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

    Yes, agreed, I should have wrote 'recollections'.
    If I understand Phil correctly, when an official named a suspect (in some footnotes, or recollections) the name used is false, an intentional deception to avoid contravening the Official Secrets Act.
    One more reason, in Phil's view, that we cannot trust Macnaghten.
    Is there any evidence that policemen used false names in their private papers (diaries, notebooks, annotated press-cuttings, memoirs intended for family consumption, marginal notes in books, letters) to hide the names of suspects? You'd have thought that Littlechild, as head of the Special Branch, would have been more than fully aware of the rules and the dire consequences of breaking them, yet he seems to have had no qualms about volunteering the name of Tumblety in his letter to Sims. Anyway, wasn't the OSA 1889 primarilly concerned with the protection of political and gennerally military information, not civil matters such as the name of a suspect in a murder investigation? Sorry, I know that's not something you are suggesting.


    Comment


    • Hi Paul,

      Macnaghten was on board at Scotland Yard at the time of Thomas Hayne Cutbush's 1891 trial, so a potentially embarrassing familial connection with a high-ranking policeman would have been the subject of much inter-office gossip.

      Macnaghten would have wanted to get his facts straight in this most important memorandum, and to do that all he had to do was bestir himself, walk down the corridor to the Executive Branch and ask the man himself—Superintendent Charles Henry Cutbush.

      Regards,

      Simon
      Last edited by Simon Wood; 04-18-2019, 10:21 PM.
      Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

        Is there any evidence that policemen used false names in their private papers (diaries, notebooks, annotated press-cuttings, memoirs intended for family consumption, marginal notes in books, letters) to hide the names of suspects? You'd have thought that Littlechild, as head of the Special Branch, would have been more than fully aware of the rules and the dire consequences of breaking them, yet he seems to have had no qualms about volunteering the name of Tumblety in his letter to Sims. Anyway, wasn't the OSA 1889 primarilly concerned with the protection of political and gennerally military information, not civil matters such as the name of a suspect in a murder investigation? Sorry, I know that's not something you are suggesting.

        More or less what I've been saying to Phil for the past few days. The argument makes no sense, I mean it does not reflect what we know from existing examples.
        I'd like to know who convinced Phil that the OSA is applicable to these notes, letters, recollections, etc., that we are debating.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

          Is there any evidence that policemen used false names in their private papers (diaries, notebooks, annotated press-cuttings, memoirs intended for family consumption, marginal notes in books, letters) to hide the names of suspects? You'd have thought that Littlechild, as head of the Special Branch, would have been more than fully aware of the rules and the dire consequences of breaking them, yet he seems to have had no qualms about volunteering the name of Tumblety in his letter to Sims. Anyway, wasn't the OSA 1889 primarilly concerned with the protection of political and gennerally military information, not civil matters such as the name of a suspect in a murder investigation? Sorry, I know that's not something you are suggesting.

          Yes, defence and security of the realm.

          Monty




          Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

          http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
            Hi Paul,

            Macnaghten was on board at Scotland Yard at the time of Thomas Hayne Cutbush's 1891 trial, so a potentially embarrassing familial connection with a high-ranking policeman would have been the subject of much inter-office gossip.

            Macnaghten would have wanted to get his facts straight in this most important memorandum, and to do that all he had to do was bestir himself, walk down the corridor to the Executive Branch and ask the man himself—Superintendent Charles Henry Cutbush.

            Regards,

            Simon
            Well, we might suppose that there would have been gossip and that Macnaghten would have wanted to be correct, but what Macnaghten wrote would appear to show that supposition to be in some way wrong. Is there any good reason why we should prefer the supposition to the fact of the document?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by PaulB View Post
              Hi Simon, the trouble is that you often need to have doubted the accuracy of a belief in order to seek clarification and thereby discover that it lacks foundation. In other words, if Macnaghten believed that Charles and Thomas were uncle and nephew, which he self-evidently did believe, he wouldn't have sought confirmation unless he had reason to think it might be wrong. He therefore didn't discover his error.
              Hello Paul,

              Something here has just struck me.

              I would dearly like to know how MM would know, assume, or guess, that Charles and Thomas were specifically Uncle and Nephew?
              Why not cousins? Why specifically Uncle and Nephew?
              You see... If it were a guess, he has guessed related in some way to each other. He would have to have found out, or been told, the particular family link. Or assumed.
              If it were assumption, it actually weakens the argument for the whole of the memorandum, as we now talk about unsubstantiated conclusions.
              I simply cannot accept that in all the time MM worked in the departments he was in, he would not KNOW the relationship, and specifically what familiar link.
              Therefore, getting the whole relationship wrong, factually, (that they were, infact, not related at all) severely weakens the authenticity of the other purported facts in the memorandum.
              It simply doesn't make sense that this all revealing document should be given the level of acceptance in terms of truth that has always been taken for granted.

              If I were being cynical, one would wonder if it was made up. Given the wrong facts re Ostrog. Given the wrong facts re Druitt, etc.


              Phil
              Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


              Justice for the 96 = achieved
              Accountability? ....

              Comment


              • I used to work at a place where a labourer had the same surname as the Finance Director. People used to joke that they were related when they weren’t. We were in the pub one day and we found out that one of the managers actually believed that it was true that the two were related. And he wasn’t alone either, two other people (a sales manager and a warehouse manager) also thought the same. It can happen.
                Regards

                Herlock






                "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                Comment


                • David Andersen, in his latest book, Blood Harvest, poses thee most interesting question to arise out of the Druitt theory. Why was Montie found at Chiswick, which then begs the broader question - what is the connection between Chiswick and the Druitt family?


                  David Andersen, Blood Harvest

                  Andersen goes on to ask the question, what was the connection between Montague Druitt and the Tuke family, but we must also take into consideration that it was William Druitt who had his mother moved from Brook House Asylum in Clapton, into the care of the Tuke family at the Manor House Asylum in Chiswick. As the family decision maker, William had to be consulted & approve of the move if he didn't actually order the move himself.

                  So, it isn't just a question of a potential connection between Montie & the Tuke family, but moreover the broader question of what was the connection between the Tuke family & the Druitt family, and what role may this connection have played in the death of Montie?
                  Last edited by Wickerman; 04-19-2019, 04:01 PM.
                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post

                    Hello Paul,

                    Something here has just struck me.

                    I would dearly like to know how MM would know, assume, or guess, that Charles and Thomas were specifically Uncle and Nephew?
                    Why not cousins? Why specifically Uncle and Nephew?
                    You see... If it were a guess, he has guessed related in some way to each other. He would have to have found out, or been told, the particular family link. Or assumed.
                    If it were assumption, it actually weakens the argument for the whole of the memorandum, as we now talk about unsubstantiated conclusions.
                    I simply cannot accept that in all the time MM worked in the departments he was in, he would not KNOW the relationship, and specifically what familiar link.
                    Therefore, getting the whole relationship wrong, factually, (that they were, infact, not related at all) severely weakens the authenticity of the other purported facts in the memorandum.
                    It simply doesn't make sense that this all revealing document should be given the level of acceptance in terms of truth that has always been taken for granted.

                    If I were being cynical, one would wonder if it was made up. Given the wrong facts re Ostrog. Given the wrong facts re Druitt, etc.


                    Phil
                    Phil, unless I have misunderstood you, you suggest that Macnaghten was either told or he assumed/guessed the relationship between Charles and Thomas. You then seemingly accept that it was an assumption and argue that this would undermine the whole document. But if Macnaghten had been told the relationship then he simply believed his source (the person or persons who told him), in which case the document isn't undermined at all.

                    As for the memorandum, who has said it is 'all revealing'? It clearly isn't and as far as we know was never intended to be. And I'm not sure why errors supposedly correlate with invention (made up). Why aren't errors simply errors?

                    The simplest and obvious explanation is that Macnaghten believed Charles and Thomas were uncle and nephew and that he never had cause to question the accuracy of the relationship, so wrote wrote what he did in his memorandum. Everyday you are told things you unquestioningly accept as true, things you don't think important enough to verify. Why is it so difficult to accept that this is what Macnaghten did?


                    Comment


                    • Hi Paul,

                      I find it hard to believe that Macnaghten made an honest mistake in his Cutbush reference, and yes, I believe we should prefer the supposition to the fact of the document, because the information contained within the fact of the document is erroneous. But exactly why he made this deliberate mistake is a mystery and a discussion for another day.

                      The whole of his memorandum is too artful for this to have been an honest mistake, and his artfulness is best showcased in his Ostrog reference.

                      "Michael Ostrog, a Russian doctor, and a convict, who was subsequently detained in a lunatic asylum as a homicidal maniac. This man's antecedents were of the worst possible type, and his whereabouts at the time of the murders could never be ascertained."

                      This may well have been true in 1888, but what Macnaghten doesn't mention in his 1894 memorandum are his dealings with Ostrog in 1891, when he personally wrote about him to the medical officer at Banstead asylum, to which institution he had been committed. There were no suspicions in his letter about Ostrog possibly having been the Ripper. No suspicions either [as far as we know] on Ostrog's release from Banstead in 1893.

                      If Macnaghten harboured any suspicions, this would have been an ideal time for him to examine them, discover Ostrog had been in a French jail throughout the WM and cross him off his suspect list.

                      By October 1894 the cat was out of the bag. Ostrog proved that he had been in a French jail in 1888/9, and the cops were paying him £10 compensation for false imprisonment.

                      Yet four years later the unnamed Ostrog was still amongst the suspects Macnaghten leaked to Major Griffiths for his book 'Mysteries of Crime and Police."

                      "The second possible criminal was a Russian doctor, also insane, who had been a convict both in England and Siberia . . . at the time of the Whitechapel murders he was in hiding, or, at least, his whereabouts were never exactly known."

                      If Macnaghten had maintained some of his old Etonian sense of fair play or even a shred of decency, he would by then, at least, have removed Ostrog from his suspects list.

                      But he didn't.

                      Regards,

                      Simon
                      Last edited by Simon Wood; 04-19-2019, 08:29 PM.
                      Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                        Hi Paul,

                        I find it hard to believe that Macnaghten made an honest mistake in his Cutbush reference, and yes, I believe we should prefer the supposition to the fact of the document, because the information contained within the fact of the document is erroneous. But exactly why he made this deliberate mistake is a mystery and a discussion for another day.

                        The whole of his memorandum is too artful for this to have been an honest mistake, and his artfulness is best showcased in his Ostrog reference.

                        "Michael Ostrog, a Russian doctor, and a convict, who was subsequently detained in a lunatic asylum as a homicidal maniac. This man's antecedents were of the worst possible type, and his whereabouts at the time of the murders could never be ascertained."

                        This may well have been true in 1888, but what Macnaghten doesn't mention in his 1894 memorandum are his dealings with Ostrog in 1891, when he personally wrote about him to the medical officer at Banstead asylum, to which institution he had been committed. There were no suspicions in his letter about Ostrog possibly having been the Ripper. No suspicions either [as far as we know] on Ostrog's release from Banstead in 1893.

                        If Macnaghten harboured any suspicions, this would have been an ideal time for him to examine them, discover Ostrog had been in a French jail throughout the WM and cross him off his suspect list.

                        By October 1894 the cat was out of the bag. Ostrog proved that he had been in a French jail in 1888/9, and the cops were paying him £10 compensation for false imprisonment.

                        Yet four years later the unnamed Ostrog was still amongst the suspects Macnaghten leaked to Major Griffiths for his book 'Mysteries of Crime and Police."

                        "The second possible criminal was a Russian doctor, also insane, who had been a convict both in England and Siberia . . . at the time of the Whitechapel murders he was in hiding, or, at least, his whereabouts were never exactly known."

                        If Macnaghten had maintained some of his old Etonian sense of fair play or even a shred of decency, he would by then, at least, have removed Ostrog from his suspects list.

                        But he didn't.

                        Regards,

                        Simon
                        Simon,
                        Your argument was that Macnaghten would have wanted to be accurate about the potentially embarrasing familial relationship betwwen Charles and Thomas and therefore he would have sought clarification from Charles. My reply was that one might reasonably think that, but that Macnaghten self-evidently didn't do it, presumably because he believed Charles and Thomas were uncle and nephew and had no reason to question it. You might find that hard to believe, as could I, but as a plausible explanation it isn't diminished by restating that Macnaghten was wrong. It is because he was wrong that you are presenting your argument and I am presenting mine. If I am wrong and Macnaghten did obtain clarification from Charles, and if he still wrote that Charles and Thomas were uncle and nephew despite having been told that it was not the case, a reason why Macnaghten wrote what he did has got to be made clear.

                        As for Ostrog, Macnaghten obviously favoured Druitt as the Ripper and he wrote that 'many circs' made Kosminski a good suspect, but of Ostrog he says only that his antecedents were very bad and his whereabouts in 1888 could not be ascertained. He doesn't say that anyone seriously suspected that Ostrog was Jack the Ripper. So if Ostrog was just a 'person of interest', why would that have beenmentioned in communications with Banstead in 1891/93? As for Major Griffiths, unfortunately we don't know when, where, why, or by whom he was made party to Macnaghten's thinking.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                          Phil, unless I have misunderstood you, you suggest that Macnaghten was either told or he assumed/guessed the relationship between Charles and Thomas. You then seemingly accept that it was an assumption and argue that this would undermine the whole document. But if Macnaghten had been told the relationship then he simply believed his source (the person or persons who told him), in which case the document isn't undermined at all.

                          As for the memorandum, who has said it is 'all revealing'? It clearly isn't and as far as we know was never intended to be. And I'm not sure why errors supposedly correlate with invention (made up). Why aren't errors simply errors?

                          The simplest and obvious explanation is that Macnaghten believed Charles and Thomas were uncle and nephew and that he never had cause to question the accuracy of the relationship, so wrote wrote what he did in his memorandum. Everyday you are told things you unquestioningly accept as true, things you don't think important enough to verify. Why is it so difficult to accept that this is what Macnaghten did?

                          Hello Paul

                          You may indeed have misunderstood my point slightly. Allow me to try to make it clearer?

                          MM maintained the two were Uncle and nephew.
                          I ask...how would he know that was the specific family link?
                          If he had been told/assumed/guessed they were cousins, it amounts to the same problem.
                          Either he was misinformed, misassumed or guessed incorrectly.

                          You see. The fact he specifically says uncle and nephew, indicates a lack of diligence (at the very least) in compiling his memorandum. The additional fact that they were not related in any way, actually poses more serious questions as to his work on the memorandum. It now becomes false. Not just a mistake. A falsity.

                          One mistake is fine. One falsity raises serious doubts over the rest of the documented, purported facts he had written.

                          Then we look at Ostrog. As Simon has written, so very much wrong on that person's antecedents. "Homicidal maniac" is clearly not just a mistake. It is false.

                          That makes 2 falsities in mentioning two people.

                          Then we have Druitt. Not a doctor. That's a, serious error too. And false.

                          It's simple. The MM cannot in any way be trusted as reliable due to serious falsities, not just errors, by the writer. It makes absolutely no difference if the writer is as close to the case as he is, the falsities outweigh his connections.

                          I ask again. How would MM KNOW the two names of Cutbush were
                          A) related.
                          B) were Uncle and Nephew.
                          C) not cousins.

                          And not the truth

                          D) totally unrelated.

                          ​​​​​​.....

                          When one simple question would reveal the truth about Cutbush.
                          When one question (in or by 1894) would reveal Ostrog was not a homicidal maniac who was locked up in France in 1888.
                          When one question would reveal Druitt was not a doctor at all.

                          Ipso facto. The Memoranda is totally unreliable.


                          Hope that makes it clear?


                          Phil
                          Last edited by Phil Carter; 04-19-2019, 11:56 PM.
                          Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


                          Justice for the 96 = achieved
                          Accountability? ....

                          Comment


                          • Ipso facto. The Memoranda is totally unreliable.
                            As stated, that is totally incorrect.

                            Hi Phil.

                            Although Mac. made errors with Ostrog and Cutbush what bearing does that have with Druitt?
                            You have said the Memorandum is not reliable because of the errors, yet the errors you are focused on are nothing to do with Druitt.

                            Mac. described M. J. Druitt as a doctor, and this was wrong, yet I'm sure you are not suggesting Mac. identified a different M. J. Druitt?
                            I'm equally sure you are not suggesting Mac. just made the Druitt accusation up, as he did manage to get some details correct.
                            In fact, quite a few details in this Memorandum as a whole are correct, and very detailed, even to the precise date of an event. So clearly he was working from actual written evidence in some cases. So the Memorandum is a mixture of both memory & records, and we do not know which is which, though in some cases we can guess.

                            'Cutting to the chase', as they say, what bearing does the erroneous occupation have on whether M. J. Druitt was a suspect or not?
                            As Druitt was not a doctor, does this mean, in your view, that he was not a suspect?


                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • Hi Paul,

                              Incidental intelligence.

                              In October 1893, Major Arthur Griffiths sat with Macnaghten on the Troup Committee, to inquire into the most effective methods for identifying habitual criminals. The committee presented its findings on 12th February 1894, eleven days prior to the Macnaghten memorandum [Report].

                              This, perhaps, was when, where and how Griffiths became party to Macnaghten's thinking.

                              Regards,

                              Simon
                              Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post


                                'Cutting to the chase', as they say, what bearing does the erroneous occupation have on whether M. J. Druitt was a suspect or not?
                                As Druitt was not a doctor, does this mean, in your view, that he was not a suspect?

                                I am one who also believes that the MM is unreliable and unsafe there are many reasons for this

                                When he lists his suspects the first being Kosminski I have to ask if this man was such an important suspect and in later years has in some eyes become a prime suspect why does he not mention his full name, and why does Swanson in the contentious marginalia only mention him also by surname? and of course why does no one else ever mentions the name Kosminski? We now know that the antecedents of Aaron Kosminksi do not fit the antecedents of his man Kosminski

                                If his information was as good as he himself believed it was, then surely he would have known that Druitt was a school teacher and not a doctor if it had come from the family

                                The issues surrounding Ostrog have been covered by others so I dont intend to repeat them.

                                So when you look at all those parts he got wrong I dont see how anyone can put their faith in the MM

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk



                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X