Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • Originally posted by AndrewL View Post
    But as an experienced police office, presumably Macnaghten would have been aware of this factor and taken it into account?
    Macnaghten was not an experienced police officer, in fact when he joined in 1889 he had no previous police or investigative experience, and was therefore vulnerable to believing what he was told without first proving or disproving it before putting pen to paper, which is what experienced officers would do first.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post

      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
      And so the alternative is to disregard it? At a distance of 130 we simply decide that the thoughts of the number two police officer in the country can be dismissed? We all know better. Game over. Macnaghten couldn’t possibly have had genuine reasons for believing Druitt to have been a likely suspect? Or that no one should write a book which expresses an opinion on it or make possible interpretations based on it?

      We appear to be approaching a territory where those that are intransigent in their opposition to Druitt as a potential candidate are seeking to impose a kind of ‘blasphemy law’ in regard to the memoranda. The almost irate tone that this subject generates is frankly bizarre. With an ever swelling hoard of pathetic, baseless suspects to rail against why is so much energy and anger expounded on a suspect that was mentioned by someone of the standing of Sir Melville Macnaghten? Of course, as Paul has said, caution needs to be applied (the more the better in my opinion in place of biased over-confidence) But when you say this Phil:

      . I suggest it shows that strict guidelines only seem to work one way.
      - then I’d suggest that you re-read this thread. Not one single poster has suggested that Druitt was definitely the ripper or that questions shouldn’t be asked about the memoranda. Or that we shouldn’t view things critically. Yet it appears to be ok for anyone to make the blanket claim that the memoranda isn’t worth the paper it was written on. Or that we should completely rubbish Macnaghten’s credibility because of two errors. We’ve even heard it suggested that when it was reported that a son of a surgeon was fished out of the Thames that it could have been a completely different son of a surgeon (as sons of surgeons are apparently fished out of the Thames with monotonous regularity.) In other words, I can only see biased thinking coming from one side here. And it isn’t even: Druitt was the ripper/ Druitt wasn’t the ripper. It’s the moderate Druitt might possibly have been the ripper against the categorical Druitt wasn’t the ripper.

      Why is it so wrong or stupid to believe that Macnaghten might indeed have received genuine private information and that Druitt’s family might indeed have had good reason for believing Druitt to have been the ripper? It’s hardly a flat earth theory.

      Regards

      Herlock






      "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        Macnaghten was not an experienced police officer, in fact when he joined in 1889 he had no previous police or investigative experience, and was therefore vulnerable to believing what he was told without first proving or disproving it before putting pen to paper, which is what experienced officers would do first.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        And so all of the career police officers were immune to this fault then? Macnaghten was just a gullible fool that bluffed and blundered his was through his police career? Are there any other ways that you could seek to discredit him Trevor? Perhaps the fact that he was a cricket fan and was taught to respect the decision of the umpire then this might show that he was too unwilling to question?
        Regards

        Herlock






        "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

        Comment


        • "her condition being one mainly of apathy with an unreasonable refusal to spend money."

          Did I read that correctly? The British medicos found a woman who didn't like to spend money... and they attempted to cure her??!?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
            "her condition being one mainly of apathy with an unreasonable refusal to spend money."

            Did I read that correctly? The British medicos found a woman who didn't like to spend money... and they attempted to cure her??!?
            And maybe Druitt was afraid going to be like her?!



            ​​

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              And so all of the career police officers were immune to this fault then? Macnaghten was just a gullible fool that bluffed and blundered his was through his police career? Are there any other ways that you could seek to discredit him Trevor? Perhaps the fact that he was a cricket fan and was taught to respect the decision of the umpire then this might show that he was too unwilling to question?
              i am not discrediting him I am replying to the post in which it was suggested he was an inexperienced police officer because he wasn’t and the same applies to the other senior officers who were given senior posts with np police or investigative experience

              www.trevormarriott.couk



              Comment


              • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                "her condition being one mainly of apathy with an unreasonable refusal to spend money."

                Did I read that correctly? The British medicos found a woman who didn't like to spend money... and they attempted to cure her??!?
                Regards

                Herlock






                "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by The Baron View Post

                  And maybe Druitt was afraid going to be like her?!



                  ​​
                  I think we can safely say that Druitt was worried about being afflicted with incurable miserliness. He was more likely worried that he was advancing toward a state where he just couldn’t function normally in society. Maybe he was subject to fits of temper? This erratic behaviour might account for Druitt’s sacking from the school?
                  Regards

                  Herlock






                  "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    Macnaghten was not an experienced police officer, in fact when he joined in 1889 he had no previous police or investigative experience, and was therefore vulnerable to believing what he was told without first proving or disproving it before putting pen to paper, which is what experienced officers would do first.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    But Trevor you don’t need to be an experienced police officer to realise the importance of checking facts. By far the most important fact, vastly more important than his age and occupation, was his name and it’s there in black and white.
                    Regards

                    Herlock






                    "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by PaulB View Post
                      .....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.
                      ....
                      And, to expand on that....

                      Mac. did not include the mental diagnosis within that 'private information', it seems to me the source of that "sexually insane" was quite separate:
                      "...He was sexually insane and from private information I have little doubt but that his own family believed him to have been the murderer."

                      I cannot accept that Mac. would make such a definitive statement about a suspect ("he was sexually insane") to his superiors without it being established on medical grounds, or stated by a medical professional. This is not like writing, "..people say he's crazy".

                      Mac. is sharing a definite conclusion, and it seems he did not obtain that by gossip, or from hearsay, otherwise the whole sentence would have began with "from private information I have little doubt he was sexually insane...etc. etc".
                      But no, the "sexually insane" bit was stated as if it was a fact, separate from the hearsay "private information".

                      Therefore Mac. in my opinion, had two sources, one medical & one with family connections.


                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post

                        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.
                        Excuse me Simon, but doesn't the Farqaharson letter qualify as gossip, and all those passages in the press about the ripper committing suicide.
                        Then there's the local rumor around Blackheath, (found by PaulB I believe) concerning Naval Officer H. L. Fleet who in January of 1895 returned to Blackheath and declared, "The Heath itself had a bad reputation after dark. When we lived there formerly it was considered dangerous, for the terrible series of crimes committed by Jack the Ripper were then being perpetrated, and many people believed he lived in Blackheath...etc".

                        None of it made headlines true, but there has been a consistent undercurrent of rumour concerning a Druitt-type suspect.

                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • Hi Jon,

                          But no evidence or gossip about Druitt.

                          Who would Macnaghten's medical source have been for the 'sexually insane' diagnosis?

                          Regards,

                          Simon
                          Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Phil Carter View Post

                            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
                            Phil,
                            I said there was a world of difference between Macnaghten making factual slips and Macnaghten inventing things that never happened. Where is there any point of comparison between that and using a questionable source when writing a book about Druitt?

                            Whilst the memoranda contains a few contextually unimportant errors which mean it should be used with caution, that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be used at all. The memoranda is neither all right nor all wrong. The job is to distinguish which is which, to sort what which can be safely used from that which can't. You're not foing that. You are trying to discredit the memoranda because it contains a handful of inconsequential errors, and by grossly exaggerating those errors as parading false facts and referring to ‘an odd truism here and there’.

                            The memoranda isn't an unreliable source, it's a source that needs to be used with caution.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                              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
                              Hi Simon,
                              I'm obviously a bit dim here, but what suspicion were the Metropolian Police under that the 'private information' absolved them?

                              As said before, there's hardly a jot of evidence or a breath of gossip about any suspect. Why would one expect Druitt to be any different?

                              Macnaghten may be leading us up the garden path, but the evidence of him doing it seems sparse, to say the least, and doesn't seem to extend much beyond claiming that 'private information' implicating Druitt was invented because Macnaghten said Druitt was a doctor instead of a barrister/schoolmaster.

                              Comment


                              • Hi Paul,

                                The skinny about Druitt came from 'private information'.

                                It did not come through normal Metropolitan Police channels.

                                Therefore, Macnaghten neatly absolved the Metropolitan Police from any knowledge or suspicions in the matter of MJD having been the Ripper.

                                All the police knew about at the time were the finding and recovery of the body and the inquest details.

                                Regards,

                                Simon
                                Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X