Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post

    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
    Hi Phil,
    Sorry, I understood what you were saying, but I thought you were going somewhere with it. It has always been known that the memoranda contains errors, so that's nothing new, but it's what the errors mean that matters. For example, nobody would seriously question that the memoranda is utterly unreliable as a source of information about Druitt, such as his occupation, but that doesn't mean that Macnaghten was wrong when he said that suspicion fell on Druitt as a result of 'private information'. Getting one's facts wrong is one thing, but inventing 'private information' is completely different. One needs evidence to support any argument that Macnaghten invented things like that, and as far as I know that evidence doesn't exist.

    So, yes, the memoranda is demonstrably unreliable is some respects, but it isn't in others. The point is that the memoranda presents problems which have been recognised almost since it was discovered, and you quite rightly point some of these out, but that doesn't mean the memoranda is discarded (which I know you haven't here suggested). If we discarded all historical documents that present problems we wouldn't have an awful lot of history left.









    Comment


    • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
      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
      Maybe it was, or maybe Griffiths attended one of Macnaghten's informal Monday dinners or otherwise during when the men socialised.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post


        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
        Trevor,
        If there was a man called 'Kosminski' upon whom suspicion fell, why does it matter that Macnaghten and Swanson provided no forename? Are you suggesting that because Macnaghten and Swanson provided no forename that no suspicion ever fell on a man named 'Kosminski'? Or even that 'Kosminski' never existed? If that is what you are suggesting, I think you're going to need more and far better evidence than the lack of a forename (which could be simply explained by Macnaghten and Swanson drawing upon the same source in which a forename was not given, though that is only a rather obvious suggestion, not anything I'm suggesting as a fact).

        I think everything that can be done has been done to answer your questions about the marginalia and it seems obvious that you will never be satisfied.

        As for Macnaghten knowing that Druitt was a school teacher not a doctor if the 'private information' had come from Druitt's family, you would have thought he would know that - if the information had come from Druitt's family. The logical conclusion therefore is that the information didn't come from Druitt's family, and I have pointed out for years that Macnaghten wrote, 'I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer' and that he'd probably have been in no doubt about what the family believed if the information had been received from the family. I'd therefore suggest that the answer to your question was implicit in the question itself.

        As said before, you are simply raising problems presented by the memoranda, but those problems don't have a bearing on the 'private information' implicating Druitt or the 'many circs' that made 'Kosminski' a good suspect. If those things existed, and as far as I am aware you haven't demonstrated that they didn't, Macnaghten's 'errors' don't much matter.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post


          I am one who also believes that the MM is unreliable and unsafe there are many reasons for this.....
          Isn't that a bit of an exaggeration?
          If you were honest with yourself you'd see there are far more correct statements in the Memorandum than incorrect statements.
          Historical documents do contain errors, the correct response to this is to investigate potential reasons why, not to dismiss the document entirely. Doesn't The Domesday Book also contain many errors?

          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.
          Mac. is writing around 1894, whereas Druitt was in the press some 6 years prior, and his candidacy seems to have surfaced several months or over a year later, so some factual detail may have been a bit hazy at the time of writing. It's not like the profession of 'doctor' was totally wide of the mark given Montie's father, uncle & cousin were all doctors.
          Does Mac. claiming Druitt was a doctor mean, Druitt was not a suspect?

          Explain what the relevance is, we know what the mistakes are, but how do these mistakes reflect on whether Druitt was a suspect or not?

          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

            Isn't that a bit of an exaggeration?
            If you were honest with yourself you'd see there are far more correct statements in the Memorandum than incorrect statements.
            Historical documents do contain errors, the correct response to this is to investigate potential reasons why, not to dismiss the document entirely. Doesn't The Domesday Book also contain many errors?



            Mac. is writing around 1894, whereas Druitt was in the press some 6 years prior, and his candidacy seems to have surfaced several months or over a year later, so some factual detail may have been a bit hazy at the time of writing. It's not like the profession of 'doctor' was totally wide of the mark given Montie's father, uncle & cousin were all doctors.
            Does Mac. claiming Druitt was a doctor mean, Druitt was not a suspect?

            Explain what the relevance is, we know what the mistakes are, but how do these mistakes reflect on whether Druitt was a suspect or not?
            The errors, and they are glaring errors which would have been avoidable if he had been privvy to accurate information on the suspects he mentions, and there are too many to be able to rely on the rest of what is contained therein as being accurate, and that in my mind makes the whole document unsafe to totally rely on.

            There is no record on any other suspicion being made against Druitt in connection with the murders, or his name being mentioned by any other officers involved even after 1894 when the memo was penned, thats another minus in the grand scheme of things. On the basis of what is known he is barely a person of interest, and what people seek to rely on with regards to his suspect status is nothing more than weak hearsay, which from an evidential point of view is not worth the paper it is written on.

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • If a second-half return ticket, Hammersmith to Charing Cross, dated 1st Dec., was found on the body then doesn't this suggest he never made the return trip back to Charing Cross. Or possibly, found other means of travel?

              If what William said was correct, that a friend told him on 11th Dec. that Montie had not been seen in his chambers for over a week, then this surely must mean since Saturday (1st) at least, not the Monday (3rd), as many theorists assume.
              We read quite often that Montie was last seen on the 3rd (a date assumed from the backdating of Williams statement).

              How did Montie get back to his chambers in Kings Bench Walk on the 3rd, if he didn't use the return ticket from Hammersmith to Charing Cross?

              Why did Montie go to Chiswick in the first place?
              David Andersen has suggested Montie may have visited the Tukes at the Manor House Asylum, I tend to agree. It may be possible that he took a room there after being dismissed and presumably evicted? from his room at Blackheath.
              This being the very next day, so needed somewhere to call home.

              I'm inclined to think the 'serious offense' which led to his dismissal?, was more to do with his mental state (did he loose his temper, with violence?).
              Montie would need to seek medical advice, and seek a place to stay - the Tukes could provide a solution to both his problems.

              If Montie had concerns about his mental state (as evidenced in the suicide note) then it is not out of the question that he sought professional advise from the family friends - the Tukes. And, as he had nowhere to stay, and the Manor House was a residential Home, he may have taken a room there while Dr. Tuke made some diagnosis of Montie's condition.
              So, possibly, he stayed at the Tukes over that weekend which is why the return ticket was not used.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • All is good, reasonable analyse, and well studied. But what does that count for ?!

                Nothing.

                It still makes Druitt no better suspect than Cutbush.

                And doesn't change the fact that Macnaghten didn't bother even to check the basic facts of his favoured suspect.


                The Baron

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  The errors, and they are glaring errors which would have been avoidable if he had been privvy to accurate information on the suspects he mentions, and there are too many to be able to rely on the rest of what is contained therein as being accurate, and that in my mind makes the whole document unsafe to totally rely on.

                  There is no record on any other suspicion being made against Druitt in connection with the murders, or his name being mentioned by any other officers involved even after 1894 when the memo was penned, thats another minus in the grand scheme of things. On the basis of what is known he is barely a person of interest, and what people seek to rely on with regards to his suspect status is nothing more than weak hearsay, which from an evidential point of view is not worth the paper it is written on.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  Trevor,
                  If it is accepted that the errors about the victims would have been avoidable if Macnaghten had possessed accurate information, the obvious and rational conclusion would be that Macnaghten did not possess accurate information. But that does not permit the conclusion that the suspects were not genuine suspects.

                  As for nobody else mentioning Druitt, that's far from surprising as nobody publicly named any suspect, and I agree that he is barely a person of interest 'on the basis of what is known', but we don't know anything about the 'private information' Macnaghten found so convincing so no conclusion based on the lack of information and ignorance is justified, is it?

                  Whatever the problems presented by the memoranda, it was a document apparently intended for internal consumption, written by someone who was there, was likely to have been reasonably well-informed, and who claims to have received or been party to information implicating Druitt, which he found compelling, and about which we know absolutely nothing. It's madness to dismiss such a source 'not worth the paper it is written on'.

                  The memoranda contains errors, but the importance of the memoranda is that Macnaghten was persuaded by 'private information' that Druitt was the Ripper and because Macnaghten says there were 'many circs' that made 'Kosminski' a good suspect (and there appears to be independent corroboration that 'Kosminski' was a suspect). You keep making the point that the memoranda contains factual errors, but there is a difference between making factual mistakes and inventing suspects, and you haven't presented a tittle of evidence or even argument that Macnaghten was given to wholesale invention, especially in a document presumably intended for distribution among people who, if such suspects didn't exist, would know it.


                  Comment


                  • Why, if we are being fair and reasonable and we actually want to further our understanding of all aspects of this case, is there such an apparent desperation to dismiss Druitt as a potential ripper? No one on this thread has said that Druitt was definately the ripper. Some, like Wickerman and Paul Begg, have no issue with keeping an open mind and yet we have it suggested that the MM is simply worthy of being ignored because it contained errors. Guess what.....otherwise honest, well-intentioned people do make errors when writing or talking of events in the past (even in the fairly recent past.) People can be over-confident in their own memory and so don’t think that they need to re-check details which results in errors. The fact that Mac didn’t mention Kosminski’s name is a trivial point and certainly not one worthy of treating the whole memoranda as a work of fiction. As Jon has suggested, do we dismiss the Doomsday book because of errors. Trevor, would you say that your book is completely error free? Is any ripper book completely error free? And these are books that have required research over an extended period. If we found an error in one of Paul’s book would we regard the whole book as unsafe? Or would we simply point out that he’d made an error?

                    The fact that Macnaghten mentioned Druitt as a likely suspect and that he believed that Druitt’s family suspected him of being the ripper is enough, in itself, to make Druitt a suspect and to push him past the legions of ‘suspects’ that have simply been plucked out of thin air purely on the basis that they were alive and walking around at the right time. More open-mindedness is required; more willingness to look closer. I’m more than happy to hear of more research and new suggestions about any suspect that I don’t favour so I have to ask why does Druitt raise so many hackles? It does smack of a desperation to dismiss him. Unfortunately for some, sixty years on, Druitt remains in the top tier of suspects.
                    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 04-20-2019, 03:09 PM.
                    Regards

                    Herlock






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

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                      If a second-half return ticket, Hammersmith to Charing Cross, dated 1st Dec., was found on the body then doesn't this suggest he never made the return trip back to Charing Cross. Or possibly, found other means of travel?

                      If what William said was correct, that a friend told him on 11th Dec. that Montie had not been seen in his chambers for over a week, then this surely must mean since Saturday (1st) at least, not the Monday (3rd), as many theorists assume.
                      We read quite often that Montie was last seen on the 3rd (a date assumed from the backdating of Williams statement).

                      How did Montie get back to his chambers in Kings Bench Walk on the 3rd, if he didn't use the return ticket from Hammersmith to Charing Cross?

                      Why did Montie go to Chiswick in the first place?
                      David Andersen has suggested Montie may have visited the Tukes at the Manor House Asylum, I tend to agree. It may be possible that he took a room there after being dismissed and presumably evicted? from his room at Blackheath.
                      This being the very next day, so needed somewhere to call home.

                      I'm inclined to think the 'serious offense' which led to his dismissal?, was more to do with his mental state (did he loose his temper, with violence?).
                      Montie would need to seek medical advice, and seek a place to stay - the Tukes could provide a solution to both his problems.

                      If Montie had concerns about his mental state (as evidenced in the suicide note) then it is not out of the question that he sought professional advise from the family friends - the Tukes. And, as he had nowhere to stay, and the Manor House was a residential Home, he may have taken a room there while Dr. Tuke made some diagnosis of Montie's condition.
                      So, possibly, he stayed at the Tukes over that weekend which is why the return ticket was not used.
                      If Druitt stayed at the Manor House before committing suicide, and his room there was where the suicide note was found by his brother, this would make Dr Tuke the last person known to have seen him alive. Surely this would have come up at the inquest?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

                        If Druitt stayed at the Manor House before committing suicide, and his room there was where the suicide note was found by his brother, this would make Dr Tuke the last person known to have seen him alive. Surely this would have come up at the inquest?
                        On the other hand, if Druitt's last place of residence was the school at Blackheath, then why wasn't Mr Valentine called to the inquest to offer an opinion on Druitt's state of mind?

                        I'm sure the police would have interviewed Dr Tuke (and Mr Valentine), so the Coroner would have read any statement made to police.
                        No press coverage lists all the witnesses who were called to the inquest, so we have no clear idea who gave evidence and who didn't.

                        In these days when much depends on who you know as opposed to what you know. The Tuke's may have had sufficient clout to keep their name out of the press, especially in a scandalous case like suicide. Not good for business if your business is treating mental disorder.
                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • Hi Paul,

                          I found a note today from 2013 which includes the following—

                          "Paul Begg tells us that MJD was last seen two days later on Monday 3 December. Maddeningly, though, he doesn't tell us who saw him or where."

                          Is this correct, and could you please expand?

                          Regards,

                          Simon
                          Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                            There is no record on any other suspicion being made against Druitt in connection with the murders, or his name being mentioned by any other officers involved even after 1894 when the memo was penned, thats another minus in the grand scheme of things. On the basis of what is known he is barely a person of interest, and what people seek to rely on with regards to his suspect status is nothing more than weak hearsay, which from an evidential point of view is not worth the paper it is written on.
                            True, Mac. seems to be the only police official who mentioned Druitt. Though, we are not debating a, "my gang's bigger than your gang" scenario.
                            It only takes one official to create or release the identity of a suspect, so we have what is necessary.

                            Isn't it strange how you choose to talk of evidence, when there is no evidence in support of any suspect.

                            Yet coincidences are not difficult to identify.
                            Montie's mother was certified insane just days before Nichols was murdered in August 88.
                            PC Smith identified a suspect in Berner st., aged 28, height about 5' 8", small dark moustache, hard felt hat, respectably dressed - not unlike Druitt at 31 yrs old.
                            Montie turns up dead, coincidentally?, not long after the Kelly murder.
                            Commissioner Monro, on 26 Jan. 89, wrote that he was reducing the number of men employed on this Special Duty in Whitechapel.
                            Then again, 15 Mar. 89, Monro writes that all Special Duties have now ceased.

                            Why was Commissioner Monro so sure?

                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                              Hi Paul,

                              I found a note today from 2013 which includes the following—

                              "Paul Begg tells us that MJD was last seen two days later on Monday 3 December. Maddeningly, though, he doesn't tell us who saw him or where."

                              Is this correct, and could you please expand?

                              Regards,

                              Simon
                              Remember something said poor to 2013? Er, no, not offhand!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                                True, Mac. seems to be the only police official who mentioned Druitt.
                                In the mid-1890s, Inspector Henry Moore stated that the Ripper was dead. Donald Swanson made a similar statement, also in the mid-90s. But, of the known suspects, Kosminski, Cutbush, Tumilty, Sadler, Pizer, Ostrog, etc. were all drawing breath. Only Druitt was dead.

                                So, if not MJD, to whom were they referring?

                                Paul - maybe an assumption based on Druitt's headstone? WHD must have had some reason for assigning that specific date. Dec 3rd seems like a reasonable guess.

                                Click image for larger version

Name:	Druitt.JPG
Views:	114
Size:	3.3 KB
ID:	706893

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X