Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    If he was lying he would have known that part of what he said could be checked out, what motive would he have for being in a country 2000 miles from the UK and mentioning crimes that took place 8 years previous which probably no one would have still had any interest in.


    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    By that thinking then we might ask why Macnaghten ‘invented’ Druitt as a suspect when his movements would have been far easier to track than someone like Kosminski? Do you think that Mac did an in depth investigation into Druitt’s movements before he named him just to ensure that someone looking into it might not find that he had a cast iron alibi for one of the murders? If Mac was simply picking names out of a hat for his ‘more likely than Cutbush’ list then he couldn’t really have made a more pointlessly risky choice than Druitt unless he’d chosen a member of the aristocracy.

    Regards

    Herlock




    “...A yellow fog swirls past the window-pane
    As night descends upon this fabled street:
    A lonely hansom splashes through the rain,
    The ghostly gas lamps fail at twenty feet.
    Here, though the world explode, these two survive,
    And it is always eighteen ninety-five.”

    Comment


    • Macnaghten didn't invent Druitt as a suspect, but was acting on "private information" at the very least. Perhaps this was his sole reason for doing so but, either way, I don't see why The Sun should have launched an in-depth investigation into his whereabouts, any more than they'd have looked into Cutbush's movements before naming him.
      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        The fact is that MM,Anderson and Swanson all wrote in later years details of in ripper terms momentous events taking place so they have to be judged together, they were all senior officers. They write about events that no one outside of their own little worlds has any knowledge of, and there are no independent police records from either the met or the city police to corroborate anything they have said.

        So if you want to keep on believing what they said is reliable then thats your prerogative but from my perspective as an investigator I regard them as unsafe to rely on.

        One final question for you

        Can you explain why in 1894 when MM penned the memo, he makes no mention of the seaside home ID but mentions the name Kosminski and tell us all about his habits etc in great detail. If he was preparing the memo from records should there not have been something in the files about the identification of Jack the Ripper?

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        Trevor,
        Macnaghten wrote in 1894, Anderson wrote in 1910, and Swanson made his marginal notes at some point after that. Macnaghten wrote in a report presumably intended for internal distribution, Anderson wrote for publication, and Swanson wrote for personal gratification. Apart from the subject matter, there is very little similarity between them, so there is no reason why they should be judged togather or why the reliability (or unreliability) of one should have any bearing on the others.

        Most of the police records have not survived, so nobody knows what they may or may not have contained. There being no corroboration is therefore a problem, but an explicable one. It may also be answered by the fact that Macnaghten didn't mention the identification. If he didn't know about it, it is entirely likely thay men like Abberline and Reid wouldn't have done either?

        Your question is really just approaching the whole identification problem from a different angle. If there was no identification, which you have yet to persuasively demonstrate, then you have your answer. But if there was an identification, why Macnaghten didn't mention it is largely academic.

        But the point remains that Macnaghten refers to 'many circs' which made 'Kosminski' a good suspect. So he was a suspect. But this thread is about Macnaghten and Druitt.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
          Macnaghten didn't invent Druitt as a suspect, but was acting on "private information" at the very least. Perhaps this was his sole reason for doing so but, either way, I don't see why The Sun should have launched an in-depth investigation into his whereabouts, any more than they'd have looked into Cutbush's movements before naming him.
          I’m not saying that they had to Sam but someone might have decided to take it upon themselves to look into Mac’s ‘3.’ There would have been a far higher chance of someone of Druitt’s class having a proveable alibi for one or even all of the murders. Mac could simply have picked some poor anonymous, raving lunatic for his list. I really can’t see him picking Druitt unless he’d felt that he had a genuine reason for doing so.
          Regards

          Herlock




          “...A yellow fog swirls past the window-pane
          As night descends upon this fabled street:
          A lonely hansom splashes through the rain,
          The ghostly gas lamps fail at twenty feet.
          Here, though the world explode, these two survive,
          And it is always eighteen ninety-five.”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post


            read the chapter in my book and you will see that there is a strong case for naming Feigenbaum as a likely suspect, without the fact that he did cut a womans throat with a long bladed knife and attempted to escape thereafter. Do you have any other suspect who it can be said was guilty of cutting a woman's throat with a long bladed knife ?

            I think that is a good starting off point dont you ?

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            From the court transcript it says that the son saw Feigenbaum “ strike his mother with the knife in her neck.” And that the woman was found “bleeding from an incised wound in the neck.”

            This doesn’t sound like a throat cutting to me. It sounds more like he stabbed her in the neck. The circumstances were also vastly different to those of the ripper murders.

            The suggestions that he had he had a desire to kill and mutilate women and that he was in London at the time of the murders appear to come only from a Lawyer who broke the code of his profession by blabbing? How is he more reliable than Macnaghten? At least we can be certain that Druitt was in London at the time of the murders.
            Regards

            Herlock




            “...A yellow fog swirls past the window-pane
            As night descends upon this fabled street:
            A lonely hansom splashes through the rain,
            The ghostly gas lamps fail at twenty feet.
            Here, though the world explode, these two survive,
            And it is always eighteen ninety-five.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

              Trevor,
              Macnaghten wrote in 1894, Anderson wrote in 1910, and Swanson made his marginal notes at some point after that. Macnaghten wrote in a report presumably intended for internal distribution, Anderson wrote for publication, and Swanson wrote for personal gratification. Apart from the subject matter, there is very little similarity between them, so there is no reason why they should be judged togather or why the reliability (or unreliability) of one should have any bearing on the others.

              Most of the police records have not survived, so nobody knows what they may or may not have contained. There being no corroboration is therefore a problem, but an explicable one. It may also be answered by the fact that Macnaghten didn't mention the identification. If he didn't know about it, it is entirely likely thay men like Abberline and Reid wouldn't have done either?

              Your question is really just approaching the whole identification problem from a different angle. If there was no identification, which you have yet to persuasively demonstrate, then you have your answer. But if there was an identification, why Macnaghten didn't mention it is largely academic.

              But the point remains that Macnaghten refers to 'many circs' which made 'Kosminski' a good suspect. So he was a suspect. But this thread is about Macnaghten and Druitt.
              Come on Paul, suggesting that this momentous ID parade could have taken place and the only two people in any senior rank who knew about it were Swanson and Anderson is incomprehensible. Even Monro who was commissioner on his retirement makes no mention of the killer being identified and he should have known being at the top of the chain of command.

              Yes this thread is about Druiit and his status as a suspect, and the only person who suggests he could have been one is one MM, and there is not a scrap of corroborating evidence to support his belief, and he at least did later exonerate Kosminski but that important part seems to have fallen on deaf ears as far as Swanson and Anderson and all the ripperologists who today still peddle Aaron Kosminski

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                From the court transcript it says that the son saw Feigenbaum “ strike his mother with the knife in her neck.” And that the woman was found “bleeding from an incised wound in the neck.”

                This doesn’t sound like a throat cutting to me. It sounds more like he stabbed her in the neck. The circumstances were also vastly different to those of the ripper murders.

                The suggestions that he had he had a desire to kill and mutilate women and that he was in London at the time of the murders appear to come only from a Lawyer who broke the code of his profession by blabbing? How is he more reliable than Macnaghten? At least we can be certain that Druitt was in London at the time of the murders.
                The case against Feigenbaum is a lot stronger that the case against Druitt. Have you read the chapter in my book on him. If you havent I would suggest you do before coming back to engage in a discussion you are not fully briefed on.

                And I thought this thread was on Druitt not Feigenbaum !

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  The case against Feigenbaum is a lot stronger that the case against Druitt. Have you read the chapter in my book on him. If you havent I would suggest you do before coming back to engage in a discussion you are not fully briefed on.

                  And I thought this thread was on Druitt not Feigenbaum !

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  I have read the chapter and it appears that the only proof that he was in London is the word of the lawyer. The thread is about Druitt of course but as Roger asked ‘why is Lawton a more reliable source of information than Macnaghten?’
                  Regards

                  Herlock




                  “...A yellow fog swirls past the window-pane
                  As night descends upon this fabled street:
                  A lonely hansom splashes through the rain,
                  The ghostly gas lamps fail at twenty feet.
                  Here, though the world explode, these two survive,
                  And it is always eighteen ninety-five.”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    I have read the chapter and it appears that the only proof that he was in London is the word of the lawyer. The thread is about Druitt of course but as Roger asked ‘why is Lawton a more reliable source of information than Macnaghten?’
                    Because there is corroboration to what Lawton says, and there in none to what Mac says

                    which book are you referring to ?

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      Come on Paul, suggesting that this momentous ID parade could have taken place and the only two people in any senior rank who knew about it were Swanson and Anderson is incomprehensible. Even Monro who was commissioner on his retirement makes no mention of the killer being identified and he should have known being at the top of the chain of command.

                      Yes this thread is about Druiit and his status as a suspect, and the only person who suggests he could have been one is one MM, and there is not a scrap of corroborating evidence to support his belief, and he at least did later exonerate Kosminski but that important part seems to have fallen on deaf ears as far as Swanson and Anderson and all the ripperologists who today still peddle Aaron Kosminski

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Trevor,
                      Where would anyone else have referred to the identification? Not everyone wrote autobiographies. No cache’s of private papers (except Swansons, if that can be called a cache) have turned up in 130-years. The official files are severely depleted.

                      Macnaghten is indeed the only person who suggests that Druitt was Jack the Ripper, which brings us back to Macnaghten’s reliability as a source, and nobody has shown that Macnaghten would have invented the private information on which he believed the murderer was Druitt. And it is nonsensical to suppose that Macnaghten would have included Druitt in a report intended for his superiors - let alone championed him - if there was no evidence against him or if the evidence was poor. So it seems highly likely that corroborating evidence did exist, but doesn't exist anymore.

                      Macnaghten did not exonerate Kosminski. You are using ‘exonerate’ incorrectly, as if Macnaghten had evidence proving Kosminski free of suspicion and innocent of the murders. What Macnaghten said was that he was ’inclined’ to exonerate Kosminski and Ostrog, and it is implicit that he did so because he thought the evidence against Druitt was better. The implication is that if Druitt had been removed from the frame, Kosminski wouldn’t have been out of the frame too, he’d have gone to the top of the list (or Ostrog would).

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        I’m not saying that they had to Sam but someone might have decided to take it upon themselves to look into Mac’s ‘3.’ There would have been a far higher chance of someone of Druitt’s class having a proveable alibi for one or even all of the murders. Mac could simply have picked some poor anonymous, raving lunatic for his list. I really can’t see him picking Druitt unless he’d felt that he had a genuine reason for doing so.
                        An argument could be made that if Mac knew Druitt's movements then one of the reasons he doesn't include Martha is - On Friday and Saturday, August 3 and 4, Druitt was in Dean Park, Bournemouth. He was there again on August 10 and 11 playing the Gentlemen of Dorset. Tabram was killed on Tuesday, August 7. Would it not make sense that Druitt would have stayed in the region of Bournemouth if he was playing two consecutive weekends? [From this site]

                        Of course the argument can be made that Druitt could have hopped back and forth from Bournemouth, but why not kill an unfortunate there? In fact why Whitechapel at all? Why not Blackheath, or anywhere close by south of the Thames? Why risk travelling, and staying overnight in a notorious district he has no known or little connection with.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

                          An argument could be made that if Mac knew Druitt's movements then one of the reasons he doesn't include Martha is - On Friday and Saturday, August 3 and 4, Druitt was in Dean Park, Bournemouth. He was there again on August 10 and 11 playing the Gentlemen of Dorset. Tabram was killed on Tuesday, August 7. Would it not make sense that Druitt would have stayed in the region of Bournemouth if he was playing two consecutive weekends? [From this site]

                          Of course the argument can be made that Druitt could have hopped back and forth from Bournemouth, but why not kill an unfortunate there? In fact why Whitechapel at all? Why not Blackheath, or anywhere close by south of the Thames? Why risk travelling, and staying overnight in a notorious district he has no known or little connection with.
                          Does anyone know if Monty played soccer once the cricket season was over? I found reference to a player named Druitt (no first name given) playing a couple of football matches on consecutive weekends in early November 1888 against Bournemouth teams, I think.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

                            Does anyone know if Monty played soccer once the cricket season was over? I found reference to a player named Druitt (no first name given) playing a couple of football matches on consecutive weekends in early November 1888 against Bournemouth teams, I think.
                            He was banned from his football team because they never won any game he played in. They always drew it...

                            I'll get me coat.
                            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                              He was banned from his football team because they never won any game he played in. They always drew it...

                              I'll get me coat.
                              Where's the red-card emoji when you need one?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                                I don't know that Macnaghten didn't share his private information with others - and if Abberline was indeed referring to Macnaghten's suspect, he clearly did share his information with others. If he shared the information, I think the rest of your points don't matter. Of course, if Macnaghten didn't share his private information with others, I imagine that he would be guilty of a severe dereliction of duty, so do you think that is something Macnaghten was guilty of? It's possible, but surely one would need to see some supportive evidence before giving it serious credence?
                                Daily Mail 2 June 1913 - ‘I have destroyed all my documents,’ he said, ‘and there is now no record of the secret information which came into my possession at one time or another.’
                                Secret Info and and all my documents. I might be wrong but it sounds to me he was keeping the info [whatever it may be] to himself Paul.

                                When Abberline said a report was made to the H/O could he not have meant PC Moulson's report? Seems a stretch but Abberline says young Doctor and way beyond the truth. If Mac had informed him would he be saying that?
                                Regards Darryl

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X