What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[PhiltheBear]

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.

High horse again! Where, precisely, did I call anyone stupid. Of course, if the cap fits....

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

On the contrary, my comments on MacNaghten are all based on verifiable evidence - mostly from his own pen. Sadly, I see not a single comment from you on the matter other than a continual reference to the idea that because MacNaghten wrote it was Druitt it must be true. Show me something else. Show me ANYTHING else.


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.

What is sad is that you and Trevor have derailed most of this thread by a personal battle between yourselves that have nothing to do with Druitt at all. Ditto you and Simon. (I think it was Simon but after 170 odd pages it's hard to remember)

It's patently obvious that you have nothing, at all, to show that Druitt was Jack. And, rather like the current American President, you'd rather like to try and bully others into agreeing with you. I posted what I posted because this thread had gone way off track and, as it happens, most of that is down to you. Perhaps leaving this thread to those who want to talk about Druitt isn't something that ever occurred to you but I commend it to your consideration. Alternatively, you could start your own thread. Perhaps I could suggest a title: The musings of Sherrinford?

[John G]

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?

Tabram?

[packers stem]

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.

And clearly , as he didn't bother to read the reports then any opinion he may have regarding the murders is quite worthless.
I think he would find that each of the surgeon's gave their opinion on TOD , he didn't see them , on any occasion .
And you blame the 'modern reader' for his ineptitude ? Or his morphine, whichever was the case

[packers stem]

Tabram?

Hi John
Was Tabram ever considered without Smith ?

All contemporary reports either considered both or neither as victims as far as I'm aware

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Another one from the master of sweeping statements. You have not a single, solitary shred of anything remotely approaching the vicinity of evidence for your baseless accusation of self-glorification when it comes to Macnaghten. Was he instrumental in locking up some relative in the dim and disadvantage past by any chance? At least this might give us some kind of clue as to the origins of this obvious bias.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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."
Very touching. But forgive me if I don’t accept that a civilian lady who wasn’t a strong reader should be treated as someone that had an intimate knowledge of the investigation. How did she assess the evidence? How did she evaluate the witness statements? Did she give you her analysis of the mutilations or the medical opinions? This is desperate stuff Phil. You are not doing yourself any favours with this.
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.
That your opinion is based on the unsubstantiated opinion of someone who was in no way in a position to give a meaningful insight into the crimes.
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.
Again, I find it difficult to see why you bother taking part in any discussion on the subject if this is your opinion. Florid nonsense I’m afraid.
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.
Firstly, and very obviously, you cannot exonerate Druitt and so calling him innocent as if it’s a proven fact is hardly honest.
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.
Conspiracy theorist drivel! Mistakes yes. Errors yes. These happen. They can’t fail to happen. Only the conspiracy theorist has the default position of applying sinister connotations to them.
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.
5 prostitutes, all but one murdered in the streets, all with their throats cut, all but one with abdominal and other mutilations, all within a small area all within the space of two months. Unless there was a serial killer convention on in London at the time then the conclusion is one that a toddler could arrive at. I’m tired of listening to nonsense.
Montague John Druitt was never, ever, anywhere near any of the areas of the murders on any of the nights in question.
A transparently dishonest statement. Can you prove that he wasnt there. I certainly can’t prove that he was but I’ll admit it honestly. Could he have been? Yes. End of discussion on that one.
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?
More biased and baseless character assassination. These points don’t really need responding to. Waffle.
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.
To dismiss out of hand the opinion of an Assistant Commissioner Of The Metropolitan Police because you appear to be a police hating conspiracy theorist is hardly going to win you any debating competitions Phil. Try to hold back on the bias.

More likely than Cutbush? Less likely than my Great Grandads.. 2 of them. They lived there.
Those useless senior police officers neglected to mention your Great Grandads in connection with the murders Phil but it was probably a part of the cover-up
But I'm not pushing their names and inventing possibilities to include them as possible suspects.
But you are claiming as fact things that you cannot possibly know because it suits your agenda.
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.
Utterly irrelevant even if true.


Period.

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





Phil

id ask anyone and everyone this question. Why does Druitt get some people frothing at the mouth? Can anyone really understand posters that feel compelled to such impassioned nonsense that we’ve all been treated to over the last 24 hours. Surely the simple thing for those that don’t feel that Druitt is a worthy candidate would be to not bother discussing him. It’s actually why you don’t see me over on the Lewis Carroll thread. But not at all, they feel the need to keep stamping their feet and making baseless rants about why we should all stop talking about them. It’s bizarre and frankly dishonest.
I can take being labelled a Druittist (whatever that is? Should I get a t-shirt printed?) but all I’ve actually ever said is that imo (and the last time that I looked it appears that I’m allowed an opinion) he’s the likeliest of the named candidates. Abby, Sam and many others disagree. Do I ever have an issue with them or their opinions? Absolutely not. Where I do have an issue is when know-all’s imply that I’m a gullible idiot for holding my opinions. Or that I’m a policeman or a police apologist (simply because I consider it a possibility that a policeman might have been honest - perish the thought!)

If my opinions offend your poor little conspiracy theorist fantasies then I don’t apologise. This is a thread for discussing Druitt as a candidate. If you feel that there’s nothing to discuss then there’s little point in you being here.

Period.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

I too respect Stewart Evans of course.

SPE doesn’t think that Druitt is a good suspect. For that point he gets your respect.

Does SPE think that the Ripper existed?

And so.....

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

This was a ripper signature trademark?

First I’ve heard about it I’m afraid.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's patently obvious that you have nothing, at all, to show that Druitt was Jack. And, rather like the current American President, you'd rather like to try and bully others into agreeing with you. I posted what I posted because this thread had gone way off track and, as it happens, most of that is down to you. Perhaps leaving this thread to those who want to talk about Druitt isn't something that ever occurred to you but I commend it to your consideration. Alternatively, you could start your own thread. Perhaps I could suggest a title: The musings of Sherrinford?

I’ve never one said that Druitt was definitely the ripper.

If you tried reading instead of bleating you would see posts by many people that don’t feel that Druitt is a strong suspect - Abby, Sam, Jeff, John G to name but four. Have I tried bullying anyone? No.

If if I have the choice of who I listen to when deciding whether Druitt is worthy of consideration or not who should I listen to - You or Paul Begg? Difficult one that.

Why the hell are you bothered whether a thread that you have taken no part in goes off thread or not? Your post was ego driven bluster.

Please don’t even hope of a chance of embarrassing me in a hope that I’ll ask about Sherrinford?

Perhaps you could start your own thread - The Merits Of Wasting My Own And Everyone Else’s Time Posting On Suspect That I Don’t Think is A Suspect In The First Place. I’d be quite happy to ignore that one.

[Wickerman]

And clearly , as he didn't bother to read the reports then any opinion he may have regarding the murders is quite worthless.
I think he would find that each of the surgeon's gave their opinion on TOD , he didn't see them , on any occasion .
And you blame the 'modern reader' for his ineptitude ? Or his morphine, whichever was the case

Dr. Bond was enlisted to assess the wounds & mutilations, as given in the autopsy reports. The condition of the body as described by each doctor in charge led Bond to conclude that no more than "three or four hours" could have elapsed between the murder and the discovery of the body in three of the four cases he looked at.
So long as those bodies were 'actually' found within that time frame he was not wrong.

If you understand what his limitations were you would see no cause to unduly criticize his findings.

[John G]

Hi John
Was Tabram ever considered without Smith ?

All contemporary reports either considered both or neither as victims as far as I'm aware

Not sure about that one, Packers. I'd have to do a bit of research!

[packers stem]

Dr. Bond was enlisted to assess the wounds & mutilations, as given in the autopsy reports. The condition of the body as described by each doctor in charge led Bond to conclude that no more than "three or four hours" could have elapsed between the murder and the discovery of the body in three of the four cases he looked at.
So long as those bodies were 'actually' found within that time frame he was not wrong.

If you understand what his limitations were you would see no cause to unduly criticize his findings.

Well no ,it's not inaccurate
Had he said 24 hours it wouldn't have been inaccurate .
Just useless as was the 3-4 hours

Vague
If he can't get factual accuracy within reason (1-2 hours may have been reasonable considering Chapman) then I see little point in taking any interest in his musings .
He either didn't read , or take in the findings of those on the scene from his own profession .
It is that simple

[Wickerman]

Well no ,it's not inaccurate
Had he said 24 hours it wouldn't have been inaccurate .
Just useless as was the 3-4 hours

Vague
If he can't get factual accuracy within reason (1-2 hours may have been reasonable considering Chapman) then I see little point in taking any interest in his musings .
He either didn't read , or take in the findings of those on the scene from his own profession .
It is that simple

But once again you are putting the cart before the horse. You are accusing him of not reading the postmortem notes, but you do not know what those notes contained.
We do not have those postmortem notes, but we do have one example of what they would look like by Dr. Phillips. His record of the McKenzie autopsy is published in Evans & Skinner's The Ultimate....pp455-459 HDBK.

If you read through that example you should see Dr Phillips does not attempt to speculate how long the body had been dead, neither should he. A postmortem typically contains the results of direct observation. The record describes the way the body & wounds look at the time of the autopsy.
The only way to try determine how much time had passed from the murder to the arrival of the doctor is to assess the amount of clotting and extent of loss of blood, and perhaps body temperature. This will be why Dr Bond's conclusion seemed so flexible.

By the way, I don't recall anyone using that line from Bond's report to justify an argument. I thought you picked it out as a means of ridiculing him?

[Herlock Sholmes]

By the way, I don't recall anyone using that line from Bond's report to justify an argument. I thought you picked it out as a means of ridiculing him?

Thats exactly what happened Wick.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Did anyone at the time seriously suggest that Eddowes was killed elsewhere? Like the police or doctors? People that actually saw the body in situ. If you want to make the extraordinary claim, one that flies in the face of 99% of opinion, then you require extraordinarily powerful evidence. This doesn’t include quibbles about timings or arguments from incredulity.