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

    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
    Except this isn't a court of law and hearsay is allowed.

    Anyway, the point is that you are not dealing with hearsay. Macnaghten is stating as fact that 'private information' was received, and he is stating his belief based on that information that Druitt was probably Jack the Ripper. Those statements are his, not something he has been told and is repeating. Either there was 'private information' implicating Druitt or there wasn't.

    Comment


    • Hi Paul,

      I agree. 'Secret' may mean it was information received by the police and transmitted to him through police channels.

      But 'Private inf' or 'information,' the term used in the 1894 memorandum and subsequent Aberconway version, suggests something else entirely.

      Also, possibility and probability are not certainty.

      1894 Memorandum—

      A much more rational theory is that the murderer's brain gave way altogether after his awful glut in Miller's Court, and that he immediately committed suicide, or, as a possible alternative, was found to be so hopelessly mad by his relations, that he was by them confined in some asylum.

      Aberconway Version—

      " . . . or, as a less likely alternative, was found to be so hopelessly insane by his relatives, that they, suspecting the worst, had him confined in some lunatic asylum."

      Days of My Years—

      “. . . the Whitechapel murderer, in all probability, put an end to himself soon after the Dorset Street affair in November 1888 . . .”

      “There can be no doubt,” he continued, “that in the room at Millers Court the madman found ample scope for the opportunities he had all along been seeking, and the probability is that, after his awful glut on this occasion, his brain gave way altogether and he committed suicide; otherwise the murders would not have ceased” [my italics].

      Macnaghten, the Artful Dodger, was having it every which way.

      Regards,

      Simon
      Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

        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.

        The document itself proves that is it full of errors and unsafe without corroboration, especially with regards to Druitt. All the other errors are proven and there are other facts that go some way to proving him wrong about Druitt

        (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.

        Under the circumstances it has been presented and what is known I would suggest just that

        (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.
        You treat it as unsafe to rely on, but whats the point in keep arguing you clearly believe that the information he received was given in good faith and perhaps it was, but from that information there is nothing to suggest anyone else suspected Druitt, and if the info had been genuine and as good as you seem to think, he didnt share such important information with anyone else. So that says something for its value.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
          Hi Paul,

          I agree. 'Secret' may mean it was information received by the police and transmitted to him through police channels.

          But 'Private inf' or 'information,' the term used in the 1894 memorandum and subsequent Aberconway version, suggests something else entirely.

          Also, possibility and probability are not certainty.

          1894 Memorandum—

          A much more rational theory is that the murderer's brain gave way altogether after his awful glut in Miller's Court, and that he immediately committed suicide, or, as a possible alternative, was found to be so hopelessly mad by his relations, that he was by them confined in some asylum.

          Aberconway Version—

          " . . . or, as a less likely alternative, was found to be so hopelessly insane by his relatives, that they, suspecting the worst, had him confined in some lunatic asylum."

          Days of My Years—

          “. . . the Whitechapel murderer, in all probability, put an end to himself soon after the Dorset Street affair in November 1888 . . .”

          “There can be no doubt,” he continued, “that in the room at Millers Court the madman found ample scope for the opportunities he had all along been seeking, and the probability is that, after his awful glut on this occasion, his brain gave way altogether and he committed suicide; otherwise the murders would not have ceased” [my italics].

          Macnaghten, the Artful Dodger, was having it every which way.

          Regards,

          Simon
          Hi Simon,
          It is noticeable, however, that the memorandum allowes for 'Kosminski' (the hopelessly insane suspect committed by his family), which could be a nod to Anderson, whereas in Days of My Years, in which he was free to stress his personal beliefs, he only referred to his suicide suspect. So, perhaps not a case of trying to have it all ways, but simply a case of being free from office politics.

          Comment


          • Hi Paul,

            I guess we'll have to agree to differ.

            I think the memorandum is evidentially worthless, and I wouldn't trust Anderson further than I can spit.

            Regards,

            Simon
            Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              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
              All depends on if we are being selective in our dates.

              Section 116 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides that, where a witness is unavailable, hearsay is admissible where a) the relevant person is dead; b) the relevant person is unfit to be a witness because of his bodily or mental condition; c) the relevant person is outside the UK and it is not reasonably practicable to secure his attendance; d) the relevant person cannot be found; e) through fear, the relevant person does not give oral evidence in the proceedings and the court gives leave for the statement to be given in evidence.

              The two main common law exceptions to the rule that hearsay is inadmissible are receiving gestae and confessions.

              This is nit picking
              Monty




              Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

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

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                You treat it as unsafe to rely on, but whats the point in keep arguing you clearly believe that the information he received was given in good faith and perhaps it was, but from that information there is nothing to suggest anyone else suspected Druitt, and if the info had been genuine and as good as you seem to think, he didnt share such important information with anyone else. So that says something for its value.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                The memoranda is certainly unsafe in parts, but that doesn’t mean it is unsafe throughout. The job of any sensible person is to identify what can be used safely and what can’t. And I don’t believe the information was received in good faith, I certainly don’t know whether the information was genuine or not, and I don’t think it was good (or bad) information. What concerns me is whether or not that ‘private information’ existed, because if it did then one or more other people suspected Druitt, and the information was self-evidently good enough to persuade Macnaghten that Druitt was likely the murderer. There is a big difference between making mistakes and making things up, and all the mistakes in the world don’t prove that Macnaghten invented that 'private information'.

                No right thinking person advocates ditching a potentially valuable historical document without extraordinarilly good evidence and you haven't really presented any evidence at all. You can highlight the errors until you are blue in the face, but they don't have any bearing on the reality of that 'private information'. To advocate losing the memoranda on the 'evidence' you are arguing is an act of total irresponsibility.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                  Hi Paul,

                  I guess we'll have to agree to differ.

                  I think the memorandum is evidentially worthless, and I wouldn't trust Anderson further than I can spit.

                  Regards,

                  Simon
                  Hi Simon,
                  I guess we will.

                  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
                    Belief is all that exists with any suspect, so you concede Druitt is no worse then?
                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      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?
                      I'm inclined to think there may be a variety of interpretations.

                      How often do people contemplating suicide change their mind? Or, maybe are interrupted, or something doesn't go to plan?
                      Do they throw that suicide note away, write another when the time presents itself again. Or do they just keep it, they know the inevitable outcome, it's going to happen again, so stick the note away in some pocket?

                      Which begs the question, how old was that suicide note found among Druitt's possessions?

                      Had he just written it, as is the predominant theory. Or, did he write it a week or two ago?
                      Or, (if he was Jack), was it written the day after the Millers Court murder? Which presents a different meaning to the phrase, "..since Friday..."


                      Alternately, when he supposedly wrote, "..I felt I was going to be like mother". We have jumped to the conclusion he was talking about her illness. Yet his mother seemed to have predominantly suffered from depression to the extent of melancholia.
                      His mother was 58/9, she died the next year at 60. Montie was only 31, what would possess a perfectly healthy 31 year old to kill himself in anticipation of developing depression, like his 60 year old mother?
                      He could have had a couple of decades of perfectly healthy living before that happens.
                      This interpretation makes the least sense to me. It must be rare for a person to suddenly kill themselves with no prior symptoms of mental illness.

                      On the other hand, perhaps there had been symptoms over the past few months, or years, but symptoms of what, if we rule out depression?
                      Were his siblings aware of something not right with Montie? He kept up his cricket engagements, still pursued his legal career, in fact appeared in court just four days (Nov. 27th) before he killed himself.
                      Was he struggling with some mental challenge while trying to keep his professional responsibilities in tact?

                      When Druitt wrote, "I felt I was going to be like mother", he maybe was not talking about her illness, but the fact he didn't want to spend the rest of his life in a mental home "like mother"!

                      In other words, what Montie could have meant was:
                      " after what happened on Friday I might spend the rest of my life in a mental home just like mother".

                      Which Friday is he talking about, and what happened, and what convinced him his mental problem was so serious he had better kill himself now?


                      Last edited by Wickerman; 04-23-2019, 09:09 PM.
                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • . think there may be a variety of interpretations.

                        How often do people contemplating suicide change their mind? Or, maybe are interrupted, or something doesn't go to plan?
                        Do they throw that suicide note away, write another when the time presents itself again. Or do they just keep it, they know the inevitable outcome, it's going to happen again, so stick the note away in some pocket?

                        Which begs the question, how old was that suicide note found among Druitt's possessions?
                        Is it a possibility that Druitt might have been sacked because he’d already attempted suicide by some other means?
                        Regards

                        Herlock






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

                        Comment


                        • When Druitt wrote, "I felt I was going to be like mother", he maybe was not talking about her illness, but the fact he didn't want to spend the rest of his life in a mental home "like mother"!

                          In other words, what Montie could have meant was:
                          " after what happened on Friday I might spend the rest of my life in a mental home just like mother".
                          Sounds like a reasonable suggestion to me Wick.
                          Regards

                          Herlock






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

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            Sounds like a reasonable suggestion to me Wick.
                            Spending his life in a mental home is not a feeling, it is a situation, Druitt FELT he was going to be like mother, you can see the difference, cannot you ?!


                            The Baron

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by The Baron View Post

                              Spending his life in a mental home is not a feeling, it is a situation, Druitt FELT he was going to be like mother, you can see the difference, cannot you ?!


                              The Baron
                              Don't you think it is possible to feel alarm, fear, or even terror at the prospect of spending one's remaining years mad, incapable, and confined in an asylum?

                              But we don't know what Druitt actually said in the suicide note because only the gist of it was stated at the inquest, so whether he really said he felt like he was going to be like mother or just said that like his mother he was insane, is unknown.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                                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.
                                Thanks Wickerman - that is certainly a viable hypothesis. But it still seems to me that there is a bit of a 'Catch-22' about Macnaghten's "private information". If it was relatively strong (i.e. Druitt was seen with bloodstained clothing on the morning of November 9), then why did it take Macnaghten some time to mull it over before becoming convinced? If it was relatively weak (i.e. Druitt had seemed a bit anxious or depressed), why should we place too much weight on it today?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X