Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

    This is tiresome.

    I don't need any evidence that Macnaghten's information wasn't hearsay because Iím not saying that his information wasnít hearsay, Iím saying that we donít know we don't know what Macnaghten's information was, therefore we don't know whether it was hearsay or not. You are the one who is saying the information was hearsay, you are the one who must prove it was, but you can't because you don't know what it is. You seem to have considerable difficulty understanding that no conclusions can be drawn about the information when we know nothing about it. Short of spelling it out to you 'Janet and John' style, I don't know how else to make this clear.

    You also seem unable to grasp that nobody is readily accepting Druittís candidacy as a Ripper suspect. This is a favourite accusation of yours and insulting, but all this discussion is because Druitt is being questioned, it's just that you keep blocking the progress of that discussion with your nonsense. The bottom line is that you are readily dismissing Druitt. You have no idea what the information was that he/the police received, yet you are drawing conclusions based what you imagine it was.

    Once again you fall back on the old can't be 'relied upon with any certaintyí argument, but nobody is relying on it.

    All your arguments have been discussed to death.
    But there are those who have him as their prime suspect, based on what evidence I ask ?

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 06-05-2019, 01:08 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      But there are those who have him as their prime suspect, based on what evidence I ask ?

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      That's up to them. And it is irrelevant to what I have said regarding your arguments. Do you accept that you were wrong? If not, why do you think you're right? Let's progress this discussion.

      Comment


      • Hi RJ,

        To my mind, it's fairly obvious that the blessed Sir Robert Anderson took his Polish Jew from Macnaghten's Memorandum.

        Which doesn't speak volumes for the Swanson marginalia.

        Who else is in your race?

        Regards,

        Simon
        Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          But there are those who have him as their prime suspect, based on what evidence I ask ?

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          ‘I believe he’s the best of the named suspects. That is my own personal opinion. It is based on an accumulation of things which I feel are interesting and, in the absence of certainty, those individual things might have been explained by a guilty Druitt. There is no proof of course even though posters appear to keep demanding it. Apparently Druitt’s candidature requires a greater level of evidence than other candidates.

          We have a Macnaghten. Which on its own propels Druitt to the top part of the suspect tree alongside Kosminski.

          We have zero reason, apart from personal convenience, to assume that Macnaghten lied.

          The idea that Mac casually accepted any old nonsense about the most notorious case in police history makes no sense.

          The idea that someone (family?) made up some lie about Druitt is nonsense.

          The fact that Macnaghten simply picked on Druitt because he died when he did (even though he wouldn’t have been short of better options) doesn’t hold water for me.


          And so, from the above, I don’t see why we should dismiss Macnaghten (so I don’t.) I think that he genuinely believed that Druitt was a likely candidate because he’d received persuasive (though not conclusive) evidence.


          Ill ask again - why wasn't Macnaghten reliable and yet Lawton was? I’d say that Mac was the more reliable of the two.
          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 PaulB View Post

            That's up to them. And it is irrelevant to what I have said regarding your arguments. Do you accept that you were wrong? If not, why do you think you're right? Let's progress this discussion.
            There is nothing to discuss the facts are there plain and simple.

            I dont think MM was lying, and to whether he was gullible, well that a different story you have heard the saying b....t baffles brains.

            MM penned a document some years after he joined the police, and some years after the murders apparently ceased.

            He was not involved in the investigation of any of the murders

            Just because he was a senior officer as SY in 1889 onwards counts for nothing because Monro in 1890 states they had no clues as to the identity of the killer, and nor does his successor thereafter.

            The suspect details of those he mentions in the memo. could only have been obtained by him researching himself, or getting someone to do it on his behalf. Either way it doesn't say much for how those suspects came to be mentioned in the first place if their details were incorrect in the suspect files.

            There are glaring errors with regards to what he writes about the suspects, errors which I would not expect to be there, if first of all the suspect details as recorded were accurate, and that may not be the case., and he clearly didn't check on what he was putting forward in the memo

            We know there was another similar murder is 1891 which it would seem the police were suggesting was the work of the same killer. In 1894 MM knew Druit was dead and therefore could not have been the 1888 killer but he still refers to him as a likely suspect. Why di he not interject in the proceeding and volunteer his private information? he stays silent. that also tells me that the information was not very good.

            His private information which led him to suggest Druitt, we dont know what it is and I accept we dont know the strength of its accuracy. But we can analyze what he writes and assess its potential evidential value in the grand scheme of things and come to a reasoned judgment.

            Now if we look at 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"

            Where could the information have come from? I doubt from the family direct to him, but perhaps from a friend of the family. But of course the family were not living with him in London, so how would they have been able to form a belief that their son was JTR?

            Where is there any evidence to show Druitt suffered from any mental illness, or was insane sexually or otherwise or that he was anything other than an upright citizen so where did he get sexually insane from? So there is no corroboration from that angle.

            So when it comes down to it you have to accept that the reality is that what his private information was could have been nothing more than hearsay from a third party and unsafe and unreliable, and I suggest that on that basis alone Druitt should be regarded as a person of interest and not a suspect. But if you want to keep ramping him up as a suspect in the true sense then feel free. But all that is doing is misleading the general public wjo are no so knlwledgavle as us and will belive that Druiit is a real live suspect.

            As you say this is becoming tiresome, so I hope now you will now refrain from keep asking questions to which you know there are no definitive answers.

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post


              Ill ask again - why wasn't Macnaghten reliable and yet Lawton was? I’d say that Mac was the more reliable of the two.
              And as I keep telling you there is corroboration to Lawtons statement there is nothing to corroborate MM

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                And as I keep telling you there is corroboration to Lawtons statement there is nothing to corroborate MM

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                And it’s simply untrue of course. There are some very simple questions with very obvious answers.

                Did anyone else hear what CF allegedly told Lawton............no.
                Can it be proved that CF ever said anything about having murderous feelings towards women.........no.
                Is someone that was overwhelmingly likely to hang a definitely reliable source of information........no.
                Is someone that was a known compulsive liar a definitely reliable source of information.........no.
                Is someone to be considered reliable who apparently has valuable information about the Whitechapel Murders but can’t be bothered to mention it to the police or perhaps even write a letter to The Met detailing his info but rather just goes to the press.....no.
                Therefore, can it be corroborated that CF ever said any such thing to Lawton........no.

                So again, why is Lawton reliable when The Assistant Commissioner Of The Met isn’t?

                Could the fact that CF said that he’d been in London have been told to Lawton at any time whilst he was preparing his defence....yes.
                Apart from the fact that it was a knife attack to the neck, did CF’s murder of Mrs Hoffman in any way, shape or form resemble the work of Jack the Ripper........no.
                Though it appears that CF was in London in 1891 (or was it 90?) can it be at all shown that he was in London in 1888.....no.(Druitt was)

                And yet you call him a very likely suspect but Druitt barely a person of interest.

                Again, Macnaghten over Lawton every day of the week.
                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 Trevor Marriott View Post
                  . There is nothing to discuss the facts are there plain and simple.
                  And yet you keep deliberately missing them.

                  MM penned a document some years after he joined the police, and some years after the murders apparently ceased.
                  Its irrelevant when he wrote it.

                  . He was not involved in the investigation of any of the murders
                  I wasnít at The Battle Of Waterloo but Iím capable of analysing the facts about it.

                  Just because he was a senior officer as SY in 1889 onwards counts for nothing because Monro in 1890 states they had no clues as to the identity of the killer, and nor does his successor thereafter.
                  Irrelevant. People agree and disagree all the time. Youíre cherry-picking to suit. If you believe Monro why donít you believe Anderson?

                  .
                  The suspect details of those he mentions in the memo. could only have been obtained by him researching himself, or getting someone to do it on his behalf. Either way it doesn't say much for how those suspects came to be mentioned in the first place if their details were incorrect in the suspect files.
                  As he strongly favoured Druitt the other two suspects hardly, for him, would have required any in depth analysis.

                  .
                  There are glaring errors with regards to what he writes about the suspects, errors which I would not expect to be there, if first of all the suspect details as recorded were accurate, and that may not be the case., and he clearly didn't check on what he was putting forward in the memo
                  These errors are insignificant. He was hardly preparing a case to go to court. As long as he felt that the evidence that he was presented with was strong enough to convince himself then Druittís age and occupation were irrelevant. Likewise the Cutbush thing. If heíd heard that they were related why would he have bothered to have looked into it further? He simply made the error of assuming. So what?

                  We know there was another similar murder is 1891 which it would seem the police were suggesting was the work of the same killer. In 1894 MM knew Druit was dead and therefore could not have been the 1888 killer but he still refers to him as a likely suspect. Why di he not interject in the proceeding and volunteer his private information? he stays silent. that also tells me that the information was not very good.
                  I can think of 2 possible reasons. 1. The evidence wasnít strong enough to prove for certain that Druitt was guilty, and 2. He also wanted to protect the family

                  .
                  His private information which led him to suggest Druitt, we dont know what it is and I accept we dont know the strength of its accuracy. But we can analyze what he writes and assess its potential evidential value in the grand scheme of things and come to a reasoned judgment.
                  That Macnaghten was an intelligent, highly respected man. Not a liar or an idiot. Itís difficult to think of another occasion when someoneís reputation can be trashed on the basis of 3 insignificant errors.

                  Now if we look at 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"

                  Where could the information have come from? I doubt from the family direct to him, but perhaps from a friend of the family. But of course the family were not living with him in London, so how would they have been able to form a belief that their son was JTR?
                  Conjecture of course. How can you know that it didnít come from the family in some way? It might have come from Valentine who presented the evidence to William? What if Druitt confessed (The Priest?)

                  .
                  Where is there any evidence to show Druitt suffered from any mental illness, or was insane sexually or otherwise or that he was anything other than an upright citizen so where did he get sexually insane from? So there is no corroboration from that angle.
                  Sexually insane is just a phrase.

                  Is there any evidence to show that he suffered from mental illness?! He committed suicide. There was mental illness in the family.

                  So when it comes down to it you have to accept that the reality is that what his private information was could have been nothing more than hearsay from a third party and unsafe and unreliable, and I suggest that on that basis alone Druitt should be regarded as a person of interest and not a suspect. But if you want to keep ramping him up as a suspect in the true sense then feel free. But all that is doing is misleading the general public wjo are no so knlwledgavle as us and will belive that Druiit is a real live suspect.
                  The only person doing the misleading is you. Virtually ever time that you post your bias shows. We have absolutely no reason at all to consider Macnaghten unreliable. None. Druitt is and will remain a suspect.

                  Iíll mention yet again Lawtonís entirely, absolutely, unequivocally uncorroborated statement allegedly taken from a compulsive liar due to be hanged!! And you have the nerve to call Macnaghten unsafe and unreliable! It beggars belief!

                  .
                  As you say this is becoming tiresome, so I hope now you will now refrain from keep asking questions to which you know there are no definitive answers.
                  And yet you seem strangely confident that Macnaghten is unreliable but Lawton is reliable. I wonder why.

                  And why didnít you just ask Paul over a week ago to stop asking you perfectly reasonable questions that you canít answer? It would have saved you the job of limbo dancing under and tap dancing around them.
                  Regards

                  Herlock






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

                  Comment


                  • Hi Herlock,

                    Forgive my butting in. Feigenbaum is a nice try, but no cigar.

                    However, using the Sholmes formulaó

                    Did anyone else hear what the Druitt family allegedly told Macnaghten . . . no.

                    Can it be proved that the Druitt family ever said anything about MJD having murderous feelings towards women . . . no.

                    Is someone to be considered reliable who apparently has valuable information about the Whitechapel Murders but canít be bothered to mention it to the police or perhaps even write a letter to The Met detailing his info but rather just goes to the press . . . Yes: how about Farquharson?

                    Therefore, can it be corroborated that the Druitt family ever said any such thing to Macnaghten . . . no.

                    Regards,

                    Simon
                    Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                      Hi RJ,

                      Who else is in your race?

                      Regards,

                      Simon
                      Hi Simon,

                      For some years I've felt that Sir Robert Anderson might be making an oblique reference to the murderer in The Lighter Side of My Official Life.

                      Just not in the passage that is usually cited.

                      But who cares about the Ripper?

                      Cheers, RP

                      Click image for larger version

Name:	Hawaii.JPG
Views:	119
Size:	51.8 KB
ID:	712233

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                        Hi Simon,

                        For some years I've felt that Sir Robert Anderson might be making an oblique reference to the murderer in The Lighter Side of My Official Life.

                        Just not in the passage that is usually cited.

                        But who cares about the Ripper?

                        Cheers, RP

                        Click image for larger version

Name:	Hawaii.JPG
Views:	119
Size:	51.8 KB
ID:	712233
                        st Lucia?
                        "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


                        • Hi RJ,

                          I'm with you.

                          Who gives a poop?

                          Now, tell me where this is and I'll be right there.

                          Regards,

                          Simon
                          Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by harry View Post
                            Jon,IT IS what my dictionary is telling me ,word for word.
                            Harry,
                            I accept what you wrote when you posted this line:
                            "My dictionary defines proof as'Evidence that establishes the truth'."
                            That's fine, I trust what you say. But, you carried on to draw a conclusion from that first line ("So,there was no evidence,circumstantial or otherwise"). which is what I was referring to - that your dictionary did not say that.
                            You/we cannot draw that conclusion from what the dictionary said.

                            Even circumstantial evidence has to have proof.What interpretation are you using?What circumstantial evidence are you using?
                            You asked for my interpretation, didn't you?
                            Any circumstance that will attach a person to the crime must be proven, they must be factual, yes. But that circumstance in itself is not proof of guilt.
                            Mac. is talking about proof of guilt, not proof these 'stories' were true.
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                              Jon,
                              If I may interject, there seems to be some confusion here: ĎProofí is evidence that establishes the truth. That is, truth is based on evidence, but evidence does not always lead to the truth. Evidence is not proof, as Harry seems to be suggesting, no matter what kind of evidence it is. There could have been a ton of evidence against Druitt, but no proof. All of which I know you know.
                              Thankyou Paul, yes. And, evidence takes many forms. Evidence is not proof, but evidence requires proof in order to be evidence.
                              In circumstantial evidence, the circumstance must be factual - provable.
                              In statistical evidence, the statistics must be factual.
                              In testimonial evidence, the testimony must be truthful.

                              There was evidence associated with Druitt, but no proof of guilt.

                              Oh how we tie ourselves up in semantics
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                                There is nothing to discuss the facts are there plain and simple.
                                I agree that the facts are plain and simple, so why is it so important to you to argue against them?

                                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                                I dont think MM was lying, and to whether he was gullible, well that a different story you have heard the saying b....t baffles brains.
                                You donít think Macnaghten was lying and you have no evidence that he was gullible. So what precisely are you saying and what evidence or halfway decent argument do you have to back it up?

                                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                                MM penned a document some years after he joined the police, and some years after the murders apparently ceased.
                                And your point is? Bearing in mind that the information implicating Druitt was received ísome yearsí after mid-1889, what difference does it make? For all you know, the information was received close to when he wrote the report.

                                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                                He was not involved in the investigation of any of the murders
                                Utterly irrelevant. He was a senior officer with access to the information about murders. He is known to have had an interest in the Ripper case and kept photos of the victims in his desk drawer, he was in office when the information implicating Druitt was receivedÖ So, if you have a point, explain it.

                                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                                Just because he was a senior officer as SY in 1889 onwards counts for nothing because Monro in 1890 states they had no clues as to the identity of the killer, and nor does his successor thereafter.
                                And Macnaghten states that the information implicating Druitt wasnít received until some years after mid-1889, so in 1890 Monro wouldnít have known about it. For goodness sake, Trevor, you have had this explained to you just a little while back. The math surely isnít beyond you. Are you incapable of taking any information on board?

                                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                                The suspect details of those he mentions in the memo. could only have been obtained by him researching himself, or getting someone to do it on his behalf. Either way it doesn't say much for how those suspects came to be mentioned in the first place if their details were incorrect in the suspect files.
                                It depends on what sources were consulted, but itís irrelevant to the fact that information implicating Druitt was received and that Macnaghten was persuaded by it.

                                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                                There are glaring errors with regards to what he writes about the suspects, errors which I would not expect to be there, if first of all the suspect details as recorded were accurate, and that may not be the case., and he clearly didn't check on what he was putting forward in the memo
                                There are some scattered errors which are irrelevant to whether or not information implicating Druitt was received.

                                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                                We know there was another similar murder is 1891 which it would seem the police were suggesting was the work of the same killer. In 1894 MM knew Druit was dead and therefore could not have been the 1888 killer but he still refers to him as a likely suspect. Why di he not interject in the proceeding and volunteer his private information? he stays silent. that also tells me that the information was not very good.
                                Macnaghten explains that Jack the Ripper only killed five women, so it is manifestly obvious that he didnít think the 1891 murder was committed by Jack the Ripper. The idea that Macnaghten stayed silent is yours and unsupported by any evidence.

                                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                                His private information which led him to suggest Druitt, we dont know what it is and I accept we dont know the strength of its accuracy. But we can analyze what he writes and assess its potential evidential value in the grand scheme of things and come to a reasoned judgment.
                                What does Macnaghten write that you are analysing?

                                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                                Now if we look at 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"

                                Where could the information have come from? I doubt from the family direct to him, but perhaps from a friend of the family. But of course the family were not living with him in London, so how would they have been able to form a belief that their son was JTR?
                                I donít know how or why the family formed an opinion that Druitt was Jack the Ripper, but evidently that is what Macnaghten thought. How they formed that belief neednít have required that the family lived with him. It could have been based on things he said or how he behaved when they were in his company, or personal papers, or how people said he behavedÖ Weíve been through this before.

                                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                                Where is there any evidence to show Druitt suffered from any mental illness, or was insane sexually or otherwise or that he was anything other than an upright citizen so where did he get sexually insane from? So there is no corroboration from that angle.
                                Where is there any evidence that Druitt wasnít mentally ill. What do you think Macnaghten meant by Ďsexually insaneí?

                                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                                So when it comes down to it you have to accept that the reality is that what his private information was could have been nothing more than hearsay from a third party and unsafe and unreliable, and I suggest that on that basis alone Druitt should be regarded as a person of interest and not a suspect. But if you want to keep ramping him up as a suspect in the true sense then feel free. But all that is doing is misleading the general public wjo are no so knlwledgavle as us and will belive that Druiit is a real live suspect..
                                Yes, the information implicating Druitt Ďcouldí have been nothing more than hearsay, but you consistently use hearsay in the sense of being Ďunsafe and unreliableí, but hearsay could be safe and very reliable. But you donít know what the information was, so you canít say it was hearsay. So, you donít know what Macnaghtenís evidence was, yet you conclude on no evidence whatsoever that it was hearsay, which in turn you equate with being unsafe and unreliable, ignoring the fact that it could have been solid gold, and on that you advocate that Druitt not be treated as a suspect - although you insist on employing 21st century police jargon that you have been told you canít use because it involved judging the quality of evidence which you donít know and which you admit ĎI accept we dont know the strength of its accuracy.í

                                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                                As you say this is becoming tiresome, so I hope now you will now refrain from keep asking questions to which you know there are no definitive answers.
                                Iím not asking questions to which there is no definitive answer, I am asking you to support your arguments or abandon them. You claimed that Macnaghtenís information was hearsay, but the reality is that you canít say that because you donít know what his information was. Asking you, how can you say the information was hearsay when you donít know what the information was isnít a question without a definitive answer, itís a question which you either answer by explaining how you know the information was hearsay (and unsafe and unreliable)
                                Last edited by PaulB; 06-05-2019, 09:15 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X