Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What makes Druitt a viable suspect?

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

  • Hello Andrew.

    If we take what Mac. wrote literally, then his "much careful & deliberate consideration" concerns Ostrog & Kozminski, not Druitt.
    With respect to Druitt he says: "...I have always held strong opinions regarding No. 1"

    Mac. wrote:
    "I enumerate the cases of 3 men against whom the Police held very reasonable suspicion. Personally, after much careful & deliberate consideration, I am inclined to exonerate the last 2., but I have always held strong opinions regarding no. 1., and the more I think the matter over, the stronger do these opinions become.”

    When he says "always", I wonder how far back he is referring? From what we read no-one had any ideas concerning Druitt until the Farqharson letter was published, even that did not include a name.
    Last edited by Wickerman; 04-25-2019, 01:34 AM.
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

      Hi Andrew.
      Can you point me to what you read that makes you think he took a while to think it over?



      If that's all it was most of London would have been on the suspect list.
      Apologies for mangling my last reply, I'm still learning how to use the 'quote' function. This is my main point:

      Hi Wickerman,

      Well, perhaps I'm reading too much into it - but to me the phrases "after much careful and deliberate consideration" and "the more I think the matter over" suggest quite a lengthy mental process. In other words, the "private information" can't have been something instantly conclusive but something that gained greater significance over a period of time. I find it very hard to imagine what that might be.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by AndrewL View Post

        Yes, exactly. And I know from studying other high-profile murder cases that it is quite common for people to fear their relatives might be responsible. Often this is based on nothing but paranoia, worrying about their loved ones, reading the newspapers and making a link between them. But I would have expected Macnaghten to be well aware of this factor and taken it into account.
        I agree, Mac. had to be just as aware as we are of false accusations. Which may be the reason he sought out corroboration. I find it more likely he made inquiries than this 'private information' just happened to find him.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

          I agree, Mac. had to be just as aware as we are of false accusations. Which may be the reason he sought out corroboration. I find it more likely he made inquiries than this 'private information' just happened to find him.
          I know this has been posted before but it is relevant to this topic so I have posted it yet again

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk Click image for larger version  Name:	REID on Anderson.JPG Views:	0 Size:	90.9 KB ID:	707290

          What I find interesting is the part where he mentions the mutilations and the characterizations,
          Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 04-25-2019, 07:27 AM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by AndrewL View Post

            Apologies for mangling my last reply, I'm still learning how to use the 'quote' function. This is my main point:

            Hi Wickerman,

            Well, perhaps I'm reading too much into it - but to me the phrases "after much careful and deliberate consideration" and "the more I think the matter over" suggest quite a lengthy mental process. In other words, the "private information" can't have been something instantly conclusive but something that gained greater significance over a period of time. I find it very hard to imagine what that might be.
            If you find it hard to imagine, why have you speculated what it might be ? The greater part of Ripperolgy is nothing more than wild speculation

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
              Hello Andrew.

              If we take what Mac. wrote literally, then his "much careful & deliberate consideration" concerns Ostrog & Kozminski, not Druitt.
              With respect to Druitt he says: "...I have always held strong opinions regarding No. 1"

              Mac. wrote:
              "I enumerate the cases of 3 men against whom the Police held very reasonable suspicion. Personally, after much careful & deliberate consideration, I am inclined to exonerate the last 2., but I have always held strong opinions regarding no. 1., and the more I think the matter over, the stronger do these opinions become.”

              When he says "always", I wonder how far back he is referring? From what we read no-one had any ideas concerning Druitt until the Farqharson letter was published, even that did not include a name.
              Hi Wickerman,

              Yes, good point - he does seem to be saying that there was a time when he thought any of the three might be responsible. But this reinforces my point that the "private information" about Druitt can't have been a complete 'Eureka' moment. It must have been something that only seemed suggestive or circumstantial at first but took on added significance the more Mac thought about it. My problem is, I just can't think of anything that might fit that description - so I'm curious to know if anybody has a suggestion?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                If you find it hard to imagine, why have you speculated what it might be ? The greater part of Ripperolgy is nothing more than wild speculation

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                Hi Trevor,

                I'm just feeling my way in the dark, trying to interpret the (very) limited evidence as honestly as I can and hoping to benefit from the expertise of people such as yourself!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by AndrewL View Post

                  Hi Wickerman,

                  Yes, good point - he does seem to be saying that there was a time when he thought any of the three might be responsible. But this reinforces my point that the "private information" about Druitt can't have been a complete 'Eureka' moment. It must have been something that only seemed suggestive or circumstantial at first but took on added significance the more Mac thought about it. My problem is, I just can't think of anything that might fit that description - so I'm curious to know if anybody has a suggestion?
                  Your point is an excellent one, solidly based on the source. It's possible that we can rule out things the evidence probably wasn't, such as smoking gun-type evidence, but I'm not sure that there is likely to be much useful mileage in speculating about what the information might have been. The point is that if the 'private information' existed, it (and possible other information gained from an investigation, if there was an investigation) convinced Macnaghten that Druitt was the murderer. Beyond that would be speculation.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                    Your point is an excellent one, solidly based on the source. It's possible that we can rule out things the evidence probably wasn't, such as smoking gun-type evidence, but I'm not sure that there is likely to be much useful mileage in speculating about what the information might have been. The point is that if the 'private information' existed, it (and possible other information gained from an investigation, if there was an investigation) convinced Macnaghten that Druitt was the murderer. Beyond that would be speculation.
                    Hi Paul,

                    Thanks, that's high praise coming from you! Yes, I agree - it's at this point that the door gets slammed in our faces and we just have to accept that. But here's one last question (and apologies if I'm the umpteenth person to ask it). How likely (or unlikely) do you think it is that Sir Robert Anderson knew the details of Macnaghten's "private information"? If he did, that is surely significant because he clearly wasn't very impressed by it.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by AndrewL View Post

                      Hi Paul,

                      Thanks, that's high praise coming from you! Yes, I agree - it's at this point that the door gets slammed in our faces and we just have to accept that. But here's one last question (and apologies if I'm the umpteenth person to ask it). How likely (or unlikely) do you think it is that Sir Robert Anderson knew the details of Macnaghten's "private information"? If he did, that is surely significant because he clearly wasn't very impressed by it.
                      If the ‘private information’ existed, and nobody has shown good reason to suppose that it didn’t, then my guess is that serious information about a suspect would have circulated through the normal channels in the normal way, therefore Anderson would probably have known about it. Others, such as Neil, would know better than I about what Anderson would have been told, which my guess would be a summary, further details being given if requested.

                      I am wary of concluding that Anderson wasn't impressed by the evidence against Druitt, as I am about concluding that Macnaghten wasn't impressed by the evidence against Kosminski. A lot depends on how much they knew and what weight they attached to it.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by AndrewL View Post

                        Hi Paul,

                        Thanks, that's high praise coming from you! Yes, I agree - it's at this point that the door gets slammed in our faces and we just have to accept that. But here's one last question (and apologies if I'm the umpteenth person to ask it). How likely (or unlikely) do you think it is that Sir Robert Anderson knew the details of Macnaghten's "private information"? If he did, that is surely significant because he clearly wasn't very impressed by it.
                        hi Andrew
                        that all the different higher level officers opted for different suspects, or none at all, clearly shows how weak they all are.
                        all the ripper suspects are weak, some just less weak than others.
                        "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


                        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                          hi Andrew
                          that all the different higher level officers opted for different suspects, or none at all, clearly shows how weak they all are.
                          all the ripper suspects are weak, some just less weak than others.
                          That makes it sound like there are lots of suspects advanced by lots of policemen.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                            If the ‘private information’ existed, and nobody has shown good reason to suppose that it didn’t, then my guess is that serious information about a suspect would have circulated through the normal channels in the normal way, therefore Anderson would probably have known about it. Others, such as Neil, would know better than I about what Anderson would have been told, which my guess would be a summary, further details being given if requested.

                            I am wary of concluding that Anderson wasn't impressed by the evidence against Druitt, as I am about concluding that Macnaghten wasn't impressed by the evidence against Kosminski. A lot depends on how much they knew and what weight they attached to it.
                            And why were they not all singing from the song sheet at the time or thereafter ? This was a high profile case of which at the the time the police were on a hiding to nothing from the public. Are we expected to believe that they all sat on this information about these various suspects, and each never told the other of their suspicions or any evidence they may have had to point to a real suspect when they were all working in the same building on a daily basis.

                            You have to stop placing all this belief in the accuracy and truthfulness of these opinions.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                              That makes it sound like there are lots of suspects advanced by lots of policemen.
                              There are, and they cant all have been the killer ! considering it was such a high profile case, and none of the suspects they named were ever arrested in connection with the murders, and never interviewed regarding the murders. That in itself speaks volumes for these opinions being nothing more than that opinions with nothing to back them up.

                              The police code states "A constable is also justified in arresting on reasonable suspicion that a felony has been committed." With that in mind why no arrests?

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • You have to stop placing all this belief in the accuracy and truthfulness of these opinions.
                                Id agree that we need to use caution at all times. What I don’t get is this very convenient outlook that all senior policemen were de facto liars. Do we simply discard information just because there might be doubts or slight errors? Druitt remains a suspect and no amount of desperate attempts will alter that. Only new or previously unseen evidence would change things.
                                Regards

                                Herlock






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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X