on evidence you do not know,and yes,the term suspect does imply guilt.
                      Whatever information MM had on the 24th when he dated his report,his claim that there was no proof against any one person, would include any information or evidence available at that date.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by harry View Post
                        Exactly Jon,you do not know what the suspicions were.How then can you come to a decision of guilt on evidence you do not know,and yes,the term suspect does imply guilt.
                        Whatever information MM had on the 24th when he dated his report,his claim that there was no proof against any one person, would include any information or evidence available at that date.
                        Yes, though if you are suggesting a suspect cannot be charged on circumstantial evidence, you would be wrong.
                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by harry View Post
                          Exactly Jon,you do not know what the suspicions were.How then can you come to a decision of guilt on evidence you do not know,and yes,the term suspect does imply guilt.
                          Whatever information MM had on the 24th when he dated his report,his claim that there was no proof against any one person, would include any information or evidence available at that date.
                          No one is saying that Druitt was definitely guilty Harry. On the other hand we might ask how you can dismiss someone when we donít know what the evidence was? Or, on what basis do we call Macnaghten a liar?
                          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

                            No one is saying that Druitt was definitely guilty Harry. On the other hand we might ask how you can dismiss someone when we donít know what the evidence was? Or, on what basis do we call Macnaghten a liar?
                            The argument isn't even that Druitt was a good suspect. It is, as you say, that we don't know what the evidence against him was and therefore can't assess it. But Macnaghten did know what the evidence was and clearly found it persuasive. In our ignorance of the evidence, and without evidence that Macnaghten was likely to committ himself on poor or anecdotal evidence, how can we therefore therefore assess the evidence? Or, for that matter, categorise a person as a 'person of interest' or a 'suspect'?
                            Last edited by PaulB; 06-02-2019, 12:08 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Jon,
                              Why do you mention circumstantial evidence?Have I suggested there is any?
                              Herlock,
                              I haven't dismissed MM.I haven't called him a liar.I look on him a different way you do,that is all.Tome he is a person of interest.
                              Knowing the evidence,Macnaghten still claimed there was no proof against any one person.That should give you a clue.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by harry View Post
                                Jon,
                                Why do you mention circumstantial evidence?Have I suggested there is any?
                                Herlock,
                                I haven't dismissed MM.I haven't called him a liar.I look on him a different way you do,that is all.Tome he is a person of interest.
                                Knowing the evidence,Macnaghten still claimed there was no proof against any one person.That should give you a clue.
                                Proof would have made Druitt (or any other suspect) guilty. There was and is no conclusive proof against anyone, but Macnaghten said that there was evidence which led him to suspect Druitt (making him a suspect to Macnaghten.) Evidence takes different forms of course and we individually make an assessment of its strengths and weaknesses. This is what Macnaghten did. That we don’t know what the evidence was doesn’t change the fact that Macnaghten said that evidence existed. So all that we can do is to ask a) is there any evidence that Macnaghten lied or was inclined to lie? And b) could Macnaghten have been either fooled in some way or could he have been honestly mistaken. So it’s basically - lie/fooled/mistaken.

                                Id say that lie is unlikely in the extreme and we have no evidence that Mac was inherently dishonest.

                                I’d also say that fooled is also unlikely in the extreme as a) the family surely wouldn’t have tricked someone into believing that a family member was the ripper and b) with something as important as the ripper case it’s unlikely that someone of Macnaghten seniority would simply have listened to some kind of unsubstantiated gossip/rumour and then put it into a memorandum for his superiors.

                                ​​​​​​​That Mac might have been mistaken is of course a possibility. But again we would surely have to assume that Mac would have genuinely felt that the evidence that he had seen was persuasive to some extent.

                                Therefore the mere fact that Macnaghten suspected Druitt and was willing to put this into writing is compelling in itself. We then see if we can eliminate him on the known facts and we cannot. He also ticks quite a few of the boxes that we tend to propose for suspects. Then we add Farquharsen, the priest, Sims, the sacking, the suicide and the questions regarding it, HL Fleet, his uncles memoirs. All combine, for me, to make an intriguing suspect with far more going for him than most. What if it could be proven that Druitt categorically did charitable work amongst the fallen women of the East End? It’s a definite possibility.




                                Regards

                                Herlock






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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X