Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    I'd read enough at that point. The thought came to mind that if the poster can't get his first point right then why read anything else?

    Macnaghten's 'Memorandum' has been compared with recollections written by Anderson, Abberline, Smith, etc.
    The point that Mac. was "a senior police officer at the time" does not refer to the time of the murders, but to the time when the Memorandum was written.
    All the other senior officials had retired by the time they chose to put their recollections down on paper.
    Macnaghten was the only official who put his thoughts & suspicions down in ink while he was still an active official.

    (note: Warren is the only other active official who made a list of suspects which has survived, but his list does not reflect his personal beliefs)
    It doesn't matter what it's compared with. Look at it on its own and it's patently a work of fiction written with the sol purpose of MacNaghten trying to glorify himself (again). And the FACT is that MacNaghten had nothing, not a thing, to do with the actual Ripper enquiries.
    They sought it with thimbles, they sought it with care; They pursued it with forks and hope;
    They threatened its life with a railway-share; They charmed it with smiles and soap.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post



      And you called me pompous Phil?!

      Nice bit of labelling by the way. How do you define a Druittist? As far as I know I’m the only poster on here that feels that Druitt is the likeliest of the named suspects. That’s simply my opinion. I’ve never said that Druitt was definitely the ripper just that he might have been so if you want to label me a Druittist I can live with it. But you used the plural so who are the other ones? Again people like Wickerman or Roger or Paul who don’t favour Druitt but are open-minded and interested in him.

      ​​​

      None of which, in any shape, way or form alter the fact that Macnaghten named him in his Memorandum. He wasn’t lying, he wasn’t confusing him with someone else and he didn’t just hear some vague unsubstantiated rumour and decide to put it in his Memorandum.



      But not impossible? And, as he was definitely pulled out of the Thames this surely becomes likely? Or is there another explanation?
      No Herlock

      I called your COMMENT pompous. Do read it correctly. I don't do personal insults. Sorry. So you can take back the insinuation, if you please.

      There is no evidence against any known nor unknown person. Even SPE says that. He being probably The single greatest authority on the case.
      That is why any suspectologist in this field in us trouble. No evidence.

      I had to laugh.. Excuse me.. When you suggest the bloated body could be snagged/unsnagged on the Thames. I'm sorry.. Please think about that..
      You are suggesting that for 30 days a dead body, being subjected to 60 low tide levels, "is out of sight" at every low tide, because it was snagged or unsnagged at the bottom of the Thames?

      Tommy Cooper couldn't get a better line to make a joke out of that piece if magicianship.
      "Now you see me, now you dont Druitt".
      Sorry. If that all you have to offer factual ebb and flow tide movement, aquatic feeding times and a bloated dead body.. I'm sorry.. But snagged? /unsnagged?
      Dear me.

      I'm so glad, as I wrote,that I hoped, that I was wrong and you are not an ex policeman. Reassuring that you are only, seemingly, a police apologist.

      That's an opinion too, by the way.

      Seems to me the fashion of calling anyone a conspirationalist, is infact, part of the ONLY conspiracy here... A conspiracy to denounce all who question, with hundreds of examples, all we have been told to believe. That's the conspiracy.


      Phil
      Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


      Justice for the 96 = achieved
      Accountability? ....

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        I have to admit to finding it more than a little strange when someone that has taken no part in the debate/discussion swoops in to tell us all how stupid we have been for looking at Druitt as a possible candidate. If I’m stupid enough to consider the possibility then so are, according to you, researchers like Wickerman, Roger Palmer, Paul Begg and others. Thankfully we have you to put us right.

        To explain - I stared looking at the Ripper murders over 40 years ago while working in Bishopsgate. I used to spend many lunch hours in the Bishopsgate Institute which had a very fine collection of books about the Ripper. I later qualified as a Blue Badge Guide and used to take JtR tours. Regrettably, I don't have a horse as high as yours to look down from. I find it more than a little strange that anyone who looks at this objectively can consider Druitt as a genuine suspect when there is nothing at all to make him an object of suspicion other than the ramblings of a self glorifying ex-police official. No - not strange - sad.
        They sought it with thimbles, they sought it with care; They pursued it with forks and hope;
        They threatened its life with a railway-share; They charmed it with smiles and soap.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post



          Neither Sam Flynn or Abby Normal believe Druitt to be a particularly good suspect but have I had any dispute with them? No. They give their opinions without telling me that I’m a fool for holding my own.


          Hi Herlock
          Seems that respect you only extend to someone who believed there was a serial killer on the loose ?
          For some of us receive immature comments about the twilight zone in attempts to ridicule ?

          What you don't understand about me is that up until and including Chapman , I see NOTHING amiss , absolutely nothing deliberate .
          Apart from ripperology trying to pretend there were no coins for whatever reason despite Reid confirming their existence ,not that I see any importance in them at all .

          The night of Stride and Eddowes that all changed for me .
          IF I was intent on making up a conspiracy then I would be spotting oddities early on in the investigation

          Truth is , from my viewpoint
          Ordinary murder investigation up until the 30th .
          Then huge indications of a cover up
          Millers Court I see as altogether different and I'm sure to get to that with you at some time
          You can lead a horse to water.....

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post

            No Herlock

            I called your COMMENT pompous. Do read it correctly. I don't do personal insults. Sorry. So you can take back the insinuation, if you please.
            Calling my comments pompous is an insult.
            There is no evidence against any known nor unknown person. Even SPE says that. He being probably The single greatest authority on the case.
            That is why any suspectologist in this field in us trouble. No evidence.
            This does not, should not, prevent us discussing their relative merits. If you don’t think that any suspects are worth discussing/debating then I have to ask why you waste your own time doing just that?
            I had to laugh.. Excuse me.. When you suggest the bloated body could be snagged/unsnagged on the Thames. I'm sorry.. Please think about that..
            You are suggesting that for 30 days a dead body, being subjected to 60 low tide levels, "is out of sight" at every low tide, because it was snagged or unsnagged at the bottom of the Thames?

            Tommy Cooper couldn't get a better line to make a joke out of that piece if magicianship.
            "Now you see me, now you dont Druitt".
            Sorry. If that all you have to offer factual ebb and flow tide movement, aquatic feeding times and a bloated dead body.. I'm sorry.. But snagged? /unsnagged?
            Dear me.
            As I made perfectly clear Phil, I have no knowledge of rivers, my question was the question of a complete layman on the subject. I was actually asking your opinion as someone that knows more than I do on the subject but if your ego forces you into mockery then enough said. I also asked what your explanation was seeing as Druitt was actually found in the Thames?
            I'm so glad, as I wrote,that I hoped, that I was wrong and you are not an ex policeman. Reassuring that you are only, seemingly, a police apologist.
            Nope I’m just not someone that makes an assumption based on the opinion that all Senior Victorian Policeman were liars. Bloody apologist! Come on!
            That's an opinion too, by the way.
            And a conceited one.
            Seems to me the fashion of calling anyone a conspirationalist, is infact, part of the ONLY conspiracy here... A conspiracy to denounce all who question, with hundreds of examples, all we have been told to believe. That's the conspiracy.
            Ripperology is full of people who think that they are the only ones that can see the truth. The only original thinkers. The only ones that aren’t wedded to the old ideas. The only ones willing to read between the lines......yawn. We’ve heard it all before and it’s boring.

            Phil
            There are threads on here on all manner of suspects. Most of them I don’t give a minutes credence to. So do you know what I do Phil? I don’t bother wasting my time posting on those threads. It then begs the question why you and PhiltheBear would want to post about a suspect that you don’t believe is deserving of consideration? What’s your motive?
            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 PhiltheBear View Post

              To explain - I stared looking at the Ripper murders over 40 years ago while working in Bishopsgate. I used to spend many lunch hours in the Bishopsgate Institute which had a very fine collection of books about the Ripper. I later qualified as a Blue Badge Guide and used to take JtR tours. Regrettably, I don't have a horse as high as yours to look down from. I find it more than a little strange that anyone who looks at this objectively can consider Druitt as a genuine suspect when there is nothing at all to make him an object of suspicion other than the ramblings of a self glorifying ex-police official. No - not strange - sad.
              Im on no high horse. I wasn’t the one jumping onto a thread to tell everyone how stupid they are for being open minded on Druitt.

              Your comments on Macnaghten are utterly baseless and biased. You sound like another authority-hater. Preconceptions abound.

              Whats sad is that you couldn’t simply join the thread and discuss and debate like most posters manage to do. It was you that rode in on your high horse with your proclamation that we were all fools then you get offended when you’re responded to.

              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,

                In a 23rd October 1888 report to the Home Office, Robert Anderson mused on the fact “that five successive murders should have been committed, without our having the slightest clue of any kind is extraordinary, if not unique, in the annals of crime.”

                Two days later, on 25th October 1888, Robert Anderson wrote [with Sir Charles Warren’s authorisation] to Dr. Thomas Bond [recently resigned divisional surgeon, ‘A’ Division, Westminster], enclosing copies of the medical evidence from just four inquests: those of Polly Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes.

                Anderson’s fifth victim had fallen by the wayside.

                His letter to Dr. Bond read—

                “In dealing with the Whitechapel murders the difficulties of conducting the enquiry are largely increased by reason of our having no reliable opinion for our guidance as to the amount of surgical skill and anatomical knowledge probably possessed by the murderer or murderers.

                “He [Warren] feels that your eminence as an expert in such cases—and it is entirely in that capacity that the present case is referred to you, will make your opinion especially valuable.”

                Bond replied on 10th November 1888, having the previous day performed a post-mortem examination of the Millers Court victim—

                “All five murders were no doubt committed by the same hand.”

                Thus were the canonical five originally cast in stone, with Annie Chapman now officially designated as the murderer’s second victim. But it appears Dr. Bond had not been given access to the full inquest transcripts, for he wrote—

                “In the four murders of which I have seen the notes only I cannot form a very definite opinion as to the time that had elapsed between the murder and the discovering of the body.

                “In one case, that of Berner Street, the discovery appears to have been made immediately after the deed—In Buck’s Row, Hanbury Street, and Mitre Square three or four hours only could have elapsed.

                Taken at face value, Dr. Bond’s comments place a squib under Jack the Ripper’s signature trademark: that of his victims being discovered just minutes after their dispatch.

                Regards,

                Simon
                Evening /afternoon Simon

                You beat me to the "three or four hours " quote.
                Was just about to quote my second favourite Bond slip up

                Favourite being describing the 'body' as naked ....... not once but twice

                All the best
                Nick
                You can lead a horse to water.....

                Comment


                • Originally posted by packers stem View Post

                  Hi Herlock
                  Seems that respect you only extend to someone who believed there was a serial killer on the loose ?
                  For some of us receive immature comments about the twilight zone in attempts to ridicule ?

                  What you don't understand about me is that up until and including Chapman , I see NOTHING amiss , absolutely nothing deliberate .
                  Apart from ripperology trying to pretend there were no coins for whatever reason despite Reid confirming their existence ,not that I see any importance in them at all .

                  The night of Stride and Eddowes that all changed for me .
                  IF I was intent on making up a conspiracy then I would be spotting oddities early on in the investigation

                  Truth is , from my viewpoint
                  Ordinary murder investigation up until the 30th .
                  Then huge indications of a cover up
                  Millers Court I see as altogether different and I'm sure to get to that with you at some time
                  It appears that I’m the only one that has to show respect?

                  Jack The Ripper was a serial killer. No doubt in the slightest. None.
                  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

                    It appears that I’m the only one that has to show respect?

                    Jack The Ripper was a serial killer. No doubt in the slightest. None.
                    I ask you to find another before or after to successfully carry out such extraordinary feats of medical fluke with the eyes of a sh*thouse rat if you want to try to sound convincing
                    You can lead a horse to water.....

                    Comment


                    • Phil that was a timely recovery you made after you realized oops you painted SPE with the same negative brush you painted every ex-policeman in the UK when you suspected Hurley of being an ex-cop from East Bohunk.

                      After all, SPE is an ex-policeman, too, and yes perhaps the greatest authority on the subject as you say, Phil. I always thought of Stewart Evans as a very kind and gracious man to post here, etc. And he was the one who compiled all those police reports into the Ultimate, for the ease and convenience of the general public.

                      And yes he said that. It can never be proven that any suspect did it. We all know that. Each and every one of us and all of us collectively together. And I thought that we all knew that we all knew that. Hainsworth said that. The last suspectologist I read a book of. Although he would get a chuckle at him being called one. Because all he did was get a new approach to an old riddle. He didn't solve it, he said that.

                      Phil, you said "any suspectologist in this field in us trouble." How exactly do you mean trouble?

                      Roy




                      Sink the Bismark

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        There are threads on here on all manner of suspects. Most of them I don’t give a minutes credence to. So do you know what I do Phil? I don’t bother wasting my time posting on those threads. It then begs the question why you and PhiltheBear would want to post about a suspect that you don’t believe is deserving of consideration? What’s your motive?
                        Hello Herlock

                        You ask what my motive is?
                        OK.. Pin your ears back... Please. (that way it isn't conceited)

                        My gran was born slap bang in the middle of all this in 1888. August 1888. She grew up with the same fears, and nightmares, of her older siblings and family members. The whole damned series of episodes frightened the living daylights out of the people of the East End.. And no.. I don't just mean those who were grown up in 1888. I mean generations. Plural.
                        She died on 1978, aged 90. I was almost 20.
                        She grew up with every story, myth, and tale about the murders and the area. She grew up with the people who witnessed the carnage first hand, and grew up with the policemen of that time, of that area, of that genre.
                        Not ONE dark evening, throughout her life, all 90 years, did she dare to walk about alone in the dark of the night. Not once. Not even after moving to Teddington and getting married in 1912. When her husband died in 1948, my mother, her daughter, visited her every evening to keep her company. "Jack the Ripper" left its mark throughout her life. When I was 12 or 13, I started going down the off licence to get her half ounce of tobacco and a pint of Guinness for her.. From November through til March. When darkness fell in the evening.
                        Now.. Throughout the last 13 years of her life she not only told me, but explained to me, exactly what life was like then. I was lucky to hear the truth, not the cocky mouthed Street sellers version. Exactly how it was. The fear... Affected many thousands. Sheer, unadulterated fear.
                        I read her a few books on the subject. Including the first 1972 ish book poking a finger at Druitt. (Farson) She wasn't a strong reader.. But she listened.
                        At the end of the book, she said the following..
                        "These bleedin' writers don't know bugger all. He's inventing things to sell the book. There is no proof, and there was no proof, of any one person killin' these poor women. Not a jot of it. Mark my words boy... The people of the East End couldn't find the bugger who did these things.. And they left no stone unturned I can tell you! The police on the streets, were just as clueless. Jumping left right and centre at nuffink. Even years after, in the pubs, people were being eyed up by police and public alike. It was frightening growing up in that area."

                        Now that means, Herlock, that my motive for putting down suspect after suspect, after 50 odd years of interest, research and writing, is because I realised after my gran died, she was right. Too many people chasing something that can't be found, and piling up excuse after excuse to verify their suspects as central to the murders. It doesn't stop. It won't stop, until some people realise this ISN'T a game to play on discussion boards... Keep writing new books with a plethora of maybes.. Keep finding bits of cloth or paper to hammer home a suspect theory.. . Keep the roundabout turning. Put another wheel on the wonky wagon. It's about some poor, down in the mud women being slaughtered in the most horrible fashion.

                        And it's about time that Instead of people defending the suspectology of an innocent man or 10 happening, then dissect the whole damned thing down to individual murders and not assume one person is guilty of them all. For there isn't any proof. Against anyone. But there us ample amount if evidence that time and time again, things were overlooked by the police, promoted by the police then and afterwards, and all in an effort to cover up the one fact everyone doesn't want to hear.
                        The police failed miserably. From the very top. Total, abject failure. And it from THAT point one should start to look.. Look at and accept their **** ups.
                        The picture becomes way different then.

                        Montague John Druitt was never, ever, anywhere near any of the areas of the murders on any of the nights in question. Therefore, it is utterly pointless trying to defend him as a suspect on zero evidence. MM was, like all policemen of his ilk, far more interested in presenting himself as a brilliant detective. More likely than Cutbush?
                        Less likely than around 10,000 or more other men living in and walking the very streets the murders took place. And many of them were checked out by the poplace themselves.

                        More likely than Cutbush? Less likely than my Great Grandads.. 2 of them. They lived there.

                        But I'm not pushing their names and inventing possibilities to include them as possible suspects.

                        Hope that explanation is good enough for you. There, aren't many on here that have that background. Nor reason. It's a damned good motive. I've no suspect after 50 odd years because there simply Isn't one bit of evidence against anyone.

                        Period.

                        Now you have your answer. I won't ask you the same question. It' might be deemed as insulting to your intelligence.



                        Phil
                        Last edited by Phil Carter; 06-14-2019, 11:35 PM.
                        Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


                        Justice for the 96 = achieved
                        Accountability? ....

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Roy Corduroy View Post
                          Phil that was a timely recovery you made after you realized oops you painted SPE with the same negative brush you painted every ex-policeman in the UK when you suspected Hurley of being an ex-cop from East Bohunk.

                          After all, SPE is an ex-policeman, too, and yes perhaps the greatest authority on the subject as you say, Phil. I always thought of Stewart Evans as a very kind and gracious man to post here, etc. And he was the one who compiled all those police reports into the Ultimate, for the ease and convenience of the general public.

                          And yes he said that. It can never be proven that any suspect did it. We all know that. Each and every one of us and all of us collectively together. And I thought that we all knew that we all knew that. Hainsworth said that. The last suspectologist I read a book of. Although he would get a chuckle at him being called one. Because all he did was get a new approach to an old riddle. He didn't solve it, he said that.

                          Phil, you said "any suspectologist in this field in us trouble." How exactly do you mean trouble?

                          Roy



                          Hello Roy

                          In trouble through lack of evidence.(as in their theories)
                          Oh.. And by the way.. Although I respect SPE, whom I've had the pleasure of his personal company in his home, greatly, and like him as a person, I disagree in many ways with him on this subject. He says the same of me.


                          Phil
                          Last edited by Phil Carter; 06-14-2019, 11:40 PM.
                          Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


                          Justice for the 96 = achieved
                          Accountability? ....

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                            ......

                            “In the four murders of which I have seen the notes only I cannot form a very definite opinion as to the time that had elapsed between the murder and the discovering of the body.

                            “In one case, that of Berner Street, the discovery appears to have been made immediately after the deed—In Buck’s Row, Hanbury Street, and Mitre Square three or four hours only could have elapsed.

                            Taken at face value, Dr. Bond’s comments place a squib under Jack the Ripper’s signature trademark: that of his victims being discovered just minutes after their dispatch.

                            Regards,

                            Simon
                            Taken at face value?
                            It should be obvious to anyone that an autopsy report (the "notes") makes no mention of witness testimony.
                            Bond did not take into account any witness testimony in making his report, merely the condition of the wounds to the bodies.
                            It is so easy to miss the important details by taking anything at face value.
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by packers stem View Post

                              Evening /afternoon Simon

                              You beat me to the "three or four hours " quote.
                              Was just about to quote my second favourite Bond slip up
                              How would anyone know when a body was discovered, by only reading an autopsy report?
                              As is often the case, it isn't a "slip-up" by the professional, but ignorance on behalf of the modern reader.
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • On 25th October 1888 Anderson sent Dr. Bond the medical evidence from four inquests: Polly Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes.

                                Two days earlier, in a 23rd October 1888 report to the Home Office, Robert Anderson's mentioned a fifth victim?

                                Who was it? What happened to her?
                                Last edited by Simon Wood; 06-15-2019, 05:25 AM.
                                Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X