What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[Takod]

Hi Jon,

How did Druitt qualify as one of the most genuine suspects?

Regards,

Simon

He dies and the murders stop. That makes him a most genuine suspect.

Then; of course, we get into attribution;

but whatever someone's stance on attribution; they must also recognise that Druitt is worthy of examination, and has no clear cut reason for his exclusion as being a genuine suspect.

[Takod]

If alice Mckenzie was not a ripper victim, then Nechols and Stride were also not ripper victims.

That's a bold claim, and it would be surely refuted if a wealth of undeniable evidence appeared that Druitt was the ripper.

Unless of course later evidence appeared that Druitt was also a Zombie. Zombie ripper, anyone? It fits the farce-like nature of this discussion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hello Simon,

If that question had been directed at me I’d say again - because he’s mentionedby Macnaghten. With so many ‘expendables’ to put forward as ‘better than Cutbush’ candidates he picks on the son of a surgeon. And so, for me, unless we can prove that Mac was either mistaken (mixing Druitt up with another son of a surgeon fished out of Thames just after Kelly) or mistaken (and that the Druitt family didn’t really suspect him of being the ripper) or he simply picked Druitt simply because he committed suicide at the ‘correct’ time. I just can’t see any of these being more likely to have been true than Mac genuinely receiving private information that the family believed Monty to have been the ripper.

[PaulB]

You didn't address any of my points.

Just repeating the same old reasoning, Macnaghten was in a position to know... etc.

Druitt had not been investigated throughly, otherwise Macnaghten would have known his career, age, date of death .. etc.

And nothing since has surfaced to connect Druitt to those murders.


Besides: Druitt was dead when Mckenzie was murdered.


The Baron

I thought I had addessed your points, your points being adequately answered by the 'same old reasoning'. The fact that nothing has emerged to connect Druitt to the murders is basically irrelevant. A lot of the police documentation has gone missing, and if the family possessed any papers on the matter, it's quite likely that they would destroyed them. What happened to the private information is anybody's guess. So how likely do you think it is that anything confirmatory would have emerged? That Druitt doesn't seem to have been thoroughly investigated is a big question mark, but a lot could depend on when that private information was received, what it was, where it came from, and to whom it actually referred. It could be a serious mistake to make assumptions about those things. So, that 'same old reasoning' actually addressed your points because to accept your point that Druitt was not thoroughly investigated means that one must accept that Macnaghten favoured a suspect without instituting any investigation whatsoever. And, that, I'm afraid, is a bit of a big thing to accept.

[PaulB]

Hi Jon,

Do we have a copy of PC Moulson's police report?

If not, then it's all pie in the sky.

Regards,

Simon

No it isn't, Simon. Macnaghten had and repeated information about someone pulled from the Thames that was incorrect (age about 40, young doctor or medical student). If Macnaghten didn't make that all up, it follows he got it from somewhere. It wasn't the inquest, where correct information was given, so therefore came from something that pre-dated the inquest and which Macnaghten could have consulted, which suggests PC Moulson's report. That's a reasoned argument, not 'pie in the sky'. Furthermore, Macnaghten had received information about a Thames suicide, we assume he had the name of that individual and is therefore likely to have pulled any available documentation about it, which would most probably have been Moulson's report. If it didn't name Druitt, Macnaghten may have looked for someone the report fitted, and agin pulled Moulson's report.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

How did Druitt qualify as one of the most genuine suspects?

Regards,

Simon

You need me to explain the difference between a genuine suspect and all those manufactured suspects? Really?

[Darryl Kenyon]

Agreed!
My question still stands, with an average of 6 suicides per week in 1888 between 10 Nov & 31 December there was potentially 40+ suicides to pin this series of murders on - why Druitt?

Wick, I thought I tried answering this in my post 281

[Wickerman]

I think it may be necessary to point out that we have no idea whether Druitt was investigated. There is a difference between making discreet inquiries and allocating manpower and resources for a broad investigation. It was known, and commented on by Warren himself, that the press would often follow detectives around and re-interview anyone they called on in their investigation. This was how the press obtained much of their news on the progress of the investigation. Mac. would not want that. What he seems to have been given are private concerns from people close to the subject, and as Druitt's sad death was received as a tragedy, and as he was a member of a respected family, the only way to proceed would be to assign a detective to make discreet inquiries. Leaving no paper trail, and making sure no press were alerted to what was happening.

The Druitt family would not appreciate any publicity connecting one of their members with those outrageous murders, and the Druitt family had connections, so Mac. would know to tread carefully.
What evidence we have today tends to suggest (to me at least) that if any inquiries were made, it was done carefully.

[Darryl Kenyon]

This is from the Christchurch Times Dated Dec 1 Saturday. The Day Druitt may have committed suicide

[Abby Normal]

Alice Mckenzie's njuries:

• Cause of death from severance of the left carotid artery.
• Two stabs in the left side of the neck 'carried forward in the same skin wound.'
• Some bruising on chest.
• Five bruises or marks on left side of abdomen.
• Cut was made from left to right, apparently while McKenzie was on the ground.
• A long (seven-inch) 'but not unduly deep' wound from the bottom of the left breast to the navel.
• Seven or eight scratches beginning at the navel and pointing toward the genitalia.
• Small cut across the mons veneris.

If alice Mckenzie was not a ripper victim, then Nechols and Stride were also not ripper victims.


And you ask me to prove someone is a victim of some unkown one.

Prove that Kelly was a ripper victim, prove that Stride was a ripper victim.



The Baron

And found with her skirt hiked up like most the other ripper victms. Thats the fnal straw for me. That being said, druitt is still a valid suspect. But what seems more reasonable? That mckenzie


wasnt a ripper victim, because monty was dead? Or that she was a ripper victim, and monty wasnt the ripper. IMHO the latter is more reasonale.

it also makes me wonder if McNaughton excluded mckenzie from the c5 list BECAUSE he favored Monty, and not the evidence alone.

[Wickerman]

This is from the Christchurch Times Dated Dec 1 Saturday. The Day Druitt may have committed suicide

It is just the report of what took place on Tuesday Nov. 27th though. Christchurch Times was a Saturday paper.

[Dr. John Watson]

I'm going on memory here, but as I recall no one ever heard of Druitt until Macnaghten mentioned him as a suspect and later writers took it and ran with it. Macnaghten, of course, didn't join Scotland Yard until 1889, and everything he learned about the Ripper murders came second hand - some from police files and much in the form of hearsay from other police sources. My guess is that the "private information" he cites, suggesting even his family considered Druitt a suspect, came not from Druitt's family but from another Scotland Yard source, perhaps passing along something supposedly said by Druitt's brother. Bottom line: Aside from rumor, speculation, and a great deal of latter day attempts to make the foot fit the shoe, there's not a shred of real evidence tying Druitt into any of the Ripper murders.

Dr. John

[Dr. John Watson]

This is from the Christchurch Times Dated Dec 1 Saturday. The Day Druitt may have committed suicide

From what I could make out from this terrible copy, it looks like Druitt won his case. If so, he should have been the opposite of suicidal.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Paul,

It sounds to me like conjecture.

Macnaghten joined the Met on 1st June 1889, and wrote his memorandum on 24th February 1894. There were two alleged Ripper murders between these dates, and one after. So when exactly might Macnaghten have concluded that the Ripper committed suicide in December 1888?

Regards,

Simon

[Darryl Kenyon]

It is just the report of what took place on Tuesday Nov. 27th though. Christchurch Times was a Saturday paper.

Wick, The reason I put it up was because I thought it might be of interest to show Druitt's state of mind before he committed suicide. IE In my opinion the fact that he was working as a barrister the previous Tuesday might add weight to the reason he committed suicide was his dismissal as a teacher three days later.