Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    I suppose that the authorities were always fishing sons of surgeons from the Thames?
    That's one my points. And one of the reasons why Druitt was probably suspected above other suicide victims of the time. It doesn't matter who the suspicions first started with the preconceived notions are there. I am not trying to demean them but tempting isn't it for nineteenth century criminologists. Someone with surgical knowledge who was sexually insane in a family with a history of mental illness and commits suicide not long after the last murder, perhaps surrounded with gossip and innuendo. The only thing missing is evidence, such as placing him near any of the crime scenes at the relevant time. 21st century criminologists have far more experience today of these sort of crimes and even they still get it wrong.
    Regards Darryl

    Comment


    • "I suppose that the authorities were always fishing sons of surgeons from the Thames?"

      I think you meant to say "sturgeons."

      c.d.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
        Hi Herlock,

        And three days after Farquharson's letter Frances Coles was murdered, and the police thought the Ripper had struck again, arresting Sadler and putting him in front of Lawende, the witness who had seen a person in Duke Street just prior to the Eddowes murder.

        Six days before the murder of Coles, Kosminski had been sent to Colney Hatch. So he couldn't have been the Ripper.

        And two and a bit years earlier Druitt had drowned himself in the Thames. So he couldn't have been the Ripper either.

        The madness continues.

        Regards,

        Simon
        Hi Simon,

        Isnt the simple answer that they were wrong and that Coles wasn’t a ripper victim?
        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 Wickerman View Post
          All present have heard of Dan Farson, but not all may be familiar with Professor Francis Camps, who gave evidence at the trial of John Christie of 10 Rillington Place fame.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Camps

          Farson spoke with Prof. Camps, who remarked:
          "Murderer's of this sort don't stop,....sadistic killers of this type do not 'burn out' or 'retire' - hence the person involved after the perpetration of the last murder must have been out of circulation. There are only a limited number of ways in which this can happen - death, emigration, or incarceration either in prison or mental hospital".
          (As for Druitt)..."This is the type of person you're looking for", Professor Camps told Farson. "He wouldn't have stopped had he lived".
          Jack the Ripper, Farson, 1973, p.131.

          Prof. Camps was also the first professional who deduced in modern times that Jack the Ripper might have strangled his victims first. The last time this suggestion had been raised was by Dr. Brownfield in 1888 when commenting on the Chapman murder.
          East Area Rapist/Original Night Stalker/Golden State Killer

          did that guy who was arrested last year keep on killing constantly up until they were finally arrested?

          Comment


          • Hi Herlock,

            The simple answer may not always be the right answer.

            A year after the Macnaghten memorandum and his three likely lads . . .

            New York Herald, 12th February 1895—

            “The London police are of the opinion that at last they have got safely under lock and key the long-sought assassin known as Jack the Ripper . . . All the circumstances . . . so much resemble those which characterized the Whitechapel murders that the police believe Grant to be the perpetrator of the whole ghastly string of tragedies.”

            Mr. Horace Avory, prosecuting for the Treasury, was quoted in The Times, 28th March 1895—

            " . . . the crime bore a strange resemblance to the Jack the Ripper murders, and the police had turned their attention to the matter without result.”

            But . . .

            In an article for the May 1895 edition of Windsor Magazine entitled “The Detective in Real Life,” Alfred Aylmer wrote—

            “Much dissatisfaction was vented upon Mr. Anderson at the utterly abortive efforts to discover the perpetrator of the Whitechapel murders. He has himself a perfectly plausible theory that Jack the Ripper was a homicidal maniac, temporarily at large, whose hideous career was cut short by committal to an asylum.”

            I cannot believe the Metropolitan Police were quite so moronic.

            Regards,

            Simon
            Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Wolf Vanderlinden View Post



              In point of fact, nowhere does it state that the suspect drowned himself in the Thames (or anywhere else for that matter) only that the "son of a surgeon" committed suicide. Also, the Farquharson article said the suicide occurred "on the night of the last murder" but doesn't say that this was the Kelly murder. It could have been the McKenzie or Pinchin Street torso murder. As well, the article states that the suspect was wearing "blood stained clothes" when he killed himself. This was not likely to have been Druitt.

              Druitt can be made to fit Farquharson's theory but only by ignoring what Farquharson, apparently, actually said.

              Wolf.
              Surely this is splitting hairs? If the son of a surgeon committed suicide and was pulled out of the Thames we’re surely on reasonably safe grounds in assuming that he drowned himself? Pockets full of stones, no injuries or signs of violence...

              I think that, although Kelly isn’t mentioned, of all the ripper murders and potential ripper murders, the murder of Kelly is the one likeliest to have pushed the killer over the edge.

              The ‘bloody clothing’ might easily have been an assumption that was presented incorrectly as a fact. It also points more to the fact that the article meant ‘after the murder of Kelly’ which was a far bloodier affair than Mackenzie or Coles.

              Its difficult to see how it could be said that the article was referring to a different son of a surgeon who committed suicide and was pulled out of the Thames. It’s streching it way too far.
              Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 03-25-2019, 11:26 PM.
              Regards

              Herlock






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

              Comment


              • It's always a plus to have opinions from Wolf on anything. In this case I am not so sure the point being made is valid.
                We only have one written opinion from Farquharson, it doesn't read to me like he intended to provide exhaustive details.
                Take for instance what we have from Macnaghten, and compare it to Farquharson.

                In the Aberconway papers Mac. described the method of suicide thus:
                "...and who's body was found floating in the Thames...."
                Likewise, in the final report: "...and who's body (which was said to have been upwards of a month in the water) was found in the Thames..."

                So, a slight difference, but in his memoirs Mac. refers to the suicide three times, on page 54 we read:
                "...the Whitechapel murderer, in all probability, put an end to himself soon after the Dorset Street affair in November 1888...."
                No mention of drowning in the Thames.

                Then again on page 61:
                "...and the probability is that, after his awful glut on this occasion, his brain gave way altogether and he committed suicide, otherwise the murders would not have ceased.."
                Again, no mention of the body being in the Thames.

                Finally, on page 62:
                "....and that he absented himself from home at certain times, and that he committed suicide on or about the 10 November 1888,...."
                Nothing about a watery grave here either.

                As can be seen it is necessary to take all of Mac's writings into account, otherwise we might draw an erroneous conclusion about the method of suicide.
                As we only have one sample from Farquharson, we shouldn't expect it to include everything we need in order to compare his letter to how Druitt met his end.
                That said, I am still on the fence with respect to the Hainsworth or the Andersen theory, but then they might not be mutually exclusive either.
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • Does anyone know how painful death by drowning was based on scientific knowledge compared to other methods of death likely available to the ripper had if he wanted to kill himself, and to the way in which each of the rippers victims were killed, and to the method of capital punishment used at the time (hanging)?

                  I have the feeling that drowning would probably rank towards the top of this list when it comes to the level of pain inflicted, but I do not know for sure.

                  If it indeed is, then it brings additional questions as to why Druitt would choose to commit suicide by drowning himself if he were indeed the ripper, as opposed to many of the other methods available to him, and it would be something to think about to compare such to other notable deaths related to the case and to the criminal punishment system at the time as well.

                  Comment


                  • One could theorize that Farquharson is alluding to someone else, but it will hardly be compelling if they can't come up with an actual name. Can they? Did the son of a surgeon top himself on the night of the McKenzie murder? Or the night before the Pinchin Street torso was discovered?

                    If not, it is mere conjecture.

                    At least with MJ Druitt you have a name, a corpse, and circumstances. The alternative is a theory with nothing to support it.
                    Last edited by rjpalmer; 03-26-2019, 10:36 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Surely this is splitting hairs? If the son of a surgeon committed suicide and was pulled out of the Thames we’re surely on reasonably safe grounds in assuming that he drowned himself? Pockets full of stones, no injuries or signs of violence...
                      Its difficult to see how it could be said that the article was referring to a different son of a surgeon who committed suicide and was pulled out of the Thames. It’s streching it way too far.
                      You seem to have missed my point. Farquharson doesn't say that his suspect drowned himself or that he was found in the Thames. All he says is that his suspect committed suicide. HOW he committed suicide, or where he was found, is never mentioned, or even hinted at:

                      "His theory - and he repeats it with so much emphasis that it might almost be called his doctrine - is that 'Jack the Ripper' committed suicide on the night of his last murder....He states that a man with blood-stained clothes committed suicide on the night of the last murder..."

                      I think that, although Kelly isn’t mentioned, of all the ripper murders and potential ripper murders, the murder of Kelly is the one likeliest to have pushed the killer over the edge.
                      As I said, Farquharson doesn't say that the murder was Kelly's, there was no "canonical 5" at the time, but according to the above quote the Ripper killed himself "on the night of the last murder." That doesn't mean the last "canonical" murder. Did Druitt kill himself on the night of the 9th of November, 1888? Obviously not, but Farquharson's theory states that part of his evidence proving the guilt of his suspect is that he committed suicide on the night of the "last murder" and did so while wearing blood stained clothes, i.e. the clothes he wore committing the murder, i.e. evidence that the suspect was indeed the Ripper. This is an essential part of Farquharson's theory. It also bares no relationship to Druitt's death.

                      As I said, Druitt can be made to fit Farquharson's theory but only by ignoring what Farquharson reportedly said.

                      Wolf.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Stacker View Post
                        Does anyone know how painful death by drowning was based on scientific knowledge compared to other methods of death likely available to the ripper had if he wanted to kill himself, and to the way in which each of the rippers victims were killed, and to the method of capital punishment used at the time (hanging)?

                        I have the feeling that drowning would probably rank towards the top of this list when it comes to the level of pain inflicted, but I do not know for sure.

                        If it indeed is, then it brings additional questions as to why Druitt would choose to commit suicide by drowning himself if he were indeed the ripper, as opposed to many of the other methods available to him, and it would be something to think about to compare such to other notable deaths related to the case and to the criminal punishment system at the time as well.
                        People who have been revived after drowning have reported it as rather painless
                        G U T

                        There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Wolf Vanderlinden View Post
                          Obviously not, but Farquharson's theory states that part of his evidence proving the guilt of his suspect is that he committed suicide on the night of the "last murder" and did so while wearing blood stained clothes, i.e. the clothes he wore committing the murder, i.e. evidence that the suspect was indeed the Ripper.




                          All this is true, Wolf, if one wishes to never stray from the most literal interpretation of the source materials, but, in reality, the truth is often murky and gray, muddled, confused, and nothing at all like black and white.
                          Did, in fact, a "son of a surgeon" kill himself on the night of Mackenzie's murder? If not, it's difficult to give your alternative theory much weight.
                          It's a bit like the 'alternative' Kosminski theory. It is entirely possible that there is another Kosminski out there, suspected of the crimes, but until someone can prove it, Aaron it will be.
                          Meanwhile, we have a son of a surgeon, who did commit suicide, is mentioned by a Scotland Yard official, Macnaghten, who directly associates his suicide with what he considered to be the last of the murders.



                          Is it a 'slam dunk' in relation to the MP's story? Maybe, maybe not, but many will accept the two stories share a common source unless this other mythical suicidal surgeon's son is produced.
                          Last edited by rjpalmer; 03-26-2019, 11:50 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Hi All,

                            Macnaghten lied about Ostrog.

                            Macnaghten lied about Kosminski.

                            Why should we believe him about Druitt?

                            Regards,

                            Simon
                            Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Stacker View Post
                              Does anyone know how painful death by drowning was based on scientific knowledge compared to other methods of death likely available to the ripper had if he wanted to kill himself, and to the way in which each of the rippers victims were killed, and to the method of capital punishment used at the time (hanging)?

                              I have the feeling that drowning would probably rank towards the top of this list when it comes to the level of pain inflicted, but I do not know for sure.

                              If it indeed is, then it brings additional questions as to why Druitt would choose to commit suicide by drowning himself if he were indeed the ripper, as opposed to many of the other methods available to him, and it would be something to think about to compare such to other notable deaths related to the case and to the criminal punishment system at the time as well.
                              You cannot exonerate Druitt by saying that he would have chosen another method of suicide. Over the years people have taken their own lives in various ways. He might have leapt from a building or stood in front of a train but instead he chose the Thames.
                              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 All,

                                Macnaghten lied about Ostrog.

                                Macnaghten lied about Kosminski.

                                Why should we believe him about Druitt?

                                Regards,

                                Simon
                                Hello Simon,

                                Id repeat a question that I’ve asked before: why did Mac mention Druitt in the first place? He didn’t need to. If he was just throwing out likelier ripper’s than Cutbush he’d already named 2. Did he need three? Well if he did surely he could have picked on any other asylum inmate or recent suicide from the lower orders. I really can’t see why he would mention a Barrister/schoolteacher who was the son of a surgeon. If he wasn’t compelled to mention him why bring up someone from that level of society (Macnaghten’s own level) with all their horror of scandal and dishonour?
                                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