Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    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.
    Well clearly MM did not check his facts and follow up on what he had been told, nor did he check the accuracy of what he had written, otherwise there might have been some other mention of Druitt at some point. Senior officers of that rank do not do their own enquiries they delegate.

    As has been said before there is a long list of named suspects, now they cant all have been the killer can they? and Druitt is just another name on that list nothing more, and when you look at the list - Ostrog in jail in France-Kosminski later exonerated by MM. Is that to be believed, if so then why are people still suggesting Aaron Kosminski as a prime suspect?

    The MM is unsafe to rely on !

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

      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."
      So his own family only "believed" and MM put forward Druitt as a suspect based on that

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk





      Comment


      • Originally posted by AndrewL View Post
        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.
        Hello Andrew.

        If a Commissioner of Police is going to list details in a report to his superiors, he needs to make it clear if anything is just gossip, or reliable information. So, someone telling Mac. 'they knew a person who behaves badly' isn't anywhere near good enough. The public were reporting both strangers and neighbours to police because "they act weird". The papers have many incidental reports of such trivia, even police officials themselves complain about having to check out so many false accusations.
        So, we must place Mac's report on a higher level considering who his audience was, not the public, but his own superiors & peers.

        If we look at this chronologically, back when Druitt committed suicide we know of no police suspicions about him. His death & burial was a local quiet affair, not even making national news.

        Then, 2 years later, in 1891 this newspaper article came out from a West of England M.P. where we read that Jack the Ripper committed suicide after the last murder, he was the son of a surgeon and suffered from homicidal mania. This story may well have reached Mac. at Scotland Yard, given his interest in "that fascinating individual".

        In his memoirs (1914) he does say certain facts came to his attention some years after he joined the force (in June 1889).
        Interestingly, when writing about this case (Internal Report 1894, Memoirs 1914) Mac. uses some of the same points raised by that press article. That the killer committed suicide, that this took place soon after the Dorset Street affair, that he was "sexually insane" (homicidal mania), that a good many people believe it (Mac. - "his own family").

        The 'West of England' article may have been the cause of Mac's interest in the case. So all the private information may have been circumstantial but often evidence is circumstantial. It is when all these circumstances point to one conclusion that the theory takes form.

        Druitt went to stay with William, presumably at Bournemouth towards the end of October 1888. William may have learned something then, if he did it obviously wouldn't have been conclusive. But, when put together with other details perhaps a suspicious picture began to emerge.
        There can't have been anything conclusive and as all this occurred long after Montie past away then the police are not going to claim the case is solved.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Hi Simon.
          Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
          Hi Jon,

          But no evidence or gossip about Druitt.
          By name true, but that is understandable given the suspect is dead.

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

          Regards,

          Simon
          The medical source, in my view, may well have been one of the Tukes, them being close family friends.

          There must be a reason Montie killed himself at that location. If he was being diagnosed by Dr Tuke*, then there is a line of enquiry which has gone unnoticed.

          * Do people normally self diagnose when they have a serious mental condition?
          I thought it was more common for them to not be aware anything was wrong.
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            So his own family only "believed" and MM put forward Druitt as a suspect based on that

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            Mac. cannot say the family 'knew' he was the Ripper. 'Knew' is an absolute, which means proof exists.
            So what is the next step down from 'knew'?
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              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:



              - 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.
              Hello Herlock,

              You may be quoting me correctly but I'm afraid misusing the quote.

              When I wrote about the principle working the other way, I referred to the use of this 'private information'.
              That, in itself, being an integral part of the memoranda, which is agreed, should be read and used with caution.

              However, when theorists and Druittists write books and articles based on this document (the memoranda), I'm yet to see these authors state that we must proceed with caution from the outset. Oh no. What happens is the 'private information' gets expanded upon to prop up whatever notion needs propping up that follows it.

              So the merry go round of theorist and suspectologist continues unabated, simply because nobody stops at the start, and says.. Hang on.. If we must proceed with caution with the memoranda, ALL info contained within it must apply.. 'with caution'.

              It's OK to be cautious about the shawl. It's OK to be cautious about much else.. But when it comes the the memoranda and the marginalia, oh no, these two things should be left to fester and be the cause of extreme disagreement, and even allow book upon book to be published without the harder base scrutiny they both deserve.

              That's what I mean by it not being correct. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Whatever it is, if it is to be viewed with caution, then treat it as such before letting anyone get away affixing another wobbly wheel on the bandwagon just to keep the idea afloat. In another book....

              But that doesn't happen. Fair scrutiny doesn't occur because, in the case of the memoranda, no 'with caution' applies when writing books and articles that take MM's words and expands theory with them. The comments then become defensive, as if to protect it.

              Example.. Suddenly, calling a person a homicidal maniac (Ostrog) is just a 'mistake'. Incorrect. That is a vile accusation which is known to be totally untrue.
              With caution? Blimey.. And then some! A senior copper labelling a man as murderous, when the man is nothing near it, is way way out of order!
              On top of that, the man Ostrog, is nowhere near Whitechapel in 1888, and known to have been locked up in Paris by 1894. It becomes a fictitious lie.

              Example.. Getting details about another purported suspect, Druitt, are just mistakes. Incorrect. The whole basis for him being able to do medically linked anatomical misdeeds on the victims, is inferred, I. E. calling him a doctor. But the man never was a doctor. Not even of philosophy. That isn't just a mistake.. It is a falsity. A false fact. Yet a fact that supports the accusation of Druitt having medical or anatomical knowledge by passing exams to become a doctor, in order to help commit the crimes in some way. That is the infetence. It is outrageously wrong!

              Example.. When MM declares that Cutbush the policeman and Cutbush the criminal are related, he states a fact. Incorrect. But not only that, the man then lables the pair as Uncle and nephew. Now. People can dance around all day saying it was a mistake, but I'm afraid we are talking about a supposedly high ranking police officer here, making inferences about a brother policeman, not only linked by a family name, but a titled position to, a known physically harmful criminal! It is way out of line!

              Three central points about the marginalia, which are readily glossed over. They aren't, to quote Paul Begg" a "handful of errors/mistakes"... (example of glossing over) they are seriously false claims and facts. Seriously wrong. And all sorts of nonsense to somehow defend them are used in order to somehow allow the memoranda to be seen as mightily important in the genre..

              When it becomes very clear that either the writer, MM, is terribly at fault, or his sources are. Or both.

              In which case. 'Private information' recieved by and then claimed by MM, means diddly squat. It must be labled with the rest of the memoranda in mind.
              Unreliable, based on all of the above, from sources, or the writer. Or both.



              Phil
              Last edited by Phil Carter; 04-23-2019, 03:46 AM.
              Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


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

              Comment


              • In addition to the above.

                MM writes in his memoranda.

                About Cutbush..

                "... The cuts made by Colicott were quite different to the cut made by Cutbush (when he wounded Miss Johnson) who was no doubt influenced by a wild desire of morbid imitation.

                We thank MM for this err, assumption, and labelling.

                ​​​​​​" He is said to have studied medical books by day, & to have rambled about at night, returning frequently with his clothes covered with mud,..."

                Said to.. Please note. Said to. By whom? An unknown source?

                ".. It was found impossible to ascertain his movements on the nights of the Whitechapel Murders"

                The same applies to Ostrog, Druitt and Kosminski, also mentioned in the memoranda, but this comment is left out when referring to them...

                Now this is good..

                "His father died when he was quite young, and he was always a" spoilt" child"

                And..

                ".. Little reliance could be placed on the statements made by his mother or his aunt, who both appear to have been of a very excitable disposition."

                And

                "Cutbush was a nephew of the late Supt. Executive."

                Three comments. Let's examine them..

                1) If his father died when he was quite young, then, as a nephew to the policeman Cutbush, the father would have been the policeman's brother.
                Is there any record of Policeman Cutbush having a brother who died at the time when Cutbush the criminal was quite young? Because MM doesn't say.

                2) Because little reliance was placed on the mother or aunt, we must therefore wonder where the info re Cutbush came from. It cannot have been the policeman Cutbush, who would certainly know if he was related to Cutbush the criminal or not. But..

                As no other family source is referred to however, we must take it that either the mother or the aunt gave the info about Cutbush being related to the policeman, and that his father died young, and that he was a spoilt child. Seems natural that the close family would know these things.
                But.. "little reliance could be placed on the statements made by his mother or his aunt".

                So.. How reliable is the information about Cutbush, the criminal?

                MM goes to pains to use this information because he expands in his memoranda that three others were more likely than Cutbush to have been the Whitechapel murderer.

                As I said earlier.

                Either MM the writer is unreliable
                Or
                The sources giving the info to him are unreliable
                Or
                Both.

                If the sources are unreliable, (see MM's comments about two of them) then why does MM seemingly use the comments made by those sources? I. E. that policeman Cutbush and criminal Cutbush were related as Uncle and nephew. When, they certainly were not.

                And what does that tell you about MM's judgement of people in general? (re Ostrog being a homicidal maniac)

                It brings into question how reliable ANY of the sources in the memoranda are, if he (MM) knowingly uses unreliable comments from unreliable sources.


                Phil



                Last edited by Phil Carter; 04-23-2019, 04:34 AM.
                Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


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

                Comment


                • Hi Jon,

                  I also trawled through "Case notes, male patients, 1884-1893," at the Manor House Asylum, on the off chance of catching a fleeting glimpse of MJD.

                  No such luck.

                  Regards,

                  Simon
                  Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                    Mac. cannot say the family 'knew' he was the Ripper. 'Knew' is an absolute, which means proof exists.
                    So what is the next step down from 'knew'?
                    Believed has no evidential value, and in this case a belief simply adds more weight to hearsay

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      Believed has no evidential value, and in this case a belief simply adds more weight to hearsay

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      This is history, not a court of law, and the opinion of an informed source therefore does have 'evidential value'.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                        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
                        Hi Simon,

                        In Days of My Years Macnaghten wrote, '​​​​​​​Although the Whitechapel Murderer, in all probability, put an end to himself soon after the Dorset Street affair in November 1888, certain facts, pointing to this conclusion, were not in possession of the police till some years after I became a detective officer.' (my italics)

                        In the Daily Mail (2 June 1913), he was reported as saying, 'I have destroyed all my documents and there is now no record of the secret information which came into my possession at one time or another.’ He does not say how that information came into his possession, but 'secret' does not mean it wasn't information received by the police and transmitted to him through police channels.

                        Two public pronouncements therefore indicate that, or otherwise don't exclude the information having been received by the police, so it would be unsafe to conclude that Macnaghten was absolving or trying to absolve the Met from knowing anything about Druitt.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                          This is history, not a court of law, and the opinion of an informed source therefore does have 'evidential value'.
                          An informed source is an unreliable source without any corroboration, from back in 1888 right up to the present day.

                          Historical facts are there to be proved or disproved, same as evidential facts

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                            This is history, not a court of law, and the opinion of an informed source therefore does have 'evidential value'.
                            Hearsay is admissible in court anyway.

                            A scratch arguement to self serve and deflect.

                            Monty




                            Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

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

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Monty View Post

                              Hearsay is admissible in court anyway. Monty
                              Not as a general rule in today's legal system !

                              In this case MM speaks of receiving private information from someone other than from Druitt. So in effect the information becomes third hand and would be inadmissible

                              The Police Codes which I am sure you are familiar with from back then state

                              Hearsay.-1. A witness is not allowed to give evidence of what another person (except the prisoner) has said, unless it was said in the presence of the prisoner. This is what is meant by saying that hearsay is not evidence.

                              2. To this rule there are, however, the following exceptions :-
                              (i.) Dying Declaration (q.v.)
                              (ii.) In cases of rape, and indecent assault on women and girls, when the victim has, within a reasonable time after the alleged offence, made a complaint as to it to some other person, that person may give evidence of the complaint made.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                An informed source is an unreliable source without any corroboration, from back in 1888 right up to the present day.

                                Historical facts are there to be proved or disproved, same as evidential facts

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                Trevor,
                                Some points.
                                (1) An informed source is NOT an unreliable source. An informed source is a very good source. It's a source that should know what it is talking about. The alternatives would be an uninformed, under-informed or ill-informed source. They wouldn't be unreliable either because

                                (2) It is necessary to prove that a source is unreliable before you can declare it is such. Stating that an informed source is unreliable without evidence, as you have just done, is self-evidently wrong.

                                (3) What you actually wrote and on what I was commenting was, 'Believed has no evidential value...' It would be helpful to all concerned if you addressed the points made to you, rather than changing it to something else. Macnaghten saw the information and based his conclusion on it. He was informed - that is he was someone in possession of such relevant facts as existed, who saw the information and was intelligent enough to be able to judge the worth of that information, and who based a personal conclusion on what he knew and saw - so what he thought is therefore beyond question of evidential value. In historical terms he is what in your world would be an expert witness. That doesn't make him right, but you can't dismiss his conclusion, as you have done, without some good, solid evidence. You haven't presented any, only made arguments on which you irresponsibly declare that a potentially valuable historical source isn't worth the paper it's written on.

                                (4) It may be that we will never be able to corroborate what Macnaghten has written because corroboration may no longer exist. Proof and disproof may therefore be impossible. So what do you do then, Trevor? I'll tell you what you don't do, you don't drop a potentially valuable historical source into the rubbish bin, like you and Phil are advocating.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X