Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Click image for larger version

Name:	ostrog1894.jpg
Views:	116
Size:	73.6 KB
ID:	704615
    Thanks Simon, but would Macnaghten have known about this? It looks more like a prison/civil service matter to me, and might never have crossed Macnaghten's bows. Besides, if these incidents concerning Ostrog happened in Eton or Aylesbury, would not "the police" refer to the Berkshire or Oxfordshire constabulary respectively?

    I might lastly observe that, whilst the letter locates Ostrog in a French prison in 1889, it says nothing about his whereabouts in 1888.
    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      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

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      Hang on, Trevor. All Macnaghten says is that Ostrog's whereabouts at the time of the murders couldn't be ascertained. That is a statement of the situation as Macnaghten knew it at the time he wrote. Unless you can demonstrate that he was lying, which you can't, then that statement isn't wrong. Or unsafe. We now know where Ostrog was, but you can't apply our knowledge to Macnaghten in February 1894.

      Comment


      • Hi Sam,

        I'm willing to bet that Macnaghten's heart skipped a beat when he learned of this. And as Chief Constable there is little doubt that he wouldn't have heard about it, even if he was not directly involved in the matter.

        Research by the late historian Philip Sugden established that throughout the 1888 Whitechapel murders Michael Ostrog had been in a Parisian jail awaiting trial for the theft of a microscope, upon which charge he was sentenced on 14th November 1888 to two years’ imprisonment and ordered to pay costs of almost 450 French francs.

        Regards,

        Simon
        Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

        Comment


        • Let me rephrase “the content contained in the mm is unsafe to rely on” I don’t doubt it was penned in good faith

          www.trevormarriott.couk

          Comment


          • On 26th October 1888 a notice appeared in the Police Gazette—

            “Convict Supervision Office . . . Michael Ostrog . . . On 10th March 1888 he was liberated from the Surrey County Lunatic Asylum, and failed to report. Warrant issued. Special attention is called to this dangerous man.”

            In October 1888, Ostrog was languishing in a Parisian jail, awaiting trial, which took place on 14th November 1888. If he served his full sentence he would have been released in November 1890.

            Michael Ostrog was rearrested in 1891, and on 18th April charged at Bow Street Magistrates Court for failing to report himself whilst under police supervision. It was also alleged at the time that he was in the habit of feigning insanity when in custody. On 7th May 1891 he was committed to Banstead Lunatic Asylum in Surrey, which received pauper lunatics from the county of Middlesex.

            On the very same day Macnaghten wrote to the medical officer at Banstead—

            “I shall feel obliged if you will cause immediate information to be sent to this office in the event of his discharge, as the Magistrate adjourned the case sine die in order that he [Ostrog] might again be brought up and dealt with for failing to report himself if it is found that he is feigning insanity.”

            So, as of April 1891 Macnaghten didn't appear to be harbouring any suspicions about Ostrog being the Ripper.

            Two years later, on 29th May 1893, Michael Ostrog was discharged “recovered” from Banstead Lunatic Asylum, only to appear before Aylesbury magistrates in July 1894, five months after Macnaghten penned his memorandum.
            Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
              Research by the late historian Philip Sugden established that throughout the 1888 Whitechapel murders Michael Ostrog had been in a Parisian jail awaiting trial for the theft of a microscope, upon which charge he was sentenced on 14th November 1888 to two years’ imprisonment and ordered to pay costs of almost 450 French francs.
              Yes, I knew that. My question is whether Macnaghten knew that at the time he wrote the memorandum; he could have found out, I daresay, but I'm not so sure it would have been at all easy.
              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                So, as of April 1891 Macnaghten didn't appear to be harbouring any suspicions about Ostrog being the Ripper.
                The Memo only says that the three men named would make better Ripper suspects than Cutbush, not that he thought either of them to be the Ripper. Macnaghten's phrasing is, I think, revealing: "I may mention the cases of 3 men, any one of whom would have been more likely than Cutbush to have committed this series of murders". NB: "I may mention the cases of 3 men"... I get the distinct feeling that MM could have picked a different three, or added a few more, if he'd felt like it.

                I see the Memo as similar to someone posting on a message-board "I could name three actors off the top of my head who would have been a better Bond than Lazenby", and nothing more definitive than that.
                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                Comment


                • On the basis of your argument you must exonerate all three men.
                  Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                    On the basis of your argument you must exonerate all three men.
                    That's not a half-bad idea, Simon.

                    Comment


                    • Macnaghten was keeping a routine watching brief on Ostrog. As he asked Dr. T. Claye Shaw, Principal and Medical Superintendent at Banstead Lunatic Asylum, "I shall feel obliged if you will cause immediate information to be sent to this office in the event of his discharge . . ."

                      Both Macnaghten and Anderson wrote on occasion wearing their Convict Supervision Office hats to various Medical Superintendents asking about prisoner discharges.

                      There's nothing in the known history of Ostrog to suggest he was a Ripper suspect, so I would suggest that in February 1894 Macnaghten simply made it up, writing that Ostrog’s “whereabouts at the time of the murders could never be ascertained [true until October 1894];" also that he was “subsequently detained in a lunatic asylum as a homicidal maniac [false].”

                      The best lies contain elements of truth.

                      Can you imagine what might have happened had Macnaghten's memo ever seen the light of day? In October 1894 a Secretary of State might have asked him to explain, "why we are giving £10 compensation to a possible Jack the Ripper suspect?"
                      Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                        Hi Jon,

                        Macnaghten, the Memory Man, was never certain?

                        Is "in all probability" really the best we can muster against Druitt?

                        It's not much with which to condemn a man to eternal damnation for the Whitechapel murders.

                        Regards,

                        Simon
                        But Simon, Mac. admitting he was not able to muster all the necessary facts has no bearing on his memory.
                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                          On the basis of your argument you must exonerate all three men.
                          I do, Simon. (Meanwhile, in a parallel Universe, Macnaghten is adding Johnson, Leshinsky and Solokiev to his brain-dumped list.)
                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                            Can you imagine what might have happened had Macnaghten's memo ever seen the light of day? In October 1894 a Secretary of State might have asked him to explain, "why we are giving £10 compensation to a possible Jack the Ripper suspect?"
                            Again, there's nothing in the memo that states that the three examples that Macnaghten provided were JTR suspects, only that these particular "nutters" would have been more likely candidates than Cutbush.
                            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Observer View Post

                              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.
                              Obs. Anyone from out of town takes a room in a pub. We have it as a written record with those who went "Slumming" were from out of town. One Slummer was found dead in his 'hotel' room, he had a home address in the West end.
                              An out of town killer simply takes a room at the Britannia, Ten Bells, or in any one of the dozens of local pubs.
                              He can come and go in private, at his leisure.
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                                Obs. Anyone from out of town takes a room in a pub. We have it as a written record with those who went "Slumming" were from out of town. One Slummer was found dead in his 'hotel' room, he had a home address in the West end.
                                An out of town killer simply takes a room at the Britannia, Ten Bells, or in any one of the dozens of local pubs.
                                He can come and go in private, at his leisure.
                                So he killed Nichols at 3:40 a.m and then went to a pub waiting for a train..

                                Not a bad idea for a film, that is, if there were any pub open at that time of the morning.


                                The Baron

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X