Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    Who said "like the back of his hand"?, some modern theorist with a touch of the dramatic?
    Funny you should ask, Wick. The following statement appeared on Howard Brown's site this morning, quoting Drew Gray, who is evidently writing a book on the Ripper:

    "This
    fits the profile of the man Andy Wise and I think responsible for the Whitechapel series of murders between 1887 and 1891. A man we think hid in plain sight and melted away into the alleys and courts of the East End which knew like the back of his hand."

    Not that we've necessarily found "Observer, for this highly questionable observation is made by every second or third poster on the internet.

    What Gray and similar "Observers" fail to understand is that this is not how street prostitution works. The killer (or just the everyday punter) does not need to know the local geography. He only needs to walk down the main drag. If prostitutes can't be located by the punters, they starve; that's why they hang out on street corners under lamps. And once found, the women do the rest.

    See Inspector Henry Moore for details, who, I dare say, knew a little more about East London than modern theorists:

    "What makes it so easy for him" - the inspector always referred to the murderer as "him" - "is that the women lead him, of their own free will, to the spot where they know interruption is least likely. It is not as if he had to wait for his chance; they make the chance for him."

    Note: "the women led him."

    Kelly, Eddowes, Nichols, were experts in the local geography and the local police beats, the blind-alleys, etc. The Ripper needed no such knowledge.

    But, we waste our breath. Ten years from now it will still be argued that the Ripper was an expert on local geography, knowing this complex network of streets "like the back of his hand."



    Comment


    • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

      King's Bench Walk is on the other side of the City, Jon, near The Temple. Wasn't it Druitt's cousin's medical practise (which some have theorised he might have used) that was in The Minories?

      https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoo...layers=163&b=1
      Yes, thankyou, my apologies (to Observer), I confused the two.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post


        See Inspector Henry Moore for details, who, I dare say, knew a little more about East London than modern theorists:

        "What makes it so easy for him" - the inspector always referred to the murderer as "him" - "is that the women lead him, of their own free will, to the spot where they know interruption is least likely. It is not as if he had to wait for his chance; they make the chance for him."
        Yes RJ, we have a few accounts on just how busy the main streets were. Coffee stands and hot food stalls operated all night long in some areas. This killer didn't disappear into the shadows, more likely hid in plain sight among the flotsam & jetsam of the Whitechapel night life as he made his way to safety.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Hi Wickerman,

          Yes indeed.

          The Ripper moved amongst the shadows of the busy main streets, hiding in plain sight, amongst the flotsam & jetsam of the Whitechapel night, as he made his way to safety.

          How can you believe such crap?

          Regards,

          Simon
          Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

            Yes RJ, we have a few accounts on just how busy the main streets were. Coffee stands and hot food stalls operated all night long in some areas. This killer didn't disappear into the shadows, more likely hid in plain sight among the flotsam & jetsam of the Whitechapel night life as he made his way to safety.
            Alternatively, he could have used the network of lanes and backstreets which, in most cases, didn't exactly appear to be swarming with life, judging by what the various witnesses said.
            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

              I think it's in W. J. Fishman's book, The East End 1888, where we read about 'Slumming' and why it was so popular. Some would tour Whitechapel in groups, others by themselves. I mentioned one earlier, a man from the West End who was found dead in his room, in a pub somewhere.

              Pubs which rented out rooms, like an Inn, had a separate entrance (side door?) from the commercial premises of the Pub itself.
              Lodgers could come and go at their leisure, at all times of the day or night.
              The Britannia was a huge premises, most likely had rooms to rent.
              I have that book I’ll have a look. Thanks Wick.
              Regards

              Herlock




              “ Herlock is the cleverest man that I’ve ever met.” - Stephen Hawking.
              “ I wish that I could have achieved half as much as Herlock.”- Neil Armstrong.
              “ What a voice Herlock has.” - Luciano Pavarotti.
              “ I wish that I could dump Harry for Herlock.” - Meghan Markle.
              “ I know that it’s not good to be jealous but I just can’t help it.” - John Holmes.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                Hi Wickerman,

                Yes indeed.

                The Ripper moved amongst the shadows of the busy main streets, hiding in plain sight, amongst the flotsam & jetsam of the Whitechapel night, as he made his way to safety.

                How can you believe such crap?

                Regards,

                Simon
                I admit, it's a failing, that some of us do actually believe that a killer did exist.
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • You assume that Abberline cannot be referring to a different document, because you also assume that Druitt was never a contemporary suspect.
                  Actually, I’m not assuming anything. I’m going by what Macnaghten himself said:

                  "Although the Whitechapel Murderer, in all probability, put an end to himself soon after the Dorset Street affair in November 1888, certain facts, pointing to this conclusion, were not in possession of the police till some years after I became a detective officer."

                  "Some years" (plural) after June, 1889. I don't have any reason to doubt Macnaghten on this point.

                  Wolf.

                  Comment


                  • But elsewhere Sims implies that he was. “The police were searching for him alive, when he turned up dead.”
                    Your cherry picking aside, here is what Sims actually says:

                    In [the Ripper] case they had reduced the only possible Jacks to seven, then by a further exhaustive inquiry to three, and were about to fit these three people's movements in with the dates of the various murders when the one and only genuine Jack saved further trouble by being found drowned in the Thames, into which he had flung himself, a raving lunatic, after the last and most appalling mutilation of the whole series.
                    But prior to this discovery the name of the man found drowned was bracketed with two others as a possible Jack and the police were in search of him alive when they found him dead.”

                    First of all, Sims doesn’t imply that Druitt was a contemporary suspect, as you say, but states this as fact. Moreover, he states that he was one of three key suspects, one of whom was thought likely to be the Ripper. Did the police “reduce the only possible Jacks to seven, then by a further exhaustive inquiry to three” by December of 1888? No. Sims is woefully wrong. Sims is obviously using Macnaghten’s 3 suspects from the memoranda to make this claim and, by saying “the man found drowned was bracketed with two others as a possible Jack,” adds weight to this.

                    Does the memoranda, which Sims is using to base his claims, say that Druitt was a contemporary suspect or that the police were looking for him when he was alive? (or Kosminski or Ostrog for that matter) No. Sims is obviously making this up and therefore can’t be used as a source to suggest that Druitt was a main suspect in December of 1888.

                    Wolf.

                    Comment


                    • Abberline’s statements to the PMG make no mention of Macnaghten’s “private information,” nor to the supposed suspicions of Druitt’s family. Indeed, he denies there was any evidence against Druitt beyond his drowning in the Thames.
                      That doesn’t sound like the comments of a man who was truly aware of the full thrust of Macnaghten’s arguments, but instead someone who is responding from the vantage point of his own personal (and limited) involvement.
                      You are ignoring the circumstances of Abberline’s interview. Abberline had gone into some detail while giving his opinion that Klosowski/Chapman was the Ripper. Blowhard Sims had almost immediately stated “in a well-known Sunday paper” that, not only was Abberline wrong, but that he, Sims, knew the real facts and the true identity of the killer. Abberline was then asked to respond. Why, then, would he, obviously somewhat pissed, add any weight to Sims’ theory by giving any details that might strengthen the drowned doctor as a suspect while making his own suspect seem less likely? He wouldn’t (who would) and it’s bizarre that you would think that Abberline should have helped Sims ridicule him.

                      Wolf.

                      Comment


                      • The possibility exists that he is referring to a different 'report,' and thus misinterpreted what Sims was alluding.
                        Therefore, Abberline was basing his comments on some earlier police document which just so happened to describe Druitt as a doctor? And then, some years later, Macnaghten receives independent information which also misidentifies Druitt as a doctor? That’s quite a coincidence. The more likely answer is that Abberline was using Macnaghten.

                        Wolf.

                        Comment


                        • And the Macnaghten Memoranda is not lost. It was found in the Met files. There is no evidence it was sent to the Home Office. No stamps, no notations. Nothing.
                          You should probably go back and re-read what I wrote. Where did I say that the Macnaghten Memoranda was lost? I said that “although we don't know its exact purpose it was likely prepared for use by the Home Secretary in case questions were raised in the House regarding the Sun's articles. If true it seems likely that a copy was sent to the Home Office but that it hasn't survived.

                          Or do you not think that the Memoranda was written for the Home Secretary to use in the House if needed? What was it written for then? If it was written for the Home Secretary why don’t you think that a copy of it would be sent to him?

                          Wolf.

                          Comment


                          • Hi Wolf,

                            Sims didn't use the MM on which to base his claims.

                            What he used was the name-redacted MM which appeared in Major Griffiths' book.

                            Sims never said a dicky bird about the body in the Thames suspect until the reprint of Griffiths book in January 1899.

                            Regards,

                            Simon
                            Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Wolf Vanderlinden View Post

                              In [the Ripper] case they had reduced the only possible Jacks to seven, then by a further exhaustive inquiry to three, and were about to fit these three people's movements in with the dates of the various murders when the one and only genuine Jack saved further trouble by being found drowned in the Thames, into which he had flung himself, a raving lunatic, after the last and most appalling mutilation of the whole series.
                              But prior to this discovery the name of the man found drowned was bracketed with two others as a possible Jack and the police were in search of him alive when they found him dead.”
                              This I also find difficult to accept. Druitt was not a difficult figure to find. The police cannot have been looking for him in 1888, he was right there in plain sight in court on the 27th of November, roughly 3-5 days before his suicide.

                              ...... Sims is obviously making this up and therefore can’t be used as a source to suggest that Druitt was a main suspect in December of 1888.

                              Wolf.
                              Well, he got it wrong, for whatever reason.
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Wolf Vanderlinden View Post

                                Actually, I’m not assuming anything. I’m going by what Macnaghten himself said:

                                "Although the Whitechapel Murderer, in all probability, put an end to himself soon after the Dorset Street affair in November 1888, certain facts, pointing to this conclusion, were not in possession of the police till some years after I became a detective officer."

                                "Some years" (plural) after June, 1889. I don't have any reason to doubt Macnaghten on this point.

                                This is an extremely weak argument, Wolf. Staggeringly weak.

                                I am not stating what I do or do not personally believe; I am being fair to the Druittists and am arguing what we can legitimately surmise from the known evidence.

                                Yes, every child of ten who has studied the case knows that Macnaghten received his "private information" pointing to this conclusion (as he puts it) years later, but how in the name of Hades does that preclude that, at some level, Druitt's name hadn't already come up in the investigation in late 1888 or early 1889?

                                You're reading into it far more than that simple statement allows you to read into it.

                                In the real world, dozens of cases 'solved' by the police years later, that relied on 'private information,' pointed to someone whose name was already known to the police back at the time of the initial murder. Not necessarily a suspect. It could have been a 'person of interest', or a name that came up on a list of perverts, etc. We don't know that that is true in Druitt's case, but likewise we don't know that it isn't. You are assuming more than the known evidence allows us to state.

                                Or to put it differently, Macnaghten is stating that the private information convinced him of Druitt's guilt, he isn't stating that this was the first time that Druitt's name came up. And indeed, as I already stated, his friend and spokesmen Sims claimed the police were looking for him alive when he turned up dead.

                                When would that be, Wolf, several years after Macnaghten joined Scotland Yard???

                                How hard is that to understand??

                                Of course what Sims is alluding to, or if he is even accurate, is left to our personal beliefs and speculation. I certainly don't know, and neither do you. Druitt's name could have come up in a list of punters at a flogging shop and thus a list of the "sexually insane." Who knows? The police investigated hundreds of men.

                                Similarly, some (Stewart Evans for instance) have speculated that Kosminski's name initially came up in the house-to-house search in Oct 1888, but it wasn't until years later that he fell under serious suspicion.

                                Why couldn't that be true in Druitt's case?

                                And by the way, you still haven't explained why Sims is referring to his good friend Macnaghten as the Commissioner. That's an anomaly that you seem to be content left dangling. In the Home Office files there are reports sent in by Chief Inspectors, and by Superintendents. Are you suggesting Macnaghten wrote this on behalf of the Commissioner instead of sending it himself? Why would he do that? Or are you suggesting Sims didn't know his friend's title?

                                Regards.
                                Last edited by rjpalmer; 04-06-2019, 03:10 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X