What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[PaulB]

Hi Paul,

By February 24th 1894 Macnaghten was Chief Constable. If he knew as late as 23rd February 1894 that Druitt was the Ripper, why did he not inform the rest of the Metropolitan Police who, the following year, busily investigated the death of Alice Graham as a Ripper murder?

The Macnaghten memorandum makes no sense.

Regards,

Simon

The trouble is that by 23 February 1894 Macnaghten did know (or believe) that Druitt was Jack the Ripper, so either he did inform someone or he had reasons (right or wrong) for not doing so. If there is a good argument favouring one or the other, perhaps an informed consensus of opinion can be reached.

The memorandum may not make sense, but that's not a particularly good reason for disbelieving what it says. The memorendum is genuine. There is no reason to doubt that it was written by the person who purports to have written, at the time he claims to have written it, so I guess we either face up to the problems it presents and try to resolve them or accept that in the present state of knowledge they are irresolvable and assume they made sense to the person who wrote it, but that we don't know what it was. The only alternative would be to set aside a potentially valuable source because there are things about it we have insufficent information to resolve, and that would be silly, I thinlk.

[Trevor Marriott]

Well said Doctor


The Baron

and in any event we now know that the MM has proved to now be unsafe to rely on, so all that is contained within it should be treated with caution, and even more caution is advised with regards to the uncorroborated suspect opinions given in later years by other ageing police officers.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

and in any event we now know that the MM has proved to now be unsafe to rely on, so all that is contained within it should be treated with caution, and even more caution is advised with regards to the uncorroborated suspect opinions given in later years by other ageing police officers.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No it hasn't been 'proved' to be 'unsafe to rely on'. Nobody has proved anything at all. That's the point. People have raised questions, but they have provided hardly any answers, and the questions have 'proved' nothing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

suspect opinions given in later years by other ageing police officers.

Sorry Trevor, I couldn’t resist it.

[Observer]

The memorendum is genuine. There is no reason to doubt that it was written by the person who purports to have written, at the time he claims to have written it, so I guess we either face up to the problems it presents and try to resolve them or accept that in the present state of knowledge they are irresolvable and assume they made sense to the person who wrote it, but that we don't know what it was.

Let me ask. What are your thoughts as to whether the Swanson marginalia is genuine?

[Observer]

What a dangerous Lawyer..

He goes to courts at the mornings light, and kills prostitutes at the dark of the nights..

Why there were no films about Druitt till now?! What would make a better story than this?!


The Baron

Indeed. And where did he disappear to after carrying out those dark, and dastardly deeds? Certainly not into one of the courts or, alleys within the East End. He didn't reside there. Eddowes murder confirms what both the police at the time, and any sound thinking individual will surely realise, that is, the murderer resided in the East End of London. My guess would be the Spitalfields and surrounding area.

[Trevor Marriott]

No it hasn't been 'proved' to be 'unsafe to rely on'. Nobody has proved anything at all. That's the point. People have raised questions, but they have provided hardly any answers, and the questions have 'proved' nothing.

The facts that we now know prove it to be unsafe and unreliable

He mentions Ostrog as a likely suspect in 1894 when he penned the document. He should have know Ostrog was in jail in France at the time of the murders.
He is also another who mentions Kosminski by surname only but in 1894 surely he should have known which Kosminski this referred to
He mentions five and five only yet the official front sheet lists more than 5 possible victims and he make no mention of this
He mentions Druitt but in the way he mentions him it is nothing more than weak hearsay

To me all of those put together make the memo unsafe and to totally rely on. Yet here we are all of these years on when people are still referring to 5 and 5 only, and still peddling an unknown Kosmsinksi as a prime suspect.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Let me ask. What are your thoughts as to whether the Swanson marginalia is genuine?

There is a big question mark hanging over its total authenticity. Another document where only the surname Kosmisnki is mentioned. Can we really believe that someone who was supposedly looked on as a prime suspect back then, and supposedly identified as the killer is only known to seniors officer by his surname, and not known to any other police official of any rank at the time of thereafter by any name !

I have completed an examination into all the facts and evidence appertaining to this and the results can be found in my book Jack the Ripper The Real Truth

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jack-Ripper...s%2C142&sr=8-1


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

He mentions Ostrog as a likely suspect in 1894 when he penned the document. He should have know Ostrog was in jail in France at the time of the murders.

It's hard to know how he could have known that Ostrog was in a French jail, to be fair - these were the days before Interpol etc, and even the British police didn't have anything like an adequate intelligence system until almost a hundred years later. Furthermore, it seems that Ostrog was looked for but "his whereabouts at the time of the murders could never be ascertained". Macnaghten was hardly likely to have made such a statement, nor indeed have heard of Ostrog at all, had there not been something behind it. "Ostrog" is hardly a name one would pluck out of thin air.

Yes, we know that Macnaghten was wrong retrospectively, but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[Trevor Marriott]

It's hard to know how he could have known that Ostrog was in a French jail, to be fair - these were the days before Interpol etc, and even the British police didn't have anything like an adequate intelligence system until almost a hundred years later. Furthermore, it seems that Ostrog was looked for but "his whereabouts at the time of the murders could never be ascertained". Macnaghten was hardly likely to have made such a statement, nor indeed have heard of Ostrog at all, had there not been something behind it. "Ostrog" is hardly a name one would pluck out of thin air.

Yes, we know that Macnaghten was wrong retrospectively, but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

I agree but all of that doesn't take detract from the fact that it is wrong and unsafe, but its not just about Ostrog and it should be noted that Ostrog was cleared of wrongful arrest in Oct 1894 and paid £10 in compensation by the british police so he was on the police radar at some point when MM was in office

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Simon Wood]

Macnaghten would have learned in October 1894 that Ostrog had been in a French jail during the WM, for this was when the police had to pay Ostrog £10 compensation for false imprisonment regarding a charge of theft from a jeweller in Eton, Berkshire.

However, in 1898 Macnaghten did not exclude the exonerated Ostrog from the partly-redacted version of his memorandum he 'leaked' to Major Arthur Griffiths for his book "Mysteries of Police and Crime."

[Sam Flynn]

Macnaghten would have learned in October 1894 that Ostrog had been in a French jail during the WM, for this was when the police had to pay Ostrog £10 compensation for false imprisonment regarding a charge of theft from a jeweller in Eton, Berkshire.

Would a London police officer know about what happened on Berkshire Constabulary's patch?

[Simon Wood]

[PaulB]

Let me ask. What are your thoughts as to whether the Swanson marginalia is genuine?

There is no reason to suppose that it isn't.

[PaulB]

The facts that we now know prove it to be unsafe and unreliable

He mentions Ostrog as a likely suspect in 1894 when he penned the document. He should have know Ostrog was in jail in France at the time of the murders.
He is also another who mentions Kosminski by surname only but in 1894 surely he should have known which Kosminski this referred to
He mentions five and five only yet the official front sheet lists more than 5 possible victims and he make no mention of this
He mentions Druitt but in the way he mentions him it is nothing more than weak hearsay

To me all of those put together make the memo unsafe and to totally rely on. Yet here we are all of these years on when people are still referring to 5 and 5 only, and still peddling an unknown Kosmsinksi as a prime suspect.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

None of things you mention prove anything at all. At the very best they are problems with a source that haven't been resolved, and at worst they represent concerns to you.

All of those points are capable of sensible answers, Trevor. Maybe Macnaghten should have known that Ostrog was in prison in France, but that has no bearing on the quality of the private information. The Whitechapel Murders file contains more than five names, but that doesn't mean the same person was responsible for all of them, so Macnaghten could have had reason for attributing just five to the same hand. He didn't provide information about Druitt, but that means absolutely nothing. If anyone saw the report and wanted it, who is to say he couldn't have provided it.

You want to be seen as challenging received opinion, which is fine, but there is no good reason for doubting that the memoranda is anything other than what Macnaghten believed to be true.