Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    wherever it came from doesn’t change how it is assessed and evaluated and what conclusions can be drawn

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Itis hearsay because mm is passing on something he has heard or been told without anything to support the truthfulness of what was told


    All Macnaghten is telling you is that he received ‘private information’ that implicated Druitt and that he found it sufficiently impressive to accept that Druitt was the murderer. That is direct first-hand experience. It’s not hearsay. You wrote, ‘the so called evidence/sources you seek to rely on to support Druitt are nothing more than hearsay, and no matter what it was. it is not available today.’ What Macnaghten wrote is available today and you know what it is, so you weren’t talking about Macnaghten but about the ‘private information’, the nature of which we do not know. That's why I asked you to explain how you could possibly know that the ‘private information’ was hearsay when you didn’t know what it was. It seems clear that you are confusing what Macnaghten said, which isn't hearsay, with the private information', which could be hearsay, but we don't know what it was so we can't say - unless you can say what it was.

    There lies the rub of the green because most of those on the list are nothing more at best persons of interest most suggested as a result of someone wild speculative theory


    That’s irrelevant. The topic was why you think it significant that there is no surviving documentation to corroborate Druitt when there is almost no surviving documentation to corroborate any suspect.

    i have already answered this previous

    I think you’ll find you didn’t. We’re not talking about Macnaghten, but about whether the ‘private information’ he received was good or bad. You described it as hearsay. You have yet to explain how you can describe that information as hearsay when you don’t know what it was.

    wherever it came from doesn’t change how it is assessed and evaluated and what conclusions can be drawn

    The question I asked was why you keep saying that the ‘private information’ came from Druitt’s family when analysis suggests that it didn’t. You haven’t answered that.

    Trevor, the Macnaghten memorandum tells us that Macnaghten received ‘private information’ that implicated Druitt in the murders. The question is, did Macnaghten invent that ‘private information’ or was it real? You can heap Macnaghten’s errors up, but they have no bearing on whether Macnaghten invented that 'private information' or not. If you have good, sensible evidence that he invented it, please present it.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Observer View Post

      As I said above I find it very hard to believe that a family member would divulge information to the effect that they were of a belief that Monty was Jack The Ripper. Let's see William confided in someone? Yes that's just the kind of thing you would confide to a colleague.
      When your family consists of surgeons, lawyers & priests, there may be a outlet to the burden you carry.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Observer View Post

        To the extent that the family member in question was Jack The Ripper? I find that hard to believe.
        I find it hard to believe too, but that doesn't mean it didn't or couldn't have happened. But there seems little to be gained from such speculation. All Macnaghten says is that he had little doubt about what the family believed, which could mean that what the family believed was inferred rather than based on anything approaching a direct admission.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
          What if William confided in someone whilst Monty was still alive in an effort to decide what to do ie how to get Monty incarcerated without causing a scandal?
          Or even Montie did something had something or acted in some way, am I paranoid to think he might be Jacky Boy?
          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


          • Originally posted by PaulB View Post


            Trevor, the Macnaghten memorandum tells us that Macnaghten received ‘private information’ that implicated Druitt in the murders. The question is, did Macnaghten invent that ‘private information’ or was it real? You can heap Macnaghten’s errors up, but they have no bearing on whether Macnaghten invented that 'private information' or not. If you have good, sensible evidence that he invented it, please present it.
            You know full well that there is no evidence to show that he invented it, so it has to be assessed on face value, and because we dont know where it did come from, or how reliable the source was, even more reason to treat it with caution,especially if the source was outside the family circle.

            We must also not take the view that just because MM believed what he was told we must readily accept it as being gospel and of course MM did not clearly confide in the senior officers above him in rank because none of them suggest the identity of the killer was known

            May I remind you what Abberline said in 1903 in The Pall Mall Gazette

            “We have never believed all those stories about Jack the Ripper being dead, or that he was a lunatic, or anything of that kind.”Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago. It is simple nonsense to talk of the police having proof that the man is dead. I am, and always have been, in the closest touch with Scotland Yard, and it would have been next to impossible for me not to have known all about it. Besides, the authorities would have been only too glad to make an end of such a mystery, if only for their own credit."

            There is another newspaper article in existence which I don't have in which Abberline was specifically asked about Druitt following his death, and he kicked the suggestion into touch

            On the basis of what is known Druitts status as a suspect is poorly deserved

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk



            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              You know full well that there is no evidence to show that he invented it, so it has to be assessed on face value, and because we dont know where it did come from, or how reliable the source was, even more reason to treat it with caution,especially if the source was outside the family circle.

              We must also not take the view that just because MM believed what he was told we must readily accept it as being gospel and of course MM did not clearly confide in the senior officers above him in rank because none of them suggest the identity of the killer was known
              Yes, I do know full well that there is no evidence that he invented it. I also know that it isn't reasonable to suppose that Macnaghten would have referred so positively to a suspect in a document intended for distribution among senior officers and politicians who may well have asked for clarification if he had been unable to provide it, which is why I find it ridiculous that you are trying so hard to discredit what Macnaghten says by dismissing it as hearsay.

              Nobody has said Macnaghten's 'private information' shouldn't be treated with caution, but there is a world of difference between treating it with caution and trying to discredit it by claiming it is hearsay or declaring the memoranda isn't worth the paper it's written on like you have been doing.

              Likewise, nobody has said that we must readily accept what Macnaghten said as gospel. However, as said, you have been trying very hard to discredit Macnaghten's 'private information' and the 'many circs' that made Kosminski a good suspect by comparing those claims to common and contextually unimportant errors, stating that everything Macnaghten wrote is therefore unreliable, and dismissing the memoranda as worthless.


              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
              May I remind you what Abberline said in 1903 in The Pall Mall Gazette

              “We have never believed all those stories about Jack the Ripper being dead, or that he was a lunatic or anything of that kind.”Scotland Yard is really no wiser on the subject than it was fifteen years ago. It is simple nonsense to talk of the police having proof that the man is dead. I am, and always have been, in the closest touch with Scotland Yard, and it would have been next to impossible for me not to have known all about it. Besides, the authorities would have been only too glad to make an end of such a mystery, if only for their own credit."
              Abberline was wrong though, wasn't he? Melville Macnaghten did believe that the Ripper was dead and Robert Anderson did believe the Ripper was a lunatic, so who is the 'we' Abberline is talking about? And if Abberline didn't know what these men believed - which clearly he didn't - then he was not as closely in touch with Scotland Yard as he thought. It's also questionable whether the authorities would or could have officially stated that Druitt (or anyone else) was Jack the Ripper without a trial and conviction, so Abberline's statement immediately presents problems.

              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
              There is another newspaper article in existence which I don't have in which Abberline was specifically asked about Druitt following his death, and he kicked the suggestion into touch

              On the basis of what is known Druitts status as a suspect is poorly deserved

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              Trevor, you've argued that the memoranda must be treated with caution, which is true, and you've cited a dubious statement by Abberline, and on the basis of that you confidently declare that 'Druitt's status as a suspect is poorly deserved'? I'm sorry, but that's absolute rubbish. Druitt's status as a suspect is based on 'private information', the nature and quality of which is unknown to you, and on Macnaghten's acceptance of that information, and you haven't presented any analysis to suggest that Macnaghten was prone to faulty judgement. On top of which, you haven't responded sensibly to any of the responses to your previous declarations.
              Last edited by PaulB; 04-22-2019, 10:33 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by GUT View Post
                Or even Montie did something had something or acted in some way, am I paranoid to think he might be Jacky Boy?
                I certainly think that he could have been GUT.
                Regards

                Herlock






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

                Comment


                • On the basis of what is known Druitts status as a suspect is poorly deserved
                  Im sorry but this statement is a bit rich when you can propose Feigenbaum as a better suspect based purely on yet another alleged confession. A man for whom we have no proof that he was even in Whitechapel at the time of the murders. Druitt is a very reasonable suspect, like Kosminski. We cannot simply dismiss them by nitpicking.
                  Regards

                  Herlock






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

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    I certainly think that he could have been GUT.
                    I was suggesting that William (or another family member) could have said this to someone. And then that found its way to Mac.
                    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


                    • A quick question - can anybody suggest what kind of "private information" might have been strong enough to ultimately persuade Macnaghten of Druitt's guilt but not strong enough to be immediately conclusive? In other words, something that may have seemed quite tenuous at first but became increasingly convincing the more Macnaghten thought about it?

                      I know some theorists have objected that it may just have been along the lines of "Montie was behaving strangely", which would hardly be surprising since he was about to kill himself. And I know that in many other high-profile murder cases, people have jumped to conclusions about their friends or relatives that turned out to be completely unjustified. But as an experienced police office, presumably Macnaghten would have been aware of this factor and taken it into account?

                      I can only think of three possibilities:
                      1. Druitt had expressed a hatred of women, perhaps prostitutes in particular.
                      2. Druitt had been spotted wearing blood-stained clothing shortly after one of the murders.
                      3. Druitt had started spending time in the East End.

                      None of these, however, really satisfy me - does anyone have a better suggestion?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by GUT View Post

                        I was suggesting that William (or another family member) could have said this to someone. And then that found its way to Mac.
                        Understood GUT. I see what you mean.
                        Regards

                        Herlock






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

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                          Nobody has said Macnaghten's 'private information' shouldn't be treated with caution, but there is a world of difference between treating it with caution and trying to discredit it by claiming it is hearsay or declaring the memoranda isn't worth the paper it's written on like you have been doing.
                          Hello Paul

                          Then by your own basis of judgement, there is a world of difference between treating it with caution, and writing a book, based upon this 'private information' and then, enhanced, use such to try to push this suspects legitimacy and guilt based on stuff that should be treated with caution in the first place.

                          The only thing that happens then is allowing the genre to be expanded on stuff which should be treated with caution.

                          Just like the shawl. Etc etc etc.

                          My apologies if I'm wrong, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander.



                          Phil
                          Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


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

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post

                            Hello Paul

                            Then by your own basis of judgement, there is a world of difference between treating it with caution, and writing a book, based upon this 'private information' and then, enhanced, use such to try to push this suspects legitimacy and guilt based on stuff that should be treated with caution in the first place.

                            The only thing that happens then is allowing the genre to be expanded on stuff which should be treated with caution.

                            Just like the shawl. Etc etc etc.

                            My apologies if I'm wrong, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander.



                            Phil
                            Hi Phil,
                            I haven't said anything about a book being written based on the 'private information' so I don't know what you are talking about.

                            The only thing I said there was a world of difference between is the difference that exists between errors and lies, and why the former has no bearing on the latter - specifically highlighting the contextually minor errors about Druitt and Cutbush and apparently using that to discredit the 'private information' and the 'many circs' upon which the suspicions against Druitt and Kosminski are based.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                              Hi Phil,
                              I haven't said anything about a book being written based on the 'private information' so I don't know what you are talking about.
                              Hello Paul,

                              I am fully aware of what you did not say. So I wrote it. What's good for the goose, based on the same principles you use in your argument. It works the other way too. I quoted your 'world of difference' sentence in full.

                              Any book, or theory, in book form, based on the 'private information', which you yourself admit needs to be treated with caution, only serves to expand the Druitt theory, but it is based on something that should be treated with caution to start with. Like the shawl.
                              What's good for the goose. The principle works the other way.

                              And unlike the principle working the opposite way, as you wrote about, I suggest it shows that strict guidelines only seem to work one way.

                              I maintain that the only way to loosen the solid nut on this 100 year plus car engine, is to get rid of the stuff clogging up the genre that nobody wishes to remove.
                              The memoranda is unreliable, as in many examples within it, it is shown to parade false facts. The odd truism here and there do not enhance it's reputation.
                              Either the writer is unreliable as a source, or the facts are. Even a combination of both.
                              The writer's proximity to the problem is negated by the falsities he presents. Imho.

                              Phil
                              Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


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

                              Comment


                              • Hi Paul,

                                I said before that I thought the MM was artful, and nowhere is it more so than in its reference to 'private information', which neatly absolved the Metropolitan Police from any suspicion in the matter.

                                Strange how there's not a jot of evidence or a breath of gossip, other than the MM, with which to point the finger of suspicion at Druitt.

                                All the MM is doing is leading us up the garden path.

                                Regards,

                                Simon
                                Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X