What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[Trevor Marriott]

Indeed, but I was on about the conditions that prevailed at the time the Memo was written.

what conditions ?

[Trevor Marriott]

The only thing that we can say for certain is that Druitt cannot be dismissed as a suspect. Doubted or believed innocent, yes, dismissed, no.

Of course he can be dismissed as a suspect, at best he nothing more than a person of interest

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course he can be dismissed as a suspect, at best he nothing more than a person of interest

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Sorry Trevor but you’re simply wrong. There are no grounds for dismissing him. A couple of ‘errors’ in the memoranda aren’t sufficient. We have genuine possibilities to explain where Mac might have gotten his private information from. I think that Druitt is an inconvenience for some. He’s the suspect that won’t go away. And with good reason.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He is the main protagonist who by what he wrote in the memo has been responsible for every book and every documentary made that has gone down the misleading 5 and 5 only victims.

And so you know for certain that there were more or less than 5 victims?

[Wickerman]

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

Written by someone who has never stayed at a pub I see.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes the main front sheet of the main Scotland Yard file on the WM lists all the other murders under the heading Whitechapel murders, and no one in their right mind would simply pick 5 out of that list as being the work of a singular killer. And when you look at the 5 there are many dissimilarities which point to different killers

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Stacker]

The contemporary police had their chance to solve all the murders that went unsolved in the area at the time when the murders happened as well as after the fact in the years that followed when they were still in the police force. They blew it. We need to stop worshiping the theories presented by them. We need to look at other theories, those that might have either been overlooked or unknown by the contemporary police.

As I said before, these murders that went unsolved did not just include the Canonical 5 that MacNaghten claimed were "5 victims and 5 victims only". They extended across a 5 year period from 1887-1891, and included a series of 4 Torso Killings, and the murders of Martha Tabram, Alice Mackenzie, and Francis Coles, along with many other unsolved murders with less obvious similarities.

[Wickerman]

Yes, Macnaghten favoured a suspect without instituting any investigation whatsoever.

Prove that was not the case!



The Baron

The fact Mac. claims to have destroyed whatever paperwork existed suggests the inquiries were made or obtained by Mac. himself. The papers were his personal property, not police files.
Like I said, the police are not likely to open an active investigation into a subject who is dead, and thereby cannot defend himself.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

You think Ostrog was an error?

If it was, why, four years later, did Macnaghten not correct it before passing his name-redacted memorandum onto Major Griffiths for publication?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon.

You seem intent on portraying the account of Ostrog as incorrect, yet why is this relevant if we are debating Druitt?

[Wickerman]

How do we explain the Oscar Wilde affair or the Cleveland Street Scandal, then? Regardless of class, the Victorians loved gossip. Besides, if Druitt's own family thought that he was a killer, and were clearly communicating their suspicions to others, then where was the harm?

Oscar Wilde was a nonconformist even in the Victorian era.
As for the Cleveland Street cover-up.......
"The government was accused of covering up the scandal to protect the names of aristocratic and other prominent patrons"
Wikipedia.
Busted by the police.

Yes, the Victorian upper class had a reputation for covering things up.
Am I helping your argument?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Ostrog is the easiest to take apart.

If Macnaghten lied about him, chances are he lied about the other two.

Of course Macnaghten "destroyed" his non-existent paperwork. The private information was a neat touch, absolving the Metropolitan Police from any official suspicion in the matter.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Of course he can be dismissed as a suspect, at best he nothing more than a person of interest

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

He was a Chief Constable Trevor, are you saying he had no idea what constitutes a suspect under the law?
To Mac. Druitt was a suspect, to us Druitt is a Person of Interest, primarily because we do not know what Mac. knew.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Ostrog is the easiest to take apart.

If Macnaghten lied about him, chances are he lied about the other two.

Of course Macnaghten "destroyed" his non-existent paperwork. The private information was a neat touch, absolving the Metropolitan Police from any official suspicion in the matter.

Regards,

Simon

Simon.

Mac. could have written a rebuttal of the Cutbush article without mentioning any other suspects. Why write any lies at all?

What he wrote at the time he believed to be true.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

"What he wrote at the time he believed to be true."

He did?

You know this for a fact?

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

The fact Mac. claims to have destroyed whatever paperwork existed suggests the inquiries were made or obtained by Mac. himself. The papers were his personal property, not police files.
Like I said, the police are not likely to open an active investigation into a subject who is dead, and thereby cannot defend himself.

And what do you think that paperwork could have been? A signed confession from Druitt, or nothing more than a letter from a family member suggesting he could have been the killer? Druitt was living in London at the time of the murders, his family lived miles away from him in Dorset, how much contact would they have had with him to form an opinion that he could have been JTR?

130 years later, Druit is being investigated by some Ripperolgists simply based on the uncorroborated hearsay of MM as being JTR he cannot defend himself, but what we can do is remove him from the list of so called prime suspects and only refer to him as a person of interest, as we should with all the other prime suspects who form the backbone of suspectology in this case, when there is nothing more than wild speculative theories to support their suspect status.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk