Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • #46
    private information

    We will never know who jack the ripper was the best we can hope for is to find out what the police knew to suspect certain individuals.Druitt is only in the frame by what a very well respected high ranking police officer wrote about him so what makes him so compelling in my eyes is that sir Melville states that Druitts family suspected him of being our killer so the question I always ask is why should such a well educated family think this .Next year Jonathan H is publishing a book which Will reveal to us the source of the "private information" I think this will be closest we will ever come to knowing who jack the ripper was.Something else about Druitt is the fact that he was a single man and that he had potentially two places to safely take his plunderd organs to this basic fact is always forgotten about when people propose suspects to us could a married man turn up in the small hours bloodstained and carrying human organs ?
    Last edited by pinkmoon; 11-17-2014, 02:54 PM.
    Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

    Comment


    • #47
      Thanks to Pink and Wyatt

      I would just add for now that unlike the DNA over-reach and the probable stretch that Cornwell is about to make (love the cover!) there is no issues of provenance.

      That is not to say that everybody will agree with my interpretation--not at all. I expect hardly anybody here will.

      If the 2008 vital discovery of Henry Farquharson from 1891--the missing link between Drutit as a tragic barrister and turning up as a police chief's prim suspect as serial killer--could make so little impact, then I hold out little hope for what my book will reveal.

      In the sense of moving people away from the narrow obession with the memo and instead to refocus on the more accurate memoir. Lady Christabel Aberconway tried to do this two years ebfore her feath, in vain.

      I argue that we do know the broad thrust of the "private information", if you put together the MP's confession-in-deed, the Vicar's confession-in-word and Sims' confession to doctor prior to the murders. Culpability could only come from one quarter, otherwise it would never have entered his family's heads (e.g. the doctor's "friends") to suspect him--that is from Montague's own lips.

      "Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper" drops the incriminating confession-in-deed whilst still trying to retain it too--very awkwardly. Killing himself the next day, or night (or was it longer?) deflates the melodrama of the "shrieking, raving fiend" staggering to the river to the point of being about as impressive as a limp noodle (Guy Logan has exactly the same dramatic problem in his 1905 novella and it makes just as little sense, though at least he included the Thames death to make up for it).

      Sir Melville did not want to repeat the confession aspect, in any form, and so he lifted the plot device of "The Lodger" (the people the reclusive maniac lives with twig he is the killer because he only goes out on the nights of the crimes--repeated by Sims in 1915), while pointedly denying that the novel was accurate at all. It was the last time that Druitt was shielded by fiction.

      Macnaghten was so cautious about any readers not connecting it to Druitt that he denies them the colourful and climactic detail of the suicide in the river. Instead he has to make do with the 1888 press hyperbole that Warren resigned over Whitechapel. The ex-chief knew this was as untrue as the notion that the killer lived with family ("his own people)".

      Macnaghten is clearly substituting popular fiction for what he knew to be the genuine "certain facts" that led to a "conclusion" about the barrister's guilt

      My argument is that it was Montague's confession that it replaced.

      Comment


      • #48
        With a lot of suspects we have thrown at us over the years most never have an explanation why they stopped killing with Druitt it's quite a simple answer.Let's face it who ever murderd Kelly was light years from been normal I just can't see him stopping and living happily ever after.
        Three things in life that don't stay hidden for to long ones the sun ones the moon and the other is the truth

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by pinkmoon View Post
          With a lot of suspects we have thrown at us over the years most never have an explanation why they stopped killing with Druitt it's quite a simple answer.Let's face it who ever murderd Kelly was light years from been normal I just can't see him stopping and living happily ever after.
          We also know that a tiny percentage of known serial killers commit suicide, and that's usually following their arrest.

          And if Macnaghten's inside scoop on Druitt was so damning, why did he include Kosminski and Ostrog on his list of possible suspects?

          Comment


          • #50
            To the Pinkster

            Sorry to be a kiljoy but that might be right but it is not the reason Macnaghten believed Druitt was the killer.

            He created his report(s) exploiting the "awful glut" litmus test, but it is a bureacratic con--to avoid admitting the supect was long dead--one he dropped for the memoir. In that he concedes that it was information received, not timing, that meant Montie was the killer.

            It would have been the easiest thing in the world for affable Mac, with his naive belief in the basic goodness of Englishmen of all classes, to reassure William Druitt [et. al.] that their deceased member was not the Ripper!

            Because he died too early. McKenzie and Coles were probably by the same killer. Macnaghten knew about the mental illness that plagued the family (because Logan knew this too) and so could have said that poor Montie probably only thought he was a serial maniac. Not that he actually was one.

            Instead Mac was convined, forever, and in 1913 he startled the reporters at his farewell press conference by announcing (in impilicit opposition to the loathed Anderson) that the Ripper's identity was known to him, had come to him, was a "secret", that he owned it and could destroy said info. He does not even bother with saying it was only a probable solution. It was the fiend: a "remarkable and fascinating" man, meaning, I think, an accomplished cricketer and tutor of boys.

            Comment


            • #51
              G'day Jonathan

              To GUT

              Druitt's suicide is already perfectly explained to us. He'd lost his job under a cloud of scandal, his family had a history of depression, and so he took his own life. There's nothing linking Druitt to the Whitechapel murders other than this secret info of Macnaughton's, which no one knows the contents of, therefore it's purely speculative as to its veracity. One would hope it wasn't the same source Macnaughton used for his error-ridden report of his number one suspect.
              Wasn't me
              G U T

              There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Wyatt Earp View Post
                Signature evidence is at the heart of the case against Bury, and signature evidence is admissible in court. The signature evidence is great evidence against Bury.

                If you have a series of unsolved murders that can be linked to a common and evidently extremely rare signature—and yes, Robert Keppel has the credentials and standing within his field to go before a jury and provide expert testimony on this point—and if you then take a man into custody for a murder that can be linked to that signature, then it seems to me there are three possibilities: 1) this man is a copycat killer, 2) the similarity in signature is simply a coincidence…or 3) this is the man who committed those unsolved murders. As I explained in my article in Ripperologist 139, the first two possibilities can be ruled out, but the third one cannot.

                “How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?” quoth Sherlock Holmes. The fact that Bury burned some of his victim’s clothing in the fireplace after her murder, as was done at the Kelly crime scene, is important corroborating evidence that Bury was indeed the Ripper.

                I’m aware that this is a Druitt thread. If you or others here want to contest what I’ve presented with Bury or otherwise continue the conversation about him, let’s take it over to the Bury section, please.

                Finally, I would like to add that I’m among the many here who look forward to reading Jonathan’s book.
                G'day Wyatt

                The problem is that one type killed their spouse the other total strangers and they are massive differences in signature, but I am working on a thread on just that issue.
                G U T

                There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                Comment


                • #53
                  To GUT

                  Yes, I know, I was conferring with you about such a redundant interpretation.

                  To Harry D

                  He needed to give the false impression that there were better suspects than Cutbush, though they were all three minor in themslves.

                  What he conceals in that report is that Druitt was not not arrested because the evidence was weak, but because he was long deceased.

                  He needed some other suspects who really were minor, but could make for a list (Kosminsmki was super-minor, needing his incarceration backdated).

                  Suspects who would be less impressive against the phony "awful glut" litmust test than the man might have been a doctor, or not, but who certainly, as a fact, got off on ultra-violence.

                  It's a shell game because a reader must chosoe Druitt as he qualifies best for a total and immediate collapse after the Miller's Ct atrocity, which was broadly true but hyped-exaggerated for the file.

                  As it was, the report was never sent in 1894. Later that year Mac discovered that Ostrog was cleared, yet he still exploited his fictional variant with Major Griffiths four years later--partly because it was safely fictitious.

                  In 1913 and 1914 (press conference and memoirs, respectively) Macnaghten does not bother to even mention these facade suspects.

                  There is only Druitt.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    To GUT

                    Yes, I know, I was conferring with you about such a redundant interpretation.
                    That's a relief.

                    But as I said earlier what about the MP, and what about the Vicar [who is at least possibly talking about family or the person who confessed to him was talking about family].

                    If, as some assert, there is nothing to link Druitt to the killings other than the above and MM that still has to elevate him to the top half dozen suspects and there is nothing to clear him.

                    My biggest problem with Montie is actually the very thing that makes him to many a suspect, the timing of his death.
                    G U T

                    There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by TomTomKent View Post
                      Like Kosminski I think this is a case where we know something was considered important enough to put him on the MM, but we will never know what. Was there talk of information passed from his family privately? It could be as simple as that. Whom it was who received the private information might even have been enough of an influence to keep his name on the list, though that is wild speculation that does not sound likely even as I type it.

                      I think this is a good post. I will admit firstly that I don't believe Druitt was the Ripper, or, at least I have real doubts. However, when we have missing information we have to rely on the critical faculties of others who processed the information before it went missing. All we can say is that enough of these investigators concluded Druit was possibly the culprit. They thought him a person of interest after reviewing the information at their disposal. If they believed him a person of interest then I view him as a person of interest until it's proven otherwise.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        To Jason C

                        What investigators?

                        There's just Macnaghten.

                        Nobody else at Scotland Yard had ever heard of the drowned barrister: drowned young medical student (Abberline), Irish-American who may have taken his own life (Littlechild); local deviate who is long dead (Anderson and Swanson) and lawyer Goerge Kebbel who thinks his client, Grant, long dead and who wasn't.

                        Only Druitt was six-feet under but his death shadows the others.

                        Druitt was not a "person of interest" to the Chief Constable, later Assistant Commissioner of CID, he was simply, rightly or wrongly, the Ripper. But he was long gone, so what do you do about such solution?

                        To GUT

                        Well, that's fair enough from your point of view.

                        From Macnaghten's point of view he had to explain away other Ripper murders, as not being by Druitt, because the timing of the latter's suicide obviouly did not fit. e.g. He had to move Kelly from the being the third or fourth-to-last victim, to last.

                        When this new timeline, and new final victim, was announced by Major Griffiths in 1898 it caused some consternation among some in the press, and among some who had been in the constabulary.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          My problem with the timing of MJD's death is this:

                          MJK killed 9 Nov, MJD dies early Dec.

                          William basically says he feared he was gong like mother [for whatever that means], but he was still obviously functioning well as he won an appeal in the week before his death, which also says something about Macnaghten's "Awful glut".

                          However to simply brush Mac aside without closer study of his reasoning is to say the very least risky. Because at the same to you must brush aside the MP [who was MP for Dorset where Druitt was from] and also the Vicar, and we need to be aware of just how many in Monties circle [family and friends] were clergy.
                          G U T

                          There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Jonathan H View Post
                            To Jason C

                            What investigators?

                            There's just Macnaghten.

                            Nobody else at Scotland Yard had ever heard of the drowned barrister: drowned young medical student (Abberline), Irish-American who may have taken his own life (Littlechild); local deviate who is long dead (Anderson and Swanson) and lawyer Goerge Kebbel who thinks his client, Grant, long dead and who wasn't.

                            Only Druitt was six-feet under but his death shadows the others.

                            Druitt was not a "person of interest" to the Chief Constable, later Assistant Commissioner of CID, he was simply, rightly or wrongly, the Ripper. But he was long gone, so what do you do about such solution?

                            To GUT

                            Well, that's fair enough from your point of view.

                            From Macnaghten's point of view he had to explain away other Ripper murders, as not being by Druitt, because the timing of the latter's suicide obviouly did not fit. e.g. He had to move Kelly from the being the third or fourth-to-last victim, to last.

                            When this new timeline, and new final victim, was announced by Major Griffiths in 1898 it caused some consternation among some in the press, and among some who had been in the constabulary.
                            Fair enough point about investigator singular rather than plural. Though it must be added that we dont know quite how seriously all other investigators viewed Druitt as most have not left any substantial, or, definitive record.

                            I think you do your argument a disservice by claiming those investigators you mention as not having heard of Druitt. In particular Littlechild. Littlechild only writes that he has never heard of a Dr D in connection to the murders.

                            As well as MacNaghten im also interested in MacNaghten convincing George Sims of Druitt's guilt. Sims is thought to have received a lot of information from both Mac and Anderson. I think this can be proven in the case of MacNaghten though I have seen less evidence Sims received info directly from Anderson. From memory Sims(therefore MacNaghten) was convinced of Druitt's guilt over the others by the timing of his death. To me this is an interesting coincidence, but proves little. It's the "private info" that we know so little about. Considering others at Scotland Yard were not convinced by this private information I assume it was far from a smoking gun. I still think it bordering on arrogance for us who are ignorant of exactly what this private info contained to dismiss it entirely. If the information was enough to sway MacNaghten towards Druitt's guilt then it is enough to keep my own interest open on Druitt.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              G'day jason

                              But we don't know who if anyone, else at Scotland Yard was privy to the private information so we don't know that they weren't persuaded by it.
                              G U T

                              There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by GUT View Post
                                G'day jason

                                But we don't know who if anyone, else at Scotland Yard was privy to the private information so we don't know that they weren't persuaded by it.
                                True, though we know Mac was not beyond telling tidbits of info to Sims. On the other hand Sims account of a Dr. D suggests he was not privy to all the details MM knew. I suspect MM had your average human character flaws, that he was not immune to gossiping. That a number of those in Scotland Yard would have obtained extra details from MM. Quite how far those details spread is of course not known.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X