What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

[The Baron]

Dr Phillips conducted the autopsy didn't he, and he was not convinced it was a Ripper killing. All the abdominal cuts were superficial, or scratches at best.
The cuts around the throat, according to Phillips, indicated a left-handed killer, as opposed to the previous murder's where he was right-handed.

Wrong on all aspects.


I am sure that between you and yourself, you KNOW that Mckenzie was a ripper victim, you are just arguing.


Admit it, it is never shame or wrong thing to do.

The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wrong on all aspects.


I am sure that between you and yourself, you KNOW that Mckenzie was a ripper victim, you are just arguing.


Admit it, it is never shame or wrong thing to do.

The Baron

Are you saying that Dr Phillip’s wasn’t involved and that Wickerman is simply making this up? Has your debating method really come to this? The statement that Phillips wasn't’t convinced that Mackenzie was a ripper victim is a fact.

The majority of ripperologists and authors don’t believe that Mackenzie was a ripper victim. This isn’t conclusive of course but it means that we cannot be certain either way. Anyone that says that they know is simply being dishonest.

Its about time that you admitted to not knowing things that you cannot possibly know for certain. And it’s certainly time that you stopped pretending that you can’t understand which of these two is the honest statement:

My point (which I feel confident that Wick would agree with.)

1. If it could be proven that Alice Mackenzie was a victim of Jack The Ripper then Montague John Druitt was innocent. But if we cannot prove that fact with any degree of certainty then we cannot exonerate Druitt on those grounds.

The viewpoint of Stacker and yourself.

2. It’s proven that Mackenzie was a ripper victim. There is no doubt. Therefore we can dismiss Druitt.


I leave it to others to decide which of those two statements is dishonest, self-serving, logically redundant nonsense?

[Joshua Rogan]

Are you saying that Dr Phillip’s wasn’t involved and that Wickerman is simply making this up? Has your debating method really come to this? The statement that Phillips wasn't’t convinced that Mackenzie was a ripper victim is a fact.

Not as simple as that.
What Phillips said in his PM report was;

"After careful and long deliberation I cannot satisfy myself on purely anatomical & professional grounds that The Perpetrator of all the 'WhChl.murders' is one man.
I am on the contrary impelled to a contrary conclusion. This noting the mode of procedure & the character of the mutilations & judging of motive in connection with the latter.
I do not here enter into the comparison of the cases neither do I take into account what I admit may be almost conclusive evidence in favour of the one man theory if all the surrounding circumstances & other evidence are considered.
Holding it as my duty to report on the P.M. appearances and express an opinion solely on Professional Grounds, based upon my own observations. For This purpose I have ignored all evidence not coming under my own observation."

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not as simple as that.
What Phillips said in his PM report was;

"After careful and long deliberation I cannot satisfy myself on purely anatomical & professional grounds that The Perpetrator of all the 'WhChl.murders' is one man.
I am on the contrary impelled to a contrary conclusion. This noting the mode of procedure & the character of the mutilations & judging of motive in connection with the latter.
I do not here enter into the comparison of the cases neither do I take into account what I admit may be almost conclusive evidence in favour of the one man theory if all the surrounding circumstances & other evidence are considered.
Holding it as my duty to report on the P.M. appearances and express an opinion solely on Professional Grounds, based upon my own observations. For This purpose I have ignored all evidence not coming under my own observation."

I agree that things aren’t black and white Joshua but what I’m having difficulty with is when certain posters say that it’s a certainty that Mackenzie was a ripper victim (something that none of us can know for anything like certain) purely as a ploy to exonerate Druitt. I’ve never said that it’s proven that she wasn’t a victim. She might have been; she might not have been. And so based purely on logic, if we can’t know something either way, then we can’t use it to prove or disprove something else which is what Stacker and The Baron are trying to do. My point is as clear and self-evident as it could be.

[Wickerman]

Wrong on all aspects.


I am sure that between you and yourself, you KNOW that Mckenzie was a ripper victim, you are just arguing.


Admit it, it is never shame or wrong thing to do.

The Baron

I can't help you Baron. I'm reasonably satisfied that McKenzie was a copycat, and a one-off at that.
The killer wanted to give the appearance that the Ripper was responsible, but had neither the time or the knowledge to carry it out to the full.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wrong on all aspects.


I am sure that between you and yourself, you KNOW that Mckenzie was a ripper victim, you are just arguing.


Admit it, it is never shame or wrong thing to do.

The Baron

Or perhaps, just for once, you could actually answer a question or three instead of just posting random statements?

1. How can you say for absolute certain that it’s a proven fact that Mackenzie was a ripper victim?

2. Why can’t you just admit that it is something that we cannot know for certain? There is no shame in admitting that we don’t know something.

3. Why can’t you at least be open and honest enough to admit that there are no known facts than can dismiss Druitt even though this fact in itself doesn’t mean that Druitt was definitely the ripper. Whether he might or might not have been is down to our own individual interpretation of events.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I can't help you Baron. I'm reasonably satisfied that McKenzie was a copycat, and a one-off at that.
The killer wanted to give the appearance that the Ripper was responsible, but had neither the time or the knowledge to carry it out to the full.

I tend to agree Wick. If the killer had time to make scratches and a few superficial cuts then he’d already had enough time to have simply applied more pressure on the knife and made deeper cuts. This away from the killer being interrupted for me. Unless someone is suggesting that the scratches were like the markings that a surgeon makes before making his incisions (and I don’t believe that anyone is by the way) Like you. I tend to see this as someone who wanted to make this appear as a ripper murder. As I said in an earlier post by ‘tying’ this into the series he would have been attempting to deflect police attention from himself as a one-off killer. Maybe he just didn’t have the stomach for any deeper, more ripper-like, abdominal mutilations?

[Wickerman]

(Dr. Phillips wrote
I do not here enter into the comparison of the cases neither......

Yet, at the inquest he appears to take a step in that direction:

[Coroner] - Are the injuries to the abdomen similar to those you have seen in the other cases?

[Phillips] - No, Sir. I may volunteer the statement that the injuries to the throat are not similar to those in the other cases.

Therefore, as the abdominal wounds bare no similarity, and also the all important throat wounds are equally, "not similar" to the previous series of murders. Then on what grounds should we try make Mckenzie into a Ripper victim?

[Phil Carter]

Ladies and gentlemen,

If I may, I'd like to make a few, what some would call, pertinent observations.

The Official Secrets Act 1889.

This went through a few hearings and discussions in Parliament in 1888. The Act, which can be found in its entirity on line, tells us that any person, in any position, in service toThe Queen and Country, is duty bound to conceal all truths referring to anything involving work for HM Government and the Crown.
(that's a very basic description)
What this means, is that no policeman, of any rank, at any time, is allowed to spill the truthful beans (that is important.. Truthful) on any person or event whilst, or afterwards, in service. It includes retirement.

In order to get around complicated, embarrassing or even secret events and occasions, policemen, fully knowing that the penalty for breaking this law was certain imprisonment, deflected truths, replaced names and changed the actual events.
Memoirs, for example, were carefully vetted so as to not reveal unknown truths. Names were deliberately changed or invented. That way, no methodology, no "in house" information, and no "real" suspects would be named in crimes yet solved. Only in the cases that were already solved, with names in the public eye, was that permitted.
Now. Sir MM, Sir RA, and DSS were all very aware of the Official Secrets Act. Abberline too. Reid too. They all were.

It has often been said in Ripperology, that the memorandum does not add up. Likewise the marginalia. There are statements in both that leave a lot to be desired.. We have all asked.. Is it possible a high ranking policeman cannot remember a first name of a suspect (Kosminski), a thief that was clearly not in England in 1888 who was not known to be violent towards women (Ostrog) and a Barrister who committed suicide who's suspectology is based on "private/secret information" (Druitt), that has been commented upon by other policemen as rubbish (Abberline) . Anderson "only thought he knew" is from yet another high ranking policeman. The OSA explains it all.

All seem to contradict each other. All seem to have their own pet theory when presented.

All, were still writing under the Official Secrets Act.
All of them.

So. If one is going to tar all with the same brush, as doubtful, ignorant, lying, deflecting, stupid or whatever non positive description has been used over the years, to any of this lot.. Use this.

They were all knowingly under the threat of imprisonment. And, at that time, as today, but more so, breaking the Official Secrets Act was very very serious indeed.

There us a popularist view in Ripperology to keep the pot stirred. Keep the carousel turning, keeping the wagon rolling despite x amount of wheels having fallen off and replaced by equally deficient wheels.
Propping up an argument.

It is easy to forget the basics

The OSA 1889, prevented any policeman in actually telling the truth. That includes names. It includes circumstances. Period.

People can argue back and forth forever about all this. Druitt, Kosminski.. Etc etc. The point is.. The seriousness of breaking The Official Secrets Act 1889 is being conveniently overlooked, ignored or side stepped with excuses. The penalties were long term prison sentences.

Now it should be obvious to one and all.. MM, SRA or any policeman.. Won't risk it. Its that simple.




Phil

[Phil Carter]

To add.

All of the above is a very reasonable explanation for the known fact that the (now) missing Official Suspects file, when seen back in 1973, with over 100 names in, did not contain Druitt, Kosminski, etc etc.


Phil

[Simon Wood]

Here are part of BBC Producer Paul Bonner's 1973 notes on the Ripper files -

[Wickerman]

To add.

All of the above is a very reasonable explanation for the known fact that the (now) missing Official Suspects file, when seen back in 1973, with over 100 names in, did not contain Druitt, Kosminski, etc etc.


Phil

So Mac. is proven correct once again?, he said he destroyed all paperwork pertaining to Druitt......

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

How does that work?

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Just a bit of sarcasm Simon.

[Trevor Marriott]

So Mac. is proven correct once again?, he said he destroyed all paperwork pertaining to Druitt......

But if MM`s paperwork never existed, it could not have been destroyed

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk