What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[mpriestnall]

Oops. I forgot to mention that Reggie B. would have been closely related to the Bosanquets that Roger mentioned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Bosanquet

[Sam Flynn]

Oops. I forgot to mention that Reggie B. would have been closely related to the Bosanquets that Roger mentioned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Bosanquet

I suspected as much, not least because it's an unusual name.

[Phil Carter]

I suspected as much, not least because it's an unusual name.

It seems it will be left to me to educate a few around here.

Bernard Bosenquet, b. 1877, was a very famous cricketer. He invented the googly, a ball bowled out of the back of the hand in one style yet reacting in an opposite spin upon hitting the ground.
It was not called a googly back then, but a "Bosie" after its inventor.

I refer all to this link..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bern...uet_(cricketer)


Phil

[GUT]

Hampshire Advertiser, 15th February 1888 -

And yet so many want to paint Montie as a failed Barrister, seems he had a growing practice.

[harry]

MM received information on Druit,considered it,found no proof he(Druitt) was a murderer,but considered he (Druitt) was more Likely to be the murderer than was Cutbush.So he (Mac) also must have considered Cutbush a murderer,but a less likely one,and Druitt only likely to have been the murderer.Not very convincing is it.?Just likely to have been.
It is now being said Druitt was an official police suspect.Rubbish.He couldn't have been.Even in 1888 an official police suspect was a person who had a chance to reply to an accusation of being named suspect.Unless Druitt had been accused and cautioned of being suspect,before he drowned,he could not have been one.

[Sam Flynn]

It seems it will be left to me to educate a few around here.

Bernard Bosenquet, b. 1877, was a very famous cricketer. He invented the googly, a ball bowled out of the back of the hand in one style yet reacting in an opposite spin upon hitting the ground.
It was not called a googly back then, but a "Bosie" after its inventor.

I refer all to this link..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bern...uet_(cricketer)


Phil

I seem to recall that the great Richie Benaud used to refer to it as a "Bosie" on occasion.

[Phil Carter]

I seem to recall that the great Richie Benaud used to refer to it as a "Bosie" on occasion.

Hello Gareth,

Indeed he did.
It was infact the Australians that more or less adopted the name "Bosie".. The English started to refer to it as a googly more often.
I believe Bernard Bosenquet discovered the art of the reverse spin playing a table game involving bouncing a ball, called Twisti-Twosti.

Bernard Bosenquet was News Presenter Reginald Bosenquet's father.


Phil

[Herlock Sholmes]

MM received information on Druit,considered it,found no proof he(Druitt) was a murderer,but considered he (Druitt) was more Likely to be the murderer than was Cutbush.So he (Mac) also must have considered Cutbush a murderer,but a less likely one,and Druitt only likely to have been the murderer.Not very convincing is it.?Just likely to have been.
It is now being said Druitt was an official police suspect.Rubbish.He couldn't have been.Even in 1888 an official police suspect was a person who had a chance to reply to an accusation of being named suspect.Unless Druitt had been accused and cautioned of being suspect,before he drowned,he could not have been one.

These are are our choices:

Could Mac have lied - well its not impossible but we have no evidence for this. And why would Mac lie on such an important subject when much easier options would have been available to him?

Could the information just have been idle gossip which Mac swallowed kook, line and sinker - not impossible but unlikely in the circumstances and given what we know about Mac.

Could the family have made up a story about Monty being the ripper - Unlikely in the extreme.

Could Mac and the Druitt family simply have misread the evidence to falsely conclude that Monty was the ripper - Possible but difficult to imagine them making such a horrific claim on flimsy evidence.


Or.....Mac got information that led him strongly to believe that Druitt was guilty but it wasn’t enough to categorically prove that he was guilty. Mac also knew that Druitt’s own family believed him to have been the Ripper. Besides, Monty had been dead for over 5 years.

This still doesn't prove that Druitt was the ripper of course but I think that we have easily enough to accept the possibility/likelihood that Mac was telling the truth. And that Monty could have been the ripper. This appears to raise the hackles of some. People get more irritated and annoyed about someone proposed by the ACC Of The Met than they do about Robert Mann, Albert Bachert, Walter Sickert and a host of others. I find that...instructive.

[The Baron]

but it nonetheless still indicates that, even after many years had passed, his "conjections" still inclined him towards Druitt.

Wrong inference, because all those years Macnaghten didn't do the slightest of investigations into Druitt.

He preferred to enjoy his sluggish couch thinking of the lost truth at the bottom of the Thames.



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wrong inference, because all those years Macnaghten didn't do the slightest of investigations into Druitt.

He preferred to enjoy his sluggish couch thinking of the lost truth at the bottom of the Thames.



The Baron

Opinion not fact. It is your inference that disregards the incontrovertible fact that Mac believed Druitt to have been a very likely suspect to the end. It’s in writing and so cannot be questioned.

Mac received information. We cannot know if or how his information was checked. If the information came from what he accepted as a reliable source then this would have added to the strength of his belief.

The statement that Mac employed sluggish couch thinking is again not born out by the facts which you would have been aware of had you taken the time to read. Mac was known as a very hands on person. He was known to have visited crime scenes when it wouldn’t have been expected for the ACC to have done so. He even had lower ranked police officers visiting his house to discuss investigations. This is one of the reasons that Mac was so highly respected by those that worked with him. He actually had a long-standing interest in crime which stretched back to his childhood.

Anyone is entitled to dismiss the words of this highly respected ACC Of The Met if it suits their agenda. You can call him a liar or a gullible fool if you want to but the evidence doesn’t bare this out.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Herlock,

Can we be certain about that incontrovertible fact which proves that Macnaghten received private information on MJD?

No, we can't.

And until we do find documentary support for that incontrovertible fact [whatever it may have been], we must treat Macnaghten as just another person in an endless line of unreliable sources on the subject of JtR.

Regards,

Simon

[PaulB]

Hi Simon,
Why would anyone doubt Macnaghten's word that information implicating Druitt was received? We can't prove that it was received and probably won't ever be able to prove it, but that doesn't make him an 'unreliable' source, it just makes him an unverified source. But we can assess whether or not Macnaghten was likely to have lied or been mistaken about it, but there is no good evidence that he would have done, is there?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Can we be certain about that incontrovertible fact which proves that Macnaghten received private information on MJD?

No, we can't.

And until we do find documentary support for that incontrovertible fact [whatever it may have been], we must treat Macnaghten as just another person in an endless line of unreliable sources on the subject of JtR.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

I can’t agree. Macnaghten wasn’t just another person he was The Assistant Commissioner Of The Metropolitan Police. So this isn’t just a case of Fred telling Bob down The Red Lion over a pint of bitter. Because of his position alone we have to give more weight to his words and to suggest that he might have lied we would need evidence.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Paul,

I can't agree.

Never mind Druitt. He was just a convenient suicide. Macnaghten remains unreliable because of Ostrog's [unnamed] inclusion in Major Griffiths 1898 book, four years after receiving compensation from the police for false imprisonment, having successfully demonstrated that he was in a French prison for a period which included the WM.

Macnaghten fingered a guy who was demonstrably innocent. If he was sporting and brimful of fair play [as Old Etonians tend to characterize themselves], he would have erased the unnamed Ostrog from the version of his 'confidential' memorandum which he leaked to Major Griffiths.

So much for integrity. Not to mention the confidentiality of Macnaghten's memorandum.

We'll be asking next where Anderson got his information regarding the guilt of his "Polish Jew."

That's easy. From the Macnaghten memorandum.

Regards,

Simon

[PaulB]

Hi Paul,

I can't agree.

Never mind Druitt. He was just a convenient suicide. Macnaghten remains unreliable because of Ostrog's [unnamed] inclusion in Major Griffiths 1898 book, four years after receiving compensation from the police for false imprisonment, having successfully demonstrated that he was in a French prison for a period which included the WM.

Macnaghten fingered a guy who was demonstrably innocent. If he was sporting and brimful of fair play [as Old Etonians tend to characterize themselves], he would have erased the unnamed Ostrog from the version of his 'confidential' memorandum which he leaked to Major Griffiths.

So much for integrity. Not to mention the confidentiality of Macnaghten's memorandum.

We'll be asking next where Anderson got his information regarding the guilt of his "Polish Jew."

That's easy. From the Macnaghten memorandum.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,
I was challenging was your statement that we should treat Macnaghten as an ‘unreliable source’ because we don’t have 'documentary support’ that the police received information implicating Druitt. That's different from Macnaghten being unreliable because he leaked information to Major Griffiths. On which note, why should he have excised Ostrog's name from what he told Griffiths’? What Griffiths says is that after the last murder suspicion had settled on three men, which is essentially what Macnaghten said, the only mistake Griffiths made was in concluding that all three were suspects in late 1888.
Cheers
Paul