Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by GUT View Post
    Well they only stopped if MJK was the last.
    That is what I said.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by GUT View Post
      Well they only stopped if MJK was the last.
      hi Gut,

      yes Mackenzie is very viable, the degree of attack and wounds are strikingly similar to Nichols.

      Steve

      Comment


      • #78
        Yes, but wasn't there a gap of time between Kelly and Mackenzie-- enough that you could say the murders "stopped"?

        As for the similarity of the wounds, everyone who could read the papers knew of the Ripper's methods in some basic way. Doesn't rule out a killer "inspired" by JTR, does it?
        Pat D. https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...rt/reading.gif
        ---------------
        Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
        ---------------

        Comment


        • #79
          The police were sceptical at best during these crimes. Any lead, big or small would have been something that was followed up. That goes for the suspects as well. Any suspect would have been taken into account as the case was going nowhere. With a killer on the loose, police were desperate.

          Comment


          • #80
            As pointed out earlier, it would depend on when you think the last victim was. I'm leaning towards MJK being the last one because Mackenzie wasn't exactly killed like the rest.
            And then we have to realize that everytime there was a new similar murder, the police went on JTR alert so they must not have taken Druitt as a serious suspect at the time.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Columbo View Post
              As pointed out earlier, it would depend on when you think the last victim was. I'm leaning towards MJK being the last one because Mackenzie wasn't exactly killed like the rest.
              And then we have to realize that everytime there was a new similar murder, the police went on JTR alert so they must not have taken Druitt as a serious suspect at the time.
              G'day Columbo and welcome.

              No he wasn't considered a suspect by the police at the time, it seems.

              He first appears in police matters with Macnaghten. (Though perhaps the MP pre dates that).
              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


              • #82
                Unless you believe the story by the head of Vigilance committee, that is in whicjhcase he may have been a suspect.
                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


                • #83
                  Originally posted by GUT View Post
                  Unless you believe the story by the head of Vigilance committee, that is in whicjhcase he may have been a suspect.
                  What story is that?
                  "Is all that we see or seem
                  but a dream within a dream?"

                  -Edgar Allan Poe


                  "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                  quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                  -Frederick G. Abberline

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Also of interest is an occurrence which happened in March, 1889. According to Dr. Thomas Dutton, Albert Backert, a high-standing member of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, had set forth his displeasure that "there seemed to be too much complacency in the force simply because there had been no more murders for some months."

                    The senior officers responded to his complaint, and was told that if he were to swear to secrecy he would be given information about the case. In his own words, he explains:

                    Foolishly, I agreed. It was then suggested to me that
                    the Vigilance Committee and its patrols might be dis-
                    banded as the police were quite certain that the Ripper
                    was dead. I protested that, as I had been sworn to
                    secrecy, I really ought to be given more information
                    than this. 'It isn't necessary for you to know any more,'
                    I was told. 'The man in question is dead. He was fish-
                    ed out of the Thames two months ago and it would only
                    cause pain to relatives if we said any more than that.
                    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


                    • #85
                      Thanks GUT, pleased to be here.

                      I have heard that story before. Is that documented?

                      I also remember that Abberline mentioned a drowned suspect in an interview basically saying they didn't believe it. So if his statement is true then they most likely didn't consider Druitt a suspect, at least that's what I get out of it.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        I've read that account before GUT, and very interesting. If his account is true then clearly the Police suppressed evidence about Druitt that opens up all manner of ethical questions. Perhaps it's this that prevents the Met, to this day, from disclosing all files on the killer. Certainly, they are determined to keep certain information out of the public domain.
                        wigngown 🇬🇧

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          That incident isn't recorded anyway except in Whittington-Egan's 'The Identity of Jack the Ripper' though, is it? It is intriguing, but I'd feel happier about it if Bachert hadn't been such a self-publicist and professional complainer.

                          The A-Z have him giving an interview to the East London Advertiser in September 1889, in which he stated that he and fellow members of the WVC had been very active until the time of the Dockers Strike in August 1889, when some of his supporters had slackened off.
                          In the Police Chronicle and Guardian (21st Sept 1889) Bachert gave the press a tip that police were investigating whether Jack was in fact Jill, a 'large, strong woman who worked in slaughterhouses, attired as a man'.

                          In October he told the East London Advertiser that he'd received another letter from the murderer, so if he did believe the police that the Ripper had drowned in the Thames he'd either forgotten, or the communication was from beyond the grave!

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Pcdunn View Post
                            Yes, but wasn't there a gap of time between Kelly and Mackenzie-- enough that you could say the murders "stopped"?

                            As for the similarity of the wounds, everyone who could read the papers knew of the Ripper's methods in some basic way. Doesn't rule out a killer "inspired" by JTR, does it?
                            HI Pat,

                            Yes I have to agree with your statement, however, and there seems to always be an however with me, the gap of 9 months cannot rule out it was the same killer again.
                            The gap can have many explanations, he got ill, went away, was either in prison on another charge or temporarily in an asylum.

                            steve

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Hello everyone.

                              I believe one has to go a stretch to consider Druitt a very serious candidate, for a number of reasons.
                              Many put a lot of emphasis on Macnaghten. 'He must have had good reason, given the senior policeman he was,' he had a source, and the source stated that even Druitt's family believed that he was the perpetrator. Well, then...
                              First of all, with all this time between us and Macnaghten, without knowing the man personally we just don't know a lot: about the man, about the specific details that in the end made him believe, about his general views on a lot of subjects. One thing we might suggest with some confidence is that prejudice grows with travels back in time.
                              If Macnaghten's position and personality was enough of a solid argument, we'd inevitably discount a number of other policemen, some much closer to the ground, right with it. A lot has been said about respective policemen, and for each there's someone disagreeing about the personality assessment in question. Perhaps if we could all go back there and meet the gentlemen, opinions would shift radically, supporters of Anderson now shaking their heads at him, people with a hitherto low opinion of Littlechild becoming quite endeared.
                              Which leaves us with timing, Druitt's own words, the suicide and the family.
                              As for the timing, this is predominantly why one cannot count him out, because in principle he could have made it to his games on the days when it was tight. In itself this is not truly condemning, as this certainly goes for a high number of others as well. Incredulity in regards to the resulting time-table aside, it'd be quite a cautious includer. And only if we settle for Mary Kelly as the last victim.
                              Then the family, and Druitt's affliction. It's tough enough to swallow a source quoting a source. And what do we have from the family? We have someone stating that members of the family believed that he'd been or that he might have been the murderer. We don't even have the exact statement of those family members. And why are they said to have believed this? For the family the murders roughly coinciding with Druitt's personal problems counted more than time tables, one might boldly assume. Druitt's own words expressed his fear to end up like grandma. To become insane. First of all, was she? I might remember wrongly, please correct me, but I believe it was said she suffered from depression (other family members as well). Depression is not usually what we mean with insane. 'Insane' is a pretty strong word, and translates more often, when we're sticking to the clinical sense', into psychotic. 'Depression', meanwhile, is as often generalized. If we're talking clinical depression, then we mean something quite serious. We're talking a potential, and often potent, killer of the Self, mind you.
                              While there's certainly merit to the implosion-idea, the notion that a killer like this might self-destruct at some point, with all we don't know we can hardly sink our trust into it. How many serial killers really do? Not to mention that this would still not positively link the self-slaughterer Druitt. If he suffered from a clinical depression it'd be quite enough to account for his suicide anyone who's dealt with depression, directly or though a close one, knows this. A full-fledged clinical depression would in the end weigh in against Druitt's candidacy. A clinical depression is a disabling disorder. The verdict isn't ultimate, of course, since a depression can and often does accompany a number of other conditions. But from all we have the more likely scenario is a depression as the heart-piece of Druitt's condition. Particularly because it's at one point expressed it doesn't really sit well for me in connection with these murders, but yes, that's a personal view only.
                              Finally, there are more reasons to be sceptical about family suggesting you for a murderer than not, save for the discovery of a document authored by the family member in question that includes good detailing for good reasons, as well as being of satisfying provenance; and it would still not be enough for me I'd stress that even a handwritten confession of Druitt himself wouldn't be the end of it, see false confessions.
                              What could be the motivation for such a suspicion, followed by an actual indictment?
                              It could be malignant as well as genuinely concerned, given again that we're not acquainted with any member of Druitt's family, as well as the suspicion holding after Druitt's death, I'm inclined to meet the family with the benefit of the doubt and root for the latter. The former is still possible, deep personal ill feelings we don't know about. Worse things have been committed, only remember the incarcerations of family members in mental institutions on wrongful accusations just to get rid of them. But the genuinely believed is not much more credible where no convincing arguments accompany it. Mental distress wasn't that well understood. In my opinion, it's still not all too well understood. Even plain idiosyncrasy is seldom met with good comprehension. If I could only count the occasions on which my family wanted to declare me insane. Many people seem to believe that family is by definition the closest to one of its members, I'd strongly contest this view. Misunderstanding is often abundant, and there's no chance for us to successfully assess Druitt's family in this respect.
                              In short, don't give me family.
                              All this said, while none of this can positively serve to discount Druitt as a suspect, together it diminishes likelihood. The holes time created aside, all the above summed up does not strengthen his case, but weakens it.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by GUT View Post
                                Also of interest is an occurrence which happened in March, 1889. According to Dr. Thomas Dutton, Albert Backert, a high-standing member of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, had set forth his displeasure that "there seemed to be too much complacency in the force simply because there had been no more murders for some months."

                                The senior officers responded to his complaint, and was told that if he were to swear to secrecy he would be given information about the case. In his own words, he explains:

                                Foolishly, I agreed. It was then suggested to me that
                                the Vigilance Committee and its patrols might be dis-
                                banded as the police were quite certain that the Ripper
                                was dead. I protested that, as I had been sworn to
                                secrecy, I really ought to be given more information
                                than this. 'It isn't necessary for you to know any more,'
                                I was told. 'The man in question is dead. He was fish-
                                ed out of the Thames two months ago and it would only
                                cause pain to relatives if we said any more than that.
                                thanks Gut!
                                "Is all that we see or seem
                                but a dream within a dream?"

                                -Edgar Allan Poe


                                "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                                quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                                -Frederick G. Abberline

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X